Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Deduction and use of an analytical expression for the characteristic curve of a

support based on yielding steel ribs
Rafael Rodríguez ⇑, Maria B. Díaz-Aguado
Department of Exploitation and Exploration of Mines, University of Oviedo, Spain
School of Mines, Independencia 13, 33006 Oviedo, Spain
GEMMA Group – Energy, Environment and Climate Change Cluster, University of Oviedo, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The convergence-confinement method (CCM) applies for cylindrical tunnels driven through a rock-mass
Received 20 December 2011 that is assumed to be subject initially to a hydrostatic stress field. A basic component of the method is the
Received in revised form 1 July 2012 support characteristic curve (SCC), which represents the deformation of the support produced by the load
Accepted 13 July 2012
imposed on it; that is, the load that the support must carry for the amount of radial convergence occurred
Available online 16 November 2012
since support installation. The different elements that may constitute the tunnel support (before install-
ing the tunnel lining) are steel arches (also named steel sets or steel ribs), bolts and shotcrete. The cor-
Keywords:
responding SCC’s have been developed for each of these support elements. However, for steel arches, the
Tunneling
Convergence-confinement method
expressions proposed assume that the arch behaves as a rigid element, which is certainly the case for
Rock-support interaction some types of arches. An accurate equation of the characteristic curve for yielding steel ribs (YSRs), steel
Support characteristic curve arches with yielding capacity, has not been widely spread. This paper proposes a specific expression for
Yielding steel ribs this type of steel arches, capable of explaining the arch behavior which is easily used, as corresponds to
the application of the CCM.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The convergence-confinement method applies for cylindrical
tunnels driven through a rock-mass that is assumed to be subject
initially to a hydrostatic stress field. The method allows the
exhaustive analysis of the interaction between support and ground
and the definition of the intersection point for two curves. One of
the curves is the ground reaction curve (GRC), which represents
the load or reaction exerted on the walls of the tunnel in order
to detain the tunnel convergence or radial displacement. Before
tunnel failure or collapse, the GRC is a descending curve, since
the load required diminishes for increasing deformation values
and for decreasing cross-sectional areas. The other basic compo-
nent of the method is the support characteristic curve (SCC), which
represents the deformation of the support produced by the load
imposed on it; that is, the load that the support can carry for the
amount of radial convergence occurred since support installation.
The first part of the curve (before plastic deformation of the sup-
port takes place) is an increasing portion, since the support capac-
ity is greater for decreasing values of the excavation radius.
When representing both curves in the same axis (pressure vs.
radial displacement), the intersection point has a clear physical sig-
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Exploitation and Exploration of Mines,
School of Mines, University of Oviedo Independencia 13, 33004 Oviedo, Spain.
E-mail address: rrodrifer@uniovi.es (R. Rodríguez).
nificance (Fig. 1). Actually, the load imposed by the ground on the
support (when ground deformation occurs) equals the load that
such support carries for this radial convergence; equilibrium
(and the stability of the excavation) is thus reached.
The method was developed during the 20th century by different
authors. It was probably Fenner (1938) the one who established
the method basis. The method was reused in Pacher (1964). The
first mistake made by both researchers was not to assume that a
certain ground deformation has already occurred before support
installation. Following on this line of research, Lombardi (1973)
brought in the concept of ‘‘convergence of the working face’’. Later
on, Panet and Gellec (1974) included in their calculations the radial
deformations produced before support installation by defining the
‘‘confinement loss factor’’. This is the origin of the convergence-
confinement method (CCM), basically designated in the AFTES
(French Association for Underground Works) Congress in Paris,
1978.
Many authors have been working on this method ever since,
attempting to develop mathematical and empirical expressions
for the GRC under different behavior hypotheses (they are summa-
rized in Alejano et al., 2011), and for the different types of support
installed in tunnels. Related to the tunnel support, among others,
we can mention Lombardi (1975), Daemen (1975), Hoek and
Brown (1980), Brown et al. (1983), Brady and Brown (1985),
Bouard-Lecoanet et al. (1988), AFTES (1993, 2001), Panet (1995),
Oreste (2003) and Gschwandtner and Galler (2012).

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.07.006
160 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170
p (internal tunnel pressure)
Ground reaction curve
pf
Support characteristic curve
pmax
peq
u0 u eq uel ulim
u (radial displacement of the wall)
Fig. 1. Application of the convergence-confinement method.
As remarked by Oreste (2009), the method offers certain
advantages when compared with other methods; one of them
being that its capability for explaining, in a simple way, both
the ground and the support behavior, allowing the understanding
of their interaction, the identification of the different parameters
involved and the definition of the correct support, capable of
developing its function. Another significant advantage is its simple
use, which allows immediate support designs and their compari-
son, which becomes very useful during the design phase of the
project (before using more complex methods). For these reasons,
the CCM has been widely used for the design of tunnel support
and for the education of engineers in the different Superior
Engineering Schools.
The different elements that may constitute the tunnel support
(before installing the tunnel lining) are steel arches (also named
steel sets or steel ribs), bolts and shotcrete. The corresponding
SCC’s have been constructed for each of these support elements.
However, for steel arches, the expressions proposed assume that
the arch behaves as a rigid element, which is certainly the case
for some types of arhes. An accurate equation of the characteristic
curve for yielding steel ribs (YSRs), steel arches with yielding
capacity, has not been developed yet. This paper proposes a spe-
cific expression for this type of steel arches, capable of explaining
the arch behavior which is easily used, as corresponds to the
application of the CCM itself. By applying (during the design
and project phase) this newly developed curve instead of the rigid
support curve it would become possible to estimate the actual
safety factor and the dimensioning of the support could be cor-
rectly estimated.
2. Support characteristic curve for steel arches
The support characteristic curve represented in Fig. 1 is defined
by the following parameters:
- Support stiffness, denoted by K: elastic relationship between
the applied pressure of the ground and resulting closure for a
section of the support of unit length in the direction of the tun-
nel; that is, the slope of the load vs. deformation curve in its first
portion (elastic part).
- Initial radial displacement or tunnel convergence (u0) occurred
before support installation.
- Ultimate support capacity or maximum pressure (pmax) that the
support can accept before reaching the elastic limit and behav-
ing plastically (that is, prior to failure).
- Maximum possible convergence (ulim) of the tunnel walls before
yielding, collapse or failure of the support system.
This curve assumes an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior of the
support. The first part of the curve represents the elastic behavior
of the support (proportionality between pressure and displace-
ment), where the support is correctly behaving. When reaching a
certain maximum pressure, the support elastic limit is reached
and its deformation progressively increases without an improve-
ment in the support capacity; that is, pressure remains constant
(null elastic stiffness) until failure or collapse of the support occurs.
For steel arches, the SCC implies that for the elastic part of the
curve, the arch behaves as a rigid elastic element (taking into ac-
count that this rigidity means that the arch geometry does not
change, except for the deformation derived from the steel elastic-
ity). This applies to certain types of steel arches, with the typical
profiles for the structural steel beams, such as the European stan-
dard beam profiles IPN or HEB (standard beams with I-shaped
cross-section and wide flange beams with H-shaped cross-section,
respectively).
The initial radial displacement u0 of the rock mass when the
support is installed at a distance x behind the face can be estimated
from different methods. One is by means of the classical Panet for-
mula (1995) to estimate the equivalent pressure pf acting on sup-
port at that point:
 
2p0 x
pf ¼ exp  ð1Þ
3 0:70 r0
After calculating the value of pf, we can determine the radial dis-
placement u necessary to make the pressure value decrease to pf.
This value of u is the initial displacement, u0.
Another more recent solution is the expression proposed by
Basarir et al. (2010) which allows direct estimation of u0 as a func-
tion of distance to the face x, diameter 2r0, depth and Bieniawski’s
rock mass RMR. The relevance of the correct estimation of u0 for
tunnel analysis in very week ground at great depth has been stud-
ied by Vlachopoulos and Diederichs (2009).
Several expressions for the SCC parameters have been proposed
by different researches such as Hoek and Brown (1980) or Panet
(1995). A more recent expression, which will be used further on,
is the proposal made by Oreste (2003):
Es As
K¼
ð2Þ
d r0  2h
rys As
pmax ¼
ð3Þ
d r0  2h
 
h
ulim  u0 ¼ elim r0  ð4Þ
2
Es is the Young’s modulus for the steel in MPa; rys is the yield
strength of the steel in MPa; elim is the maximum possible strain
(dimensionless); h is the height of the cross section of the steel arch
in m; As is the cross-sectional area of the section in m2; d is the steel
arch spacing along the tunnel axis in m; and r0 is the initial tunnel
radius in m.
Nevertheless, a different type of steel arches conceived with
yielding capacity, TH profile, is currently being used both as tunnel
support and for mining purposes. They are formed by different
overlapped segments connected by box shaped clamps which,
when subject to an external pressure, allow the corresponding slid-
ing between its pieces, providing a yielding support. The great
advantage of this type of steel arch is its yielding capacity: when
the ground load on the support increases, the sliding of the arch
pieces facilitates the arch closure (diminishing the tunnel radius);
this leads to a decrease on the pressure exerted by the ground,
reaching an equilibrium state even after significant deformations.
These steel arches become very useful in mining excavations
 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170
(especially those mined by caving methods), where the overlap-
ping of workings even multiply the already significant values of
stress due to the great depths of mining (Toraño et al., 2002; Díaz-
Aguado and Gonzalez, 2009).
Considering the excavation of tunnels, this yielding capacity of
the steel arches has only been proven useful for certain cases of
tunnels, driven through ground where squeezing occurs (and,
therefore, great deformations). This yielding capacity of steel ar-
ches, even though remarkable for mining roadways, becomes less
interesting for tunnel support, where steel arches are preferably
used as rigid elements (mainly due to the slight convergence al-
lowed for tunneling and civil works). Thus, the arch division in
smaller pieces becomes rather an operative advantage for its trans-
port, assembling and installation in the tunnel. When considered a
rigid element, the steel arch is simply a slender curved beam with
small cross sectional height and thus, its flexural strength is very
low. On the other hand, a support consisting only on steel arches
(without shotcrete or bolts) is rarely proposed for tunnels of about
10 m diameter; for these large diameter tunnels, the value of the
stiffness of the steel arches could be neglected when compared
with that of shotcrete or bolts. This is the reason why it is not con-
sidered for calculation purposes and it is merely contemplated as
part of the steel framework reinforcing the concrete and contribut-
ing to its necessary tensile strength.
3. Characteristic curve of yielding steel ribs
3.1. Shape of the characteristic curve of a yielding steel rib
The shape of the characteristic curve of a YSR has already been
described by different authors. For instance, Brady and Brown
(1985) have included in their book a figure (Fig. 2) illustrating
the behavior of a TH steel profile YSR and have described it as fol-
Fig. 2. Characteristic curve for TH profile steel arches with yielding capacity (after
Brady and Brown (1985)).
Fig. 3. Two stages during sliding of the steel arches with yielding capacity.
161
lows: ‘Steel arches are widely used to support roadways in coal mines
where they are often required to sustain quite large deformations.
These deformations may be accommodated by using yielding arches
containing elements designed to slip at predetermined loads’. Fig. 2
shows how the steel arch behaves as a rigid element, with an elas-
tic deformation, until yielding and sliding occur, at a predeter-
mined load, keeping its support capacity constant. However, it
does not offer any clue on how to estimate the value of that sliding
load.
Another author, Panet (1995), describes the TH profile sliding
arches and brings in some data from the supplier, specifically for
the tightening couple and the sliding load. As regards this sliding
capacity, he even mentions its behavior without providing mathe-
matical formulations to describe it: ‘For yielding arches, the charac-
teristic curve for a support subject to a constant external load, is
similar to an elastoplastic curve; the plasticity limit is given by the ver-
tical stress due to arch sliding’.
Hoek et al. (2006) include the curve for a support with yielding
capacity, although the elements which contribute to such capacity
(the ‘‘stress controllers’’ described by Schubert) are not the steel ar-
ches. ‘The principle of yielding support is illustrated in figure which
shows that the activation of the support is delayed by the yielding ele-
ments’. Moreover, they do not provide any information on how to
define the curve by using already known parameters. In the same
way, Gschwandtner and Galler (2012) show in his work the curve
of a yielding support and explain its use in the CCM ‘In the conver-
gence confinement method the yielding elements are implemented by
their load bearing capacity (FSE), at which the displacements occur at a
defined load level’. After these authors, if rSpC is the radius in the
middle of the shotcrete shell, this load bearing capacity for the cal-
culation of yielding elements piSE is:
F SE
piSE ¼ ð5Þ
r SpC
Another research, Cantieni and Anagnostou (2009), establishes the
relationship between ground and support and includes some keys
on the required parameters for support calculation, although it does
not specifically propose any support reaction curve for YSR.
Thus, a mathematical formulation of the characteristic curve for
yielding arches is lacking, which as for the case of rigid arches, is
capable of representing their behavior in a simple way and could
be used with the CCM. This is the proposal of this study.
For this purpose, initially, a detailed analysis will be conducted,
describing how TH arches behave since their installation until their
collapse or destruction. There are two different periods of time in
the arch life: a period where the arch is properly working
(Fig. 3a) and another one where arch strength decreases until its
failure (Fig. 3b).
During the first period there is an initial time when the arch be-
haves as a rigid element, under elastic deformation. If the load im-
posed by the rock mass on the arch does not increase, the gallery
remains stable and the radial displacement is low. But if the rock
162 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170

excavation radius, u0 is the initial excavation radial displacement

p (internal tunnel pressure)

before support installation, and r0–u0 is the initial radius of

p3=p4 the arch.
The expression of the support reaction line, from u = u0 to u = u1,
proposed here is:
p2
p1 Es As
pðuÞ ¼ ðu  u0 Þ ð8Þ
dr 0 ðr 0  uÞ
At u = u1 the support yields, being the pressure p1:
u0 u1 u2 u3 u4
Es As
u (radial displacement of the wall) p1 ¼ pðu1 Þ ¼ ðu1  u0 Þ ð9Þ
dr0 ðr0  u1 Þ
Fig. 4. Different parts of the support characteristic curve for a yielding steel arch.
From a structural analysis, it can be proved that the axial force N
which is produced in a steel arch of radius r0–u under an external
mass transmits a greater load, the overlapped segments of the arch uniform radial pressure p is:
slide and the arch section diminishes (Fig. 3a). If equilibrium is NðuÞ ¼ pðuÞdðr0  uÞ ð10Þ
reached for this state, it can be noted that, although the conver-
gence produced is quite significant, the shape of the gallery re- By substituting p(u) by its value, given by (15), the expression is
mains more or less like the original one. As the arch sliding is now:
not excessively big, the arch does not show any weakness signal E s As
and the strength characteristics remain constant; it has simply NðuÞ ¼ ðu  u0 Þ ð11Þ
r0
closed, reducing the circular area.
For increasing loads, the arch would continue its closure process If N = Nlim, is the axial force which produces the yielding between
until both the minor radius and the increase in friction (due to the arch segments, the total radial displacement at this moment
increase of the overlapped length) do not allow the segments from u = u1 deduced from (11) is:
sliding. The arch then behaves again as a rigid element, undergoing Nlim r 0
u1 ¼ u0 þ ð12Þ
elastic deformation until the moment when a certain plastic defor- E s As
mation occurs. By then, the original shape of the gallery has been
By substituting (12) in (9), the yielding pressure p1 can be calcu-
lost and certain parts of the arch begin to fail and bend. If equilib-
lated by the following equation:
rium is not reached, a last phase begins: increasing loads are im-
posed on the support when it has already lost its bearing Nlim
p1 ¼ ð13Þ
capacity. The steel profile reaches its elastic limit and begins its dðr 0  u1 Þ
plastic deformation (bending) until reaching its strength limit,
The expression (8) from point (u = u0, p = 0) to point (u = u1, p = p1),
when it fails and collapses (Fig. 3b).
where u1 and p1 are given by Eqs. (12) and (13), is the SCC during
Bearing in mind that the SCC has to show these four stages, it
the phase of elastic deformation.The arch radius at yielding point is:
must also show the parts which appear in Fig. 4. The curve is per-
fectly defined when function p = f(u) and limits p and u between r1 ¼ r 0  u1 : ð14Þ
each part are determined stage by stage.
In order to define the characteristic curve, we propose that
3.3. Part of steel set yielding
expression where the initial excavation radius, r0, specifically
appears:
During the yielding, the arch closes because the external pres-
u  u0 sure produces the necessary axial load Nlim. For a constant load Nlim
pðuÞ ¼ K ð6Þ
r0 (not depending on yielding), from Eq. (13) it can be written:
where p(u) is the load that, due to its deformation, the ground Nlim
pðuÞ ¼ ð15Þ
transmits to the support; u is the radial displacement of the gallery dðr 0  uÞ
or tunnel wall from the time of the opening excavation; u0 is the ra-
which would be the reaction support line during the yielding phase
dial displacement of the ground wall at the moment of installing the
fromu = u1 to u = u2.
support, r0 is the initial radius of the opening; and K is the stiffness
However, as the segments of the steel set slide, the friction sur-
of the support.
face (area of contact between the segments) increases and the nec-
During the arch sliding, the radius of the arch diminishes and
essary axial load should also increase. Assuming this, p(u) is
the overlapping length increases. This makes the sliding load in-
deduced from Eq. (10):
crease with the radial displacement and the curve shows a small
slope between (u1, p1) and (u2, p2). NðuÞ
pðuÞ ¼
dðr 0  uÞ
3.2. First part of elastic deformation At the moment in which the displacement commences, the length
of the circumference is:
An expression of the steel ribs stiffness (considering it as a rigid
element and assuming a perfect contact between support and L1 ¼ 2pr 1 ¼ 2pðr 0  u1 Þ ð16Þ
ground) accepted by many authors is: When the displacement stops, the circumference length is:
Es As L2 ¼ 2pr 2 ¼ 2pðr 0  u2 Þ ð17Þ
K¼ ð7Þ
dðr0  u0 Þ
While displacement is occurring, the circumference length is:
where Es is the Young modulus of the steel, As is the cross section of L ¼ 2pr ¼ 2pðr 0  uÞ ð18Þ
the arch, d is the distance between steel sets, r0 is the initial
 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170 163

Assuming a circular steel set formed by n segments, that is there are Table 1
n sliding joints, the diminishing of circumference length when these Minimum value Flim after Spanish Standard UNE 22725.

n overlaps slide s is: Profile (kg/m) Torque (Nm) Load-Flim (kN)

DL ¼ ns ð19Þ 16–16.5 180–250 130

19–21 250–300 150
The sliding length s has a limit value since the arch closes, its cur- 25–29 350–400 180
vature increases and a larger axial force is necessary. On the other 34–36 450–500 200
hand, as the sliding increases, the overlapped part and the friction
surface increases and consequently a larger axial force is also neces- with an ideal behavior. For an initial overlapped length s0, the slid-
sary. This is expressed by the following equation: ing commences when the axial load exceeds the friction force be-
s0 þ s tween the sliding parts Nlim. From that moment on, sliding
NðsÞ ¼ Nlim ð20Þ continues while the axial load is increasing proportionally to the in-
s0
crease in the overlapped length, after Eq. (20).
where s0 is the initial overlapped length (for 4 m diameter galleries, With the aim of defining the sliding behavior of the steel arches,
s0  500–600 mm). Assuming that, for a certain sliding length s, the Spanish standard UNE 22725 (which is similar to other European
radius would have decreased from r1 to r, the following expression standards), determines a value of the axial load Flim for each type
is met: of steel profile, as shown in Table 1. The steel arches subject to
L1  L ¼ 2pr 1  2pr ¼ ns ð21Þ an increasing axial force are correctly sliding when sliding does
not occur before reaching this Flim, for steel arches with pieces with
ns an overlap sliding of 600 mm and sliding joints tightened with the
u  u1 ¼ r1  r ¼ ð22Þ proper torque.
2p
When analyzing these results, it can be noted that the way in
Functions N(u) and p(u) can be defined as:
which sliding actually occurs slightly differs from the theoretical
ns0 þ 2pðu  u1 Þ situation. Fig. 5a represents the real load-sliding curves for two
NðuÞ ¼ Nlim ð23Þ
ns0 laboratory tests with yielding steels sets TH 29 kg/m, where the
corresponding value of Flim can be noted. As these curves show,
ns0 þ 2pðu  u1 Þ Nlim the displacement commences when exceeding a maximum axial
pðuÞ ¼ ð24Þ
ns0 dðr 0  uÞ load Nmax (due to the static frictional coefficient). From that mo-
ment on, the arch may either slide without increasing the load (test
Assuming a maximum sliding length slim before stopping the move-
1) or that load may increase because the overlapped part and the
ment, it can be written:
friction surface increase (and thus, a larger axial force is also nec-
L1  L2 ¼ 2pr 1  2pr 2 ¼ nslim ð25Þ essary, test 2). The same graphic shows the theoretical load N(s),
given by Eq. (20).
By substituting r1 and r2 by its values r1 = r0  u1 and r2 = r0  u2 in
The constructive shape of the sliding parts of the steel arch
Eq. (25), the maximum radial displacement of this part is:
could explain such difference. The initial sliding length is
nslim 600 mm, but this overlapping distance increases with sliding.
u2 ¼ u1 þ ð26Þ
2p When there is friction all along the overlapped surface, the neces-
The limit pressure p2 can be obtained by substituting the value u2 in sary load for sliding should increase. However, both parts of the
the equation for p(u): steel arch are actually being tightened by the clamps, which are
acting on a smaller distance (approximately 1/3 of the overlapping
1 s0 þ slim length, 2  80 mm), not dependant on the sliding length. Since
p2 ¼ pðu2 Þ ¼ Nlim ð27Þ
dðr0  u2 Þ s0 most of the friction mainly happens in the clamped surface, it
The Eq. (24) from point (u = u1, p = p1) to point (u = u2, p = p2), where could be concluded that the necessary load to cause sliding would
u2 and p2 are given by Eqs. (26) and (27), is the SCC during the yield- be constant.
ing phase assuming a variable N(u). The main disadvantage from Eq. (27) is the uncertainty when
The radius when yielding stops is: defining the real value of Nlim and when establishing if this value
remains constant or if it increases for increasing sliding. Since sim-
r 2 ¼ r 0  u2 ð28Þ plicity is intended (in line with the convergence-confinement
For the previous calculations, it has been assumed that there are method), this paper proposes to use the characteristic parameter
two overlapped profiles, capable of sliding one under the other, Flim, provided by the manufacturer and to assume that the

a 250
Nmax b 160
140 Steel set 1
200 Steel set 2
Flim 120
Axial load (kN)

Sliding (mm)

N(s)
150 100
Nlim
80
100 60
Test 1
Test 2 40
50
20
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sliding (mm) Time (days)

Fig. 5. Examples of 29 kg/m profiles sliding joints (TEDESA laboratory tests and mine experience).
164 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170

necessary load remains constant while sliding is occurring (from 0 The radius at the beggining of the plastic behavior is:
to 150 mm). From Eq. (15):
r3 ¼ r 0  u3 ð35Þ
F lim
pðuÞ ¼ ð29Þ
dðr 0  uÞ 3.5. Part of plastic deformation and steel set failure
From the which it can be inferred:
While the steel set plastic deformation (bending) occurs, it is
F lim not able to support a higher pressure, thus it can be assumed that
p2 ¼ ð30Þ
dðr 0  u2 Þ this deformation is under constant pressure. Consequently, the SCC
The Eq. (29) from point (u = u1, p = p1) to point (u = u2, p = p2), where from u = u3 to u = u4, point of failure, is:
u2 and p2 are given by Eqs. (26) and (30), is the SCC during the yield- pðuÞ ¼ p3 ð36Þ
ing phase.
The limit value slim can be taken from the Standard, slim = 150 - After Oreste (2003), the radial displacement in a rigid steel set from
mm which is in agreement with the experience. In Fig. 5b, the dis- the beggining of its elastic deformation to its collapse, can be esti-
placement of two segments overlapping of two different arches is mated from the failure strain elim:
shown. In both cases, the arches close with no bending. It can be u4 ¼ u2 þ r 3 elim ð37Þ
observed that overlaps slide by steps, reaching partial equilibrium
stages as pressure increases. It can be deduced from these records Due to constant pressure:
that limit values of slim between 100 and 150 mm can be assumed p4 ¼ p3 ð38Þ
with a reasonable safety factor.
The minimum radius before the collpase is:
Up to now it can be assumed that the arch segments can freely
slide, which is not always possible as, for example, in the case r3 ¼ r 0  u3 ð39Þ
where steel sets are used with shotcrete forming a complete com-
posite annulus. In this case, due to the hardening of the sprayed
3.6. Stiffness related to different parts
concrete, the steel sets are not allowed to slide and they behave
as a rigid support. The characteristic curve with DL = n slim = 0
In many cases, the yielding support is the first one which allows
should be used. This is, it can be assumed that the steel set is rigid
the tunnel reach a given convergence. Posteriorly, a more rigid sup-
because there are no sliding points (n = 0) or sliding is not possible
port, as shotcrete or in situ-made concrete, is used. In order to ana-
(slim = 0).
lyze the compound support, it is interesting to determine the
If the shotcrete is used, for the correct use of the steel sets there
stiffness related to different parts of the SCC. As it can be deduced
must be longitudinal gaps with no sprayed concrete which allow
from the previous equations, the stiffness is not constant and it de-
sliding. In this case, n is the number of gaps and slim the maximum
pends on the radius which produces that stiffness increase with de
displacement allowed (Schubert and Schubert, 1993; Hoek et al.,
radial displacement. Nevertheless, the stiffness changes are moder-
2008; Dalgıc, 2002; Barla, 2001; Marulanda et al., 2011; Gutiérrez,
ate and it is possible to take a constant value for each part of the
2011).
SCC as it is pointed out in the following.
(a) First part of elastic deformation:
3.4. Second part of elastic deformation
p1
K0 ¼ r0 ð40Þ
When overlapping reaches the maximum displacement slim, the ðu1  u0 Þ
steel set does not close and becomes rigid. Taking into account that (b) Yielding part
at this stage the pressure is p2, the support reaction line from u = u2
to u = u3 (when the arch reaches the plastic deformation) is: ðp2  p1 Þ
K1 ¼ r0 ð41Þ
ðu2  u1 Þ
E s As
pðuÞ  p2 ¼ ðu  u2 Þ ð31Þ (c) Second part of elastic deformation
dr 0 ðr 0  uÞ
Plastic behavior is reached at a pressure p3 which, after Oreste ðp3  p2 Þ
K2 ¼ r0 ð42Þ
(2003), is: ðu3  u2 Þ

rys As rys As Note that, for this study, it has been assumed that K2 = K0.
p3 ¼ ¼ ð32Þ
dr3 dðr 0  u3 Þ
3.7. An approach to a yielding steel ribs characteristic curve
where rys is the yield strength of the steel, As is the cross-sectional
area of the steel section, and r0–u3 is the radius at the moment in After the mentioned above, the YSR characteristic curve might
which the plastic deformation starts. be given as following:
Because of the continuity of the characteristic curve, the condi-
tion p3 = p(u3) is needed, thus:
u < u0 pðuÞ ¼ 0
u  u0
Es As u0 < u 6 u1 pðuÞ ¼ K 0
p3 ¼ p2 þ ðu3  u2 Þ ð33Þ r0
dr 0 ðr 0  u3 Þ
u  u1
u1 < u 6 u2 pðuÞ ¼ p1 þ K 1
Eqs. (32) and (33) allow to determine the radial displacement u3: r0
2 u  u2
Es As rys As r0  p2 dr0 u2 < u 6 u3 pðuÞ ¼ p2 þ K 2
u3 ¼ u2 þ ð34Þ r0
Es As  p2 dr0 Es As  p2 dr 0
u3 < u 6 u4 pðuÞ ¼ p3
The expression (31) from point (u = u2, p = p2) to point (u = u3,
p = p3), where u3 and p3 are given by Eqs. (32) and (33) respectively, u > u4 pðuÞ ¼ 0
is the SCC during the second elastic deformation phase.
 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170
4. Advantages of the yielding steel sets
4.1. Safety factor during yielding
An important advantage of the yielding steel sets is that, in the
case of the radial displacement at equilibrium (excavation stabil-
ization) is on the yielding part, the safety factor is almost constant
and superior to 3. In effect, the yielding pressure is given by the
expression (13). The ultimate support capacity is given by the Eq.
(32). Thus, the safety factor related to the pressures is:
pmax p3
FS ¼ ¼ ð43Þ
peq p1
Taking into account that u3 > u1, which is equivalent to r0-u1 > r0–u3,
it is easy to conclude that the safety factor FS on the yielding part is
always bigger than the following value:
rys As
FS P
F lim
Considering the fact that this value only depends on steel set
parameters, the safety factor for the 16.5, 21, 29, and 36 kg/m steel
set is over 5.5, 6.1, 7.0 and 7.8 respectively if the excavation is esta-
bilized during the yielding phase. From the Eq. (44), it can be in-
ferred that the safety factor remains almost constant during the
sliding phase, with a relatively high value. It can also be deduced
that the safety factor increases for low values of Flim, since until
the limit sliding slim is reached the excavation stabilizes after suffer-
ing greater excavation convergences (and, therefore, for lower val-
ues of the load transmitted to the support). This means that, for
working conditions, the steel arches are capable of providing good
support while they are sliding, since the arches would not be fail-
ing; this happens as long as the convergence is not excessive, which
is imposed by the condition that the sliding length remains lower
than slim. As a consequence, as it happens during mining works, dur-
ing the sliding phase of the steel arches and for reasonable values of
the sliding length, the working conditions are safe enough
(although significant convergences may be taking place either in
the tunnel or in the gallery).
4.2. Influence of the changes in the ground characteristics
A consequence of that described above is the warranty given by
the steel sets since the safety factor is almost constant although the
ground quality becomes worse. Fig. 6 illustrates this fact. Let’s
assume that the tunnel is excavated through a medium quality
ground represented by a characteristic curve of Fig. 6a. If at a given
moment, with the same support, the ground quality becomes even
worse (Fig. 6b), larger convergence is the only consequence, but
not diminishing the safety factor because the pressures
a 0,70
0,60
0,50
p (MPa)
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
u (mm)
Fig. 6. Steel set support behavior when the ground becomes worse.
165
relationship remains constant. A similar reasoning can be carried
out in the case of the GCR changes due to an increasing of the ini-
tial ground pressure p0, which is frequent in coal mine galleries
close to explotaition faces or tunnels when their depth increases.
Finally it also allows to demostrate the good support behavior in
case the ground presents squeezing or great increasing conver-
gence with time. Fig. 6a would represent the GRC in a short time,
just after placing the support, while Fig. 6b would represent the
GRC in a long time.
4.3. Influence of the steel arch instant installation
Another positive characteristic of the YSR support which is
clearly deduced from its characteristic curve is that its behavior
is almost independent from the moment in which it is placed, or
likewise: it is independent from the initial displacement u0. It
can be illustrated through the graphics of Fig. 7. In Fig. 7a, the
yielding support is placed early, near the advancing face, while in
ð44Þ
the Fig. 7b, the yielding support is placed later (when the wall con-
vergence is appreciable). It is evident that from a safety point of
view, it is preferable the second option because it protects work-
men as soon as possible. Nevertheless, after placing the support,
the safety factor is equal in both cases.
This is significant, especially if the advancing is done by drilling
and blasting, because in the day to day work, the moment in which
the support is installed is variable. In effect, it depends on many
operational factors as for example blasting length advance, time
spent in removing the debris, time spent in placing the sup-
port. . .etc. Consequently it can be difficult to determine an accu-
rate value for the initial displacement.
5. Guidelines for support designing using yielding steel sets
5.1. Case of ground behavior independent of the used support
At this point, it is not difficult to establish a method for the
designing of yielding steel set support by using the GRC and basic
design parameters. A more classical basic hypothesis is to assume
the ground is independent of the used support, that is, there is only
one GRC for any kind of support. In this case, the design parament-
ers are FSmin (minimum value for the safety factor required by the
authority), u0 (initial radial displacement) and ue (maximum allow-
able convergence in order to maintain a minimum ground
confinement).
The procedure can be synthesised in the following steps:
- From the GRC and ue, the pressure on the support at the equilib-
rium point pe is determined.
- Then, the maximum pressure is calculated, pmax = p4 = FSmin  pe
b 0,70
0,60
0,50
p (MPa)
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
u (mm)
166 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170

a 0,70 b 0,70

0,60 0,60

0,50 0,50

p (MPa)
p (MPa) 0,40 0,40

0,30 0,30

0,20 0,20

0,10 0,10

0,00 0,00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
u (mm) u (mm)

Fig. 7. Steel set support behavior for different initial displacements.

- In order to reach this pmax = p4, steel sets of a given weight
(determined by As), the strength of the used steel (determined
by rys) and the distance between sets d are selected.
- Finally, n and slim (which allow to reach the convergence from
u0 to ue) are determined. If shotcrete is used, n and slim would
be the number of slots and their width respectively.
The described procedure can be illustrated designing the yield-
ing support for a 4 m diameter tunnel, excavated through siltstone
at a depth of 250 m under squeezing conditions. The YSR mode of
working is especially adequate in this case. The example has been
taken from experience excavating galleries in coal mines in Astu-
rias, Spain, from experience excavating hydraulic tunnels under
Andes range in Colombia (Marulanda et al., 2011; Gutiérrez,
2011), and small diameter tunnels in India (Singh et al., 2007). It
is assumed that the ground is of low strength: GSI = 15, rci = 15 -
MPa, mi = 9, s = 0.00008, Em = 500 MPa (see Fig. 8). These values
are in concordance with data from other tunnels of a bigger diam-
eter (Barla and Panet, 2007; Mathieu, 2008; Barla et al., 2011). Such
ground presents squeezing even at a moderate depth of 250 m
(p0 = 6 MPa).
In the case of a mine gallery, the experience would allow to jus-
tify the support by means of the CCM if the safety factor is at least
FS = 3. Nevertheless, due to the complexity of the problem and/or
the lack of experience in the case of a civil work, it seems more
appropriate to design the support by means of a numerical model
being in this case the minimum safety factor FS = 1.5. In this case,
the CCM would be used for carrying out previous results which
would later be tested through numerical models.
From the our own mining experience, it is possible to design a
support based only on YSR in order to limit the convergence under
7.5% (150 mm), even in the case of unfavorable ground conditions.
After Marulanda et al. (2011) and Gutiérrez (2011), in a 2 m radius
tunnel through squeezing ground, when rci/p0 is approximately
2.0, the convergence at the stabilization is about 5% (radial dis-
placement of 100 mm). In Singh et al. (1992) some cases of similar
tunnels in India are described; when the relationship between the
rock mass strength after Hoek (2001) and the field pressure is
approximately rcm/p0 = 0.1, this convergence reaches the 10% (ra-
dial displacement of about 200 mm).
Let’s assume u0 = 50 mm, ue is between 100 mm and 200 mm,
and FSmin = 1.50. From the GRC, it can be seen that, for ue = 175 mm,
the pressure over the support is about pe = 0.50 MPa. Thus, the
maximum support capacity has to be pmax = 1.5  0.50 = 0.75 MPa.
A possible solution, among others, is the use of yielding steels sets
TH 29 kg/m (As = 37 cm2, rys = 340 MPa) placed at a distance
d = 0.80 m from each other. On the other hand, to limit the radial
convergence to ue–u0 = 120 mm = 0.12 m in a circular set of radius
r0 = 2 m the diminishing of the circumference length has to be
about 0.75 m, which must be equal to the product n  slim. This is
fulfilled, for example, if the steel set has n = 5 overlaps which al-
lows each one to slide 150 mm. This solution is shown in Fig. 9a.
The safety factor is greater than FS = 1.5 (if the distance d is re-
duced, the safety factor reaches the value FS = 3).
If the maximum radial convergence is limited to ue = 100 mm,
the pressure over the support is about pe = 0.80 MPa, and the
strength of this support must be pmax = 1.5  0.80 = 1.2 MPa. By
using TH steel sets of 36 kg/m (As = 46 cm2, rys = 340 MPa) placed
in the tunnel with d = 0.60 m, and reducing the overlap sliding to
slim = 50 mm, the failure pressure is greater than this pmax. In
Fig. 9b, this new design is represented.
5.2. Case of ground behavior influenced by the used support (squeezing
ground)
A new hypothesis has been presented by Cantieni and Anagnos-
tou (2009) and it is useful in the case of ground with a low strength
related to the field stresses (the limit is rcm/p0 < 0.50) in which

6
Parameter Value Unity
GSI 15 - 5

σ ci 15 MPa
4
p (MPa)

mi 9 -
3
Em 500 MPa
m 0.43 - 2

s 0.00008 -
1
p0 6.0 MPa
r0 0
2.0 m 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
u (mm)

Fig. 8. Ground parameters and ground reaction curve (classical analysis).

 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170 167

a 2,0 b 2,0

1,5 1,5

p (MPa)

p (MPa)
1,0 1,0

0,5 0,5

0,0 0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
u (mm) u (mm)

Fig. 9. Analysis of the yielding steel set support in a squeezing ground (classical analysis).

squeezing phenomenon is usual. These authors established that, in
this case, the GRC depends on the support yielding pressure. That
is, the GRC must be drawn once the support has been defined
(by means of abacus given by the authors).
Let’s assume the excavation through the same ground of the
previous example in where cohesion and friction angle after
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion (which is used by the authors)
are c = 0.27 MPa and / = 25°. The curves of Fig. 10, which depend
on the yielding support pressure py = p1, are used in the analysis.
In order to obtain these curves, the group of abacus given by
authors for / = 25° are used. The selected curves are those corre-
sponding to rcm/p0 = 0.15 for the different values of py/p0 = p1/
p0 = 0.00, 0.02, 0.04 and 0.08. As the initial field stress is p0 = 6,
these curves become those which correspond to py = p1 = 0.00,
0.12, 0.24, 0.48. The authors use the normalized variable [(u  u0)-
Em]/(r0p0) on OX axis and p/p0 on the OY one, from which the vari-
ables used here p, u are easily deduced.
In this case, moreover FSmin, u0 and ue, it is necessary to fix py:
yield pressure of the support (p1 = py).
The procedure can be synthesised in the following steps:
- From yielding pressure py, the GRC is selected.
- From this GRC and ue, pe is determined.
- Thus, the maximum pressure is calculated pmax = p4 = FSmin  pe.
- From py, d is calculated by means of d = 0.18/(py  r0), obtained
from Eq. (30) with Flim = 0.18.
- In order to reach this pmax = p4, steel sets of a given As and rys are
selected.
- Finally, the overlap numbers n, and the minimum sliding length
slim are determined.
Let’s assume the same initial conditions as in the previous case
and yield pressure of the support py between 0.12 and 0.48 MPa.
Limiting ue = 200 mm and assuming py = 0.12 MPa (Fig. 11a), the
pressure over the support is pe = 0.30 MPa. Thus, pmax = 1.5 -
 0.30 = 0.45 MPa. As the yielding pressure is py = p1 = 0.12 MPa,
the distance should be d = 0.80 m. The use of yielding steels sets
TH 21 kg/m (As = 27 cm2 and rys = 340 Mpa) is sufficient. On the
other hand, if ue  u0 = 120 mm = 0.12 m, the product n  slim must
be 0.75 m (n = 5 overlaps and slim = 150 mm). This solution is
shown in Fig. 11a.
If the limit is ue = 100 mm, a support with a greater yield pres-
sure, for example py = 0.24 MPa, has to be used. Under these condi-
tions (Fig. 11b), pe = 1.20 MPa, pmax = 1.5  1.20 = 1.80 MPa. As the
yielding pressure is py = p1 = 0.24 MPa, the distance between sets
should be about d = 0.40 m. The use of yielding steels sets TH
36 kg/m (As = 46 cm2 and rys = 340 Mpa) is necessary. If the limit
is ue  u0 = 50 mm = 0.05 m, steel set with n = 5 and slim 60 mm
are needed (n  slim = 0.30 m).
6. Analytical expression for the yielding steel set support
reaction curve
Although the expression is developed for the yielding steel set
support, it could be used for other kinds of support. The previously
described expression for the YSR characteristic curve is the sum of
several parts, which produces a curve with rude direction changes
and the impossibility of defining a unique derivative function in
the connexion points. This fact can introduce some mathematical
problems if this reaction curve is used with numerical models.

2,5
Parameter Value Unity
GSI 15 -
2,0
σ ci 15 MPa
σ cm 0.87 MPa 1,5
p (MPa)

Em 500 MPa
1,0
C 0.27 MPa
φ 25 º
0,5
py=0.48 py=0.0
P0 6.0 MPa
py=0.24 py=0.12
r0 2.0 m 0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
u (mm)

Fig. 10. Ground parameters and ground reaction curves (after Cantieni and Anagnostou (2009)).
168 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170

a 2,5 b 2,5

2,0 py =0.12 2,0

py =0.24

p (MPa)
p (MPa)
1,5 1,5

1,0 1,0

0,5 0,5

0,0 0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
u (mm) u (mm)

Fig. 11. Analysis of the yielding steel set support in a squeezing ground (dependent on yield pressure).

Thus, a mathematical approach, which is an equivalent SCC repre- lim pðuÞ ¼ p2 ð51Þ
u!1
sented by a continuous function, is proposed here. With this aim
the function f(x) = atan(x), in which the shape is similar to a sup- This implies:
port reaction curve (Fig. 12a), is selected. The yielding support is p p2
represented by a sum of two functions atan(x) (Fig. 12b). p2 ¼ c0 þ c1 ) c1 ¼ ð52Þ
2 p
The procedure that is described is based on the following
The expression p(u) is now:
atan(x) properties:
p2 p2
p pðuÞ ¼ þ a tan½c2 ðu  um Þ ð53Þ
f ðxÞ ¼ a tanðxÞ ) lim f ðxÞ ¼ ð45Þ 2 p
x!1 2
On the other hand, in order to achieve a good fit between the broken
p and continuous line p(u), the same slope at the first part of elastic
f ðxÞ ¼ a tanðxÞ ) lim f ðxÞ ¼  ð46Þ
x!1 2 behavior is required, this allows to determine the parameter c2. In
the case of the broken line representative of the SCC, the slope is re-
df ðxÞ 1 lated to the stiffness K0:
f ðxÞ ¼ a tanðxÞ ) ¼ ð47Þ
dx 1 þ x2
u  u0 dpðuÞ K 0
In order to simplify the description, only a part of the curve is ana- pðuÞ ¼ K 0 ) ¼ ð54Þ
r0 du r0
lyzed in this first section. So as to define a more adequate mathe-
matical function, the following expression is used: The middle point in the function atan(x) is x = 0, then the middle
point in the function p(u) is for u = um. The derivative at u = um is:
pðuÞ ¼ c0 þ c1 a tan½c2 ðu  um Þ ð48Þ    
dpðuÞ p c2 dpðuÞ p c2
where um corresponds to the medium point in the steepest part of ¼ 2 ) ¼ 2 ð55Þ
du u¼um p 1 þ c22 ðum  u0 Þ2 du u¼um p
the curve.
The pressure p(u) mst be almost null for small values of u, this The value of c2 can be deduced from Eqs. (54) and (55):
is:
pK 0
c2 ¼ ð56Þ
lim pðuÞ ¼ 0 ð49Þ p2 r0
u!1

This requires the following relationship between the parameters: And the expression of p(u) is:
 
p p p2 p2 pK 0
0 ¼ c0  c1 ) c0 ¼ c1 ð50Þ pðuÞ ¼ þ a tan ðu  u0 Þ ð57Þ
2 2 2 p p2 r0
On the other hand, during the yielding phase, the pressure should Based on this previous deduction, it is now easy to develop the
be p2, that is: function of yielding steel ribs. Let’s assume that the following values

a 2 b 2,00

1 1,50
pi (MPa)
atan (x)

1,00
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
0,50
-1

0,00
-2 0 20 40 60 80
x u (mm)

Fig. 12. Mathematical function atan(x) and YSR characteristic curve.

 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170 169

of displacements and pressures are previously calculated with for- (4) From the deduced SCC it is easy to illustrate some advanta-
mulae (14)–(38): (u0, p0 = 0); (u1, p1); (u2, p2); (u3, p3); (u4, p4 = p3).- ges of the YSR such as the relative high safety factor value
The slope in the two elastic deformation parts are: during yielding and their behavior less influenced by the
p1  p0 changes in the ground characteristics or the steel arch
K 0 ¼ r0 ð58Þ instant installation.
u1  u0
(5) By using a mathematical function, an analytical expression
p3  p2 for the yielding steel set SCC useful both convergence-con-
K 2 ¼ r0 ð59Þ
u3  u2 finement method and even for numerical models is deduced.

The YSR characteristic curve is the sum of two functions atan:

pðuÞ ¼ fc0 þ c1 a tan½c2 ðu  um Þg þ fc00 þ c01 a tan½c02 ðu  u0m Þg
Imposing that in the first (a) the pressure is null when u ? 1, (b)
the pressure tends to an average value between p1 and p2 when
u ? 1 and (c) the maximum slope is given by Eq. (58), the follow-
ing parameter are determined:
u0 þ u1
um ¼
2
Acknowledgements
ð60Þ The present work was carried out in the frame of the Univer-
sity–Company collaboration project FUO-EM-245-10 between the
University of Oviedo and the Company Técnicas de Entibación SA
(TEDESA) of the Duro-Felguera Group, in order to develop the soft-
ware TEDESA Support Design. The authors would like to thank
TEDESA for its technical and economical support and for the per-
mission to publish the results reported in this paper.
ð61Þ

1 p1 þ p2 References
c1 ¼ ð62Þ
p 2
AFTES, 2001. Groupe de Travail n. 7. The Convergence-Confinement Method. AFTES
Recommendations, pp. 1–11.
pK 0
2p p1  p0 AFTES, 1993. Groupe de travail n. 7. Soutènement et Revètement. Emploi de la
c2 ¼ p1 þp2 ¼ ð63Þ
r0 2
p1 þ p2 u1  u0 méthode convergence-confinement, Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains,
suplement au n. Maj-Juin, pp. 118–205.
Alejano, L.R., Rodriguez-Dono, A., Alonso, E., Fdez.-Manín, G., 2011. Ground reaction
p curves for tunnels excavated in different quality rock masses showing several
c0 ¼ c1 ð64Þ
2 types of post-failure behaviour. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
24 (2009), 689–705.
Likewise, the second function must fulfill: (a) the pressure must be Barla, G., 2001. Tunnelling under squeezing rock conditions. Tunnelling mechanics.
null when u ? 1, (b) the pressure must tend to p3  ((p1 + p2)/2) In: Kolymbas (Ed.), Eurosummer-School in Tunnel Mechanics, Innsbruck. Logos
Verlag, Berlin, pp 169–268. <http://ulisse.polito.it/matdid/
when u ? 1 and (c) the maximum slope must be given by Eq. (59);
1ing_civ_D3342_TO_0/Innsbruck2001.pdf>.
consequently, the paramenters must be: Barla, G., Panet, G., 2007. Lessons Learned During the Excavation of the Saint
Martin-La Porte access galery along the Lyon-Turin Base Tunnel. International
u2 þ u3
u0m ¼ ð65Þ Simposium Brennere Basistunnel und Zulaufstrecken, Insbruck.
2 Barla, G., Bonini, M., Semeraro, M., 2011. Analysis of the behaviour of a yield-control
support system in squeezing rock. Tunnelling and Underground Space
1 p þ p2  Technology 26 (2011), 146–154.
c01 ¼ p3  1 ð66Þ Basarir, H., Genis, M., Ozarslan, A., 2010. The analysis of radial displacements
p 2 occurring near the face of a circular opening in weak rockmass. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010), 771–783.
pK 2
2p p3  p2 Bouard-Lecoanet, A., Colombet, G., Esteulle, F., 1988. Ouvrages Soutterrains:
c02 ¼ ¼ ð67Þ
r 0 p3  p1 þp
2
2
2p3  ðp1 þ p2 Þ u3  u2
Conception, Realisation, Entretien. Presses de L’école National des ponts et
chaussées, Paris.
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. George
p Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd., London, p. 519.
c00 ¼ c01 ð68Þ Brown, E.T., Bray, J.W., Ladanyi, B., Hoek, E., 1983. Ground response curves for rock
2
tunnels. J. Geotech. Eng. 109, 15–39.
A last observation can be made. Due to the function atan(x) shape, Cantieni, L., Anagnostou, G., 2009. The interaction between yielding supports and
the pressure is not null at u = 0, although the effect can be neglected squeezing ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24, 309–322.
Daemen J.J.K., 1975. Tunnel Support Loading Caused by Rock Failure. Tech. Rep.
in the calculation due to its low value. Nevertheless, it could even MRD-3-75. Missouri River Div., US Corps Engrs, Omaha.
have a physical science related to the atmospheric pressure. Dalgıc, S., 2002. Tunneling in squeezing rock, the Bolu tunnel, Anatolian Motorway,
Turkey. Engineering Geology 67 (2002), 73–96.
DíazAguado, M.B., Gonzalez, C., 2009. Influence of the stress state in a coal bump-
7. Conclusions prone deep coalbed: a case study. International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences 46, 333–345.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the conducted Fenner, R., 1938. Untersuchungen zur Erkenntis des Gebirgsdrukes, Glükauf, 74pp.
Gschwandtner, G., Robert Galler, R., 2012. Input to the application of the
study: convergence confinement method with time-dependent material behaviour of
the support. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27, 13–22.
(1) In this paper, an expression for the SCC of yielding steel ribs Gutiérrez, R., 2011. Tunnelling Under Squeezing Conditions in Some Tunnels of
Colombia Mountain Ranges. Personnal comunnication.
(YSRs) is proposed. It is capable of explaining easily the Hoek, E., 2001. Big tunnels in bad rock. 2000 Terzaghi lecture. ASCE Journal of
yielding arch behavior and its support capacity. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (9), 726–740.
(2) By applying (during the design and project phase) this newly Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London, p. 527.
developed curve, is possible to estimate the actual safety fac- Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Kazilis, N., Angistalis, G., Rahaniotis, N., Marinos, V., 2006.
tor and the dimensioning of the support could be correctly Greece’s Egnatia highway tunnels. Tunnels & Tunnelling International
estimated. (September), 32–35.
Hoek, H., Carranza-Torres, C., Diederichs, M., Corkum, B., 2008. The 2008 Kersten
(3) Guidelines for support designing using YSR are proposed. Lecture. Integration of geotechnical and structural design in tunneling. In: 56th
They are useful both in the case of ground behavior indepen- Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Minneapolis (29 February).
dent of or influenced by the used support. Lombardi, G., 1973. Dimensionning of tunnel linings with regard to constructional
procedure. Tunnels and Tunnelling (July).
Lombardi, G., 1975. Qalche aspetto particolare della estatica delle cavitá
sotterranee. Rivista Italiana di la Geotecnica 9, 187–206.
170 R. Rodríguez, M.B. Díaz-Aguado / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 33 (2013) 159–170
Marulanda, A., Marulanda, C., Gutiérrez, R., 2011. Experiences in Tunnel Excavation
by the Conventional Method and by Use TBMs in the Andes Mountain Range.
Case Histories, pp 1–18.
Mathieu, E., 2008. At the mercy of the mountain. Tunnels & Tunnelling International
(October), 21–24.
Oreste, P.P., 2003. Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the
convergence-confinement approach. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 18, 347–363.
Oreste, P.P., 2009. Roles and limits in modern geomechanical tunnel design.
American Journal of Applied Sciences 6 (4), 757–771.
Pacher, F., 1964. Deformations messungen in Versuchsstollen als Mittel zur
Erfoschung des Gebirs verhaltens und zur Bemessung des Ausbaues,
Felsmechanik und Ingenieursgeologie, Supplementum IV.
Panet, M., 1995. Le calcul des tunnels par la mèthode convergence-confinement.
Presses de L’école Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris.
Panet, M., Gellec, P., 1974. Contribution a l’ètude du sostènement derriére le front
de talle. In: Proc. 3rd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mechanics, vol. 2, part B, Denver.
Schubert, W., Schubert, P., 1993. Tunnels in squeezing rock: failure phenomena and
counteractions. Assessment and prevention of failure phenomena in rock
engineering. In: ISRM Int. Symp., Istanbul, pp. 479–484.
Singh, B., Jethwa, J.L., Dube, A.K., Singh, B., 1992. Correlation between observed
support pressure and rock mass quality. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 7 (1), 59–74.
Singh, M., Singh, B., Choudhari, J., 2007. Critical strain and squeezing of rock mass in
tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22, 343–350.
Standard UNE, 22725. Cuadros metálicos deslizantes de acero para sostenimiento
(Sliding steel profiles for roof support). AENOR (Ed.), Madrid, Octubre 2007.
Toraño, J., Rodríguez, R., Rivas, J.M., Casal, M.D., 2002. FEM modeling of roadways
driven in a fractured rock mass under longwall influence.. Computers and
Geotechnics 29, 411–431.
Vlachopoulos, N., Diederichs, M.S., 2009. Improved longitudinal displacement
profiles for convergence confinement analysis of deep tunnels. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 42, 131–146.