Guideline for preliminary design of Spiles

Jeffrey Oke
Mine Design Engineering, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT
Umbrella arch systems are defined as a pre-support method that is installed during the first pass of excavation from
within the tunnel, above and around the crown of the tunnel face, that reinforces through the interaction between the
support and the ground. There exist no universal design specifications for umbrella arch systems, however,
recommendations have been made regarding the design components of the eleven sub-categories. Three of such sub-
categories consist of spile elements. This paper will present a guideline for the preliminary design of two of these three
spile elements, when installed to mitigate structure or to manage convergence/strain. These guidelines were developed
from the collection of published empirical data, analytical solutions, empirical verification, laboratory results, as well as
observed limitations/restrictions of installation equipment.

1 INTRODUCTION
An umbrella arch is defined as a pre-support method that
is installed during the first pass of excavation from within Oke et al. (2014a) provided an empirical selection
the tunnel, above and around the crown of the tunnel chart (Figure 1) as well as a range of design properties
face, that reinforces through the interaction between the (Table 1) for each element (spile, forepole, and grout) and
support and the ground (Oke et al. 2014a). Steel the eleven sub-categories of the umbrella arch systems.
elements that are used for the umbrella arch are Oke et al. (2014b) provided some design
described as spiles when they are shorter in length, L, recommendations for umbrella arch systems that employ
than the height of the excavation, He, and described as forepole elements in squeezing ground conditions.
forepoles when they are longer. There currently exist no However, there are still no concrete design guidelines in
universal design specifications for umbrella arch support existence for spile elements. Guidelines for the
systems (Carrieri et al., 1991; Hoek, 1999; Volkmann, preliminary design of spiles will be presented within this
2003; Kim et al., 2005; Volkmann et al., 2006; Volkmann paper.
and Schubert, 2006, 2007, 2010; FHA, 2009; Hun, 2011;
Peila, 2013; Oke et al. 2016). These support systems can Table 1. Suggested range of design parameters for spile
easily be overdesigned, or worse under designed, elements of an umbrella arch system (Modified after Oke,
because of the lack of design standard. An insufficient 2014a). Note: SpCUA: Spile Confined Umbrella Arch
design is easy to identify as it leads to failure, but an SpGUA: Spile Grouted Umbrella Arch.
overdesign is much more different to identify. Such
overdesign of spile elements (L < He) was illustrated in Umbrella Arch with Spiles
Oke et al. (2014a) at the Niagara Tunnel, Canada. The SpCUA SpGUA
over design was minor, as it called for grout to confine the
Length, L 3L -H (3L )
elements in their locations (SpGUA), however, due to the u e u

high stress environment, the ground material squeezed Angle (°) 5-20 (15)
and confined the spiles in location which removed the Overlap (m) L/3-2L/3 (L/3)
requirement for grout. Once this confinement was
Initial center-to-center (cm) <50 (30) <30 (30)
observed, the design was modified the exclude grout
(SpCUA). Similarly, the forepole elements (L > He) at the Diameter (mm) 25-101.6 (50)
Driskos Tunnel, Greece, were slightly over designed, as Grout Pressure (MPa) NA 0.20-1 (1)
shown in Oke et al. 2014b. A study done by Langford et Notes: XX-XX: Range of data (XX): Typical value
al. (2016) echoes this overdesign at the Driskos Tunnel, Lu: Unsupported Span NA: Not applicable
as it was shown that the optimum support systems He: Height of excavation L: Length of support
(without considering the influence of umbrella arch in the
analysis) was typically a design category lower (less 2 BACKGROUND
support installed) than the design category employed.
Figure 1. A condensed version of the UA Selection Chart (UASC) for Convergence Management Ground Conditions and
Structural Control Only. Terminology: Spile Grouted UA (SpGUA); Spile Confined UA (SpCUA); Forepole Confined UA
(FpCUA); and Forepole Grouted UA (FpGUA). (Modified after Oke et al. 2014a).
The umbrella arch system originated over a century ago,
when the primary support material was timber and the
support installation equipment was powered by humans.
Upon encountering problematic ground conditions
concerning face stability, mining excavation support
practices suggested the employment of forepoles
(wooden boards), as shown in Figure 2, in order to
advance through to the next section (Stauffer 1906,
Richardson and Mayo 1941, Proctor and White 1946,
Lewis 1954, and Szechy 1966). Such a support method
protected the workers, who were excavating the project
by hand, from the possibility of falling ground material due
to the newly exposed crown of the excavation. With the
advancement of technology (such as hydraulic drilling in
Figure 2. Drift advancement with forepole boards.
Modified after Szechy (1966).
1857 (Szechy, 1966)) steel became the preferred material
of support (i.e. introduction of rock bolts). However, the
first instance of steel-based forepoling/spiling (in pipe
form) was not until the mid-1970s in Italy, as cited in
Carrieri et al. (1991). Oke (2016) illustrates that there has
been increasing demand for umbrella arch systems with
steel and grout elements since their introduction in the
1970’s. An illustration of the modern configuration of spile
elements with the remaining typical support elements is
found within Figure 3.
3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SPILES
The following preliminary design for spile elements was
based on conservative estimations, the response of which
should always be verified in the field or through advanced
calculations (e.g. three-dimensional numerical analysis). It
is important to note that water has not been taken into
consideration for the design. If water is encountered, the
spiles would need to be designed to mitigate the water
flow through ground improvement (a different section of
the UASC, missing from Figure 1).
3.1 Spile Capacity
The bending moment of forepole elements is the most
critical design criteria (Song et al. 2013), and should be
the governing factor for spile elements as well. Therefore
for preliminary design, the simple approach of a fixed
beam with a pin reaction loaded by a uniform distributed
load, UDL, by John and Mattle (2002) will be used to
assess the bending moment capacity (embedded in
Figure 4). The UDL is based on the equation [1] derived
from Terzaghi silo theory.
Based on case studies, the loading condition
(equation [1]) has been found by Pelia and Pelizza (2003)
 (2003) suggest that the Terzaghi silo theory load should
be reduced by 50-75%. Additionally, Pelia and Pelizza
(2003) state that a simply supported beam (pin-roller
connection) can also be employed to approximate the
bending moment. However, Pelia and Pelizza (2003) do
not specify which analysis configuration to employ for a
given ground condition.

2
௠ ு

      1   
ିଶఒ ௧௔௡ ఝ ௧௔௡ ఝ
௠ 2  
ோ೘
[1]
ு
௦ ∙ 
ିఒ ௧௔௡ ఝ ௧௔௡ ఝ
ோ೘

Where:
3
γ: specific weight of ground [N/m ]
c: cohesion [Pa]
Rm: mean radius of the silo, which should be calculated
assuming the silo as an ellipse with the small diameter
equal to 1.5 times the unsupported span (1.5Lu), and the
large diameter being the width Dt (or excavation width) of
0.5
the tunnel: Rm = 0.5(Dt∙1.5Lu) as shown in Figure 3.
λ: horizontal pressure coefficient, which can be assumed
as λ = 1-sin ϕ
ϕ: friction angle [Deg]
H: overburden [m]
2
qs: Stress on ground surface [N/m ] (if applicable)

It has been found in an investigation by Oke et al.

Figure 3. Illustration of typical spiling elements of the
umbrella arch arrangement and other supports layout.
The assumed silo shape is based on Equation [1] with
H=Height of failure, Lu=Unsupported Span.
(2014c) that the analytical solution of John and Mattle
(2002) can capture the maximum moment, however, it is
mechanistically incorrect. Complex analytical solution,
such as that of Oke et al. (2016), can provide
mechanistically correct representation of the support

Figure 4. Spile capacity based on varying height of failure, cohesion, and spile spacing for a constant excavation
width, unsupported span, and friction angle.

to overestimate the loading condition. Pelia and Pelizza,

element. It is important to note that different simple and
complex analytical solutions are available in literature, but
it is outside the scope of the paper to discuss them
further. However, it is the author’s opinion that complex
analytical solutions should not be used for preliminary
design, due to the inherent high variability of ground
conditions. These complex analytical solutions should
only be used for verification of response of the support
system when coupled with instrumentation.
Figure 4 provides a sample solution which utilizes
the analytical solution of John and Mattle (2002), with a
Terzaghi silo theory load reduction of 50% as suggested
by Peila and Pelizza (2003). Figure 4 assumes that the
excavation width is set at 10m, the unsupported span is
1m, the friction angle is set to 25°, and that there is zero
influence of stresses acting on the ground surface. Figure
4 illustrates the influence of increasing the height of
failure, which has insignificant influence past 15m
(because of the assumed zero stress at surface). Figure 4
also shows the influence of cohesion for 0, 19kPa, and
23kPa. Greater than 24kPa, based on assumed silo
shape, the ground will be self-supporting. Additionally.
Figure 4 displays the capacity of the different type of
elements based on DSI specifications (DSI, 2015) to allow
for selection of an appropriate section size. Other spile
types are available from different suppliers, but DSI
products were used for the bending moment capacities,
Figure 5. Spacing and angle of installation assessment based on length between umbrella arches.
as they are easily available. Additionally, their connection
capacities (the limiting factor for segmented elements)
have been researched extensively by Volkmann and his
collaborators.
The design chart in Figure 4 can be used to quantify
the selection of the cross sectional properties required to
meet the moment caused by the straining/failing ground.
Additionally, the design chart will also quantify the
selection of spacing between the centers of the spile
elements. However, this chart only considers the global
arching effect (stresses being distributed around the
excavation) on the spacing, and does not consider the
local arching effect (stresses being distributed between
each spile element) on the spile elements, as considered
in the subsequent section.
3.2 Spacing and Angle of Installation
The center-to-center spacing of the spile elements is
typically defined by block size, not by geomechanics. A
geomechancis related solution was proposed in Oke et al
2014b, involving a numerical trap door test to assess
spacing. However, this analysis can prove too complex for
preliminary design. An upper bound of 30cm initial center
to center spacing is empirically/typically chosen, based on
the possible damage larger blocks could cause.
Designers need to additionally understand that the radius
of the crown, the angle of installation, and deviation of
drilling (0.5% Mager and Mocivnik, 2000, to 2% John and
Mantle, 2002) will cause the spacing between the spiles
to increase with length. As illustrated in Figure 5, the
center-to-center spacing can increase to 40cm from an
initial 30cm after 8m of length for a 10m diameter crown
and a deviation of drilling of 1%.
However, if the overlap of the umbrella arch spiles is
greater than 1/2 of the length it is possible to increase the
spacing, as long as the next array of spiles is offset
resulting with a spile being installed between two existing
spiles and that the relative spacing is maintained.
Additionally, Figure 5 illustrates the required angle of
installation based on length and the required support
clearance. Clearly, the smaller the length of the support
element, the higher the required angle of installation. John
and Mattle (2002) state that the drilling equipment
typically requires 40cm of clearance.
It is important to note that the angle of installation
design (Figure 5) is based on a “niche” or “saw-tooth”
profile that requires enlargement of the excavation profile
as the ground breaks back to the spile elements. In some
cases, the ground is stable, and the requirement for
enlarging the profile is not required. If no enlargement is
needed, then the free end of the spile elements may need
to be trimmed/cut/decoupled if they cannot be installed
flush enough to the excavation crown.
However, it remains difficult to select the exact
Figure 6. Required overlap on umbrella arch based on friction angle and height of excavation.
length between umbrella arches without considering the
required overlap, as explained in the following section.
3.3 Overlap
The required overlap for an umbrella arch with spile
elements depends on the mitigation method they are
employed for. Within the scope of the design
recommendation presented in this paper, Spiles are
installed to mitigate two different stabilities (Figure 1): i. to
increase the stability of the unsupported ground between
the support and the excavation face, and/or ii. to increase
the stability of the tunnel face. If spiles are installed solely
to support the unsupported span, an embedment length,
based on empirical data are typically 1m. However,
additional analysis (e.g. wedge stability) needs to be
completed in order to quantify this length.
If it is both the face and unsupported span that
require increased stability, the overlap can be based on
the Rankine failure block (based on the material angle of
friction, Φ, only) as shown by the red dashed line within
Figure 6. Figure 6 illustrates the required overlap based
on different heights of excavation. The grey zone reflects
the range of applicable overlap based on the empirical
design recommendations within Table 1 while remaining
true to the definition of a spile as having a length of the
element less than the height of excavation.
The overlap design chart (Figure 6) does not
consider any other additional pre-support, such as core-
reinforcement, nor does it consider the influence of water.
Engineering judgement will be required when determining
the overlap of the umbrella arch composed of spiles when
additional pre-support is employed.
4 DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The design methodology for spiles are illustrated in Figure
7 and are as follows:
1. Define the unsupported span based on:
a. Lattice Girder/Steel Rib spacing; and/or
b. Rock bolt spacing.
2. Based on the mode of failure, predict the height of
failure if spiles are not installed;
a. If failure depth is unknown, assume the greatest
of the excavation width or height.
3. Solve analytical solution of John and Mattle (2002)
(or other simple analytical solution) with a 50%
reduction of Terzaghi silo theory load as illustrated in
Figure 4:
a. For drill and blast operations, assume cohesion
of 0 due to blast damage;
b. For mechanical excavation (i.e. road header),
use the cohesion of the ground material; and
c. If close to surface, estimate surface load.
4. Select an appropriate spile size that meets the
moment capacity.
5. Estimate the length of the spile element based on
equipment and standard lengths and assume an
angle of installation of 15°:
a. Length of the spile < Height of the excavation; or
b. Length of the spile > 3 times the unsupported
span.
6. Select the required overlap of spiles:
a. If face stability improvement is required, ensure
overlap is greater than Rankine failure block for
the given height of excavation and friction angle
of the ground material as illustrated in Figure 6;
b. If face stability improvement is not required,
ensure that the overlap of the umbrella arch is
greater than 1/3 of the length of the spile
elements. If this value is greater than 1m, the
overlap could be further reduced based on
additional calculations.
7. Select an initial center-to-center spacing so that the
spacing between spiles (center-to-center spacing
minus the diameter of spile) shall not exceed 30cm
based on the length between umbrella arch
installations (Horizontal length of the spile elements
minus overlap) as illustrated in Figure 5.
8. Modify length of spile elements, if necessary (check
step 6a).
9. Calculate the angle of installation based on the
length between umbrella arches:
a. Assume jumbo clearance is 0.4m, if unknown.
10. Check overlap and length between umbrella arches
based on new angle of installation; go back to step
6a if applicable.
11. Grout design specifications (if applicable) should be
site specific and based on suppliers
recommendations.
12. Coverage angle based on the recommendation
within Figure 1.
13. Optimization of design parameters (during
operation):
a. The center-to-center spacing can be increased if
stability of the ground between spiles is stable.
This increase in spacing can be verified during
operation, or through numerical analysis, as
described in Oke et al. 2014b;
b. The required overlap can be reduced if the face
can be shown to be stable, but should not be
less than 1m; and
c. If the length of the spile has increased to be
greater than the height of the excavation, then
the element should be treated as a forepole. It
can be more economical to employ the longer
elements due to less set up time (Volkmann
2016).
Unsupported Span, Lu Estimate Height of failure
• Lattice Girder/Steel Rib spacing • If failure depth is unknown, assume the
• Rock bolt spacing greatest of the excavation width or height
Analytical solution of John and Mattle (2002) – Figure 4
• 50% reduction of Terzaghi silo theory load
• Cohesion
• 0: for drill and blast operations
• Ground material: mechanical excavation (i.e. road header)
• If close to surface, estimate surface load
Spile Cross Section Overlap of Spile, Lo
• Moment capacity • Face stability required:
• Assume 30cm spacing • Rankine Failure (Figure 6)
• Face stability not required:
Length of Spile, L • Lo > Lu/3
• L < He • Lo > 1m (wedge analysis)
• L > 3 Lu
Center-to-center spacing and angle of installation – Figure 5
• The spacing between spiles < 30cm
• Support thickness + Jumbo Clearance
• Assume jumbo clearance = 40cm if unknown
Grout specification (if applicable) Coverage Angle
• Suppliers recommendations • Figure 1
Figure 7. Illustration of the design methodology of spiles.
4 DISCUSSION
Components of the design methodology may not be
mechanistically correct, but empirically has worked in the
past. In order to further optimize/streamline spiling design
the following items require further research:
• Boundary Conditions
o Quantify when to select different boundary
conditions (pin vs fixed reaction) for the
analytical solutions.
• Loading condition
o In which situation can a 75% reduction be
employed to the loading condition.
o Harazaki et al. (1998) proposed two different
loading conditions (non UDL) for alluvial and
diluvial material zones. Harazaki et al.
(1998) state that further research is needed
to quantify the linear distributed load.
• Center-to-Center Spacing
 o Spacing currently set based on empirical
safety guidelines (30cm). Further research
is required to quantify when it is applicable
to increase the spacing.
It is important to note that the reaction forces found from
the analytical solution should be included in the analysis
for the selection of proper lattice girder/steel set.
5 CONCLUSION
The design methodology presented in this paper allows a
designer to easily quantify the design parameters of spile
elements during preliminary design. These design
parameters should be verified during operations in order
to further optimize the design.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank N. Boultbee and K.
Falkenstein for their input and discussion on this paper.
The author would also like to thank his previous thesis
supervisor Dr. N. Vlachopoulos and Dr. M. Diederichs,
who provided the author guidance with the previous
research presented in this paper.
5 REFERENCES
Carrieri G, Grasso P, Mahtab A, Pelizza S. (1991) Ten
years of experience in the use of umbrella-arch for
tunneling. In: Proceedings of the international
congress on soil and rock improvement in
underground works; 99-111.
Dywidag-Systems International (DSI). (2015) AT – Pipe
Umbrella System. Retrieved 05 02, 2016, from
https://www.dywidag.co.uk/uploads/media/DSI-
ALWAG-Systems-AT-Pipe-Umbrella-System-en.pdf
Federal Highway Administration (FHA). (2009) Technical
manual for design and construction of road tunnels
civil- elements. Retrieved 04 22, 2014, from
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/
errata.cfm.
Harazaki, I., Anon, H., Matsuda, A., Aoki, T., Hakoishi, Y.,
1998. Field observation of large supported by umbrella
method: case of Maiko Tunnel in Kobe, Japan. In:
Tunneling and Metropolises, Proceedings of the World
Tunneling Congress, pp. 1009–1014.
Hoek, E. (1999). Putting numbers to geology – an
engineer’s viewpoint. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 32(1), 1-19.
Hun Y. (2011) Stability and collapse mechanism of
unreinforced and forepole reinforced tunnel headings.
PhD Thesis. Singapore: National University of
Singapore;
John, M., & Mattle, B. (2002). Design of tube umbrella.
Magazine of the Czech Tunnelling Committee and
Slovak Tunnelling Association, 3.
Lewis, R. S. (1946). Element of mining. London: John
Willey & Sons, Inc.
Mager W, Mocivnik J. Modern casing technology sets a
milestone in drilling and ground anchoring. Felsbau
2000;18:43.
Oke, J., Vlachopoulos, N. and Marinos, V.P. (2014a).
Umbrella Arch Nomenclature and Selection
Methodology for Temporary Support Systems for the
Design and Construction of Tunnels. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering. (DOI 10.1007/s10706-
013-9697-4)
Oke, J., Vlachopoulos, N. and Diederichs, M.S (2014b).
Numerical Analyses in the Design of Umbrella Arch
Systems. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering. (DOI
10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.09.005)
Oke, J., Vlachopoulos, N., Diederichs, M.S., (2014c).
Semi-analytical model of an umbrella arch employed
in hydrostatic tunnelling conditions. In: 48th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American
Rock Mechanics Association, Minneapolis.
Oke, J., Vlachopoulos, N. and Diederichs, M.S. (2016).
Semi-Analytical Model for Umbrella Arch Systems in
Squeezing Conditions Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology. 56: 136-156 (doi:10.1016/j.tust.
2016.03.006)
Oke, J. (2016) Determination of nomenclature,
mechanistic behavior, and numerical modelling
optimization of umbrella arch systems. PhD Thesis.
Queen’s University.
Proctor, K., & White, R. V. (1946). Rock Tunneling with
Steel Supports with an Introduction to Tunnel
Geology. Youngstown, O.: Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Co.
Richardson, H. W., & Mayo, R. S. (1941). Practical Tunnel
Driving. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Song KI, Cho GC, Chang SB, Lee IM. (2013) Beam-
spring structural analysis for the design of a tunnel
pre-reinforcement support system. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences;59:139-150.
Stauffer, D. M. (1906). Principles of Tunnel Timbering and
Driving. In Modern Tunnel Practice. New York:
Engineering news Publishing Co.
Szechy, K. (1966). The Art of Tunnelling (Vol. II).
Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Volkmann, G. (2003). Rock mass - pipe roof support
interaction measured by chain inclinometers at the
Birgltunnel. International Symposium on Geotechnical
Measurements and Modeling, Proc. Karlsruhe: A.A.
Balkema. 105-109
Volkmann, G.M., Schubert W., Button E.A. (2006) A
contribution to the design of tunnels supported by a
pipe roof. In: 50 Years of Rock Mechanics Landmarks
and Future Challenges, Proceedings of the 41st US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Golden, Colorado;
Volkmann, G., & Schubert, W. (2006). Optimization of
excavation and support in pipe roof supported tunnel
section. 32nd ITA-AITES World Tunneling Congress.
Seoul.
Volkmann GM, Schubert W. (2007) Geotechnical model
for pipe roof supports in tunneling. In: Proceeding of
the 33rd ITA-AITES World tunneling congress,
underground spaced the 4th dimension of
metropolises. London: Taylor & Francis Group; p. 755-
760.
Volkmann GM, Schubert W. (2010) A load and load
transfer model for pipe umbrella support. In: Zhao J,
Labiouse V, Dudt JP, Mathier JF, editors. Rock
 mechanics in civil and environmental engineering,
proceedings of the European rock mechanics
symposium (EUROCK) 2010. Rotterdam,
Niederlande: CRC Press/A.A. Balkema; p. 379-382.
Volkmann GM. (2016) The Hirschhagen Highway Tunnel
(BAB 44) in Germany: Pre-Support in Extremely
Difficult and Inhomogeneous Ground Conditions.
World Tunnelling Conference.