SINGLE SHELL SPRAYED CONCRETE LININGS, WHY AND HOW

Knut F. Garshol

MBT International Underground Construction Group, Switzerland

SUMMARY

The paper describes the single shell permanent sprayed concrete support solution. It is shown why
this method can save project time and cost, the design background that should be applied and the
project management and contract principles necessary for full benefit. Furthermore, how to use
modem wet mix shotcrete technology to ensure satisfactory quality and durability has been presented.
As an important part of the concept, ways and means of controlling ground water are described.
Other elements of the permanent support, like rock bolts with corrosion protection, are also briefly
commented upon.

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘single shell sprayed concrete lining' is probably not understood in the same way by the
whole underground construction community. The following definition has been used as a basis in this
paper [11:

Single-shell construction method All static and structural requirements to be met by the tunnel
-

lining are fulfilled by a single shell element consisting of one or several layers forming a
composite structure.

The practical consequence of linings carried out as single shell structures is that all concrete placed,
will be part of the final structure. Compared to traditional methods, where the concrete spraying
carried out at the tunnel face is considered temporary and structurally not contributing, this is
probably the single most important difference.

Sprayed concrete is a very flexible construction method, because it is possible to spray all kinds of
geometry, no formwork is needed, combination with other elements like rock bolts, lattice girders,
reinforcement bars, steel beams etc. is simple and the final structure can be reached in any number of
steps with a progression that suits the purpose. This flexibility is the key to the cost and time saving
potential offered, but it is also the reason why a different set of requirements have to be applied, for a
successful construction of a single shell tunnel support. This applies to the support design method, the
contractual model used and the structure of responsibility and authority allocated to tunnelling site
personnel relative to the design office staff and others.

All concrete placed being part of the final lining, of course requires a satisfactory quality and
durability. Proper handling of ground water therefore plays an extremely important role for the single
shell lining approach. Local conditions in the tunnel face area, resembling a heavy rainfall, in reality
makes this impossible. Probe drilling ahead of the face, combined with preinjection where needed can
solve this problem. During operation of the finished tunnel, preinjection and sprayed concrete lining
alone can not guarantee a completely drip free situation. In some tunnels this will be acceptable, in
some not. It is important that this situation is realised in advance and that proper and suitable
measures are planned.
Compared to the traditional use of a temporary sprayed concrete support (already alone close to
structurally satisfactory) and a mass concrete permanent lining, the cost savings potential could be
higher than 50% [2]. The reason why this solution is still not more widely accepted and used, has to
do with lack of information, an element of conservatism and the high “doorstep” for its
implementation, caused by the need for an overall change of policy and thinking. The main obstacles
are;

• Many Owners have little professional possibility to judge what is proposed by their consultants
and will in many cases reject anything that seems to be an experiment.
• A natural and obvious variation in knowledge, competence and initiative among consulting
companies, to motivate and promote other solutions than the (locally) well known and proven.
Design principles and technical specifications are therefore very often blocking more economic
solutions, even when such solutions are proposed, e.g. during the bidding process.
• Contractual models developed on the basis of a fixed design, fixed practical solutions and fixed
quantities, leaving very little flexibility for adjustments and improvements. The contract
documents tend to be nit-picking on details to safeguard the Owner against “not so trustworthy
contractors", thus loosing the opportunity of drawing positively on the experience of the
contractor.
• This basic approach is convenient in the sense that there is less decision making necessary during
construction, less responsibility to be delegated to the Site and it is easier to manage. But, these
aspects are also blocking flexibility to adapt to variation in rock quality.

In all parts of the world there is a growing demand for underground construction, especially in urban
areas. Typically, this demand is higher than the available financial resources. This is the case in
modem countries as well as in third world countries. The economic realities are therefore, with high
probability, the reason for an internationally growing interest in the single shell lining concept. One
example is the research program on the subject proposed to the Eli by six companies from the
industry, with a three year budget of more than CHF 3 million. The Geofronte organisation in Japan is
currently also evaluating the single shell concept.

DESIGN

It is a quite normal approach in tunnel support design, to use as a basis the rock quality assumptions
established after the pre-investigation stage. This is frequently combined with a two step execution of
a primary (temporary) shotcrete lining, foil owed by a permanent lining (in-situ mass concrete) at a
later stage. A waterproofing membrane is often placed in between these two steps. This quite normal
approach is over conservative, takes too long time and therefore cost more than what is really
necessary. Some of the reasons for the high cost are:

• The primary support must in most cases be structurally equal to a permanent lining, since the time
until final lining installation can be several months.
• The permanent lining is pre-designed (often only one solution for the whole tunnel, or for long
sections, based upon pre-investigations). The design, consequently, has to cover the worst case
conditions and the existence of a primary lining is disregarded.

Many tunnelling professionals have realised that one answer to the above problems, lies in the single
shell sprayed concrete permanent lining. The simple logic behind this method, is that all shotcrete
applied, at the face and later behind the face, is considered part of the permanent lining. It is of
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 2 of 11
course, combined with rock bolts, lattice girders, steel beams and reinforcement as required. The
longest experience and the greatest volume of such support solutions, can probably be found in
Scandinavia, this approach being dominant since WW II, for several thousand km of tunnels.

A modern single shell solution for a drill and blast excavated tunnel, using medium level cost figures
for steel fibre reinforced shotcrete, systematic rock bolting and the excavation (drill and blast relative
cost = 100) [3], would produce a total relative cost figure of 225. For the same tunnel a total relative
cost with a traditional approach, could amount to (excavation + temporary support + in situ concrete
lining) about 500.

One reason for this extreme cost difference has to do with concrete quantities. A simple example
calculation will illustrate the situation (see figure 1):

• Assume a drill and blast tunnel through a heavily jointed rock mass, resulting in an average
overbreak outside of the theoretical rock contour of 15% (cross section area increase).
• Thickness of traditional concrete lining specified as minimum 350 mm for a net tunnel diameter of
8.0m. For calculation simplicity, the tunnel is chosen circular with full lining:

We have to add 0.7 m diameter to the net 8.0 m to allow for concrete lining thickness. The 8.7 m
diameter then defines the minimum theoretical blasted rock contour. With an average cross
sectional area increase of 15% due to overbreaks, the average actual diameter becomes 9.33m.
To meet the requirement of a minimum lining thickness of 350 mm, because of overbreaks the
average thickness turns out to be 660 mm, with a concrete consumption of 18 m3 per meter
tunnel.

In the case of a sprayed concrete solution, a 200 mm average thickness on the same actual rock
surface, would amount to 5.7 m3 per meter tunnel. This concrete would typically be steel fibre
reinforced and combined with permanent rock bolts and reinforced ribs locally.

660.000

Minimum specified
Tunnel side
concrete lining thickness Actual rock surface
Minimum diameter 8.0m
=theoretical blasting with 15% average
contour overbreak

18m3/m
Steel fibre
5.7m3/m reinf.shotcrete
with bolts etc

200.000
Figure 1. Concrete quantities

In a comparison between a single shell solution and a traditional permanent concrete lining, it is
important to be aware that most of the shotcrete application (with supplements like rock bolting,
reinforced ribs etc.) would have to be executed in any case, to ensure stability until installation of
the permanent lining. The added efforts needed for sufficient quality and durability as a permanent
support, obviously, are quite limited.

Two more issues are important. Firstly, the theoretical rock contour diameter could be reduced, if
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 3 of 11
 a single shell solution is planned (local necessity of thicker concrete with reinforced ribs can be
covered by locally increased blasting diameter), thus reducing rock volume as well as sprayed
concrete volume. Secondly, when there is a local need of reinforced shotcrete ribs, the design must
allow these ribs to be placed onto the actual rock contour and not to be based upon pre-fabricated
beams or girders with a fixed theoretical diameter. Otherwise, there will locally be substantial and
unnecessary backfilling volumes between rib and rock surface.

For full advantage of the single shell lining, it is a prerequisite to get away from pre-decided lining
design. The solution is to apply the principles of the Observational Method (OM).

The basic elements of the method are as outlined below [4]:

• Rock support classes shall be designed for the expected variation in rock conditions as a
rock support prognosis. In this design work, any and all kinds of empirical- and calculation
methods can be used, as considered necessary and useful.
• Verification of the prognosis shall take place after excavation and support installation, by
visual inspection, monitoring of deformations, stresses, loads, water pressure and any other
means as considered necessary. Adjusted or added support, to be installed as required
locally, also subject of subsequent verification.
• The prognosis shall be updated by feedback of data from previous steps, to decide upon
possible design adjustments.

The advantages of the Observational Method are obvious. The mountain is being used as a full scale
“laboratory", where known and unknown parameters are involved and covered. It allows a flexible
work procedure, immediate action when necessary and support adapted to the actually encountered
conditions. Normally, this gives less conservative and less costly solutions. Of course, the support
classes for the different rock qualities, must each of them cover a reasonable range, to avoid changing
the support solution too frequently along the tunnel alignment.

If it is considered necessary to apply a very conservative support solution, a verified stable support
situation, can still be followed by a full length extra concrete layer to provide a “safety factor”.

SHOTCRETE FOR PERMANENT LINING

In a package solution of OM design principles and single shell permanent sprayed concrete lining, it is
a requirement to deliver a shotcrete quality satisfactory for a permanent lining. This requirement must
be satisfied from the first shotcrete
Steel Fibre Rebound
application at the face, through all
Concrete International , May '92 and June '94 subsequent shotcrete layers behind the
face. When shotcrete is chosen as the
Diam.0.5,L=28mm
main support element for a major part
0.45x.0.53 , L=25mm of a tunnel, the choice of spraying
0.5x1.35 , L=32.5mm Dry MIx
method becomes very important. In
Wet mix
almost all cases, the wet mix method
0.5x2.75 , L=32.5mm
will be the best choice. Especially if
0.25x1.12 , L=25.5mm steel fibre reinforcement is used, while
D.Wood et al 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 the wet method is very practical and
Figure 2. Steel Fibre rebound % suitable for steel fibre application.
Typically, the wet mix method shows
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 4 of 11
a 10% steel fibre rebound rate, while the dry mix method gives about 50% [4]. See figure 2.
The available documentation and project references covering the advantages of wet mix shotcrete,
manipulator application and steel fibre reinforcement are now quite substantial and unequivocal. The
advantages will be found within working safety, working environment, capacity, rebound, overall
economy and quality and durability [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

Ground water control is a must. High quality shotcrete production in the face area, under “rainy”
conditions, is simply not possible. Refer to [3] for specific information on pre-injection, which can be
successfully used to solve this problem.

In addition to the well established advantages mentioned above, which the interested reader should
verify’ by first hand inspection of the references, the latest developments within admixtures and alkali
free accelerators have further improved the method.

Alkali free accelerators

The alkali free accelerators for sprayed concrete have been developed because of a market demand.
This demand always contains one or more of the following issues:

1. Reduction of risk of alkali-aggregate reaction, by removing the alkali content arising from the use
of the common caustic, aluminate based accelerators.
2. Improvement of working safety, by reduced aggressiveness of the accelerator. This to avoid skin
burns, accidental loss of eyesight and respiratory health problems.
3. Environmental protection, by reducing the amount of released aggressive and other harmful
components to ground water, from sprayed concrete and its rebound.
4. Reduced loss of sprayed concrete final strength, normally in the range of 15 to 50% with
traditional accelerator products.

The focus varies within different countries, regarding the above four points. When sprayed concrete is
used for permanent structures, the items 1 and 4 are the primary ones, along with durability
requirements.
Regarding the need for improved working conditions, powder products are considered counter
productive. The reason is that powder dosage and transport is carried out in a compressed air
thin-stream. This extra air has to evacuate from the concrete jet, and it unavoidably transports some
of the powder into the surroundings.

Table 1.

Pos. Type: SA14O SA145 SA 160

1 Physical form Dispersion Dispersion Dispersion
2 Alkali cations <0.5% <0.5% <0.5%
3 pH 5.5 5.5 2.5-3
4 Thickness 100mm 150mm 300mm
5 Dosage 3-6% 3-7% 4-10%
6 Rel. cost/m3 2.5 2.3 1.7
7 Early strength Good Good Very good
8 Corrosiveness Low Low Low
9 Equipment Standard Standard Stainless
10 Effect on skin Not classified Not classified Not classified
11 Handling Simple Simple Simple
12 Cement sensitive Yes Yes No

copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 5 of 11

Liquid products presented in this paper, are MEYCO® SA 140, 145 and the MEYCO® SA 160.
The project experience basis has now passed 700 tons. The general properties can be found in
Table 1.

Results from the Huslen Tunnel, Switzerland

Some mix design data and other conditions recorded:

• Cement 42.5 Siggenthal (slow setting) 450 kg/m3
• Aggregate 0-8 mm
• Plastisizer Rheobuild® T3 1.2%
• Delvo®crete Stabilizer for 6 hours hydration stop
• water/cement ratio 0.41
• Spread table consistency 56cm
• Temperature air 13oC
• Thickness sprayed 150 mm
• Rebound, measured (with SA 160) 8%

Compressive strength results from core samples, not converted to cube strength are given in table 2:

MPa after
Accelerator type 12h 24h 3d 7d 28d
SA 140 (5%) 18.5 23.5 45 49 61
SA 160 (5-6%) 27 29 34 47 57

MEYCO® TCC 735, Concrete Improver

An alternative is now available for the curing of sprayed concrete, especially favourable under
extreme conditions like high temperatures, strong ventilation and multi-layer application.

Sprayed concrete is mostly applied in relatively thin layers. The surface has a high roughness and in
tunnelling, the ventilation air can be fast flowing and dry. At deep levels the rock temperature may be
30 to 50 This has the effect that applied shotcrete may be dried out, sometimes even from both
0C.

sides, much too quickly for a good curing and hydration.

Practically, constant water spraying is normally not feasible and sprayed surface membranes have to
be removed before the application of a next concrete layer. This is complicating the work by extra
working steps and thereby increasing the cost.

Consequently, there is often no treatment carried out, resulting in reduced bond to the substrate, or
between layers, shrinkage and crack development, reduced concrete quality and higher concrete
permeability. Combined, this will negatively influence a number of concrete quality and durability
properties.

MIEYCO® TCC 735 is used as a normal concrete admixture, added to the concrete at the batching
plant. The effect of the admixture is primarily linked to a more homogeneous hydration of cement
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 6 of 11
particles, throughout the cross section of the sprayed concrete layer. One reason for its efficiency, is
that the product is working from the very first second after application (with sprayed membranes, the
time lag until application of the membrane may reduce its effect).

Advantages of MEYCO® TCC 735.

• No time consuming application of a spray on membrane followed by its removal before

application of the next shotcrete layer.
• No quality assurance problem and checking procedures, that the spray on membrane is applied
within time, in necessary quantity and with a uniform distribution and coverage.
• No negative effect on bond between layers
• A positive side effect is the improved pumpability and workability of the concrete. This is
particularly noticeable with difficult aggregates and when using steel fibres.
• The general concrete quality effect is proven to be at least equal to a proper use of spray on
membranes. Compared to shotcrete left untreated, the concrete characteristics like density, final
strength, freeze/thaw and chemical resistance, water tightness and shrinkage and cracking are all
improved.

From a major shotcrete application under ground in the Middle East:

• Inter layer bond strength up from 0.5-0.7 to consistently above 2.0 MPa.
• Spray on membrane, in comparison, brought results of 0.7-1.2 MPa
• Density increased by 15% compared to sprayed concrete with spray on membrane
• Final strength increase of about 10%
• No concrete cracks

Results from Austria:

A comparison between sprayed concrete panels covered with spray on membrane, or the same
concrete with MEYCO® TCC 735, both at 25o C, 65% humidity and 3 m/s air speed, in both cases
with a normal caustic aluminate accelerator, gave the following results [11]:

The crack width after two months was 0.35 mm in both cases. The measured shrinkage was also
the same (-0.74 mm/m with membrane and -0.73 mm/m with TCC 735). The bond strength was
improved from 1.15 to 2.03 MPa the water suction from 0.69 to 0.37 g/cm2 and the water
tightness from 36 mm penetration to 29 mm by the TCC 735. In freeze/thaw test and
measurement of depth of carbonation, there was a marginally better result with spray on
membrane (3313 to 3987 g/m2 and from 2 to 3 mm respectively).

An extensive testing program carried out in co-operation between MBT R&D and the University of
Innsbruck (a total of 3.5 tons of cores were drilled and inspected), covered issues like depth of
carbonation, freeze/thaw/de-icing salt resistance, water tightness, bond strength, early- and final
strength, shrinkage and cracking patterns. All tests were carried out according to Austrian or
international norms [12]. The conclusion was that the Concrete Improver can technically replace
spray on curing membranes, with substantial advantages in practicality and economy.

WATER, FROST AND GEOMETRY

Fore some tunnels the use of probe drilling and pre-injection will not be necessary or useful.
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 7 of 11
Furthermore, local leakage points may occur, even if pre-injection has been carried out. One solution
when water appears is to drill local drainage holes with inserted hoses or pipes to ensure free passage
of water through the fresh shotcrete layer. Negative influence on the shotcrete quality can thus be
avoided. For water tunnels, sewage tunnels and similar, this may be a satisfactory permanent solution.
if frost can be ruled out, such a solution could be acceptable even for traffic tunnels, provided the
hoses are taken down to the drainage.

Figure 3. Frost insulation and drip protection

For traffic tunnels in areas where frost may occur, ground water cannot be allowed to freeze, or to
appear on the concrete surface or on the road. For road tunnels, there will, additionally, often be
requirements on the surface geometry and appearance. For a driver of a car, the light conditions and
the visual reference effect of a smoothly curving tunnel wall, is important for safe driving. A single
shell, permanent shotcrete lining applied on hard rock, excavated by drill and blast, will not satisfy the
above mentioned requirements.

A widely applied solution in Norwegian road tunnels is shown in figure 3. This system takes care of
insulation against frost, conducting the drip water down to the drainage system in the invert and
provides a surface quality equal to in situ concrete lining. The sprayed concrete is also protecting the
insulation against fire, primarily to avoid toxic fumes from the insulation material. The figure 3 shows
precast concrete elements in the wall area, which is used for tunnels with very high traffic loads. For
less trafficked tunnels, the sprayed concrete shell is often extended down to the invert.

Figure 4 shows the light weight steel fixation rib (spacing along the tunnel axis about 3.0 m) and the
details of the joint between sheets of polyethylene foam. All steel parts are corrosion protected.
Erection of this type of shell is normally carried out at a rate of about 1 km per month. The cost can
typically be stipulated at below USD 2000 per meter, or around USD 80 per m2 for the sprayed
concrete part.
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 8 of 11
 Sprayable membranes
One option for the sealing between
primary and secondary sprayed
concrete, as a sandwich part of a
single shell support solution, is the
use of a sprayed membrane. A
number of different systems are
possible for such a purpose, but the
patent applied Masterseal® 340
seems to be a good alternative.

Masterseal® 340 is a waterborne

one-component polymer
dispersion, that can be safely
sprayed under ground. It bonds to
humid and wet concrete surfaces
Figure 4. Joint and fixation rib with a bond strength from 0.7 to
1.2 MPa (which is similar to the
bond between shotcrete layers). The elasticity is 100 to 200% between -20 and +30 which is
0C,

important for crack bridging. The membrane is resistant to the alkaline concrete environment and
expected performance life is better than 25 years.

In comparison to the traditional polyethylene membranes, that are in sheet form, there is one very
important advantage:

• If, for any reason there is a point damage to the sprayed

membrane, the probability that there is water tight concrete behind
the leakage point is very high. A point leakage in a sheet membrane
will almost certainly produce an actual leakage, where the water may
appear on the concrete surface far away from the leakage point in
the membrane.
•
ROCK BOLT SYSTEMS
There are a number of different rock bolt systems available in the
market. As part of a single shell permanent lining, the bolts will have
to be properly corrosion protected. What is required may vary from
case to case, but the best solution available, is probably the CT bolt
shown in figure 5. The steel is hot dip galvanised, zinkphosfate
treated and epoxy coated. Additionally, the bolt is protected over
the full length within rock, by one layer of mortar, a plastic pipe and
another mortar layer. Figure 6 shows the mortar injection system.

When it is necessary to place spiling anchors, it is today possible to

Figure5. CT-Bolt
in the mortar
copyright MBT Holding AG 1997
execute this process with a satisfactory quality for permanent
support. By using the GSA anchor system shown in figure 7, it is
possible to:
• guarantee placement of all bolts to full specified length
• all bolts will be fully embedded in mortar and will be centralised
page 9 of 11
 • full corrosion protection by high quality, non shrink mortar
(Flowcable) and by epoxy coated reinforcement steel bars
as mentioned above

CONTRACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

It is obvious that a contract system based on fixed quantities for

rock support under a pre-designed support solution, which has
to be carried out regardless of actual rock conditions, is
incompatible with the prerequisites for the use of single shell
shotcrete linings and Observational Method design approach.
The flexibility and adaptability required by nature, has to be
reflected in the contract model.

Fig.7. Drilling, bolt insertion and injection/retraction

This approach may sound frightening to some owners and

planners, since it includes an element of the unknown in terms of
a difference between actually executed as compared to what is
assumed in bidding documents. This may, however, be quite
easily handled and the measures are very well described in ref
[12]. If pre-injection is part of the tunnelling process, it will of
course never be possible to accurately estimate the quantities in
advance. This fact should not be used as an argument to throw
away a method offering a substantially lower cost, with some
limited cost uncertainty. Bottom line is, what is executed and
paid for, is what has been established as actually necessary. No
more, no less.
It is furthermore extremely important that a built in contractual
flexibility is linked to a motivation factor leading the Contractor
Figure 6. CT-Bolt injection
to assume the same interest as the Owner. By saving
construction time, the Contractor will save money, and the

copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 10 of 11

Owner will in many cases save an order of magnitude more. In the case of a hydro power
development, it is often so that the Owner will save some hundred USD per day and MW installed
production capacity. By offering only a small part of this as a premium to the Contractor, as part of
the terms of contract, it is sometimes amazing what positive effect can be recorded [3].

REFERENCES
1•.Austrian Concrete Society. “Guideline Shotcrete”, Final Draft Issue, Vienna 20. February 1997.
2•.Barton, N. “Investigation, Design and Support of Major Road Tunnels in jointed Rock using NMT
Principles”, IX Australian Tunnelling Conference, August 27-29 1996, Sydney, Australia.
3•.Garshol, K.F. “Pre-Injection in Hard Rock Tunnelling”, Proceedings of Tunnelling Asia ‘97, 20-24
Jan., 1997, New Delhi, India.
4•.Garshol, K.F. “High Performance Wet Mix Shotcrete”, Proceedings of Design and Construction of
Underground Structures, 23-25 Feb., 1995, New Delhi, India.
5•.Wood, D. et. al. Concrete International, May 1992 and June 1994.
6•.Barton, N, and Grimstad, E. 1994. Rock Mass Conditions dictate choice between NMT and
NATM. Tunnels & Tunnelling, October 1992, pp. 39-42.
7•.Morgan, D.R. et.al. 1995. Toughness of Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete. Proceedings of Shotcrete for
Underground Support VII, Telfs, Austria 11-15 June, 1995.
8•.Garshol, K.F. 1995. Practical Experience of Steel Fibre Reinforced Wet Shotcrete in Large
Underground Construction projects. Proceedings of Shotcrete for Underground Support VII,
Telfs, Austria 11-15 June, 1995.
9•.Barton, N. et.al. 1992. Norwegian Method of Tunnelling. World Tunnelling and Subsurface
Excavation, June 1992 and August 1992.
10•.Sharma, V.M. et.al. 1995. Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete for Support of Underground
Structures. Proceedings of Design and Construction of Underground Structures, New Delhi, India
23-25 Feb., 1995
11•.Oberdorfer, W. 1995. Diplomarbeit, University of Innsbruck, Austria.
12•.Leikauf, B. and Oppliger, M. “Durability of Concrete. Quality Improvement by New Admixture
Types”. Accepted for the October 1997 CANMET/ACI conference on Superplastisizers and Other
Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, Venice, Italy.
13•.Kleivan, E. 1988. NOTCOS Norwegian Tunnelling Contract System. Norwegian Tunnelling
-

Today, PubI. No. 5, pp. 67-72.

copyright MBT Holding AG 1997 page 11 of 11