You are on page 1of 14

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A numerical procedure for the fictitious support pressure in the


application of the convergence–confinement method for circular
tunnel design
Lan Cui, Jun-Jie Zheng n, Rong-Jun Zhang, Han-Jiang Lai
Institute of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the vicinity of a tunnel face, the fictitious support pressure represents the support pressure acting on
Received 6 February 2015 the periphery of the tunnel provided by the rock mass itself. It is an indicator of the self-supporting
Received in revised form capacity of the rock mass.This paper aims at solving the fictitious support pressure on a circular tunnel
25 June 2015
with hydrostatic initial stress field. A numerical procedure for the fictitious support pressure is proposed
Accepted 3 July 2015
for the elastic-perfectly-plastic, elastic-brittle, and strain-softening rock masses. The procedure is com-
posed of two steps: first, the ground reaction curve (GRC) and the longitudinal deformation profile (LDP)
Keywords: are solved by a modified numerical approach; in this step, the finite difference method is utilised to
Fictitious support pressure derive the strain components, the stress components, and the radius of the plastic zone; then, by cou-
Circular opening
pling the GRC and LDP, a fictitious support pressure is obtained by a simplified approach. By using the
Tunnel face effect
proposed procedure, the influencing factors of the fictitious support pressure, such as the critical plastic
Finite difference method
Strain-softening behaviour. softening parameter, the rock mass quality, the dilatancy angle and the initial stress condition are studied
individually. The results indicate that the effect of the critical plastic softening parameter on the fictitious
support pressure, especially for the rock mass with good quality is obvious. For a rock mass with strong
dilatancy behaviour, the fictitious support pressure ahead of the tunnel face decreases rapidly. The elastic
assumption of the rock mass behaviour will underestimate the stress relief factor by a large extent.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction, convenient tool to optimise the support design. However, the


dissipation of the tunnel face effect or the decrease of the fictitious
The convergence–confinement method (CCM) is a widely used support pressure is not reflected by the traditional approach.
tool to estimate the load imposed on the support. It suggests that Moreover, the support structures and rock reinforcement in
in the vicinity of a tunnel face, part of load is carried by the face practical cases can be fairly complex. In most cases, the rock bolts
itself; this is called the tunnel face effect1. The fictitious support are non-uniformly distributed; and different types of support are
pressure is a surrogate for the presence of the tunnel face effect. installed. In this aspect, the elastic stiffness of SCC is difficult to
Based on whether the fictitious support pressure is considered represent the support properties.
or not, the existing studies deal with the CCM mainly by two ap- The improved approach can overcome the above limitations. It
proaches. By the traditional approach2–6, the intersection of the introduces the fictitious support pressure and analyses the me-
support characteristic curve (SCC) and the ground reaction curve chanical behaviour of the support-ground system more
(GRC) is regarded as the equilibrium point of the ground-support realistically13-19. Before the support installation, the rock mass is
system. The GRC can be estimated by the analytical approach for assumed to be supported by the fictitious support pressure. After
the elastic-perfectly-plastic and elastic-brittle rock mass 7-9, and the support installation, as the tunnel face moves forwards, the
the numerical approach for the strain-softening rock mass10-12. previous fictitious support pressure is gradually unloaded and the
The SCC can be obtained for the shotcrete, steel set and ungrouted support or reinforcement deforms and carries the load. This stage
bolt by the empirical equations presented in Ref. 1 and the com- can be realised by the numerical method. A wide range of support
posite support in Ref. 4. The traditional approach provides a types can be simulated.
For the studies with the improved approach, the fictitious
n
Corresponding author. support pressure at the tunnel face was usually simplified as 50–
E-mail address: zhengjj@hust.edu.cn (J.-J. Zheng). 70% of the initial stress based on the assumption that the rock

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.07.001
1365-1609/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 337

mass is an elastic material and undergoes a displacement of ap- 2. Problem statement


proximately 30–50% of the final displacement13-17. Actually, the
fictitious support pressure is found to be influenced by the me- 2.1. Improved approach to apply the CCM (convergence–confinement
chanical characteristics of the rock mass such as the plastic soft- method)
ening behaviour, the dilatancy behaviour, the initial stress condi-
The interaction between the rock mass and support by the
tions and rock mass quality. The fictitious support pressure at a
improved approach is shown in Fig. 1. The longitudinal deforma-
certain distance to the tunnel face should be predicted as it di-
tion profile (LDP) is the radial displacement which occurs along
rectly relates to the load on the support during the tunnel ex-
the longitudinal direction of an unsupported excavation. The
cavation. However, it is regrettable that the fictitious support
ground reaction curve (GRC) is defined as the decreasing internal
pressure in the aforementioned studies is estimated in an overly pressure and increasing radial displacement at the periphery of
simplified way. the circular tunnel. The derivation of GRC is a two-dimensional
The objective of this paper is to bridge the gaps between the problem under the plain strain condition. The cross-section A–A′ is
methods. It mainly covers three parts: to develop a numerical used to discuss GRC. As illustrated in Fig. 1, before the initial stage,
procedure for the fictitious support pressure of a circular tunnel; the pressure on the rock mass is the fictitious support pressure pf,
to validate the proposed procedure by comparing with the nu- and pf at a certain location x can be solved by coupling LDP and
merical results of other studies, and; to study the influencing GRC. For intermediate and final stages, the pressure on the rock
factors of the fictitious support pressure, such as the critical plastic mass is provided by the tunnel face and the support, which is the
softening parameter, the rock mass quality, the dilatancy angle and sum of the fictitious support pressure pf (pf,int and pf,fin) and the
the initial stress condition. support pressure ps (ps,int and ps,fin). The ground-support system
reaches equilibrium for every excavation step. Thus, pf and ps are
variable in the process. When the tunnel face effect disappears at

Fig. 1. Interaction between rock mass and support by improved approach.


338 L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram for solving fictitious support pressure pf .

the final stage, pf decreases to zero and the interaction process distributed along the excavation boundary. Before the support
ceases. installation, pi is equal to pf. During the interaction process of the
The pf along the tunnel axis represents the tunnel face effect ground-support system, pi is composed of the fictitious support
from a quantitative standpoint. The schematic diagram to solve pf pressure pf and the support pressure ps, which are provided by the
is presented in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, u0 at a given distance x of tunnel face effect and the installed support, respectively.
the LDP corresponds to the pf in the GRC. Hence, prior to pre-
dicting pf, the LDP and GRC should be presented first. 2.3. Failure criterion and the flow rule

2.2. Basic assumptions According to the theory of plasticity21-22, the deformation


process is characterised by a failure criterion f and a plastic po-
Before solving the LDP and GRC, the following assumptions are tential g. f and g depend not only on the stress tensor sij, but the
to be employed: plastic softening parameter η. The failure criterion is defined as
The opening is circular. The initial stress field is hydrostatic and follows:
axisymmetric. In the plane perpendicular to the axis of the tunnel,
f (σij, η) = 0 (1)
a plane strain condition is postulated. sr and sθ represent the
minor principal stress s3 (i.e. the confining stress) and major In the existing studies, η is often assumed to be the difference
principal stress s1, respectively. between the major and minor principal plastic strains under a
Good to very good quality rock mass (GSI475, where GSI is the plane strain condition, i.e.2,3,10-12
Geological Strength Index), the average quality rock mass
(25oGSIo75), and the low quality rock mass present the elastic– η = ε1p − ε 3p (2)
brittle–plastic, strain-softening and elastic-perfectly-plastic beha-
For an axisymmetric condition, Eq. (2) can be rewritten as
viours, respectively20. Based on this, elastic-perfectly-plastic (EPP),
strain-softening (SS) and elastic-brittle (EB) rock masses are analysed η = εθp − εrp (3)
here. The rock mass is isotropic, continuous, infinite and initially
elastic.
According to the above assumptions, Fig. 3 presents the dis-
tribution of the plastic zones in EPP, SS and EB rock masses and 2.3.1. Failure criterion
corresponding stress–strain relationships. A hydrostatic stress The widely used Mohr–Coulomb (M–C) and Hoek–Brown (H–
field s0 exists prior to the excavation. The radius of the circular B) failure criteria are accommodated here. The M–C failure cri-
opening is R0. sr2 and sθ2 are the radial and tangential stresses at terion is expressed as follows:
the elasto-plastic boundary. The radius of the plastic zone for the f (σ1, σ3, η) = σ1 − Kφ σ3 − 2C Kφ = 0 (4)
EPP rock mass and the radius of the plastic residual zone for the EB
rock mass are denoted by Rp. For the SS rock mass, the radii of the where Kφ and C are the friction coefficient and cohesion of the
plastic softening and residual zones are denoted by Rp and Rr; the rock mass, respectively; Kφ is equal to (1 + sin φ) /(1 − sin φ) and
radial and tangential stresses at the plastic softening-residual φ is the friction angle.
boundary are sr1 and sθ1. An internal pressure pi is uniformly The latest version of H–B failure criterion23 is written as
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 339

Fig. 3. Distribution of plastic zone and corresponding stress–strain relationship (a) for EPP rock mass (b) for SS rock mass (c) for EB rock mass.

f (σ1, σ3, η) = σ1 − σ3 − σci (mb σ3/σci + s )


a
(5) ω(η) = ωres (EB rock mass) (7c)

in which sci is the uniaxial compression strength of the rock mass where η* is the critical plastic softening parameter. The paramter
in the intact state; mb, s and a are the strength parameters. η* is infinitely large for the EPP rock mass, and it is equal to 0 for
The H–B and M–C failure criteria for EPP, SS, EB rock masses can the EB rock mass. The parameters ωpeak and ωres are the peak and
be rewritten as residual values of a given strength parameter. For the SS rock mass,
ω reduces linearly with the increase in η during the plastic soft-
a(η)
f (σθ, σr, η) = σθ − σr − σci⎡⎣mb(η)σr/σci + s(η)⎤⎦ ening stage, and remain constant beyond the critical value η* (i.e.
in the plastic residual stage). For the EPP and EB rock masses, ω is
(H−B failure criterion) (6a) constant in the plastic or plastic residual zone.

f (σθ, σr, η) = σθ − Kφ(η)σr − 2C (η) Kφ(η)


2.3.2. Flow rule
(M−C failure criterion) (6b)
The M–C type of criterion is selected as the plastic potential
Now ω can represent any one of the strength parameters (mb, s, function g, which is written as
a, φ, or C), and the relation between η and ω can be expressed as
g (σθ, σr, η) = σθ − K ψ σr (8)
follows:

ω (η) = ω peak (EPP rock mass) (7a) where Kψ is the dilatancy coefficient, i.e.

1 + sin ψ
⎧ peak η Kψ =
⎪ω − (ω peak − ωres) , 0< η < η* 1 − sin ψ (9)
ω(η) = ⎨ η* (SS rock mass)
⎪ ωres, η ≥ η*
⎩ (7b) and ψ is the dilatancy angle.
340 L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

3. Determination of GRC 3.2.2. Stress and strain components in the elastic and plastic zones
In the elastic zone, the closed-form solutions of the stress
The closed-form solution of the GRC for EPP and EB rock components and strain components have been proposed by Ref. 25
masses can be obtained because the strength parameters in the According to Hooke's law, the elastic strain increments in the
plastic (or plastic residual) zone are constant. Relevant solutions plastic zone are:
can be found in Refs. 7,9,24-26,35. The derivation of the GRC for ⎧ e ⎫
⎪ Δε r (i) ⎪ 1 + μ ⎡1 − μ − μ ⎤ ⎧ Δσr (i) ⎫ ⎪ ⎪
the SS rock mass seems to be more complicated, which should be ⎨ ⎬= ⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬
solved by numerical methods8,10-12,25. For instance, Lee and
⎪ e ⎪
⎩ Δε θ(i) ⎭ E ⎣ − μ 1 − μ ⎦ ⎩ Δσθ(i) ⎭ ⎪ ⎪

(14)
Pietruszczak12 divided the potential plastic zone into a finite
in which E and μ are the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of
number of concentric rings, and calculated the increments of
the rock mass; Δεθ(e i) and Δεre(i) are the tangential and radial elastic
stress and strain for each ring in a successive manner. Carranza–
strain increments at the ith annulus.
Torres8 and Alonso et al.10 analysed the strain-softening rock mass
The increment of plastic softening parameter Δη(i) at the i th
by the self-similarity method. In this section, a modified numerical
annulus can be described as (referring to Eq. (3))
approach is proposed to solve the GRC in a simpler way.
Δη(i) = Δε θ(pi) − Δε rp(i) (15)
3.1. Finite difference method where Δεθ(p i) and Δεrp(i) are the tangential and radial plastic strain
increment at the ith annulus.
The finite difference method (FDM), proposed in Refs. 12 and In accordance with the non-associated flow rule, the relation
25 is utilised to cope with this issue. The plastic zone (also in- between Δεrp(i) and Δεθ(p i) is
cluding the plastic softening zone and plastic residual zone) is
Δε rp(i) = − K ψ Δε θ(pi) (16)
divided into a set of concentric annuli, where r(i) and r(i-1) are the
radii of the inner and outer boundaries of the ith annulus. At the In the plastic zone, the strain increment includes the plastic
outer boundary of the plastic zone, sr(0) and sθ(0) are equal to sr2 strain increment and elastic strain increment, then, the equation
and sθ2 at the elasto-plastic boundary. A constant radial stress can be written as
increment Δσr is assumed for each annulus, i.e.
ε r (i) + K ψ ε θ(i) = ε r (i − 1) + K ψ ε θ(i − 1) + Δε re(i) + K ψ Δε θ(e i) + Δε rp(i)
σr2 − pi
Δσr (i) = σr (i − 1) − σr (i) =
n (10) + K ψ Δε θ(pi) (17)
where n is the total number of the concentric annuli; and sr(i) In terms of the small strain case, the displacement compat-
denotes the radial stress at r = r(i) (i ¼ 0, 1, …, n). ibility is
du u
εr = , εθ =
3.2. Modified numerical approach dr r (18)

where u is the radial displacement of the rock mass, and r is the


3.2.1. Radial stress at the elasto-plastic boundary
radial distance to the centre of the opening. In order to solve the
According to Ref. 12, the radial stress at the elastio-plastic
strain components, Eq. (18) can be rewritten as:
boundary sr2 can be solved by the following equations:
Δu(i) u (i )
apeak ε r (i ) = , ε θ(i) =
(
σci mbpeak σr2/σci +s peak
) + 2σr2 − 2σ0 = 0 Δr(i) r(i) (19)

(H−B failure criterion) (11) where u(i) is the radial displacement at r ¼ r(i).
By combining Eqs. (14), (17) and (19), the radial displacement

(
σr2 = 2σ0 − 2C peak Kφ peak / Kφ peak + 1 )( ) u(i) can be expressed as:

(M−C failure criterion) (12) u (i ) =


( )
A (i − 1) r(i) r(i) − r(i − 1) + u(i − 1) r(i)
(
r(i) + K ψ (i) r(i) − r(i − 1) ) (20)
ares
σci (mbres σr2/σci + s res ) + 2σr2 − 2σ0 = 0 (H−B failure criterion)
where
A(i − 1) = εr (i − 1) + Kψ (i) εθ(i − 1)
σr2 = (2σ0 − 2C res Kφ res )/(Kφ res + 1) (M−C failure criterion) (1 + ν ) ⎡
+ E ⎣
Δσr (i) (1 − μ − Kψ (i) μ) + B(i−1) (Kψ (i) − Kψ (i) μ − μ) ⎤⎦ ,
The term sr2 in Eqs. (11) could be obtained by the Newton– and B(i − 1) = − Δσr + H (σr (i) ) − H (σr (i − 1) )
Raphson method. Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (19), εr(i) and εθ(i) can be obtained:
The relation between r(i) and r(i-1) in Ref. 12 was derived as
ε θ(i) =
u (i )
=
( )
A (i − 1) r(i)/r(i − 1) − 1 + u(i − 1) /r(i − 1)
r(i) 2H (σr (i)‵) + Δσr
=
r(i) (
r(i)/r(i − 1) + K ψ (i) r(i)/r(i − 1) − 1 ) (21)
r(i − 1) 2H (σr (i)‵) − Δσr (13)
Δu(i) r(i)/r(i − 1) − 1
where σr (i)‵ = (σ r (i) + σ r (i − 1) ) 2; and ε r (i ) = = − K ψ (i) ε θ(i) + A (i − 1) ⋅
Δr(i) 1 − r(i − 1)/r(i) (22)
⎧ a(i − 1)

( )
H σr (i)‵ = ⎨ (
⎪ σci m(i − 1)σr (i)‵/σci + s(i − 1) ) (H−B failure criterion)
;-
As illustrated in Eqs.(6), (10), (21), (22), sr(i), sθ(i), εr(i) and εθ(i)
⎪ can be determined provided that the geological characteristics (s0,
⎪C(i − 1) Kφ (i − 1) − σr (i)‵(1 − Kφ (i − 1) )(M−C failure criterion)
⎩ η*, ωpeak, ωres, sci) are given. If the selected Δsr is small enough
values of the strength parameters (m(i-1), s(i-1), a(i-1)) are calculated and the calculation accuracy is guaranteed, the stress components
by Eq. (7). (sr(i), sθ(i)) and the strain components (εr(i), εθ(i)) are in one-to-one
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 341

correspondence. models34. By the 2D axisymmetric model, Vlachopoulos and


Diederichs34 obtained the equations of the LDP for EPP rock mass,
3.2.3. Radius of the plastic zone i.e.,
The relation between R0 and Rp for EPP, SS and EB rock masses

can be derived as ⎪ u0*⋅e X* forX * < 0

R0 u* = ⎨
Rp = ⎪ − 3X*
n 2H (σ r (i)‵) + Δσr
∏i = 1 ⎩ ( )
⎪1 − 1 − u0* ⋅e 2R* forX * ≥ 0
2H (σ r (i)‵) − Δσr (23)
u0 1
where n is the number of the annulus at the internal boundary of u0* = = e−0.15R*
u0max 3 (25)
the circular tunnel.
Likewise, Rr of the SS rock mass can be written as where R* is the normalised plastic radius, defined as the ratio
R0 between the maximum plastic radius Rpmax and the tunnel radius
Rr =
j 2H (σ r (i)‵) + Δσr R0; Rpmax and u0max are the maximum radius of the plastic zone and
∏i = 1 the maximum radial displacement when the internal pressure pi is
2H (σ r (i)‵) − Δσr (24)
0; X* is the normalised distance to the tunnel face, defined as the
where j is the number of the annulus immediately outside the ratio between the distance to the tunnel face x and the radius of
plastic softening-residual boundary. the opening R0; u* is the normalised radial displacement at X*; u0*
is the normalised radial displacement at the tunnel face.
3.2.5. Discussion on the critical support pressure The rock mass reveals different softening behaviours. It seems
Eqs. (11) and (12) reveal that sr2 of the EPP, SS and EB rock to be incomprehensive to evaluate the LDP by regarding the
masses are calculated by s0, ωpeak and sci. Then, sr2 remains rock mass as either elastic,28,31 or elastic-perfectly-plastic
constant while s0, ωpeak and sci are determined. For the SS rock materials32-34. Based on the work of Ref. 34, Alejano et al.3 pro-
mass, if s0, η*, ωpeak, ωres, sci are defined and the calculation ac- posed the numerical and analytical approaches to obtain the LDP
curacy is reached, the stress components (sθ(i), sr(i)) and strain for the SS rock mass. For the analytical approach in Ref. 3, Rpmax is
components (εr(i) , εθ(i)) refer to the one-to-one correspondence. predicted by the regression fitting analysis of a large number of
As long as the plastic residual zone exists, when the accumulated numerical results from Ref. 10. Then, the LDP of the EPP and SS
Δη(i) is equal to η*, the plastic softening-residual boundary will be rock masses can be solved by substituting Rpmax into Eq.(25). By
reached and sr2 will decrease to sr1. As Δη(i) is the difference comparing the results of numerical approach (i.e. FLAC2D and 3D),
between Δεθ(i) and Δεr(i), then, η* corresponds to sr1.Therefore, the analytical approach is verified for solving the LDP. This means
sr1 remains constant while s0, η*, ωpeak, ωres, sci are determined. It that Eq. (25) of Ref. 34 is applicable for the SS rock mass. Hence,
is observed in the calculation process that if the support pressure the proposed study follows Eq. (25) to predict the LDP of the EPP
pi o sr1, both the plastic softening and residual zones are formed; and SS rock masses. It should be emphasised that Rpmax of the
if sr1 opi osr2, only plastic softening zone is formed; if pi 4sr2, no proposed approach differs from that of Ref. 3, in which Rpmax was
plastic zone is formed. Therefore, for given geological and geo- obtained by the fitting equation, whereas Rpmax of the proposed
metrical conditions, sr2 and sr1 are regarded as the critical support
approach is obtained by Eq. (23). Eq. (23) is found to be more
pressures for the appearances of plastic softening and residual simplified. Moreover, Rpmax by the proposed approach is proved to
zones, respectively. For the EPP and EB rock masses, the critical fit better with the numerical results by FLAC2D and 3D codes in
support pressure for the appearance of the plastic zone, or the Ref. 3 and this will be discussed later.
plastic residual zone is equal to sr2.
Although the proposed numerical approach is presented on the
basis of Ref. 12, the approach is different from that proposed in
5. Simplified approach for fictitious support pressure pf
Ref. 12 in the following way. Firstly, in Ref. 12, a parameter ρ is
introduced to indicate the ratio of r(i) to Rp. ρ should be solved
Due to the fact that the LDP relates u0 and x and the GRC relates
before obtaining r(i). In the proposed approach, r(i) can be directly
pi (or pf) and u0, the variation of pf versus x can be predicted by
obtained by Eq. (13); secondly, the compatibility equation used in
coupling the GRC and LDP. However, the above approach for the
Ref. 12 is more complicated than Eq.(18) or (19) presented here. On
GRC simply gives the solution of u0 by use of a certain pi (or pf).
this basis, solutions of εθ(i), εr(i), and ur(i) by their approach should
The solution of pf needs the reverse calculation process of the GRC.
be solved step by step, whereas εθ(i), εr(i), and ur(i) by the proposed
Although the iteration approach can obtain pf, the implementation
approach are explicitly shown in Eqs. (20)–(22); thirdly, the
of the procedure seems to be complicated.
solutions of Rr and sr1 are not mentioned in Ref. 12. Actually, Rr
Here, a simplified approach to obtain pf is proposed. The dia-
and sr1 are fairly important parameters in predicting the occur-
gram for evaluating pf is proposed in Fig. 4. As shown in Fig.4, if s0,
rence of plastic residual zone. Rr and sr1 are discussed by the
proposed approach.
η*, ωpeak, ωres, sci are defined, pf is 0, and the calculation accuracy
is reached, sr(i), εθ(i), and Rpmax can be determined by the GRC. u0 at
certain X * can be obtained on basis of the LDP solution. u0 should
4. Determination of LDP correspond to the tangential strain εθ(i) at a certain annulus r = r(i) .
This is because εθ(i) can be treated as the ratio of u0 to R0. More-
At present, the empirical and numerical approaches have been over, it should be noticed that εθ(i) correlates with sr(i). Conse-
proposed for predicting LDPs. Panet et al.27–29 and Chern30 de- quently, u0 corresponds to sr(i) at r = r(i). Since u0 is the radial
veloped the empirical equations based on in-place measurements displacement at the tunnel surface, sr(i) can represent the pressure
for different tunnels. Unlu and Gecek31, and Panet28 derived a pf acted at the internal boundary of the circular tunnel.
relationship for the LDP through the elastic analysis. New ap- In summary, the sequences of solving pf are: assume pi (or pf) is
proaches for EPP rock masses have recently been proposed based 0, solve the GRC to determine sr(i), εθ(i), and Rpmax ; obtain the LDP
on data fitting in 3D numerical models32,33 and 2D axisymmetric by Rpmax ; and then, obtain pf by correlating u0 (and εθ(i)) to sr(i).
342 L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram for pf evaluation.

Table 1 Table 2
Parameters of rock masses for verification of LDP. Parameters of rock masses for verification of GRC

A13 B13 C13 D13 E13 A211 B211 C27 D27

GSImax 75 60 50 40 40 GSImax – – – –
GSImin 40 35 30 27 – GSImin – – – –
mp 2.87 1.68 1.17 0.821 0.821 mp 7.5 1.7 2 0.5
sp /10  3 62.2 11.7 3.9 1.3 1.3 sp /10-3 100 3.9 4 1.0
mr 0.821 0.687 0.575 0.516 – mr 1 1 0.6 0.1
sr /10  3 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 – sr /10-3 10 0 2 0.5
φp /deg 29.52 25.68 23.13 20.64 20.64 φp /deg – – – –
C p / MPa 3.637 2.673 2.242 1.878 1.878 C p /MPa – – – –
φr /deg 20.64 19.42 18.21 17.49 – φr /deg – – – –
C r / MPa 1.878 1.707 1.536 1.432 – C r /MPa – – – –
ψ /deg 7.38 4.49 2.89 1.55 – ψ /deg – – – –
Kψp – – – – – Kψp – – 1.698 1.698

Kψr – – – – – Kψr – – 1.191 1.191


3 1.08 6.22 28.8 119 – 3 – – 10 12.5
η*/10 η*/10
E/GPa 36.5 15.4 8.66 4.87 4.87 E/GPa 40 5.5 5.7 1.38
pi /MPa 0 0 0 0 0 pi /MPa 0 5 – –
μ 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 μ 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.25
R0 /m 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 R0 /m 4 5 3 3
σ cip /MPa 35 35 35 35 35 σ cip /MPa 300 30 30 27.5

σ cir /MPa 35 35 35 35 35 σ cir /MPa 300 30 25 27.5


σ0 /MPa 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 σ0 /MPa 108 30 15 3.31

It should be mentioned that the concept of pf is different from


that of the LDP. As discussed before, to deal with the CCM, the
represent the SS rock mass. Case E1 represents the EPP rock mass.
traditional and improved approaches are classified. Essentially, pf
For the verification of the GRC solution, Table 2 lists four analysis
represents the improved method, whereas the LDP represents the conditions from Refs. 7 and 11. Cases A2 and B2 represent the EPP
traditional method. In the improved approach, pf can guide the and EB rock masses. Case C2 and D2 represent the SS rock mass.
support design by determining the load acted on the support, GSImin and GSImax indicate the values of GSI in the plastic residual
which has been referred by several researchers13-17. However, in zone and in the elastic zone, respectively. The H–B strength
the traditional approach, the support design cannot be guided by parameter a is equal to 0.5 for each case. The number of the annuli
the LDP itself. It should be conducted by combining the LDP, GRC n is selected as 1500 to confirm the calculation accuracy.
and SCC. Moreover, the SCC is restricted to a few support types by
the traditional approach, whereas a variety of the support types 6.1.1. GRC
can be realised by the improved approach with pf. Fig. 5(a) and (b) plot distributions of dimensionless radial dis-
placement by the proposed approach and the closed-form
approach7 for the EPP and EB rock masses. Fig. 5(c) and (d) plot the
6. Verification GRCs by the proposed approach and the multi-step brittle plastic
approach11 for the SS rock mass. As shown in Fig. 5, the dis-
6.1. Verification of LDP and GRC solutions placement distribution by the proposed approach shows a perfect
agreement with the closed-form solution7 for the EPP and EB rock
For the verification of the LDP solution, Table 1 lists five ana- masses. A very good matching of the GRC by the two approaches
lysis conditions from the examples in Ref. 3. Cases A1 to D1 for the SS rock mass is observed. Therefore, the proposed approach
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 343

Fig. 5. Comparison of radial displacement (a) u0 E /R0 σ0 versus r /R0 with case A2 (b) u0 E /R0 σ0 versus r /R0 with case B2 (c) GRC with case C2 (d) GRC with case D2.

for the GRC is practicable for the three types of rock mass. solution3 by H–B failure criterion. Compared with the analytical
solution for the M–C failure criterion, the proposed solution is
6.1.2. LDP closer to the FLAC2D solution3.
In Ref. 3, numerical and analytical approaches were proposed In order to show the advantage of the proposed approach over
to obtain the LDP. The numerical approach was conducted by use the analytical approach3, Fig. 7 plots the values of Rpmax for the SS
of FLAC2D code with Neumann boundary condition (applied rock mass by several approaches. The proposed approach, the
stress) and FLAC3D code with Dirichlet boundary condition (fixed numerical approach (FLAC2D and 3D) and the analytical approach3
displacement). For the analytical approach, Rpmax of the EPP rock are involved. The self-similar approach for M–C failure criterion
mass was obtained according to the solution in Ref. 8. Rpmax of the from Ref. 10 is included to make comparison. Fig. 7 shows that the
proposed solution tends to be closer to the numerical solutions by
SS rock mass was estimated according to the minimum square
Refs. 3 and 10. With low values of GSI, the analytical solution
fitting processes of statistical study for 400 tunnels. Then, the LDP
overestimates Rpmax to some extent. On the whole, in contrast to
of the EPP and SS rock masses can be solved by substituting Rpmax
the analytical approach, the results by the proposed approach fit
into Eq. (25). The result of the analytical approach shows good
better with the numerical results by FLAC2D and 3D. This means
agreement with that of the numerical approach (FLAC2D and 3D
the accuracy of the proposed approach for the LDP is acceptable.
codes3). In order to validate the accuracy of the proposed ap-
proach, on the basis of cases D1-E1, the calculated LDPs are com- 6.2. Verification of the fictitious support pressure solution
pared with those obtained by the numerical and analytical solu-
tions in Ref. 3. In fact, the simplified solution of pf has been deduced from a
Fig. 6 shows the comparison of the LDP solution of EPP and SS theoretical standpoint. The objective for verifying the simplified
rock masses by the proposed approach, and the approach taken in solution is to check whether the stress and the strain components
Ref. 3, with H–B and M–C failure criteria, respectively. As shown in refer to the one-to-one correspondence for a given condition. If
Fig. 6, for the EPP rock mass, the results by the proposed approach the stress and strain components remain constant when Δsr is
are highly consistent with those by FLAC2D and 3D codes3. For the very small, the simplified solution will be verified. Therefore, in
SS rock mass, the proposed LDP solution fits well with the FLAC3D this section, the solution of pf is validated by discussing the
344 L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

Fig. 6. Comparison of LDP solution (a) case E1 for EPP rock mass with H–B failure criterion (b) case E1 for EPP rock mass with M–C failure criterion (c) case D1 for SS rock
mass with H–B failure criterion (d) case D1 for SS rock mass with M–C failure criterion.

Fig. 7. Comparison of Rpmax solution for SS rock mass (a) M–C failure criterion (b) H–B failure criterion.

accuracy of the GRC solution. calculated by the strength constants mb, s, and a of H–B failure
Here, cases A3 and B3 with different qualities of the rock mass criterion according to the method introduced in Ref. 23.
are considered. The parameters are listed in Table 3. The equiva- Based on cases A3 and B3, η* is regarded as infinitely large, 0.01,
lent friction angle φ and cohesion C of M–C failure criterion are 0 to represent the EPP, SS and EB rock masses, respectively. The
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 345

Table 3 Table 5
Parameters of rock masses for cases A3 and B3
Different values of η* for case A3.

A3 B3
A3 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧

GSImax 75 50
ηn EPP 5 0.5 0.05 0.005 0.003 0.002 EB
GSImin 27 26
mi 16.30 12.00
mp 6.044 1.650
sp /10  3 50.987 2.5996
Table 6
ap 0.501 0.506
Different values of η* for case B3.
mr 0.916 0.626
sr /10  3 0.178 0.142
B3 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧
ar 0.527 0.530
φp /deg 45.359 32.4739 ηn EPP 5 0.5 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.001 EB
C p / MPa 6.216 3.077
φr /deg 29.827 24.405
C r /MPa 2.489 1.896
(number of the annuli) for EPP, SS and EB rock masses are listed in
E/GPa 30.0 9.0
μ 0.25 0.25
Table 4; n ranges from 25 to 5000.
R0 /m 5.0 5.0 As displayed in Table 4, the decreasing rate of u0max is re-
σ ci /MPa 110 80 markably reduced as n increases. When n is larger than 3000, the
σ0 /MPa 35 35 values of u0max are basically constant in most cases. Some cases will
not converge to a certain value when n reaches to 5000, whereas it
is acceptable since the decreasing rates of these cases are very
Table 4 small. In a word, the values in Table 4 validate the accuracy of the
Values of u0max with different n: (a) for EPP rock mass (b) for SS rock mass (c) for EB simplified approach for pf.
rock mass

case A3(H-B) case A3(M-C) case B3(H-B) case B3(M-C)


7. Discussion
(a)
n u0max (mm) u0max (mm) u0max (mm) u0max (mm)
The influences of the critical plastic softening parameter η*, the
25 8.1572 8.3088 62.108 58.177
50 8.1491 8.299 61.532 57.437
rock mass quality, the initial stress condition s0, and the dilatancy
75 8.1464 8.2957 61.308 57.194 coefficient Kψ, on the fictitious support pressure pf and the tunnel
100 8.1450 8.2940 61.185 57.073 face effect are discussed. It should be noticed that the tunnel face
125 8.1442 8.2930 61.107 57.000 effect is reflected by three typical distances X1*, X2* and X3*. Speci-
250 8.1426 8.2911 60.940 56.856
500 8.1417 8.2901 60.849 56.784 fically, X1* represents the distance to the tunnel face when the
750 8.1415 8.2897 60.818 56.758 tunnel face effect disappears. It is evaluated as an integer value for
1500 8.1412 8.2894 60.788 56.736 sake of simplicity. X2* and X3* represent the distances when the
2000 8.1411 8.2893 60.778 56.730 plastic softening (or plastic), and plastic residual zones appear,
3000 8.1411 8.2892 60.770 56.724
respectively. Essentially, X1* means the duration of the tunnel face
5000 8.1411 8.2892 60.764 56.719
(b) effect. It correlates with decreasing rate of the pf. X2* and X3* in-
25 8.4241 8.3629 151.05 104.94 dicate the stability of the rock mass during tunnelling.
50 8.4241 8.3538 152.80 101.74
75 8.4240 8.3508 153.99 100.48
100 8.4240 8.3493 154.69 100.06
7.1. Influence of the plastic softening parameter η*
125 8.4239 8.3484 155.41 100.08
250 8.4239 8.3465 156.32 99.817 Tables 5 and 6 list eight values of η* for cases A3 and B3 (the
500 8.4238 8.3456 156.63 99.740
EPP and EB rock masses included), respectively. The dilatancy
750 8.4238 8.3453 156.77 99.700
1500 8.4238 8.345 156.45 99.671 coefficient Kψ is regarded as 1.13.
2000 8.4238 8.3449 156.59 99.672
3000 8.4238 8.3448 156.63 99.653 7.1.1. Variation law of pf versus X*
5000 8.4238 8.3448 156.59 99.644
Figs. 8 and 9 plot the variation law of pf versus X * for analysis
(c)
25 16.887 15.120 12.554 144.09 conditions ①-⑧ with cases A3 and B3, respectively. It should be
50 16.872 15.042 12.287 139.54 mentioned that Figs. 8(b) and 9(b) indicate pf behind the tunnel
75 16.863 15.017 12.204 138.09
face. It is observed that the rock mass with a larger η* provides a
100 16.856 15.004 12.164 137.38
125 16.85 14.996 12.139 136.96 higher pf for a certain X *. Moreover, by comparing the results of
250 16.835 14.981 12.082 136.13 cases A3 and B3, it is observed that the rock mass with better
500 16.824 14.973 12.045 135.72
quality reveals a greater pf behind the tunnel face. This means that
750 16.82 14.971 12.030 135.58
1500 16.814 14.968 12.012 135.44 the rock mass with higher η* and better quality leads to a more
2000 16.814 14.967 12.007 135.41 stable rock mass behind the tunnel face. Table 7 lists the percen-
3000 16.814 14.967 12.002 135.38
tages of pf/s0 at X * = 0 for cases A3 and B3. It is found that the
5000 16.814 14.967 12.002 135.35
percentage of pf/s0 at X * = 0 decreases for 42.52% from η* = ∞(the
EPP rock mass) to η* = 0(the EB rock mass) in the case A3, whereas
H–B and M–C failure criteria are utilised, with Kψ regarded as 1. it decreases for 20.66% in the case B3. This means that pf of the
The values of the maximum radial displacement u0max (when the rock mass with better quality tends to be affected by η* more
internal pressure pi is 0) at the tunnel surface with different n significantly. Therefore, the influence of η* on the pf, especially for
346 L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

Fig. 8. Variation law of pf versus X * with case A3 (a) X * ranges from  10 to 10 (b) enlarged view of (a).

Fig. 9. Variation law of pf versus X * with case B3 (a) X * ranges from  10 to 10; (b) enlarged view of (a).

Table 7 smaller than that for the elastic condition, and a higher η* gives
Percentage of pf/s0 at X * = 0 for cases A3 and B3. rise to a larger value of pf. Consequently, for a given u0 /u0max (in the
practical tunnel engineering, u0 /u0max is commonly estimated by
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧
pf/s0 at X * = 0 (%) the field test data), the stress relieve factor fs will be under-

A3 68.30 68.30 68.28 68.12 53.09 33.38 31.9 25.78


estimated with the elastic condition, or with a η* higher than the
B3 34.81 34.81 34.11 24.99 15.09 13.16 14.45 14.15 reality. From a practical standpoint, the support design with these
conditions tends to become unsafe.

the rock mass with good quality, should be highlighted.


7.2. Influence of the initial stress σ0

7.1.2. Correlation between pf /σ0 and u0 /u0max


It is postulated that s0 varies from 5 MPa to 65 MPa with
On the assumption that the rock mass is elastic,
15 MPa in intervals. The case B3 is analysed, in which Kψ and η* are
(u0max − u0 )/u0max is solved as identical to pf /σ0. For example, in regarded as 1.13 and 0.01, respectively.
Ref. 36 it was argued that 30% of the u0max will be achieved when
the internal support pressure pi is taken to be equal to σ0 multi- 7.2.1. Variation law of pf versus X*
plied by 70%; for the researchers concerning the numerical si- Fig. 11 plots the variation law of pf /s0 versus X * for different s0
mulation in tunnelling 13,14,19, it is assumed that the stress relieve with the case B3. It shows that as s0 increases, pf /s0 decreases.
factor fs ( fs = 1 − pf /σ0 ) is equal to u0 /u0max . In fact, the rock mass Behind the tunnel face, the value of pf/s0 for s0 is 5 MPa, which is
behind the tunnel face reveals the plastic behaviour in most cases. remarkably greater than other conditions. This is because, the
Fig. 10 plots the relation between pf /σ0 and u0 /u0max for analysis plastic softening zone appears behind the tunnel face (when X* is
conditions ①–⑧ in cases A3 and B3. The elastic condition is in- 0.9963) for s0 is 5 MPa, whereas this zone appears ahead of the
cluded to make comparison. As shown in Fig. 10, while the same tunnel face for other conditions. The appearance of the plastic
value of u0 /u0max is determined, pf for analysis conditions ①–⑧ is softening zone gives rise to a fast reduction of the pf/s0. As a result,
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 347

Fig. 10. Relationship between pf /σ0 and u0 /u0max (a) case A3 (b) case B3.

Fig. 11. Variation law of pf with X * for case B3 (a) X * ranges from  10 to 10 (b) enlarged view of (a).

Table 8 mass give rise to relatively small decreasing rate of pf. The de-
X1* , X2* and X3* for different σ0 . formation of high s0 and weak rock mass near the tunnel face
increases significantly as pf is small. As a result, in order to prevent
s0/MPa 5 20 35 50 65
the rock mass from squeezing the support, the stress near the
X1* 5 6 6 7 8 tunnel face can be released prior to the interaction of the rock
X2* 0.10  0.16  0.98  1.54  1.96 mass and support. This conclusion can be validated by many case
X3* 0.42  0.50  1.21  1.71 histories of tunnels and mines37-40. In these cases, while con-
fronted with the squeezing problems for tunnels excavated in the
soft rock with the high initial stress condition, the workers install
Table 9
flexible or yielding support, or allow the deformation to relieve the
Five values of ψ and Kψ.
high stress. The purpose is to avoid the support buckling or
0 φ/8 φ/4 φ/2 φ breaking down when suffering from the heavy load and large
deformation.
ψ 0 3.56 7.11 14.23 28.45
Kψ 1 1.13 1.28 1.65 2.82

7.2.2. X1*, X2*, and X3*


values of pf/s0 with higher initial stress conditions are lower.
The values of X1*, X2* and X3* for different s0 are displayed in
Moreover, Fig. 11(b) indicates that for different high initial stress
Table 8. It is revealed that when s0 is 50 MPa, or 65 MPa, the
conditions (s0 is 25MPa, 35 MPa, 50 MPa, 60 MPa), the stress re-
plastic softening and residual zones emerge far ahead of the tun-
lieve factor fs (1 − pf /σ0 ) are basically identical, and the stress re-
nel face. Meanwhile, X1* develops with the increase in s0. Weaker
lease due to the excavation at the tunnel face is significant.
rock mass also leads to a higher X1*.
As indicated in Figs. 9 and 11, the higher s0 and the weaker rock
348 L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349

Fig. 12. Variation law of pf with X * for different ψ (a) X * ranges from  10 to 10 (b) enlarged view of (a).

Table 10 Conclusions
X1* , X2* and X3* for different ψ.
In this paper, for the circular tunnel subjected to a hydrostatic
ψ 0 φ/8 φ/4 φ/2 φ
condition, a numerical procedure to solve the fictitious support
6 6 6 6 5 pressure is presented. The procedure is mainly composed of two
X1*
 0.84  0.98  1.15  1.55  2.83
parts: a new numerical approach to solve the GRC and LDP, and a
X2*
 0.31  0.50  0.71  1.21  2.68
simplified approach to solve the fictitious support pressure. Then,
X3*
by comparing the calculated results with those in other studies, it
is indicated that the proposed procedure is capable of providing
reasonable estimation. In the end, a series of parametric studies is
7.3. Influence of dilatancy coefficient Kψ
carried out and the following conclusions are drawn:
The influence of the critical plastic softening parameter on the
Five values of the dilatancy angle ψ are selected to represent
fictitious support pressure, especially for the rock mass with good
different dilatancy behaviours of the rock mass. The case B3 is
quality, is obvious. The influence of the dilatancy behaviour on the
analysed. It is postulated that ψ is equal to 0, φ/8, φ/4, φ/2, φ,
fictitious support pressure is trivial.
respectively. For the sake of simplicity, the friction angle φ is The elastic assumption of the rock mass behaviour will un-
treated as the average value of the peak friction angle φpeak and derestimate the stress relieve factor during tunnelling. Thus, the
the residual friction angle φres in the case B3; η* is regarded as support design with elastic conditions tends to become unsafe. In
0.01, respectively. The calculated ψ and Kψ are listed in Table 9. addition, for different high initial stress conditions, the stress re-
lieve factors are significant, and basically identical.
7.3.1. Variation law of pf versus X* While the weak and soft rock mass is excavated in the high
initial stress field, the fictitious support pressure and its decreasing
Fig. 12 plots the variation law of pf versus X * for different ψ. It is
rate along the axial direction is relatively small. In order to prevent
observed in Fig. 12 that pf decreases as ψ increases. Fig. 12 reveals
the rock mass from squeezing the support, the high stress near the
that pf decreases rapidly far away ahead of the tunnel face when ψ
tunnel face can be appropriately released prior to the interaction
reaches φ. The area will become unstable due to the remarkable
of ground-support system.
reduction of pf. For the rock mass with high initial stress condition and strong
dilatancy behaviour, the plastic softening and residual zones
7.3.2. X1*, X2*, and X3* emerge far ahead of the tunnel face. In this case, the pre-re-
The values of X1*, X2* and X3* for different ψ are displayed in inforcement should be installed, allowing the rock mass to deform
Table 10. It is found that X1* remains constant until ψ increases to in a controlled manner and mobilise its strength.
φ. Consequently, ψ tends to have negligible impact on the duration
of the tunnel face effect. In contrast, the influence of ψ on X2* and
Acknowledgement
X3* are more obvious. For instance, the absolute values of X2* and X3*
for ψ = φ are 2.83 and 2.68, which are 3.37 and 8.65 times as large
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Na-
as those for ψ = 0, respectively. As listed in Table 8, the absolute
tional Natural Science Foundation of China (51278216 and
values of X2* and X3* for s0 ¼ 60 MPa are 1.98 and 1.71, respectively.
51478201) for the financial support, and to Professor Phil Dight for
This indicates that for the rock mass with high initial stress con-
providing assistance with English usage.
dition, or strong dilatancy behaviour, the plastic softening and
residual zones emerge far ahead of the tunnel face. In this case, the
rock mass in vicinity of tunnel tends to be unstable. In an effort to
References
prevent the rock mass from collapse, the pre-reinforcement
should be installed. This allows the rock mass to deform in a 1 Carranze-Torres C, Fairhurst C. Application of the convergence-confinement
controlled manner and mobilise its strength. method of tunnel design to rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure
L. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 78 (2015) 336–349 349

criterion. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2000;15(2)187–213. Sci. 1997;34(8)1165–1186.


2 Alejano LR, Alonso E, Rodriguez-Dono A. Application of the convergence-con- 21 Hill R. The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. New York: Oxford University Press;
finement method to tunnels in rock masses exhibiting Hoek–Brown strain- 1950.
softening behaviour. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2010;47:150–160. 22 Kaliszky S. Plasticity Theory and Engineering Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
3 Alejano LR, Rodriguez-Dono A, Veiga M. Plastic radii and longitudinal de- 1989.
formation profiles of tunnels excavated in strain-softening rock masses. Tunn 23 Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure criterion–2002 edi-
Undergr Space Technol. 2012;30:169–182. tion. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and
4 Oreste PP. Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the convergence- 17th Tunneling Association of Canada Conference. 2002: 267–273.
confinement approach. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2003;18:347–363. 24 Serrano A, Olalla C, Reig I. Convergence of circular tunnels in elastoplastic rock
5 González-Niciezaa C, Álvarez-Vigilb AE, Menéndez-Díazc A, González-Palacioa masses with non-linear failure criteria and non-associated flow laws. Int J Rock
C. Influence of the depth and shape of a tunnel in the application of the con- Mech Min Sci. 2011;48:878–887.
vergence-confinement method. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2008;23:25–37. 25 Brown ET, Bray JW, Ladanyi B, Hoek E. Ground response curves for rock tunnels.
6 Eisenstein Z, Branco P. Convergence-confinement method in shallow tunnels. J Eng Mech ASCE. 1983;109:15–39.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 1991;6(3)343–346. 26 Wang Y. Ground response of circular tunnel in poorly consolidated rock. J Eng
7 Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C. The elasto-plastic response of underground ex- Mech ASCE. 1996;122:703–708.
cavations in rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock 27 Panet M. Understanding deformations in tunnels. In: Hudson JA, editor. Com-
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1999;36(6)777–809. prehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 1. Oxford: Pergamon; 1993.
8 Carranzahy–Torres C. Self-similarity Analysis of the Elastoplastic Response of Un- 28 Panet M. Calcul des Tunnels par la Méthode de Convergence-Confinement. Paris:
derground Openings in Rock and Effects of Practical Variables, University of Min- Press de l’école Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées; 1995.
nesota, Minneapolis: 1998[Ph.D thesis]. 29 Panet M, Guenot A. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. London:
9 Sharan SK. Exact and approximate solutions for displacements around circular Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; 1982. p. 197–204.
openings in elasto-brittle-plastic Hoek–Brown rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 30 Chern JC, Shiao FY, Yu CW, An empirical safety criterion for tunnel construction.
2005;42:542–549. In: Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Sedimentary Rock Engineering.
10 Alonso E, Alejano LR, Varas F, Fdez-Manin G, Carranza-Torres C. Ground re- 1998: 222–227.
sponse curves for rock masses exhibiting strain-softening behaviour. Int J Numer 31 Unlu T, Gercek H. Effect of Possion’s ratio on the normalized radial displace-
Anal Method Geomech. 2003;27:1153–1185. ments occurring around the face of a circular tunnel. Tunnell Undergr Space
11 Wang SL, Yin XT, Tang H, Ge XR. A new approach for analyzing circular tunnel in Technol. 2003;18:547–553.
strain-softening rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2010;47:170–178. 32 Basarir H, Genis M, Ozarslan A. The analysis of radial displacements occurring
12 Lee YK, Pietruszczak S. A new numerical procedure for elasto-plastic analysis of near the face of a circular opening in weak rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
a circular opening excavated in a strain-softening rock mass. Tunn Undergr Space 2010;40:771–783.
Technol. 2008;23:588–599. 33 Pilgerstorfer T, Schubert W. Forward prediction of spatial displacement devel-
13 Carranza-Torres C, Rysdahl B, Kasim M. On the elastic analysis of a circular lined opment. Rock Engineering in difficult ground conditions-soft rocks and Karst.
tunnel considering the delayed installation of the support. Int J Rock Mech Min In: Proceedings of Europe Rock Mechanics Symposium. 2009: 495–500.
Sci. 2013;6:57–85. 34 Vlachopoulos N, Diederichs MS. Improved longitudinal displacement profiles
14 Carranza-Torres C, Diederichs M. Mechanical analysis of circular liners with for convergence confinement analysis of deep tunnels. Rock Mech Rock Eng.
particular reference to composite supports. For example, liners consisting of 2009;42:131–146.
shotcrete and steel sets. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2009;24:506–532. 35 Sharan SK. Elastic–brittle–plastic analysis of circular opening in Hoek–Brown
15 Schwartz CW, Einstein HH. Simplified analysis for tunnel supports. J Geotech Eng media. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2003;40:817–824.
Div ASCE. 1979;104(4)499–518. 36 Carranza-Torres C. Analytical and numerical study of the mechanics of rockbolt
16 Einstein HH, Schwartz CW. Discussion of the article: simplified analysis for reinforcement around tunnels in rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng.
tunnel supports. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE. 1980;106(7)835–838. 2009;42:175–228.
17 Schwartz CW, Einstein HH. Simplified analysis for ground-structure interaction 37 Wang KZ, Li ZK, Wang YP, Zhang ZZ, Liu YR. Study of strong flexible supporting
in tunnelling. In: Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Rolla: mechanism and deformation characteristics for fracture zone in large under-
University of Missouri; 1980: 787–796. ground caverns. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2013;32(12)2455–2462.
18 Osgoui RR, Oreste P. Elasto-plastic analytical model for the design of grouted 38 Liu CX, Wang L, Liu ZH, Huang DC, Zhang XL. Time effects of flexible inverted
bolts in a Hoek–Brown medium. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech. arch with composite structures to control stability of chamber adjoining with
2010;34:1651–1686. soft rock masses. Chin J Geotech Eng. 2012;34(8)1464–1468.
19 Fahimifar A, Ranjbarnia M. Analytical approach for the design of active grouted 39 He MC, Jing HH, Sun XM. Engineering Mechanics of the Soft Rock. Beijing: Science
rockbolts in tunnel stability based on convergence-confinement method. Tunn Press; 2002.
Undergr Space Technol. 2009;24:363–375. 40 Zhao XF. The Temporal and Spatial Effect in Construction and Control of Large
20 Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Deformation of Tunnels. Tongji University, Shanghai; [Ph.D thesis]2007.

You might also like