LECTURE 20 - OUTLINE

Tunnelling at depth - Squeezing

Conditions

ROCK MECHANICS 2

(a) Design analyses

Closed form solutions
Numerical solutions
(b) Case History

Giovanni Barla
Politecnico di Torino
STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

TUNNELS IN SQUEEZING CONDITIONS

CONSIDER
THE ONSET OF YIELDING WITHIN
THE ROCK MASS, AS DETERMINED BY
THE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
RELATIVE TO THE INDUCED STRESS
THE TIME DEPENDENT BEHAVIOUR

CLOSED FORM SOLUTIONS

ElastoElasto-plastic solutions for rock mass
response to excavation of a circular tunnel
If the rock mass is assumed to behave as an elastoelasto-plastic
isotropic medium, the following models can be used:
Elastic perfectly plastic (a)
ElastoElasto-plastic with strain softening behaviour (b)
ElastoElasto-plastic, with brittle behaviour (c)

(e.g.Brown et al.,1983;.Carranza
al.,1983;.Carranza--Torres and Fairhurst,1999)
Fairhurst,1999)

(a)

1-3

(a)

1-3

(b)

1-3

(c)

(b)
DESIGN ANALYSES

(c)

p0

ROCK MASS RESPONSE ANALYSIS

pi
p0

R
A

p0

Rpl

elastic

Support pressure pi

elastic
Support pressure pi

pi
p0

p0

Rpl

Critical
pressure

p0

SUPPORT RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Ground reaction curve / Rock characteristic line

elasto - plastic

Critical
pressure

Ground reaction curve / Rock characteristic line

Support
characteristic
line

elasto - plastic

Radial displacement ur

Radial displacement ur

DESIGN ANALYSES

12
10

= 1.25 cm
p
R
0

R pl

0.57

ur [mm]

ur
= 0.002 cm
p
R
0

/tunnel radius
radius/tunnel
Plastic zone radius

deformation/tunnel
/tunnel radius
Tunnel deformation

DESIGN ANALYSES

6
LADANYI
closed-form
FDM
FDM

with
lining/closed-form
con
rivestimento
LADANYI
with lining/FDM
con rivestimento FDM

2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

t [year]
0.4

Rock mass strength/in

strength/in situ stress

BASED UPON THE ABOVE SOLUTIONS DIMENSIONLESS PLOTS CAN BE

DERIVED FROM THE RESULTS OF PARAMETRIC STUDIES WHERE THE
INFLUENCE OF THE VARIATION IN THE INPUT PARAMETERS ARE STUDIED
BY THE MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OF ELASTIC
PERFECTLY PLASTIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE ROCK MASS, WITH ZERO
VOLUMETRIC CHANGE (HOEK,1998,1999)

DESIGN ANALYSES

0.3

Pc / P 0

Rock mass strength/in

strength/in situ stress

0.2

Closed-form
LADANYI
FDM

FDM
0.1

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

t [year]

DESIGN ANALYSES

NUMERICAL ANALYSES
The use of numerical analyses is advisable in
cases where the rock mass strength/in situ stress
ratio is below 0.3 and it is highly recommended if
this ratio falls below about 0.15, when the stability
may become a critical issue
FLAC3D 2.00
Step 18400 Model Perspective
22:55:04 Fri Oct 6 2000

Significant advantages are envisaenvisaged by using numerical methods at

the design stage
Contour of Y-Displacement
Very powerful computer codes have
been developed and are available for
the stress and deformation analysis
of tunnels in either continuum and Sketch
discontinuum modelling: FEM, BEM,
FDM, DEM,DDA
Center:
X: 3.347e+000
Y: 6.328e+001
Z: 3.810e+000
Dist: 2.459e+002

3D analysis of tunnel face

stability

Job Title: Analisi ELPLA SS di Aydan - Carbonifero produttivo

View Title: Analisi a cavo libero

Rotation:
X: 3.000
Y: 0.000
Z: 26.000
Mag.:
9
Ang.: 22.500

CASE HISTORY

-2.5486e-002 to -2.2500e-002
-2.2500e-002 to -2.0000e-002
-2.0000e-002 to -1.7500e-002
-1.7500e-002 to -1.5000e-002
-1.5000e-002 to -1.2500e-002
-1.2500e-002 to -1.0000e-002
-1.0000e-002 to -7.5000e-003
-7.5000e-003 to -5.0000e-003
-5.0000e-003 to -2.5000e-003
-2.5000e-003 to 0.0000e+000
0.0000e+000 to 1.0356e-003
Interval = 2.5e-003
Linestyle

Dip. Ing. Strutt. e Geotecnica

POLITECNICO DI TORINO

DESIGN ANALYSES

PINGLIN TUNNEL, TAIWAN

CASE HISTORY

CASE HISTORY

section
(chainage)
PK 39+972
PK 39+694

H (m)
(depth)
150
220

cm (MPa)

0.0061
0.0075

2.7
3.0

0.72
0.655

Curva di Singh (Singh line)

PK 39+972
PK 39+694

10000
comportamento spingente
squeezing behaviour

DAMAGES IN THE PILOT TUNNEL

RIGHT MAIN TUNNEL
Profondit H [m]
Cover H [m]

LEFT MAIN TUNNEL

PILOT TUNNEL

R = 6.25 m

R = 2.60 m

21 - 30 m

100

comportamento non spingente

non squeezing behaviour

21 - 30 m

1
0.01

0.1

1
Indice di qualit Q
Quality index Q

42 - 60 m

CASE HISTORY

Chinjing Fault

PK 39+390

PK 39+694
H = 220 m

D3 1 D4

E2

PK 39+972

E3

H = 150 m

H1

D1

100

CASE HISTORY

1 st excavation
stage

E1

10

EAST PORTAL

PK 40+236

2
1

0.00

D2
R=6.2

H2

E4

E5
nd

2 excavation
stage

MONITORING STATIONS
CASE HISTORY

264 m
542 m

LOCATION OF MONITORING STATIONS

CASE HISTORY

convergence [mm]

convergenza [mm]

spostamento
displacements (mm)

-50

-100
H1
H2
-150
V1
-200

primo ribasso
1st excavation stage

tunnel pilota
pilot tunnel

R1-D
-80

C-S
-120

R1-S

gallerie
tunnels

R2-D
-160

R2-S
-200
0

secondo ribasso
2nd excavation stage

C-D

-40

3/5/92

300
27/2/93

600

900

1200

1500

24/12/93

20/10/94

16/8/95

11/6/96

1800

tempo [gior ni] time [day]

-250
0

100

200

23/1/94

300
tempo [giorni]
time [day]

11/8/94

400

500

27/2/95

7/6/95

600

CROSS SECTION 1 - CONVERGENCE AND CROWN DISPLACEMENT

CONVERGENCES IN THE PILOT TUNNEL DUE TO EXCAVATION

IN THE MAIN TUNNELS

CASE HISTORY

1-p
U
E
T

CASE HISTORY

Stage 2

D
U

C
E

Stage 3

Stage 1

V Terminal locus of long term

0

creep tests

section
(chainage)
1 (PK 39+972)
2 (PK 39+694)

H
(m)
150
200

p0
RMR
E
(MPa)
(GPa)
3.75
18
1.58
5.5
15
1.33

p
()
17.4
13.6

cp
r
(MPa) ()
1.18 5.17
1.33 3.63

cr
(MPa)
0.34
0.35

GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE ROCK MASS

IN THE LEFT MAIN TUNNEL

MODEL USED TO SIMULATE THE SQUEEZING BEHAVIOUR

CASE HISTORY

CASE HISTORY

[m]

[m]

83.2 mm

-2

42.1 mm

-2

-4

-4

DISPLACEMENTS
3

11

11

[m]

[m]
17.5

17.5

12.5

12.5

7.5

7.5

2.5

2.5

- 2.5

- 2.5

- 7.5

PLASTIC ZONES
7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5 32.5

joint properties
Kn (GPa/m)
Ks(GPa/m)
c (kPa)
()

beddings
10
1
10
20

joints
10
1
50
35

MATERIAL AND JOINT PROPERTIES USED IN DFN MODEL

[m]

[m]

- 7.5

- 12.5

- 12.5

- 17.5

- 17.5

- 22.5
2.5

material properties
E (GPa)
5
0.25

c (MPa)
5
30
()

-6

-6
1

DISCONTINUUM MODEL

- 22.5

37.5

2.5

7.5

12.5

[m]

17.5
[m]

DFN MODEL

DFN MODEL

OPEN ZONES

FAILURE ZONES

(a)

(b)

22.5

27.5 32.5

37.5

CASE HISTORY

RESULTS OF DFN MODEL

(c)

CASE HISTORY

(d)