See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287911569

Long term tunnel behaviour and support response analysis using 2D numerical
modelling methods

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 315

3 authors:

Chrysothemis Paraskevopoulou Nicholas Vlachopoulos

University of Leeds Royal Military College of Canada
19 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    141 PUBLICATIONS   506 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mark S. Diederichs
Queen's University
196 PUBLICATIONS   3,338 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cut-off geometry and dimension selection View project

Military - Sustainable Infrastructure and Environmental Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chrysothemis Paraskevopoulou on 31 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARMA 12-534

Long term tunnel behaviour and support response analysis using 2D

numerical modelling methods
Paraskevopoulou, C.
Vlachopoulos, N.
Diederichs, M.S.
GeoEngineering Centre, Queen’s-RMC, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Copyright 2012 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 46th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Chicago, IL, USA, 24-27 June
2012.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Numerical modelling is an integral part of modern tunnel engineering design, enabling assessment of rock-structure
interaction and stability as well as assisting in the optimum choice of both excavation method and support measures being employed.
Problems and challenges in numerical analysis for underground works arise from simulating the long term behaviour in underground
works where time-dependency issues such as swelling or creep occur. In order to deal with creep in the conventional sense,
engineers tend to use variations of the two following alternatives: a) viscoplastic analysis or, b) strength degradation modelling.
Long term tunnel behaviour is widely discussed in the geotechnical literature [1, 2, 3]; however, practical references for the ultimate
simulation of long term tunnel stability and support response are limited. This paper summarizes practical approaches regarding the
long term tunnel behaviour and the support measures applied by comparing the two alternatives. This paper approximates time-
dependent behaviour for deep tunnels in weak rock using industry norm, conventional 2D methods [4, 5] with emphasis on the
support measures being applied. Long term behaviour does not always follow the same path and specifically depends on the loading
history and the deferred process. This paper serves to highlight the caveats and concerns associated with the practical modelling of
long-term response in a relevant 2D analysis. The numerical modelling results presented herein demonstrate the variability of
resulting long term tunnel behaviour based on the software used as well as the assumptions associated with the input parameters.
Further, this paper summarizes the limitations of adequacy of these methods concerning the relation between the tunnel long term
response and the support measures utilized.
further research on rock behaviour and more
1. INTRODUCTION specifically, in their deformational characteristics is
Time-dependent deformations associated with tunnel warranted. The deformation of a tunnel wall is primarily
excavation in weak rock are a reality that warrants due to the unloading of the previously applied stresses
further investigation and understanding. Tunnel design within the vicinity of the tunnel [9]. This unloading
considerations in squeezing ground are very demanding process is called stress relief. The tunnel walls then
due to the difficulty in making reliable predictions at the deform and reach a new equilibrium stress state. There
design stage, since ground conditions may vary over are two distinct types of deformation: a) immediate, and,
short distances as a result of anisotropy and excessive b) time-dependent. Immediate deformations may be
time-dependent deformations that can occur over caused due to the undrained elastic response of the rock
minimal distances along the tunnel alignment [6]. This mass to the excavation process and may also include
sort of time induced convergence is a function of the elasto-plastic elements. Time-dependent deformations
rock mass heterogeneity and mechanical properties. do not occur immediately and may appear sometime in
Even the selection of an appropriate excavation-support the future under the same stress conditions. Although
method is highly problematic and most of the time rocks do not uniquely follow the laws of elasticity,
uncertain (i.e. using mechanized tunnelling or plasticity or viscoplasticity, it is still important to
conventional tunnelling). Most studies cite deformation determine the stress–strain curve associated with rocks
that occurs in mainly clay-type materials [7, 8]. Yet, and the time-dependent strain in order to predict the
similar problems do occur in tunnels excavated in weak mechanical behaviour of the rock types of interest.
rock masses as well. This phenomenon is due to the fact Several mechanical models have been suggested that
that the geomechanics associated with rocks may prove may have a direct or indirect application to the
to be more complicated than that of soils. As such, description of the behaviour of the rock [10].
2. BACKGROUND
Selected rock types and soils subjected to certain
conditions have a tendency to deform over time. This
time-dependent behaviour can be triggered by various
mechanisms such as primary consolidation in relevant
soils. Furthermore, time–dependent behaviour can be
affected by the rock or soils skeleton’s viscous
characteristics (such as in the case of secondary
compression of clay). It has been observed that two of
the time–dependent phenomena (phenomena acting on
and weakening the rock mass during time) are mostly
described in the literature [11,12]; these are “swelling”
and “squeezing” that are commonly associated with
rocks with clay particles or clayey soils.
2.1. Squeezing, Swelling and Creep
Squeezing [13, 14] can be defined as the increase shear
deformation of a rock with time, when the rock element
is subjected to a constant deviatoric stress state.
Moreover, squeezing [11] is a slow development of
plastic strains that usually produces a limited volumetric
deformation that depends on the dilatancy of the rock.
The swelling mechanism is a combination of physio–
chemical reactions involving water and stress relief [15].
The physio–chemical reaction with water is usually a
major contributor but it can only take place
simultaneously with, or followed by stress-relief [16].
It should be noted that time-dependent deformation is
also referred to in literature as creep [17]. Creep is
defined as the time-dependent deformation of rock under
a sustained load that is less than the short-term strength
of the rock. Creep strain can seldom be recovered fully
when loads are removed, and as such, it is largely plastic
deformation that defines such behaviour [18]. Most
formulations of creep in rock suggested in the literature
can be separated into two main categories: a) empirical
creep functions, based upon curve fitting of experimental
data, and, b) rheological creep functions, based upon
creep behaviour models composed of assemblages of
elastic springs, viscous dashpots, plastic sliders and
brittle yield elements.
2.2. Time-Dependency Models in Rocks
The rheological behaviour of ‘ideal’ rock materials
approximates the elastic stress/strain response, where the
typical load/deformation or stress/strain response is
assumed to be linear. However, in reality, typical rock
materials do not often exhibit “elastic” stress/strain
response on the grounds that all rocks are affected by the
presence of microcracks, voids or flaws that are included
in their matrix. Moreover, when rock materials stressed
to some finite level (i.e. the yield stress level), they will
undergo internal crack propagation which induces
localized shear failure of the rock matrix either between
grain boundaries or along microscopic shear surfaces.
Consequently, typical rock response to applied stress
conditions generally appears in the form of inelastic or
non–linear stress/strain behaviour.
According to cited literature [2,3], there are essentially
two classes of time-dependent behaviour: a) rock with
time–dependent stiffness and deformation properties
with more or less constant strength or time–dependent
yield locus (i.e. viscous rocks like rock salts) and, b)
rock with time-dependent strength and deformation
properties (i.e. rocks with rate–dependent strength,
stiffness and post failure stress/strain curve as the
sandstone tested [19].
In order to simulate the time-dependent behaviour of a
rock mass at different levels of stress (such as the
instantaneous elastic response, primary creep, secondary
creep and even tertiary creep) the model should have
physical meaning, and the parameters of the model must
be determined by laboratory or field testing [20].
Many mathematical models have been developed in
order to define, simulate and describe time-dependent
phenomena such as creep and squeezing. The models
can be divided into the following categories: a) visco-
elastic models, b) visco-elasto-plastic models, and c)
empirical models.
Visco-elastic models are rheological models that
comprise basic mechanical models such as a spring and
a dash pot analogue (as shown in Figure 1).
Fig.1. Basic Rheological models a) spring and b) dashpot [21]
This category includes: a) elastic model, b) viscous
model, c) Kelvin model, d) Generalized Kelvin model, e)
Maxwell model, f) Generalized Maxwell model, g)
Burgers model (shown on Table 1 and Figure 2).
Consequently, more complex models can be derived
from the combination of the basic mechanical models of
springs and dash pot but; unfortunately, they introduce
more parameters making their use difficult/non
applicable in practice. As [22, 23] concluded that for
many practical purposes for rocks, the Burgers creep
model is preferable and will suffice for the description of
most rock creep behaviour if proper parameters are
selected.
Table 1. Visco-elastic creep models they describe both the elastic strain (εe) ‘Eq.1’, primary
creep (ε1) ‘Eq.2’and secondary creep (ε2) ‘Eq.3’:
Type
Stress-strain Tine Relation in one
 1 1
Dimension e  (  ) (1)
 t Em 9 K m 3Gm
a) Maxwell  (t )  
m 3m  Gk t
1 (t )   [1  exp(  )] (2)
 Et 3Gk k
b) Kelvin  (t )  [1  exp(  k )]
k 3k
t
 Et t  2 (t )  (3)
c) Generalized  (t )  [1  exp(  k )]  3m
Maxwell Ek 3k 3m
Where, Em, Km, and Gm denote the elastic modulus, bulk
 Et
d) Generalized  (t )   [1  exp(  k )] modulus, shear modulus of the spring respectively, and
Kelvin Em 3k ηm denotes the viscosity coefficient of the dash pot in the
 Et t Maxwell body. Parameters Gk, and η k denote the shear
e) Burgers  (t )   [1  exp(  k )]  modulus of the spring, and the viscosity coefficient of
Em 3k 3m the dash pot in the Kelvin body respectively.
In this paper, the Burgers model which considers the
*where: σ=stress, ε=strain, E=Young‘s modulus, K=bulk elastic strain, primary creep and secondary creep prior to
modulus, G =shear modulus, η=viscosity, t=time, subscript k failure was selected as the most appropriate for the weak
denotes Kelvin model, subscript m denotes Maxwell model.
rock analysis herein.
2.3. Capturing time-dependency in Numerical
Modelling
In In two-dimension (2D) modelling, time-dependent
behaviour cannot be directly simulated using selected
2D coded software with noted limitations. As such, a
method must be developed in order to determine a
relevant ‘pseudo’-time-dependent behaviour that may
ensue due to tunnel excavation. An initial attempt may
be to determine the disturbance associated with the
Fig. 2. Visco-Elastic Creep Models: (a) Maxwell Model, (b) progressive simulation of the tunnel excavation that is
Kelvin Model, (c) Generalized Maxwell Model, (d) achieved in 2D by using a core replacement technique
Generalized Kelvin Model, (e) Burgers Model [23]. and over-softening the core (for example). For instance,
Visco-elasto-plastic models extend the visco-elastic the plastic zone can be used as an indicator of overall
model in order to simulate the non-linear viscosity when time-dependent displacements that have been calibrated
the stresses are high and the rock approaches failure [1, to in-situ or laboratory measurements. In Phase2 [4]
24]. If the applied stress does not surpass the yield limit, software, the tunnel core is incrementally replaced with a
it will exhibit the same creep behaviour as those new material (with an identical core of reduced stiffness)
described in a Kelvin model. However, if the stress without any initial internal elemental loading. The
exceeds this threshold, the non-linear, visco-plastic model analysis is continued until equilibrium is reached.
behavior will be mobilized. The replacement cycle is repeated. In the final stage the
core material is removed altogether to complete the
It could be inferred that most creep models can only excavation. This procedure simulates a typical reaction
satisfy certain situations. For instance, the Kelvin model response. This incremental procedure is particularly
and the generalized Kelvin model assume a solid body; important for brittle simulations to control the “shock
hence, they can only simulate the primary creep response loading” and overbreak that would occur with
of a rock. The Maxwell model and the generalized simultaneous excavation. No dilation is used in this
Maxwell model belong to the fluid bodies, and they can simulation to avoid confinement feedback as the failing
only describe the secondary creep behaviour of rock. rock expands in a constrained space [25]. Another
The empirical creep models were derived from test data technique to simulate the tunnel excavation with regards
for certain materials and as such, should not be applied to time-dependency is achieved by progressively
directly to other rock types. The Burgers creep and the relaxing the tunnel boundary tractions from a range of
visco-elasto-plastic creep models are both derived from in-situ stress to zero in stages [26]. These above-
combinations of the Kelvin and Maxwell models, since mentioned techniques are illustrated in Figure 3. It
should be noted that both these techniques, the reduction
of Young Modulus and the incremental reduction were
adopted for the analyses associated with this paper.
Convergence at the end of
each calculation stage
Ground Reaction Curve
Ground
Reaction Curve
Fig. 3. Approaches for plane strain simulation of tunnel
advance: a) replacement of tunnel core with unstressed elastic
material (tunnel core reaction is shown as dashed line – core
replacement results in a force imbalance which is resolved to
equilibrium during subsequent convergence increment); b)
incremental reduction (dashed line) of tunnel boundary
tractions to simulate progressive advance [26].
Within FLAC [5] software there are options available
(creep material models) that can be used to simulate the
behaviour of materials that exhibit creep (i.e. time-
dependent material behaviour).
3. WEAK ROCK AND TUNNEL SUPPORT
Time-dependent behaviour (or viscous) is a phenomenon
that is commonly encountered in geotechnical
engineering projects, especially within weak rocks (i.e.
rock masses with low values in Young’s modulus or
intact strength at great depths), rocks with clay materials
or clayey soils, and salt rock. This research focuses on
the creep behaviour of heavily sheared rock mass or
poorly cemented weak rock. More specifically, the
geotechnical properties of the examined rock type are
similar to a dominant-phyllite geological system found
at 600 m depth. For such material, creep is one of the
major concerns with regards to the design of engineering
projects.
In tunnelling through weak rock masses, it is important
to obtain reliable strength estimates of this material in
order to predict potential tunnelling problems as early as
possible in the design process. These parameters must
be incorporated into an overall rock mass criteria
framework (i.e. Hoek-Brown rock mass characterization
tool) which are also part of a well-defined rock mass
characterization system (i.e. GSI for weak heterogeneous
rock masses). Furthermore, a design must take into
consideration the effects of the disturbance caused by
tunnel excavation including stages of excavation not
completely confined by the long term support and final
lining. It is during this stage that the pre-existing
stresses in the rock mass (deviated by the opening of the
tunnel) are channeled around the cavity in an arch effect,
creating zones of increased stress on the walls of the
excavation. The resulting long-term behaviour of such
activities must also be determined in order to define and
account for such mechanisms with respect to the design
and type of tunnel support to be employed.
The purpose of tunnel support is to maintain
confinement for the rock mass in order to help the rock
mass support itself. Under these confined conditions,
the interlocking components of the rock pieces produce a
strong and stable rock mass. Care must be taken when
excavating the face in order to ensure that confined
conditions can be maintained; support aids in this regard.
The initial support systems installed at or in advance of
the tunnel face serve to retain the rock mass integrity and
provide all of the short term support and permit the
ultimate installation of the final lining. Short-term is a
relative term, as excessive time-dependent deformation
can occur between the time the temporary support
measures are installed and the final liner is completed.
4. NUMERICAL MODELLING
The most commonly used method in simulating and
solving geotechnical engineering problems is the use of
numerical analysis through modelling. The numerical
methods can be categorized into the:
a. finite element method (FEM),
b. finite difference method (FDM),
c. boundary element method (BEM) and,
d. discrete element method (DEM).
Only the elasto-plastic analyses are capable of providing
a complete solution while also satisfying all four
solution requirements. The difficulty of obtaining
closed-form elasto-plastic solutions for practical
problems means that numerical methods are the only
generally applicable techniques [27, 28, 29].
Furthermore, it is worth stating that the FDM, FEM and
DEM methods consider the entire region under
investigation, breaking it up, or discretizing it, into a
finite number of sub-regions or elements. The
governing equations of the problem are applied
separately and approximately within each of these
elements. In the finite difference method, every
derivative in the set of governing equations is replaced
directly by an algebraic expression written in terms of
field variables that are undefined within the elements.
In this paper, the analyses have been performed with two
numerical modelling software packages, namely, Phase2
(FEM) 8.0 [4] and FLAC 7.0 (FDM) [5].
Although, tunnelling is uniquely a three-dimensional
(3D) problem, it can be simulated within two dimensions
(2D), since at a certain distance ahead of the face, the
advancing tunnel has no influence on the rock mass and
the radial displacement is zero. Radial displacement
reaches about one third of its final value at the face of
the tunnel and it starts about one half a tunnel diameter
ahead of the advancing face. According to
Vlachopoulos [26], a large ultimate plastic radius has an
effect on the rate of development of tunnel wall
displacements with respect to location along the tunnel
(relative to the face) using 2D numerical analysis that
pseudo-captures 3D effects.
A simple time-dependent analysis of a tunnel has been
conducted using the two software packages cited by
simulating a problem with the following assumptions: a)
the tunnel is a circular section; b) the problem can be
treated in plane strain conditions; c) the initial stress
state and the ground are isotropic and homogeneous.
The models designed, examined and analyzed for this
paper approximate the stress conditions existing in weak
rock mass environments at depth. Two different
analyses were performed with varying ground densities
(26k N/m3 and 27 kN/m3) and stress ratio Ko values
(from 0.5 to 2.0) with an overburden of 600 m.
4.1. Phase2
Phase2 8.0 is a powerful 2D elasto-plastic finite element
stress analysis program for underground or surface
excavations in rock or soil. It has been conventionally
used by industry experts for a wide range of engineering
projects and includes support design, finite element
slope stability, groundwater seepage and probabilistic
analysis. Progressive failure, support interaction and a
variety of other problems can be addressed. Phase2
offers a wide range of support modelling options. Liner
(pre-programed) elements can be applied in the
modelling of shotcrete, concrete, steel set systems,
retaining walls, piles, multi-layer composite liners,
geotextiles etc. Liner design tools include support
capacity plots which allow the user to determine the
safety factor of reinforced liners [4].
Figure 4 shows the geometry of the models utilized for
this analysis. The total size of the mesh was 128 m x
128 m in order to minimize the boundary effects for a
6m diameter tunnel opening. The grid was made of 6
noded-triangles while the mesh was graded and denser
around the tunnel opening in order to adequately capture
the displacements adjacent to the tunnel wall. In terms of
support, reinforced shotcrete was installed for this
purpose. The support was installed at the face using the
design curves introduced by Vlachopoulos and
Diederichs [30]. These curves are based on the final, 3D
plastic radius zone induced from tunnel excavation and
relate the plastic radius of a certain 2D step to determine
its position relative to the face.
a)
6 noded-triangles with graded mesh
b)
c)
128 m
6m
128 m
Fig. 4. Boundary and different loading (Phase2) [4]
4.2. FLAC
FLAC is a two-dimensional explicit finite difference
program for engineering mechanics computation. This
program simulates the behavior of structures built of
soil, rock or other materials that may undergo plastic
flow when their yield limits are reached. The explicit,
Lagrangian calculation scheme and the mixed-
discretization zoning technique used in FLAC ensure
that plastic collapse and flow are modeled accurately.
Due to the fact that no matrices are formed, large two-
dimensional calculations can be made without excessive
memory requirements. The drawbacks of the explicit
formulation (i.e. small time step limitation and the
question of required damping) are overcome to some
extent by automatic inertia scaling and automatic
damping that do not influence the mode of failure [5].
Figure 5 shows the geometry of the models performed
for this analysis with FLAC software [5]. The grid is
made of square elements which increase in size away
from the tunnel in order to minimize propagation and
solution time. Only shotcrete is used as a support
measure, an interface between the lining and the
surrounding rock.
128 m
6m
128 m
Fig. 5. Boundary and different loading conditions (FLAC) [5]
5. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
As has been already mentioned, two software packages
(Phase2 and FLAC) [4, 5] were used to perform the
analyses associated with this paper. It must be
highlighted, however, that the purpose of this analysis is
to examine how two different numerical modelling
methods (Finite Element Method and Finite Difference
Method) with different levels of complexity can be used
to reproduce the time-dependent behaviour of a tunnel
excavated in weak rock masses with various stress
conditions. The numerical analysis presented is for two
different stress conditions as a result of varying ground
density conditions (26 kN/m3 and 27 kN/m3, Studies #1
and #2 respectively) and different mi values (7 and 4)
respectively. Tables 2 and 3 show the input parameters
used for the two studies. The rock mass properties have
been chosen to represent phyllite. The parameters of the
rock type were estimated using Roclab software [31] by
defining the following input parameters: uniaxial
compressive strength (σci), Geological Strength Index
(GSI), the intact rock parameter (mi), disturbance factor
(D) and Young Modulus (E).
Table 2. Input Parameters associated with Study#1 (‘Stronger’
Rock conditions)
‘Stronger’ Rock Conditions
H = 600 m
σci = 40 MPa
mi = 7
GSI=20
γ = 26 kN/m3
E = 30 GPa
φ = 18.8o
c = 0.959 MPa
Bulk modulus = 2.083E10
Shear modulus = 1.1904E10
ν = 0.26
Model Geometry
Mesh = 6 noded triangles (graded)
Mesh Box = 11
Circular tunnel Diameter = 6m
Boundary: rollers constraints with pinned
connections at corner locations
Support Properties (Shotcrete)
Thickness = 0.30 m
E = 30,000 MPa
ν = 0.15
Compressive Strength = 40 MPa
Tensile Strength = 3 MPa
Elastic
Stress conditions (σv +σh = 31.2 MPa, σh = σz)
Ko = 1.0 (σv = 15.6 MPa σh = 15.6 MPa)
Ko = 0.56 (σv = 20.0 MPa σh = 11.2 MPa)
Ko = 1.786 (σv = 11.2 MPa σh = 20.0 MPa)
Table 3. Input Parameters that have been altered from Study
#1 and that are associated with Study #2 (‘Weaker’ Rock
conditions). Remainder of parameters were unchanged.
‘Weaker’ Rock Conditions
mi = 4
γ = 27 kN/m3
φ = 15.0o
c = 0.761 MPa
Mesh Box = 11
Stress conditions (σv +σh = 32.4 MPa, σh = σz)
Ko = 1.0 (σv = 16.2 MPa σh = 16.2 MPa)
Ko = 0.5 (σv = 21.6 MPa σh = 10.8 MPa)
Ko = 2.0 (σv = 10.8 MPa σh = 21.6 MPa)
5.1. Phase2 Analysis
This analysis was conducted using two different
methods. As described in Section 2.3, the two techniques
(not limited to these) that one can use to indirectly
simulate time-dependent behaviour are: a) replacement
of the tunnel core with unstressed elastic material by
over-reducing Young Modulus values and, b)
incremental reduction of boundary tractions to simulate
progressive tunnel advance through the reduction of the
internal stress with a traction vector.
The replacement of the tunnel core material was
performed using 9 stages as shown in Figure 6; each
stage utilized a reduced Modulus of Elasticity.
Ei E1 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6 E7 E8=0
Fig. 6. Replacement of the tunnel core performed in 9 stages
(where: Ei = 30,000 MPa – plastic, E1 = 30,000 MPa – elastic,
E2 = 22,500 MPa-elastic, E3 = 15,000 MPa – elastic, E4 =
7,500 MPa – elastic, E5 = 3,750 MPa – elastic, E6 = 1,875
MPa – elastic, E7 = 937.5 MPa – elastic and E8 = 0 (Tunnel
fully excavated)).
The incremental stress reduction was performed using
12 stages as shown in Figure 7.
 The analysis for each model was performed for both the
unsupported and supported conditions.
1 2 3 4 5 6

6m Reduction in internal stress vector 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the series of analyses that were conducted
7 8 9 10 11 12
are described herein. The supported and unsupported
final convergence displacements for Studies #1 and #2
using Phase2 and FLAC [4, 5] are shown on Figures 8-
Fig. 7. Incremental reduction performed in 12 stages (where: 11. The locations along the tunnel walls in each of these
the reduction factors are: Stage 1 = 1, Stage 2 = 1 (tunnel is figures (x-axis) refer displacement locations to the right
excavated), Stage 3 = 0.9, Stage 4 = 0.8, Stage 5 = 0.7, Stage 6
side wall (0o), the top of the tunnel (90o), left side wall
= 0.6, Stage 7 = 0.5, Stage 8 = 0.4, Stage 9 = 0.3, Stage 10 =
0.2, Stage 11 = 0.1, Stage 12 = 0).
(180o) and bottom of tunnel (270o). Within the figures,
‘m-c’ stands for Mohr-Coulomb model and ‘b-m’ stands
Both techniques were examined for the unsupported for Burgers model. It can be seen that of the two
(baseline) and supported conditions. The support methods associated with the simulation of time-
(shotcrete) was applied directly behind the face dependent behaviour (i.e. core replacement (c.r.) and
according to the 2D / 3D design curves introduced by incremental reduction (i.r.)) give similar results.
Vlachopoulos [26]. Table 4 shows the stage at which However, it should be noted that the incremental
the shotcrete was applied for each case examined case. reduction analysis is more computationally time-
consuming than the core-replacement analysis. The
Table 4. Application of Support measures, staged approach displacement profiles of each individual analysis with
Study#1 regards to the tunnel opening vary at most ± 20 mm.
Core replacement Stage = 6 Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the unsupported conditions for
k = 1.0 Studies #1 and #2 respectively. As expected, in all
Incremental reduction Stage =11
Core replacement Stage = 4 cases, the FLAC Burgers model experienced the largest
k = 0.56 amount of total displacements. It can be inferred that the
Incremental reduction Stage = 7
Core replacement Stage = 6 Phase2 software has its limitations since it cannot
k = 1.786 explicitly simulate time (path) dependent behaviour
Incremental reduction Stage = 8
Study#2 directly.
Core replacement Stage = 7
k = 1.0
Incremental reduction Stage =10
Core replacement Stage = 4
k = 0.5
Incremental reduction Stage = 6
Core replacement Stage = 7
k = 2.0
Incremental reduction Stage = 10

The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was adopted for

this analysis.
5.2. FLAC Analysis Fig. 8. Displacements along Tunnel Walls for Study 1 in
The numerical analyses presented herein were for the unsupported conditions
same cross-section as described above for both of the Study #2 - Unsuppor te d Tunnel
250
two Studies (Tables 2 and 3). Four analyses were k=1 c.r. no support phase2
k=1 i.r.no support phase2
performed for each study and two constitutive models 200 k=0.50 c.r. no support phase2
Displacement (mm)

were employed (Mohr-Coulomb and Burgers visco- k=0.50 i.r. no support phase2

elastic model). The parameters used for Burgers 150 k=2.0 c.r. no support phase2
k=2.0 i.r. support phase2
viscoelastic model are shown on Table 5. k=1 m-c no support flac2d
100
k=1 b-m no support flac2d
Table 5: Parameters associated with Burgers model
50 k=0.50 m-c no support flac2d

Kelvin shear modulus 8.29E12 Pa k=0.50 b-m no support flac2d

k=2.0 m-c no support flac2d
Kelvin viscosity 6.69E12 Pa-s 0
0 90 180 270 k=2.0 b-m no support flac2d
Maxwell shear modulus 4.9E9 Pa Locations along Tunnel Walls

Maxwell viscosity 1.52E14 Pa-s Fig. 9. Displacements along Tunnel Walls for Study 2 in
unsupported conditions.
 The Burgers final radial displacements are condition; hence, the requirement for further
approximately 300% larger than the displacements investigations into modeling the time-dependent
estimated by the Mohr-Coulomb model and analogous behaviour more accurately using better analytical
Phase2 results. Furthermore, Phase2 software techniques. Even though time-dependent displacements
demonstrates that it is most sensitive to the in-situ stress were anticipated and are inherent with staged
ratio (Ko). For both unsupported studies, the radial excavation, Phase2 is limited in this regard. Inset in the
displacements for Ko = 1.786 (Study #1) or 2 (Study #2) overall figure are the displacements that were recorded
produce 50-70% higher radial displacements. For the with respect to the distance from the tunnel face. The
hydrostatic case of Ko = 1, all of the approaches, zero (0) location constitutes the tunnel face, while the
independent of software used, were very similar with a negative locations denote the unexcavated portion of the
maximum variance of ± 5mm. As a general trend, it can tunnel. Positive values indicate the portion of the tunnel
be inferred that the unsupported cross-sections that has been excavated.
experienced larger displacements as the stress ratio
factor increased. Study #2 - Supported Tunnel
20 k=1 c.r. support phase2
The supported (shotcrete liner) results are shown in
18 k=1 i.r.support phase2
Figures 10 and 11 for Study #1 and #2 respectively.
16 k=0.50 c.r. support phase2
Both studies show that the introduction of a simplistic,

Displacement (mm)
14 k=0.50 i.r. support phase2
temporary support measure decreases the amount of total 12 k=2.0 c.r. support phase2
radial displacement by approximately 300% from that of 10
k=2.0 i.r. support phase2
the unsupported conditions. The liner limits the 8
k=1 m-c support flac2d
displacements in all cases and governs the overall 6
k=1 b-m support flac2d
behaviour. Not surprisingly, the same trend associated 4
k=0.50 m-c support flac2d
with Ko is evident as higher stress ratios induce larger, 2
overall tunnel convergence (and stresses on the tunnel 0 k=0.50 b-m support flac2d

liner). A slider function on the support would be ideal in 0 90 180 270 k=2.0 m-c support flac2d
Locations along Tunnel Walls
terms of determining the increased demands on the liner k=2.0 b-m support flac2d

system due to ongoing deformations. In reality, the

Fig. 11. Displacements along Tunnel Walls for Study 2 in
supported conditions
Study #1 - Supported Tunnel k=1 c.r. support phase2
20 k=1 i.r.support phase2 Figure 12 proper shows the normalized displacements
18 k=0.56 c.r. support phase2 (taking into consideration maximum displacements umax)
16
Displacement (mm)

14
k=0.56 i.r. support phase2 plotted against the normalized distance from the face
12 k=1.786 c.r. support phase2 (taking into consideration tunnel radius (R)). The results
10 k=1.786 i.r. support phase2 indicate that both methods of core replacement and
8 k=1 m-c support flac2d incremental reduction yield similar results. Also
6
4
k=1 b-m support flac2d demonstrated is the fact that the temporary support
2 k=0.56 m-c support flac2d
measure governs and that the LDPs for these supported
0 k=0.56 b-m support flac2d
conditions are closer to the Chern’s [32] curve. The
0 90 180 270 k=1.786 m-c support flac2d
Locations along Tunnel Walls
weaker material (Study #2) varies the most, while also
k=1.786 b-m support flac2d
plotting consistently below the curve. This is in
agreement with the results of Vlachopoulos and
Fig. 10. Displacements along Tunnel Walls for Study 1 in
Diederichs [30] that due to the increased size of the zone
supported conditions
of influence due to excavation, the resulting
displacements do not follow the Chern response curve.
sprayed concrete liner hardens with time and this The radius of influence for the weaker material was 11R
phenomenon can also be modeled using a time- and explains the deviations from the assumptions made
dependent stress-strain function. The Longitudinal by Chern.
Displacement Profiles (LDP) for the two studies with In terms of time-dependent deformations, the FLAC
respect to the Phase2 analysis for the Ko = 1 conditions Burger model is composed of the Kelvin and Maxwell
are depicted in Figure 12. The convergence- model arranged in series. The unique contribution of the
confinement method (convention) is based on the LDP Kelvin and Maxwell portion (rather than a holistic
from a circular, unsupported excavation. One can approach) should also be investigated in combination
clearly see that the accepted empirical formulation with time-step considerations in order to determine the
(Chern[32]) does not correlate well with the data that has unique influence of these factors.
been captured in the models for the unsupported
 1
0.025 k=1 c.r. no support #1

k=1 c.r. support #1 0.9

0.02
Displacement (m)
k=1 i.r. no support #1
0.8
0.015 k=1 i.r. support #1
k=1 c.r. no support #1
k=1 c.r. no support #2 0.7 k=1 c.r. support #1
0.01
k=1 c.r. support #2 k=1 i.r. no support #1
0.6
0.005 k=1 i.r. no support #2 k=1 i.r. support #1

k=1 i.r. support #2 0.5 k=1 c.r. no support #2

0 k=1 c.r. support #2
-40 -20 0 20 40 0.4
Distance from Tunnel Face (m) k=1 i.r. no support #2
k=1 i.r. support #2
0.3 chern #1
chern #2
u/umax

0.2
Unexcavated Portion Excavated Portion
0.1
Tunnel Face
0
-15 -10 -5 x/R 0 5 10
2
Fig. 12. LDP for Study 1 and 2 using Phase software (#1
stands for Study 1 and #2 for Study 2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to Natural Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada as well as Queen’s and
7. CONCLUSIONS RMC Universities for their contribution and funding of
this work.
From the analysis described above it can be concluded
that there are severe limitations associated with trying to
approximate time-dependent effects using 2D models. REFERENCES
Furthermore, discrepancies (that may affect design 1. Gioda, G. 1981. A finite element solution of non-linear
decisions) exist between multiple software packages creep problems in rocks. J. Rock Mech. Sci. &
attempting to model the same problem. Regarding the Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 18, pp. 35 - 46.
FLAC results, the difference between the supported and
unsupported conditions for the Mohr-Coulomb model 2. Kaiser, P., N. Morgenstern. 1981. Time-dependent
lies in the same range of 50-100% as it is observed in deformation of small tunnels - I. Experimental
Phase2 analysis while for the Burgers model, it is over facilities, Int. J. Rock Mech. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.
100%. Also within the Phase2 software, the core Vol. 18, pp. 129 -140.
replacement and incremental reduction method yielded 3. Kaiser, P., N. Morgenstern. 1981. Time-dependent
the same results; time-dependency, although associated
deformation of small tunnels - II. Typical test data, Int.
with the stress conditions at a certain distance from the
J. Rock Mech. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 18, pp. 141-
face, cannot be modeled directly. Within FLAC, it is
152.
important to highlight the fact that high variations in
results between the two models (Mohr – Coulomb and 4. Rocscience (2011) PHASE2. Version 8.0. 2D finite
Burgers model) for the unsupported conditions. The element software. www.rocscience.com
explicit path of time-dependency in 2D requires further
analysis. The very real influence of face effects (a 3D 5. Itasca (2011) FLAC. Version 7. User’s manual. 2D
phenomenon) on cross-sectional (2D) behaviour and Version. www.itascacg.com
ensuing support measures also requires to be 6. Barla, G., M. Bonini, D. Debernadi. 2008. Time-
incorporated into the overall analysis. dependent deformations in squeezing tunnels. The 12 th
International Conference of International Association
 for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics
(IACMAG), 1-6 October, 2008, Goa India.
7. Zienkiwicz, O.C., C. Humpheson C., R.L. Lewis.
(1977). A unified approach to soil mechanics problems
(including plasticity and visco-plasticity). In Finite
Elements in Geomechanics. ed. G. Gudehus, 155-177.
8. Cidivini, A., G. Gatti, G. Gioda. (1979). Anisotropic
consolidation of initially isotropic soils. Euromechanics
Colloq. on Mechanical Behaviour of Anisotopic Solids.
Grenoble
9. Aristorenas, G. 1992. Time-dependent behavior of
tunnels excavated in shale. Doctor of Philosophy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10. Lama, R.D., V.S. Vutukuri. 1978. Handbook on
Mechanical Properties of Rocks. Vol. III. Trans Tech
Publications.
11. Terzaghi, K., 1946. Rock defects and loads on tunnel
supports. In Rock Tunnelling with Steel Support,
Section 1, Commercial Shearing and Stamping
Company, Youngstown, Ohio.
12. Nakano, R. 1974. On the design of water tunnels in
relation with the type and magnitude of rock load with
special references to the mechanism and prediction of
squeezing- swelling rock pressure. Bull. Natl. In Agr.
Eng., Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. No 12, pp.
89-142. Japan.
13. Terzaghi, K. 1960. Soft ground tunnelling. In From
theory to practice in soil mechanics. J. Wiley, New
York.
14. Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunnelling in
soft ground. 7th ICSMFE, State of the art volume, pp.
225-284. Mexico City.
15. ISRM, Commission on Standardization of Laboratory
and Field Tests. 1983. Suggested methods for
determining the strength of rock materials in triaxial
compression: revised version. J Rock Mech. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 20, pp. 283-290.
16. ISRM, Commission on Squeezing Rocks in Tunnels.
1995. Tunnelling in difficult ground. Workshop 8th
ICRM, ed. G. Barla. Tokyo
17. Ladanyi, B. 1993. Time-dependent response of rock
around tunnels. In Comprehensive rock engineering,
ed. J.A. Hudson, Vol. 2, pp. 77-11, Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
18. Glamheden, R., H. Hokmark. 2010. Creep in jointed
rock masses. State of the knowledge.
19. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1970. Time-dependent behaviour of
fracture rock. In Rock Mech. Vol. 2, pp. 123-137
View publication stats
20. Yu, CW. 1998. Creep characteristics of soft rock and
modelling of creep in tunnel. Doctor of Philosophy.
University of Bradford.
21. Dusseault, M., C. Fordham. 1993. Tme-dependent
behaviour of rock. In Comprehensive Rock
Engineering: Principles, Practice & Project, ed. J.A.
Hudson, Vol. 3. Pergamon Press.
22. Goodman, R. 1980. Introduction to rock mechanics. 1st
ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
23. Goodman, R. 1989. Introduction to rock mechanics. 2nd
ed John Wiley and Sons, New York.
24. Zienkiewicz, O., I. Cormeau. 1974. Visco-plasticity –
plasticity and creep in elastic solids – A unified
numerical solution approach. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering. Vol. 8, pp. 821-
845.
25. Diederichs, M. S. 2007. The 2003 Canadian
Geotechnical Colloquium: Mechanistic interpretation
and practical application of damage and spalling
prediction criteria for deep tunnelling. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 44, pp 1082-1162.
26. Vlachopoulos, N. 2009. Back analysis of a tunnelling
case study in weak rock of the alpine system in
northern Greece: validation and optimization of design
analysis based on ground characterization and
numerical simulation. Doctor of Philosophy.
27. Britto, A.M., M.J. Gunn. 1987. Critical state soil
mechanics via finite elements. Ellis Horwood Ltd.
Chichester, U.K.
28. Beer, G., J.O. Watson. 1992. Introduction to finite and
boundary element methods for engineering. John Wiley
and Sons. New York.
29. Potts, D.M., L. Zdravkovic. 2000. Finite element
analysis in geotechnical engineering applications.
Thomas Telford. London.
30. Vlachopoulos, N., M. Diederichs. 2009. Improved
longitudinal displacement profiles for convergence
confinement analysis of deep tunnels. In Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Vol. 42, pp. 131-
146.
31. Rocscience (2007) RocLab. Rock mass strength
analysis using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
software. www.rocscience.com
32. Chern. J.C., F.Y. Shiao, C.W. Yu. 1998. An empirical
safety criterion for tunnel construction. In Regional
Symposium on Sedimentary Rock Engineering. Tapei
Taiwan. Pp. 222-227.