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

net/publication/284086590

Upper-bound finite element analysis of stability of tunnel face subjected to

surcharge loading in cohesive-frictional soil

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · November 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-015-0067-z

CITATIONS READS

6 217

4 authors, including:

Lianheng Zhao
Central South University
82 PUBLICATIONS   514 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Dimensionless Parameter Diagrams for the Active and Passive Stability of a Shallow 3D Tunnel Face View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lianheng Zhao on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-10 Geotechnical Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0067-z pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected

to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil
Feng Yang*, Jian Zhang**, Lianheng Zhao***, and Junsheng Yang****
Received January 21, 2015/Accepted September 14, 2015/Published Online November 13, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The stability of a plane strain tunnel face in a cohesive-frictional soil (idealized as a homogeneously Mohr-Coulomb material)
subjected to ground surface surcharge loading was investigated. Continuous loading is applied to the ground surface, and both
smooth and rough interface conditions are modeled. The upper-bound solutions with critical load parameters for a practical range of
tunnel depth-to-height values, as well as the soil properties, are obtained by using the Upper-bound Finite Element Method with
Rigid Translatory Moving Elements (UBFEM-RTME). For practical use, the results are presented in the form of dimensionless
stability charts. Failure mechanisms consisting of two groups of slip lines, which explicitly reflect the relative movement of blocks,
are also presented. To verify the solutions, the Upper-bound Finite Element Method with Plastic Deformation Elements (UMFEM-
PDE) has been developed and the collapsed loads are compared with those from UBFEM-RTME. The solutions obtained with these
two upper-bound finite element methods are found to be in good agreement with each other.
Keywords: plane strain tunnel face, upper-bound finite element method, rigid translatory moving elements, plastic deformation
elements, critical load parameter, failure mechanism
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
The face stability and failure mechanism of a shallow tunnel
during the construction process are important issues that must be
addressed in tunnel engineering. Knowledge of how the stability
of a tunnel face is affected by surcharge loading would be very
useful, and the relevant research results have played a significant
role in the control of tunnel excavations and determining those
areas requiring pre-reinforcement to avoid ground collapse. The
most common methods used to study tunnel face stability include
the numerical simulation (Maynar and Rodríguez (2005), Li et
al. (2009), Kim and Tonon (2010)), the model-based experiment
(Atkinson and Potts (1977), Schofield (1980), Davis et al.
(1980), Mair et al. (1993)) and the limit equilibrium method
(Eisenstein and Samarasekara (1992), Anagnostou and Kovári
(1994), Jancsecz and Steiner (1994)). Recently, limit analysis,
based on the plastic theorems proposed by Drucker et al. (1951,
1952), has been widely used in the analysis of the stability of
underground openings that are relevant to tunneling. This method
provides a convenient way of obtaining the upper- and lower-
bound solutions, as well as the failure mechanisms, without having
to considering a complicated elastic-plastic deformation process.
There are usually two main methods of obtaining the upper-
bound solutions of limit analysis. These are the failure-mechanism-
based upper-bound method (Davis et al. (1980), Fraldi and
Guarracino (2009, 2010), Yang and Huang (2013)) and the
upper-bound finite element method.
As the problem of underground excavation stability is inherently
three-dimensional, a semi-analytical rigid-block method (Leca
and Dormieux (1990), Soubra (2000, 2002), Lee and Nam
(2001, 2003), Lee et al. (2004), Subrin (2002, 2009), Mollon et
al. (2009, 2010)), which is subordinate to failure-mechanism-
based upper-bound method, has been used to find the upper-
bound solution for cases considered using the assumed three-
dimensional multi-block failure mechanism. Although tunnel face
stability involves three-dimensions, much can be learned from
the study of simpler two-dimensional models which can be
simplified as a plane strain heading for a tunnel with a large
width. Finite element limit analysis, which is more universal than
the conventionally used bound theorems, has been used to study
the undrained stability of tunnels (Wilson et al. (2011, 2013,
2014), Abbo et al. (2013)) and the stability of tunnels in cohesive-
frictional soils (Yang and yang (2010), Yamamoto et al. (2011a,
2011b, 2013), Sahoo and Kumar (2013a, 2013b, 2014), Chakraborty

*Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (E-mail: yt5154@126.com)
**Doctor, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (E-mail: zhangi0507@163.com)
***Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
zlh8076@163.com)
****Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (E-mail: jsyang@cus.edu.cn)

−1−
 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang
and Kumar (2013), Yang et al. (2015)). In most cases, rigorous
upper- and lower-bound solutions were obtained generally to
bracket the true solution. To study tunnel face stability, Sloan and
Assadi (1994) applied this method to analyze the undrained
stability of a plane strain heading subjected to surcharge loading.
Augarde et al. (2003) then improved the solution algorithms and
extended previous research to non-homogeneous soils, for which
the undrained shear strength is assumed to increase linearly with
depth. Charts for assessing the stability of this type of underground
opening have also been presented. Later, Song et al. (2011) and
Huang et al. (2013) applied a multi-rigid-block upper-bound
method to investigate the undrained stability of a plane strain
tunnel heading in non-homogeneous clay and proposed an
improved failure mechanism.
As there are no reports or literature related to the stability of a
tunnel face subjected to ground surface surcharge loading in a
cohesive-frictional soil (idealized as a homogeneously Mohr-
Coulomb material), and only a limited amount of research, such
as the works of Yang et al. (2010, 2015), has been undertaken to
study the distribution characteristics of a series of blocks in the
failure region, in this study we investigated this problem using
the Upper-Bound Finite Element Method with Rigid Translatory
Moving Elements (UBFEM-RTME) presented by Yang et al.
(2014). The effects of the soil properties and tunnel depths on the
critical load parameters and failure mechanism were considered.
The contact between the continuous loading and the ground
surface was assumed to be either smooth or rough. To enable the
convenient generation of the structured mesh, a flat elliptical
curve was assumed as the tunnel face. Nonlinear programming is
applied to calculate the upper-bound solutions and determine the
evolution characteristics of the critical failure mechanisms. To
verity the solutions, the Upper-Bound Finite Element Method
with Plastic Deformation Elements (UBFEM-PDE), as investigated
by Sloan (1989), was also used to study the tunnel face stability
based on linear programming.
2. Problem Description
Figure 1 shows the analysis model for a shallow tunnel that has
Fig. 1. Analysis Model of Tunnel Face Stability Subjected to Sur-
charge Loading
−2−
been simplified into a two-dimensional plane-strain analysis,
which is similar to the definition proposed by Augarde et al.
(2003). The tunnel has a height D and a cover C. To study the
stability of the open face, rather than the rule of deformations, it
is reasonable to place an infinitely strong lining along the
heading with rough interface condition considering the complex
of interface condition for lining-ground. The face is free to move
and subjected to no loading. The ground surface is horizontal and
a continuous loading, σs, is applied over the entire ground surface
with both smooth and rough interface conditions. To realize the
rough interface between the loading and the soil, the horizontal
velocity is fixed to zero (u = 0) along the ground surface, while
no velocity constraints are imposed for the smooth case.
The ground is modeled as a uniform Mohr-Coulomb material
with a unit weight γ, internal friction angle φ, and cohesion c.
The tunnel face stability is described conveniently by the
dimensionless critical load parameter σs/c, which is a function of
φ, C/D, and γD/c, as given by the following equation:
σs ⁄ c = f ( φ, C ⁄ D, γD ⁄ c ) (1)
3. Stability Analysis
3.1 Upper-bound Finite Element Method with Rigid Trans-
latory Moving Elements (UBFEM-RTME)
Recently, it was proposed that a combination of the rigid
elements and changeable nodes of the upper-bound method
would produce a fine failure mode. Milani and Lourenco (2009)
build sequential linear programming models using rigid triangular
elements with Bezier curved edges. Based on multiple successive
perturbations, Hambleton and Sloan (2013) computed the rigorous
bounds on limit loads by optimizing the rigid block mechanisms
using second-order cone programming. Later, based on these
concepts, Yang et al. (2014, 2015) developed upper-bound finite
element method with rigid translatory moving elements (UBFEM-
RTME), and applied nonlinear programming to calculate the
bounds for solving optimization problems. The obtained critical
failure mechanisms explicitly reflect the relative movement of
the blocks, which is in much the same way as the results of the
rigid-blocks upper-bound method, while the assumption of a
failure mechanism before optimization calculation is no longer
necessary. A brief introduction to UBFEM-RTME is given
below.
As shown in Fig. 2, the rigid translatory moving elements are
rigid triangular elements possessing the characteristics of
translational velocity and movable nodes. A velocity discontinuity
occurs at the common edge between two adjacent elements, as
defined by nodal pairs ①② and ③④. (uz, vz) and (uy, vy) are the
velocities in the x- and y-directions of the two adjacent elements,
respectively. The node coordinates, (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), are
treated as unknowns in addition to the element velocities.
An upper bound on collapse load can be obtained by
minimizing the internal power dissipation minus the rate of work
done by external forces with respect to the velocity boundary
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil
Fig. 2. Velocity Discontinuity between two Adjacent Rigid Transla-
tory Moving Elements
conditions, compatibility and flow rule requirements. After the
necessary assembly operation, the objective function (to minimize)
can be written as:
nd nt
∑ Pd, i + ∑ Pt, i
i=1 i=1
The constraints are
⎧ – ξ i ′ – ξ i″ ≤ 0; ξ i ′ – ξ i ″ ≤ 0( i = 1, …, nd )
⎪ substitute for the shape of the tunnel face. Fig. 3(a) shows that
⎪ ui cosθi + vi sinθi = ui ( i = 1, …, nv )
⎨ (3)
⎪ –Ai ≤ 0( i = 1, …, nt )
⎪
⎩ yi = f ( xi )( i = 1, …, nb )
In Eq. (2), Pd,i is the power dissipation in the velocity
discontinuities, while Pt,i is the rate of external work done by
gravity. ξ i ′ and ξ i″ are auxiliary variables that relate to the
velocities and node coordinates of the adjacent elements. The
element-velocity components (ui, vi) ( i = 1, …, nt ) and node
coordinate components ( xi, yi ) ( i = 1, …, nn ) are decision variables.
The element-velocity components ( ui, vi ) ( i = 1, …, nv ) on the
model boundary are determined by the velocity boundary
conditions. nt is the total number of elements; nn is the total
number of nodes; nd is the total number of velocity discontinuities;
nv is the total number of elements at the velocity boundary; and
nb is the total number of nodes at the geometric boundary. Ai is
the area of element i, and f ( xi ) is the boundary function.
The initial value used to solve the above non-linear programming
problem with the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)
method is obtained by solving the linear programming problem
of the finite element upper bound solution with rigid translatory
elements for which the nodes are fixed.
3.2 Upper-Bound Finite Element Method with Plastic
Deformation Elements (UBFEM-PDE)
Sloan (1989, 1995) introduced the finite element technology to
the upper-bound method for limit analysis and established linear
programming models with three nodal triangular plastic deformation
elements. The velocity variables changed linearly in each element
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
and discontinuous velocity fields were permitted among the
elements. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is linearized with
the polygon which is circumscribed to the yield criterion. The
linear programming model can thus be cast in the following
form:
Minimize CT X (4)
Subject to AX = B (5)
where C is the coefficient vector of objective function (4), X is
decision variables comprising the velocities of each mesh-point
(unrestricted), the auxiliary parameters of the velocity discontinuities
(non-negative), and plastic multiplier rates (non-negative), A is
the matrix of the equality constraint coefficients, and B is the
right vector of the equality constraint (5).
Based on the aforementioned concept, an UBFEM-PDE
program has been compiled to obtain upper-bound solutions for
the tunnel face stability.
3.3 Mesh Model
(2)
Figure 3 shows the upper bound meshes for C ⁄ D = 1 with a
smooth interface condition. To simplify the generation of
structured meshes, a flat elliptical curve, for which the ratio of
the long shaft length to the short shaft length is 5, is used as a
284 rigid elements and 486 velocity discontinuities were
considered when modeling the failure of the tunnel face with
UBFEM-RTME. The actual meshes adopted in UBFEM-PDE,
as shown in Fig. 3(b), were much more refined and included
1864 elements and 2748 velocity discontinuities. The diffusion
rate of the elements was obtained after trials and analysis. The
number of sides of the polygon used to linearize the Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion in UBFEM-PDE is 36. The left and
right boundaries are constraints for which u = 0, v = 0 . The
vertical and horizontal velocities along the lined section are zero.
The horizontal velocity at the ground surface is set to zero and
free for the rough and smooth interface conditions, respectively.
No velocity constraints are imposed on the tunnel face. The
constraint created by the surcharge loading is set to ∫ v dS = 1 .
s
The model is discretized in the structured meshes, and a local
mesh refinement method is presented for those regions in which
a failure may occur. The size of the soil domain for the considered
Fig. 3. Finite Element Meshes of Tunnel Face Stability Subjected
to Surcharge Loading: (a) UBFEM-RTME, (b) UBFEM-PDE
−3−
 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

tunnel face geometries is set such that the plasticity failure lies Table 1. A Comparison between the Present Results and those
within the domain. Available in Literature
Augarde Augarde
UBFEM- UBFEM-
et al. (2003; et al. (2003;
4. Results and Discussion RTME PDE
C/D γD/c LBFE) UBFE)
φ= φ= φ= φ= φ= φ=
A compact set of stability charts for the plane strain tunnel 0° 0.25° 0° 0.25° 0° 0°
heading problem in cohesive-frictional soils are presented using 0 - 4.31 4.28 4.34 4.00 4.39
1 - 2.81 2.79 2.84 2.46 2.89
both UBFEM-RTME and UBFEM-PDE. The computations are 1
2 - 1.30 1.27 1.31 0.85 1.39
carried out by varying (i) C/D between 1 and 4, (ii) φ between 0°
3 - -0.24 -0.29 -0.25 -0.74 -0.11
and 25°, and (iii) γD/c between 0 and 3.5. 0 - 5.51 5.43 5.51 5.05 5.68
To verify these two upper-bound finite element methods, the 1 - 2.99 2.93 3.01 2.40 3.18
values of σs/c obtained from the methods outline above with a 2
2 - 0.46 0.41 0.47 -0.20 0.68
flat elliptical tunnel face were compared with (i) the upper bound 3 - -2.09 -2.16 -2.11 -2.84 -1.82
solution of Augarde et al. (2003), and (ii) the lower bound 0 - 6.30 6.19 6.30 5.75 6.50
solution of Augarde et al. (2003) with a vertical tunnel face for 3
1 - 2.78 2.70 2.79 2.20 3.00
the smooth interface condition. It should be pointed out that the 2 - -0.77 -0.84 -0.76 -1.40 -0.50
3 - -4.33 -4.40 -4.35 -5.03 -4.00
solutions from UBFEM-RTME are for cases where φ = 0.25o to
0 - 6.89 6.76 6.89 6.25 7.21
avoid a zero denominator. The associated comparison of all the 1 - 2.36 2.27 2.37 1.71 2.71
results is provided in Table 1. Note that a positive value of σs/c 4
2 - -2.19 -2.27 -2.19 -2.86 -1.79
implies that a compressive normal stress can be applied to the 3 - -6.76 -6.84 -6.78 -7.49 -6.29

Table 2. Results of Critical Load Parameter σs/c for Smooth Interface Case
φ = 0° φ = 0.25° φ = 5° φ = 10° φ = 15° φ = 20° φ = 25°
C/D γD/c UBFEM
RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE
0 - 4.28 4.31 4.34 5.67 5.70 8.06 8.07 12.46 12.42 21.79 21.55 45.18 44.35
0.5 - 3.54 3.56 3.60 4.85 4.89 7.12 7.15 11.34 11.32 20.34 20.16 43.05 42.36
1 - 2.79 2.81 2.84 4.02 4.07 6.17 6.21 10.19 10.20 18.85 18.71 40.85 40.26
1.5 - 2.03 2.06 2.08 3.19 3.23 5.20 5.25 9.02 9.05 17.31 17.22 38.57 38.08
1
2 - 1.27 1.30 1.31 2.35 2.39 4.23 4.28 7.82 7.87 15.66 15.67 36.20 35.78
2.5 - 0.49 0.53 0.53 1.52 1.54 3.25 3.30 6.60 6.66 14.02 14.05 33.74 33.38
3 - -0.29 -0.24 -0.25 0.66 0.68 2.26 2.29 5.37 5.41 12.45 12.37 31.19 30.85
3.5 - -1.08 -1.01 -1.04 -0.19 -0.19 1.24 1.27 4.07 4.12 10.55 10.64 28.23 28.21
0 - 5.43 5.51 5.51 7.74 7.73 12.03 11.99 21.14 20.98 44.13 43.56 118.33 115.21
0.5 - 4.19 4.25 4.27 6.33 6.34 10.36 10.36 19.03 18.98 41.18 40.82 113.33 110.73
1 - 2.93 2.99 3.01 4.91 4.93 8.67 8.70 16.86 16.89 38.09 37.92 108.03 105.94
1.5 - 1.67 1.73 1.74 3.48 3.51 6.94 7.01 14.63 14.72 34.88 34.85 102.50 100.80
2
2 - 0.41 0.46 0.47 2.04 2.07 5.19 5.28 12.34 12.46 31.54 31.62 96.56 95.38
2.5 - -0.87 -0.81 -0.81 0.59 0.62 3.42 3.50 9.98 10.13 28.05 28.24 90.36 89.60
3 - -2.16 -2.09 -2.11 -0.87 -0.85 1.61 1.68 7.56 7.71 24.40 24.68 83.87 83.49
3.5 - -3.45 -3.37 -3.41 -2.33 -2.34 -0.23 -0.19 5.05 5.19 20.62 20.95 76.98 76.99
0 - 6.19 6.30 6.30 9.22 9.21 15.25 15.17 29.23 28.94 69.75 67.89 220.29 212.61
0.5 - 4.45 4.54 4.55 7.22 7.24 12.85 12.84 26.12 26.00 64.58 63.70 211.19 205.06
1 - 2.70 2.78 2.79 5.21 5.24 10.40 10.45 22.90 22.90 59.72 59.19 202.00 197.01
1.5 - 0.93 1.01 1.02 3.18 3.22 7.90 7.99 19.55 19.66 54.60 54.38 192.27 188.23
3
2 - -0.84 -0.77 -0.76 1.13 1.18 5.35 5.46 16.09 16.28 49.24 49.29 181.90 178.76
2.5 - -2.62 -2.54 -2.55 -0.93 -0.88 2.73 2.85 12.50 12.75 43.66 43.95 170.98 168.63
3 - -4.40 -4.33 -4.35 -3.00 -2.97 0.06 0.16 8.77 9.04 37.74 38.25 159.26 157.87
3.5 - -6.20 -6.11 -6.15 -5.10 -5.10 -2.69 -2.63 4.87 5.11 31.50 32.18 146.75 146.28
0 - 6.76 6.89 6.89 10.40 10.37 18.01 17.89 36.91 36.43 97.06 93.58 346.02 330.69
0.5 - 4.52 4.63 4.64 7.82 7.82 14.88 14.86 32.78 32.54 90.81 87.86 333.46 320.41
1 - 2.27 2.36 2.37 5.21 5.24 11.66 11.71 28.46 28.39 82.89 81.64 319.84 307.25
1.5 - 0.00 0.09 0.10 2.57 2.62 8.37 8.47 23.97 24.05 75.89 75.01 305.22 295.87
4
2 - -2.27 -2.19 -2.19 -0.08 -0.03 4.99 5.12 19.28 19.49 68.36 68.01 289.49 281.92
2.5 - -4.55 -4.47 -4.48 -2.76 -2.71 1.51 1.65 14.39 14.68 60.39 60.51 274.20 266.84
3 - -6.84 -6.76 -6.78 -5.47 -5.44 -2.08 -1.96 9.26 9.59 51.96 52.44 256.29 250.92
3.5 - -9.14 -9.05 -9.09 -8.22 -8.21 -5.88 -5.77 3.83 4.16 42.92 43.76 237.23 233.21

−4− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil

Table 3. Results of Critical Load Parameter σs/c for Rough Interface Case
φ = 0° φ = 0.25° φ = 5° φ = 10° φ = 15° φ = 20° φ = 25°
C/D γD/c UBFEM
RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE
0 - 4.39 4.45 4.45 5.83 5.88 8.23 8.34 12.72 12.95 22.20 22.56 46.17 46.90
0.5 - 3.65 3.71 3.71 5.00 5.06 7.28 7.40 11.57 11.82 20.71 21.09 43.99 44.76
1 - 2.90 2.96 2.96 4.18 4.23 6.32 6.44 10.40 10.66 19.18 19.57 41.73 42.52
1.5 - 2.15 2.21 2.20 3.34 3.39 5.34 5.47 9.21 9.46 17.61 18.00 39.38 40.20
1
2 - 1.38 1.45 1.43 2.50 2.54 4.36 4.48 8.00 8.22 16.00 16.39 36.96 37.80
2.5 - 0.61 0.68 0.65 1.65 1.68 3.37 3.47 6.76 6.96 14.35 14.72 34.44 35.27
3 - -0.17 -0.08 -0.13 0.80 0.81 2.37 2.45 5.48 5.68 12.64 13.00 31.84 32.64
3.5 - -0.96 -0.86 -0.93 -0.05 -0.07 1.36 1.41 4.20 4.36 10.86 11.22 29.14 39.90
0 - 5.52 5.56 5.61 7.81 7.89 12.16 12.30 21.33 21.65 44.50 45.19 120.34 121.11
0.5 - 4.28 4.31 4.37 6.39 6.49 10.48 10.65 19.20 19.56 41.50 42.34 115.17 116.40
1 - 3.03 3.05 3.11 4.96 5.07 8.76 8.96 17.01 17.40 38.37 39.35 109.72 111.39
1.5 - 1.77 1.79 1.84 3.53 3.64 7.03 7.23 14.75 15.18 35.10 36.20 103.97 106.08
2
2 - 0.50 0.52 0.57 2.08 2.19 5.26 5.46 12.48 12.88 31.72 32.89 98.19 100.48
2.5 - -0.77 -0.75 -0.72 0.63 0.73 3.47 3.66 10.10 10.50 28.18 29.41 91.87 94.46
3 - -2.06 -2.03 -2.01 -0.82 -0.76 1.66 1.81 7.65 8.03 24.51 25.76 85.23 88.09
3.5 - -3.36 -3.31 -3.31 -2.92 -2.26 -0.20 -0.08 5.13 5.46 20.68 21.88 77.87 81.26
0 - 6.28 6.34 6.40 9.28 9.39 15.36 15.55 29.43 29.86 70.32 70.55 222.13 222.36
0.5 - 4.54 4.58 4.65 7.28 7.40 12.94 13.18 26.28 26.83 65.74 66.13 213.54 214.56
1 - 2.79 2.82 2.88 5.26 5.39 10.47 10.74 23.03 23.63 60.10 61.44 204.31 206.14
1.5 - 1.03 1.05 1.11 3.22 3.36 7.95 8.23 19.66 20.29 54.93 56.46 194.49 197.13
3
2 - -0.74 -0.73 -0.67 1.17 1.30 5.38 5.65 16.18 16.82 49.41 51.21 184.07 187.41
2.5 - -2.52 -2.51 -2.46 -0.90 -0.79 2.76 3.00 12.57 13.20 43.88 45.69 172.97 176.90
3 - -4.31 -4.29 -4.26 -2.98 -2.90 0.08 0.28 8.82 9.40 37.91 39.79 161.20 165.66
3.5 - -6.11 -6.07 -6.06 -5.08 -5.03 -2.68 -2.55 4.90 5.39 31.63 33.52 148.66 153.54
0 - 6.85 6.92 6.98 10.45 10.56 18.10 18.34 37.11 37.58 97.74 96.96 352.31 346.09
0.5 - 4.62 4.66 4.73 7.86 7.99 14.94 15.24 32.94 33.54 91.46 91.05 338.76 335.21
1 - 2.35 2.39 2.46 5.24 5.38 11.71 12.03 28.59 29.27 83.34 84.64 325.69 323.18
1.5 - 0.09 0.12 0.19 2.60 2.74 8.40 8.72 24.06 24.81 76.15 77.80 312.04 309.89
4
2 - -2.18 -2.15 -2.10 -0.06 0.07 5.01 5.32 19.35 20.16 68.55 70.56 294.78 295.39
2.5 - -4.46 -4.43 -4.39 -2.75 -2.64 1.54 1.81 14.44 15.25 60.54 62.79 278.19 279.69
3 - -6.75 -6.72 -6.70 -5.46 -5.38 -2.07 -1.85 9.29 10.05 52.07 54.46 259.35 262.81
3.5 - -9.05 -9.02 -9.01 -8.20 -8.16 -5.86 -5.74 3.86 4.46 43.09 45.50 245.11 244.30

ground surface, while a negative value means that we can only
apply a tensile normal stress to the soil surface, theoretically. For
different values of γD/C, the obtained σs/c are found to be
marginally lower than the upper bound solutions and slightly
greater than the lower bound solutions. These comparisons
indirectly indicate that the obtained solutions are found to be in
good agreement with those in literature.
Tables 2-3 list the upper-bound solutions obtained from
UBFEM-RTME and UBFEM-PDE for ground surface loading
with both smooth and rough interface conditions, respectively.
The results are also presented as dimensionless stability charts in
Figs. 4-6 for the smooth interface condition. Fig. 4 shows that
starting from φ =15o, the critical load parameter σs/c increases
with C/D when φ and γD/c remain constant, while σs/c decreases
with C/D when γD/c ≥ 2 in those cases where φ < 15o. Note that
for φ = 25o, σs/c is found to vary approximately (i) 666% with
γD/c = 0, and (ii) 740% with γD/c = 3.5 as C/D increases. As
expected, Fig. 5 shows that there is a similar linear relationship
between σs/c and γD/c. σs/c decreases approximately (i) 103%
with φ = 5o and 37.5% with φ = 25o for C/D = 1, and (ii) 178%
with φ = 5o and 30.4% with φ = 25o for C/D = 4 when γD/c
increases. Fig. 6 shows that for larger values of φ, the loading
parameter σs/c increases with φ for cases where φ > 20o, and the
influence of the depth becomes increasingly more significant.
For the case with a rough interface condition, the general trend is
almost the same as for the smooth case, but the critical load
parameters σs/c are slightly higher.
The failure mechanism obtained with both UBFEM-PDE and
UBFEM-RTME for (C/D = 1, γD/c = 1, φ = 15o) with a smooth
interface condition is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7(a) was obtained
using UBFEM-PDE by deleting those elements for which the
velocity approaches to zero, while Fig. 7(b) was acquired using
UBFEM-RTME by removing non-active velocity discontinuities.
Fig. 7(a) shows that the optimal mesh deformation diagram

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

Fig. 4. Upper Bounds on Critical Load Parameter (φ = 5°, 15°, 25°, smooth interface): (a) φ = 5o, (b) φ = 15o, (c) φ = 25o

Fig. 5. Upper Bounds on Critical Load Parameter (C/D = 1, 2, 3, 4, smooth interface): (a) C/D = 1, (b) C/D = 2, (c) C/D = 3, (d) C/D = 4

cannot illustrate the smooth slip lines because the element node
coordinates are all fixed. The UBFEM-RTME method can
exhibit specific slip lines and explicitly reflect the relative
movement of blocks with the automatic adjustment of velocity
discontinuities. Therefore, the following discussions on the
failure mechanisms of the tunnel face are illustrated using results
obtained with UBFEM-RTME.
Figures 8-10 show the failure mechanisms using UBFEM-
RTME for the smooth interface condition. The figures clearly
illustrate the failure mechanisms with two groups of smooth

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil

Fig. 6. Upper Bounds on Critical Load Parameter (γD/c = 0,1,2,3, smooth interface): (a) γD/c = 0, (b) γD/c = 1, (c) γD/c = 2, (d) γD/c = 3

lines resulting from the automatic adjustment of velocity

Fig. 7. Failure Mechanism Obtained by Finite Element Upper-
bound Methods (C/D = 1, γD/c = 1, φ = 15°): (a) PDE, (b)
RTME
discontinuities. For the case of the moderate γD/c presented in
Fig. 8, the failure patterns, ahead of the heading face, do not vary
significantly with γD/c, while the scale of the failure area
decreases from 2.2D to 1.85D as γD/c increases. Fig. 9 indicates
that the portion of the failure mechanism close to the ground
diminishes as φ increases, but the movement of the rigid blocks
becomes more intense. These figures also show that, as φ
increases, the failure mode evolves to include the region behind

Fig. 8. Effect of γD/c on Failure Mechanism (C/D = 2, φ = 15°, smooth interface): (a) γD/c = 0, (b) γD/c = 2, (c) γD/c = 3.5, (d) Failure Zone

Fig. 9. Effect of φ on Failure Mechanism (C/D = 2, φD/c = 2, smooth interface): (a) φ = 5o, (b) φ = 15o, (c) φ = 25o, (d) Failure Zone

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−

 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang
Fig. 10. Effect of C/D on Failure Mechanism (γD/c = 3, φ = 20°,
smooth interface): (a) C/D = 1, (b) C/D =2, (c) C/D = 3, (d)
C/D = 4, (e) Failure Zone
Fig. 11. Effect of Loading-ground Interface Condition on Failure
mechanism (C/D = 2, γD/c = 3, φ = 10°): (a) Smooth, (b)
Rough, (c) Failure Zone
the face above the tunnel. When C/D is increased as shown in
Fig. 10, it may lead to wider failure area and a greater
contribution to plastic flow in the base of the heading. Failure
width at the ground surface increases from 0.74D to 2.3D with
an increase in C/D from 1 to 3. Fig. 11 compares the failure
mechanisms obtained with both the smooth interface and rough
interface conditions. As the horizontal velocity is fixed to zero
along the ground surface, the portion of the failure mechanism
close to the ground evolves, becoming closer to the tunnel face
with the rough interface condition.
5. Conclusions
The stability of a plane strain tunnel face in a cohesive-frictional
soil subjected to surcharge loading was investigated using both
UBFEM-RTME and UBFEM-PDE. The results of these analyses
have been presented in the form of dimensionless stability charts
and failure mechanisms. The results produced by these two
methods are in good agreement with one another.
1. Different interface conditions have no discernible effect on
the upper-bound solutions. The critical load parameter σs/c
decreases linearly with γD/c and varies significantly as φ
increases, especially for φ > 20o. For φ = 25o, σs/c increases
approximately (i) 666% with γD/c = 0, and (ii) 740% with
−8−
γD/c = 3.5 as C/D increases.
2. The failure mechanisms obtained using UBFEM-RTME
exhibit specific slip lines and explicitly reflect the relative
movement of blocks with the automatic adjustment of the
velocity discontinuities. Compared to the case with the
smooth interface, the portion of the failure mechanism close
to the ground with the rough interface is closer to the tunnel
face. The failure patterns do not vary significantly with the
tunnel depths and γD/c but are sensitive to φ. For larger val-
ues of C/D, failure width at the ground surface increases
from 0.74D to 2.3D with γD/c = 3 and φ = 20o.
Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51008309, 51208522, 51478477), and
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of
Central South University (2014zzts045). The authors are grateful
to these institutions for this support.
References
Abbo, A. J., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2013).
“Undrained stability of wide rectangular tunnels.” Computers and
Geotechnics, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 46-59, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.
2013.04.005.
Anagnostou, G. and Kovári K. (1994). “The face stability of slurry-
shield-driven tunnels.” Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 165-174, DOI: 10.1016/0886-7798 (94)90028-0.
Atkinson, J. H. and Potts, D. M. (1977). “Stability of a shallow circular
tunnel in cohesionless soil.” Geotechnique, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 203-
215, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1977.27.2.203.
Augarde, C. E., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2003). “Stability of
undrained plane strain heading revisited.” Computers and Geotechnics,
Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 419-430, DOI: 10.1016/S0266-352X(03)00009-0.
Chakraborty, D. and Kumar, J. (2013). “Stability of a long unsupported
circular tunnel in soils with seismic forces.” Natural Hazards,
Springer, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 419-431, DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-
0633-y.
Davis, E. H., Guun, M. J., Mair, R. J. and Seneviratne, H. N. (1980).
“The stability of shallow tunnels and underground openings in
cohesive material.” Geotechnique, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 397-416, DOI:
10.1680/geot.1980.30.4.397.
Drucker, D. C., Greenberg, H. J., and Prager, W. (1951). “The safety
factor of an elastic plastic body in plane strain.” Journal of Applied
Mechanics-Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 371-378.
Drucker, D. C., Prager, W., and Greenberg, H. J. (1952). “Extended limit
design theorems for continuous media.” Quarterly of Applied
Mathematics, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 381-389.
Eisenstein, Z. and Samarasekara, L. (1992). “Stability of unsupported
tunnels in clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
609-613, DOI: 10.1139/t92-068.
Fraldi, M. and Guarracino, F. (2009). “Limit analysis of collapse
mechanismsin cavities and tunnels according to the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 665-673, DOI: 10.1016/
j.ijrmms.2008.09.014.
Fraldi, M. and Guarracino, F. (2010). “Analytical solutions for collapse
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil
mechanisms in tunnels with arbitrary cross sections.” International
Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 216-223, DOI:
10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.09.028.
Hambleton, J. P. and Sloan, S. W. (2013). “A perturbation method for
optimization of rigid block mechanisms in the kinematic method of
limit analysis.” Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 260-
271, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.07.012.
Huang, M. S. and Song, C. X. (2013). “Upper-bound stability analysis
of a plane strain heanding in non-homogeneous clay.” Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp. 213-223,
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2013.07.012.
Jancsecz, S. and Steiner, W. (1994). “Face support for a large mix-shield
in heterogeneous ground conditions.” Tunneling, London, pp. 531-
550.
Kim, S. H. and Tonon, F. (2010). “Face stability and required support
pressure for TBM driven tunnels with ideal face membrane-Drained
case.” Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 25, No.
5, pp. 526-542, DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2010.03.002.
Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. (1990). “Upper and lower bound solutions
for the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material.”
Géotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 581-606, DOI: 10.1680/geot.
1990.40.4.581.
Lee, I. M. and Nam, S. W. (2001). “The study of seepage forces acting
on the tunnel lining and tunnel face in shallow tunnels.” Tunnels and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 31-40, DOI:
10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00028-1.
Lee, I. M., Lee, J. S., and Nam, S. W. (2004). “Effect of seepage force
on tunnel face stability reinforced with muti-step pipe grouting.”
Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp.
551-565, DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2004.01.003.
Lee, I. M., Nam, S. W., and Jae, H. A. (2003). “Effect of seepage force
on tunnel face stability.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40,
No. 2, pp. 342-350, DOI: 10.1139/t02-120.
Li, Y., Emeriault, F., Kastner, R., and Zhang, Z. X. (2009). “Stability
analysis of large slurry shield driven tunnel in soft clay.” Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 472-481,
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2008.10.007.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., and Bracegirdle, A. (1993). “Subsurface settlement
profiles above tunnels in clays.” Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.
315-320, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.315.
Maynar, M. J. M. and Rodríguez, L. E. M. (2005). “Discrete numerical
model for analysis of earth pressure balance tunnel excavation.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
131, No. 10, pp. 1234-1242, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2005)131:10(1234).
Milani, G. and Lourenco, P. B. (2009). “A discontinuous quasi-upper
bound limit analysis approach with sequential linear programming
mesh adaptation.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,
Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 89-104, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2008.10.010.
Mollon, G., Dias, D., and Soubra, A. H. (2009). “Probalilistic analysis
and design of circular tunnels against face stability.” International
Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 237-249, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1532-364120099:6237.
Mollon, G., Dias, D., and Soubra, A. H. (2010). “Face stability analysis
of circular tunnels driven by a pressurized shield.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 1,
pp. 215-229, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000194.
Sahoo, J. P. and Kumar, J. (2013a). “Stability of a long unsupported
circular tunnel in clayey soil by using upper bound finite element
limit analysis.” Proceedings, Indian National Science, Academy,
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −9−
Vol. 79, No. 64, pp. 807-815.
Sahoo, J. P. and Kumar, J. (2013b). “Stability of long unsupported twin
circular tunnels in soils.” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, Vol. 38, pp. 326-335, DOI: 10.1016/ j.tust.2013.07.005.
Sahoo, J. P. and Kumar, J. (2014). “Stability of a circular tunnel in
presence of pseudostatic seismic body forces.” Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 42, pp. 264-276, DOI:
10.1016/j.tust.2014.03.003.
Schofield, A. N. (1980). “Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations.”
Geotechnique, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 227-267, DOI: 10.1680/geot.
1980.30.3.227.
Sloan, S. W. (1989). “Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements
and linear programming.” Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, Vol.
13, No. 3, pp. 263-282, DOI: 10.1002/nag. 1610130304.
Sloan, S. W. and Assadi, A. (1994). “Undrained stability of a plane
strain heading.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.
443-50, DOI: 10.1139/t94-051.
Sloan, S. W. and Kleeman, P. W., (1995). “Upper bound limit analysis
using discontinuous velocity fields.” Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 11, pp. 293-314.
Song, C. X., Huang, M. S., and Lv, X. L. (2011). “Upper bound analysis
of plane strain tunnel in nonhomogeneous clays.” Rock and Soil
Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 2645-2651, DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.
1000-7598.2011.09.014. (in chinese)
Soubra, A. H. (2000). Three-dimensional face stability analysis of
shallow circular tunnels, International Conference on Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, pp. 19-24.
Soubra, A. H. (2002). Kinematical approach to the face stability analysis
of shallow circular tunnels, In: Proceedings of the 8th International
Symposium on Plasticity. British Columbia, Canada, pp. 443-445.
Subrin, D. and Wong, H. (2002). “Tunnel face stability in frictional material:
A New 3D failure mechanism.” Comptes Rendus Mecanique, Vol. 330,
No. 7, pp. 513-519, DOI: S1631-0721(02)01491-2.
Subrin, D., Branque, D., Berthoz, N., and Wong, H. (2009). Kinematic
3D approaches to evaluate TBM face stability: Comparison with
experimental laboratory observations, 2th International conference
on computational methods in tunneling, Ruhr University Bochum,
pp. 801-808.
Wilson, D. W., Abbo, A. J., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2011).
“Undrained stability of a circular tunnel where the shear strength
increases linearly with depth.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
48, No. 9, pp. 1328-1342, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1325.8882.
Wilson, D. W., Abbo, A. J., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2013).
“Undrained stability of a square tunnel where the shear strength
increases linearly with depth.” Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 49,
pp. 314-325, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.005.
Wilson, D. W., Abbo, A. J., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2014).
“Undrained stability of dual circular tunnels.” International Journal
of Geomechanics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 69-79, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
GM. 1943-5622.0000288.
Yamamoto, K., Lyamin, A. V., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., Abbo, A. J.
(2011b). “Stability of a single tunnel in cohesive-frictional soil
subjected to surcharge loading.” Can. Geotech. J, Vol. 48, pp. 1841-
1854, DOI: 10.1139/T11-078.
Yamamoto, K., Lyamin, A. V., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., and Abbo,
A. J. (2011a). “Stability of a circular tunnel in cohesive-frictional
soil subjected to surcharge loading.” Computers and Geotechnics,
Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 504-514, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.02.014.
Yamamoto, K., Lyamin, A. V., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., and Abbo,
A. J. (2013). “Stability of dual circular tunnels in cohesive-frictional
 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

soil subjected to surcharge loading.” Computer and Geotechnics,
Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 41-54, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.12.008.
Yang, F. and Yang, J. S. (2010). “Stability of shallow tunnel using rigid
blocks and finite-element upper bound solutions.” International
Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 242-247, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000011.
Yang, F., Yang, J. S., and Zhao, L. H. (2010). “Failure mechanism an
support pressure for shallow tunnel face.” Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 279-284. (in chinese)
Yang, F., Zhang, J., Yang, J. S., Zhao, L. H., and Zheng, X. C., 2015.
“Stability analysis of unlined elliptical tunnel using finite element
upper-bound method with rigid translatory moving elements.”
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 50, No. 8, pp.
13-22, DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2010.06.005.
Yang, F., Zhao, L. H., Zhang, J., and Yangm J. S. (2014). Investigation
of finite element upper bound solution based on rigid translatory
moving element.” Rock and Soil Mechanics, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.
1782-1786. (in chinese)
Yang, X. L. and Huang, F. (2013). “Three-dimensional failure mechanism
of a rectangular cavity in a Hoek-Brown rock medium.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp.
189-195, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.02.014.

− 10 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

View publication stats