Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stresses around Unsupported Tunnels in Rock

Yu-Ling Chou1 and Antonio Bobet2

1
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907;
abowchou@yahoo.com.tw
2
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette,
IN 47907; bobet@ecn.purdue.edu

ABSTRACT: There is increasing interest around the world in using the underground
space for civil engineering infrastructure. Analytical and numerical methods for the
design of excavation and support of tunnels are slowly introduced into practice. When
used, an assumption typically made is that the design of the tunnel can be done using a
two dimensional approach. However, the 2-D approach is not adequate to predict the
behavior near or ahead of the tunnel face. This paper provides a conceptual
understanding of what are the stress changes induced in an elastic ground as a tunnel is
excavated. This is done through a number of three–dimensional numerical simulations
using a Finite Element Method. The results show that stresses are independent of the
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the rock. There is a volume of rock ahead of
the tunnel face where the axial stresses are substantially reduced from those of the far-
field. Such reduction becomes larger with an increase of the far-field axial stresses.
With increasing the far-field vertical stress, the axial stress around the excavation
becomes more asymmetric. What is also interesting is that the position of the point
where yielding of the rock occurs first is located on the perimeter of the tunnel at some
distance from the face. The point moves closer to the face as the far-field axial stress
increases.

1. INTRODUCTION

The design of excavation and support of tunnels is still considered an art rather than
a science or a technology. This is so because of the rich and diverse experience from
tunnel construction, and also because of the lack of accurate and reliable tools
available for design.
Empirical methods are systematically used by engineers for design, together with the
observational method, where construction process and support may be changed as the
tunnel advances. This is the key philosophy for example for the NATM (New Austrian
Tunneling Method). Analytical and numerical methods are however slowly introduced
into practice. When used, an assumption typically made is that the design of the tunnel
can be done using a two dimensional approach. In the 2-D approach a cross section

492

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS 493
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

perpendicular to the tunnel axis is used for the calculations (Kisch, 1898; Hoek and
Brown, 1980). This is clearly a simplification of the problem because tunnels are
three-dimensional structures. For unsupported tunnels, a 2-D approach, with the
assumption of elastic response of the ground, may be satisfactory for sections far
behind the tunnel face because the solution is path independent. For supported tunnels
the assumptions of 2-D and elasticity result in larger loads to the support and smaller
loads to the ground compared with what actually happens. If the ground yields, which
is generally the case, except perhaps for strong rocks, the 2-D approach gives
erroneous results. In this case a 3-D approach with an appropriate ground material
model must be used. Also, the construction process has to be followed with the model
because the solution is path dependent.
As the tunnel is excavated, arching at the tunnel face provides support to the
unsupported rock close to the face (e.g. Daemen, 1977). This phenomenon results in
stresses and deformations near the tunnel face that are different from those far behind
the face. Thus the stresses obtained by the 2-D approach may not be correct. A 3-D
model is then needed to accurately simulate underground excavations. A 3-D close-
form solution is not yet available, but progress is currently being made (e.g. Erdmann,
1983; Pan and Hudson, 1988; Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst, 2000). In these studies
an attempt was made to provide insight into the stress and deformation fields produced
around the face of a tunnel and to identify differences between 2-D and 3-D analyses.
3-D models are needed to compute stress changes inside the ground, especially ahead
of the tunnel face (Meyer et al., 1999; Eberhardt, 2001; Panet and Guenot, 1982;
Panet, 1995; Corbetta et al. 1991; Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst, 1999; and Nam and
Bobet, 2007).
The goal of this paper is to provide insight into the stress changes induced by the
tunnel excavation in the surrounding ground. This is done numerically for the case of
an unsupported tunnel in an elastic medium. In particular the dependency of results on
the elastic properties of the medium is investigated. The reason for this is that in 2-D
the solution in terms of stresses is independent on the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s
ratio of the material. Also, the paper aims at providing a conceptual understanding of
the stress changes induced in the ground as the tunnel is excavated. Finally, the paper
presents a discussion regarding the location of first yielding. The investigation is done
through a number of 3-D numerical simulations using the Finite Element code
ABAQUS.

2. STRESS CHANGES DUE TO EXCAVATION

The mesh used for this study is a rectangular parallelepiped with dimensions
600×300×300 m. Solid cubic elements with 20 nodes are chosen. There are 9150
elements and 40888 nodes in the mesh. This model simulates an elastic rock material
where a deep circular tunnel with radius, R=5 m, is excavated. Since the ground is
assumed elastic, the results are time- and path- independent. Due to the symmetry of
the problem, only one quarter of the mesh is needed (FIG. 1).
The coordinates x, y, and z in FIG. 1 are parallel to the axial, horizontal, and vertical
directions, respectively. Polar coordinates as shown in FIG. 2 are used to present
stresses.

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 494 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. 3-D Finite-element mesh and model geometry.

FIG. 2. Polar coordinate system.

The cases investigated are shown in Table 1. The vertical, horizontal (perpendicular
to tunnel axis), and axial (parallel to tunnel axis) stresses are labeled as v , h , and
a , respectively. Cases in Group 1 are used to investigate the effects of Young’s
modulus E (Cases 1, 2, and 3) and Poisson’s ratio (Cases 2, 4, and 5). The cases in
Group 2 are used to analyze the effects of far-field stresses. Note that Case 6 has axial
symmetry and is taken as the base case. Cases 7 and 8 have larger v and Cases 9 and
10, larger a .
In the following sections the effects of the elastic properties on stresses and
displacements are investigated, as well as the area of influence of the excavation on

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS 495
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the stress field.

Table 1. Model Cases

In-situ Stresses Material Characteristics

Model Cases (MPa) E (MPa)
v h (MPa) a (MPa)
Case 1 53 20 20 15,000 0.3
Case 2 53 20 20 30,000 0.3
Group 1 Case 3 53 20 20 60,000 0.3
Case 4 53 20 20 30,000 0.25
Case 5 53 20 20 30,000 0.45
Case 6 40 40 20 30,000 0.3
Case 7 60 40 20 30,000 0.3
Group 2 Case 8 80 40 20 30,000 0.3
Case 9 40 40 40 30,000 0.3
Case 10 40 40 80 30,000 0.3

2.1 Dependence of Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

Analytical solutions for an unsupported circular opening in an elastic medium (plane

strain analysis) show that stresses are independent of the elastic properties of the
material and that displacements are inversely proportional to the Young’s modulus and
have a weak dependency on the Poisson’s ratio. The following numerical simulations
show that this is also the case for three-dimensional analyses. The cases tested
correspond to those of Group 1 in Table 1.

FIG. 3. Tangential stress at tunnel crown (Cases 1, 2, and 3).

FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show that indeed stresses are independent of the Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio. FIG. 3 plots the tangential stresses at the crown of

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 496 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the tunnel along the tunnel axis, for Cases 1, 2, and 3, and FIG. 4 for Cases 2, 4, and
5. In the figures, the stresses are normalized with the vertical stress, and the axial
distance is normalized with the tunnel radius. The axial distance is positive along the
unexcavated portion of the tunnel (ahead of the tunnel face) and negative on the
excavated portion of the tunnel (behind the face). The normalized tangential stresses
for each case plot on top of each other, and yet the magnitudes of the Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio are different. Similar results are found at other locations
such as the center, crown, and springline along the tunnel axis, both behind and ahead
of the tunnel face (not shown in the figures). Since stresses are independent of E,
displacements, as in 2-D, are inversely proportional to the Young’s modulus. Plots
similar to those shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 confirm this and also indicate that
displacements are somewhat insensitive to the Poisson’s ratio, at least within the
typical range of values found in rocks.
In FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 there is a jump of stresses at the tunnel face. This is due to the
sharp transition between the excavated and unexcavated tunnel, as the perimeter of the
excavated portion of the tunnel meets the tunnel face at a sharp corner. This sharp
corner creates a very large concentration of stresses, which does not correspond with
the actual physical process (i.e. the rock would yield).

FIG. 4. Tangential stress at tunnel crown (Cases 4, 2, and 5).

2.2 Stress Magnitude and Area Affected around the Tunnel Face

When the tunnel is excavated, the far-field in-situ stresses are redistributed around
the opening. As shown in the previous section, the elastic material properties do not
affect the stress magnitude around the tunnel, but the magnitude and orientation of the
in-situ stresses determine the values and distribution of the induced stresses.
FIG. 5 is a plot of a (axial stress) ahead of the tunnel face for Case 6
(axisymmetric). It is interesting to note that a large volume of rock ahead of the tunnel

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS 497
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

excavation experiences a reduction of a (the far-field axial stresses are 20 MPa). The
stress concentration at the perimeter of the face is due to the sharp corner in the model.
FIG. 6 shows the distribution of h also for Case 6 ( v , due to the symmetry, is
analogous to h ). There is increased loading at the crown and unloading at the spring
line. This is expected because h coincides with the tangential stress at the crown and
with the radial stress at the spring line. Note also that no unloading of h occurs
ahead of the face of the tunnel ( h remains 40 MPa). With an increase of v , the
distribution of a becomes asymmetric along the perimeter. The higher that v is, the
more asymmetric the distribution of a is.

FIG. 5. Axisymmetric case (Case 6, a = 20 MPa and v = h = 40 MPa) – axial

stress a in a 3-D view inside the ground, ahead of the tunnel face.

FIG. 6. Axisymmetric case (Case 6, a = 20 MPa and v = h = 40 MPa) –

horizontal stress h in a 3-D view inside the ground, ahead of the tunnel face.

3. GROUND YIELDING DUE TO EXCAVATION

Finding the location where first yielding occurs in a tunnel may be of interest since
this is the point where damage to the rock first occurs. The idea that is used to find the

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 498 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

location of the point of first yielding is based on the determination of the closest Mohr
circle to the failure envelope on the - diagram. Although in elasticity there is no
yielding, the concept is that as the applied stresses steadily increase, failure will
eventually occur, but first at this particular location. The Mohr circle closest to failure
can be determined based on its size and position of its center on the axis. If the
major or minor principal stresses of two Mohr circles have the same magnitude, the
Mohr circle with the largest radius is the one closer to the failure envelope. If two
Mohr circles have the same radius, the one with the center nearer the origin in the -
diagram is closer to failure. Based on these concepts, the stresses computed around
the excavation can be used to determine the closest Mohr circle to the failure
envelope, no matter what the shape of the failure envelope is.
An analysis of the stresses around the tunnel indicates that the Mohr circles are
closer to the yield envelope at the perimeter of the tunnel rather than inside the rock
mass. This is so because at the boundaries of the excavation the deviatoric stress is the
largest. This is the result of the radial stresses at the perimeter and the axial stress at
the face being zero, and also because at the perimeter of the excavation the radial,
tangential, and axial stresses are principal stresses. Away from the tunnel, the minor
principal stress increases and the major principal stress decreases to become
eventually the far-field stresses. This means that the Mohr circles inside the rock are
smaller and move away from the origin, as the minor principal stress increases (or as
the radial distance increases).
Cases 6, 7, 9 and 10 are used to determine the location of the point of first yield and
its dependence on the far-field stresses. Due to the reasons provided regarding the
location of the largest Mohr circle, only points at the perimeter of the excavation are
scrutinized, with the exception of the intersection between the tunnel perimeter and the
face, due to the large concentration of stresses.
In Cases 6 and 9, which have axial stresses lower than the vertical and horizontal
stresses, first yielding occurs at the tunnel perimeter far behind the face. In Case 10,
where the axial stress is the largest, yielding occurs first near the face. This shows that
the location of yielding depends on the relative magnitude of the axial stress compared
with the other stresses, in such a way that as the axial stress increases, the location of
the point where first yielding will occur moves towards the face. Case 7 is examined
to explore the effects of asymmetric loading. In Case 7, the vertical stress is the
highest of the other in-situ stresses and the axial stress is the lowest. Yielding occurs
first at the springline far behind the tunnel face. What the results consistently show is
that yielding will occur first at the perimeter of the excavation, and at the face
yielding, if any, will occur later.

4. CONCLUSIONS

As the tunnel excavation advances, the stresses in the rock change around the tunnel
face. The 2-D approach is not adequate to predict the behavior near or ahead of the
tunnel face. Therefore, 3-D models are needed to accurately obtain the stress
distribution around the tunnel excavation.
The 2-D solution for an unsupported tunnel in an elastic medium is independent of

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008
 GEOCONGRESS 2008: CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND, MODELING OF GEOSYSTEMS 499
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/14/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the material properties. This study provides similar results for the 3-D solution. Also,
the results indicate that the magnitude and distribution of stresses around the tunnel
change with in-situ stresses. Interestingly there is a significant reduction of axial
stresses ahead of the tunnel face. Yielding always occurs first at the tunnel perimeter,
and as the far-field axial stress increases, the location of the point where yielding
occurs first moves towards the face of the tunnel.

REFERENCES

Carranza-Torres, C., and C. Fairhurst, 1999, The Elasto-Plastic Response of

Underground Excavations in Rock Masses that Satisfy the Hoek-Brown Failure
Criterion: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, v. 36, p.
777-809.
Carranza-Torres, C., and C. Fairhurst, 2000, Application of the Convergence-
Confinement Method of Tunnel Design to Rock Masses that Satisfy the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion: Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, v. 15, p.
187-213.
Corbetta, F., D. Bernaud, and D. Nguyen-Minh, 1991, Contribution à la Méthode
Convergence-Confinement par le Principe de la Similitude: Rev. Fr. Géotech, v. 54,
p. 5-11.
Daemen, J. J. K., 1977, Problems in Tunnel Support Mechanics: Underground Space,
v. 1, p. 163-172.
Eberhardt, E., 2001, Numerical Modelling of Three-Dimension Stress Rotation ahead
of an Advancing Tunnel Face: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, v. 38, p. 499-518.
Erdmann, J., 1983, Comparison of Plane and Development of 3-Dimensional Analyses
for Tunnelling, Institut für Statik Technische Universität Braunschweig.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T., 1980, Underground Excavations in Rock: London, The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 527 p.
Kirsch, G., 1898, Die Theorie der Elastizitãt und die Bedürfnisse der Festigkeitslehre:
Viet. Ver. Deut. Ing., v. 42, p. 797-807.
Meyer, L. H. I., D. Stead, and J. S. Coggan, 1999, Three Dimensional Modelling of
the Effects of High Horizontal Stress on Underground Excavation Stability, in G.
Vouille, and P. Berest, eds., Proceedings of the Congress of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics, v. 9, p. 411-416.
Nam, S. W., and A. Bobet, 2007, Radial Deformations Induced by Groundwater Flow
on Deep Circular Tunnels: Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, v. 40, p. 23-39.
Pan, X. D., and J. A. Hudson, 1988, Plane Strain Analysis in Modelling Three-
Dimensional Tunnel Excavations: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 25, p. 331-337.
Panet, M., 1995, Calcul des Tunnels par la Méthode de Convergence-Confinement,
Presses de 1'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France.
Panet, M., and A. Guenot, 1982, Analysis of Convergence behind the Face of a
Tunnel: Proc. Int. Sym. Tunnelling '82, p. 197-204.

Copyright ASCE 2008 GeoCongress 2008

GeoCongress 2008