mathematics
Article
Inverse Analysis for the Convergence-Confinement Method
in Tunneling
Yu-Lin Lee 1, * , Wei-Cheng Kao 1 , Chih-Sheng Chen 1 , Chi-Huang Ma 1 , Pei-Wen Hsieh 1 and Chi-Min Lee 2






Citation: Lee, Y.-L.; Kao, W.-C.; Chen,
C.-S.; Ma, C.-H.; Hsieh, P.-W.; Lee,
C.-M. Inverse Analysis for the
Convergence-Confinement Method
in Tunneling. Mathematics 2022, 10,
1223. https://doi.org/10.3390/
math10081223
Academic Editor: Hongyu Liu
Received: 4 February 2022
Accepted: 6 April 2022
Published: 8 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081223
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu 30012, Taiwan;
d11004003@chu.edu.tw (W.-C.K.); d11104001@chu.edu.tw (C.-S.C.); d11004001@chu.edu.tw (C.-H.M.);
d10904002@chu.edu.tw (P.-W.H.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan City 32001, Taiwan;
francislee0129@g.ncu.edu.tw
* Correspondence: rosalee@chu.edu.tw
Abstract: For the safety of tunnel excavation, the observation of tunnel convergence not only provides
a technique for assessing the stability of the surrounding ground, but also provides an estimate of
the constitutive parameters of geological materials. This estimation method belongs to an inverse
algorithm process called the inverse calculation method (ICM), which utilizes the incremental concept
in the convergence-confinement method (CCM) to solve the support-ground interaction of circular
tunnel excavation. The method is to determine the mathematical solution of the intersection of the
two nonlinear curves, the support confining curve (SCC) and the ground reaction curve (GRC) in the
CCM by using Newton’s recursive method and inversely calculating the unknown parameters. To
verify the validity of the developed inverse algorithm process, this study compares the results of the
ICM with those of the published articles. In addition, the modulus of rock mass and unsupported
span are inversely deduced using the values of convergence difference measured in the practical case
of railway tunnels.
Keywords: inverse problems; inverse calculation method; tunnel analysis; convergence-confinement
method; support-ground interaction; Newton’s recursive method
1. Introduction
The inverse analysis is formulated to determine the constitutive coefficients of geo-
material that minimize the difference between the experimentally measured values and
the calculated data. The observation method in engineering practice is to use an arranged
monitoring system, which can observe the changing trend of geo-material behavior. This
is a key point when designing tunnel supports [1,2]. The use of measurements can reveal
important aspects of support-ground interactions and predictions of tunnel surrounding
rock behavior. The back analysis involves a process in which the different parameters
and assumptions of the test problem are changed so that the analysis results match the
predicted performance as much as possible [3–6]. A displacement-based back analysis
methodology is used which yields the complete initial stress and Young’s modulus of the
rock mass by assuming the rock as linearly elastic and isotropic [7–9]. In addition, many
researchers have studied the inverse calculation of in situ stress in rock mass using different
search algorithms [10–12], and also many articles concerning the inverse elastic scattering
problem and inverse conductivity problem are included in the literature review in the field
of inverse analysis [13–15].
The Convergence-Confinement Method (CCM) is a useful preliminary tool for support
design often used in tunnel engineering. Many studies discuss its application in predicting
and analyzing the behavior of underground structures with supports [16–20]. The method
consists of three different curves: the confinement loss curve (CLC), the support confining
curve (SCC), and the ground reaction force curve (GRC), combined with simulating the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
 confining curve (SCC), and the ground reaction force curve (GRC), combined with s
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 lating the interaction behavior of support-ground, as shown in Figure 1 [21]. 2 of As
18 the tu
excavation progresses, changes in surrounding rock stress lead to a concomitant incr
in radial displacement; therefore, the GRC plays an important role in determining w
interaction
to install behavior
support andof support-ground,
the stiffness ofasthat shown in Figure
support 1 [21]. As
[22,23]. theSCC
The tunnelcharacterizes
excavation the
progresses, changes in surrounding rock stress lead to a concomitant
port deformation caused by the mobilized support pressure exerted on it, and the m increase in radial
displacement; therefore, the GRC plays an important role in determining when to install
lized support pressure that can be tolerated by radial convergence that occurs after
support and the stiffness of that support [22,23]. The SCC characterizes the support
portdeformation
is installed, as well
caused by theas mobilized
the support stiffness
support employed
pressure exerted on [24–26].
it, and theAsmobilized
shown in the u
part of Figure 1, the third curve of this method is called the confinement lossiscurve (C
support pressure that can be tolerated by radial convergence that occurs after support
installed,
[27]. This curveas well as the support
represents stiffness
a radial employed [24–26].
displacement As shown
line along in the upper part
the excavation direction o
of Figure 1, the third curve of this method is called the confinement loss curve (CLC) [27].
tunnel which can be represented by a mathematical function through regression anal
This curve represents a radial displacement line along the excavation direction of the tunnel
Thewhich
purpose
can beisrepresented
to use this byfunction to explain
a mathematical functionthe simulation
through regressionof analysis.
stress relief
The due to
distance
purpose between thefunction
is to use this observed section
to explain theand the advancing
simulation working
of stress relief due to theface [16,27]. In re
distance
between the observed section and the advancing working face
studies, some different views and suggestions have been expressed regarding the de [16,27]. In recent studies,
tionsome
anddifferent views and
assumptions suggestions have
of confinement been
loss expressed
in CCM regarding
analysis the definition
[28,29]. and study
An original
assumptions of confinement loss in CCM analysis [28,29]. An original study is to use
useaavalue
value of confinement
of confinement loss toloss to represent
represent the percentage
the percentage of reverse
of reverse stress removalstress
at the remov
theintrados
intrados of of
thethe excavation
excavation face, thereby
face, thereby simulating simulating
the degree the degree
of stress changeof stress
between change
the betw
thetunnel
tunnel face
face andand the observed
the observed section,section, and is
and its value itsbetween
value is between
0 and 1 [16]. 0 and 1 [16].

Figure 1. Graphical concept of the support-ground interaction in the analysis of CCM.

Figure 1. Graphical concept of the support-ground interaction in the analysis of CCM.
The explicit algorithm process proposed by this paper is used to solve the stress/dis
placement of support-ground interaction in the analysis of CCM with the concept of
The explicit algorithm process proposed by this paper is used to solve the stress
increment, and can be realized by transforming the analytical solutions to an executable
placement of support-ground
computation that can be directly interaction
calculated by in thea analysis
using computationof spreadsheet
CCM with(e.g., the the
concept o
crement, and
Microsoft canformat).
Excel be realized by transforming
This feature of the procedure, the
theanalytical solutions
so-called the to an execu
explicit analysis
method (EAM), consists of two characteristics, the direct calculation method
computation that can be directly calculated by using a computation spreadsheet (DCM) and (e.g
the inverse calculation method (ICM), as shown in Figure 2.
Microsoft Excel format). This feature of the procedure, the so-called the explicit ana
method (EAM), consists of two characteristics, the direct calculation method (DCM)
the inverse calculation method (ICM), as shown in Figure 2.
Firstly, the forward analysis of the so-called direct calculation method (DCM)

Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223
Convergence-Confinement approach in tunneling and presents a comprehensive dis
sion on the solutions for the interaction of support-ground in the equilibrium state for
support design and on the estimation of the modulus of rock mass and the unsuppo
span. It provides the full set of equations and the details of their derivation, flowcha
calculation, verification, and the comparison with the published research results of Or
(2009) [19], Rocksupport (2004) [20] and Gschwandtner-Galler (2012) [26]. Moreover
3 of 18
study on inverse analysis is concluded with the application of one of the suggested m
ods in the case of railway tunnels.

Input data ( geometry,

Forward analysis Output data cf Measurement
CCM model in-situ stress,
(DCM) ( ps , uRs ) data
material properties )

Newton's
recursive method

cf Input data
Experimental Output data Backward analysis Inverse of
( convergence
data ( Em , d ) (ICM) CCM model
difference, ΔuR )

Figure 2. Explicit algorithm process of DCM and ICM in the analysis of CCM in tunneling.
Figure 2. Explicit algorithm process of DCM and ICM in the analysis of CCM in tunneling.

Firstly, the 2. Problem

forward Description
analysis of the so-called direct calculation method (DCM), can
2.1. Relationship
solve with the solutions for thebetween Confinement
interaction between LossGRC and Unsupported
and SCC inSpan the equilibrium
state. The unknown In values
the process of tunnel excavation, the changes in stress and and
are the plastic zone radius, the radial displacement, the
displacement cau
mobilized support by the continuous excavation of the tunnel at some measuring points ofthe
pressure. The DCM with the explicit procedure can deal with using the observa
confinement losssection
as an incremental step to
can be described bysimulate the effect
the influence of theofexcavation
advance excavation
of the tunnel offace.
the In addi
tunnel face, calculating the stresses
the convergence and displacements
measurement at a certain in each stepisincluding
location the relative those at the
displacement of m
points A, B, C (orurement
D) and points
E, as shown in Figureof1.the tunnel. At a certain distance (z) to the working
at the intrados
Secondly, thethebackward analysis
definition of of the loss
confinement so-called
(λz) can inverse
be given calculation
as [27]: method (ICM)
applies the convergence difference (e.g., the difference in tunnel convergence) as a known
λz = λd + (1 − λd ) f (z / R ) ,
parameter to estimate the unknown parameters, such as the modulus of rock mass (Em )
and the unsupported span (d). In the inverse algorithm
where λd is the confinement loss at the unsupported process, the intersection
distance of GRC
(d) to the working face,
and SCC is the solution we want.
R is the tunnel In the elastic
excavation radius.region, we use simultaneous
The advancing effect function,equations to
f(z/R), is supposed by
find the solutionhyperbolic
of the two function
straight lines, and apply
that contains onlyNewton’s
one variable recursive
and can method to find theas
be represented
solution of the two curves in the plastic region. 2
 m  ,(ICM) for the
The objective of this paper is to providef concepts ( (z − d ) / R )of= 1inverse
− analysis 
Convergence-Confinement approach in tunneling and presents amcomprehensive + (z − d ) / R  discussion
on the solutions for the interaction of support-ground in the equilibrium state for the
support design and on the estimation of the modulus of rock mass and the unsupported
span. It provides the full set of equations and the details of their derivation, flowchart of
calculation, verification, and the comparison with the published research results of Oreste
(2009) [19], Rocksupport (2004) [20] and Gschwandtner-Galler (2012) [26]. Moreover, the
study on inverse analysis is concluded with the application of one of the suggested methods
in the case of railway tunnels.

2. Problem Description
2.1. Relationship between Confinement Loss and Unsupported Span
In the process of tunnel excavation, the changes in stress and displacement caused by
the continuous excavation of the tunnel at some measuring points of the observation section
can be described by the influence of the excavation of the tunnel face. In addition, the
convergence measurement at a certain location is the relative displacement of measurement
points at the intrados of the tunnel. At a certain distance (z) to the working face, the
definition of confinement loss (λz ) can be given as [27]:
λz = λd + (1 − λd ) f (z/R), (1)
where λd is the confinement loss at the unsupported distance (d) to the working face, and R
is the tunnel excavation radius. The advancing effect function, f (z/R), is supposed by the
hyperbolic function that contains only one variable and can be represented as
 2
m
f ((z − d)/R ) = 1 − , (2)
m + (z − d)/R
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 4 of 18

where the parameter of the function (m) can be found by the regression analysis with the
tunnel convergence data, and λd is a confinement loss at the unsupported distance (d) to
the working face, and can be suggested as the following:
 4
m
λd = 1 − (3)
m + (d/R)

2.2. Explicit Algorithm Process of the Inverse Calculation Method (ICM)

As shown in Figure 3, the inverse algorithm process is used in the analysis of ICM.
According to the objective functions that define the objective of the optimization, an
objective function is a single scalar value that is formulated from a set of design responses.
In this study, the design responses including the modulus of rock mass and unsupported
span are defined from the solution of GRC and SCC in the equilibrium state. The objective
function could be minimized by using the iteration of the design responses. In addition, as
a constraint that imposes limitations on the optimization and defines a feasible design, the
modulus of rock mass (E) is used as an objective function. We apply a constraint that uses
the initial value (Ei ) used by the DCM, where the optimization module is forced to seek
an optimum solution that both optimizes the modulus of rock mass objective and satisfies
the constraint. The unknown parameters considered in this study are the modulus of rock
mass (e.g., the shear modulus, G, or the modulus of elasticity, E) and the unsupported span
(d). The input data includes the parameters of the geometry of the tunnel, the properties
of the material, the stress condition, etc., and the specific known parameters such as the
convergence difference (∆uR ), which is a difference of the radial displacement between
point C and point E. One must be aware that the first step of calculation in ICM is to use the
input data of DCM containing the initial modulus of rock mass, and the second step of the
calculation is to use the iteration algorithms to find a convergence value of the modulus of
rock mass. Similarly, for another unknown parameter, the unsupported span5 can
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 20also be
obtained by the same iteration algorithms.

start

Input data of the known prameters and

the convergence difference, ΔuR

Calculating λe

Case I Case II
Determination
of case

Calculation of Case III Calculation of

the confinement the plastic
Calculation of radius Rdp and λd
loss λd at point C the plastic radius at point C
Rdp and λd at
point C

yes
Iteration of (Gi+1 -Gi)/Gi > 0.1%
shear modulus
Gi
no
Calculation of the modulus of elasticity E
and the unsupported span d

End

Figure 3. Computational flowchart of the ICM.

Figure 3. Computational flowchart of the ICM.
As shown in Figure 1, from the moment of installing support (point C or D) to the
equilibrium state (point E), the stresses of the ground in the elastic or the plastic regions
can be distinguished by using the difference between the confinement loss in the elastic
limit state (λe) and that in the equilibrium state (λs). In other words, if λs < λe, it means that
the stresses in the equilibrium state are in the elastic region, otherwise λe < λs, those are in
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 5 of 18

As shown in Figure 1, from the moment of installing support (point C or D) to the

equilibrium state (point E), the stresses of the ground in the elastic or the plastic regions
can be distinguished by using the difference between the confinement loss in the elastic
limit state (λe ) and that in the equilibrium state (λs ). In other words, if λs < λe , it means
that the stresses in the equilibrium state are in the elastic region, otherwise λe < λs , those
are in the plastic region. To distinguish whether the stress at the points C and E are in
the elastic or the plastic regions, as shown in Figure 3, this study presents three analysis
situations that include the stress state of points C and E, which are (1) both in the elastic
region (Case I, λd < λs < λe ), (2) in the elastic and plastic regions, respectively (Case II,
λd < λe < λs ), and (3) both in the plastic region (Case III, λe < λd < λs ). In this case (III) and
in a certain i step (for i = 1 to n, i is an incremental step in the recursion), for finding the
plastic radius at the moment of installing support (point C) and in the final equilibrium
situation (point E) respectively, it is also necessary to assume considering an initial shear
modulus of rock mass (Gi ) which is suitable to be calculated for the first i step of recursion
by the direct calculation method (DCM), and after once a calculation completed, then one
can obtain the new shear modulus of rock mass in the i + 1 step, (Gi+1 ), which can be used
in the next step of calculation for (Rp d )i+1 and (Rp s )i+1 . This process can be continuously
repeated until a difference of the value of G between step i + 1 and step i is less than the
small accuracy value (ε), which is equal to 0.01%. Therefore, the process of calculation is
performed, and the shear modulus of rock mass can be obtained in this case. The modulus
of rock mass (Em ) can be estimated from the shear modulus using the classic relationship
from isotropic elasticity,
Em = 2G(1 + ν) (4)

3. Equations Derivation of the Inverse Calculation Method (ICM)

3.1. Support-Ground Interaction Occurred in the Elastic State
The intersection between GRC and SCC allows one to obtain the mobilized support
pressure (Ps ) that acts on the supports and the radial displacement (uR s ) of the tunnel in
the equilibrium state. In the analysis procedure of ICM, the equation for the SCC can be
represented as:
∆u R
 
Ps = k s , (5)
R
where ks is the stiffness of the support, ∆uR is a difference of the radial displacement
between point C (uR d ) and point E (uR s ), that is, the convergence after support installation,
and can be shown as  
∆u R = usR − udR (6)

where the superscript letters d and s indicate the locations of points C and E, respectively.
For dimensionless, the convergence difference (∆uR ) can be normalized by (2G/σv ) and
rearranged as
2G ∆u R
 
2G ps
= (7)
σv R σv k s
where σv is the vertical overburden stress.
(1) Case I: The stress state of points C and E are both in the elastic region (Figure 1).
The convergence difference (∆uR ) can be obtained by the following:

2G ∆u R
 
== (λs − λd ) (8)
σv R

Therefore, the difference of confinement loss between point C and point E can be
described as
1 − λd
(λs − λd ) = ks
(9)
1 + 2G
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 6 of 18

For the unknown parameter, the shear modulus of rock mass (G), can be obtained by
the following:
(1 − λ )σv
2G =  d − k s , (10)
∆u R
R

In addition, rearranging the above equation for the unknown parameter, the confine-
ment loss of the unsupported span (λd ), can be obtained as follow:

∆u R
  
2G + k s
λd = 1 − (11)
σv R

3.2. Support-Ground Interaction Occurred in the Plastic State

When the stresses of the ground wall in the equilibrium state (point E) are in the plastic
region, two conditions of the stress state exist at the moment of installing the support (point
C), which are in the elastic region (Case II) and the plastic region (Case III). Both cases of
the support point are described by the following representations.
(2) Case II: The stress state of points C and E are in the elastic and plastic regions,
respectively. Equation (6) can be normalized by (2G/σv R) and rearranged as
!
2G ∆u R 2G usR 2G udR
   
= − , (12)
σv R σv R σv R

For the unknown parameter, the shear modulus of rock mass (G), can be obtained by
the following:
  ! K p −1  
 s  K ψ +1
σv   R Rp
2G =   λe C1 + C2 + C3  − λd  (13)
∆u R Rsp R
R

where λd is a confinement loss at the unsupported distance (d) to the working face, and
the radial displacement (uR s ) of the tunnel in the equilibrium state can be given as the
following, respectively.
2G udR
= λd (14)
σv R
 ! K p −1 
 s  K ψ +1
2G usR R Rp
= λe C1 + C2 + C3  (15)
σo R Rsp R

where C1 , C2 , and C3 are the coefficients of rock mass, Kp is the coefficient of the lateral
passive pressure, Kψ is the coefficient of the plastic flow, ψ is the dilation angle of the
rock mass, and the confinement loss in the elastic limit state (λe ) is a function of the peak
strength parameters of rock mass (the cohesion c and the internal friction angle ϕ) and can
be given as
K p − 1) + 2N
λe = , (16)
K p + 1)
where the stability number N equals σc /2σv , and σc is the uniaxial compression strength
(UCS) of rock mass. The plastic zone radius in the equilibrium state (Rp s ) can be found by
applying Newton’s recursive method and given as
 Rs  
p

Rsp
 
Rsp
 f R
= −  Rs n  (17)
R n +1 R n f0 p
R n

where ƒ0 (Rp s /R) denotes the derivative of the function ƒ(Rp s /R), and n is the incremental
step in the recursion and can be shown as
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 7 of 18

 ! K p −1 ! K ψ +1 
 1− K p  K ψ +1
Rsp Rsp Rsp Rdp
  " # 
4G R 4GN
f = C2 −
+ C3 − C2 + C3 −
(18)
R ks K p − 1 R R Rdp R λe k s K p − 1

Rsp
Rsp −K p
Rsp Kψ

  " #    
0 4G
f = C2 −
1 − Kp + C3 Kψ + 1 (19)
R ks K p − 1 R R

In addition, rearranging the above equation for the unknown parameter, the confine-
ment loss of the unsupported span (λd ) can be obtained as follows:
 ! K p −1 
 s  K ψ +1
R 2G ∆u R
 
R p
λd = λe C1 + C2 + C3
 − , (20)
Rsp R σv R

(3) Case III: The stress state of points C and E are both in the plastic region (Figure 1).
The shear modulus of rock mass can be obtained by the following:
 ! K p −1   ! K p −1 ! K ψ +1  
 s  K ψ +1
λe σv  R Rp R Rdp
2G =  C2 + C3  − C2 + C3  (21)
∆u R Rsp

R Rdp R
R

As mentioned above, the radial displacement (uR s ) of the tunnel in the equilibrium
state can be given by Equations (17)–(19) to find out the solution (Rp s ), and using Newton’s
recursive method to find the plastic zone radius at the moment of installing support
(Rp d ), then   
Rdp
f
Rdp Rdp
! !
R
= −  n  (22)
R R Rdp
n +1 n f0 R
n

where ƒ0 (Rp d /R) denotes the derivative of the function ƒ(Rp and can be shown as d /R)

 !1− K p ! K ψ +1   ! K p −1  s  K ψ +1

Rdp Rdp Rdp
!
Rp 2G ∆u R
 
 − λe C2 R
f = λe C2 + C3 + C3
 + (23)
R R R Rsp R σv R
 !−K p ! Kψ 
Rdp
Rdp
Rdp
!
f0 = λe C2 1 − K p + C3 Kψ + 1  (24)
R R R

Finally, the confinement loss of the unsupported span (λd) can be obtained by the following:
  1− K p

Rdp
K p + 1 λe − 2λe R
λd =
(25)
Kp − 1

4. Comparison of Results of ICM with Other Studies

4.1. Validation of Results Obtained by Direct Analysis (DCM) and Inverse Analysis (ICM)
In direct analysis (DCM), a fixed excavation advance distance (or unsupported span,
d) is usually used to simulate the effect of progressive tunnel excavation on the stress
change of surrounding rock. In this study, the shotcrete-lining support system with a short
unsupported span is used to simulate the stress state of the surrounding rock in the elastic
range, and a long unsupported span is used to describe the stress state in the plastic range.
Moreover, the convergence difference (∆uR ) is the difference of the radial displacement
between the support installation (point C) and the equilibrium state (point E).
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 8 of 18

The validity of the developed direct algorithm process for the analytical solution was
The validity
examined of the developed
by numerical direct algorithm
analysis, specifically, finiteprocess
elementforanalysis
the analytical (FEM).solution
The meshwas
examined by numerical analysis, specifically, finite element analysis
made by finite element analysis includes 1971 total nodes and 658 elements (118 T6 ele- (FEM). The mesh made
by finite
ments andelement
540 Q8analysis
elements),includes
using1971three total nodes andof658
components elements (ground,
calculation (118 T6 elements and
excavation,
540 Q8 elements), using three components of calculation (ground,
and lining), and the analysis boundary of the roller support is 20 times the tunnel excava- excavation, and lining),
and radius.
tion the analysis
Tableboundary
1 shows the of the
inputroller
datasupport is 20 times the
of the computation used tunnel
by DCM excavation
and FEM. radius.
TableAccording
1 shows the input data of the computation used by DCM and
to the results obtained by FEM and DCM, the stress/displacement in the FEM.
equilibrium state is different in the plastic region (Figure 4a) and the elastic region (Figure
Table 1. Input data of the computation of DCM and FEM.
4b). One can find that there is a higher value of mobilized support pressure and a lower
value of radial displacement
Rock Massin the elastic region, but on the contrary
Properties in the plastic region.
Shotcrete-Lining
Besides, one must be aware that the trace of support-ground interaction follows the curve
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
of ground reaction, and therefore the interaction curve (IC) and the ground reaction
γ (MPa/m)
curves (GRC) coincide 0.027 c (MPa)
with each other in this case,0.1the isotropic (MPa/m)
γshotstress 0.025
fields. As the result
Em (MPa) 300.0 ϕ (◦ ) 30.0 Eshot (GPa) 25.0
shows, the values of convergence difference ◦ equal 2.545 (mm) and 1.407 (mm) for the short
ν 0.25 ψ( ) 30.0 νshot 0.2
and long Ko unsupported 1.0spans, respectively.
R (m) One can 5.2 observe that tshotthe
(m) long unsupported0.2
span σv gives
(MPa) a small value 1.0 of the dconvergence
(m) 0.53difference
*, 1.37 ** forσc(shot)
the same(MPa) behavior of the
20.0
ground. As a longer unsupported span means that more
* Short unsupported span (d = 0.53 m), ** Long unsupported span (d = 1.37 m).convergence occurs, so when the
equilibrium point is reached, the required convergence difference becomes smaller.
According to the results obtained by FEM and DCM, the stress/displacement in
Table 1. Input datastate
the equilibrium of theiscomputation
different inofthe DCM plastic region (Figure 4a) and the elastic region
and FEM.
(Figure 4b). One can find that there is a higher value of mobilized support pressure and a
lower value of radial Rock Mass Properties
displacement in the elastic region, but on the Shotcrete-Lining
contrary in the plastic
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter
region. Besides, one must be aware that the trace of support-ground interaction follows Value the
γ (MPa/m)
curve 0.027 and therefore
of ground reaction, c (MPa)the interaction 0.1 curveγ(IC)shot (MPa/m)
and the ground 0.025
reaction
curves (GRC) coincide
Em (MPa) with each other
300.0 φ (°)in this case,30.0 the isotropic stress
Eshot (GPa) fields. As 25.0
the result
shows,νthe values of 0.25 convergence difference
ψ (°) equal 2.545
30.0 (mm) andν1.407 shot (mm) for 0.2
the short
and longKo unsupported 1.0spans, respectively.
R (m) One can observe
5.2 that the long
tshot (m) unsupported0.2 span
gives a small
σv (MPa) value of the
1.0 convergence d (m)difference for the same behavior
0.53 *, 1.37 ** σc(shot) (MPa) of the ground.
20.0 As a
longer unsupported span means that more convergence
* Short unsupported span (d = 0.53 m), ** Long unsupported span (d = 1.37 m). occurs, so when the equilibrium
point is reached, the required convergence difference becomes smaller.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Comparison of results obtained between DCM and FEM. (a) in the plastic region (long
Figure 4. Comparison of results obtained between DCM and FEM. (a) in the plastic region (long
unsupported span), and (b) in the elastic region (short unsupported span).
unsupported span), and (b) in the elastic region (short unsupported span).

Furthermore, to verify the calculation results of the ICM, the first step is to use the
input data of the DCM (as shown in Table 1), which especially contains the initial value
of the modulus of rock mass (Em ). In addition, the next computational step is to use an
inverse algorithmic procedure to find an approximate convergent value for the Em . The
results obtained by the inverse analysis (ICM) indicate a good estimation for the modulus
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 9 of 18

of rock mass (Em ), and the percentage error is 5.33% for the unsupported span (d) as shown
in Table 2.

Table 2. Output data obtained by ICM compared with the input data of DCM.

ICM ICM
DCM DCM
Analysis Results Em (MPa) d (m)
Em (MPa) d (m)
(Error * %) (Error * %)
300.0 0.532
Short unsupported span 300.0 0.53
(0.0%) (0.38%)
300.0 1.443
Long unsupported span 300.0 1.37
(0.0%) (5.33%)
* Error (%) = |(ICM − DCM)/DCM| × 100%.

4.2. Comparison of Calculation Results between ICM and Other Studies

The case study compared with ICM includes kinds of research that are Rocksupport
(2004) [20], Oreste (2009) [19], and Gschwandtner-Galler (2012) [26]. For the analysis of the
ground reaction due to the tunnel excavation under the support condition, in the order of
the above-listed articles, the input data of the numerical computation of ICM and listed
articles are expressed in Tables 3–5.

Table 3. Input data of the numerical computation of ICM and Rocksupport (2004) [20].

Rock Mass Properties Rock Bolt Shotcrete-Lining

Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
γ (MPa/m) 0.027 c (MPa) 0.15 Sc (m) 1.0 γshot (MPa/m) 0.025
Em ** (MPa) 353.0 ϕ (◦ ) 25.64 Scl (m) 1.0 Eshot (GPa) 25.0
ν 0.3 ψ (◦ ) 0.0 l (m) 6.0 νshot 0.2
Ko 1.0 R (m) 6.0 Eb (GPa) 207.0 tshot (m) 0.05
σv (MPa) 1.61 d * (m) 3.0 db (mm) 34.0 σc(shot) (MPa) 35.0
* Unsupported span, ** Modulus of the rock mass.

Table 4. Input data of the numerical computation of ICM and Oreste (2009) [19].

Rock Mass Properties Support Stiffness

Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
γ (MPa/m) 0.027 c (MPa) 0.85 ks (MPa/m) 200.0
Em ** (MPa) 8250.0 ϕ (◦ ) 50.0
ν 0.25 ψ (◦ ) 10.0
Ko 1.0 R (m) 4.0
σv (MPa) 8.1 d * (m) 0.76
* Unsupported span, ** Modulus of the rock mass.

Table 5. Input data of the numerical computation of ICM and Gschwandtner-Galler (2012) [26].

Rock Mass Properties Shotcrete-Lining

Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
γshot
γ (MPa/m) 0.027 c (MPa) 0.382 0.025
(MPa/m)
Em ** (MPa) 846.0 ϕ (◦ ) 27.35 Eshot (GPa) 15.0
ν 0.35 ψ (◦ ) 27.35 νshot 0.2
Ko 1.0 R (m) 5.5 tshot (m) 0.15
σv (MPa) 5.0 d * (m) 2.0 σc(shot) (MPa) 25.0
* Unsupported span, ** Modulus of the rock mass.

According to the results obtained by DCM (using input data shown in Table 3) in the
study of Rocksupport (2004), the values of convergence difference (∆uR ) equal 7.04 (mm)
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 10 of 18

and 3.16 (mm) for the support system of rock bolt and rock bolt plus shotcrete-lining,
respectively. In addition, the values of convergence difference (∆uR ) equal 2.88 (mm) and
11.43 (mm) for Oreste (2009) and Gschwandtner-Galler (2012), respectively. One can observe
that the combined support system gives a small value of the convergence difference for the
same behavior of the ground. In other words, in the inverse analysis (ICM), the unknown
parameter, ∆uR , is the necessary input data. For the results obtained by ICM shown in
Table 6, the modulus of rock mass (Em ) can be well estimated. In addition to the better
simulation results of Oreste (2009), other studies have shown a percentage error range of
4.33% to 8.81% for unsupported spans (d).

Table 6. Output data and comparison of results between ICM and other studies [19,20,26].

ICM ICM
DCM DCM
Other Studies Results Em (MPa) d (m)
Em (MPa) d (m)
(Error * %) (Error * %)
353.0 3.29
Rocksupport (2004) Bolt 353.0 3.0
(0.0%) (8.81%)
Rocksupport (2004) Bolt + 353.0 3.13
353.0 3.0
Shotcrete-lining (0.0%) (4.33%)
8250.0 0.76
Oreste (2009) 8250.0 0.76
(0.0%) (0.0%)
Gschwandtner-Galler 846.0 2.15
846.0 2.0
(2012) (0.0%) (7.5%)
* Error (%) = |(ICM − DCM)/DCM| × 100%.

As shown in Figure 5a, the values indicated by the arrows in the figure are the
comparison results of the ICM calculation and the listed research values, and the remaining
points are the extended calculations with various values of the convergence difference.
It shows the good relationship between Em and ∆uR by comparing with the results of
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
the listed articles. Moreover, the function of Em is the power function that is inversely
proportional to the first power of ∆uR /R. The range of constant proportionality is from 0.02
to 0.6, as shown in Figure 5b.

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Estimation of the modulus of rock mass (Em) from the difference of the radial displacement
Figure 5. Estimation of the modulus of rock mass (Em ) from the difference of the radial displacement
between point C and point E in the analysis (ICM). (a) The comparison with the original data, and
between point C and point E in the analysis (ICM). (a) The comparison with the original data, and (b)
(b) the description of the regression curve.
the description of the regression curve.
For a fixed-length unsupported span, a smaller value of the tunnel convergence dif-
For a fixed-length unsupported span, a smaller value of the tunnel convergence differ-
ference, a larger
ence, a larger value
value of modulus
of the the modulus of rock
of rock mass,mass,
whichwhich can further
can further indicate
indicate that thethat the
overall
overall geomechanical behavior, is in a good state. Furthermore, for tunneling in a specific
rock mass (fixed Em value), a larger value of tunnel convergence difference (ΔuR) indicates
that a shorter unsupported span is required, as shown in Figure 6a. After display via di-
mensionless normalization for tunnel excavation radius (R), the curve-fitting for this rela-
tionship can be interpreted by the logarithmic function shown in Figure 6b. In other
 (a) (b)
Figure 5. Estimation of the modulus of rock mass (Em) from the difference of the radial displacement
between point C and point E in the analysis (ICM). (a) The comparison with the original data, and
(b) the description of the regression curve.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 11 of 18
For a fixed-length unsupported span, a smaller value of the tunnel convergence dif-
ference, a larger value of the modulus of rock mass, which can further indicate that the
overall geomechanical
geomechanical behavior,
behavior, is in aisgood
in a good
state.state. Furthermore,
Furthermore, for tunneling
for tunneling in ain a specific
specific rock
rock mass (fixed E value), a larger value of tunnel convergence difference
mass (fixed Em value), a larger value of tunnel convergence difference (∆uR ) indicates
m (Δu R ) indicates
that a
that a shorter
shorter unsupported
unsupported span span is required,
is required, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 6a. display
6a. After After display via di-
via dimension-
mensionless normalization
less normalization for tunnel
for tunnel excavation
excavation radiusradius (R),
(R), the the curve-fitting
curve-fitting forrelationship
for this this rela-
tionship can be interpreted
can be interpreted by the logarithmic
by the logarithmic function
function shown in shown in Figure
Figure 6b. In other6b. In other
words, there
words, there is
is a specific a specificrelationship
functional functional relationship
between thebetween the unsupported
unsupported span and the span and the
convergence
convergence
difference. difference. The unsupported
The unsupported span estimated
span estimated by using theby using the convergence
convergence measurementmeas-in
urement in tunnel engineering
tunnel engineering practice ispractice
presented is presented by the
by the inverse inverseinanalysis
analysis in this paper.
this paper.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure6.6.Estimation of of
Estimation thethe
unsupported span
unsupported span(d)(d)
from the
from difference
the differenceofofthe
theradial
radialdisplacement
displacement
between point C and point E in the inverse analysis (ICM). (a) The comparison with the original
between point C and point E in the inverse analysis (ICM). (a) The comparison with the original data,
data, and (b) the description of the regression curve.
and (b) the description of the regression curve.

As is known in logic, necessity (ICM) and sufficiency (DCM) are terms used to describe
a conditional or implicational relationship between states. Therefore, this principle is
verified and satisfied in this study.

5. Case Study of the Railway Tunnels

5.1. General Geology, Preliminary Data, Tunnel Design, and Monitoring Data
The two railway tunnels are located in North East Taiwan, about 15 km south of Suao
city. It will serve as part of the transportation system between Suao city and Hualien city. It
is an individual tunnel project and it is approximately 4460 m and 5344 m long for the New
Youngchun tunnel and New Nanao tunnel, respectively. Two railway tunnels have been
constructed in the highly tectonic regions and in the metamorphic rock formations which
consist of the schist, slate, amphibolite, sandstone, and gneiss. The maximum heights of
overburden for the New Youngchun tunnel and New Nanao tunnel are 966 m and 1013 m,
respectively.
According to the rock mass classification system, the CSIR-RMR, which includes the
five grades of I, II, III, IV, and V, can be utilized to categorize the properties of rock mass,
design of support types, and to exhibit a length of excavation in the reconstruction project
of railway tunnels. As a result, two railway tunnels pass mostly through rock mass grades
III-V. The standard design section and the measurement points, L1 (top heading) and H1
(bench), of the observation section of two railway tunnels where tunnel radii are 3 m, are
shown in Figure 7.

Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223
According to the rock mass classification system, the CSIR-RMR, which includes the
five grades of I, II, III, IV, and V, can be utilized to categorize the properties of rock mass,
design of support types, and to exhibit a length of excavation in the reconstruction project
of railway tunnels. As a result, two railway tunnels pass mostly through rock mass grades
III-V. The standard design section and the measurement points, L1 (top heading) and H1
(bench), of the observation section of two railway tunnels where tunnel radii are 3 m,12are of 18
shown in Figure 7.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure7. 7.(a)(a)
Measurement points
Measurement L1L1
points and H1,
and and
H1, (b)(b)
and standard design
standard section
design ofof
section the observation
the observation
section at tunnel face proximity of the New Youngchun and the New Nanao railway tunnels.
section at tunnel face proximity of the New Youngchun and the New Nanao railway tunnels.

Field
Fieldmonitoring
monitoring is isessential
essentialininthe
theobservational
observationalmethodmethodofoftunneling.
tunneling.Monitoring
Monitoring
provides
provides valuable information, especially for inverse analysis purposes,and
valuable information, especially for inverse analysis purposes, andfeedback
feedback
from
from the surrounding
the surrounding ground
groundfor forthe
thesafety
safetyofofthe
thework.
work.The
The sequential
sequentialexcavation
excavation ofof
the
the
New
New Youngchun
Youngchuntunnel
tunneland andNewNewNanao
Nanao tunnel
tunnel was
wasdesigned
designed under
under anticipated
anticipatedground
ground
conditions
conditions andandthe
theexcavation
excavation sequence
sequence varied
varied inin
the
thetwo
twotunnels.
tunnels.During
During construction,
construction,
6868sections
sectionsofofobservation
observationwere werefully
fullyinstrumented.
instrumented.Displacement
Displacement measurements
measurements ononthe
the
tunnel boundary are conducted with surveying measurements with
tunnel boundary are conducted with surveying measurements with a tape extensometer. a tape extensometer.
The
The6868fully
fullyinstrumented
instrumented sections
sections areare
partially
partially shown
shown in in
Table 7 along
Table 7 alongwith thethe
with corre-
corre-
sponding estimates of the rock mass grade. In Table 7, the sections of observation including
the information of the mileage, properties of rock mass, stiffness of the supports, stress
conditions, and convergence measurements at the crown and side-wall are investigated in
this study.

Table 7. Parameters of the observation in part of the 68 sections in two railway tunnels.

Friction Poisson’s Support Convergence

Section Depth Cohesion Em **
Angle Ratio RMR * Stiffness Difference
No. H (m) c (MPa) (GPa)
ϕ (deg.) ν ks (MPa) ∆uR (mm)
SP30 403.0 0.15 20 0.33 40 5.623 1302 16.3
SP28 419.0 0.15 20 0.33 32 3.548 1302 16.3
SP21 253.0 0.25 30 0.33 60 20.0 868 7.8
SP16 301.0 0.25 30 0.33 47 8.414 868 16.3
SP15 301.0 0.25 30 0.33 52 18.0 868 8.3
YNS21 283.9 0.25 30 0.33 45 7.499 868 21.0
YNS17 238.5 0.10 15 0.31 17 1.496 1736 16.0
YNS15 246.9 0.15 20 0.33 28 2.818 1302 13.0
YNS9 82.6 0.10 15 0.31 15 1.334 1736 10.0
YSS23 258.9 0.15 20 0.33 29 2.439 1302 12.0
YSS12 111.9 0.35 40 0.31 61 22.0 434 4.0
YSS9 119.1 0.35 40 0.31 58 16.0 434 4.0
YSS8 94.3 0.25 30 0.33 45 7.499 868 4.0
* RMR: Rock mass rating, ** Estimated by using the equation of Serafim and Perira (1983) [30].
 YNS9 82.6 0.10 15 0.31 15 1.334 1736 10.0
YSS23 258.9 0.15 20 0.33 29 2.439 1302 12.0
YSS12 111.9 0.35 40 0.31 61 22.0 434 4.0
YSS9 119.1 0.35 40 0.31 58 16.0 434 4.0
YSS8
Mathematics 2022, 94.3
10, 1223 0.25 30 0.33 45 7.499 868 4.0 13 of 18
* RMR: Rock mass rating, ** Estimated by using the equation of Serafim and Perira (1983) [30].

5.2.
5.2.Establishment
EstablishmentofofConfinement
ConfinementLossLossCurve
Curve(CLC)
(CLC)
With
With respect to the steps of inverse calculation inin
respect to the steps of inverse calculation thethe inverse
inverse analysis,
analysis, thethe establish-
establishment
ment of a confinement loss curve (CLC) is the first step in the treatment of
of a confinement loss curve (CLC) is the first step in the treatment of the field measurementsthe field meas-
urements including the time of sequential construction, the section
including the time of sequential construction, the section of observation at a distance of observation at a
distance
to the frontto theand
front and convergence.
convergence. For example,
For example, the field
the field measurements
measurements at the
at the section
section of
of observationSP15
observation SP15ofofthe
theNew
NewNanao
Nanaotunnel
tunnelare
areshown
shown in in Figure 8a. Then
Then thetheillustration
illustration
of
of the
the longitudinal
longitudinaldisplacement
displacementprofile
profile(LDP)
(LDP)isis drawn
drawn withwith the
the relationship
relationship between
between
convergence
convergenceand anddistance
distanceto tothe
thefront
frontand
andshown
shownin inFigure
Figure8b.8b.After
Afterthis,
this,one
onecan
canobtain
obtain
the CLC which
the CLC which can becan be derived by the LDP with the translation of coordinates
LDP with the translation of coordinates from point from pointC
Ctotothe
thefront
front(the
(theworking
workingface
faceofof
thethe tunnel).
tunnel). Therefore,
Therefore, the
the confinement
confinement loss
loss curve
curve cancan
be
be established
established in in this
this step
step andand is shown
is shown in in Figure
Figure 9. 9.

250 -12 Distance to the front ( m )

0 50 100 150 200 250
-10 0
200
Distance to the front ( m )

SP15 ( Crown )
-8
Convergence ( mm )

-2
SP15 ( Side-wall )
150 L1
Convergence ( mm ) L1
D1 D2 -6 -4
H1 D1 D2
100 D3 D4
H1
H2 -4 -6
D3 D4
H2
time- distance ( SP15 )
50
time - convergence ( SP15 Crown ) -2 -8
time - convergence ( SP15 Side-wall )
0 0
-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (day)
-12
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20
(a) (b)

Figure 8. Filed
Figure 8. measurements at
Filed measurements at the
the section
section of
of observation
observation SP15SP15 of
of the
the New
New Nanao tunnel (a)
Nanao tunnel (a) the
the
information
information of time (day) of sequential construction, convergence (mm), and distance to the front
of time (day) of sequential construction, convergence (mm), and distance to the front
(m), (b) relationship between
between convergence
convergence and
and distance
distance to
to the
the front.
front.

Dimensionless distance to the front d / R Dimensionless distance to the front d / R

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 0

Translation of field measurements SP15 ( Crown ) Translation of field measurements SP15 ( Side-wall )
0.2 0.2
Confinement loss curve ( CLC, m=5.88 ) Confinement loss curve ( CLC, m=15.31 )
Confinement loss λz

Confinement loss λz

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8

1 1

1.2 1.2

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Relationship between confinement loss and dimensionless distance to the front at the sec-
Figure 9. Relationship between confinement loss and dimensionless distance to the front at the
tion of observation SP15 of the New Nanao tunnel (a) at crown, (b) at side-wall.
section of observation SP15 of the New Nanao tunnel (a) at crown, (b) at side-wall.

5.3. Results Obtained by the Direct Analysis (DCM)

the following
In the followingstep stepofofthethe analysis,
analysis, thethe direct
direct calculation
calculation method
method (DCM) (DCM) is em-
is employed
ployed to find out the mobilized support pressure and the radial displacement
to find out the mobilized support pressure and the radial displacement in the equilibrium in the equi-
librium
state. In state. In this
this step, it isstep, it is necessary
necessary to various
to consider considerparameters
various parameters
at differentatlocations
differentofloca-
the
tions of the intrados of the tunnel which are the stress conditions, coefficient of regression,
locations in the polar coordinates, the convergence (maximum relative displacements be-
tween point C and E) at the crown and side-wall, and the parameters for calculation which
are the tunnel radius, stiffness of supports, properties of rock mass (unit weight, Poisson’s
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 14 of 18

intrados of the tunnel which are the stress conditions, coefficient of regression, locations in
the polar coordinates, the convergence (maximum relative displacements between point C
and E) at the crown and side-wall, and the parameters for calculation which are the tunnel
radius, stiffness of supports, properties of rock mass (unit weight, Poisson’s ratio, internal
friction angle, and cohesion) and the unsupported span.
The parameters of the sections of observation SP15 and YNS15 for the inverse analysis
are presented in Table 6. The results obtained by the direct calculation method (DCM) for the
section of observation SP15 and YNS15 are shown in Figure 10. It presents the interaction
behavior of support-ground between DCM and FEM for the section of observation SP15
of the New Nanao tunnel and YNS15 of the New Youngchun tunnel. One can observe
that, firstly, the agreement between the finite element results and the proposed closed-form
solutions in the direct analysis (DCM) was found to be excellent in elastic and elastic-
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20
perfectly plastic media; and secondly, the maximum relative radial displacements at crown
and side-wall achieved by the DCM approximately coincide with the field measurements
at SP15 and YNS15.

1.8 1.2
SP15 λd (crown) = 0.776 GRC_DCM ( Crown ) YNS15 λd (crown) = 0.40 GRC_DCM ( Crown )
1.6 Ko = 1.49 Ko = 0.97 GRC_DCM ( Side-wall )
GRC_DCM ( Side-wall ) 1 λd (side-wall) = 0.696
λd (side-wall) = 0.474 SCC_DCM ( Crown )
SCC_DCM ( Crown )
1.4 SCC_DCM ( Side-wall )
SCC_DCM ( Side-wall )
FEM ( Crown )
1.2 FEM ( Crown ) 0.8
FEM ( Side-wall )
FEM ( Side-wall ) σR
σR 1
σv σ v 0.6 Point E (crown) Point E (side-wall)
Point E (crown) Point E (side-wall) DCM (0.662, 0.416) DCM (1.317, 0.276)
0.8 DCM (2.104, 0.210) DCM (2.694, 0.264) FEM (0.669, 0.418) FEM (1.313, 0.279)
FEM (2.225, 0.196) FEM (2.455, 0.282)
0.6 0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 2G uR 1 1.5
2G uR
σv R σv R

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Comparison of the interaction behavior of support-ground between DCM and FEM at
Figure 10. Comparison of the interaction behavior of support-ground between DCM and FEM at the
the section of observation (a) SP15 of the New Nanao tunnel, and (b) YNS15 of the New Youngchun
section of observation (a) SP15 of the New Nanao tunnel, and (b) YNS15 of the New Youngchun tunnel.
tunnel.
5.4. Results Obtained by the Inverse Analysis (ICM)
5.4. Results Obtained by the Inverse Analysis (ICM)
After all inverse calculations of the 68 sections of observation, it is evident that the 68
After
values all inverse
of modulus of calculations
rock mass (Eof the 68 sections of observation, it is evident that the 68
m ) can be therefore predicted by the ICM and represented
values of modulus of rock mass (E m) can be therefore predicted by the ICM and repre-
in different categories with the rock mass grade. According to the classification system of
sented in different
rock mass categories
rating (RMR), with the rockbetween
the relationships mass grade.
Em andAccording
RMR aretoshown
the classification
in Figure 11
system
with theofcomparison
rock mass rating (RMR), the
of the empirical relationships
models between
postulated Em and RMR
by Bieniawski (1978)are shown
[31], in
Serafim
Figure 11 with
and Perira the[30],
(1983) comparison
Nicholson ofand
the Bieniawski
empirical models postulated
(1990) [32], by Bieniawski
and Read et al. (1999) (1978)
[33].
[31], Serafim and Perira
As a result, (1983) [30], system
the classification Nicholson and Bieniawski
proposed (1990)of
by the reports [32],
theand Read et al.
reconstruction
(1999) [33].
project of railway tunnels, the modulus of rock mass (Em ) distributed from the classification
II to V, and the mostly obtained results are in the rock mass grade IV and V. In addition,
30 presentation with the category of railway tunnel can be investigated in Figure 12.
another
ICMthe( Classification 1
Em) of the New Youngchun tunnel are smaller
Rock mass deformation modulus Em ( GPa )

It can be seen that values of Ⅱ 3 than those of

the New Nanao ICM ( Classification
tunnel, which Ⅲ
are) more in line with the empirical models. Through this
25
ICM ( Classification
study, the agreement between the Ⅳ ) ICM and empirical models was found to be excellent
from20 10 to 40 inICM
the( RMR
Classification
system. Ⅴ)
1-Bieniawski (1978)
2-Nichoson and Bieniawski (1990)
15 3-Read et al. (1999) 4
2
4-Serafim and Pereira (1983)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
 After all inverse calculations of the 68 sections of observation, it is evident that the 68
values of modulus of rock mass (Em) can be therefore predicted by the ICM and repre-
sented in different categories with the rock mass grade. According to the classification
system of rock mass rating (RMR), the relationships between Em and RMR are shown in
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223
Figure 11 with the comparison of the empirical models postulated by Bieniawski (1978) 15 of 18
[31], Serafim and Perira (1983) [30], Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990) [32], and Read et al.
(1999) [33].

30
ICM ( Classification Ⅱ ) 1

Rock mass deformation modulus Em ( GPa )

3
ICM ( Classification Ⅲ )
25
ICM ( Classification Ⅳ )
ICM ( Classification Ⅴ )
20
1-Bieniawski (1978)
2-Nichoson and Bieniawski (1990)
15 3-Read et al. (1999) 4
2
4-Serafim and Pereira (1983)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20
Rock Mass Rating ( RMR )

Figure 11. Correlation between the modulus of rock mass predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM)
Figure 11. Correlation between the modulus of rock mass predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM)
and the rock
Through mass
this rating
study, (RMR)
the(RMR) of the presentation
agreement between theofofICM
the two railway
andrailway tunnels.
empirical models was found to
and the rock mass rating of the presentation the two tunnels.
be excellent from 10 to 40 in the RMR system.
As a result, the classification system proposed by the reports of the reconstruction
30of railway tunnels, the modulus of rock mass (Em) distributed from the classifica-
project
1
ICM
tion II to V, and the ( New obtained
mostly tunnel )are in the rock mass grade IV and 3V. In addi-
Young-chunresults
Rock mass deformation modulus Em ( GPa )

25
tion, another presentation
ICM ( Newwith thetunnel
Nan-ao category
) of railway tunnel can be investigated in Fig-
ure 12. It can be seen that the values
1-Bieniawski (1978) of E m of the New Youngchun tunnel are smaller than
those 20of the New2-Nichoson
Nanao tunnel, which(1990)
and Bieniawski are more in line with the empirical models.
3-Read et al. (1999)
15 4-Serafim and Pereira (1983)
4
2
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rock Mass Rating ( RMR )

Figure 12. Correlation between the modulus of rock mass predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM)
Figure 12. Correlation between the modulus of rock mass predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM)
and the rock mass rating (RMR) of the presentation of the two railway tunnels.
and the rock mass rating (RMR) of the presentation of the two railway tunnels.
From the point of view of the relationship between the modulus of rock mass (Em )
and From
heightthe point of view
of overburden of Figure
(H), the relationship
13 shows between
that therethe modulus
is no preciseofrelation
rock mass
with(Ethe
m)

and height of overburden (H), Figure 13 shows that there is no precise relation
height of overburden, but one can find that the values of Em approximate a range from 0.5 with the
height
GPa toof5 overburden,
GPa that arebut theone can find
values that the
estimated values
and of Em approximate
employed to the tunnela design
range from 0.5
in these
GPa to 5 GPa
regions. that if
Besides, areit the values estimated
is necessary to have and employed of
the equations to predicting
the tunnel the
design in these
relationship
regions. Besides, if it is necessary to have the equations of predicting
between the Em and H, then the upper bound and lower bound are proposed by using the relationship be-
tween the Em and H, then the upper bound and lower bound are proposed by using the
the regression analysis and expressed by the exponential functions shown in Figure 14.
regression analysis and
Finally, as excellent expressed
obtained bythe
results, themodulus
exponential functions
of rock shown in Figure
mass surrounding 14. can
a tunnel Fi-
nally, as excellent obtained results, the modulus
be directly predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM). of rock mass surrounding a tunnel can
be directly predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM).

30
odulus Em ( GPa )

ICM
25 Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Perira (1983)

20
 height of overburden, but one can find that the values of Em approximate a range from 0.5
GPa to 5 GPa that are the values estimated and employed to the tunnel design in these
regions. Besides, if it is necessary to have the equations of predicting the relationship be-
tween the Em and H, then the upper bound and lower bound are proposed by using the
regression analysis and expressed by the exponential functions shown in Figure 14. Fi-
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 16 of 18
nally, as excellent obtained results, the modulus of rock mass surrounding a tunnel can
be directly predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM).

30

Rock mass deformation modulus Em ( GPa )

ICM
25 Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Perira (1983)

20

Mathematics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 18 of 20

10

Regarding the discussion of the results of this study, the assumption adopted by the
current5ICM theory is to assume that the support confining curve (SCC) is an elastic mode,
but this curve in actual engineering is a nonlinear state (for example, the effect of shotcrete
0
on time-dependence) which needs to be studied further. In addition, for the case study of
two railway 0 tunnels,100 200 of an isotropic
the assumption 300 400 field is used
stress 500 to inversely
600 calcu-
late the modulus of the rock mass.Height However, in order
of overburden H to
( mmore
) realistically reflect the stress
conditions of the overburden above the tunnel, the influence of the anisotropic stress field
Comparison ofas
Figure 13.considered
must the modulus of rock mass between
of theinverse analysis (ICM) and RMR system
Figurebe13. Comparisonso of thetomodulus
make the prediction
of rock mass between rock modulus
inverse analysis of the
(ICM) tunnel
and RMRexca-
sys-
(from
vation Bieniawski,
more 1978;
complete Serafim and
andSerafim Perira,
referential. 1983) with the height of overburden.
tem (from Bieniawski, 1978; and Perira, 1983) with the height of overburden.

30
Rock mass deformation modulus Em ( GPa )

ICM Em = 1.656 e0.0045(H)

25 Upper bound
Lower bound Em = 0.248 e0.0045(H)
20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Height of overburden H ( m )

Figure 14. Correlation between modulus of the rock mass predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM)
Figure 14. Correlation between modulus of the rock mass predicted by the inverse analysis (ICM)
and height of overburden.
and height of overburden.
Regarding the discussion of the results of this study, the assumption adopted by the
6.current
Conclusions
ICM theory is to assume that the support confining curve (SCC) is an elastic mode,
Through
but this curveainseries
actualofengineering
analysis processes, numerical
is a nonlinear verification,
state (for example,and
the comparison, this
effect of shotcrete
research can draw the following
on time-dependence) which needs conclusions:
to be studied further. In addition, for the case study
of two(1) railway
The objective for the
tunnels, estimation
assumptionof theofmodulus of rock
an isotropic mass
stress and
field is the
usedunsupported
to inversely
span was achieved
calculate by the
the modulus inverse
of the rockanalysis which was
mass. However, in particularly
order to more proposed in this
realistically paper,
reflect the
and theconditions
stress agreementofbetween this algorithm
the overburden above the procedure andinfluence
tunnel, the empiricalofmodels was found
the anisotropic to
stress
be excellent
field must be in considered
the RMR systemso as by
to the
make case
thestudies of theofreconstruction
prediction project
the rock modulus of of
therailway
tunnel
excavation
tunnels more complete
in Taiwan. and
(2) For the referential.
results obtained by ICM in a real case study of two railway
tunnels under a fixed unsupported span, a large value of the convergence difference indi-
6. Conclusions
cates the small modulus of rock mass predicted and also shows that the short unsupported
Through
span should beaapplied.
series of(3)
analysis processes,
This study adoptsnumerical verification,
the incremental conceptand comparison,
of the convergence-this
research can draw the following conclusions:
confinement method and proposes an inverse analysis model to estimate the unknown
parameters of the surrounding rock for tunnel excavation. (4) The ICM is proposed to deal
with the estimation of the modulus of rock mass and the unsupported span through a
special parameter that is the convergence difference between two points (the difference of
the radial displacement at the support installation and the equilibrium states). (5) The the-
oretical analysis of the interaction of support-ground due to the excavation of a circular
tunnel in isotropic stress fields is investigated by using direct analysis (DCM). (6) The
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 17 of 18

(1) The objective for estimation of the modulus of rock mass and the unsupported
span was achieved by the inverse analysis which was particularly proposed in this paper,
and the agreement between this algorithm procedure and empirical models was found
to be excellent in the RMR system by the case studies of the reconstruction project of
railway tunnels in Taiwan. (2) For the results obtained by ICM in a real case study of
two railway tunnels under a fixed unsupported span, a large value of the convergence
difference indicates the small modulus of rock mass predicted and also shows that the short
unsupported span should be applied. (3) This study adopts the incremental concept of
the convergence-confinement method and proposes an inverse analysis model to estimate
the unknown parameters of the surrounding rock for tunnel excavation. (4) The ICM is
proposed to deal with the estimation of the modulus of rock mass and the unsupported
span through a special parameter that is the convergence difference between two points (the
difference of the radial displacement at the support installation and the equilibrium states).
(5) The theoretical analysis of the interaction of support-ground due to the excavation of a
circular tunnel in isotropic stress fields is investigated by using direct analysis (DCM). (6)
The confinement loss defining the situation of tunnel advancing excavation is classified
by three cases (Case I, II, and III), and proposed to distinguish whether the stress state is
in the elastic or the plastic regions. (7) We propose the use of the method of simultaneous
equations in the elastic region and using Newton’s recursive method for finding roots
in the plastic region in order to solve the solutions of support-ground interaction in the
equilibrium state.

Author Contributions: Methodology, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Y.-L.L.; Formula deriva-

tion, Verification, W.-C.K., C.-S.C. and C.-M.L.; Software programming, Computation, C.-H.M., and
P.-W.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Finno, R.J.; Calvello, M. Supported excavations: The observational method and inverse modeling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
2005, 131, 826–836. [CrossRef]
2. Mauldon, A.D.; Karasaki, K.; Martel, S.; Long, J.C.S.; Landsfeld, M.; Mensch, A.; Vomvoris, S. An inverse technique for developing
models for fluid flow in fracture systems using simulated annealing. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 3775–3789. [CrossRef]
3. Gioda, G.; Sakurai, S. Back analysis procedures for the interpretation of field measurements in geomechanics. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 1987, 11, 555–583. [CrossRef]
4. Oreste, P. Back-analysis techniques for the improvement of the understanding of rock in underground constructions. Tunnell.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2005, 20, 7–21. [CrossRef]
5. Luo, Y.B.; Chen, J.X.; Chen, Y.; Diao, P.S.; Qiao, X. Longitudinal deformation profile of a tunnel in weak rock mass by using the
back analysis method. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 71, 478–493. [CrossRef]
6. Sharifzadeh, M.; Tarifard, A.; Moridi, M.A. Time-dependent behavior of tunnel lining in weak rock mass based on displacement
back analysis method. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 38, 348–356. [CrossRef]
7. Sakurai, S.; Takeuchi, K. Back analysis of measured displacements of tunnels. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1983, 16, 173–180. [CrossRef]
8. Sakurai, S. Lessons learned from field measurements in tunneling. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 1998, 12, 453–460. [CrossRef]
9. Sakurai, S.; Akutagawa, S.; Takeuchi, K.; Shinji, M.; Shimizu, N. Back analysis for tunnel engineering as a modern observational
method. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2003, 18, 185–196. [CrossRef]
10. Gao, W.; Ge, M. Back analysis of rock mass parameters and initial stress for the Longtan tunnel in China. Eng. Comput. 2016, 32,
497–515. [CrossRef]
11. Li, F.; Wang, J.A.; Brigham, J.C. Inverse calculation of in situ stress in rock mass using the surrogate-model accelerated random
search algorithm. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 61, 24–32. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, L.Q.; Yue, Z.Q.; Yang, Z.F.; Qi, J.X.; Liu, F.C. A displacement-based back-analysis method for rock mass modulus and
horizontal in situ stress in tunneling–Illustrated with a case study. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2006, 21, 636–649. [CrossRef]
13. Diao, H.; Liu, H.; Sun, B. On a local geometric property of the generalized elastic transmission eigenfunctions and application.
Inverse Probl. 2021, 37, 105015. [CrossRef]
14. Fang, X.; Deng, Y. Uniqueness on recovery of piecewise constant conductivity and inner core with one measurement. Inverse
Probl. Imaging 2018, 12, 733–743. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1223 18 of 18

15. Deng, Y.; Li, H.; Liu, H. Spectral Properties of Neumann-Poincaré Operator and Anomalous Localized Resonance in Elasticity
Beyond Quasi-Static Limit. J. Elast. 2020, 140, 213–242. [CrossRef]
16. Panet, M. Le Calcul des Tunnels par la Méthode de Convergence-Confinement; Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées:
Paris, France, 1995.
17. Carranza-Torres, C.; Fairhurst, C. Application of the convergence-confinement method of tunnel design to rock masses that
satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2000, 15, 187–213. [CrossRef]
18. Oreste, P. Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the convergence-confinement approach. Tunnell. Undergr. Space
Technol. 2003, 18, 347–363. [CrossRef]
19. Oreste, P. The convergence–confinement method: Roles and limits in modern geomechanical tunnel design. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2009,
6, 757–771. [CrossRef]
20. Rocksupport. Rock Support Interaction and Deformation Analysis for Tunnels in Weak Rock; Tutorial Manual of Rocscience Inc.:
Toronto, ON, Canada, 2004; pp. 1–76.
21. Lee, Y.L. Explicit analysis for the ground-support interaction of circular tunnel excavation in anisotropic stress fields. J. Chin. Inst.
Eng. 2020, 43, 13–26. [CrossRef]
22. Lee, Y.L. Explicit procedure and analytical solution for the ground reaction due to advance excavation of a circular tunnel in an
anisotropic stress field. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2018, 36, 3281–3309. [CrossRef]
23. Brown, E.T.; Bray, J.W.; Ladanyi, B.; Hoek, E. Ground response curves for rock tunnels. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 1983, 109, 15–39.
[CrossRef]
24. Carranza-Torres, C.; Engen, M. The support characteristic curve for blocked steel sets in the convergence-confinement method of
tunnel support design. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 69, 233–244. [CrossRef]
25. De La Fuente, M.; Taherzadeh, R.; Sulem, J.; Nguyen, X.S.; Subrin, D. Applicability of the convergence-confinement method to
full-face excavation of circular tunnels with stiff support system. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2019, 52, 2361–2376. [CrossRef]
26. Gschwandtner, G.G.; Galler, R. Input to the application of the convergence confinement method with time-dependent material
behavior of the support. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 2012, 27, 13–22. [CrossRef]
27. Lee, Y.L. Establishment of the confinement loss curve using the tunnel convergence data. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2020, 43, 613–627.
[CrossRef]
28. Mousivand, M.; Maleki, M.; Nekooei, M.; Msnsoori, M.R. Application of Convergence-Confinement method in analysis of shallow
non-circular tunnels. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2017, 35, 1185–1198. [CrossRef]
29. Vlachopoulos, N.; Diederichs, M. Improvement to the convergence-confinement method: Inclusion of support installation
proximity and stiffness. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2018, 51, 1495–1519. [CrossRef]
30. Serafim, J.L.; Pereira, J.P. Consideration of the geomechanical classification of Bieniawski. In Proceedings of the International
symposium on engineering geology and underground construction, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–15 September 1983; Volume 1, pp. 1133–1144.
31. Bieniawski, Z.T. Determining rock mass deformability—Experience from case histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1978, 15,
237–247. [CrossRef]
32. Nicholson, G.A.; Bieniawski, Z.T. A Nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass classification. Int. J. Min. Geol. Eng.
1990, 8, 181–202. [CrossRef]
33. Read, S.A.L.; Perrin, N.D.; Richards, L.R. Applicability of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to New Zealand Greywacke rocks. In
Proceedings of the 9th ISRM Congress, Paris, France, 25–28 August 1999.