Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Large-scale model experiment and numerical simulation on convergence T

deformation of tunnel excavating in composite strata
Sheng-Qi Yanga, , Yan Taoa, Peng Xub, Miao Chena
⁎

a
State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology,
Xuzhou 221116, China
b
China Construction Third Engineering Design Bureau Co, Ltd, Wuhan 430064, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this research, a large-scale model experiment was carried out to investigate the convergence deformation and
Deep composite rock failure characteristics of TBM (tunnel boring machine) excavation surrounding rock in deep buried composite
Model experiment strata. Based on the similar theory, the model test results show that the deformation of tunnel surrounding rock
Damage softening constitutive model after excavation consists of two parts, instantaneous deformation and continuous creep deformation. When a
TBM tunnel
circular tunnel is excavated in deep buried composite strata, the tunnel surrounding rock is firstly subjected to
Convergence deformation
tensile failure on the soft rock side in the horizontal direction, and shear failure occurs at the top and bottom soft
rock areas. With further increase of the external boundary load, the hard rock area of the tunnel in the horizontal
direction suffers tensile damage due to stress concentration. Convergence deformation of the tunnel surrounding
rock reaches the maximum value in the soft surrounding rock area. And then, based on the proposed damage-
softening constitutive model of rock, numerical simulations were conducted out by using the finite difference
method in order to analyze the convergence deformation mechanism of tunnel excavating in composite strata.
The numerical simulation analysis results show that the damage rule of tunnel surrounding rock is controlled
simultaneously by stress and lithological characteristics, which agrees very well with the experimental results.

1. Introduction
TBM tunnelling, as an efficient tunnel excavation method, is widely
applied in tunnel engineering. When the TBM excavation route en-
counters unfavorable geological conditions, a TBM jamming disaster
may occur during the construction process. Weak-hard uneven strata
showing obvious anisotropic characteristics, are often referred to as
composite strata, which are frequently encountered during tunnel ex-
cavation in actual projects (Babendererde et al., 2004; Gong et al.,
2006; Shang et al., 2007; Stille and Palmström, 2008; Barla, 2016; Yang
et al., 2018). The results of conventional compression tests on aniso-
tropic rock indicate that its compressive strength of anisotropic rock is
greatly affected by a weak surface (transversely isotropic plane) (Barla
et al., 1974; Rodrigues, 1966; Hakala et al., 2007; Nasseri et al., 2003;
Naumann et al., 2007; Khanlari et al., 2015). Cho et al. (2012) carried
out uniaxial compression tests of stratified gneiss, argillite and schist in
different dip angles, and analyzed the failure strength and fracture
surface evolution characteristics of stratified rock masses with different
dip angles. The results show that the uniaxial compression failure
modes of stratified rocks with different dip angles are essentially the
same. Marcel et al. (2007) carried out conventional triaxial compres-
sion tests of stratified rocks with different dip angles, and analyzed the
relation between strength and dip angle under different confining
pressures according to the Jaeger strength criterion. Zhou et al. (2016)
and Zhang et al. (2011) studied the strain response characteristics of a
stratified rock mass under the condition of conventional triaxial com-
pression, cyclic loading and unloading, and complex stress paths, and
analyzed the influence of the interlayer interface on its compression
fracture characteristics. Gholamreza et al. (2015) carried out uniaxial
compression and Brazilian splitting tests of stratified composite sand-
stone, analyzed the fracture surface derivation rule of sandstone with
different interlayer dip angles, and presented the failure modes of
stratified sandstone under uniaxial compression and Brazilian splitting
conditions. Ramamurthy (1993) summarized the relation between
mechanical properties and interlayer dip angle of composite rock, and
pointed out that the evolution rule of compressive strength of compo-
site rock with interlayer dip angle is mainly of U-type, undulatory type
and shoulder type.
Ideal stratified composite rock specimens are extremely difficult to
obtain from the field. However, a similar model test using cement,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yangsqi@hotmail.com (S.-Q. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103133
Received 17 March 2019; Received in revised form 24 August 2019; Accepted 22 September 2019
Available online 10 October 2019
0886-7798/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-Q. Yang, et al.
gypsum and composite mortar can simulate the physical mechanical
properties of real rock materials. Moreover, as artificial materials,
specimens made of similar materials are more standard (with uniform
thickness and various specified dip angles), and the test results are more
convenient for theoretical analysis. Therefore, similar model tests are
widely used in the study of rock mechanical properties. Tien and Tsao,
(2000) used dried powder materials consisting of cement, sand, mi-
crosilica, and kaolinite and mixing water with various ratios to prepare
artificial transversely isotropic rock blocks. Tien et al. (2006) per-
formed conventional triaxial compression tests on stratified composite
rock specimens made of cement and quartz sand materials with dif-
ferent mixing proportions. Gong et al. (2015) established a large-scale
similar model (1.6 m × 1.6 m) for horizontal stratified composite rock,
and analyzed the instability process of a rectangular tunnel in hor-
izontal stratified composite rock with thermal imaging technology. He
et al. (2009) proposed a new approach of the physically finite elemental
slab assemblage (PFESA) used for the construction of large-scale phy-
sical models to mimic stratified layers with different inclinations. They
carried out a series of experimental tests for physical modeling of the
creation and operation of a roadway under conditions of deep mining
He et al. (2010) committed a study to the simulation of a roadway
excavation in the geologically horizontal strata at great depth based on
a physical modeling test. He (2011) conducted physical modeling of an
excavation of a roadway tunnel in geologically inclined at 45° rock
strata for visualization and observation of the progressive development
of the excavation damaged zone.
In addition, there are many studies in the field of numerical simulation
analysis. Yin et al. (2015), Wang et al. (2012), and Jia et al. (2008) used
two-dimensional (2-D) rock failure process analysis (RFPA2D) software
developed based on meso-damage mechanics to conduct numerical simu-
lation tests of stratified composite rock under uniaxial loading. Park et al.
(2015), and Duan et al. (2016) used 2-D particle flow code (PFC2D) to carry
out conventional triaxial compression and Brazilian splitting numerical
simulation of stratified composite rock. The results show that the failure
mode of composite rock strata is greatly influenced by the weak interlayer.
Lisjak et al. (2014, 2015) used the discrete-continuous coupling analysis
method (FDEM) to analyze the damage fracture process of stratified ar-
gillite under compression conditions. The numerical results show that the
interlayer weak interface directly affects the stability of a tunnel excavation
in stratified rock mass. In recent years, some new numerical methods are
applied to investigate the interaction between the internal notch and micro
pore, such as general particle dynamics (GPD) (Zhou et al., 2015; Bi et al.,
2016; Zhou and Bi, 2018); peridynamics (PD) (Wang et al., 2016; Wang
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018a, 2018b); and the extended finite element
method (Cheng and Zhou, 2015; Zhou and Cheng, 2017).
However, the deformation and failure characteristics of TBM tunnel
surrounding rock in deep buried composite rock considering the time
scale have rarely been reported. Therefore, in this research, a large-scale
model experiment was carried out to study the convergence deformation
and failure characteristics of the TBM tunnel surrounding rock in deep
buried composite rock. Based on the experimental results, a numerical
simulation is also conducted on the deformation behavior of the tunnel,
which reveals well the failure mechanism of tunnel excavation in com-
posite strata.
TBM1Driving along the slope
drain water inverse the slope
Upstream
I II III
Drilling Drilling
TBM1
blasting blasting
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for the in-site tunnel project (unit: m).
2
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133
2. Engineering overview
The water conveyance tunnel has a total length of 41.823 km (Fig. 1).
The tunnel entrance bottom elevation is 1269 m, and the exit bottom
elevation is 1195 m. Approximately 9 km of the section (Fig. 1) is con-
structed by drilling blasting, and the remaining 32.843 km is constructed
by two open TBMs. The diameter of the TBM excavation is 6.5–6.8 m, and
the rock compressive strength of the TBM construction tunnel is
30–180 MPa. The ground elevation is 1750–3777 m, the tunnel buried
depth is more than 500 m, with the buried depth of more than 1000 m
approximately 53.3% of the length, and a maximum depth of 2268 m.
The tunnel in this section crosses the Boroconou anticlinorium and is
located in the complex east-west tectonic zone, where the rock strata are
strongly compressive folded and secondary fold and faults are developed.
The tunnel in this section passes through several large faults, and the
distribution of faults is concentrated in Chaqigou. The main type of fault
is the reversed fault, which is mainly compressive and compressive-tor-
sional. The dip angle distribution ranges from 67° to 90°, mostly 85°∼90°,
the fault extension length ranges from 1 to 5 km. The rock in the fault
zone is broken and is in the form of fragmented rock, it is obviously
squeezed, and the fault zone width is 5–12 m. The rock mass in the fault
fracture zone is broken, and it is mainly composed of cataclasite and
mylonite. The rock mass is grayish-green, and a few quartz veins are
observed locally. The rock mass in the fault effect zone is relatively
complete, and is mainly composed of broken rocks.
Conventional laboratory mechanical tests were carried out on samples
of main strata along the tunnel. The results show that the tunnel rock is
generally dense and has high compressive strength. The tunnel buried
depth is 1000–2000 m, vertical stress is 20 MPa, maximum horizontal
principal stress is 30 MPa, minimum horizontal principal stress is 24 MPa,
and lateral pressure coefficient is 1.6, approximately.
3. Design of similar model test
3.1. Similar model test system
The similar model test uses the deep disaster simulation system
developed independently by China University of Mining and
Technology, and is mainly used in model tests of the deformation me-
chanism and control technology of surrounding rock in deep under-
ground engineering. The size of the plane strain test rig is
1 m × 1 m × 0.25 m, and it is loaded with hydraulic pressure. The ex-
periment system consists of three parts: test loading frame, hydraulic
servo control system and computer control platform. The components
of the system are shown in Fig. 2.
A tunnel boring simulation test device is used to simulate tunnel
excavation (Yang et al., 2018). This device can simulate the full section
excavation process of the tunnel during TBM construction. The de-
formation field measurement of the rock test model can directly obtain
the integral deformation rule of the test model by analyzing the de-
formation of the model surface surrounding rock. A digital photo-
grammetry system is used to measure the global strain field of the
physical test model. The digital photogrammetry system includes two
main parts: image acquisition and image post-processing analysis
TBM2 Driving inverse the slope
drain water along the slope
Fault F7 (400 m wide)
Drilling blasting
Downstream
IV
TBM2
S.-Q. Yang, et al.
Loading plate
Restraining plate
(a) Test loading frame
Fig. 2. Physical model testing system for deep engineering disaster simulation.
systems. The image acquisition system mainly includes a high-resolu-
tion digital camera, high-brightness camera light, black-out cloth and
other photographic equipment. By obtaining high resolution and clear
experimental model pictures, it provides the basis for the subsequent
image post-processing analysis.
The digital photogrammetry system can measure the displacement
and deformation field on the target observation surface of the similar
model, and the static strain data acquisition system can obtain the
strain and stress state of a monitoring point through back-calculated
deformation of the strain gauge. The static strain data acquisition
system used in this physical model test mainly includes the unit strain
gauge, static strain data acquisition instrument, cable, computer and
other components. The main function of the system is to record the
strain and stress state of certain observation points inside the model.
The system uses the strain gauge size of 15 mm × 15 mm × 15 mm, and
selects a 45° strain-gauge rosette to simultaneously measure the strain
at horizontal, vertical, and 45° directions.
3.2. Composition and proportioning of similar material
By taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of all
kinds of similar materials, fine river sand as aggregate and rosin par-
affin as cementing material are selected for the similar material in this
Fig. 3. Stress-strain curve of rock-like materials under uniaxial compression with different mix proportions.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133
(b) Hydraulic servo control (c) Computer control platform
research. Fig. 3 shows the uniaxial compressive stress-strain curves of
the similar material with six different proportions. It can be observed
form Fig. 3 that with the increase in rosin paraffin proportion, the
uniaxial compressive strength and deformation modulus of the material
are significantly improved. The similar material with proportion 1 has
low uniaxial compressive strength and small deformation modulus, and
shows a relatively obvious pore compaction in the pre-peak stage. The
material has large post-peak deformation and it shows the characteristic
of ductile failure, and its mechanical properties are in good agreement
with those of soft rock. The similar material with proportion 6 has high
uniaxial compressive strength and a relatively large deformation
modulus. The stress-strain curve has smaller pore compaction de-
formation in the pre-peak stage, and the material shows brittle failure
characteristic in the post-peak deformation stage. Its mechanical
properties are consistent with those of hard rock.
Table 1 lists the typical mechanical parameters of the similar ma-
terial with different mix proportions. In the model test, the rock-like
material with mix proportion 1 (rosin: paraffin: river sand = 0.5:3:100)
is used to simulate soft rock such as metamorphic mudstone, and my-
lonite. Proportion 6 (rosin: paraffin: river sand = 3.0:8:100) is selected
to simulate hard rock such as argillaceous sandstone and siltstone.
3
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Table 1
Typical mechanical parameters of rock-like material with different mix proportions.
Group Rosin: Paraffin: River sand γ (kN/m3) σc (MPa) σt (MPa) Ec (MPa) c (MPa) φ (°)

1 0.5:3:100 15.79 0.332 0.080 120.9 0.088 31.29

2 1.0:4:100 15.84 0.556 0.069 137.1 0.104 31.08
3 1.5:5:100 16.43 0.771 0.079 112.4 0.104 39.54
4 2.0:6:100 16.85 1.227 0.108 192.7 0.138 39.04
5 2.5:7:100 17.03 1.757 0.148 382.7 0.198 23.32
6 3.0:8:100 17.66 2.019 0.125 581.9 0.245 27.55

Table 2
Physical quantities of physical model test. Hard rock Soft rock
stratum stratum
Physical quantities Symbol Similarity ratio Dimension Ratio
U5
Tunnel geometry size L CL [L] 1:46.4
Surrounding rock stress σ Cσ [M·L−1·T−2] 1:76.1 Inter-layer U4
Surrounding rock strain ε Cε 1 1 interface U3
Poisson's ratio μ Cμ 1 1 (dip 90°)
Tensile strength σt Cσt [M·L−1·T−2] 1:76.1
U2
Compressive strength σc Cσc [M·L−1·T−2] 1:76.1 U1
Upper stratum
Displacement δ Cδ [L] 1:46.4
Elastic Modulus of rock E CE [M·L−1·T−2] 1:76.1 10 5 5 5 8
14 100
Volumetric weight γ Cγ [M·T−2·L−2] 1:76.1
L5 L4 L3 L2 L1 R1 R 2 R3 R 4 R5
Gravitational acceleration g – [L·T−2] –
Time t – [T] – D1
Friction angle φ Cφ 1 1 Lower stratum D2
Cohesion C Cc [M·L−1·T−2] 1:76.1
D3
D4
3.3. Determination of similarity relation and similarity constants
D5
(1) Similarity relation

Based on the similar theory, if all the instantaneous physical

quantities that correspond to the prototype and model are proportional,
then the two systems (or phenomena) are similar. At this time, the ratio
of the same physical quantities between the prototype and model is
called the similarity ratio, that is, “prototype physical quantity (P) /
model physical quantity (M) = similarity ratio (C)”. According to the
experiment requirement, the material unit weight, compressive
strength, tensile strength and elastic modulus are selected as the main
similar parameters, which are presented in Table 2.
According to the second theorem in the similarity criterion (π the-
orem), if the phenomena are similar, the relation between various
parameters used to describe similar phenomena can be converted into a
functional relation between similar criteria, and the similarity criterion
function should be the same. Therefore, the prototype and the similar
model should have similar mechanical properties, and the equilibrium
equation, geometric equation, physical equation, stress boundary and
displacement boundary of the two should be identical. The similarity
ratios of the model test have the following relation (Zhang et al., 2009):
(1) The stress similarity ratio Cσ, volumetric weight similarity ratio Cγ
and geometric similarity ratio CL satisfy the similarity relation as
follows:
C = C CL
(2) The displacement similarity ratio Cδ, geometric similarity ratio CL,
and strain similarity ratio Cε satisfy the similarity relation as fol-
lows:
C = C CL
(3) The stress similarity ratio Cσ, the elastic modulus similarity ratio CE
and the strain similarity ratio Cε satisfy the similarity relation as
follows:
Dimension unit: cm 100
Fig. 4. Diagram of physical test model and measure point layout.
C = CE C (3)
In addition, the similar model test requires that the similarity ratio
of all dimensionless physical quantities equals 1, and the similarity
ratios of the same dimensional physical quantities should be exactly
equal, that is:
C = 1, Cµ = 1, Cf = 1, C = 1 (4)
Cs = 1,C t = 1,C c = 1,CE = 1 (5)
(2) Determination of similarity constants
The similarity relation given by Eq. (1) to Eq. (5) combined with the
test conditions can be used to determine the similarity constants. The
geometrical dimension of the plane strain model frame is
1.0 m × 1.0 m × 0.25 m, the end face size of the prototype TBM tunnel
is 6.5–6.8 m, and the excavation diameter of the tunnel boring simu-
lation test device is 140 mm. The experimental simulation range is
(1) approximately 7 times excavation space. Accordingly, the geometric
similarity constant of the model is determined as CL = LP/LM = 1:46.4.
The volumetric weight of the similar soft rock is γ1 = 1.58 g/cm3,
the volumetric weight of the similar hard rock is γ2 = 1.77 g/cm3, the
similar ratio of soft rock volumetric weight is Cγ1 = 1:1.54, the simi-
larity ratio of hard rock volumetric weight is Cγ2 = 1:1.74, and the si-
(2)
milar ratio of average volumetric weight is Cγ = 1:1.64. According to
the similarity theory, the stress similarity ratio is Cσ = CγCL = 1:76.1.
3.4. Similar model test plan
(1) Introduction to model test

4
S.-Q. Yang, et al.
Table 3
Geo-stress of the engineering protype and force applied in the physical simulation test.
Load σV (MPa) σH1 (MPa)
Engineering prototype 21.4 34.2
Model test 0.28 0.45
Fig. 5. Loading path of the model test in this research.
The similar model test scheme is shown in Fig. 4. The left side of the
model is the intact surrounding rock, which is the hard rock stratum
with good lithology and high strength. The right side of the model is the
fault fracture zone surrounding rock, which is the soft rock stratum
with poor lithology and low strength. The inter-layer dip angle of soft
and hard rock strata is set to 90° according to inside project engineering
geological data (the fault dip is 86°–90°). The strain and stress evolution
characteristics of certain point in the model are monitored by a unit
strain gauge attached to a strain-gauge rosette, and the layout scheme
of the unit strain gauges is shown in Fig. 4. Five independent unit strain
gauges are arranged on the upper, lower, left, and right sides of the
circular tunnel respectively. Compared with the hard surrounding rock,
the deformation of the weak surrounding rock after excavation is larger,
and the TBM tunneling machine is more likely to suffer a jamming
disaster in weak surrounding rock. Therefore, the unit strain gauges on
the left side of the tunnel are buried in hard rock strata, and the upper,
lower and right side unit strain gauges are buried in soft rock strata. The
surrounding rock near the tunnel is greatly affected by the excavation
disturbance. Therefore, the unit strain gauges are densely buried and
the spacing is set to 5 cm. The surrounding rock away from the tunnel is
relatively less affected by the excavation disturbance, so the buried
distance of the unit strain gauges is set to 8 cm.
(2) Model boundary conditions and load scheme
The left, right and top of the model are stress boundaries. They are
loaded uniformly by using three loading cylinders, and a hydraulic
servo system is used for real-time control. The bottom, front, and back
sides of the model are fixed displacement boundaries, and the front and
back sides of the model use rigid loading plates for displacement con-
straints.
The actual simulated vertical stress is σV = 21.4 MPa, the maximum
horizontal stress is σH1 = 34.2 MPa, and the minimum horizontal stress
is σH2 = 23.3 MPa. According to the stress similarity ratio, the
boundary stress applied by the model test can be converted. The
boundary stresses converted according to the stress similarity ratio are
presented in Table 3. FV is the vertical load, and FH1 and FH2 are hor-
izontal loads.
The stress state of the surrounding rock is different during the TBM
5
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133
σH2 (MPa) FV (kN) FH1 (kN) FH2 (kN)
23.3 – – –
0.31 70.50 112.70 76.80
excavation process under plane strain and real three-dimensional con-
dition. The tunnel face has a certain supporting force on the sur-
rounding rock of the tunnel during TBM excavation, and the support
force gradually decreases to 0 with the increase in distance between the
tunnel face and surrounding rock. To reasonably reflect the supporting
effect of the tunnel face on the excavated tunnel surrounding rock
under a plane strain condition, the loading scheme adopts the incre-
mental step-by-step loading mode, as shown in Fig. 5. The model test is
carried via excavation first, followed by loading; the final values of the
vertical and horizontal loads are presented in Table 3. The first stage
load is taken as 70% of the final value, after 12 h of continuous steady
loading, and then the next stage load is applied. The vertical and hor-
izontal loads increase step-by-step at the range of 10%, until the ulti-
mate loads are reached.
(2) Similar model test steps
The dimensions of the similar model test-piece are:
1 m × 1 m × 0.25 m. The left and right sides of the model are soft and
hard rock materials respectively, and the inter-layer inclination angle is
90°. The physical model test steps are as follows:
1) Friction reducing papers are pasted on the loading plate and the
restraint plates on both sides of the test rig to reduce the friction
during the loading process. After marking the buried point of the
unit strain gauges on the loading plate, the steel frame is hoisted to
restrain the two sides of the model, so that the test-piece meets the
test conditions of plane strain in the loading process.
2) The similar materials are poured layer by layer in the hard and soft
rock strata. Firstly, the hard rock stratum is poured into the right
side of the frame, after pouring one layer (about 20 cm), the soft
rock is poured into the left side of the frame; and after preliminary
compaction. During the pouring process, the corresponding unit
strain gauges are arranged at the buried point.
3) The top of the poured test-piece is leveled manually to ensure that
the vertical stress of the test-piece is uniform, and then the test-piece
is tampered with a vibrator.
4) The original rock mass is compact and has small porosity due to high
in-situ stress. To simulate the circular tunnel in deep-buried com-
posite rock strata, low-pressure consolidation is used to compress
and consolidate the test-piece. Through the computer console, a
consolidation pressure of 30 kN is set on the up, down, left and right
sides of the test-piece, and the consolidation time is 24 h.
5) A circular full-face tunneling machine is used for excavation.
Because the longitudinal dimension of the test-piece is relatively
small, and considering that the purpose of the model test is to ex-
plore the deformation rule of the TBM tunneling surrounding rock in
composite rock strata under plane strain condition, a full-face ex-
cavation method is adopted to excavate the model tunnel in the test.
6) After consolidation, the static strain acquisition instrument is con-
nected and debugged, each monitoring channel is balanced, the
initial parameters of the unit strain gauges are set, the digital pho-
togrammetry system is set up and debugged, and deformation of the
model is monitored.
7) After excavation, incremental step-by-step loading is carried out
according to the test loading scheme to simulate the stress release
process of tunnel surrounding rock in the process of TBM excava-
tion. The loading duration of each stage is 12 h. During the loading
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Table 4
Surface observations of the tunnel surrounding rock in the loading process.
Loading time Entirety Soft rock section on the left side of the tunnel Hard rock section on the right side of the tunnel

3 min

11 min

19 min

52 min

12 h

process, the entire deformation process of the test-piece is con-
tinuously recorded by the digital photogrammetry system, and
combined with the static strain gauge acquisition results; the stress
and deformation characteristics of the unit strain gauges are ob-
tained. After the loading is completed, the test is terminated and the
model is removed.
4. Similar model test results and analysis
4.1. Surface observation results and analysis of surrounding rock
deformation
The deformation and failure process of the unbaffled support side of
the excavation part during loading was recorded, and the results are
presented in Table 4. After a tunnel excavation, surrounding rock de-
formation does not occur instantaneously, but gradually evolves with
the adjustment of the surrounding rock stress and deformation, which
indicates that surrounding rock deformation after a tunnel excavation
in deep buried composite rock has a certain time effect.
At the instantaneous loading, no obvious deformation and damage
occurred around the tunnel. After 3 min of loading, the composite rock
model test-piece showed obvious damage at the left soft rock side, but
no obvious damage characteristics were found at the right hard rock
side. After damage of the surrounding area, the strength of the sur-
rounding rock decreased and its bearing capacity weakened, which
further led to the aggravation of damage. After 11 min of loading, the
fissure on the soft rock side of the tunnel further extended to the top
and bottom. To facilitate the observation, no baffle support was added
on the observation window side, an unloading zone was formed in the
surrounding rock, and a crack extended to the unbaffled supporting side
at the same time, resulting in the fall of the surrounding rock on the
right side panel and unbaffled supporting side. After loading for 19 min,

6
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Soft rock Hard rock Hard rock Soft rock

(a) The front of the excavation surface (b) The back of the excavation surface
(without baffle) (with baffle)
Fig. 6. Failure characteristic of the tunnel surrounding rock by surface observation.

(a) Vertical convergence (b) Horizontal convergence

displacement of the tunnel displacement of the tunnel

Tunnel crack
Initial tunnel

10cm
Tunnel crack
1.5cm
9cm
14cm

Tunnel drop
block
Post-deformation
tunnel
(c) Local deformation of the tunnel (d) Sketch map of tunnel deformation
Fig. 7. Convergence deformation of the tunnel surrounding rock after loading.

7
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Displacements / mm

Displacements / mm
Y / pixels

Y / pixels
X / pixels X / pixels
(a) Loading instant (b) Loading 12 hours

Displacements / mm

Displacements / mm
Y / pixels

Y / pixels

X / pixels X / pixels
(c) Loading 24 hours (d) Loading 36 hours
Displacements / mm
Y / pixels

X / pixels
(e) Loading 48 hours (f) Loading 48 hours
Fig. 8. Testing results by digital photography-based deformation measurement technique.

the tunnel hard rock part was damaged, and the damaged area dis-
tribution was consistent with that of the soft rock side, but the damage
degree was much smaller than that of the soft rock side. After con-
tinuous loading for 52 min, the deformation around the tunnel ex-
panded further, tensile failure occurred on the soft rock side, and da-
mage on the hard rock side was aggravated. After loading for 12 h, a
circumferential deformation of the left soft rock side was more obvious.
In a partial area, due to the propagation and coalescence of crack, the
left surrounding rock cracked and fell, whereas the right hard sur-
rounding rock area also had obvious extrusion deformation.
Fig. 6 shows the tunnel circumference deformation and failure
characteristics after the test. To facilitate the observation, no baffle was
bounded on the front excavation side of the test-piece, whereas the
horizontal direction displacement was restrained effectively on the back
of the test-piece with a plexiglass plate. Comparing the front and back
sides of the test-piece, the damage degree on the restrained side was

8
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

much smaller than that of the unconstrained side, and the damage horizontal convergence deformation after tunnel excavation is greater
structure features are clear. The comparison results show that reason- than that in the vertical direction. Owing to the great difference in
able displacement constraints can effectively improve the stress state of mechanical properties of the surrounding rock on each side of the
the tunnel surrounding rock and control the deformation of the tunnel tunnel, the degree of convergence deformation between the left and
surrounding rock. In tunnel engineering, compared with the middle of right sides is very different. The deformation of the tunnel soft rock side
tunnel, the tunnel surrounding rock at the entrance and exit is weakly gradually increases with loading until the block fall off occurs. The
restrained at the longitudinal direction. Therefore, under the same geometric model and the applied load boundary conditions are sym-
stress conditions, deformation and failure of the entrance and exit of a metrical, and thus, although the deformation and damage degree of the
deep buried tunnel are more significant than those in the middle. soft and hard rock side are different, the deformation rules of the two
After the test, the slag inside the tunnel was cleaned to obtain its are consistent, and the convergence deformation rule of the top and
final shape, the deformation of the tunnel circumference was pre- bottom of the tunnel are basically the same.
liminary measured, and the results are shown in Fig. 7. The tunnel
initial diameter is 14 cm, the tunnel horizontal diameter after de-
formation is approximately 9 cm, and the tunnel vertical diameter is 4.2. Digital photogrammetry results and analysis
approximately 10 cm. It can be observed in the tunnel deformation
sketch map after the test, shown in Fig. 7 (d) that the vertical de- Fig. 8 shows the displacement vector nephogram of the test-piece
formation after excavation is approximately 4 cm, the horizontal de- tunnel surrounding rock during loading. From the evolution rule of
formation is approximately 5 cm, and the tunnel convergence hor- tunnel surrounding rock deformation with loading time, it can be seen
izontal deformation is larger than the vertical deformation. The test- that the deformation during the first loading stage is larger, accounting
piece shows an obvious drop block on the soft rock side at the hor- for about 2/3 of the total deformation. This is mainly due to the large
izontal direction, and the thickness of the drop block is approximately porosity inside the test-piece, after loading, internal particles were
1.5 cm. Cracks appear on the tunnel soft rock side, which spread from adjusted, and the pores and micro-cracks were compacted. Thus, the
the right side to the bottom and top. In the hard rock area of the test- test-piece shows a large convergence deformation macroscopically.
piece, a few small cracks also appear in the left surrounding rock, and Comparing the cavity displacement nephogram obtained by the digital
their extension range is small. photographic analysis shown in Fig. 8(e) with the surrounding rock
By combining Table 4, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, it can be observed that in deformation diagram shown in Fig. 8(f), it can be observed that the
the composite rock large-scale model test-piece under the condition of digital photogrammetry acquisition results are basically consistent with
horizontal stress greater than vertical stress, the surrounding rock the test results.
Fig. 9 shows the convergence deformation rule of key points after

14 14
Soft rock Hard rock
Tunnel convergence deformation / mm

Soft rock Hard rock

Tunnel convergence deformation / mm

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Tunnel angle / º Tunnel angle / º
(a) Loading 12 hours (b) Loading 24 hours
16 18
Tunnel convergence deformation / mm

Tunnel convergence deformation/ mm

Soft rock Hard rock Soft rock Hard rock

14 16

12 14
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Tunnel angle / º Tunnel angle / º
(c) Loading 36 hours (d) Loading 48 hours
Fig. 9. Deformation of the surrounding rock with different loading time.

9
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

0
15 330 30
3.0

convergence deformation / mm
12
Load 12 hours
Tunnel surrounding rock

convergence deformation / mm
9 300 60 2.5

Tunnel surrounding rock

6 b
a 2.0
3 e
0 270 90 1.5
d a
3 θ = 0°
1.0
6 c
9 240 120 0.5
12
0.0
15 210 150 0 12 24 36 48
180 Time / hour
(a) Key point displacement (b) Tunnel circumference a (θ=0°)

18 12

convergence deformation / mm
convergence deformation / mm

15

Tunnel surrounding rock

Tunnel surrounding rock

9
12

9 6
b c
6 θ = 75° θ = 120°
3
3

0 0
0 12 24 36 48 0 12 24 36 48
Time / hour Time / hour

(c) Tunnel circumference b (θ=75°) (d) Tunnel circumference c (θ=120°)

0.9 6
convergence deformation / mm
convergence deformation / mm

5
Tunnel surrounding rock
Tunnel surrounding rock

0.6 4

3 e
d θ = 292.5°
0.3 θ = 180° 2

0.0 0
0 12 24 36 48 0 12 24 36 48
Time / hour Time / hour
(e) Tunnel circumference d (θ=180°) (f) Tunnel circumference e (θ= 292.5°)
Fig. 10. Deformation characteristic of the key point on the tunnel surrounding during the step loading process.

each loading stage. The deformation of the tunnel soft surrounding rock
is much larger than that of the hard rock side, and the convergence
displacement of surrounding rock in the soft rock area is approximately
2–6 times that of the hard rock side. The maximum deformation of the
tunnel circumference occurs at 60°∼120°, which is located at the right
side of the soft rock area. The minimum deformation of the tunnel
circumference occurs at 180°, which is located at the bottom of the
tunnel.
In the range of 0–180°, the surrounding rock around the tunnel is
soft rock, and the displacements at the tunnel top and tunnel bottom are
approximately 2.1 mm and 1.0 mm, respectively. The reason may be
that in the vertical direction of the circular tunnel physical model, the
bottom of the model is fixed, while the top only restricts the horizontal
displacement. During the loading process, as the model is compacted,
the tunnel top displacement is larger. The maximum deformation of the
tunnel circumference occurs at 60°∼120°. The convergence displace-
ment of the surrounding rock decreases at 90°, which is due to the
collapse deformation of the tunnel soft rock side after loading for 12 h.
The fallen block is not affected by the deformation of surrounding rock,
so the deformation at 90° is smaller during subsequent loading. In the
range of 180°–360°, the convergence displacement of tunnel sur-
rounding hard rock increases and then decreases with the increase in
dip angle, and reaches its maximum in the range of 270°–300°.
Comparing the evolution rule of surrounding rock displacement in
the soft rock and hard rock area with the loading time in Fig. 9, it can be
observed that the surrounding rock deformation values in the soft and
hard rock areas are different. However, the deformation rules in the two
areas are basically the same, both show the characteristics of large
deformation at the sides of the tunnel and small deformation at the top
and bottom of the tunnel, and the convergence displacement of

10
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

surrounding rock in the tunnel upper part is larger than that in the
lower half.
To show the characteristics of the tunnel surrounding rock con-
vergence deformation more intuitively, the distribution rule of con-
vergence displacement is characterized by polar coordinates. Fig. 10 (a)
shows the convergence displacement rule of the surrounding rock
around the tunnel after loading for 12 h. In the model test-piece, after
excavation of the circular tunnel, surrounding rock convergence de-
formation shows a tendency of right large, left small, and upper large,
lower small. Specifically, displacement of the tunnel circumference
(points b and c) on the soft rock side is greater than that on the hard
rock side (point e), and convergence deformation at the tunnel top
(point a) is larger than that at the bottom (point d).
The convergence deformation of the tunnel circumference is the
result of internal stress and structural adjustment in the test-piece. It is
of great significance to explore the evolution rule of displacement with
loading time at key points for studying the internal mechanism of
tunnel surrounding deformation in deep buried composite rock. Fig. 10
(b)∼(f) show the evolution rule of convergence deformation with
loading time at key points. The convergence deformation evolution
rules of the surrounding rock at the top and bottom are different from
those on the sides. Tunnel circumferences a (θ = 0°) shows the ten-
dency of increasing first and then decreasing, while tunnel cir-
cumference b (θ = 75°), c (θ = 120°) and e (θ = 292.5°) show the trend
of step-by-step increase. Tunnel circumference d (θ = 180°), which is
located at the bottom of the tunnel, has small convergence deformation,
and remains basically unchanged as the test loading progresses. In
addition, convergence deformation at the tunnel circumference b
(θ = 75°) and c (θ = 120°) during the fourth stage loading is sig-
nificantly increased, which is in accordance with the digital photo-
grammetry results presented in Fig. 8.
Deformation of the test-piece during the loading process can be
divided into two parts. The first part is the compression deformation
caused by internal pore compaction and structural adjustment, and the

0.04 0.16
Principal stress at L1
0.02 σθ
0.12

Stress / MPa
Stress / MPa

0
0.08
σθ Principal stress at L2
-0.02
0.04
-0.04 σr
σr
-0.06 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time / hour Time / hour
(a) Principal stress at L1 (b) Principal stress at L2

0.03 0.08
σθ
0.06 σθ
0.02
Stress / MPa
Stress / MPa

Principal stress at L3
0.04 Principal stress at L4
0.01 σr
σr 0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time / hour Time / hour
(c) Principal stress at L3 (d) Principal stress at L4

0.2

σθ
0.15
Stress / MPa

0.1
Principal stress at L5

0.05 σr

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time / hour
(e) Principal stress at L5
Fig. 11. Principal stresses evolution of the measure point position in the left part of the physical model.

11
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

■ Soft rock area

100m ■ Hard rock area
14m
■ Excavation
area

100m

Fig. 14. Mathematical model for numerically calculation.

Fig. 12. Radial and circumferential stress distributions of the surrounding rock
in the left soft rock area with various loading times.
and elastic mechanics correlation equations, as in the following equa-
tions:
Strain:

0 + 90 1 2 2
= ± ( 90 ) + (2 90 )
1,2
2 2
0 45 0
(6)

Principal stress:

E 0 + 90 1 2 2
1,2 = ± ( 0 90 ) + (2 45 0 90 )
2 1 µ 1+µ (7)

Maximum shear stress:

E ( 2 + (2 2
0 90 ) 45 0 90 )
max =
2(1 + µ ) (8)

Fig. 13. Radial and circumferential stress distributions of the surrounding rock
in the right hard rock area with various loading times.
second part is the elastoplastic compression deformation of the com-
pacted test-piece subjected to external load. Deformation of the test-
piece under the first stage of loading is the compression deformation,
which is mainly caused by internal pore compaction and structural
adjustment, and the macroscopic performance is a significant increase
of the overall tunnel convergence displacement. After the consolidation
compaction at the first stage of loading, the compression deformation of
the test-piece caused by internal pore compaction and structural ad-
justment is basically complete. Therefore, under the action of the
second, the third, the fourth stage of loading, deformation of the test-
piece is the elastoplastic deformation mainly caused by external loads.
As the horizontal load applied is greater than the vertical load, the
lateral pressure coefficient is as high as 1.60. Under the action of high
horizontal stress, the convergence deformation at both sides of the
tunnel increases, and that at the top and bottom decreases, which
eventually leads to the different evolution characteristics of the con-
vergence displacement.
4.3. Unit strain gauges monitoring results and analysis
The static strain gauges are capable of real-time acquisition of the
strain value in horizontal, vertical and 45° directions. The strain and
stress of the surrounding rock at the unit strain gauge monitoring point
in the test-piece can be calculated by the conversion of principal strain
where ε0 represents the horizontal strain value, ε90 represents the ver-
tical strain value, ε45 represents the strain value at the 45° directions,
and ε1 and ε2 represent the maximum and minimum principal strain,
respectively. E represents the elastic modulus. μ represents the Poisson's
ratio, and σ1 and σ2 represent the maximum and minimum principal
stresses, respectively. Under plane strain conditions, the radial and
circumferential strain and stress characteristics at the unit stress gauge
monitoring point can be converted by measuring ε0, ε90 and ε45.
As it is well-known to us, the mechanical properties of soft and hard
rock material are very different. Under the same external load, the soft
rock similar material side controls the deformation and damage. Fig. 10
shows the evolution curves of the radial and circumferential principal
stresses at measure points in the soft rock area on the left side of the
tunnel. As the test loading progresses, the internal structure is gradually
adjusted, and the internal radial and circumferential stresses are
changed accordingly.
The unit strain gauge at L1 is arranged 10 cm away from the tunnel
center, where the surrounding rock is closest to the tunnel excavation
surface; hence it is most affected by tunnel excavation. Fig. 11(a) shows
the evolution curve of the radial and circumferential stresses of the
surrounding rock at L1 during loading. It can be seen from Fig. 11(a)
that the circumferential stress increases abruptly at the initial loading,
while the radial stress decreases significantly. The surrounding rock is
subjected to tensile stress in the radial direction and compressive stress
in the circumferential direction, which is mainly due to the stress
concentration around the tunnel after excavation. As the loading pro-
gresses, the surrounding rock in the soft rock side comes out the cracks
and falls off, and the surrounding rock is in the plastic limit bearing
state, so that the radial and circumferential stresses are small. Mean-
while, the test-piece is bound both front and back, and the radial and
circumferential stresses of the surrounding rock at the monitoring point
are all tensile.

12
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

D, σ
Softening
D
region
Dmax (≤1)
Residual
deformation
Elastic region
deformation
region
Stress-strain

0 ε
Fig. 15. Damage evolution curve of rock without the crack closure process
(Yang et al., 2019). Fig. 16. Cohesion and friction angle of soft and hard rock changing with
equivalent plastic strain.
The unit strain gauge at L2 is arranged 15 cm away from the tunnel
center, where the surrounding rock is farther away from the tunnel from the tunnel center increases, the circumferential stress shows the
center than L1, and is less disturbed by tunnel excavation. Therefore, tendency of increasing first and then decreasing, while the radial stress
the radial and circumferential stresses of the surrounding rock are always increases with the increase in distance.
greater than L1. It can be observed from Fig. 11(b) that the radial and Comparing the radial and circumferential stress distribution on the
circumferential stresses are all compressive. As the boundary load in- left and right sides of the tunnel depicted in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13, it can
creases, the radial and circumferential stresses at L2 increase gradually. be observed that the stress distribution on the left and right sides of the
The unit strain gauge at L3 is placed 20 cm away from the tunnel tunnel is essentially the same. The circumferential stresses both show
center. Comparing the radial and circumferential stresses at L2 and L3, the tendency to increase first, then decrease and then increase, while
it can be observed that the stress level at L3 is significantly lower than the radial stresses both shows the trend of increasing. However, the
that at L2, approximately 20% of the stress level at L2, which may be extreme point of circumferential stress of the two is different; the ex-
caused by the internal rupture loosening of the test-piece after loading. treme stress point on the tunnel left side appears 15 cm away from the
The unit strain gauges at L4 and L5 are respectively arranged at 25 tunnel center, while the extreme stress point on the tunnel right side
and 33 cm from the tunnel center. Fig. 11 (d) and (e) show the evolu- appears 20 cm away from the tunnel center.
tion curves of radial and circumferential stresses with loading time at
L4 and L5, respectively. Comparing Fig. 11(e), 11(d) and 11(c), it can
5. Numerical study on the deformation of tunnel surrounding rock
be observed that the radial and circumferential stresses of the sur-
in composite strata
rounding rock in this area are all compressive, and the stress level in-
creases as the distance from the tunnel center increases.
5.1. Model establishment
Fig. 12 shows the characteristics of the radial and circumferential
stress distribution at monitoring points at different loading times in the
The size of the numerical simulation model is
soft rock area of the left side of the tunnel. It can be observed from
100 m × 100 m × 1 m, which established with reference to the real
Fig. 12 that the tunnel circumference stress shows an evolutionary
rock engineering. The model center is the tunnel excavation area, the
trend of first increasing, then decreasing and then again increasing, and
tunnel diameter is 14 m, the left and right areas of the tunnel are soft
the evolution of the radial and circumferential stresses inside the sur-
rock and hard rock, respectively, and the angle between the interface
rounding rock is basically the same. In general, the radial and cir-
and the horizontal plane of the soft and hard rock area is 90°. The
cumferential stress values of surrounding rock around the tunnel are
hexahedron eight-node unit is used for model unit division, and the
small, while the radial and circumferential stress values of the sur-
number of model units is 11,275. Considering that the model is in the
rounding rock are larger away from the tunnel. Large stress con-
plane strain deformation condition, a displacement constraint is
centration appears in the surrounding rock 15 cm away from the tunnel
adopted in the tunneling direction, and a stress constraint is applied in
center, which is mainly caused by stress redistribution and structural
the horizontal direction of the tunneling plane. In the vertical direction,
adjustment after tunnel excavation. When the concentrated stress
a fixed displacement constraint is applied to the bottom of the model,
caused by the boundary load exceeds the strength limit of the sur-
and fixed vertical boundary stress is applied to the top of the model. It is
rounding rock, the surrounding rocks around the tunnel is subjected to
considered that after tunnel excavation, the supporting effect of the
tensile or shear failure, and is in the stage of plastic deformation.
tunnel face to the surrounding rock decreases with the increase in
However, surrounding rock far away from the tunnel is still in the stage
distance between the tunnel face and excavation surface. To reasonably
of elastic deformation, and significant stress concentration occurs at the
reflect the supporting effect of the tunnel face to the surrounding rock,
junction of plastic and elastic deformation. Therefore, the radial and
the model boundary stress in the numerical calculation is also carried
circumferential stresses of the surrounding rock at 15 cm from the
out by an incremental step-by-step loading. The stress loading scheme is
tunnel center are larger.
consistent with the physical model test. The mathematical model is
The strength characteristics of soft rock and hard rock are con-
shown in Fig. 14.
siderably different. Even when the left and right side boundary load are
the same, the deformation and failure characteristics of the left and
right sides of test-piece are different, and correspondingly, the internal 5.2. Constitutive model and selection of material parameters
stress distribution characteristics are also different. Fig. 13 shows the
radial and circumferential stress distributions at different loading times 5.2.1. Damage softening constitutive model
in the hard rock area on the right side of the tunnel. As the distance Rock differs from the ideal elasto-plastic material, as it shows yield-
strengthening characteristics before reaching the peak stress point

13
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Table 5
Parameters values adopted in the numerical calculation.
Material category cp (MPa) φp (°) σt (MPa) cr (MPa) φr (°) ψp (°) ψr (°) E (MPa) v yield_ratio ratio s_res

Soft rock 0.088 31.29 0.038 0 33 15 15 120.9 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.02
Hard rock 0.7 23 0.2 0.12 27 10 10 581.9 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.005

during conventional triaxial compression. Specifically, when the com- Ds =

ps
( ps < psL )
psL
pressive stress exceeds the yield stress, its elastic modulus decreases,
but the axial stress still increases with increased strain. Therefore, the D s = 1.0 ( ps psL )
(11)
yield stress ratio (Eq. (9)) is defined as the ratio of yield stress to peak
Dt = 0 ( pt = 0)
stress of rock based on the M−C strength criterion (Yang et al., 2019).
Dt = 1.0 ( pt > 0) (12)
1 + sin 2k c cos ps pt
yield = k1 peak = k1 3 + 1 where ε and ε are the shear and tensile equivalent plastic strains,
1 sin 1 sin (9)
which are calculated by the associative flow rule and the plastic flow
surface. εpsL is the critical shear equivalent plastic strain of rock en-
E = k2 Es (10) tering the residual deformation stage.
The physical properties of a material change when yield damage
where σyield and σpeak represent the yield stress and peak strength, re- occurs and its strength and deformation parameters will weaken cor-
spectively; k1, k2 are material constants that reflect the ratio of yield respondingly. The cohesion of rock will decrease and its friction angle
stress to peak strength and the reduction ratio of the elastic modulus at will change at the post-peak deformation region. Here, we just consider
the yield strengthening stage is generally taken as 0.75–0.80; c and φ the damage evolution rule of elastic modulus, tensile strength, friction
are cohesion and internal friction angles at peak strength, respectively; angle, cohesion, and dilatation angle. We note that the influence of
and E′ and Es are the elastic modulus at the yield strengthening stage tensile damage on the physical properties of rock is different from that
and Young’s modulus respectively. of shear damage. The rock, after tensile failure occurs, is not subject to
The damage variable represents the damage degree in rock. It is tensile loading but is subject to shear loading. However, the tensile and
important to research the damage evolution during rock deformation to the shear strengths of rock are small after shear failure occurs. This
evaluate its loading capacity. D is relatively small at the elastic de- assumes that the elastic modulus of rock is just affected by the tensile
formation region and is approximately equal to 0 before the peak-stress damage, whereas the friction angle, cohesion, and dilatation angle are
(Li et al., 2012). The damage evolution can be simplified as shown in just affected by the shear damage.
Fig. 15, in which D remains 0 before the peak-stress, then increases
= p Ds ( p r)
(13)
linearly at the softening region and finally increases to the maximum at
p r
the residual deformation stage. where ω is the shear strength parameter (i.e., φ, c and ψ; ω and ω are
To characterize the damage and failure processes of rock and to the initial and residual values of the shear strength parameters, re-
build a relationship between its damage and deformation, a cumulative spectively.)
damage evolution rule is proposed. The damage variable was used in E = E0 (1 Dt ) (14)
the cumulative damage evolution rule and represented the degree of
damage in the rock. When D = 0, it means that rock deforms elastically; t = t 0 (1 max(Dt , D s )) (15)
whereas D = 1 means that rock yield and failure occur at the residual
where E is the elastic modulus; E0 is the initial value of elastic modulus;
deformation stage. To distinguish the tensile and shear damages, Dt and
σt is the tensile strength; and σt0 is the initial value of tensile strength.
Ds are used to represent the two damage events, respectively, and the
The mechanical parameters of rock are modified using the above
larger of the two variables is used to describe the total damage variable
damage-softening equations. The established damage-softening model
D. There are variations between Dt and Ds, especially, under shear yield
of rock exhibits different mechanical characteristics under tensile and
conditions. Ds increases linearly with increasing shear equivalent
compressive conditions, especially under the compression shear con-
plastic strain, whereas Dt equals 1.0 under tensile yield conditions
dition. The rock entering the residual deformation stage still exhibits a
(because rock is a brittle material, differing from metal) as written in
certain residual shear strength when shear damage has occurred,
the following equations (Yang et al., 2019).
whereas the residual strength and elastic modulus of rock decrease to 0

0.36 2.1

0.27
1.4
σ1 / MPa
σ1 / MPa

0.18

0.7
0.09 Experimental result
Experimental result
Numerical result Numerical result
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ε1 / 10-3 ε1 / 10-3
(a) Soft rock similar material (b) Hard rock similar material
Fig. 17. Stress-strain curve of soft and hard rock-like material under uniaxial compression.

14
S.-Q. Yang, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133

Soft rock Hard rock 0.0 Soft rock Hard rock

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0
(a) Tunnel circumference damage (b) Surrounding rock failure law
nephogram
Fig. 18. Numerical calculation and model experiment results (after first stage loading).

Table 6
Numerical calculation results with different stress levels.
Stress state First stage load Second stage load Third stage load Fourth stage load Legend

Damage nephogram

Maximum principal stress nephogram (MPa)

Minimum principal stress nephogram (MPa)

Displacement nephogram (m)

Note: Left side of the model is the soft rock area and the right side is the hard rock area.

when the rock enters the residual deformation stage and tensile damage
occurs. The model shows similar mechanical behaviour to that of real
rock materials at the post-peak stage.
5.2.2. Selection of material parameters
The above damage-softening model has been successfully im-
plemented in FLAC3D, which can be calculated using the finite differ-
ence method. The model strength criterion uses the associated Mohr-
Coulomb elastoplastic constitutive model. The model parameters se-
lected for the numerical calculation are obtained according to labora-
tory proportioning test. Fig. 16 shows curves of the peak and residual
strength parameters of the soft and hard rock, and Table 5 lists the
specific parameters required for the damage softening model. It can be
observed from Fig. 17 that the uniaxial compressive strength of the
hard rock material is approximately 7 times that of soft rock, and the
elastic modulus is approximately 5 times that of the soft rock material.
The mechanical properties of the two are very different and soft and
hard rock materials constitute the composite rock strata.
It can be seen from the uniaxial compression stress-strain curves of
soft and hard rock-like materials shown in Fig. 17 that not only the peak
strength, elastic modulus and residual strength of the soft rock and hard
rock-like materials are different, but the stress-strain curves of the two
also exhibit totally different mechanical characteristics. The stress-strain
curve of soft rock-like material shows obvious pore compaction

15
S.-Q. Yang, et al.
15
Soft rock
Convergence displacement
around the tunnel / mm
10
5
0 0
0 60 120
Tunnel circumference dip / °
Fig. 19. Convergence deformation of the surrounding rock after first stage loading by numerical calculation and physical experiment.
0.6
□ σθ (σ0)
△ σθ (0.9σ0)
0.5
Stress / MPa
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1 2 4 8
Distance from the tunnel center L/R
Fig. 20. Maximum principal stress distribution of the surrounding rock in the
right hard rock area.
characteristics under low stress pre-peak condition, which is mainly due
to the fact that the deformation modulus of the soft rock material is much
smaller than that of the hard rock material, and the pore compression
deformation is larger under the same porosity. The soft rock material has
large softening deformation in the post-peak deformation stage, and the
material shows ductile failure characteristics. However, the stress-strain
curve of the hard rock material drops rapidly after reaching the post-peak
deformation stage, and the material shows brittle failure characteristics.
In addition, the residual strength characteristics of the two are different.
After uniaxial compression failure, the residual stress of the soft rock
material drops to zero, while the hard rock material still has certain re-
sidual strength. It can be seen from the comparison between the experi-
mental and numerical simulation results that the two are in good agree-
ment, indicating that the constitutive model and model parameters
selected for the numerical simulation are suitable.
5.3. Analysis of numerical simulation results
Fig. 18 shows the deformation and failure characteristics of the sur-
rounding rock obtained by model test and numerical calculation after
applying the first stage loading. The numerical calculation result shows
that after applying the first stage loading, the surrounding rock de-
formation damage area is mainly concentrated in the left soft rock part,
while the deformation and damage degree of the right hard rock area is
small, and two shear damage areas appear symmetrically at the tunnel
top and bottom. Comparing the test results shown in Fig. 18(b), it can be
observed that the deformation and damage characteristics of the tunnel
surrounding rock obtained by numerical calculation using the damage
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133
360
Hard rock Soft rock Hard rock
Convergence displacement
270
around the tunnel / mm
180
90
180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Tunnel circumference dip / °
softening model and corresponding model parameters are in good
◇ σθ (0.8σ0)
agreement with the physical model test results. Based on the numerical
○ σθ (0.7σ0) calculation results, the internal deformation and failure mechanism of the
tunnel surrounding rock in composite rock strata can be studied.
Furthermore, the damage, displacement and principal stress dis-
tribution characteristics of tunnel surrounding rock area after applica-
tion of different loads. It can be observed from the numerical calcula-
tion results in Table 6 that as the load value increases, the range of
tunnel circumference damage area increases gradually, and the sur-
rounding rock convergence displacement increases significantly. After
applying the first and second load, surrounding rock damage area is
mainly concentrated in the left soft rock area, including the left side,
top and bottom of the tunnel. It can be observed from the principal
stress nephogram that although the load and geometry structure of the
model are heaped, the principal stress distribution inside the model is
uneven and asymmetrical owing to the large difference in mechanical
properties of the left and ride side surrounding rock materials. As the
horizontal load is greater than the vertical load, the left and right sides
of the tunnel show tensile stress concentration, and compressive stress
concentration appears at the top and bottom of the tunnel. Owing to the
low strength of soft rock-like materials, tensile failure occurs first at the
left side of the tunnel, and compression shear damage occurs at the top
and bottom of the left soft rock area. After applying the third and fourth
stage load, concentrated stress in right hard rock area of the sur-
rounding rock exceeds the tensile strength of hard rock, causing tensile
failure in the right soft rock area. Meanwhile, with the increase in
boundary load, the damage area on the tunnel left side increases fur-
ther, and the displacement of surrounding rock increases.
Owing to the different degree of deformation damage at the left and
right sides of the tunnel, the displacement of the tunnel circumference
is also very different. From the convergence displacement characteristic
curve at key points of the tunnel circumference, shown in Fig. 19, it can
be observed that the convergence displacement distribution character-
istics of the tunnel circumference are basically consistent with the da-
mage characteristics. In general, the convergence displacements at the
left and right sides of the tunnel are significantly larger than those at
the top and bottom. In particular, the convergence displacement at the
left soft rock area of the tunnel is the largest, the displacement at the
right hard rock area takes a second place, and the deformation at the
top and bottom is small. The displacement of the surrounding rock in
the upper and lower part of the tunnel shows symmetry.
From the maximum principal stress distribution rule in the right
hard rock area of the tunnel, presented in Fig. 20, it can be observed
that the circumferential compressive stress of the tunnel surrounding
rock is obviously larger than the radial compressive stress. The influ-
ence range of the tunnel excavation disturbance is approximately four
times the tunnel diameter from the tunnel center. Under the condition
16
S.-Q. Yang, et al.
0.45
Peak 4#
Peak 3#
0.35 Peak 2#
Peak 1#
Stress / MPa
0.25
□ σθ (σ0)
△ σθ (0.9σ0)
0.15
◇ σθ (0.8σ0)
○ σθ (0.7σ0)
0.05
1 2 4 8
Distance from the tunnel center L/R
Fig. 21. Maximum principal stress distribution of the surrounding rock in the
left soft rock area.
of low boundary load, the circumferential stress of the tunnel cir-
cumference gradually decreases as the distance from the tunnel center
increases. This indicates that although in the tunnel surrounding rock
appears obvious stress concentration, the concentrated stress does not
exceed the failure strength of the hard rock material, and the sur-
rounding rock is in elastic deformation state. As the external boundary
load increases, the circumferential stress of surrounding rock increases
first and then decreases with the increase of distance from the tunnel
center, indicating that the concentrated stress exceeds the ultimate
strength of hard rock. Surrounding rock at tunnel circumference is in
plastic damage softening deformation state, while that away from the
tunnel center is still in elastic deformation state. The circumferential
principal stress reaches the maximum at the junction between the
elastic and plastic damage deformation area. Compared with the prin-
cipal stress distribution curve of the surrounding rock under different
boundary load, it can be observed that with the increase in external
boundary load, the range of plastic damage deformation area increases
gradually.
It can be observed from the maximum principal stress distribution
curve on the left soft rock area of the tunnel shown in Fig. 21 that the
distribution rule of maximum principal stress in the soft rock area under
different external boundary loads is similar inside the surrounding rock.
As the distance between the surrounding rock and the tunnel center
increases, the circumferential stress of the surrounding rock shows the
trend of increasing first and then decreasing. This indicates that the
plastic damage softening deformation zone appears on the left soft rock
area under all load stages. With the increase of boundary stress, the soft
rock damage area range extends from 1.69R to 2.60R from the tunnel
Soft rock Soft rock
(a) Soft rock area on the left (b) Surrounding area of
side of the tunnel
Fig. 22. Damage nephogram and node displacement vector diagram of the surrounding rock after first loading stage.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133
center. Comparing with Fig. 20 and Fig. 21, it can be observed that the
damage deformation area of the surrounding rock in the hard rock area
is significantly smaller than that in the soft rock area under the same
boundary stress. In addition, circumferential stress at the junction of
elastic and plastic damage deformation zone in the hard rock area is
larger than that in the soft rock area, which is mainly due to the high
fracture strength and large deformation modulus of hard rock. Com-
paring Fig. 20, Fig. 21 and Table 6, the principal stress distribution rule
inside the surrounding rock is consistent with the surrounding rock
damage and displacement nephogram.
Fig. 22 shows the rock damage nephogram and node displacement
vector diagram of the tunnel surrounding rock. The surrounding rock
node displacement in the damage deformation area of the tunnel cir-
cumference is significantly larger than that of the undamaged area. The
internal factors that cause damage to the tunnel left side and the tunnel
top and bottom are different. The damage deformation failure in the left
soft rock area is mainly due to the fact that the concentrated stress
caused by boundary stress exceeds the soft rock strength limit, and the
damage deformation failure at the top and bottom of the tunnel is
mainly due to the uneven deformation of the left and right surrounding
rock. As the elastic modulus of hard rock is larger than that of soft rock,
the node displacement on the top and bottom of the model is presented
as moving from the hard rock area to the soft rock area. The com-
pression of the right hard rock to the left soft rock area causes large
compressive stress concentration inside the soft rock at the tunnel top
and bottom. As the load increases, the compressive stress concentration
exceeds the strength limit of soft rock, which eventually leads to the
deformation failure in the tunnel soft rock at the top and bottom.
6. Conclusions
This study developed a large-scale similar model experimental re-
search scheme for the deformation and failure characteristics of TBM
tunnel surrounding rock in deep buried composite rock. The model test
mainly studies the convergence displacement and failure characteristics
of a circular tunnel in deep buried composite rock, and analyzes the
internal principal stress and principal strain evolution rules of the
tunnel surrounding rock under a constant boundary load condition.
Through the above model test and numerical simulation, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) It can be seen from the model surface observation results that the
deformation of the tunnel surrounding rock after excavation con-
sists of two parts, including the instantaneous deformation and the
continuous creep deformation. Furthermore, in the surrounding
rock where the tunnel circumference is in destruction critical state,
the creep deformation is more obvious. When the circular tunnel in
Hard rock 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Soft rock Hard rock 1.0
(c) Bottom area of the tunnel
tunnel
17
S.-Q. Yang, et al.
deep buried composite rock is excavated, given that the horizontal
stress is greater than the vertical stress, the tunnel surrounding rock
at the soft rock side is first subjected to tensile failure at the hor-
izontal direction, and shear failure occurs at the top and bottom.
With further increase of the external boundary load, the tunnel hard
rock area suffers tensile damage at the horizontal direction owing to
stress concentration.
(2) As the tunnel crustal stress in the horizontal direction is greater than
that at the vertical direction, and the strength and deformation
modulus of soft rock are smaller compared with those of hard rock,
convergence deformation of the tunnel surrounding rock reaches the
maximum value in the soft rock area, which is also consistent with the
tunnel damage distribution characteristics. Although the physical
mechanical properties of surrounding rocks on the tunnel left and
right sides are different, the internal stress distribution rule in the left
soft surrounding rock side is consistent with that in the right hard
surrounding rock side. With the increase in distance between the
surrounding rock and tunnel center, the maximum principal stress
inside the surrounding rock at the horizontal direction shows the
trend of increasing first and then decreasing. The principal stress
reaches the maximum value at the interface between the elastic de-
formation and internal damage plastic deformation.
(3) The numerical simulation analysis results show that the damage
rule of the tunnel surrounding rock is simultaneously controlled by
stress and lithological characteristics. The tunnel damage de-
formation at the horizontal direction is mainly caused by the large
concentration of tensile stress on the left and right sides of the
tunnel, which leads to the damage and yield of weak surrounding
rock. The damage deformation at the top and bottom is mainly due
to the large difference in mechanical properties of the surrounding
rock at the left and right sides of the tunnel, and compression of the
right hard rock to the left soft rock area causes the internal soft rock
at the top and bottom to damage yield.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Independent Innovation Project for
Double First-level Construction (China University of Mining and
Technology) (Grant No. 2018ZZCX04). The authors would like to ex-
press their sincere gratitude to the editor and two anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments, which have greatly improved this paper.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Babendererde, S., Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Cardoso, A.S., 2004. Characterization of granite
and the underground construction in metro do Porto, Portugal. Proceedings ISC-2 on
geotechnical and geophysical site characterization. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 39–48.
Barla, G., 1974. Rock anisotropy: theory and laboratory testing. Rock Mech. 131–169.
Barla, G., 2016. Full-face excavation of large tunnels in difficult conditions. J. Rock Mech.
Geotech. Eng. 8 (3), 294–303.
Bi, J., Zhou, X.P., Qian, Q.H., 2016. The 3D numerical simulation for the propagation
process of multiple pre-existing flaws in rock-like materials subjected to biaxial
compressive loads. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 49 (5), 1611–1627.
Cheng, H., Zhou, X., 2015. A multi-dimensional space method for dynamic cracks pro-
blems using implicit time scheme in the framework of the extended finite element
method. Int. J. Damage Mech. 24 (6), 859–890.
Cho, J.W., Kim, H., Jeon, S., Min, K.B., 2012. Deformation and strength anisotropy of Asan
gneiss, Boryeong shale, and Yeoncheon schist. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 50, 158–169.
Duan, K., Kwok, C.Y., Pierce, M., 2016. Discrete element method modeling of inherently
anisotropic rocks under uniaxial compression loading. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. 40 (8), 1150–1183.
Gong, Q.M., Jiao, Y.Y., Zhao, J., 2006. Numerical modelling of the effects of joint spacing
on rock fragmentation by TBM cutters. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21 (1), 46–55.
Gong, W., Peng, Y., Sun, X., He, M., Zhao, S., Chen, H., Xie, T., 2015. Enhancement of
low-contrast thermograms for detecting the stressed tunnel in horizontally stratified
rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 74, 69–80.
Hakala, M., Kuula, H., Hudson, J.A., 2007. Estimating the transversely isotropic elastic
18
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 94 (2019) 103133
intact rock properties for in situ stress measurement data reduction: a case study of
the Olkiluoto mica gneiss, Finland. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44 (1), 14–46.
He, M.C., Gong, W.L., Li, D.J., Zhai, H.M., 2009. Physical modeling of failure process of
the excavation in horizontal strata based on IR thermography. Min. Sci. Technol.
(China) 19 (6), 689–698.
He, M.C., Gong, W.L., Zhai, H.M., Zhang, H.P., 2010. Physical modeling of deep ground
excavation in geologically horizontal strata based on infrared thermography. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 25 (4), 366–376.
He, M.C., 2011. Physical modeling of an underground roadway excavation in geologically
45 inclined rock using infrared thermography. Eng. Geol. 121 (3–4), 165–176.
Jia, P., Tang, C.A., 2008. Numerical study on failure mechanism of tunnel in jointed rock
mass. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23 (5), 500–507.
Khanlari, G., Rafiei, B., Abdilor, Y., 2015. Evaluation of strength anisotropy and failure
modes of laminated sandstones. Arabian J. Geosci. 8 (5), 3089–3102.
Lisjak, A., Grasselli, G., Vietor, T., 2014. Continuum–discontinuum analysis of failure
mechanisms around unsupported circular excavations in anisotropic clay shales. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 65, 96–115.
Lisjak, A., Garitte, B., Grasselli, G., Müller, H.R., Vietor, T., 2015. The excavation of a
circular tunnel in a bedded argillaceous rock (Opalinus Clay): short-term rock mass
response and FDEM numerical analysis. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 45, 227–248.
Li, X., Cao, W.G., Su, Y.H., 2012. A statistical damage constitutive model for softening
behavior of rocks. Eng. Geol. 143, 1–17.
Naumann, M., Hunsche, U., Schulze, O., 2007. Experimental investigations on anisotropy
in dilatancy, failure and creep of Opalinus Clay. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 32
(8–14), 889–895.
Nasseri, M.H.B., Rao, K.S., Ramamurthy, T., 2003. Anisotropic strength and deforma-
tional behavior of Himalayan schists. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40 (1), 3–23.
Park, B., Min, K.B., 2015. Bonded-particle discrete element modeling of mechanical be-
havior of transversely isotropic rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 76, 243–255.
Ramamurthy, T., 1993. Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic rocks. In: In:
Hudson, J.A. (Ed.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering Vol. 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
Fundamentals, pp. 313–329.
Rodrigues, F.P., 1966. Anisotropy of granites: modulus of elasticity and ultimate strength
ellipsoids, joint systems, slope attitudes, and their correlations. In: Proceedings of the
first international congress of rock mechanics, pp. 721–731.
Shang, Y.J., Yang, Z.F., Zeng, Q.L., Sun, Y., Shi, Y.Y., Yuan, G.X., 2007. Retrospective
analysis of TBM accidents from its poor flexibility to complicated geological condi-
tions. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 26 (12), 2404–2411 (in Chinese).
Stille, H., Palmström, A., 2008. Ground behaviour and rock mass composition in under-
ground excavations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23 (1), 46–64.
Tien, Y.M., Tsao, P.F., 2000. Preparation and mechanical properties of artificial trans-
versely isotropic rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37 (6), 1001–1012.
Tien, Y.M., Kuo, M.C., Juang, C.H., 2006. An experimental investigation of the failure
mechanism of simulated transversely isotropic rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43
(8), 1163–1181.
Wang, S.Y., Sloan, S.W., Tang, C.A., Zhu, W.C., 2012. Numerical simulation of the failure
mechanism of circular tunnels in transversely isotropic rock masses. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 32, 231–244.
Wang, Y., Zhou, X., Xu, X., 2016. Numerical simulation of propagation and coalescence of
flaws in rock materials under compressive loads using the extended non-ordinary
state-based peridynamics. Eng. Fract. Mech. 163, 248–273.
Wang, Y., Zhou, X., Shou, Y., 2017. The modeling of crack propagation and coalescence in
rocks under uniaxial compression using the novel conjugated bond-based peridy-
namics. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 128, 614–643.
Wang, Y., Zhou, X., Wang, Y., Shou, Y., 2018a. A 3-D conjugated bond-pair-based peri-
dynamic formulation for initiation and propagation of cracks in brittle solids. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 134, 89–115.
Wang, Y., Zhou, X., Kou, M., 2018b. Peridynamic investigation on thermal fracturing be-
havior of ceramic nuclear fuel pellets under power cycles. Ceram. Int. 44 (10),
11512–11542.
Zhang, J.C., Peng, L., Xu, X.H., Zhu, N.W., Fang, L.G., 2011. Experimental study of
elastoplastic coupling deformation for transversely isotropic rocks. Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 30 (2), 267–274 (In Chinese).
Yang, S.Q., Chen, M., Fang, G., Wang, Y.C., Meng, B., Li, Y.H., Jing, H.W., 2018. Physical
experiment and numerical modelling of tunnel excavation in slanted upper-soft and
lower-hard strata. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 82, 248–264.
Yang, S.Q., Hu, B., Xu, P., 2019. Study on the damage-softening constitutive model of
rock and experimental verification. Acta Mech. Sin. 35 (4), 786–798.
Yin, P.F., Yang, S.Q., Zeng, W., 2015. A simulation study on strength and crack propa-
gation characteristics of layered composite rock with single fissure. J. Basic Sci. Eng.
23 (3), 608–621 (In Chinese).
Zhang, Q., Chen, X., Lin, B., Liu, D., Zhang, N., 2009. Study of 3D geomechanical model
test of zonal disintegration of surrounding rock of deep tunnel. Chin. J. Rock Mech.
Eng. 28 (9), 1757–1766 (In Chinese).
Zhou, X.P., Bi, J., Qian, Q.H., 2015. Numerical simulation of crack growth and coales-
cence in rock-like materials containing multiple pre-existing flaws. Rock Mech. Rock
Eng. 48 (3), 1097–1114.
Zhou, X.P., Bi, J., 2018. Numerical simulation of thermal cracking in rocks based on
general particle dynamics. J. Eng. Mech. 144 (1), 04017156.
Zhou, X.P., Cheng, H., 2017. Multidimensional space method for geometrically nonlinear
problems under total Lagrangian formulation based on the extended finite-element
method. J. Eng. Mech. 143 (7), 04017036.
Zhou, Y.Y., Feng, X.T., Xu, D.P., Fan, Q.X., 2016. Experimental investigation of the me-
chanical behavior of bedded rocks and its implication for high sidewall caverns. Rock
Mech. Rock Eng. 49 (9), 3643–3669.