Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

A 3D model of coupled hydro-mechanical simulation of double shield TBM MARK

excavation
⁎
Hui Zhou , Yang Gao, Chuanqing Zhang, Fanjie Yang, Mingming Hu, Haitao Liu, Yue Jiang
a
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The interactions between the surrounding rock and TBM machines under high stress and high water pressure
Hydro-mechanical coupling during the excavation of a deep tunnel by TBM need further study. To evaluate the rock mass deformation and
3D modeling pore pressure development in a realistic manner, we here established a hydro-mechanical coupled model in
Double shield TBM FLAC3D. This system can be used to monitor displacement and pore pressure at different directions around a
Deep buried tunnels
tunnel throughout the construction period, and the depth of influence of excavation on both deformation and
pore pressure will be determined. This exercise allows for evaluation of the scope of influence of tunnel con-
struction, which in turn brings insight into the areas of engineering that need the most attention.

1. Introduction
Due to the growing number of industrial tunnel construction projects,
especially long, deep tunnels and deeply buried main roadways in coal
mines, TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) are increasingly used because of
their significant advantages in high construction efficiency, low project cost,
minimal environmental impact, favorable stability control of surrounding
rock mass, and other qualities (Liu et al., 2016). However, the complex
geological conditions can pose serious technical challenges and TBM acci-
dents (Yang et al., 2016; Wen and Xu, 2008). It is highly necessary to de-
termine the mechanism underlying the deformation of the surrounding rock
mass. There are some effective methods available, such as in-situ mon-
itoring (Kavvadas, 2005; Zhou et al., 2017), laboratory tests (Fang et al.,
2016; Yang et al., 2017), and numerical simulation (Øyvind et al., 2017;
Maghous et al., 2012). Considering the cost of in-situ monitoring, the size
effect and debatable representativeness of the laboratory tests, numerical
simulation may be the optimal method.
Toward this end, scholars have carried out studies and obtained
meaningful results (Zhao et al., 2012; Rohola et al., 2014; Kavvadas
et al., 2017). By establishing numerical models, the mechanical re-
sponse of rock mass, the deformation mechanism, TBM accidents causes
during TBM excavation were examined against different engineering
backgrounds. But the water effect were barely reflected in the previous
work. The water condition of surrounding rock mass has a profound
impact on the mechanism and extent of the deformation and the sta-
bility of rock mass and concrete lining.
In this paper, a three-dimensional finite element model of a division
tunnel excavated by double shield TBM (which is considered more
complicated than gripper or single shield TBM) is established to simu-
late the hydro-mechanical behavior of the rock mass. The coupling ef-
fect between stress and permeability of surrounding rock mass is taken
into account by using a coupled pore fluid/stress analysis. Because
hydro-mechanical interaction is based on the indirect-coupled method
in the majority of the previous works, we used direct hydro-mechanical
coupling in the present research.
2. Double shield TBM technology
The structure and the main components of a common double shield
TBM (DS-TBM) are shown in Fig. 1. The key components include the cut-
terhead, the front shield, the main and auxiliary thrust cylinders, the grip-
pers, the gripper shield, and the tail shield. These play important roles in the
deformation of the surrounding rock during excavation. The real advance of
DS-TBM to other TBMs is the suitability for use in both hard and soft rock

⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071,
China.
E-mail address: hzhou@whrsm.ac.cn (H. Zhou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.07.012
Received 19 October 2016; Received in revised form 14 July 2017; Accepted 30 July 2017
Available online 10 August 2017
0886-7798/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Fig. 1. Structure and components of a double shield TBM (www.herrenknecht.com).

Fig. 2. Sketch of DS-TBM tunnel construction process.

2
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Fig. 3. A simplified DS-TBM sketch.

Table 1
Main features of DS-TBM.

Description Unit Value

Cutterhead
Excavation radius m 6.3

Front shield
Outer radius m 6.28
Length m 5

Gripper shield
Shield outer radius m 6.25
Shield length m 6
Gripper length m 2
Gripper height m 10
Maximum normal Thrust MN 80
Maximum shear thrust MN 16

Tail shield
Outer radius m 6.22
Length m 4

Segment
Inner radius m 5.4
Outer radius m 6.2
Thickness m 0.8
Length (1 ring) m 1

Backfilling
Inner radius m 6.2
Outer radius m 6.3
Thickness m 0.1

Machine
Weight t 2500
Maximum main thrust MN 32
Maximum auxiliary thrust MN 32

Table 2
Loads.
• Phase I. The cutterhead and front shield are assembled and jacked
into the ground. The surrounding rock deformation is limited by the
shield, while a normal force performing on the tunnel face.
σxx σyy σzz
•
Item Groundwater
Phase II. The cutterhead and front shield keep advancing; the
Value −41.6 MPa −44.2 MPa −53.1 MPa 3.0 MPa gripper shield is assembled and pushed into the ground. What
should be noted is that the driving force is provided not by the
grippers but the working shaft.
and even in soil. By transferring the driving system from the grippers and
the main thrust cylinders to the auxiliary thrust cylinders and the finished
• Phase III. The grippers set to work and with the support of tunnel walls
and working shaft, the tail shield comes into the ground in succession.
segments, the DS-TBMs can cope with almost all kinds of ground.
• Phase IV. Normal excavation procedure. The TBM is driven ex-
clusively by the gripper system. With the segments installing,
backfilling is conducted right after the installation.
2.1. DS-TBM tunnel construction process
• Phase V. The last excavate step before the cutterhead comes into the
shaft. Phase V differs from Phase IV in that there is no tunnel face
The tunnel construction process by DS-TBM can be divided into during this step.
eight phases, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

3
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Table 3
Calculation parameters for surrounding rock.

Item Country rock Lining concrete Back filling

Model Strain-Softening Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb

Young’s Modules 18.9 GPa 28 GPa 1 GPa
Poisson ratio 0.23 0.167 0.3
Cohesion 15.6 MPa 2.73 MPa 15.6 MPa
Friction angle 25.8° 54.4° 25.8°
Residual cohesion 7.4 MPa – –
Residual friction 39° – –
Equivalent plastic strain 0.45 – –
threshold for cohesion
Equivalent plastic strain 0.9 – –
threshold for friction
Tension strength 1.5 MPa 1.78 MPa 1.5 MPa
Density 2630 kg/m3 2500 kg/m3 2400 kg/m3
Permeability coefficient 6 × 10−4 cm/s 1 × 10−7 cm/s 3 × 10−4 cm/s

• Phase VI. The cutterhead and front shield are gradually pushed into
the working shaft and removed. During this phase, the gripper
system provides the driving force.
• Phase VII. The gripper shield then enters the working shaft and
shifts the responsibility of driving to the auxiliary thrust cylinders,
which are supported by the finished segments.
• Phase VIII. The tail shield is jacked into the shaft in succession by
the auxiliary thrust system, whereafter the tunnel is complete.
2.2. DS-TBM parameters
According to the components mentioned above, a simplified DS-
TBM sketch was proposed as shown in Fig. 3. The main features of the
TBM are listed in Table 1. Relevant parameters were identified using
the comprehensive consideration of the TBM used in the Jinping II
Hydropower Station (Stephen et al., 2009), the parameters listed in
previous papers (Zhao et al., 2012, 2014; Rohola et al., 2014; Zhao,

Fig. 4. The cohesion and friction angle vs the plastic internal variable.

Fig. 5. Model sketch.

4
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Fig. 6. Weight distribution of the TBM ma-

chine.

2011), and publicity materials issued by Herrenknecht (see Jinping marble based on the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion have been
Tables 2 and 3). proposed by Zhou et al. (2010) and Yang et al. (2013). These can
identify and assess the main mechanical characteristics of the rock. In
3. Modeling the model, the CWFS (cohesion weakening-friction strengthening,
Hajiabdolmajid, 2001) model was adopted, and a simplified develop-
In this paper, Ansys 14.0 was used to build and mesh the model. ment trend of cohesion and friction angle with the plastic internal
variable is shown in the following figure.
3.1. Country rock modeling In Fig. 4, the plastic internal variable κ is defined as κ = ∫ dκ. To
take the confining pressure effect into account, following format of dκ
Practicable mechanical models of the elastoplastic coupling of was chosen.

Fig. 7. Sketch of the normal force component

between grippers and country rock.

(a) (b)

(c)

5
H. Zhou et al.
Fig. 8. Sketch of the axial force components.
2 rock mass would be F along the direction of the thrust cylinder.
de p: de p
dk =
3 As illustrated, the axial force components on the rock mass include
f (Pc )
Here, dep is the plastic strain deviation tensor, f(Pc) is a function of con-
fining pressure which can be obtained by data fitting of the cyclic loading
tests under different confining pressures. Moreover, κ was normalized by the
plastic internal variable at the beginning of the residual period. The value of
κφ was determined as 0.6–0.8 by analyzing the test data.
During the simulation process, the strain-softening model was tai-
lored to the surrounding rock. The cohesion and friction parameters
were evaluated using ctable and ftable with the values obtained by
cyclic loading tests.
3.2. Model construction
To reduce the number of elements in the model, it was not meshed
uniformly. In the near scope of the tunnel, a cylinder was employed to
reach a relatively fine mesh. A coarser mesh was adopted in the outer
field of the model. The sketch and size of the model are shown in Fig. 5.
6
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14
The model has four main constituents, the rock to be excavated, the
concrete lining, the back filling, and the surrounding rock. The con-
stituents were arranged as shown to simplify the simulation process.
The country rock was divided into 3 groups with same properties but
different boundary conditions: (a) the outer field and the upper area
(cyan); (b) the side areas (green); (c) the bottom area (red). Part c re-
presents the rock mass that supports the weight of the TBM machine.
This weight is actually parabolically distributed, but a uniform dis-
tribution was adopted for simplification, as shown in Fig. 6.
Part b represents the rock mass that support the grippers. On the
contact area between the grippers and the country rock, there are two
force components, the normal component and the axial component.
These provide the TBM driving force during the excavation and confine
the rock mass deformation to some extent. During the process, the force
components were applied as shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
As shown in Fig. 7, some researchers adopt a distribution form like
that shown in Fig. 7(a) (Zhao et al., 2012, 2014), in this paper, form
Fig. 7(b) was adopted. The reason for this is shown in Fig. 7(c). Because
of the displacement that the grippers towards the country rock, the rock
would bear a friction Ft, and a normal force Fn, so the actual force on the
the pressure from the cutterhead and the axial component of the in-
teraction force between grippers and rock mass.
3.3. Calculation parameters
In simulation process, the mechanical and seepage response can be
obtained with different input data of geo-stress and groundwater.
Combined with Jinping tunnel engineering, the following data were
adopted for the simulation.
Different materials were included in the simulation process, and the
model and parameters are listed as follows.
4. Hydro-mechanical coupling simulation process
Groundwater activity plays an important role in the mechanical
behavior of the surrounding rock, especially in the behavior of soft
rocks whose mechanical properties can be substantially weakened, like
Fig. 9. Vault displacement trend over calculation steps.
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Fig. 10. Maximum unbalanced force trend vs calculation steps.

chlorite schist (Zhou et al., 2011, 2014) and sandstone (Wasantha and Kf
M=
Ranjith, 2014). In addition, high pore pressure can cause some com- n + (α−n)(1−α ) Kf / K
plicated reactions in surrounding rock, such as increases in creep ca-
pacity (Huang et al., 2010) and in stress intensity factor (Song et al., For saturated samples, s = 1, and the constitutive equation can be
2016). Therefore, it’s necessary to take the groundwater condition into simply expressed as follows:
account during the excavation simulation process. 1 ∂p ∂ζ ∂ε
= −α v
M ∂t ∂t ∂t
4.1. Theoretical background

(d) Fluid transportation equation (Darcy’s law):

In FLAC3D, the materials are assumed to be isotropic, porous, sa-
turated with lightly compressible fluid medium, and undergoing a slow k
v=− · ∇p
and subtle deformation process (Li et al., 2016). The formulation of ρf g
coupled deformation-diffusion processes is performed within the fra-
mework of the quasi-static Biot theory in FLAC (FLAC3D user’s manual).
Based on the linear-elastic hypothesis, the following equations can be (e) Continuity equation:
consolidated. ∂ζ
−∇ ·v + qv =
∂t
(a) Equilibrium equation:
Here, qv is the volumetric fluid source intensity.
∇·σ t + F = 0
(f) Compatibility equation:
(b) Terzaghi‘s effective stress principle: 1
ε= (∇u + ∇uT)
σ t = σ e + αpI 2

Here, α, the Biot coefficient, is defined as the ratio of the fluid vo-
lume gained (or lost) in a material element to the change in the volume
of that element when the pore pressure changes. For an ideal porous
material, α can be computed using K and Ks (the drained bulk modulus
and the solid component bulk modulus, respectively) through
α = 1 − K/Ks.
(c) The constitutive equation:
4.2. Numerical approach
A fully coupled model has been adopted in this project. Some
parameters must be determined before the program was run. One is the
number of substeps needed for both mechanical and seepage compu-
tation, and the other is the number of steps needed per excavation
stroke.

1 ∂p n ∂s 1 ∂ζ ∂ε
+ = −α v 4.2.1. Mechanical substeps
M ∂t s ∂t s ∂t ∂t
Before the TBM excavation program is initiated, a same-sized but
Here, ζ is the variation in fluid content or variation in fluid volume simpler tunnel construction simulation project was performed to esti-
per unit volume of porous material due to diffusive fluid mass transport, mate the development of vault displacement over time as measured by
and M is the Biot modulus and s is the saturation. M is defined as fol- the number of steps in the calculation process. In this process, a tunnel
lows: was excavated simply in 45 steps using “model null” commands. The

7
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Table 4
Development of displacements of the monitoring points on the tunnel wall over excavating strokes in different directions.

Excavation sketch

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Vertical_up (0, 22.5, 6.3)

Diagonal _up (4.5, 22.5, 4.5)

Horizontal (6.3, 22.5, 0)

Diagonal _down (4.5, 22.5, −4.5)

Vertical _down (0, 22.5, −6.3)

curve of the development of the vault displacement is plotted in Fig. 9. the model during the excavation. After 300 steps, the maximum un-
According to reports of Jinping division tunnels, the majority of balanced force reached 3585.1661 kN. As With the mechanical force
vault displacement takes place during the excavation process (Lu et al., ratio approaches 1 × 10−5, the maximum unbalanced force came to
2015). Because the majority of the total displacement was achieved in 206.14215 kN. Correspondingly, the mechanical ratio threshold of the
300 steps during the excavation period in numerical simulation, we maximum unbalanced force can be calculated using the following
determined 300 to be a suitable number of mechanical substeps. In equation.
addition, the mechanical ratio should be limited as a supplementary
1 × 10−5
restraint. mechanical ratio threshold = × 3.585 × 106 = 1.739 × 10−4
2.061 × 105
Fig. 10 shows the development of the maximum unbalanced force of

8
H. Zhou et al.
Excavation Boundary
4.2.2. Seepage substeps
Strictly, for a fully coupled simulation, the mechanical and flow
analysis should be performed against each other step by step. To satisfy
the mechanical force ratio limitation in each excavation stroke, a value
of 10 was substituted into the seepage substeps, and following format
was used according to the FLAC3D V5.0 user’s manual
set mech ratio 1.739e−4
set mech subs 300 auto
set fluid subs 10
4.2.3. Calculation steps
During the construction of the Jinping II Hydropower Station Water
Diversion Tunnels, the greatest monthly advance was 683 m (Liu et al.,
2016). In this way, the real time required for each excavation stroke can
be determined as 4300 s (30 d × 24 h/d × 3600 s/h–600 m = 4320 s/
m) in this project.
In FLAC3D, “step” and “solve age” are both available to define the
calculation process. The value assigned to the solve age is actually the
flow time and not the real time, except the facticity of the fluid para-
meters can be guaranteed completely (FLAC3D user‘s manual). By set-
ting the time step to 1, a “step 4300″ command was adopted in the
process.
5. Results
The monitoring points were arranged in different directions (verti-
cal_up, diagonal_up, horizontal, diagonal_down, vertical_down) in the
midsection plane (y = 22.5 m). There were 47 points with 1 m inter-
vals distributed in each direction.
5.1. Deformation
The displacement values of the monitoring points on the tunnel wall
versus the excavating strokes are shown in Table 4.
9
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14
Fig. 11. Displacement contour of the midsection (y = 22.5 m).
As shown in Table 4, deformation characteristics can be concluded
as:
(1) The primary deformation direction was radial, secondary was axial
(excavation direction), followed by tangential.
(2) With 20 m/d advance rate of TBM, the displacements started to
increase about 1D ahead (D, excavation diameter).
(3) Along the direction of excavation, the deformation first increased
and then decreased, and gradually returned to zero as the tunnel
broke through the monitoring section.
(4) Because of gravity, the deformation was not vertically symmetrical,
as illustrated in Fig. 11.
The displacements along the monitored directions versus the depth
of embedment in the midsection are shown as follows.
As shown in Table 5 and Fig. 12, findings were as follows:
(1) Magnitudes of the displacements induced gradually with the em-
bedment depth increasing. The deformation scope of the country
rock achieved 35 m (about 3D) in the radial direction when the
tunnel excavation was complete.
(2) The deformation rate stayed relatively high during the tunnel face
located in the range of 7–8 m (about 0.5 D–0.6 D) to the monitoring
section.
(3) The axial deformation along the excavation direction remained
oriented towards the tunnel face and gradually returned to zero
when the tunnel broke through the monitoring section.
5.2. Pore pressure
The development of pore pressure over the excavation strokes and em-
bedment depth at the monitoring points are shown as Fig. 13 and Table 6.
As illustrated above, the features can be summarized as follows.
(1) The pore pressure with the same embedment depth at different
directions shows the following: vertical_up < diagonal_up <
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Table 5
Distributions of displacements along different directions of the monitoring points on the midsection with different excavation strokes.

Vertical _up (0, 22.5, 6.3)

Diagonal _up (4.5, 22.5, 4.5)

Horizontal (6.3, 22.5, 0)

Diagonal _down (4.5, 22.5, −4.5)

Vertical _down (0, 22.5, −6.3)

10
H. Zhou et al.
Fig. 12. Y component of the displacements (m) at horizontal direction on the midsection (y = 22.5 m, z = 0) versus the embedment depth (m).
Fig. 13. Pore pressure development over excavation strokes on the midsection of the tunnel wall on the midsection (y = 22.5 m).
horizontal < diagonal_down < vertical_down, which means the
pore pressure isogram is egg-shaped, as shown in Fig. 14.
(2) The depth of influence of pore pressure associated with the tunnel
construction on the midsection can be determined to be approxi-
mately 30–35 m (about 2.5–3 D).
(3) The depth of influence of pore pressure influence associated with
tunnel construction on the axial section is approximately 30 m
(2.5 D), as shown in Fig. 15.
The development of pore pressure is illustrated in Fig. 16.
6. Discussions and conclusions
6.1. Conclusions
In this paper, a 3D model for solid-flow coupling simulation of
double shield TBM excavation was established. By analyzing the dis-
placement and pore pressure developments at monitoring points, the
following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The deformation was as follows: tangential < axial (excavation
direction) < radial. The pore pressure was as follows: verti-
cal_up < diagonal_up < horizontal < diagonal_down < vertical_-
down, which gave an egg-shaped pore pressure isogram.
(2) As TBM advances at a rate of 20 m/d, the scope of influence scope
of excavation on deformation is about 1 D, and the scope of influ-
ence of pore pressure is about 2.5 D in the axial direction.
(3) During the tunnel construction period, the depth of influence of
11
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14
excavation on deformation is about 3D, and that of pore pressure is
about 2.5 D–3 D along the cross section.
(4) A relatively high deformation rate was reached when the tunnel
face came into 0.5 D ahead and 1 D after the monitoring section.
6.2. Discussion
Based on the conclusions outlined above, some specific advice can
be proposed.
(1) During the excavation, the deformation and pore pressure of the
rock mass within 3D around the tunnel wall should be paid more
attention.
(2) Advanced monitoring of displacement and of the development of
pore pressure should be adopted in 2.5 D ahead the tunnel face.
(3) Specific shoring projects should be chosen based on the asymme-
trical distribution of displacement and pore pressure around the
tunnel.
In this paper, some modifications are still necessary.
(1) Considering the calculation efficiency, the grid size was not fine
enough in the outer domain, which led to the roughness of dis-
placement curves.
(2) Because the rockmass was chosen to be the main research object,
TBM was here simplified as stresses and forces to the coutry rock in
this paper. The interaction between TBM and surrounding rock was
not very comprehensive.
H. Zhou et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14

Table 6
Pore pressure distribution in different directions at the monitoring points on the midsection with different excavation strokes.

Vertical _up (0, 22.5, 6.3)

Diagonal _up (4.5, 22.5, 4.5)

Horizontal (6.3, 22.5, 0)

Diagonal _down (4.5, 22.5, −4.5)

Vertical _down (0, 22.5, −6.3)

Fig. 14. Pore pressure contour at 45th excavation stroke on the

midsection (y = 22.5 m).

12
H. Zhou et al.
Fig. 16. Pore pressure development process.
Acknowledgements
This project received financial support from the National Program
on Key Basic Research Project of China under Grant No. 2014CB046902
and from the National Science Foundation of China under Grants Nos.
51427803, 51279201, and 51404240.
References
Fang, Y., Xu, C., Cui, G., et al., 2016. Scale model test of highway tunnel construction
underlying mined-out thin coal seam. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. Incorporat.
Trench. Technol. Res. 56, 105–116.
Hajiabdolmajid, V., 2001. Mobilization of Strength in Brittle Failure of Rock [D].
Department of Mining Engineering, Queen‘s University, Kingston.
Huang, S., Feng, X., Zhou, H., Zhang, C., 2010. Study of aging failure mechanics and
triaxial compression creep experiments with water pressure coupled stress of brittle
rock. Rock Soil Mech. 31 (11), 3441–3446 (in Chinese).
Kavvadas, M.J., 2005. Monitoring ground deformation in tunnelling: current practice in
transportation tunnels. Eng. Geol. 79 (1–2), 93–113.
Kavvadas, M., Litsas, D., Vazaios, I., et al., 2017. Development of a 3D finite element
model for shield EPB tunnelling. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. Incorporat.
Trench. Technol. Res. 65, 22–34.
13
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14
Fig. 15. Pore pressure contour at 5th excavation stroke on the axial
section (x = 0 m).
Li, G., Tang, C.A., Li, L.C., Li, H., 2016. A novel finite element two-step solution scheme
for fully coupled hydro-mechanical processes in poroelastic media. Comput. Geotech.
80 (C), 178–189.
Liu, Q., Huang, X., Gong, Q., Du, L., Pan, Y., Liu, J., 2016. Application and development of
hard rock TBM and its prospect in china. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 57, 33–46.
Lu, Y., Shen, Y.X., Wu, Z.M., Li, M., 2015. Analysis Report of Water Diversion Tunnel
Monitoring Results in Jinping II Hydropower Station in Sichuan Yalong River.
Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited.
Maghous, S., Bernaud, D., Couto, E., 2012. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of
rock deformation in bolt-supported tunnels: a homogenization approach. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 31 (5), 68–79.
Dammyr, Øyvind, Nilsen, Bjørn, Gollegger, Johannes, 2017. Feasibility of tunnel boring
through weakness zones in deep Norwegian subsea tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 133–146.
Song, C., Lu, Y., Tang, H., Jia, Y., 2016. A method for hydrofracture propagation control
based on non-uniform pore pressure field. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 33, 287–295.
Wasantha, P.L.P., Ranjith, P.G., 2014. Water-weakening behavior of hawkesbury sand-
stone in brittle regime. Eng. Geol. 178 (8), 91–101.
Wen, S., Xu, W., 2008. Risk analysis on TBM jamming in deep buried tunnel. J. Yangtze
River Scient. Res. Inst. 25 (5), 135–138 (in Chinese).
Yang, F., Zhou, H., Xiao, H., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Yang, Y., 2013. Research on confining
pressure effect of elastic parameters of marble and its elasto-plastic coupling model.
Rock Soil Mech. 34 (6), 1613–1620 (in Chinese).
Yang, J., Miao, D., YANG, F., Qi, S., Yao, Y., 2016. Treatment technology of crossing
unfavorable geological tunnel section by double shield TBM at CCS hydropower
H. Zhou et al.
station water conveyance tunnel. Resour. Environ. Eng. 30 (3), 539–542 (in Chinese).
Yang, J., Liu, C., Chen, Q., et al., 2017. Performance of overlapped shield tunneling
through an integrated physical model tests, numerical simulations and real-time field
monitoring. Undergr. Space 2 (1), 45–59.
Zhao, K., Janutolo, M., Barla, G., 2012. A completely 3d model for the simulation of
mechanized tunnel excavation. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 45 (4), 475–498.
Zhou, H., Zhang, K., Feng, X., Shao, J., Qiu, S., 2010. Elastoplastic coupling mechanical
model for brittle marble. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 29 (12), 2398–2409 (in Chinese).
14
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 1–14
Zhou, H., Yang, X., Hu, Q., Cheng, C., 2011. Strength test and mechanism of softening of
chlorite schist. Soil Eng. Found. 25 (1), 45–48 (in Chinese).
Zhou, H., Zhang, C., Li, Z., Hu, D., Hou, J., 2014. Analysis of mechanical behavior of soft
rocks and stability control in deep tunnels. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 6 (3),
219–226.
Zhou, H., Qu, C.K., Hu, D.W., et al., 2017. In situ monitoring of tunnel deformation
evolutions from auxiliary tunnel in deep mine. Eng. Geol. 221, 10–15.