Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 47 (2015) 10–15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Analytical solution for estimating the stand-up time of the rock mass
surrounding tunnel
Van-Manh Nguyen ⇑, Quang-Phich Nguyen
Hanoi University of Mining and Geology, Hanoi, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The term ‘‘stand-up time’’ is used first time in Lauffer’s rock mass classification (1958) in relation to the
Received 29 November 2013 so called ‘‘effective unsupported span’’ and then modified by Barton et al. (1975) and Bieniawski (1993).
Received in revised form 27 November 2014 Until now stand-up time is a useful parameter in rock mechanics and tunnel design. It affects the selec-
Accepted 15 December 2014
tion of excavation method, excavation cycle and rock reinforcement method and time to install rock sup-
Available online 6 January 2015
port. In other words, the stand-up time is a function not only of rock mass properties but also of
excavation technique. Because classification methods are based on rock mass quality empirical evalua-
Keywords:
tion through specific parameters, however, the determination of the rock mass properties to evaluate
Stand-up time
Unsupported span
rock mass quality and also the stand-up time is very difficult in in-situ. Therefore, the development of
Rock mass classification a mathematical model is necessary and have great meaningful to estimate the stand-up time in the tun-
Abel’s creep kernel neling. The objective of the paper is to develop an analytical solution to predict stand-up time of the rock
Tunnel stability mass surrounding tunnel based on the rheological deformation model using Abel’s creep kernel and
allowable displacement of the tunnel wall. The results of numerical example shown in good agreement
with Bieniawski’s suggested method.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The stand-up time is influenced by mechanical parameters of

Stand-up time is used first time in Lauffer’s rock mass classifica-
tion for an unsupported tunnel span. Stand-up time is defined as
the amount of time a tunnel will support itself without any added
support structures, which means also the time that the rock mass
around the tunnel begin to collapse. Knowing this time allows the
engineers to determine how much can be excavated before support
is needed. The magnitude of this time is very important in tunnel-
ing, because it affects on excavation cycle, support method and
excavation method. Based on a number of observations, Lauffer
(1958) found that for any given ground condition the stand-up
time (Fig. 1) decreased significantly with increasing length of the
active span as defined in Fig. 2.
Lauffer’s original suggestion has been modified and linked to
rock mass classification by a number of authors such as Q-system,
RMR-system and NATM (New Austrian Tunneling Method).
Barton et al. (1975) suggested the relationship between the max-
imum unsupported span (L⁄) of tunnel with stand-up time and
rock mass quality Q-value in a chart form as illustrated in
Fig. 3. Based on the RMR-system Bieniawski (1993) proposed also
the average stand-up time relate to unsupported excavation span
(Fig. 4).
⇑ Corresponding author.
rock mass (compressive strength, modulus of rock mass, in situ
stress state, water/seepage pressure, joint system) and excavation
technology (drilling and blasting, mechanical excavation, shape of
excavated face). The advance rate greatly influences the stand-up
time. Myer et al. (1981) has been study the relationship between
the size of an advancing tunnel face, the rate of excavation in
squeezing ground and stand-up time. They found that stand-up
time is increased as advance rate increasing or tunnel size
decreased. The excavation techniques are also influenced on the
stability of tunnel. Mechanical excavation method would tend to
increase tunnel stability in comparison with drill and blast excava-
tion technique.
By considering and evaluating factors which affect to the stand-
up time and the forms of Lauffer’s, Barton’s and Bieniawski’s clas-
sification diagrams, Ramamurthy (2007) proposed an expression to
determine directly the stand-up time by considering the major fac-
tors which are easily assessable and responsible to control the
stand-up time as follows:
kM
tf ¼  s rj  ð1Þ
Su po þ usp
where tf is the stand-up time in years; Mrj is the modulus ratio of
rock mass reflecting combined influence of compressive strength
(rcj) of rock mass, tangent modulus (Etj) of rock mass:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.12.003
0886-7798/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V.-M. Nguyen, Q.-P. Nguyen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 47 (2015) 10–15 11

M rj ¼ Etj =rcj
B L
Su is the effective span in meters; po is the in-situ stress in t/m2 and
usp is the seepage pressure in t/m2. ks is the constant linked to Mrj as
shown in Table 1.
The expression is simple but the collection of above mentioned
rock mass parameters is not easy in practice. The paper presents an
analytical model to estimate the stand-up time of the rock mass
surrounding tunnel based on the classical solution of boundary L<B L* = L
problems and the measurement practice by monitoring the exca-
vation works. B L

2. Stand-up time estimation

In order to develop an analytical solution for estimating the

stand-up time, it should be needed some assumptions:

(1) The rock mass around the tunnel behaves as rheological and L>B L* = B
it is affected by several factors, for example weak mineral Fig. 2. Definition of active span, L⁄ (Lauffer, 1958).
components, joint sets, discontinuity filling materials, phys-
ical and chemical changeability. The behavior of the rock
mass is described by a linear hereditary creep model with The Kirsch’s elastic solution (Kirsch, 1898) for tangential stress,
Abel’s kernel (Erzhanov, 1964). The creep displacement of radial stress and displacement at any point in the elastic region is
tunnel wall will be calculated by using the so call method given as
of variable parameters which proposed by Bulychev (1994)
and the solution of the simplest case of elastic axisymmetric rr ¼ ro  ðro  po ÞðR=rÞ2 ð2Þ
problem for a circular tunnel cross-section.
(2) The stress and strain redistribution process after tunnel rh ¼ ro þ ðro  po ÞðR=rÞ2 ð3Þ
excavation is depended also on the distance to the tunnel
face. 1 R2
u¼ ðro  po Þ ð4Þ
(3) The rock mass surrounding the tunnel begins to fail when 2G r
the maximum creep displacement reached a critical value. where rr is the radial stress component, rh is the tangential stress
This assumption is based on the rock mass classification component, G is the shear modulus of rock mass and r is the dis-
used in Russian standard for underground structures: SniP- tance from the considered point to the centre of tunnel.
II-94-80 (1980). This value means that the rock mass around Stand-up time of the rock mass after tunnel excavated means
the tunnel is still stable when the displacement of tunnel that the tunnel is unsupported; therefore, the internal pressure
wall is less than critical displacement values. (po) should be ignored from Eq. (4):

r o R2
2.1. Statement of the problem u¼ ð5Þ
2Gr
A tunnel of circular cross-section with radius of R and infinite By substituting ro = cH into Eq. (5), the displacement in tunnel wall
length is excavated at infinite depth in a homogeneous isotropic (r = R) can be written as:
rock mass. The tunnel is subjected to a uniform hydrostatic stress
field (ro). An internal pressure (po) uniformly (support structure)
acts on the tunnel wall surface. The problem can be considered
to be axisymmetric and the stress components at a point in the 80
polar coordinate system are shown in Fig. 5. 50
40
30 Very good
Unsupported span, [meters]

10 20 Immediate rock
15 collapse Q > 100
Good rock
Active span L*, m

10 Q=
8 10 100
6 Fair rock
G F E D C B A 5 Q = 1 10
1.0 4
3 Poor rock
2 Q = 0.1 1
Very poor Self supporting
1 rock
Q < 0.1
0.1
1 10 1 10 1h 10h 1d 1w 1m 3m 1y 10y 100y 0.5
Stand-up time 1hour 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5
Stand-up time, [hours]
Fig. 1. Active span versus stand-up time for different classes of rock mass (Lauffer,
1958). A – Best rock mass; G – Worst rock mass. Shaded area indicates the practical Fig. 3. Stand-up time and rock mass classification (Q-system) with unsupported
range. span (Barton et al., 1975).
12 V.-M. Nguyen, Q.-P. Nguyen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 47 (2015) 10–15

30 80 Substitution of Abel’s creep kernel Eq. (7) into Eq. (9) gives
70 90 100
20 Immediate collapse  
60 rco d 1a rco
50 eðtÞ ¼ 1þ t ¼ ð10Þ
10 E 1a EðtÞ
Roof span, [meters]

8 RMR 40
6 30 The time-dependent Young’s modulus of rock can be drawn
5 from Eq. (10)
4 20
3 150 100
200
2 250 E
300 Joint factor, Jf EðtÞ ¼   ð11Þ
1 þ 1d a t1a
1 350
No support required
400 It is clearly seen that the elastic modulus decreases with time.
10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 And in the similar way, the time-dependent shear modulus of rock
is also determined as follows:
Stand-up time, [hours]
G
Fig. 4. Stand-up time and rock mass classification (RMR-system) with roof span GðtÞ ¼ 3 d 1a
ð12Þ
(Bieniawski, 1993). 1 þ 2ð1þ mÞ 1a t

Therefore, by substituting Eq. (12) and G = E/2(1 + m) into Eq. (6),

the displacement on tunnel wall is also decreasing with time by
Table 1 the expression:
Suggested values of constant ks (Ramamurthy, 2007).
 
cHRð1 þ mÞ 3 d 1a
Mrj 500 200 100 50 u¼ 1þ t ð13Þ
ks 100 5 0.2 0.01 E 2ð1 þ mÞ 1  a

In addition, the displacement of tunnel wall also depends on the

cHR
u¼ ð6Þ distance from the point under consideration to the tunnel face. In
2G
order to facilitate analytical calculations of longitudinal displace-
where H is the depth of tunnel and c = qg is the specific weight, q ment, numerous authors have suggested alternative expressions
the density of rock mass and g the acceleration of gravity. for the elastic longitudinal displacement profile: Panet and
Guenot (1982), Chern et al. (1998), Unlu and Gercek (2003) and
2.2. Rock mass model Hoek et al. (2008).
However, if the distance l0 from the considered point to the tun-
Assuming that the rock mass is simulated by rheological defor- nel face is far enough (empirically 3 to 5 times of the tunnel width
mation model using Abel’s creep kernel type: B then l0 = (3–5)B) the displacement of tunnel wall is not depen-
Kðt  sÞ ¼ dðt  sÞa ð7Þ dent on this distance. In other words, the excavation process is
not impacting on the displacement of the position far enough from
where d and a are constants and vary with the type of rock mass. the tunnel face anymore which is the solution of the plan boundary
The values of d and a for some type of rock masses are listed in problem, in this case the Eq. (13). The relationship between dis-
Table 2 (Komissarov and Burtachakov, 1983). placement influenced by the distance to the tunnel face ul and
The relationship between stress and strain which was devel- end-displacement u is often illustrated by the experimental equa-
oped by Boltzmann and Volterra (Zaretskii, 1972) for hereditary tions. As proposed by Bulychev (1982) this relationship can be
creep model can be expressed as follows: expressed as
 Z t 
1
eðtÞ ¼ rðtÞ þ K ðt  sÞrðsÞds ð8Þ ul ¼ u½1  exp ðal=RÞ ð14Þ
E 0

where r(t) and e(t) are stress and strain at instant (t), respectively, s where l is the distance from the considered point to the tunnel face,
is the time before instant (t) which means that 0 < s < t. R = 0.5B with B is the width of tunnel and a is an experience con-
The strain under a constant stress, r(t) = rco = constant, is given stant. The experience constant can be calculated from the condition
by the expression that
 Z t 
rco ul ¼ 0 if l ¼ 0 and ul  u if l ¼ l0
eðtÞ ¼ 1þ K ðt  sÞds ð9Þ
E 0
By assuming that ul  u if exp ðal=RÞ  0:05, so we get the value of
a as given in Table 3, depending of the assumed ratio l0/R.
The total displacement at any point of the tunnel wall can be
Ground surface σo obtained by substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (14):
 
cHRð1 þ mÞ 3 d 1a
σ o = γH ul ¼ 1þ t ½1  expðal=RÞ ð15Þ
E 2ð1 þ mÞ 1  a
H po
Without taking into account the instantaneous elastic displacement
(does not depend on time), the displacement over time of any point
R of the tunnel wall is determined then from (15) by the expression:
 
cHRð1 þ mÞ 3 d 1a
ul ðtÞ ¼ t ½1  expðal=RÞ ð16Þ
E 2ð1 þ mÞ 1  a
σo
To determine the stand-up time of rock mass surrounding tunnel
Fig. 5. Mechanical model for tunnel excavation. the two cases should be distinguished as follows:
 V.-M. Nguyen, Q.-P. Nguyen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 47 (2015) 10–15 13

Table 2
Mean value of the parameters d and a for some type of rock masses (Komissarov and Burtachakov, 1983).

Rock type Young’s modulus E (GPa) Poison’s ratio m Creep parameters

a d (s1a)
Sandstone 29.5 0.02–0.49 0.670 0.0021
31.3 0.16–0.32 0.700 0.0012
11.9 0.16–0.32 0.746 0.0058
12.6 0.16–0.26 0.708 0.0030
Aleurolite (siltstone) 6.2 0.07–0.40 0.726 0.0094
14.0 0.28–0.37 0.679 0.0036
12.1 0.18–0.32 0.651 0.0024
23.5 0.18–0.32 0.705 0.0037
12.8 0.18–0.32 0.679 0.0034
Argillite 13.4 0.05–0.49 0.701 0.0080
15.2 0.30–0.41 0.691 0.0068
14.9 0.17–0.31 0.696 0.0074
Coal 7.8 – 0.732 0.0086
4.7 – 0.727 0.0036
2.8 0.3 0.756 0.0042
Limestone 31.9 0.18–0.40 0.701 0.0018

Table 3
 2
al 1 al
Given values for constant of a. 1  expðal=RÞ ¼  þ ... ð22Þ
R 2 R
l0/R 6 8 10
a 0.5 0.4 0.3 Eqs. (20) and (21) can be expressed now as
2ð1 þ mÞð1  aÞ 2E ð1  aÞ ul
tð1aÞ þ ¼ ð23Þ
1. The displacement ul(t) or ul may not exceed the critical value ul- 3d 3cHa d l
⁄
(t) and u⁄l respectively, at sufficiently large distance from the
2E ð1  aÞ ul
tunnel face (l P lo), meaning that: tð1aÞ ¼ ð24Þ
ul  ul and ul ðtÞ  ul ðtÞ ð17Þ 3cHa d l

By substitution Eq. (13) into Eq. (17) gives Assuming that L⁄ is the active span according to Lauffer’s definition
(Fig. 2), by substitution L⁄ = 2R = B into Eqs. (18) and (19) and L⁄ = -
2ð1 þ mÞð1  aÞ 2E ð1  aÞ ul l = L into Eqs. (23) and (24) gives
t ð1aÞ þ ¼ ð18Þ
3d 3cH d R  
2ð1 þ mÞð1  aÞ 4E ð1  aÞ 
L tð1aÞ þ ¼ ul ð25Þ
or in case of without considering the instantaneous elastic 3d 3cH d
displacement:
4E ð1  aÞ 
2E ð1  aÞ ul L tð1aÞ ¼ ul ð26Þ
t ð1aÞ ¼ ð19Þ 3cH d
3cH d R
 
where t⁄ is known as the stand-up time of rock mass. 2ð1 þ mÞð1  aÞ 2E ð1  aÞ 
L tð1aÞ þ ¼ ul ð27Þ
2. The displacement ul(t) and ul are reached to the allowable value 3d 3cHa d
u⁄l (t) and u⁄l respectively, at certain distance (l < lo), then the
stand-up time is determined from Eqs. (15) to (17) as follows: 2E ð1  aÞ 
2ð1 þ mÞð1  aÞ 2E ð1  aÞ ul L tð1aÞ ¼ ul ð28Þ
t ð1aÞ þ ¼ ð20Þ 3cHa d
3d 3cH d½1  expðal=RÞ R
By replacing a = 0.5 into Eqs. (27) and (28) and assuming that the
Or in case of without considering the instantaneous elastic displacement is no more depended from the distance of
displacement: l0 = 6R = 3B so Eqs. (27) and (28) have the same form of Eqs. (25)
2E ð1  aÞ ul and (26) respectively.
t ð1aÞ ¼ ð21Þ In a practical tunnel excavation the displacement of the tunnel
3cH d½1  expðal=RÞ R
wall can be determined by using measuring instruments, therefore,
Because of al/R 6 1, the term ½1  expðal=RÞ can be extracted into it should be used the allowable displacement as stability criterion
power series and gives to estimate the stability of the rock mass. Allowable displacements

Table 4
Stability of the rock categories according to the displacements u on the perimeter of the tunnel (SniP-II-94-80).

Category Assessment of the Maximum displacement u (mm)

stability stability of rock
Sedimentary rocks (sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, Igneous rocks (granite, diorite, Rock salts (rock salt, sylvinite,
limestone, coal . . .) porphyrite . . .) karnalite . . .)
I Stable 50 20 200
II Moderate stable 50–200 20–100 200–300
III Very unstable 200–500 100–200 300–500
IV Highly unstable >500 >200 >500
14 V.-M. Nguyen, Q.-P. Nguyen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 47 (2015) 10–15

100

Unsupported span [m]

H = 100m
H = 200m
10
H = 300m
H = 400m
H = 500m
1

0,1
1,E+04 1,E+06 1,E+08 1,E+10 1,E+12 1,E+14 1,E+16
Stand-up time [h]

Fig. 6. The stand-up time for different tunnel depths.

Table 5 (u⁄l ) and the mechanical parameters of the rock mass. The elastic
Rock mass properties.
modulus can be determined by experimental analysis. It means
Rock type Young’s modulus E (GPa) Creep parameters that the elastic modulus parameter can be replaced by the strength
a d (s1a) of rock mass. Then the stand-up time may be represented by the
relationship depended on the rheological parameters and strength
Siltstone 6.2 0.726 0.0094
14.0 0.679 0.0036 of rock mass.
23.5 0.705 0.0037

3. Parametric study

for several types of rocks may found for example in SniP-II-94-80
(1980) or in the so call stability ranking after Lianjin et al. (2006).
The maximum displacement on the tunnel wall for different
rock masses can be referred following SniP-II-94-80 as shown in
Table 4.
It can be seen that Eqs. (25)–(28) show relationship between
active span (L⁄), stand-up time (t⁄), the allowable displacement
3.1. Influence of the tunnel depth H
In order to study the effect of the tunnel depth H on stand-up
time, the rock mass properties used in the analysis are sandstone,
allowable displacement u⁄l (t) = 50 mm (according to substainable
condition of sedimentary rocks – Table 4), rock mass specific
weight c = 26 kN/m3; Young’s modulus E = 29.5 GPa; Poisson’s

100
Unsupported span [m]

E = 6.2GPa
10 E = 14.0GPa
E = 23.5GPa

0,1
1,E+02 1,E+04 1,E+06 1,E+08 1,E+10 1,E+12 1,E+14 1,E+16
Stand-up time [h]

Fig. 7. The stand-up time for different rock mass qualities (Young’s modulus).

100
Unsupported span [m]

u = 20mm
u = 40mm
10
u = 60mm
u = 80mm

0,1
1,E+02 1,E+04 1,E+06 1,E+08 1,E+10 1,E+12 1,E+14
Stand-up time [h]

Fig. 8. The stand-up time for different critical displacements.

 V.-M. Nguyen, Q.-P. Nguyen / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 47 (2015) 10–15
ratio m = 0.3; a = 0.67 and d = 0.0021 sa1 (as given in Table 2) the
depth of tunnel H varies from 100 to 500 m with interval of 100 m.
Fig. 6 shows the obtained results of stand-up time in related to
unsupported span of tunnel for different tunnel depths (100, 200,
300, 400 and 500 m) and unsupported spans (0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0,
5.0, 10.0, 20.0 and 30.0 m) by using Eq. (26). The results indicate
that the impact of the tunnel depth on the stand-up time of tunnel.
The stand-up time deceases with increasing the tunnel depth. This
is entirely consistent with the fact that the ground pressure on the
tunnel is increased with increasing the tunnel depth. Therefore, the
stand-up time for the deeper tunnel is shorter than that of shallow
tunnel.
3.2. Influence of the rock mass quality (Young’s modulus E)
To study the effect of the rock mass quality on stand-up time,
the siltstone with the different properties is listed in Table 5. The
allowable displacement u⁄l (t) = 50 mm for sustainable condition
of sedimentary rocks – Table 4. The tunnel depth is 200 m.
In order to highlight the influence of the Young’s modulus on
the stand-up time of rock mass, Fig. 7 illustrates the obtained
results for different Young’s modulus of the siltstone. The stand-
up time was calculated by using Eq. (26) for Young’s modulus of
siltstone of 6.2, 14.0 and 23.5 GPa, corresponding to poor, fair
and good rock mass. The result indicates that the stand-up time
is greater in the good rock mass quality (E = 23.5 GPa) in compari-
son with fair and poor rock mass qualities (E = 14.0 and 6.2 GPa,
respectively). This result shows the same trend in comparison with
Bieniawski result.
3.3. Influence of the maximum displacement
The change in stand-up time is here investigated over the
allowable displacement u⁄l (t) range that varies from 20 to 80 mm
with interval of 20 mm, in order to study the effect of the maxi-
mum displacement on the perimeter of tunnel. The rock mass is
argillite with Young’s modulus of 15.2 GPa; Poisson’s ratio of 0.3;
a = 0.691 and d = 0.0068 sa1. The tunnel depth is 200 m.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the maximum displacement on the
perimeter of tunnel to stand-up time. It is possible to note that
the stand-up time increases when the maximum allowable dis-
placement increases. The maximum allowable displacement on
the perimeter of tunnel is varied according to rock mass type. A
higher maximum allowable displacement of the rock mass sur-
rounding tunnel leads to higher stand-up time.
4. Conclusions
The stand-up time of the rock mass surrounding tunnel is
important in engineering practice. Estimation of stand-up time of
the rock mass is to have great meaningful in the selection of
15
excavation methods as well as methods for rock reinforcement in
the most effective way possible. In this study, an analytical solu-
tion is presented for estimation the stand-up time in related to
unsupported span of tunnel based on the rheological deformation
model using Abel’s creep kernel allowable displacement of the
tunnel wall. The results of examples showed the same trend with
Lauffer’s and Bieniawski’s suggested method. Moreover, analytical
method is simple and easy in calculation but is still consideration
to the rock mass properties.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from
the Ministry of Science and Technology of Vietnam under Grant No.
DT-NCCB-DHUD.2011-G/13.
References
Barton, N, Lien, R, Lunde, J, 1975. Estimation of support requirements for
underground excavation. In: Proc. 16th Symp. Design Methods in Rock
Mechanics. New York, Minn. Publ. ASCE, pp. 163–177.
Bieniawski, Z.T, 1993. Classification of rock masses for engineering.Comprehensive
Rock Engineering. H. J.A. London, Pergamon Press. 3: p. 553–573.
Bulychev, N.S., 1982. Mechanics of Underground Structures. Nedra, Moscow, p. 272
(in Russian).
Bulychev, N.S., 1994. Mechanics of Underground Structures. Nedra, Moscow, p. 382
(in Russian).
Chern, J.C, Shiao, F.Y, Yu, C.W, 1998. An empirical safety criterion for tunnel
construction. In: Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Sedimentary Rock
Engineering. Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 222–227.
Erzhanov, Zh.S., 1964. Creep theory of rock and its application. Nauka, Alma-Ata, p.
173 (in Russian).
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Diederichs, M., 2008. Integration of Geotechnical and
Structural Design in Tunneling. Evert Hoek Consulting Engineer Inc., Vancouver,
Canada, p. 53.
Kirsch, 1898. Die Theorie der Elastizität und die Bedürfnisse der Festigkeitslehre.
Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure 42, 797–807.
Komissarov, S.N., Burtachakov, A.C., 1983. Control of Rock Mass around Longwall
Mining. Nedra, p. 236.
Lauffer, H., 1958. Gebirgsklassifizierung für den stollenbau. Geologic und Bauwesan.
24, 46–51.
Lianjin, T, Panfeng, L, Zhouyaun Z. Stability ranking system of rockmass surrounding
a large-scale underground excavations. IAEG2006 Paper number 390. pp. 1–6.
Myer, L.R., Brekke, T.L., Dare, C.T., Dill, R.B., Korbin, G.E., 1981. An investigation of
stand-up time of tunnels in squeezing ground. In: Rapid excavation and
tunneling conference proceedings, San Francisco. California, pp. 1415–1433.
Panet, M and Guenot, A, 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel.
In: Proc. Tunneling 82, London, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 197–
204.
Ramamurthy, T, 2007. A realistic approach to estimate stand-up time. In: 11th
Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp. 757–760.
SniP-II-94-80, 1980. Underground Mining. Approved by Decree of the USSR State
Committee for Construction of 31 December 1980. No 232. (in Russian)
Unlu, T., Gercek, H., 2003. Effect of Poisson’s ratio on the normalized radial
displacements occurring around the face of a circular tunnel. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 18, 547–553.
Zaretskii, Y.K., 1972. Theory of Soil Consolidation. Wiener Bindery, Jerusalem, p.
308.