(Asce) GM 1943-5622 000182

Ground Reaction Curve for Deep Circular Tunnels
in Strain-Softening Mohr–Coulomb Rock Masses

Considering the Damaged Zone
Mohammad Reza Zareifard1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/20/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract: The drill and blast method is one of the most widely used techniques for excavation of tunnels in rock masses. The most worrying
issue in this method is unfavorable damage induced by blast impact into the surrounding rock mass. The blast-induced damaged zone has a pos-
sible influence on the tunnel stability. Therefore, the damage in the rock mass should be minimized as much as possible, or if it is inevitable, the
design of the tunnel should be performed based on an accurate analysis considering the damaged zone. In this paper, a theoretical and practical
method is presented for the ground reaction curve of a circular tunnel excavated in an elastic strain-softening Mohr–Coulomb rock mass con-
sidering the blast-induced damaged zone. A cylindrical damaged zone with decreased strength and deformability parameters is taken into account.
The results for a typical tunnel obtained using the proposed solution are compared with other well-known analytical methods. It is observed that
the proposed approximate solution converges to the exact solution if the stress increments are sufficiently small. The influence of the strain-
softening behavior on the results is examined through the establishment of stresses and displacement distributions and ground reaction curves
and the discussion for the extent of the plastic zone. The results show that the influence of the damaged zone with reduced properties on the tunnel
convergence is significant. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001822. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Ground reaction curve; Circular tunnel; Mohr–Coulomb criterion; Strain-softening model; Blast-induced damaged zone.
Introduction Here, it should be noted that, theoretically, in elastoplastic rock

masses, a failed or plastic region develops around the tunnel that
In spite of various problems associated with tunneling projects, the is generally defined as the zone beyond the excavation boundary
drilling and blasting method of rock excavation is predominantly where the rock mass yields or behaves plastically. The ground out-
used worldwide due to inherent flexibility in the system, lower cap- side the plastic boundary is assumed to remain elastic. In this regard,
ital investment, etc. both damaged and undamaged rock masses can behave elastically or
The drilling and blasting has experienced a great deal of techno- plastically. Namely, the plastic zone may be formed, only in a por-
logical improvement, especially in the field of explosives, initiating tion of the damaged zone, or in the whole of it, or beside it, that
devices, and automation in drilling techniques and blast designs may cover a portion of the undamaged rock mass as well.
(Dey and Murthy 2011). Despite the technological improvements, There are two main issues when the BIDZ is encountered:
drilling and blasting has the disadvantage of damaging the sur- 1. Choosing suitable values for reduced strength and stiffness pa-
rounding rock mass and the formation of a blast-induced damaged rameters of the damaged zone
zone (BIDZ). The blast-induced damaged zone is a zone around a 2. Defining the extent of the damaged zone
tunnel where reduction in the rock mass mechanical properties, in- On this topic, many researchers have assessed the extent of the
cluding strength and stiffness parameters, takes place (Saiang and damage and its quality reduction (e.g., Holmberg and Persson
Nordlund 2009). Beyond the BIDZ, the rock mass is undamaged. 1979; Singh 1993; Saiang 2004; Carlson and Young 1993;
Engineers try to increase the rate of tunnel advancement. However, Kruschwitz and Yaramanci 2004; Nyberg and Fjellborg 2002;
increasing the advancement rate the use of more explosives results Pettitt et al. 2002; Xie et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2018; Yang et al.
in a higher extent of blast-induced damage (Murthy and Dey 2003). 2018). The most important reason for studying blast-induced dam-
Various researchers have investigated and emphasized defining aged rock around tunnels is stability. The BIDZ has a considerable
the extent of the BIDZ around tunnels. The importance of this dam- influence on a tunnel stability. The strength and stiffness of the
age has been investigated by various researchers (Langefors and damaged zone and its extent are the most important parameters.
Kihlstrom 1963; Oriad 1982; McKown 1986; Singh 1993; Scoble In this manner, increasing in the extent of the damaged zone and
et al. 1997; Backblom and Martin 1999; Raina et al. 2000; reduction in its strength and stiffness parameters leads to expansion
Ouchterlony et al. 2002; Singh and Xavier 2005; Ramulu et al. of the plastic zone and increase in the tunnel convergence. There-
2009; Fu et al. 2014; Verma et al. 2018). fore, the damage in the rock mass should be minimized as much
as possible, or if it is inevitable, an accurate analysis should be car-
1
ried out in design of the tunnel considering the influence of the
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Estahban Higher Education Center, Estah- damaged zone.
ban 4465574519, Iran Republic Islamic. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
The strength and stiffness of the damaged zone are difficult pa-
-0002-7868-5498. Email: zareefard@aut.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 9, 2019; approved
rameters to measure in practice. In this regard, two theoretical ap-
on June 4, 2020; published online on August 7, 2020. Discussion period proaches with laboratory basis can be used in estimating these
open until January 7, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for in- parameters:
dividual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geome- 1. Hoek–Brown (H-B) GSI approach: In the first well-known ap-
chanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641. proach, the H-B empirical method is used (Hoek et al. 2002).
© ASCE 04020190-1 Int. J. Geomech.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

First, the peak H-B parameters for the undamaged and damaged 2003; Park et al. 2008; Lee and Pietruszczak 2008; Fahimifar
rock masses are estimated from the Geological Strength Index and Zareifard 2009; Zareifard 2019). The theoretical methods con-
(GSI, which can be obtained from the structure and outcrops sist of two categories based on the utilized behavior model for the
of the rock mass), the intact rock constant mi, the uniaxial com- rock mass. One is the closed-form method, which is presented for
pressive strength of intact rock σci, and the damage factor D. simple elastic–perfectly plastic or elastic–brittle–plastic behavior
The damage factor D varies from zero (for excavation using pre- models (Brown et al. 1983; Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst 1999;
cise controlled blasting) to one (for severely disturbance devel- Sharan 2003, 2005; Park and Kim 2006; Zareifard and Fahimifar
oped by heavy-production blasting). This parameter is utilized 2014, 2015; Carranza-Torres 2004). The other is the semi-
to apply damage due to blasting (not due to failure) and is analytical, in which a strain-softening material behavior model
equal to zero for undamaged rock mass. The damage factor D has often been utilized (Guan et al. 2007; Brown et al. 1983;
can be obtained from tables proposed by Hoek et al. (2002) or Alonso et al. 2003; Park et al. 2008; Lee and Pietruszczak 2008;
Hoek and Brown (2019), or a formula introduced by Xia et al. Fahimifar and Zareifard 2009; Zareifard 2019).
(2013). Then, the residual H-B parameters for the undamaged In contrast to the brittle–elastic–plastic model, the strain-
rock mases are defined by modifying the peak GSI to the resid- softening model is closer to failure of a rock mass model in engi-
ual GSI, GSIr. The extending GSI system for estimating the re- neering practices, especially in average-quality rock masses. In
sidual strength of a rock mass GSIr can be estimated using the this manner, strain-softening behavior can be considered as a grad-
equation proposed by Cai et al. (2007). It should be noted that ual reduction in the failure process of the rock mass and can better
Cai et al.’s equation is not recommended for the damaged model the rock mass response.
rock mass. In this way, the rock mass modulus can be estimated Theoretical solutions are useful in different cases, including the
using the simplified or generalized Hoek–Diederichs equations validation of constitutive models, the stability investigation of a tun-
(Hoek and Diederichs 2006). The equivalent Mohr–Coulomb nel, the verification of numerical codes, initial design of tunnels, and
properties are obtained by linearization of the H-B envelope the derivation of ground reaction curves, etc. In these methods, the
within the stress range of interest. rock masses are assumed to be homogenous; thus, the BIDZ either
2. Saiang approach: In the second approach, the particle interaction is neglected or, if attempted, is considered using a highly conserva-
method is used to determine the Mohr–Coulomb parameters, tive technique by considering the rock mass entirely homogenous
using the code PFC (version 3.10, Itasca, Minneapolis, Minne- and damaged. This is a usual modeling mistake that leads to a
sota) and performing a series of biaxial and Brazilian tests. high underestimation in the strength and stability of the rock mass.
This approach has been illustrated by Saiang (2008). In contrast A literature review shows that there is only a closed-form ana-
to the first approach, by using this systematic approach, the post- lytical solution that considers the damaged zone with a finite extent
peak parameters for the straining-softening Mohr–Coulomb (Zareifard and Fahimifar 2016). Because the extent of the plastic
model can also be determined. In this approach, “numerical lab- zone is unknown in the beginning, Zareifard and Fahimifar
oratory tests,” including biaxial and Brazilian tests on “synthetic (2016) presented three different forms of the problem depending
rock mass specimens,” are performed using PFC2D. In this way, on the extents of the damaged zone and the plastic zone. In their
the specimens representing the damaged and undamaged rock method, the correct form is determined by a trial-and-error method.
masses are prepared. These specimens were idealized as equiva- For strain-softening rock materials, no theoretical model has
lent continuum (intact) with reduced mechanical properties, been presented that considers the BIDZ. In this case, the
whose compressive strength and deformation modulus can be ob- trial-and-error procedure proposed by Zareifard and Fahimifar
tained utilizing the H-B GSI system. (2016) cannot be used, since the boundary conditions are not the
The stability of tunnels considering the BIDZ can be studied same for different forms. This is because the damaged and undam-
using numerical methods. With the advent of numerical computer aged rock materials undergo independent plasticity regimes.
code, the analyses of tunnels can be performed taking into account The goal of this paper is to derive the ground reaction curve of a
all the complexities of the tunnel problem such as the BIDZ effects circular tunnel excavated in elastoplastic strain-softening rock mass
based on continuum or discontinuum methods (e.g., Yang et al. compatible with Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion considering the
1993; Sato et al. 2000; Saiang and Nordlund 2009; Feng et al. BIDZ. For this purpose, a theoretical method is presented to deter-
2000; Saiang 2004; Tang and Mitri 2001). mine the induced displacements and stresses around an opening
However, analytical methods are required when considering this considering a cylindrical finite damaged zone with reduced strength
zone in the initial designing stage of a tunnel. In this regard, one of and deformability parameters. Assuming an initial hydrostatic
the most common methods for the design of tunnels based on ana- stress field, the analysis simplifies to axisymmetric conditions.
lytical solution is the convergence–confinement method. The In the proposed solution, the plastic strains are calculated incre-
convergence–confinement method is a useful analytical method for mentally considering associated or nonassociated flow rules. After
the design of tunnels. It includes three main components: longitudi- the tunnel excavation and decreasing the internal pressure in the
nal deformation profile, support characteristic curve, and ground re- ground reaction curve, different forms introduced by Zareifard
action curve. The investigation of the interaction between the support and Fahimifar (2016) may be observed. Since, the boundary condi-
and the tunnel can conveniently be done utilizing the convergence– tions are not the same for different forms, different parameters are
confinement method. The convergence–confinement method considered as state variables for the different forms of the problem.
characterizes the relationship between reduction of the inner support
pressure and increase of the radial displacement of the tunnel wall. It
is commonly derived by analytical methods assuming axial- Definition of Problem
symmetry and plane-strain conditions (Guan et al. 2007).
Many researches have been carried out on the tunnel ground re- Fig. 1 shows the different forms of the considered problem. A cir-
action curve. These studies are based on available theoretical meth- cular deep tunnel of radius ri is excavated in an isotropic and ini-
ods (e.g., Guan et al. 2007; Brown et al. 1983; Carranza-Torres and tially elastic rock mass defined by elastic modulus E0, Poisson’s
Fairhurst 1999; Sharan 2003, 2005; Park and Kim 2006; Zareifard ratio ν0. Prior to the tunnel excavation, the rock mass is subjected
and Fahimifar 2014, 2015; Carranza-Torres 2004; Alonso et al. to a hydrostatic stress field σ0. The tunnel is then excavated, and a
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

cylindrical BIDZ of radius RD with reduced strength and deform-
ability parameters will be developed around the tunnel. The elastic
modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of the BIDZ are ED and νD, respec-
tively. Beyond, the damaged zone, the rock mass is undamaged.
An internal pressure pi = σ r(ri ) is applied to the periphery of the
tunnel due to installation of lining or restraint resulted from the tun-
nel face (prior to the lining installation).
As the internal pressure pidecreases, a plastic zone may develop
around the tunnel. With further reduction of pi, the plastic radius
will grow with respect to the fixed damage radius. Therefore, phys-
ically, one of four forms presented in Fig. 1 may be expected com-
paring Rp and RD. With the reduction of the internal pressure pi and
(a) expanding the plastic zone, the considering problem may evolve
from one form to another.

Form 1 (Elastic rock mass or null plastic zone): As pi is gradu-
ally decreased (which corresponds to the advancing of the tunnel
face), the radial displacement occurs and the rock mass continues
being elastic for an internal pressure smaller than the field stress,
until the first yield appears at the tunnel radius (of the damaged
zone) for a critical value of the internal pressure pcr [Fig. 1(a)].
Form 2 (small plastic zone): A plastic region of radius Rp ≤ RD
develops around the tunnel when pi is less than the initial yield
stress of the damaged rock mass. With further reduction of pi, the
plastic zone will grow in the damaged zone (the extent of the plastic
zone will increase). For certain value of pi denoted by pi.reach, the
plastic zone may reach RD [Fig. 1(b)].
Form 3 (medium plastic zone): When, Rp reaches RD, if pi is fur-
(b)
ther decreased, the plastic regime is continued in the damaged zone
while the undamaged zone remains elastic. In this form of the prob-
lem, Rp = RD [Fig. 1(c)].
Form 4 (large plastic zone): The undamaged rock mass may ex-
ceed its peak strength at RD for a certain value of pi denoted by
pi.pass. In this case, if pi is further decreased, the extent of the plastic
zone will increase and the plastic zone will pass the damaged zone.
In this case, Rp > RD [Fig. 1(d)].
The elastoplastic strain-softening behavior model is considered
for both damaged and undamaged zones. This behavior model is
developed in the incremental theory of plasticity (Hill 1950;
Kaliszky 1989), which was developed to characterize the plastic
flow process. In this model, a material behavior is defined by a fail-
ure criterion and a plastic potential function, which are dependent
on the stress state as well as a softening parameter η. The strain-
(c) softening behavior is defined by a linear shift of failure criterion
and plastic potential function from a peak state to a residual state.
This shift is a function of the softening parameter η. In this
model, the shift is defined in a manner in which the elastic regime
governs when the softening parameter is equal to zero. On the other
hand, the softening case takes place when 0 < η < η* , and the resid-
ual state occurs when η ≥ η* (where η* is the critical softening pa-
rameter controlling the shift between the softening and residual
states). Fig. 2 shows the utilized strain-softening behavior for a uni-
axial compression test.
Elastoplastic materials may have the following behavior mod-
els, based on their post-failure behavior: (1) elastic–brittle–plastic,
(2) perfectly plastic, (3) strain-softening, and (4) strain-hardening
behaviors. Based on a Hoek and Brown (1997) suggestion,
average-quality rock masses have strain-softening behavior,
while poor-quality rock masses have perfectly plastic behavior
and high-quality rock masses have elastic-brittle behavior. In the
(d) opinion of some researchers on rock mechanics (e.g., Hudson
et al. 1971; Kimura et al. 2002; Read and Hegemeier 1984), a
Fig. 1. The circular deep tunnel with a circular BIDZ excavated in elas-
strain-softening model is not a correct behavior for rock masses.
tic–plastic rock mass subjected to a hydrostatic stress field: (a) form 1;
However, it has been widely accepted (Sture and Ko 1978;
(b) form 2; (c) form 3; and (d) form 4.
Bieniawski 1976; Egger 2000) that postfailure behavior of rock
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

this paper to derive a simple theoretical approach to investigate
the respond of rock tunnels.
It is essential to solve the tunnel problem to derive the ground
reaction curve. In the case of the elastic zone, it is possible to derive
explicit expressions for the distributions of stresses and displace-
ments. On the other hand, no closed-form solution is available
for the plastic zone and the plastic radius, and the distributions of
stresses and displacements in the plastic zone should be assessed
numerically. Axial-symmetry and plane-strain conditions are as-
sumed for the problems shown in Fig. 1. For these axial-symmetric
problems, the induced stress at a distance r is defined by the minor
principal stress σ3 and the major principal stresses σ1, which are the
radial stress σr and the tangential stress σ θ , respectively. It should
be noted that the induced displacement is defined by the radial dis-

placement ur. On the other hand, for the plane-strain condition, the
longitudinal stress σz is the intermediate principal stress σ2.
Fig. 2. Stress–strain curve of a uniaxial compression test carried out on Governing Equations
a sample of a strain-softening rock material.
For the considering axial-symmetric problem, the equilibrium equa-
tion relating the radial stress σr(r) and the tangential stress σθ(r) at the
radial distance r is given by (Timoshenko and Goodier 1982)
materials shows damage due to microcracking and faulting, which
results in a strain-softening response. It is clear that the elastic– σ r(r) − σ θ(r) dσ r(r)
+ =0 (1)
brittle–plastic and the perfectly plastic behaviors are limiting r dr
cases of this strain-softening behavior, and thus the strain-softening In axial-symmetric condition, the radial and tangential strains
behavior can be taken as the most global case. ɛr(r) and ɛθ(r) are expressed in terms of the radial displacement
It is expected that the internal damaged zone yields prior to the ur(r), as follows (Timoshenko and Goodier 1982)
external undamaged zone. After yielding, both zones can undergo
strain-softening or residual regimes, depending on the softening dur(r) ur(r)
εr = , εθ(r) = (2)
parameter. Although many researchers have reported that strain- dr r
softening materials may experience instability and bifurcation For both damaged and undamaged rock masses, the induced
during an unloading process (e.g., Hill 1950; Kaliszky 1989; elastic strains εer(r) and εeθ(r) in terms of the final stresses σr(r) and
Varas et al. 2005), this paper restricts the discussion to its stable σθ(r) with consideration of the initial hydrostatic stress σ0 are
(or basic) solutions. given by (Timoshenko and Goodier 1982)
In this paper, the shear plastic strain γ p = εpθ − εpr (in which εpθ
and εpr = plastic components of radial and tangential strains, respec- 1+ν
εer(r) = [(1 − ν)(σ r(r) − σ 0 ) − ν(σ θ(r) − σ 0 )] (3)
tively) is taken as the softening parameter. Despite the fact that E
there is no global procedure for obtaining the strain-softening pa-
1+ν
rameter, Alonso et al. (2003) show that the shear plastic strain γ p εeθ(r) = [(1 − ν)(σ θ(r) − σ 0 ) + ν(σ r(r) − σ 0 )] (4)
is the most appropriate softening parameter. E
The bilinear strain softening behavior shown in Fig. 2 is the where E and ν = elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of medium,
most appropriate model for the stress–strain behavior of tested respectively.
rock samples and average-quality rock masses. The macroscopic Rock mass parameters for the damaged rock mass are denoted
laboratory and field observations verify the suitability of this by a subscript D (i.e., the elastic parameters for the damaged
stress–strain behavior, and it is simple and easy to use for theoret- rock mass are ED and νD).
ical problems. However, the nature of this strain-softening behavior The ground is assumed to obey the Mohr–Coulomb failure
is still a controversial issue. While it can represent the macroscopic criterion as
observations in practice, it cannot simulate the very complex micro-
σ 1 = tan2 (45 + φ/2)σ 3 + 2C tan (45 + φ/2) (5)
scopic phenomena (such as microfracture initiation, propagation,
and coalescence, grain crushing, and structure damage) which where σ1 = major principal stress; σ3 = minor principal stress;
exist in the processes of rock deformation and failure. These topics C = cohesion, and φ = internal friction angle.
are simulated in more-realistic behavior models (e.g., Xiao et al. As mentioned, for the considering loading condition σ 1 = σ θ
2014a, b; Xiao and Liu 2017; Xiao and Desai 2019a, b). Even and σ3 = σr, where σr and σ θ are the radial and tangential compo-
though this strain-softening behavior model cannot exactly model nents of stress, respectively. Eq. (5) may thus be written as
the microscopic rock response, it is consistent with H-B GSI sys-
σ θ = kφ σ r + σ c (6)
tem, which is used in both Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–Brown fail-
ure criteria and can conveniently be implemented in simple where
analytical approaches. The utilized strain-softening behavior repre-
sents the continuous response of rock masses. More complex and kφ = tan2 (45 + φ/2), σ c = 2C tan (45 + φ/2) (7)
realistic models could be implemented in the proposed solution, For the plastic region, Eq. (6) may be rewritten as
but by these models the derived differential equations cannot be
solved for the tunnel problem, theoretically, while it is the aim of σ θ = kφg σ r + σ cg (8)
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

kφg = tan2 (45 + φg /2), σ cg = 2Cg tan (45 + φg /2) (9) In the proposed solution, different critical shear plastic strain of
γ p* and γ Dp* are assigned for damaged and undamaged zones, re-
where Cg and φg = Mohr–Coulomb constants for the (undamaged spectively. It should be noted that if γ p* = ∞, the perfectly plastic
or damaged) plastic rock masses, respectively, and vary as a func- model is gained. On the other hand, for γ p* = 0, Eq. (15) reduces
tion of softening parameter γ p in the plastic regime for both the to the elastic–brittle–plastic behavior. In this condition, the soften-
undamaged and damaged rock masses. ing behavior is not observed.
Mohr–Coulomb plastic potential function (for a nonassociated
flow rule) is taken into account:
P = σ θ − KΨ σ r (10) Supplementary Equations
where
Elastic Thick-Walled Cylinder under Known Boundary
1 + sin Ψg
KΨ = Pressures
(11)
1 − sin Ψg
A cylindrical region with an inner radius ra (where a radial stress
KΨ = dilation factor and Ψg, = dilation angle in the plastic re- σra is applied) and an outer radius rb (where a radial stress σrb is
gime. In the considering strain softening behavior, Ψg varies as a applied) is considered (Fig. 4). This model is applied for analyses
function of softening parameter γ p. In associated flow rule cases, of different elastic zones.
Ψ and φ are equal. Here, equilibrium Eq. (1) and strain-displacement Eq. (2) are
In the plastic region, the total strains ɛr and εθ are composed of also valid. On the other hand, considering the plane-strain condi-
elastic and plastic components as tion for the problem, the following Hooke’s relationships can be
εr = εer + εpr , εθ = εeθ + εpθ (12) used for stresses σr and σ θ in terms of the elastic strains εθ and ɛr
(Timoshenko and Goodier 1982):
where ɛr and εθ = radial and tangential strains, respectively, and su-
perscripts e and p denote the elastic and plastic strain components. E
σr = [(1 − ν)εr + νεθ ]
In the proposed model, the elastic and plastic strains are calcu- (1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
lated incrementally. Thus, the total strain increments dεθ and dɛr E
can be stated in terms of elastic (dεeθ , dεer ) and plastic (dεpθ , dεpr ) σθ = [(1 − ν)εθ + νεr ] (16)
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
components as
where E and ν are elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the mate-
dεr = dεer + dεpr , dεθ = dεeθ + dεpθ (13)
rial, respectively.
For the Mohr–Coulomb plastic potential function [i.e., Eq. (10)], Replacing Eq. (16) into Eq. (1) and using Eq. (2) leads to the
eliminating the plastic multiplier from the flow rule relationship lead following differential equation for the unknown radial displace-
to the following equation between the plastic components of radial ment ur in the cylinder:
and tangential strain increments as
ur 1 dur d 2 ur
dεpr + KΨ dεpθ = 0 (14) − − 2 =0 (17)
r2 r dr dr
It should be noted that in the plastic regime, the strength and di- Solving the differential Eq. (17) analytically and considering
lation parameters in Eqs. (9) and (11) can be expressed by a bilinear boundary conditions σ r(ra ) = σ ra and σ r(rb ) = σ rb , the induced radial
function based on shear plastic strain γ p (as shown in Fig. 3): displacement ur(r) is obtained. Then, utilizing Eq. (2) gives the in-
⎧ duced radial strain εr(r) and tangential strain εθ(r) (at any radius r).
⎨ ω − (ω − ω ) γ
p
p p r 0 < γ p < γ p* Finally utilizing Eq. (16) gives the radial stress σ r(r) and tangential
ωg = γ p* (15)
⎩ stress σ θ(r) :
ωr γ p ≥ γ p*

where ωg = one of the parameters ϕg, Cg, or Ψg; and γ p* = critical 1+ν r2 r2 1+ν
ur(r) = (σ rb − σ ra )r 2 a 2 (1 − 2ν) + b2 + rσ r(rb ) (1 − 2ν )
shear plastic strain from which the residual behavior starts. In this E rb − ra r E
regard, the subscripts “p” and “r” denote the peak and residual val- (18)
ues, respectively.
Fig. 3. Variations of failure parameters (ϕg, Cg) and dilation angle (Ψg)
in the plastic regime. Fig. 4. Elastic thick-walled cylinder under known boundary pressures.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

1+ν r2 r2 1+ν It should be noted that though a fixed increment of Δσr is as-
εθ(r) = (σ rb − σ ra ) 2 a 2 (1 − 2ν) + b2 + σ r(rb ) (1 − 2ν) sumed for the whole rings, the thickness of the rings is different.
E rb − ra r E
In this way, the radius of each circle is determined using the equi-
(19)
librium Eq. (1). On the other hand, the corresponding tangential
stress, σθ(i), is obtained using Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion
1+ν r2 r2 1+ν [i.e., Eq. (8)]:
εr(r) = (σ rb − σ ra ) 2 a 2 (1 − 2ν) − b2 + σ r(rb ) (1 − 2ν)
E rb − ra r E
σ θ(i) = σ r(i) tan2 (45 + φg(i) /2) + 2Cg(i) tan (45 + φg(i) /2) (24)
(20)
In this regard, considering an increment of radial stress Δσr with
ra2 rb2 sufficiently small absolute value, the values of ϕg(i) and Cg(i) can be
σ r(r) = (σ rb − σ ra ) 2 1 − 2 + σ r(rb ) (21)
rb − ra2 r obtained using γ p(i−1) (calculated in the previous element).
The equilibrium Eq. (1) can be rewritten in term of the normal-

ra2 rb2 ized radius ρ = (r/Rp) as

σ θ(r) = (σ rb − σ ra ) 1 + + σ r(rb ) (22)
rb2 − ra2 r2 dσ r σ θ − σ r
− =0 (25)
dρ ρ
Combination failure criterion [i.e., Eq. (24)] and the equilibrium
Plastic Thick-Walled Cylinder under Known Boundary equation [i.e., Eq. (25)] gives the following differential equation:
Pressures
dσ r σ cg − (1 − kϕg )σ r
Here, a plastic zone with inner radius ri and outer radius Rp and = (26)
known boundary conditions is considered. This plastic zone is di- dρ ρ
vided into enough concentric rings, as shown in Fig. 5, where the Finite difference approximation can be used to solve Eq. (26) for
boundary of the ith ring is defined by an outer circle of normalized ρi as
radius ρ(i−1) = (r(i−1)/Rp) and an inner circle of normalized radius
ρ(i) = (r(i)/Rp). −Δσ r − 2σ cg(i) + (σ r(i) + σ r(i−1) )(1 − kϕg(i) )
ρ(i) = ρ(i−1) (27)
In this paper, the subscripts located inside the parenthesis denote Δσ r − 2σ cg(i) + (σ r(i) + σ r(i−1) )(1 − kϕg(i) )
the location of the considering variable.
Here, it should be noted that the thicknesses of different rings where
are not constant. In this way, the thicknesses of each ring is calcu- 1 + sin φg(i) 2Cg(i) cos φg(i)
lated during the numerical procedure. kφg(i) = , σ cg(i) = (28)
1 − sin φg(i) 1 − sin φg(i)
On the outer boundary of the plastic zone, where ρ(i=1) = 1,
stresses and strains are known as obtained later for forms 2, 3, and 4. In Eq. (28), considering an increment of radial stress Δσr with
In the plastic zone, the governing equations are solved numeri- sufficiently small absolute value, the values of φg(i) and Cg(i) can
cally. In this way, the increments of plastic strains are obtained suc- be determined using γ p(i−1) [calculated for ρ(i−1)].
cessively through finite difference approximation of equilibrium Calculating σr(i) and σθ(i) from Eqs. (23) and (24), elastic parts
and compatibility equations in each plastic ring, starting from the of strains can be calculated using Eqs. (3) and (4) as
external ring. This can be done by considering a negative with suf-
ficiently small absolute value for increments of radial stress, Δσr. 1+ν
εer(i) = [(1 − ν)(σ r(i) − σ 0 ) + ν(σ θ(i) − σ 0 )] (29)
Obtaining the external radial stress σr(i=1) (at r = Rp), σr(i) at E
each radius of plastic cylinder reduces sequentially from r = Rp to
r = r i. 1+ν
εeθ(i) = [(1 − ν)(σ θ(i) − σ 0 ) + ν(σ r(i) − σ 0 )] (30)
Thus, the approximation of the induced radial stress for the ith E
radius is given by
where E and ν = elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the rock
σ r(i) = σ r(i−1) + Δσ r (23) mass, respectively, while E = E0 and ν = ν0 for undamaged rock
mass and E = ED and ν = νD for damaged rock mass.
In order to calculate the plastic parts of strains, the displacement
compatibility equation can be used. Omitting ur from Eq. (2) and
considering the normalized radius ρ = (r/Rp) gives the following
compatibility equation:
εr = ρε′θ + εθ (31)
where ɛ′ is defined as
dε
ε′ = (32)
dρ
A combination of Eqs. (13) and (14) gives
dεr dεθ dεer dεe
+ KΨ = + KΨ θ (33)
dρ dρ dρ dρ
Eq. (33) can be expressed as
Fig. 5. Plastic thick-walled cylinder under known boundary pressures. ε′r + KΨ ε′θ = ε′er + KΨ ε′eθ (34)
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Differentiating Eq. (31) with respect to ρ gives Analyses for Form 1
dε′θ
ε′r = 2ε′θ + ρ (35) Damaged and Undamaged Zones and Boundary
dρ Conditions
Substituting ε′r obtained from Eq. (35) into Eq. (34), the follow- In form 1 of the problem, pi itself is considered as the state variable.
ing differential equation is derived: An internal damaged zone of inner radius ri and outer radius RD in-
teracts with an external undamaged zone of inner radius RD and an
dε′θ infinite outer radius [Fig. 1(a)] at radius RD. The radial boundary
(2 + KΨ )ε′θ + ρ = ε′er + KΨ ε′eθ (36) pressure σ r(RD ) is determined utilizing the equilibrium and compat-
dρ
ibility equations at the damage radius RD.
Eq. (18) can be used for the induced displacements at radius RD
Eq. (36) may be approximated for the ith annular element as
in both damaged and undamaged zones.
For the internal damaged zone:

ε′θ(i) + ε′θ(i−1) ε′θ(i) − ε′θ(i−1)
(2 + KΨ(i) ) +ρ = ε′er + KΨ(i) ε′eθ (37) 2
2 ρ(i) − ρ(i−1) 1 + νD r
ur(RD ) = (σ r(RD ) − pi )RD 2 i 2 (1 − νD ) + (1 − 2νD ) (42)
ED RD − ri
Solving Eq. (37) using a finite difference approximation leads to
For the external undamaged zone:
the following relationship for ε′θ(i) :
1 + ν0
ur(RD ) = (σ 0 − σ r(RD ) )RD (43)
(2Ω(i) − ε′θ(i−1) (3 + KΨ(i) ))ρ(i−1) − (2Ω(i) − ε′θ(i−1) (1 + KΨ(i) ))ρ(i) E0
ε′θ(i) =
(1 + KΨ(i) )ρ(i−1) − (3 + KΨ(i) )ρ(i) At the boundary between the damaged zone and the undamaged
(38) zone, the radial displacement obtained in the inner and outer sides
should be equal, since the radial displacement should be continu-
where ous. In this way, the radial stress σ r(RD ) is obtained in terms of in-
ternal pressure pi using the compatibility equation
1 + sin Ψg(i) εer(i) − εer(i−1) udamaged zone
= uundamaged zone
:
ε′er(i) =
r(RD ) r(RD )
KΨ(i) = ,
1 − sin Ψg(i) ρ(i) − ρ(i−1) σ 0 + pi α 1
σ r(RD ) = (44)
εeθ(i) − εeθ(i−1) 1 + α1
ε′eθ(i) = , Ω(i) = ε′er(i) + KΨ(i) ε′eθ(i) (39)
ρ(i) − ρ(i−1) where

Thus E0 (1 + νD ) ri2
α1 = (1 − νD ) + (1 − 2ν D ) (45)
ED (1 + ν0 ) R2D − ri2
εθ(i) = ε′θ(i) (ρ(i) − ρ(i−1) ) + εθ(i−1) (40)
Obtaining σ r(RD ) from Eq. (44), distribution of the displace-
ments, strains, and stresses in the damaged zone can be obtained
In the previous equations, considering an increment of radial using Eqs. (18)–(22) as
stress Δσr with sufficiently small absolute value, the values of
Ψg(i) can be determined using γ p(i−1) [obtained at ρ(i−1)]. 1 + νD R2 R2
ur(r) = (σ r(RD ) − pi )r 2 D 2 (1 − 2νD ) + 2D
In addition, the corresponding values of strains εer(i) , εeθ(i) , εpr(i) , ED R D − ri r
εpθ(i) , ɛr(i), and ɛr(i) are obtained using [based on Eqs. (12) and (13)]: 1 + νD
+ r(σ r(RD ) − pi )(1 − 2νD ) (46)
ED
εpθ(i) = εθ(i) − εeθ(i) , ε′p ′ ′e ′p ′p
θ(i) = εθ(i) − εθ(i) , εr(i) = KΨ(i) εθ(i)

εpr(i) = ε′p p p
r(i) (ρ(i) − ρ(i−1) ) + εr(i) , εr(i) = εr(i) + εr(i)
e
(41) 1 + νD R2 R2
εθ(r) = (σ r(RD ) − pi ) 2 D 2 (1 − 2νD ) + 2D
ED RD − ri r
1 + νD
+ (σ r(RD ) − pi )(1 − 2νD ) (47)
ED
State Variable
1 + νD R2D R2D
The tunnel surface is subjected to an internal uniform pressure pi. εr(r) = (σ r(RD ) − pi ) 2 (1 − 2νD ) − 2
ED RD − ri2 r
As the internal pressure pi is gradually decreased from the field 1 + νD
stress, the rock mass start to converge from the elastic regime for + (σ r(RD ) − pi )(1 − 2νD ) (48)
an internal pressure larger than pcr. When the internal support pres- ED
sure pi is lower than pcr, the rock mass yields and a plastic zone de-
velops around the opening. Now, as the internal pressure is further R2D R2D
σ r(r) = (σ r(RD ) − pi ) 1 − + σ r(RD ) (49)
decreased from the pcr, the radius of the plastic zone will increase R2D − ri2 r2
and the radial stress at the plastic radius will decrease. Note that dif-

ferent forms introduced in Fig. 1 may happen. In each form, a dif- R2D R2D
ferent parameter is used as a state variable, since the boundary σ θ(r) = (σ r(RD ) − pi ) 2 1 + 2 + σ r(RD ) (50)
RD − ri2 r
conditions are different for different forms. This variable changes
with reduction of pi and is considered instead of pi as the main The induced displacements, strains, and stresses at each
variable of the problem in deriving the ground reaction curve. radius of the undamaged zone can also be obtained using
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Eqs. (18)–(22) as Elastic Zone (Damage and Undamaged Elastic Zones)
1 + ν0 R2 The elastic zone can be divided into an external undamaged zone of
ur(r) = (σ 0 − σ r(RD ) ) D (51) inner radius RD and an infinite outer radius and an internal damaged
E0 r
zone of inner radius Rp and outer radius RD. The undamaged and
damaged elastic zones interact with each other at the radius RD
1 + ν0 R2
εθ(r) = (σ 0 − σ r(RD ) ) 2D (52) with a radial stress σ r(RD ) . This stress can be obtained in a manner
E0 r similar to that presented for form 1:
1 + ν0 R2 σ 0 + σ r(Rp ) α3
εr(r) = − (σ 0 − σ r(RD ) ) 2D (53) σ r(RD ) = (59)
E0 r 1 + α3
where
R2D
σ r(r) = −(σ 0 − σ r(RD ) ) + σ0
(54)
r2 E0 (1 + νD ) R2p
α3 = (1 − νD ) + (1 − 2νD ) (60)
ED (1 + ν0 ) R2D − R2p
R2
σ θ(r) = (σ 0 − σ r(RD ) ) 2D + σ0 (55)
r Obtaining σ r(RD ) from Eq. (59), the induced displacements,
Eqs. (51)–(55) are also used for analysis of the external elastic strains, and stresses at any radius of the damaged zone can be ob-
undamaged zone in the other forms (i.e., forms 2–4). tained using Eqs. (18)–(22) as

1 + νD R2D R2D
ur(r) = (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) )r 2 (1 − 2νD ) + 2
Deriving the Ground Reaction Curve ED RD − R2p r
1 + νD
For deriving the part of the ground reaction curve corresponding to + r(σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) )(1 − 2νD ) (61)
this form (between pi = σ0 and pi = pcr), pi is gradually decreased ED
from σ0, and for each pi the tunnel convergence ur(ri ) is obtained
using the solution proposed for this form. 1 + νD R2D R2D
εθ(r) = (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) ) 2 (1 − 2νD ) + 2
The procedure will continue until pi reaches the final support ED RD − R2p r
pressure or the critical internal pressure pcr. It must be noted that 1 + νD
for pi smaller than pcr, the analyses should be continued consider- + (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) )(1 − 2νD ) (62)
ing form 2. Finally, the ground reaction curve is drawn using the ED
calculated values of pi and ur(ri ) .
1 + νD R2 R2
εr(r) = (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) ) 2 D 2 (1 − 2νD ) − 2D
ED RD − Rp r
Calculation of pcr
1 + νD
The elastic solution is valid for pi equal and greater than a critical + (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) )(1 − 2νD ) (63)
ED
pressure pcr for which the stresses at the tunnel radius reach the
peak failure criterion of the damaged rock mass. Thus, the solution
R2D R2D
for form 1 is valid for pi = pcr. In pi = pcr, the rock mass starts σ r(r) = (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) ) 1 − + σ r(RD ) (64)
to yield at the tunnel boundary. Conclusively, replacing σ r(RD ) ob- R2D − R2p r2
tained from Eq. (42) into the tangential stress obtained from
Eq. (50) for r = ri and substituting the result into Eq. (8) (consider- R2D R2D
ing peak strength parameters ϕpD and CpD), leads to the following σ θ(r) = (σ r(RD ) − σ r(Rp ) ) 1 + + σ r(RD ) (65)
R2D − R2p r2
relationship for the critical internal pressure pcr:
In addition, for the undamaged zone, Eqs. (51)–(55) can be
σ 0 (1 + α2 ) − σ cpD (1 + α1 )
pcr = (56) used.
α2 − α1 + kϕpD (1 + α1 )
where
Plastic Zone
1 + sin ϕ pD 2C pD cos ϕ pD At the plastic radius Rp, the radial boundary pressure σ r(Rp ) is ap-
kϕpD = , σ cpD = (57)
1 − sin ϕ pD 1 − sin ϕ pD plied between the elastic zone and the damaged part of the plastic
zone. Using Eq. (65) by considering Eq. (59), the tangential stress
and
σ θ(Rp ) at the radius Rp is calculated as
R2D (R2D + ri2 )
α2 = (58) σ 0 + σ r(Rp ) α3 σ 0 + σ r(Rp ) α3
ri2 (R2D − ri2 ) σ θ(Rp ) = − σ r(Rp ) α4 + (66)
1 + α3 1 + α3
where
Analyses for Form 2 R2D (R2D + R2p )

α4 = (67)
R2p (R2D − R2p )
In form 2 of the problem, pi itself is considered as the state variable.
As shown in Fig. 1(b), the rock mass consists of an elastic zone σ θ(Rp ) and σ r(Rp ) must satisfy the peak failure criterion for the
(including damage and undamaged parts) and a damaged plastic damaged rock (using peak failure parameters ϕpD and CpD); there-
zone. fore, substituting these stresses into Eq. (8), and solving the derived
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

equation, gives the boundary radial stress σ r (Rp ): can be obtained from Hook’s law [i.e., Eqs. (3) and (4)] by applying
parameters of the damaged rock mass ED and νD. On the other
σ 0 (1 + α4 ) − σ cpD (1 + α3 ) hand, plastic strains εpθ and εpr are equal to zero.
σ r(Rp ) = (68)
α4 − α3 + kϕpD (1 + α3 ) In this condition, the radius of the plastic zone is initially
known, Rp = RD; thus, r(i) for each ρi = r(i)/Rp can be obtained
Obtaining σ r(Rp ) , the corresponding value of σ θ(Rp ) can be ob-
(r(i) = ρ(i)Rp).
tained by Eq. (55) or peak failure criterion for the damaged rock
As explained, in the plastic zone, a finite difference approxima-
mass:
tion is used in terms of normalized radius ρ(i) = (r(i)/Rp). First,
σ θ(Rp ) = σ cpD + kϕpD σ r(Rp ) (69) boundary stresses and strains at the plastic radius (ρ(i=1) = 1 or
r(i=1) = Rp) are calculated using the previous equations. Afterward,
In this regard, total strains εθ and εr at the plastic radius, which the successive stresses and strains in the plastic zone are calculated
are equal to the elastic strains εeθ and εer , respectively, can be ob- using the equations presented for the plastic thick-walled cylinder.
tained from Eqs. (62) and (63) or Hook’s law [i.e., Eqs. (3) and Computing stresses σr(i) and σ θ (i) and strains ɛr(i) and εθ (i) is con-
(4) by applying parameters of the damaged rock mass ED and tinued until the calculated radius r(i) = ρ(n)Rp reaches ri (ρ(n)Rp = ri)
νD], while plastic strains εpθ and εer are equal to zero. On the other for a specific ρ(n). Thus, at the tunnel radius ri, computations will be
hand, based on Eq. (31), ε′θ(Rp ) at the plastic radius is given by stopped. The radial stress at the tunnel radius (the final σr(i)) is
equal to preach. It should be noted that preach must be positive or
ε′θ(Rp ) = εr(Rp ) − εθ(Rp ) (70)
zero, otherwise the plastic zone cannot reach the undamaged zone.
As explained, in the plastic zone, a finite difference approxima- In addition, for analysis of the undamaged zone, Eqs. (51)–(55)
tion is used in terms of normalized radius ρ(i) = (r(i)/Rp). First, can be used.
boundary stresses and strains at the plastic boundary (i.e., ρ(i=1) =
1 or r(i=1) = Rp) are calculated from the previous equations. After-
Deriving the Ground Reaction Curve
ward, the successive stresses and strains in the plastic zone are cal-
culated using the equations presented for the plastic thick-walled For deriving the part of the ground reaction curve corresponding to
cylinder. Computing the induced stresses σr(i) and σ θ (i) and strains this form (between pi = σ0 and pi = pcr), pi is gradually lessened
ɛr(i) and εθ (i) is continued until the calculated radial stress σr(i) (for from σ0, and for each pi the tunnel convergence ur(ri ) is obtained
an specific ρ(n)) satisfies the inner boundary condition σr(i) = pi. using the solution proposed for this form.
Then, dividing the tunnel radius ri by this final value of ρ(n), a The procedure will continue until pi reaches the final support
new value of plastic radius will be calculated [i.e., Rp = (ri/ρ(n))]. pressure or the critical internal pressure pcr. It must be noted that,
Since, in the beginning, the extent of the plastic zone Rp is un- for pi smaller than pcr, the analyses should be continued consider-
known [in Eq. (68)], the computations should be carried out by iting form 2. Finally, the ground reaction curve is platted using the
eration, to reach an acceptable convergence of the plastic radius Rp. pairs of the calculated values of pi and ur(ri ) .
In this way, the calculated plastic radius Rp in each step, is utilized
for computations of the next stage.
Analyses for Form 3
Calculation of preach
In form 3 of the problem, the radial stress at the plastic boundary
The solution for form 2 is valid for pi equal and greater than preach. σ r (Rp = RD ) is taken as the state variable. As shown in Fig. 1(c),
In pi = preach, the plastic radius Rp reaches the damage boundary the rock mass can be divided into an elastic undamaged zone and
(Rp = RD). At pi = preach, the rock mass consists of an undamaged a plastic damaged zone. In this case, the extent of the plastic
elastic zone and a damaged plastic zone. At the plastic radius, com- zone Rp remains equal to RD (Rp = RD).
patibility and equilibrium conditions between the elastic undam-
aged zone and the plastic damaged zone must be satisfied. In
addition, the tangential and radial stresses should satisfy the peak Elastic Zone (Undamaged Zone)
failure criterion for the damaged rock mass. Consequently, by
For analyzing the elastic undamaged zone, Eqs. (51)–(55) can be
equalizing the obtained tangential strain at the plastic radius by
used.
Eq. (4) (by applying the undamaged rock mass parameters E0
and ν0) to the corresponding value in Eq. (62) (by applying the
damaged rock mass parameters ED and νD), and substituting tan- Plastic Zone (Damaged Zone)
gential stresses satisfying the peak failure criterion for the damaged
rock mass [i.e., Eq. (8)] into the derived equation, and solving it, At the plastic radius, the radial stress and total tangential strain are
gives the radial stress at the plastic radius as continuous (because of equilibrium and compatibility conditions),
while the total radial strain and tangential stress is discontinuous
p0 (1 + α5 − 2νD ) + νD σ cpD (have different values on damaged and undamaged sides of the
σ reach
r(Rp ) = (71)
α5 + kϕpD (1 − νD ) interface).
In addition, in contrast to the previous form, the boundary plas-
where tic strains and plastic shear strain at the external radius of the plastic
ED (1 + ν0 ) zone (at the damaged or plastic side of the plastic radius) have non-
α5 = (72) zero values, and it is essential to define them (plasticity evolution)
E0 (1 + νD )
for each pi. Thus, here, a stepwise procedure is used to obtain these
r(Rp ) from Eq. (71), the corresponding value of σ θ(Rp )
Obtaining σ reach reach
boundary conditions at the plastic radius. As mentioned, here radial
can be obtained by using the peak failure criterion for the damaged stress at the plastic radius σ r(RD ) is considered as the state variable.
rock [i.e., Eq. (8)]. In this regard, total strains εθ and εr at the plastic In this manner, σ r(RD ) is decreased monotonically from σ reach r(RD )
radius, which are equal to the elastic strains εeθ and εer , respectively, (which corresponds decreasing in pi from preach) and the analyses
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

for the plastic rock region are carried out: noted that the calculated p(j)
i must be positive or zero, otherwise the
σ (j) ( j−1) reduction of σ (j) should be stopped.

r(RD ) = σ r(RD ) + δσ r(RD ) (73) r(RD )
where, the superscript ( j) = the ( j)th step.

A constant negative increment of δσ r(RD ) is assumed for each Deriving the Ground Reaction Curve
step. For plating the part of the ground reaction curve corresponding to
For each σ (j)
r(RD ) , the corresponding tangential stress at the outer form 3 (between pi = preach and pi = ppass), σ (j)
r(RD ) is gradually
radius of the damaged plastic zone σ (j) θ(RD ) can be obtained using (j)
the failure criterion [Eq. (8)] as r(Rp ) , and for each σ r(RD ) the tunnel conver-
decreased starting from σ reach
(j) gence u(j) (j) (j)
r(ri ) = ri εθ(ri ) and the tunnel internal pressure pi are ob-
2Cg(i=1) cos ϕ(j)
g(i=1) 1 + sin ϕ(j)
g(i=1)
σ (j)
θ(RD ) = + σ (j)
r(RD ) (74) tained using the solution proposed for this form.
1 − sin ϕ(j)
g(i=1) 1 − sin ϕ(j)
g(i=1) In this manner, the values of γ p( j) and εθ(Rp(j)
D)
p(j)
and εr(R D)
obtained
in each step are used in the next step.

In this regard, considering a sufficiently small value for δσ r(RD ) , This procedure will be continued until p(j) i reaches the final sup-
the values of ϕ(j) (j)
g(i=1) and Cg(i=1) at the outer radius of the damaged port pressure or ppass. For pi lower than ppass, the analyses should be
plastic rock mass can be obtained using γ p( j−1) [calculated in the continued considering form 4. Finally, the ground reaction curve will
previous step ( j−1)]. be platted using the pairs of the calculated values of pi and ur(ri ) .
Considering the compatibility and equilibrium conditions, total
tangential strain at the outer radius of the damaged plastic zone can
be obtained from Eq. (52) as (which is equal to that for the undam- Calculation of ppass
aged side): The solution for form 3 is valid for pi equal and greater than ppass.
1 + ν0 At pi = ppass, the rock mass consists of an undamaged elastic zone
ε(j)
θ(RD ) = (σ 0 − σ (j)
r(RD ) ) (75)
E0 and a damaged plastic zone.
When radial stress at the plastic radius σ (j) pass
r(RD ) reaches σ r(RD ) (or
Elastic strains εe(j) e(j)
θ(RD ) and εr(RD ) at the outer radius of the damaged (j)
pi reaches ppass), the undamaged rock mass is at its peak strength
plastic zone can be obtained from Hook’s law([i.e., Eqs. (3) and (4) and the plastic zone starts to grow.
by using the parameters of the damaged rock mass ED and νD). Conclusively, combination of Eq. (55) and Mohr–Coulomb fail-
The plastic tangential strain at the plastic radius can be obtained ure criterion (8) gives the following equation for σ passr(Rp ) :
from Eq. (12) as
2σ 0 − σ cp
p(j)
εθ(R = ε(j) e(j)
θ(RD ) − εθ(RD ) (76) σ pass
r(Rp ) = (81)
D) kϕp + 1
The corresponding plastic radial strain may be calculated by where
approximating the differential Eq. (14) as
1 + sin ϕp 2Cp cos ϕp
p(j)
εr(R (j)
= −KΨ(i=1) p(j)
(εθ(R p( j−1)
− εθ(R p( j−1)
) + εr(R (77) kϕp = , σ cp = (82)
D) p) p) p) 1 − sin ϕp 1 − sin ϕp
Considering a sufficiently small value for δσ r(RD ) , the values of Here, as a suggestion the increment δσ r(Rp ) can be taken as
(j)
KΨ(i=1) at the plastic radius (on the damaged or plastic side) can be
p( j−1)
obtained using γ p( j−1) (calculated in the previous step), and εθ(R σ pass
r(Rp ) − σ r(Rp )
reach
p( j−1) D) δσ r(RD ) = (83)

and εr(RD ) are obtained in the previous step. n
The corresponding total radial strain is calculated using where n is a sufficiently large natural number.
Eq. (41): For obtaining ppass, the analyses proposed for form 3 should be
ε(j) p(j) e(j) carried out in a stepwise manner considering n steps from
r(RD ) = εr(RD ) + εr(RD ) (78)
p(i j=1) = preach , to p(i j=n) = ppass . It should be noted that the calcu-
On the other hand, based on Eq. (41), ε′(j)
θ(RD ) at the plastic radius lated ppass must be positive or zero, otherwise form 4 is impossible.
can be obtained as
ε′(j) (j) (j)
θ(RD ) = εr(RD ) − εθ(RD ) (79) Analyses for Form 4
Finally, In form 4 of the problem, the extent of plastic zone Rp is considered
p(j) p(j) p(j)
γ (R D)
= εθ(R D)
− εr(R D)
(80) as the state variable. As shown in Fig. 1(d), the rock mass consists
of an undamaged elastic zone and a compound plastic zone (which
After obtaining the stresses and strains at the external boundary itself consists of damaged and undamaged portions), while stresses
of the plastic zone (i.e., at ρ(j) (j)
(i=1) = 1 or r(i=1) = Rp = RD ), for each
at the plastic radius remain constant (σ (j) pass
r(Rp ) = σ r(Rp ) ).
At the damage radius, the radial stress and total tangential strain
σ (j)
r(RD ) a finite difference procedure is carried out in terms of normal- are continuous (because of equilibrium and compatibility condi-
ized radius ρ(j) (j)
(i) = (r(i) /Rp ) to calculate stresses and strains within the tions), while the total radial strain and tangential stress is discontin-
plastic region (as presented for thick-walled plastic cylinder). uous (have different values on damaged and undamaged sides of
In this condition, the radius of the plastic zone is known, a priori, the interface).
(j)
Rp = RD; thus, r(i) for each ρ(j) (j) (j) (j)
(i) = r(i) /RD can be obtained (r(i) = ρ(i) RD ).
In addition, similar to the form 3, the plastic strains and shear
plastic strain at the outer radius of the damaged zone have nonzero
Computation of stresses σ r(i) and σ θ(i) and strains εr(i) and ε(j)
(j) (j) (j)
θ(i) is
(j) (j) values, and it is essential to define these values (plasticity evolu-
carried out until ρ(i) reaches ρ(n) = (ri /RD ). For the current value of tion) for each pi. Thus, here a stepwise procedure is used to obtain
σ (j) (j) (j)
r(RD ) , the internal pressure is derived as: pi = σ r(i=n) . It should be these boundary conditions at the damage radius. As mentioned, the
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

plastic radius Rp is considered as the state variable. In this manner, evolution) for each pi. Thus, here the mentioned stepwise procedure
Rp is increased monotonically from RD (which corresponds is also used to obtain these boundary conditions. Considering the
decreasing in pi) and the analyses for the plastic rock region are equilibrium and compatibility conditions, radial stress, and tangen-
carried out: tial strain σ (j) (j)
r(RD ) and εθ(RD ) are a priori known at the damage radius.
These values have been obtained for the undamaged zone at ρ(j) (m) .
p = Rp
R(j) + δRp
( j−1)
(84) The calculations are continued in the same manner as form 3. In
this manner, σ (j) e(j) e(j) p(j) p(j) (j) p(j)
θ(RD ) , εθ(RD ) , εr(RD ) , εθ(RD ) , εr(RD ) , εr(RD ) , and γ (RD ) are
A constant and sufficiently small increment of δRp is assumed
calculated from Eqs. (3), (4), (74), (75), (77), (78), and (80),
for each step.
respectively.
′(j)
On the other hand, based on Eq. (31), εθ(R D)
at the outer radius of
Elastic Zone (Undamaged Zone) the damaged zone can be obtained as
For analyzing the elastic undamaged zone, Eqs. (51)–(55) can be ε(j) (j)
r(RD ) − εθ(RD )
used. ε′(j)
θ(RD ) = (87)
RD /Rp
After obtaining stresses and strains at the outer radius of the
Plastic Zone (Including Damaged and Undamaged damaged plastic zone (i.e., at ρ(j) (j)
(m) = (RD /Rp ) or r(i=m) = RD ) for
(j)
Portions)
each Rp , a finite difference procedure is carried out in terms of nor-
(j)
Undamaged Portion of the Plastic Zone and Boundary
malized radius ρ(j) (j)
(i) = (r(i) /Rp ) to calculate stresses and strains
(j)
Conditions at the Plastic Radius
The undamaged elastic zone and the undamaged plastic zone interact within the damaged plastic region (as presented for thick-walled
with each other at the plastic radius Rp, where the radial boundary plastic cylinder). In this condition, the radius of the plastic zone
(j)
pressure σ (j) R(j) is a known variable at each step; thus, r(i) for each
r(Rp ) is applied. As mentioned, in form 4, radial and tangen- p
tial stresses at the plastic radius remain constant (σ (j) pass
r(Rp ) = σ r(Rp ) ). ρ(j) (j) (j) (j) (j)
(i) = r(i) /Rp can be obtained from (r(i) = ρ(i) Rp ).
(j)
(j) (j)
Obtaining σ r(Rp ) , the corresponding value of σ θ(Rp ) can be ob-
Computation of stresses σ r(i) and σ θ(i) and strains ε(j)
(j) (j) (j)
r(i) and εθ(i) , is
tained by using Eq. (55) or peak failure criterion for the undamaged
rock mass: carried out until ρ(j) (j)
(i) reaches ρ(i=n) = (ri /Rp ). For the current value
(j)
(j) (j)
p , the internal pressure is derived as: pi = σ r(i=n) . It should be
of R(j)
σ (j)
θ(Rp ) = σ cp + kϕp σ (j) (85)
r(Rp )
noted that the calculated p(j)
i must be positive or zero, otherwise en-
where hancement of R(j)p should be stopped.
1 + sin ϕp 2Cp cos ϕp
kϕp = , σ cp = (86) Deriving the Ground Reaction Curve
1 − sin ϕp 1 − sin ϕp
For plating the part of the ground reaction curve corresponding to
In this regard, total strains εθ and εr at the plastic radius that are
form 4 (for pi smaller than ppass), R(j) p is gradually increased starting
equal to the elastic strains εeθ and εer , respectively, can be obtained
from RD, and for each R(j) p , the analysis is carried out to obtain the
from Eqs. (52) and (53) or Hook’s law [i.e., Eqs. (3) and (4)] by
tunnel convergence u(j) (j) (j)
r(ri ) = ri εθ(ri ) and internal tunnel pressure pi .
applying the parameters of the undamaged rock mass E0 and ν0, p(j) p(j)
In this manner, the values of γ and εθ(Rp ) and εr(Rp ) obtained in
p(j)
while, plastic strains εpθ and εer are equal to zero. On the other
each step are used in the next step.
hand, ε′θ(Rp ) at the plastic radius can be obtained from Eq. (41).
This procedure is continued until p(j) i reaches the final support
As explained, in the plastic zone, a finite difference approxima-
pressure (for an unlined tunnel is equal to zero). Finally, the ground
tion is used in terms of normalized radius ρ(i) = (r(i)/Rp). First,
reaction curve will be platted using the pairs of the calculated
boundary stresses and strains at the plastic boundary (i.e., at
values of pi and ur(ri ) .
ρ(i=1) = 1 or r(i=1) = Rp) are calculated from the previous equations.
Afterward, the successive stresses and strains in the plastic zone are
calculated using the equations presented for thick-walled plastic
cylinder. Analysis Procedure for Each pi
Computing stresses σ (j) (j) (j) (j)
r(i) and σ θ(i) and strains εr(i) and εθ(i) , in the
undamaged portion of the plastic zone, will be continued until ρ(j) (i)
The analyses for each form of the problem are different and are per-
reaches ρ(j)
(m) = (RD /Rp ).
(j) formed based on the formulations presented for forms 1–4. In this
Then, considering equilibrium and compatibility conditions, ra- regard, the flow chart for selecting the correct form of the problem
dial stress, and tangential strain at the plastic radius (both sides) are is shown in Fig. 6. For deriving the ground reaction curve, pi is
equal to the final calculated values at ρ(j) (m) .
gradually lessened from σ0, and for each pi, the tunnel convergence
ur(ri ) is determined using a correct form of the problem based on the
Damaged Portion of the Plastic Zone and External Boundary flow chart presented in Fig. 6. This process will be continued until
Conditions at the Damage Radius pi reaches the final support pressure.
At the damage radius, the radial stress and total tangential strain are
continuous (because of equilibrium and compatibility conditions),
while the total radial strain and tangential stress is discontinuous Application
(have different values on damaged and undamaged sides of the
interface). As mentioned previously, the Hoek–Brown or Saiang’s method can
In addition, similar to the form 3, the plastic strains and shear be used for estimating the parameters of the damaged and undam-
plastic strain in the damaged zone at the damage radius have non- aged rock masses. It should be noted that, according to the guide-
zero values, and it is essential to define these values (plasticity lines of Hoek and Brown (2019), the most critical condition that
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Fig. 6. Flow chart for selecting the correct form of the problem.
Table 1. Used data set Saiang (2008). This parameters have been obtained via PFC model-
ling for a rock mass with a moderate blasting damage and are the
Parameters Unit Value
only practical laboratory-based data set available in the literature.
ri m 6 The other reason for using PFC2D is the difficulty of determin-
σ0 MPa 27 ing the exact strength parameters for the hard rock masses utilizing
Cp MPa 5.8 the H-B empirical equations (Saiang 2008; Carter et al. 2007;
Cr MPa 0.6
Diederich et al. 2007). In addition, there is currently no available
CpD MPa 3.1
CrD MPa 0.4
systematic methodology for defining residual H-B parameters for
ϕp ° 32 the damaged rock mass.
ϕr ° 35 The width of the damage zone can be estimated using theoretical
ϕpD ° 31 models or using the field measurements. However, there is a high
ϕrD ° 38 level of uncertainty in defining the extent of the damage zone.
E0 MPa 18,000 In this regard, for examining the influence of damage zone extent,
ED MPa 12,000 the analyses are performed for two cases of damaged zone
Ψp ° 9 thickness (0.5 and 2.0 m, corresponding to RD = 6.5 m and
Ψr ° 9 RD = 8 m). In addition, the influence of strain-softening model
ΨpD ° 7
in the damaged and undamaged zones on the results is
ΨrD ° 7
ν0 — 0.25
investigated by considering different values for γ p* and γ Dp* (1).
νD — 0.25 γ p* = 0, γ Dp* = 0, corresponding to the elastic–brittle–plastic
behavior model for both zones (2). γ p* = 0, γ Dp* = 0.02
(3). γ p* = 0.02, γ Dp* = 0 (4). γ p* = 0.02, γ Dp* = 0.02 (5).
may be encountered in tunnel excavation practice is as follows: poor γ p* = ∞, γ Dp* = ∞ corresponding to the perfectly plastic behavior
control of drilling alignment, charge design, and detonation sequenc- model for both zones.
ing leads to very poor blasting in a hard rock tunnel with severe dam- The distribution of radial and tangential stresses and displace-
age, extending 2 or 3 m, in the surrounding rock mass. In this case, ments in the rock mass surrounding the tunnel under limiting val-
the damage factor in the damaged zone reaches to D = 1.0. ues of pi (including pi = pcr, pi = preach, and pi = ppass) are plotted in
To examine the performance of the proposed method and Figs. 7–9. The results are obtained for different critical shear plastic
investigate the BIDZ with reduced strength and deformability strains for the damaged zone, including γ Dp* = 0, corresponding to
parameters and strain softening behavior within the plastic region, the brittle–plastic behavior model; γ Dp* = 0.02, corresponding to
the analyses are carried out utilizing the data set presented in the strain-softening behavior model; and γ Dp* = ∞, corresponding
Table 1. to the perfectly–plastic behavior model. It is clear that γ p* has no
In this table, the rock mass strength and deformability parameters effect on these results. As observed for RD = 6.5 m in pi larger
for the damaged and undamaged rock masses have been taken from than pcr = 8.699 MPa, form 1 should be taken into account and
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

(a)
(a)
(b) (b)
(c)
(c)
Fig. 8. Radial and tangential stresses and radial displacements for lim-
Fig. 7. Radial and tangential stresses and radial displacements for limiting values of pi for γ Dp* = 0.02, corresponding to the strain-softening
iting values of pi for γ Dp* = 0, corresponding to the brittle–plastic behav- behavior model: (a) radial stress; (b) tangential stress; and (c) radial
ior model: (a) radial stress; (b) tangential stress; and (c) radial displacement.
displacement.
preach = 6.317 MPa, then form 2 should be taken into account and
for RD = 8 m in pi larger than pcr = 9.244 MPa form 1 should be for RD = 8 m in pi between pcr = 8.699 MPa and preach =
taken into. If γ Dp* = 0, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi between pcr = 2.408 MPa form 2 should be taken into account. If γ Dp* = ∞, for
8.699 MPa and preach = 6.413 MPa, then form 2 should be taken RD = 6.5 m, in pi between pcr = 8.699 MPa and preach =
into account and for RD = 8 m in pi between pcr = 8.699 MPa and 6.311 MPa form 2 should be taken into account and for RD = 8 m
preach = 6.413 MPa form 2 should be taken into account. If in pi between pcr = 8.699 MPa and preach = 2.222 MPa form 2
γ Dp* = 0.02, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi between pcr = 8.699 MPa and should be taken into account.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

preach = 2.408 MPa and ppass = 2.087 MPa, form 3 should be
taken into account. If γ Dp* = ∞, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi between
preach = 6.311 MPa and ppass = 5.753 MPa, form 3 should be
taken into account and for RD = 8 m, in pi between
preach = 2.222 MPa and ppass = 1.863 MPa, form 3 should be taken
into account.
If γ Dp* = 0, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi lower than ppass = 5.901 MPa,
form 4 should be taken into account and for RD = 8 m in pi lower
than ppass = 2.786 MPa, form 4 should be taken into account. If
γ Dp* = 0.02, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi lower than ppass = 5.764 MPa,
than ppass = 2.087 MPa, form 4 should be taken into account. If
γ Dp* = ∞, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi lower than ppass = 5.753 MPa,

than ppass = 1.863 MPa, form 4 should be taken into account. As
expected, pcr is independent of γ Dp* , while preach and ppass decrease
with increasing γ Dp* and RD. It must be noted that the difference be-
tween preach and ppass (which in this example is small) increase with
(a) increasing the amount of difference between the strengths of dam-
aged and undamaged rock masses.
As mentioned before, an exact elastic–brittle–plastic solution
for the problem can be found in Zareifard and Fahimifar (2016),
so a comparison between both the proposed and exact solutions
is made.
In this manner, Fig. 10 shows the radial and tangential stress and
radial displacement distributions in different forms (forms 1–4) ob-
tained by both solutions for RD = 8 m and γ p* = γ Dp* = 0 corre-
sponding to a brittle–plastic behavior model. As this figure
indicates, the results obtained by the strain-softening solution are
so close to the exact ones and the curves are nearly overlapped,
which confirms the validity of the proposed method. In Fig. 11,
the results for strain-softening case (γ p* = γ Dp* = 0.02) are
represented.
In Fig. 11, the results for strain-softening behavior
(b)
(γ p* = γ Dp* = 0.02) for RD = 8 m are shown. The results show that
considering the strain-softening behavior leads to different results.
In this figure, the results for RD = 6 m and pi = 0; have also been
represented. In these cases, the rock masses are entirely undamaged
and the limiting internal pressures of pcr = preach = 8.44 MPa and
ppass = 7.77 MPa are obtained using the proposed solution. The re-
sults obtained by the method proposed by Alonso et al. (2013)
(without considering the damaged rock mass for pi = 0) have also
been plotted in this figure, which show a very proper agreement
with the proposed solution.
The applicability of the proposed finite difference procedure in
strain-softening Mohr–Coulomb rock masses can be verified by de-
riving the ground reaction curve for a circular tunnel excavated in a
strain-softening rock.
(c) In Figs. 12 and 13, the ground reaction curves and extent of
plastic zone with internal pressure are shown for RD = 6.5 m and
Fig. 9. Radial and tangential stresses and radial displacements for lim- RD = 8 m, respectively. The results have been obtained for different
iting values of pi for γ Dp* = ∞, corresponding to the perfectly plastic be- γ p* and γ Dp* . As observed, the plastic radius Rp and the tunnel con-
havior model: (a) radial stress; (b) tangential stress; and (c) radial vergence are the largest when the behavior is brittle–plastic, and de-
displacement. crease with increasing γ p* and γ Dp* . On the other hand, comparing
the results show that, by increasing γ p* and γ Dp* , the effect of the
damaged zone increases.
It is observed that the extent and severity of the damage in the
If γ Dp* = 0, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi between preach = 6.413 MPa rock mass has considerable influence on the convergence and the
and ppass = 5.901 MPa form 3 should be taken into account and for stresses in the rock mass. These results have been obtained for a
RD = 8 m in pi between preach = 6.413 MPa and ppass = 2.786 MPa, rock mass with a moderate blast damage. However, in the case
form 3 should be taken into account. If γ Dp* = 0.02, for RD = of severe blast damage resulted from poor blasting, it is expected
6.5 m, in pi between preach = 6.317 MPa and ppass = 5.764 MPa, that the damage rock significantly influences the stability of
form 3 should be taken into account and for RD = 8 m in pi between tunnels.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 10. Radial and tangential stresses and radial displacements in different forms for γ p* = γ Dp* = 0 (brittle–plastic behavior model): (a) radial stress;
(b) tangential stress; and (c) radial displacement.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 11. Radial and tangential stresses and radial displacements in different forms for γ p* = γ Dp* = 0.02 (strain-softening behavior model): (a) radial
stress; (b) tangential stress; and (c) radial displacement.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Conclusions
In this study, an analytical–numerical method that is able to address

the difficulties and problems in elastoplastic analysis of circular
tunnels in generalized H-B rock masses is presented. This method
is used derive the ground reaction curve for a circular tunnel exca-
vated in elastic-strain softening rock masses compatible with the
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion has been presented by considering
a cylindrical BIDZ with reduced strength and deformability param-
eters. In this respect, four different forms of the problem have been
considered, depending on the extent of the damaged zone and the
plastic zone. Since the boundary conditions are not the same for dif-
(a) ferent forms, different parameters have been considered as state
variables for different forms. The analyses for the limiting condi-
tions have also been presented.
The accuracy and practical application of the proposed approach
have been shown based on the establishment of stress and displace-
ment variations and ground reaction curves for some illustrative ex-
amples. For brittle–plastic behavior, for which closed-form
solutions exist, the present method proved to be quite accurate in
predicting the stresses and displacements around the circular open-
ing. The results reveal that considering the strain-softening behav-
ior leads to different results with respect to the brittle–plastic case.
In this case, the results have been compared with a previous well-
known solution ignoring the damaged zone. For this condition, the
results show a very good agreement.
(b) The results show that the influence of a large damaged zone with
severely reduced strength parameters is significant on stresses and
Fig. 12. Influence of rock-mass behavior model (γ p* and γ Dp* ) on
displacements around the tunnel and its stability performance.
ground reaction of tunnel: (a) RD = 6.5 m; and (b) RD = 8.0 m.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the

study are available from the corresponding author by request (list
items):
1. Fortran programs for different forms.
2. Excel results files.
References
Alonso, E., L. R. Alejano, F. Varas, G. Fdez-Manin, and C.

Carranza-Torres. 2003. “Ground response curves for rock masses ex-
hibiting strain-softening behavior.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 27 (13): 1153–1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.315.
(a) Backblom, G., and C. D. Martin. 1999. “Recent experiments in hard rocks
to study the excavation response: Implications for the performance of a
nuclear waste geological repository.” Tunnelling Underground Space
Technol. 14 (3): 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(99)
00053-X.
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1976. “Rock mass classification in rock engineering.” In
Vol. 1 of Proc., Symp. Exploration for Rock Engineering, edited by
Z. T. Bieniawski, 97–106. Cape Town, South Africa: Balkema.
Brown, E. T., J. W. Bray, B. Ladanyi, and E. Hoek. 1983. “Ground
response curves for rock tunnels.” J. Geotech. Eng. 109 (1): 15–39.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:1(15).
Cai, M., P. K. Kaiser, Y. Tasaka, and M. Minamic. 2007. “Determination of
residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses using the GSI sys-
tem.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44 (2): 247–265. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.07.005.
(b) Carlson, S. R., and R. P. Young. 1993. “Acoustic emission and ultrasonic
velocity study of excavation-induced microcrack damage at the
Fig. 13. Influence of rock-mass behavior model (γ p* and γ Dp* ) on extent underground research laboratory.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 30 (7): 901–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148
of plastic zone: (a) RD = 6.5 m; and (b) RD = 8.0 m.
-9062(93)90042-C.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Carranza-Torres, C. 2004. “Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using Kruschwitz, S., and U. Yaramanci. 2004. “Detection and characterization
the generalized form of the Hoek–Brown failure criterion.” Int. J. Rock of the disturbed rock zone in claystone with the complex resistivity
Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (3): 480–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003 method.” J. Appl. Geophys. 57 (1): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.12.014. .jappgeo.2004.09.003.
Carranza-Torres, C., and C. Fairhurst. 1999. “The elasto-plastic response Langefors, U., and B. Kihlstrom. 1963. The modern techniques of rock
of underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the hoek– blasting. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
brown failure criterion.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36 (6): 777–809. Lee, Y. K., and S. Pietruszczak. 2008. “A new numerical procedure for
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(99)00047-9. elasto-plastic analysis of a circular opening excavated in a strain-
Carter, T. G., M. S. Diederichs, and J. L. Carvalho. 2007. “A unified pro- softening rock mass.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol.
cedure for Hoek-Brown prediction of strength and post yield behaviour 23 (5): 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.11.002.
for rock masses at extreme ends of the competency scale.” In Vol. 1 of McKown, A. F. 1986. “Perimeter control blasting for underground excava-
Proc., 11th Congress of the Int. Society of Rock Mechanics: The Second tions in fractured and weathered rock.” Environ. Eng. Geosci. 23 (4):
Half Century of Rock Mechanics, edited by L. Ribeiro e Sousa, C. 461–478. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xxiii.4.461.
Olalla, and N. Grossman, 161–167. London: Taylor & Francis. Murthy, V. M. S. R., and K. Dey. 2003. “Predicting overbreak from blast
Dey, K., and V. M. S. R. Murthy. 2011. “Determining blast damage enve- vibration monitoring in a Lake Tap Tunnel? A success story.” Fragblast
lope through vibration model and validation using seismic imaging.” 7 (3): 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.7.3.149.16787.
Min. Technol. 120 (2): 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743286311Y Nyberg, U., and S. Fjellborg. 2002. “Controlled drifting and estimating
.0000000004. blast damage.” In Proc., 1st World Conf. on Explosives and Blasting
Diederich, M. S., J. L. Carvalho, and T. G. Carter. 2007. “A modified ap- Technique, edited by R. Holmberg, 207–216. Rotterdam,
proach for prediction of strength and post yield behaviour for high GSI Netherlands: Balkema.
rock masses in strong, brittle ground.” In Vol. 1 of Rock mechanics: Oriad, L. L. 1982. “Blasting effect and their control.” In Underground min-
Meeting society’s challenges and demands, edited by E. Eberhardt, ing methods handbook, edited by W. Hustrulid, 1590–1603. New York:
D. Stead, T. Morrison, 249–257. London: Taylor & Francis. Society of Mining Engineers of AIME.
Egger, P. 2000. “Design and construction aspects of deep tunnels (with partic- Ouchterlony, F., M. Olsson, and I. Bergqvist. 2002. “Towards new
ular emphasis on strain softening rocks).” Tunnelling Underground Space Swedish recommendations for cautious perimeter blasting.” Fragblast
Technol. 15 (4): 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00008-6. 6 (2): 235–261.
Fahimifar, A., and M. R. Zareifard. 2009. “A theoretical solution for anal- Park, K.-H., and Y.-J. Kim. 2006. “Analytical solution for a circular open-
ysis of tunnels below groundwater considering the hydraulic–mechan- ing in, an elasto-brittle-plastic rock.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (4):
ical coupling.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 24 (26): 634– 616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.11.004.
646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2009.06.002. Park, K. H., B. Tontavanich, and J. G. Lee. 2008. “A simple procedure for
Feng, X.-T., Z. Zhang, and Q. Sheng. 2000. “Estimating mechanical rock ground response curve of circular tunnel in elastic-strain softening rock
mass parameters relating to the three gorges project permanent shiplock masses.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 23 (2): 151–159.
using an intelligent displacement back analysis method.” Int. J. Rock https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.03.002.
Mech. Min. Sci. 37 (7): 1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365 Pettitt, S., C. Baker, R. P. Young, L. O. Dahlström, and G. Ramqvist. 2002.
-1609(00)00035-6. “The assessment of damage around critical engineering structures using
Fu, H., L. N. Y. Wong, Y. Zhao, Z. Shen, C. Zhang, and Y. Li. 2014. induced seismicity and ultrasonic techniques.” Pure Appl. Geophys.
“Comparison of excavation damage zones resulting from blasting 159 (1): 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00001250.
with NONEL detonators and blasting with electronic detonators.” Raina, A. K., A. K. Chakraborty, M. Ramulu, and J. L. Jethwa. 2000.
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 47 (2): 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1007 “Rock mass damage from underground blasting, a literature review,
/s00603-013-0419-2. and lab- and full scale tests to estimate crack depth by ultrasonic
Guan, Z., Y. Jiang, and Y. Tanabasi. 2007. “Ground reaction analyses in method.” Fragblast 4 (2): 103–125.
conventional tunneling excavation.” Tunnelling Underground Space Ramulu, M., A. K. Chakraborty, and T. G. Sitharam. 2009. “Damage as-
Technol. 22 (2): 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2006.06.004. sessment of basaltic rock mass due to repeated blasting.” Tunnelling
Hill, R. 1950. The mathematical theory of plasticity. New York: Oxford Underground Space Technol. 24 (2): 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1016
University Press. /j.tust.2008.08.002.
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. 1997. “Practical estimates of rock mass Read, H. E., and G. A. Hegemeier. 1984. “Strain softening of rock, soil and
strength.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (8): 1165–1186. https://doi concrete—A review article.” Mech. Mater. 3 (4): 271–294. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X. .org/10.1016/0167-6636(84)90028-0.
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. 2019. “The Hoek–Brown failure criterion Saiang, D. 2004. “Damaged rock zone around excavation boundaries and its
and GSI-2018 edition.” J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 11 (3): 445– interaction with shotcrete.” Licentiate thesis, Dept. of Civil and Mining
463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.001. Engineering, Division of Rock Mechanics, Luleå Univ. of Technology.
Hoek, E., C. T. Carranza-Torres, and B. Corkum. 2002. “Hoek–Brown fail- Saiang, D. 2008. “Determination of specific failure envelope via PFC and
ure criterion—2002 edition.” In Proc., 5th North American Rock its subsequent application using FLAC.” In Proc., 1st Int. FLAC/
Mechanics Symp. and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conf., DEM Symp. in Numerical Modeling. Minneapolis, Minnesota:
267–273. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Itasca Consulting Group.
Hoek, E., and M. S. Diederichs. 2006. “Empirical estimation of rock mass Saiang, D., and E. Nordlund. 2009. “Numerical analyses of the influence of
modulus.” Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 43: 203–215. blast-induced damaged rock around shallow tunnels in brittle rock.”
Holmberg, R., and P. A. Persson. 1979. “Design of tunnel perimeter blast- Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 42 (3): 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1007
hole patterns to prevent rock damage.” In Proc. Second Int. Symp. /s00603-008-0013-1.
Tunnelling ’79, edited by M. J. Jones, 280–283. London: Institution Sato, T., T. Kikuchi, and K. Sugihara. 2000. “In-situ experiments on an ex-
of Mining and Metallurgy. cavation disturbed zone induced by mechanical excavation in Neogene
Hudson, J. A., E. T. Brown, and C. Fairhurst. 1971. “Shape of the complete sedimentary rock at Tono mine, central Japan.” Eng. Geol. 56 (1–2):
stress–strain curve for rock.” In Proc., 13th Symp. on Rock Mechanics, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(99)00136-2.
773–795. Reston, Virginia: ASCE. Scoble, M., Y. Lizotte, M. Paventi, and B. B. Mohanty. 1997.
Kaliszky, S. 1989. Plasticity: Theory and engineering applications. “Measurement of blast damage.” Min. Eng. J. 49: 103–108.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Sharan, S. K. 2003. “Elastic–brittle–plastic analysis of circular openings in
Kimura, T., T. Esaki, N. Kameda, and T. Nishida. 2002. “Experimental and Hoek–Brown media.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40 (6): 817–824.
theoretical studies on strain softening behaviour of rocks.” In Proc., https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00040-6.
28th US Symp. on Rock Mechanics, 197–202. Boca Raton, Florida: Sharan, S. K. 2005. “Exact and approximate solutions for displacements
CRC Press. around circular openings in elastic–brittle–plastic Hoek–Brown rock.”
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 42 (4): 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Xiao, Y., H. Liu, Y. Chen, and J. Jiang. 2014a. “Bounding surface model
.ijrmms.2005.03.019. for rockfill materials dependent on density and pressure under triaxial
Singh, S. P. 1993. “Prediction and determination of explosive induced stress conditions.” J. Eng. Mech. 140 (4): 04014002. https://doi.org
damage.” In Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by /10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000702.
Blasting, 183–192. UK: Balkema. Xiao, Y., H. Liu, Y. Chen, and J. Jiang. 2014b. “Bounding surface plastic-
Singh, S. P., and P. Xavier. 2005. “Causes, impact and control of overbreak ity model incorporating the state pressure index for rockfill materials.”
in underground excavations.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. J. Eng. Mech. 140 (11): 04014087. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM
20 (1): 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2004.05.004. .1943-7889.0000802.
Sture, S., and H. Y. Ko. 1978. “Strain-softening of brittle geologic materi- Xie, L. X., W. B. Lu, Q. B. Zhang, Q. H. Jiang, and J. Zhao. 2016.
als.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2 (3): 237–253. https://doi “Damage evolution mechanisms of rock in deep tunnels induced by
.org/10.1002/nag.1610020305. cut blasting.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 58: 257–270.
Tang, B., and H. S. Mitri. 2001. “Numerical modelling of rock precondi- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.06.004.
tioning by destress blasting.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 5 (2): 57–67. Yang, J. H., Q. H. Jiang, Q. B. Zhang, and J. Zhao. 2018. “Dynamic stress
https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2001.5.2.57. adjustment and rock damage during blasting excavation in a deep-
Timoshenko, S. P., and J. N. Goodier. 1982. Theory of elasticity. buried circular tunnel.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 71:
New York: McGraw-Hill. 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.10.010.
Varas, F., E. Alonso, L. Alejano, and G. Fdez-Manin. 2005. “Study of bi- Yang, R. L., P. Rocque, P. Katsabanis, and W. F. Bawden. 1993. “Blast
furcation in the problem of unloading a circular excavation in a strain- damage study by measurement of blast vibration and damage in the
softening material.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 20 (4): area adjacent to blast hole.” In Rock fragmentation by blasting, edited
311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2004.12.003. by H. P. Rossmanith, 137–144. Rotterdam, Netherland: Balkema.
Verma, H. K., N. K. Samadhiya, M. Singh, R. K. Goel, and P. K. Singh. Zareifard, M. R. 2019. “Ground reaction curve of deep circular tunnel in
2018. “Blast induced rock mass damage around tunnels.” Tunnelling rock mass exhibiting Hoek–Brown strain-softening behaviour consider-
Underground Space Technol. 71: 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j ing the dead weight loading.” Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 1–31. https://
.tust.2017.08.019. doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1632745.
Xia, K. Z., C. Chen, X. Liu, Y. Zheng, and Y. Zhou. 2013. “Estimation of Zareifard, M. R., and A. Fahimifar. 2014. “Effect of seepage forces on cir-
rock mass mechanical parameters based on ultrasonic velocity of rock cular openings excavated in hoek–brown rock mass based on a gener-
mass and Hoek-Brown criterion and its application to engineering.” alised effective stress principle.” Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 18 (5):
Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 32 (7): 1458–1466. 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.891470.
Xiao, Y., and C. S. Desai. 2019a. “Constitutive modeling for overconsoli- Zareifard, M. R., and A. Fahimifar. 2015. “Elastic–brittle–plastic analysis
dated clays based on disturbed state concept. I: Theory.” of circular deep underwater cavities in a Mohr-Coulomb rock mass con-
Int. J. Geomech. 19 (9): 04019101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) sidering seepage forces.” Int. J. Geomech. 15 (5): 04014077. https://doi
GM.1943-5622.0001474. .org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000400.
Xiao, Y., and C. S. Desai. 2019b. “Constitutive modeling for overconsoli- Zareifard, M. R., and A. Fahimifar. 2016. “Analytical solutions for the
dated clays based on disturbed state concept. II: Validation.” stresses and deformations of deep tunnels in an elastic-brittle-plastic
Int. J. Geomech. 19 (9): 04019102. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) rock mass considering the damaged zone.” Tunnelling Underground
GM.1943-5622.0001475. Space Technol. 58: 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.05.007.
Xiao, Y., and H. Liu. 2017. “Elastoplastic constitutive model for rockfill Zhang, Y., Y. Ding, S. Huang, Y. Qin, P. Li, and Y. Li. 2018. “Field mea-
materials considering particle breakage.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (1): surement and numerical simulation of excavation damaged zone in a
04016041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000681. 2000m-deep cavern.” Geomech. Eng. 16 (4): 399–413.
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

(Asce) GM 1943-5622 000182

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Asce) GM 1943-5622 000182

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Asce) GM 1943-5622 000182

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ground Reaction Curve for Deep Circular Tunnels

in Strain-Softening Mohr–Coulomb Rock Masses

Introduction Here, it should be noted that, theoretically, in elastoplastic rock

© ASCE 04020190-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

from one form to another.

© ASCE 04020190-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

be noted that the induced displacement is deﬁned by the radial dis-

© ASCE 04020190-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

ra2 rb2 ized radius ρ = (r/Rp) as

© ASCE 04020190-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

For the internal damaged zone:

© ASCE 04020190-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

Analyses for Form 2 R2D (R2D + R2p )

© ASCE 04020190-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

σ (j) ( j−1) reduction of σ (j) should be stopped.

where, the superscript ( j) = the ( j)th step.

in each step are used in the next step.

p( j−1) D) δσ r(RD ) = (83)

© ASCE 04020190-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

γ Dp* = ∞, for RD = 6.5 m, in pi lower than ppass = 5.753 MPa,

© ASCE 04020190-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-16 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

In this study, an analytical–numerical method that is able to address

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the

Alonso, E., L. R. Alejano, F. Varas, G. Fdez-Manin, and C.

© ASCE 04020190-17 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-18 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

© ASCE 04020190-19 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(10): 04020190

You might also like