An assessment of safety factor for tunnels excavated in soils and jointed rock mass

K. H. You The University of Suwon Y. J. Park The University of Suwon G. J. Bae Korean Institute of Construction Technology C. Park Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources ABSTRACT: It is difficult to calculate factor of safety of a tunnel by applying any analytical method based upon limit equilibrium method since the shape of failure plane in tunnel analysis can hardly be assumed in advance. To cope with this shortcoming, a method is suggested to calculate safety factor of a tunnel by numerical analysis using strength reduction technique. Circular tunnels excavated in a homogeneous soil and jointed rock were selected for case studies and factors of safety were calculated for no support, partially supported, and fully supported cases respectively. Meshes with 3 different sizes were examined for a sensitivity analysis. For the verification of the proposed method, a limit equilibrium analysis was conducted and compared with the numerical analysis. The proposed method herein can be used to calculate factor of safety of a tunnel regardless of tunnel shape or geological condition, and thus can contribute for the improved design and stability assessment of tunnels. 1 INTRODUCTION The factor of safety is an important parameter in designing slopes. To compute a factor of safety of a slope, limit equilibrium methods such as method of slices are widely used. In this approach, possible failure planes are assumed and factors of safety are calculated for assumed failure planes. The unique factor of safety for a given slope is then determined as the smallest factor of safety. But depending upon the assumptions on inter-slice forces, factors of safety obtained are different, resulting in lack of credibility. With the recent developments in computers, numerical methods using FEM/FDM became a good alternative in calculating factor of safety of slopes(Zienkiewicz et al. 1975, Naylor 1982, Giam and Donald 1988, Matsui and San 1992, Ugai 1989, Kobayashi 1990, Ugai and Leshchinsky, 1995). In this approach, the failure plane is not assumed in advance. By employing strength reduction techniques, the factor of safety of a slope is calculated and the corresponding critical failure plane can be found automatically. If an elasticperfectly plastic model is used, and if an associated flow rule is used, the factor of safety obtained by the strength reduction technique is unique and the collapse load is independent of the elastic constants, the initial stress state, and the stress path followed (Dawson et al., 1999). The concept of the factor of safety can be applied in assessing the stability of tunnels. But for tunnels, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assume a failure plane in advance. In this study, a method is proposed to assess the factor of safety of a tunnel using FLAC, a proven finite difference code. For a simple case, numerical result was compared with limit equilibrium solution. Circular tunnels excavated in a homogeneous soil and jointed rock were selected for case studies and factors of safety were calculated for no support, partially supported, and fully supported cases respectively. Meshes with 3 different sizes were examined for a sensitivity analysis. The effect of invert on the stability of a tunnel was also studied.
tan

c r
3

R1

R2
(a ) 1

(c)

(b )

Figure 1. Calculation of factor of safety in numerical analysis

2 LOCAL FACTOR OF SAFETY In numerical analysis, the state of stresses in an element can be express ed by principal stresses as shown in Figure 1. In plane, this state of stress can be represented by Mohr's circle of stress having a radius of r represented by the semi-circle (a) in Figure 1. Failure occurs when this circle touches failure envelope. If failure is to occur, the maximum principal stress, 1 , has to increase until the semi-circle touches the envelope as in semicircle (b) (Itasca Consulting Group, 1999). Failure also occurs if the radius of the semi-circle increase with its center unchanged as in semi-circle (c). The ratios of the radii of the two semi-circles, R2/r and R1/r are equivalent to strength/stress ratio and often called as factor of safety of an element or local factor of safety. This is an effective way of defining the relative state of stress of an element and indicates how close an element is from its failure state. In assessing the stability of a tunnel, this can be used to find areas which need to be supported but does not represent the stability of the tunnel. 3 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRESS IN SHOTCRETE In numerical analysis, shotcrete is treated as a beam element and assumed either as elastic or elastoplastic material. If assumed as elastic material, the factor of safety obtained by the strength reduction technique is an over-estimation since it never fails. To solve this problem, the failure of shotcrete has to be assessed separately. In this study, the maximum allowable stress on the shotcrete was determined and tested whether the stress in the shotcrete surpasses this value.
M

In this equation, P is axial force, A is the sectional area(=bt), M is the flexural moment, y is the distance from the neutral axis and I is the 2nd moment of area(=bt 3/12). A s c a n b e s e e n i n Figure 2, the maximum compress ive stress( c ) and the maximum tensile stress ( t ) occurs at the top and bottom surface respectively where y = t/2. If the design strength is ck , the maximum allowable flexural compress ive stress( cy ) and the maximum allowable flexural tensile stress ( ty ) can be calculated as follows (MOCT, 1999);
cy = 0 .4 ck ty = 0.132 ck (Mpa )

(2)

When the design strength is 21 MPa, the allowable flexural compressive stress is 8.4 MPa and the allowable flexural tensile stress is 0.6 MPa. If the stress in a structural element exceeds these values, the particular element is regarded as failed.
29m

5m

c = 10,000 Pa = 30 o = 2,600 kg / m3 E = 6. 9Gpa = 0. 25

60m 100m

Figure 3. Model configuration and material properties 4 APPLICATION TO TUNNELS EXCAVATED IN SOIL In this study, FLAC, an FDM based commercial program, was employed. FLAC has a built in programming language called 'FISH' with which a routine to calculate the factor of safety is written. An analysis was conducted on the section depicted in Figure 3. The tunnel section is circular with radius of 5m. Horizontal displacement is fixed at both left and right boundaries and vertical displacement is fixed at the bottom boundary. The ground condition is assumed as homogeneous soil and mechanical properties listed in Figure 3 is used in the analysis. The horizontal component of the initial stress is assumed as the same as vertical stress.

P y b

Figure 2. Stress distribution in a structural member Figure 2 shows stress distribution in a structural element with rectangular section of width b and height t, which is subject to axial force and flexural moment. The flexural stresses can be calculated by the following equation (1);
= P A M y I

(1)

To observe the mesh size effect, square elements with 3 different sizes are used, i.e. 0.5m, 1.0m, 2.0m. The supporting effect of 20 cm thick shotcrete is analyzed for 3 cases ; i.e. no support, shotcrete without invert and shotcrete with invert. The mechanical properties of shotcrete used in the analysis are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Shotcrete properties Maximum Maximum Young's Thickness Allowable Allowable Modulus (cm) Compression Tension (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) 5 20 8.4 0.6

JOB TITLEFoS is between 6.0000E-01 and 6.2000E-01 : FLAC (Version 3.40) LEGEND

(*10^1) 3.250

2.750

11/09/2000 20:14 step 21718 -2.088E+01 <x< 1.996E+01 -6.607E+00 <y< 3.423E+01 Boundary plot 0 1E 1

2.250

1.750

Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 2.50E-09 5.00E-09 7.50E-09 1.00E-08 1.25E-08 Contour interval= 2.50E-09 Moment on Structure Max. Value # 1 (Beam ) 2.310E+03

1.250

.750

.250

-.250

-1.750

-1.250

-.750

-.250 (*10^1)

.250

.750

1.250

1.750

Figures 4 and 5 show the maximum shear strain rate around the tunnel at critical state along with velocity vectors when tunnel is not supported. In Figure 4, 0.5 m mesh was used and an arch shaped critical failure plane is located above the tunnel crown. When 2.0 m mesh was used, the critical failure plane is developed vertically and reaches to the surface.
JOB TITLE : FoS is between 4.0000E-01 and 4.2000E-01
(*10^1)

Figure 6. Maximum shear strain rate and moment distribution in the case of partially supported tunnel-without invert (mesh size = 0.5m)
JOB TITLEFoS is between 2.2000E+00 and 2.2200E+00 : FLAC (Version 3.40) LEGEND 11/09/2000 20:21 step 17723 -2.832E+01 <x< 2.461E+01 -1.460E+01 <y< 3.832E+01 Boundary plot 0 1E 1 Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 1.00E-09 2.00E-09 3.00E-09 4.00E-09 5.00E-09 Contour interval= 1.00E-09 Moment on Structure Max. Value # 1 (Beam ) -2.087E+03
1.500 (*10^1) 3.500

2.500

FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND 11/09/2000 14:34 step 11646 -1.395E+01 <x< 1.449E+01 -6.469E+00 <y< 2.197E+01
1.250

.500

1.750

-.500

Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 2.00E-07 4.00E-07 6.00E-07 8.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.20E-06 Contour interval= 2.00E-07 Velocity vectors Max Vector = 1.981E-06 0 Boundary plot 5E -6

.750

-2.000

-1.000 (*10^1)

.000

1.000

2.000

.250

Figure 7. Maximum shear strain rate and moment distribution in the case of fully supported tunnel-with invert (mesh size = 0.5m) Figures 6 and 7 show the maximum shear strain rate around the tunnel at critical state along with shotcrete moment when tunnel is partially supported (without invert) and fully supported (with invert). The factor of safety of the fully supported tunnel is 2.21. This is about 2.6 times bigger than that of the partially supported tunnel (0.61) and 4.4 times bigger than unsupported tunnel (0.41). The safety factor of the partially supported tunnel shows only 30% increase compared to the unsupported case which clearly shows the strong effect of invert. When partially supported, failure occurs above the tunnel crown. When tunnel is fully supported, tunnel itself is very stable. Failure surfaces are developed from the bottom of the tunnel and extends upward near to the surface. It seems that the failure in fully supported case is due to the excessive displacement of the soil toward the center of the tunnel.

-.250

5E 0

-1.000

-.500

.000 (*10^1)

.500

1.000

Figure 4. Maximum shear strain rate and velocity vectors in the case of no supported tunnel (mesh size = 0.5m)
JOB TITLE : FoS is between 4.8000E-01 and 5.0000E-01
(*10^1) 3.000

FLAC (Version 3.40)

LEGEND

2.500

11/09/2000 14:35 step 9359 -2.011E+01 <x< 2.073E+01 -9.009E+00 <y< 3.183E+01 Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 5.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.50E-05 2.00E-05 2.50E-05 3.00E-05 Contour interval= 5.00E-06 Velocity vectors Max Vector = 1.134E-04 0 Boundary plot 0 1E 1 2E -4

2.000

1.500

1.000

.500

.000

-.500

-1.750

-1.250

-.750

-.250 (*10^1)

.250

.750

1.250

1.750

Figure 5. Maximum shear strain rate and velocity vectors in the case of no supported tunnel (mesh size = 2m)

The effect of mesh size on the factor of safety is shown in Figure 8 and summarized in Table 2. Regardless of the mesh size, the factor of safety increases as the degree of the support increases. Also, the factor of safety decreases as the mesh size decreases. This error is believed to be caused by the fact that the shotcrete is modelled as straight structural elements which is actually curved, resulting in less moment as the length of the element increases.
2.5

The resisting shear force along the failure surfaces (S) can be calculated as follows;
S = 2 dl = 2(cl + n tan dl)
n

= 2( cl +

tan l)

(4)

= 3,132,869 . 7 N

Facoter of safety

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 No support

mesh size 0.5m mesh size 1.0m

where n is the normal stress acting on the failure plane, and equivalent to xx of the elements along the failure plane, and l is the height of the element. c and are cohesion and internal friction angle and 10 kPa and 30o respectively. From (3) and (4), the factor of safety of the tunnel is calculated by equation (5).

Partially supported

Fully supported

Figure 8. Support effect

Table 2. Calculated factors of safety Mesh size 0.5m 1.0m 2.0m no support 0.41 0.45 0.49 partially 0.61 0.73 0.77 supported fully supported 2.21 2.31 2.29

Fator of safety =

Resisting Force = 0.49 Driving Force

(5)

This value is exactly the same as the one calculated by strength reduction technique. Therefore it was verified that once the failure surface is known, and the normal and shear stress acting on that surface is known, resu lt is the same regardless of the method of analysis. 5 APPLICATION TO TUNNELS EXCAVATED IN JOINTED ROCK MASS To assess the factor of safety of tunnels excavated in jointed rock mass, strength reduction technique was applied. The rock mass is modelled as ubiquitous joint model with 2 intersecting joint sets and the effect of joint orientation on the factor of safety is investigated.
Table 3. Rock, supports and joint properties density Young's Poisson's remarks (kg/m 3 ) modulus ratio rock (Pa) 2,600 6.910 9 0.25 Fair rock Young's modulus (Pa) 510 9 friction angle () 30 ~ 45

To verify the validity of the technique proposed in this study, the numerical result depicted in Figure 5 was analyzed by limit equilibrium method and the results were compared. For this, the soil at critical state is simplified as shown in Figure 9. The driving force, in this case, is the weight of the soil above the tunnel(W) and can be calculated as follows;
W = (l 2r 0.5 r 2 ) g = 6, 395,121 . 7 N

(3)

l = 29m

= c + n tan

Shotc rete
r r = 5m

Poisson's ratio 0.20

thickness (m) 0.2

cohesion (Pa) joint 110 3 ~ 1105

Figure 9. Limit equilibrium analysis of a tunnel failure

Analyses are conducted on a circular tunnel with diameter of 10 m and it is assumed that the whole face is excavated at once. The mechanical properties

full

2.0

0, 15, 30, 45

110 , 110 4 , 110 5

30, 35, 40, 45

+ 90 0
a

JOB TITLE : FoS is between 8.0000E-01 and 9.0000E-01

(*10^1)

29m

FLAC (Version 3.30)

2.750

LEGEND 10/12/2000 22:10 step 6195 -2.065E+01 <x< 2.095E+01 -1.046E+01 <y< 3.114E+01 Boundary plot 0 1E 1
1.250 2.250

of rock mass, joints and the supports used in the analyses are listed i n Table 3. The strength parameters of the joints were varied within the listed range. Also the 2 joint sets within the rock mass are assumed to intersect each other perpendicularly. To investigate the effect of the joint orientation, the dip of the first set of joint (joint 'a') was varied as 0o, 15o, 30o, 45 o.
3.0
cj=1e3(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=30(deg)

Factor of Safety .

Figure 11. Safety factor vs dip angle of joint a in the case of an unsupported circular tunnel (mesh size=0.5m)
1.0m

60m
joint : j = 30 ~ 45 ,
o 3

5m
intact rock : = 2 , 600 kg / m 3 , E = 6 . 9 10 9 Pa , = 0 . 25 c j = 1 10 ~ 1 10 Pa , K 0 = 1 .0
5

1.750

100m

Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 2.50E-06 5.00E-06 7.50E-06 1.00E-05 1.25E-05 1.50E-05 1.75E-05 2.00E-05 2.25E-05 Contour interval= 2.50E-06

.750

.250

-.250

Figure 10. Configuration of a rock tunnel with 2 perpendicular joint sets

-.750

-1.750

-1.250

-.750

-.250 (*10^1)

.250

.750

1.250

1.750

Figure 12. Failure mechanism of an unsupported circular tunnel (dip of joint a=0o, mesh size= 1.0 m) Figure 10 shows the configuration of the tunnel and the surrounding rock mass with orientations of the 2 joint sets. Considering that the tunnel is located in shallow depth in a heavily jointed rock mass, K0 is assumed to be 1.0.
Table 5. Safety factor of an unsupported circular tunnel
Mesh size Joint property c (Pa) 110
3

2.0

cj=1e5(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=35(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=40(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=45(deg)

factors of safety for various 0 0.45 0.45 1.25 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.55 0.65 1.45 0.75 0.85 1.05 0.75 0.85 1.75 1.05 1.25 1.35 dips of joint a 15 30 0.35 0.35 0.75 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.65 1.15 0.75 0.95 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.75 0.85 0.95 1.15 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.65 0.65 1.65 0.85 0.95 1.15 45 < 0.1 0.25 0.85 0.35 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.65 1.25 0.75 0.85 1.05 0.75 0.85 1.95 0.95 1.15 1.35

() 30 35

1.0

110 4 0.5m
0.0 0 15 30 45

110 5 110 4 110 110

3

Dip angle of joint 'a' (deg)

40 45

110 4
5

30 35

Table 4. Sensitivity analysis

mesh dip angle support size of joint (m) a() no 0.5 0, 15, 30, 45 0, 15, 30, 45 joint property

110 4
3 4 5

40 45

110

(Pa) 110 3 , 4 110 , 110 5 110 , 4 110 , 110 5

3

() 30, 35, 40, 45 30, 35, 40, 45

2.0m

110 110

30 35

110 4

40 45

partial

1.0

As in the case of tunnel excavated in soil, analyses are conducted for unsupported, partially supported and fully supported cases. The dependency of the mesh size as well as the strength properties of the

Table 6. Safety factor of a partially supported circular tunnel

Joint property c (Pa)
Factor of Safety .
3.0

but the maximum value is obtained when joint 'a' is 45o. It is inferred from this figure that the real minimum value exists a little less than 30o. As in the case for tunnels excavated in soil, the flexural moment induced in the shotcrete increases as the mesh size decreases resulting lower factor of safety due to shotcrete failure. It is believed that mesh size of 0.5 m or less is necessary for partially supported case to obtain credible results.
5.0

factors of safety for various dips of joint a () 30 Mesh size=0.5m 0 15 30 45 Mesh size=1.0m 0 15 30 45

cj=1e3(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=30(deg) 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.85 1.65 1.65

110 3 110 4 2.0 110 5

1.0

0.65 0.55 0.45 1.05 0.65 1.25 2.35 1.95 cj=1e4(Pa), j=35(deg) 1.65 0.95 0.75 1.75 2.35 2.75 4.15 4.15 cj=1e4(Pa), j=45(deg) 35 40 45
0
cj=1e4(Pa), j=40(deg)

cj=1e5(Pa), j=30(deg)

0.75 0.65 0.55 1.05 0.75 1.55 2.65 2.25 0.95 0.75 0.65 1.25 0.95 1.75 2.85 2.65 1.05 0.85 0.75 1.65 1.05 2.05 3.25 2.95
Factor of Safety .
4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 15 30 45 Dip angle of joint 'a' (deg) 15 30 45 Dip angle of a fully supported Safety factor of joint 'a' (deg)
cj=1e3(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e5(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=35(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=40(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=45(deg)

0.0

Table 7.

Figure 13. circular factor vs dip angle of joint a Safety tunnel in the case of aof safety for various factors partially supported circulardipsof joint asize=0.5m) = tunnel (mesh (mesh size Joint property 0.5m)
c (Pa) 110 3 110 4 110 5 35 40 45 () 0 0.65 0.75 1.95 0.95 1.05 1.35 15 0.75 0.75 1.35 0.95 1.05 1.25 30 1.05 1.25 2.65 1.35 1.55 1.85 45 1.45 1.65 4.05 2.15 1.45 2.25

Figure 14. Safety factor vs dip angle of joint a in the case of a fully supported circular tunnel (mesh size=0.5m) The results for fully support ed cases are listed in Table 7 and plotted in Figure 14. In this case, mesh size is fixed to 0.5 m. The minimum factor of safety is observed when the dip of joint 'a' is 0 o or 15o depending upon the strength parameters. When the friction angle is 40o, the factor of safety is exceptionally low. This is difficult to explain but
JOB TITLE : FoS is between 1.2000E+00 and 1.3000E+00
(*10^1)

joints were also investigated. Input data for this analys is are summarized in Table 4. The results of the analyses for unsupported tunnel are listed in Table 5 and plotted in Figure 11 for mesh size of 0.5 m. For mesh sizes of 0.5 m and 1.0 m, the factor of safety was the smallest when the dip of joint 'a' is 30o, and the biggest when 0o. But when 2.0 mesh was used, the change in factor of safety was rather small. When mesh size becomes bigger than 1.0 m, failure zone becomes too large and thus gives high factor of safety. For this analysis, mesh size of 1.0 m or less seems to give plausible results. The factor of safety increases as the strength of the joint increases as expected and when joint cohesion is 1105 Pa, the increase in factor of safety was outstanding regardless of the mesh size. Figure 12 shows the maximum shear strain rate when mesh size is 1.0 m, dip of joint 'a' is 0 o, 3 o c j =110 Pa, j =30 . A wedge shaped failure zone developed just above the crown despite the orientation of the joint sets are vertical and horizontal. The results for partially supported cases are listed in Table 6 and plotted in Figure 13 for mesh size of 0.5 m only. As in unsupported case, the minimum factor of safety is obtained when the dip of joint 'a' is 30 o

FLAC (Version 3.30)

2.750

LEGEND 10/28/2000 04:16 step 11905 -2.035E+01 <x< 2.053E+01 -1.004E+01 <y< 3.084E+01 Boundary plot 0 Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 5.00E-08 1.00E-07 1.50E-07 2.00E-07 2.50E-07 3.00E-07 3.50E-07 Contour interval= 5.00E-08 1E 1
1.250 2.250

1.750

.750

.250

-.250

-.750

-1.750

-1.250

-.750

-.250 (*10^1)

.250

.750

1.250

1.750

Figure 15. Typical failure mechanism of a partially supported circular tunnel (dip angle of joint a=0o) has something to do with the fact that for the given combination of strength parameters and the joint orientations, displacement is concentrated at the center of the crown causing shotcrete failure as shown in Figure 15. This is worth for further investigation.

Figure 16 is the plot of maximum shear strain rate when the orientation of the 2 joint sets are horizontal and vertical. It is observed that the failure surface is extended to the surface. In Figure 17, the factor of safety increases with the increasing degree of support when dip of joint 'a' is 30o. The factor of safety is increased to 800 1,400% when partially supported and 2,000 5,000% when fully supported compared to the values for unsupported cases.
JOB TITLE : FoS is between 1.5000E+00 and 1.6000E+00
(*10^1)

degree of support increases as expected. Also it is found that the mesh size has to be smaller than certain limit-less than 1/10 of the tunnel radius in this case. The main finding is that the supporting effect of the shotcrete was quantitatively represented for tunnels excavated in both soils and jointed rock mass. For tunnels excavated in soils, shotcrete without invert improves the stability of the tunnel only a little. But for tunnels excavated in jointed rock mass, shotcrete without invert improved the stability quite a bit. The proposed method herein can be used to calculate factor of safety of a tunnel regardless of tunnel shape or geological condition, and thus can contribute for the improved design and stability assessment of tunnels. Future study should include the comparison with the results by discrete models such as UDEC to further verify the validity of the current analysis on the tunnels excavated in jointed rock mass. REFERENCES Daws on, E. M., Roth, W. H., & Drescher, A. (1999) Slope stability analysis by strength reduction", Geotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 6. pp.835-840. Giam, S. K. & Donald, I. B. (1988) "Determination of critical slip surfaces for slopes via stress-strain calculations" , Proc. Fifth Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomech., Sydney, Australia, pp.461-464. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (1999) FLAC, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Version 3.4., Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Kobayashi, M. (1990) A study on application of finite element method to stability and settlement analysis in geotechnical engineering. Technical Note of PHRIMT, Japan, No. 1 (in Japanese). Matsui, T. & San, K. C. (1992) "Finite element slope stability analysis by shear st rength reduction technique", Soils and Found. Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.59-70. Ministry of Construction and Transportation (1999) Korea Design standard for concrete structures, Korea Association of Concrete, pp. 264-265. Naylor, D. J. (1982) 'Finite elements and slope stability", Numer. Meth. in Geomech., Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute. Lisbon, Portugal, pp.229-244.

FLAC (Version 3.30)

LEGEND 11/6/2000 01:08 step 52439 -5.556E+01 <x< 5.556E+01 -5.556E+01 <y< 5.556E+01 Boundary plot 0 2E 1
.000 4.000

2.000

Max. shear strain-rate 0.00E+00 1.00E-09 2.00E-09 3.00E-09 4.00E-09 5.00E-09 6.00E-09 7.00E-09 8.00E-09 Contour interval= 1.00E-09

-2.000

-4.000

-4.000

-2.000

.000 (*10^1)

2.000

4.000

Figure 16. Typical failure mechanism of a fully supported circular tunnel (dip angle of joint a=0o)

3.0
cj=1e3(Pa), j=30(deg)

Factor of Safety .

cj=1e4(Pa), j=30(deg) cj=1e5(Pa), j=30(deg)

2.0

cj=1e4(Pa), j=35(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=40(deg) cj=1e4(Pa), j=45(deg)

1.0

unsupported partially supported fully supported

0.0

Figure 17. Supporting effect when dip angle of joint a=30o and mesh size=0.5m 6 CONCLUSIONS In this paper, a method is suggested to calculate safety factor of a tunnel by numerical analysis using strength reduction technique. Circular tunnels excavated in a homogeneous soil and jointed rock mass were selected for case studies and factors of safety were calculated for no support, partially supported, and fully supported cases respectively. It is found that the factor of safety increases as the -

Ugai, K. (1989) "A method of calculation of total factor of safety of slopes by elastoplastic FEM", Soils and Foundations Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.190-195 (in Japanese). Ugai, K. & Leshchinsky, D. (1995) "Threedimensional limit equilibrium and finite

element analyses: a comparison of results", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.17.