Computational methods for deep tunneling design

S. Francia
SPEA Autostrade S.p.A., Milano, Italy
E. M. Pizzarotti, M. Rivoltini & C. Pecora
S.IN.C. S.r.l., Milano, Italy

ABSTRACT: In the deep tunneling design for the Milano Roma highway stretches known as Variante
di Valico, calculation procedures have been applied in which the analytical method of the Ground Reaction
Curve (GRC) is coupled to continuum discretization with the Finite Differences Method (FDM).

Analyses procedure is aimed to evaluate the strain distribution on the cavity boundary surface as a func-
tion of the distance from the front face considering also strengthening operations of the front face. Further-
more the analyses provide indications on the axial strain (extrusion) of the excavation front and on the exten-
sion of plastic areas as well as absolute and relative radial displacements of the natural cavity at any distance
from the front face and on the extensions of plastic zones.

Checks on the structural elements which are part of the first phase and final linings are carried out on the
basis of the stress states produced by the succession of the excavation and strengthening phases, simulated
through proper installation distances of these elements from the front face.

1 INTRODUCTION strengthening works of the front face, which are

simulated by increasing the rock mass strength pa-
This paper illustrates the computational proce- rameters or introducing structural elements in the
dures applied to deep tunneling design for the Mi- model. Furthermore the analyses provide indications
lano Roma highway stretches known as Variante on the axial strain (extrusion) of the excavation front
di Valico. and on the development of plastic areas as well as
In this case calculation procedures have been absolute and relative radial displacements of the
applied in which the analytical method of the natural cavity at any distance from the front face and
Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) is joined by contin- on the extensions of plastic zones.
uum discretization with the Finite Differences Checks of the structural elements which are part
Method (FDM) for the modeling of the supporting of the first phase and final lining are carried out fol-
structures and stabilization means. The constitutive lowing the stress states produced by the succession
model of the considered rock mass follows the plas- of the excavation and strengthening phases, simu-
ticity curve described by the Hoek & Brown formu- lated through proper installation distances of these
lation. elements in relation to the front face.
The verification analyses of the standard sec-
tions were carried out for tunnel stretches with ho-
mogeneous geomechanical conditions and sufficient
length to allow the application of the hypothesis of
plane strain state. Thus the analyses do not represent
local areas of intense fracture and limited length, for
which specific measures were disposed anyhow.
Procedure is aimed to evaluate the strain distri-
bution on the cavity boundary as a function of the
distance from the front face, considering also
2 INTERACTION BETWEEN GEOLOGICAL - ci: uniaxial compressive strength of the intact
AND GEOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS AND rock pieces;
STRUCTURAL DESIGN - mb; s; a: parameters which depend upon the rock
mass characteristics.
m/mi = exp (GSI-100)/28
 (2)
2.1 Geologic characteristics
s = exp (GSI-100)/9 (3)
The geologic-structural shape, in which a part of


the layout of the new highway is designed, is the re- a=1/2 (4)
sult of complex geologic evolution of the Apenni-
nes. In order to use the Hoek & Brown criterion for
In application below shown, it is possible to char- estimating the strength and the deformability of
acterize two geomorphological zones, coupled to jointed rock masses, three properties of the rock
geological soil formation. mass have to be estimated:
The first one is characterized by hard morphol- - ci: uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock
ogy, frequently with steep slope, that are middle pieces;
mountain areas with sandstone-marl rock, called - mi: Hoek & Brown constant for the rock mass;
Macigno. In this zone the tipical landslide are by - GSI: value of Geological Strength Index for
collapse, by block movement and by detritus slide. rock mass.
The second one, clearly crumbly, is characterized
by allochthonous formation called Argille Scagli- The value of Geological Strength Index (GSI) is
ose. In this zone it is possible to examine corru- based on the value of Rock Mass Rating (RMR), by
gated elevation and little steep slope, subjected to in- the equation:
tense erosion, with flow slide and superficial GSI = URMR-5 (5)
gravitational distortion.
Below it is shown the analysis of a particular sec- where:
tion of tunnel when the mass rock is characterized URMR = RMR (6)
by Argille Scagliose.
evaluated by R5 = 15 and R6 = 0.
2.2 Geomechanical characteristics Moreover, to model the post peak behavior of the
The rock has been classified referring to the rock mass, it has been considered a residual value of
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of Bieniawski. GSI once reached the frontier of the plastic criteria.
The geomechanical parameters, necessary for the About the Deformation Modulus (E) Serafim &
evaluation of the RMR value and of the consequent Pereira proposed a relationship between the in situ
rock qualitative class, are: modulus of deformation and Bieniawskis RMR
- R1: uniaxial compressive strength of the rock classification. Hoek & Brown proposed the follow-
material; ing modification:
- R2: Rock Quality Designation, RQD; GSI 10
c
- R3: spacing of discontinuities; E= 10 40
(7)
- R4: condition of discontinuities; 100
- R5: groundwater conditions;
Regarding the non associated flow rule, in the
- R6: orientation of discontinuities.
analytical solution there is a parameter f varying
from 1.0 (no dilatancy) to fa (associated flow rule):
By sum of absolute value of each parameter you
have numerical evaluation of RMR, by which you mb
assign one of the five rock mass classes of Bi- fa = 1+ 

1
(8)
2
eniawskis method. pcr
2 mb +s
 

 

The behavior of the fractured rock has been char- c



acterized by the Hoek & Brown constitutive model:

: where
a
pcr critical radial stress to have plastic zone



around the cavity.

1 = 3 + ci mb 3 + s

 



(1)


c


2.3 Analysis tools and algorithm

where:
- 1: maximum effective stress at failure; The rock mass constitutive model is homogene-
- 3: minimum effective stress at failure; ous, isotropic, elasto-plastic, following a flow rule
non associated. Hoek & Brown model defines the
criteria.
Instead the rock mass subject by excavation is
non homogeneous and anysotropic one. This aspect
simplifies the real behavior of the rock mass, which
means a careful definition of the excavation and
strengthening phases in order to contrast a poten-
tially different behavior of the rock mass from re-
sults of analyses.
The analyses, using the method of the characteris-
tic lines (Ground Reaction Curves, GRC, analytical
solution to the problem of a hole subject to variable
internal pressure in a continuous elasto-plastic, in
junction with the numerical solution of Panet for the
behavior to a certain distance from the front) and fi-
nite difference model, estimate the stress and the
displacement of the rock mass around the cavity and
therefore verify the dimensioning of the structures
The finite difference method is a numerical techi-
que to solve a set of differential equations, given ini-
tial values and/or boundary values. The rock mass is
represented by a mesh, where each element (or zone)
has a particular constitutive model.
The calculus starts from geostatic condition,
where the model simulates the natural behavior. The
next steps introduce stress changes.
Excavation could be simulated by deleting some
zone. It is possible to apply pressures on the bounda-
ries of the mesh. Also it is possible to simulate a
strengthening phase by modifing the geomechanical
parametres or introducing some structure: a beam, if
the structures have flexural behaviour; cable, if it is
necessary to simulate radial rockbolts.
The algorithm process is :
A) For each set of geomechanical parameters
and overburden, it is carried out an analytical analy-
sis by GRC, considering a cavity with radius 1.00m.
The results (absolute convergence and exten-
sion of plastic zone considering no pressure inside
the cavity) allows the first evaluation about stability
of cavity.
B) Carry out the finite difference analysis by
axialsimmetric model of a cylindrical hole (circular
cavity with radius 1.00m) to evaluate the function
convergence vs internal pressure. By that analyses it
is possible to modify locally the mesh (extension
and number of zones), because the results have to
referee to analytical ones.
C) Axialsymmetrical analysis to simulate exca-
vation progress. The results are:
- to get displacements around cavity (without
strengthening structures) correlated to the distance
from front;
- to evaluate strain and extension of plastic
zones, particullary near front.
Regarding the rock mass where it is necessary
to use strengthening structures on front, the analysis
has been carried out with or without that structures.
The strengthening phase is simulated by increasing
geomechanical parameters just for the zones near by
front correlated to pressure applied.
D) Elaborating the function displacements around
the cavity vs distance from the front in junction with
the function displacements around cavity vs internal
pressure (results from A, B and C) you could get the
function distance from front vs internal pressure.
The internal pressure is equivalent to strength of the
front and it is known as excavation fictitious load
(in italian,forza fittizia di scavo) (FFS below).
E) For each proper section of tunnel the analy-
sis are carried out by finite difference method (plain
strain hypothesis), considering the real geometry of
excavation and strengthening phases (radial and/or
umbrela rockbolts, steel frame support, spritz, rein-
forced concrete inverted arch). For each step of cal-
culus (excavation or installation) it has been evalu-
ated the value of FFS correlated to the proper
distance of installation from front, to simulate the
real behavior in progress of the rock mass.
F) The least step, i. e. when compatibility and
equilibrium are obtained in all the rock mass zones
and structures, the structural verify is carried out by
Ultimate State Limit method.
The algorithm described is evaluated for each
proper section of tunnel, i. e. for each length of tun-
nel where geomechanical conditions are near the
same and approximate the plain strain hypothesis.
The analysis cannot evaluate behavior for local
fractured rock, for which specific works must be de-
signed.
3 APPLICATION
3.1 Variante di Valico
It is illustrated the same calculus results on a
particular section of tunnel.
In table 1 are represented the geomechanical data
used to carry out the analysis:
Table 1. Geomechanical data
tipo
GSI
pic
R GSI r
res
G.
[kN/mc]
SIG C
Mpa
Ed
Mi [Gpa]
Poisson HOEK PICCO
mb s
HOEK RES.
mr sr
AS 35 1,00 35 25 8 5 1,19 0,30 0,49 0,000730 0,49 0,000730
About Argille Scaglioses (AS, laminated clay)
behavior, the swelling and viscoplasticity are con-
siderated usind a reduction of 10% for GSI value
with reduction of the geomechanical parameters.
The section illustrated is PA-2/4/5, used in
presence of Argille Scagliose and GSI value of 35.
The overburden is 250m.
In table 2 are illustrated: the strengthening
structures (used in the analysis by FLAC), the proper
distance from the front face and the value of FFS JOB TITLE : GEOSTATICO - MESH INGRANDITA

FLAC (Version 3.40)

(*10^1)

(evaluated at medium distance of installation). It has

LEGEND 1.200

been considered an over-excavation of 15cm. 17-Nov-99 17:29

step 547
-1.000E+00 <x< 2.000E+01
-6.000E+00 <y< 1.500E+01
Table 2. Structures and distance of installation. 0.800

Grid plot

STRUCTURE dmed[m] FFS 0 5E 0

Front 0.0 18,4% 0.400

Radial rockbolts 1.0 17,2%

Spritz and steel frame + 4.0 7.6%
inverted arch) (extra-excavation 0.000

(thickness = 100cm) 15cm)

Lining No bound- 0.0%
Medium thickness = 85cm ary -0.400

SEZ. PA 2/4/5
FASI DI ANALISI
0.200 0.600 1.000 1.400 1.800

The analysis has been carried out using the curve

(*10^1)

distance from the front vs FFS, calculated by the Figure 3. Mesh: particular of boundary of excavation.
axialsimmetrical numerical analysis including front
consolidation (figure 1). JOB TITLE : APPLICAZIONE FFS (*10^1)

FLAC (Version 3.40)

JOB TITLE : FRONTE CONSOLIDATO - DEFORMAZIONI DEL PROFILO ALL'EQUILIBRIO E PLASTICIZZAZIO NI LEGEND 1.200

FLAC (Version 3.40) 2.250

17-Nov-99 17:30
step 572
-1.000E+00 <x< 2.000E+01
LEGEND 1.750
-6.000E+00 <y< 1.500E+01
0.800

28-O ct-99 17:21 Material model

step 14030 1.250 mohr-coulomb
-1.000E+00 <x< 4.000E+00 Net Applied Forces
-2.500E+00 <y< 2.500E+00 Max Vector = 3.408E+06
0.750
0.400
state 0 1E 7
Elastic
At Yield in Shear or Vol.
0.250
Elastic, Yield in Past
Boundary plot

-0.250 0.000
0 1E 0

Exaggerated Boundary Disp.

Magnification = 4.516E+00 -0.750
Max Disp = 7.034E-02
Displacement vectors
Max Vector = 7.034E-02 -0.400
-1.250

0 2E -1 SEZ. PA 2/4/5
FASI DI ANALISI
-1.750 0.200 0.600 1.000 1.400 1.800
(*10^1)

-2.250
A.S. GSI=35-COP=250
ASSIALSIMMETRICO
-0.750 -0.250 0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2 .750 3.2 50 3.750 Figure 4. Applying FFS pressure along excavation boundary.

Figure 1. Axialsimmetrical analysis. Convergence at the front JOB TITLE : FASE 8:SCAVO E GETTO ARCO ROVESCIO (*1 0^ 1)

FLAC (Version 3.40)

and along the cavity.
LEGEND 1 .20 0

22-Nov-99 11:56
In the figures from 2 to 5 are illustrated the step 45947
-1.000E+00 <x< 2.000E+01

mesh and some steps of calculus. -6.000E+00 <y< 1.500E+01

Material m odel
0 .80 0

m ohr-coulom b
Beam plot

JO B TITLE : MESH CO MPLETA (*10^1) Cable plot

0 .40 0
FLAC (Version 3.40) 7 .00 0

LEGEND

5 .00 0
17-Nov-99 17:29 0 .00 0

step 547
-3.833E+01 <x< 1.083E+02
-6.833E+01 <y< 7.833E+01
3 .00 0

Grid plot
-0 .40 0

0 2E 1
1 .00 0 SEZ. PA 2/4/5
FASI DI ANALISI
0.20 0 0.60 0 1 .0 00 1 .4 00 1 .80 0
(*10 ^1 )

-1 .00 0

Figure 5. Radial rockbolts.

-3 .00 0

-5 .00 0
In the figures from 6 to 9 are illustrated the re-
sults during the calculus process (extension of plas-
SEZ. PA 2/4/5
FASI DI ANALISI
-0.2 00 0.0 00 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.0 00
tic zones, design loads for the structures).
(*10^2 )

Figure 2. Complete Mesh.

 JO B TITLE : AZIO NE ASSIALE CHIOD I ALL'EQUILIBRIO (*1 0^1) JO B TITLE : D ECADIMENTO PAR AMETR I-MO M.FLETTENTE RIV. IN CLS (*1 0^1)

FLAC (Version 3.40) FLAC (Version 3.40)

1.200 1.200
LEGEND LEGEND

22-Nov-99 11:56 23-Nov-99 14:05

step 45947 step 56947
-1.000E+00 <x< 2.100E+01 -1.000E+00 <x< 2.100E+01
-7.000E+00 <y< 1.500E+01 0.800
-7.000E+00 <y< 1.500E+01 0.800

Material model Material model

mohr-coulom b mohr-coulom b
Beam plot Beam plot
Cable plot Cable plot
0.400 0.400
# 3 (Cable) -4.051E+05 Moment on
# 4 (Cable) -4.129E+05 Structure Max. Value
# 5 (Cable) -4.201E+05 # 1 (Beam ) 2.021E+06
# 6 (Cable) -4.224E+05 # 2 (Beam ) -1.556E+06
# 7 (Cable) -4.242E+05
# 8 (Cable) -4.288E+05 0.000 0.000
# 9 (Cable) -4.316E+05
#10 (C able) -4.338E+05
#11 (C able) -4.346E+05
#12 (C able) -4.334E+05
#13 (C able) -4.345E+05
#14 (C able) -4.347E+05 -0.400 -0.400

#15 (C able) -4.347E+05

#16 (C able) -4.346E+05
#17 (C able) -4.347E+05
SEZ. PA 2/4/5 SEZ. PA 2/4/5
RISULTATI ANALISI RISULTATI ANALISI
0.2 00 0 .60 0 1.000 1.400 1.8 00 0.2 00 0 .60 0 1.000 1.400 1.8 00
(*10 ^1 ) (*10 ^1 )

Figure 6. Axial sollecitation for rockbolts. Figure 9. Flexural sollecitation in final lining.

JO B TITLE : PLAST. E CO NV. ALL'EQUILIBRIO

FLAC (Version 3.40)

(*1 0^1)

In figure 10 are illustrated the uniaxial interac-

tion failure surface of a reinforced concrete section
LEGEND

22-Nov-99 11:56
2.500

and the design loads by Ultimate Limit Analysis for

step 45947
-1.000E+00 <x< 6.400E+01 several steps of calculus.
-3.000E+01 <y< 3.500E+01 1.500

state
Elastic 2000
At Yield in Shear or Vol.
ARCO ROVESCIO SP=100cm
Elastic, Yield in Past 0.500
Arco Rovescio - Breve termine
Boundary plot Arco Rovescio - Lungo termine
1500 Arco Rovescio - Decadimento
0 2E 1 RIVESTIMENTO SP=85cm.
Rivestimento di calotta
Exaggerated Boundary Disp. -0.500 Rivestimento di calotta - Decadimento
1000
Magnification = 2.000E+00
Max Disp = 2.916E-01
Beam plot
500
Cable plot
-1.500
M [kNm/m]

-2.500
-500
SEZ. PA 2/4/5
RISULTATI ANALISI
0 .500 1 .50 0 2.5 00 3.500 4.500 5.500
(*10 ^1 ) -1000

-1500

Figure 7. Extension of plastic zones.

-2000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
JO B TITLE : D ECADIMENTO PAR AMETR I-AZIO NE ASSIALE RIV. IN C LS (*1 0^1)
N [kN/m]

FLAC (Version 3.40)

Figure 10. Sectional verify.
1.200
LEGEND

23-Nov-99 14:05
step 56947
-1.000E+00 <x< 2.100E+01
-7.000E+00 <y< 1.500E+01 0.800
It is important to note:
Material model
mohr-coulom b
Beam plot
- the maximum absolute displacement cavity of
Cable plot
Axial Force on
0.400
the boundary is nearly 29.2 cm, after the installation
Structure
# 1 (Beam )
Max. Value
6.965E+06 of primary linings. Because the radial displacement
# 2 (Beam ) 6.067E+06

0.000
at the front is 12.5cm, the relative displacement is
about 16.7cm, i. e. the same engineering measure of
over-excavation (15cm);
-0.400

- the extension of plasti zones is 20m over the

SEZ. PA 2/4/5
RISULTATI ANALISI
cavity boundary (the overburden is 250m);
0.2 00 0 .60 0 1.000 1.400 1.8 00
(*10 ^1 )
- the stress for the structures are ever inside the
interaction failure design surface.
Figure 8. Axial sollecitation in final lining. At the final step, to simulate the swelling and the
viscoplasticity of the rock mass it has been consider-
ated a reduction of 10% for GSI value, that it has in-
volved an increment of the state of sollicitation on
the structures of definitive structures.
4 CONCLUSIONS FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) version
3.4, 1988 . Users Manual. Itasca Consulting Group,
Inc..
In deep tunneling design it is only the sinergy Panet, M. & Guenot, A. 1983. Analysis of Convergence
between: behind the face of a tunnel. Laboratoire Central des
- geolocical characterization; Ponts et Chausses, Paris, France.
- geomechanical characterization and extima-
tion of geomechanical parameters of rock
mass;
- analytical solutions and numerical models
of excavation process, including installation
of linings;
- knowledge of constructions to define the
succession of the excavation and strengthen-
ing phases;
that allows the progress of geotecnichal and/or
structural design. That means marriage (including
disputes) of various technical knowledge and ex-
periences to design a particular class of works.
This synthesis concurs to delineate a calculation
process, that must be accompanied by the following
hypotheses:
- the behaviour of the rock mass is homogene-
ous, isotropic, following an elasto-plastic criteria
with flow rule not associated;
- plastic model by Hoek & Brown criteria.
Furtherly it is shown an algorithm to geome-
chanical/structural design of deep tunnel. It is evi-
denced the geomechanical parameters (RMR,
URMR, GSI, Hoek & Brown constitutive model),
analytical tools (Ground Reaction Curve and Panets
solution) and numerical tools (finite difference
analysis by FLAC). The structural sectional analysis
completes the calculus of the linings.
Finally it is illustrated an example about a deep
tunnel with interaction of particular geomechanical
characteristics.

5 REFERENCES

Bieniawski, Z. T. 1993. Engineering classification of

jointed rock masses. In South Africa Institution of
Civil Engineers, Transactions,.
Bieniawski ,Z. T. 1974. Geomechanics classification of
rock masses and its application to tunneling. In Proc.
3rd Int. Congr. Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Denver.
Bieniawski ,Z. T. 1978. Determining rock mass deform-
ability experience from histories.In Int. J. Rock Me-
chanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts.
Bieniawski ,Z. T. 1984. Rock mechanics design in mining
and tunnelling. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Bieniawski ,Z. T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classifi-
cations. J. Wiley & Sons.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E. T. 1982. Underground excavation
in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Lon-
don.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E. T. 1982.: Pratical estimates of
rock mass strength International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Minig Sciences.