Underground Space Use: Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future Erdem & Solak (eds)

2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 452 9

157
1 INTRODUCTION
Theoretically, the state of stresses and displacements
around an underground opening is three dimensional.
Ideally, therefore, three-dimensional (3-D) methods
should be used for the proper analysis of stresses and
displacements occurring around openings. Even with
todays powerful numerical methods and friendly
computer programs, 3-D stress analysis is complex
and requires experience for implementation and inter-
pretation. In tunneling, nevertheless, this complicated
analysis can be, and usually is, replaced by a much sim-
pler, cross-sectional plane-strain analysis when one of
the principal components of in situ stresses is acting
(or assumed to be acting) parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the opening. However, the result of this kind of
analysis corresponds to the deformed (i.e. final) state
of the tunnel. Also, it does not tell us how the stresses
and displacements develop along the tunnel length.
The underground openings, around which the dis-
tribution of stresses can be studied by two-dimensional
analyses, are called two-dimensional (2-D) openings.
Yet, even in a tunnel, which is the most typical example
of 2-D openings, there are some regions which must
be analyzed three dimensionally. These are as follows
(Fig. 1):
(a) the excavation face,
(b) portals,
(c) intersections with other underground openings, and
(d) regions with sudden geometrical changes, i.e.
cross-sectional (shape, size) or directional changes.
In this paper, important considerations regarding
these 3-D regions are presented. Firstly, from tunneling
point of view, the significance of each region is
explained. Secondly, special problems encountered
in the excavation of these regions and factors affect-
ing their stability are discussed. Finally, major
Three-dimensional regions in tunnels
H. Gercek
Dept. of Mining Engineering, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, Turkey
ABSTRACT: In the stress and stability analysis of underground openings, cross-sectional plane-strain analy-
ses are common; yet, in tunnels, there are some regions that must be analyzed three dimensionally. The typical
examples of such regions are: the excavation face, portals, intersections with other underground openings, and
regions with sudden geometrical changes. The paper involves some considerations regarding the stability and
analysis of these three-dimensional regions. Significance of these regions and the problems encountered in such
regions are discussed. Then, major considerations that should be taken into account during the stress and
stability analysis of the three-dimensional regions in tunnels are presented.
Figure 1. An imaginary view of the three-dimensional regions in tunnels.
158
considerations to be taken into account for the stress
and stability analysis of such regions are presented.
2 THREE-DIMENSIONAL REGIONS
It should be emphasized that the 3-D nature of the
regions discussed here arises from purely geometrical
considerations. In other words, it is assumed that
the existing in situ stress field justifies a plane-strain
analysis of a regular or normal section of the tunnel,
and the state of induced stresses around the special
region becomes three dimensional due to the change(s)
in the cross-sectional geometry and/or direction along
the longitudinal axis of the opening.
2.1 The excavation face
The excavation face of a tunnel is a dynamic region
that moves along the route during the construction
and ceases to exist at some stage. In many cases, mul-
tiple excavation faces are employed. Frequently and
due to the stability considerations, excavation is car-
ried out in multi stages instead of full face. No matter
how the face is excavated, the ground conditions
encountered at the face is an indication of the behav-
ior of surrounding medium far behind the face.
Because of the so-called half-dome action of
Terzaghi (1946), the stability situation of the face is
somewhat better than that of the region behind the
face. In fact, according to Italian ecol, everything
revolves at the face: a tunnel with an unstable face will
collapse, even though its walls may be supported
(Duffaut & Piraud 2002).
Researchers in tunneling have always been fasci-
nated by the stresses and displacements occurring
around the advancing face of a tunnel. The major rea-
son behind this fascination is that the distribution of
stresses and displacements around the face gives valu-
able information on the stability and support require-
ments of the tunnel, which is the most important aspect
of tunnel design in terms of safety and economics.
Yet, the complicated geometry and boundary condi-
tions of the problem have excluded the possibility of
finding a closed-form solution to this problem that
must be analyzed three dimensionally.
Unavailability of a closed-form solution for this
interesting problem has directed the researchers to the
utilization of numerical analyses mainly; in addition,
to a lesser extent, in situ measurements and physical
models (e.g. 3-D photoelasticity) have been employed
to study the problem. Numerous analyses employ-
ing numerical methods started during the mid 70s
(Descoudres 1974, Ranken & Ghaboussi 1975,
Hocking 1976, etc.), and they have continued into the
21st century (Eberhardt 2001, Tonon & Amadei 2002,
Unlu & Gercek 2003). The numerical studies have
involved elastic (isotropic or transversely isotropic),
elasto-plastic, viscoelastic, etc. material behavior.
They have been performed for studying tunnel con-
vergence, analyzing of rock-support interaction,
determining excavation disturbance zone, evaluating
tunnel face stability, etc. Some of these studies were
reviewed and summarized by Pelli et al. (1991).
Also in recent years, significant research has been
devoted to the stability and deformation behavior of
tunnel face reinforced by longitudinal pipes or bolts
(Yoo 2002, Ng & Lee 2002, Kamata & Mashimo
2003, Yoo & Shin 2003).
2.2 Portals
Geometrically, portal of a tunnel may be defined as
the intersection of the tunnel with surface. Yet, the
portal, due to its inherent conditions, should be con-
sidered as a special region where an underground
opening intensely interacts with the surface that usu-
ally includes natural or man-made slopes. More prop-
erly, the portal is defined as a unique structural
region of which primary purpose is to provide safe
access for men, materials, and equipment from the
surface to a subsurface excavation over a definable
project life (Rogers & Haycocks 1988).
Portals and structures built in these areas vary
depending on the function of the tunnel, topography of
the area, and conditions of the site. Especially, architec-
tural features of portal structures emphasize the impor-
tance of the tunnel. In a sense, the portal of a tunnel
may be considered the business card of its builder
(Mller 1978). Today, modern approach in the design
of portals and related structures involves both techni-
cal and environmental criteria (Peila & Pelizza 2002).
Portals are known to be difficult regions for tunnel
engineers due to the special problems listed below
(Pacher 1974, US Army Corps of Engineers 1978,
Gercek 1990).
(a) Compared to the other parts of the tunnel, rock
masses at portal sites are highly discontinuous and
usually of low quality due to weathering. The develop-
ment of a self supporting-arch over the tunnel requires
adequate (two diameters or more) rock cover.
(b) Creation of an excavation face and its advance
at the portal sites may affect the stability of natural
and/or man-made slopes seriously and in several
ways. For example; the toe of the slope is unloaded,
loosening behavior is triggered, and dynamic loads
are imposed by blasting.
(c) At portal regions, in situ stresses influenced by
the topography and geology of the site may be highly
nonuniform, and their effect on stability may not be
easily predictable.
(d) In the case of drill-and-blast excavation,
overbreak is high due to poor quality rock mass and
interaction with the free slope surface during the initial
rounds.
(e) Historically, in terms of seismic performance,
damage at and in the vicinity of portals may be sig-
nificant (Hashash et al. 2002).
(f) At the time of portal excavation, it is generally
too early for the construction crew to act as a team
and develop an understanding of the rock mass.
Because of one or a combination of these problems,
failures are experienced frequently at or around the
portals of tunnels. Rogers & Haycocks (1988), based
on over 300 case studies, developed a location-based
classification system for the failures encountered at
portals (Table 1).
For the design and stability of tunnel portals, the fol-
lowing studies, though not exhaustive, are worth men-
tioning. US Army Corps of Engineers (1978) gave a
detailed account of portal design approaches and
guidelines (including types of portals, portal treat-
ments, portal excavation procedures, etc). Barisone
et al. (1983) reviewed Italian practices (e.g. umbrella
arch method, diaphragm of piles, etc.) employed for
excavation of tunnel portals in difficult ground.
Rogers & Haycocks (1989) developed excavation/sup-
port guidelines for portals of tunnels (diameter 9m)
for the Geomechanics Classification System of
Bieniawski (1989). Incidentally, Barton et al. (1974)
considered portals in a separate excavation category
and allowed provisions for them in their Q-System
classification. Peila & Pelizza (2002) presented crite-
ria for technical and environmental design of tunnel
portals. Del Greco & Oggeri (2004) summarized the
stability and reinforcement techniques of rock slopes
above portals in northern Italy.
2.3 Intersections or junctions
An intersection involving tunnels is a region where
the common points of two or more individual tunnels
are located. This is a purely geometrical definition.
Actually, it is a region where the tunnels that form the
intersection or junction interact closely with each other.
Underground intersections are frequently devel-
oped in many subsurface construction projects, e.g.
subway systems, power station complexes, sewer or
water-supply networks, military and defense installa-
tions, etc. Also, conceptual designs of underground
repositories for high-level nuclear wastes generally
involve a labyrinth of underground passageways with
numerous junctions. Similarly, in underground min-
ing operations, intersections involving galleries and
shafts are common. As a matter of fact, in some min-
ing practices (e.g. block caving and room-and-pillar
methods), intersections are an inherent feature of the
production method.
Intersections provide continuity of functions of tun-
nels along different routes crossing one other; there-
fore, the stability of intersections is crucial. Yet, the
potential for instability is more pronounced in these
regions due to the following reasons (Gercek 1986,
1996).
(a) At an intersection, the roof span is greater than
those of the openings involved, and, obviously, a larger
span corresponds to a shorter stand-up time and greater
rock-load height.
(b) Geological discontinuities pose difficulties for
the design of intersections. For example, a favorable
orientation of a dominant joint set for one opening may
be undesirable for the other(s). An extreme example of
such a possibility is shown in Figure 2a.
(c) At the intersection, the support provided by the
sidewalls of an opening is removed. In a jointed and
blocky rock mass, the removal of confinement and
creation of additional free surfaces may expose some
blocks or wedges that can move in more than one direc-
tion (Fig. 2b).
(d) At intersections or junctions, induced stresses
occurring around individual openings are, in a sense,
superimposed. Particularly, sharp intersection corners
are regions of high stress concentration and, if possi-
ble, they should be avoided.
In fact, the intersection region includes not only
the conditions and characteristics of the individual
openings but also additional problems created by the
new geometry. Therefore, the design of tunnel inter-
sections requires special consideration. The possibility
of encountering adverse conditions (i.e. significantly
different from those existing around the individual
openings) should be taken into account.
For the intersection problem, too, there is no
closed-form solution for the distribution of stresses.
Earlier studies were carried out by using 3-D photo-
elasticity (Kaneshige et al. 1964, Riley 1964).
Also, many studies involving numerical analyses
have been done on the subject; however, most of those
studies included results dependent on a particular case.
In this respect, a comprehensive study carried out by
Hocking (1978) on the stresses around two- and three-
way tunnel intersections or junctions was remarkable.
159
Table 1. Failure classification for tunnel portals (Rogers &
Haycocks 1988).
External failure types Internal failure types
Overall mass slide * Crown face overbreak**
Upper slope slide Internal crown/rib failure
Outer rib slide Invert failure
Upper slope subsidence/ Seal rupture ***
collapse
* Least common, most disastrous.
** Most common, least reported.
*** In inactive or abandoned portals.
Gercek (1986, 1996) presented recommendations for
the design and support of tunnel intersections. Further-
more, some of the rock mass classification systems
offer provisions for the intersections. For example, in
the Q-System of Barton et al. (1974), the Q value of a
region is reduced to one-third of its original value at
the intersections. In the application of Geomechanics
Classification System, Bieniawski (1978) recom-
mends the use of next lower quality rock mass class
when an intersection is involved.
As a matter of fact, the rock mass rating (RMR) for
the intersection may be estimated by (Gercek 1996):
(1)
Here, it should be noted that the intersections involv-
ing underground openings with significantly different
sizes may be considered as special cases. For exam-
ple, during the construction of Dinorwic underground
power station at North Wales, there were 35 intersec-
tions within the tunnel system, and more than 50 inter-
sections of tunnels with the caverns were treated as
portals, apart from 15 actual portals (Peterson & Arthur
1979, Ellis et al. 1979).
2.4 Regions with sudden geometrical changes
These regions, actually, can be considered as special
types of intersections. The reason for their inclusion
in a separate category is that the region with sudden
geometrical change belongs to a single tunnel, i.e. no
other opening is involved.
In tunnels, sudden geometrical changes may involve
cross-sectional or directional changes or both. Sudden
cross-sectional changes occur either by enlarging or
decreasing the cross-sectional area of the opening. This
kind of geometrical changes may be accompanied by
changes in the shape of the tunnel. In any case, it has
long been established that, if stability problems of some
degree exist in a project, decreasing the cross-sectional
area of the excavation generally improves the stability;
inversely, enlarging the area of the excavation somehow
worsens the stability picture. If possible, therefore,
cross-sectional enlargements should be made gradually.
In the case of sudden directional changes, the out-
come may not be readily predictable. Of course, effect
of anisotropic in situ stresses or the orientation of dis-
continuities will be the major concern regarding the
stability. For tunnels driven in an anisotropic in situ
stress field, sometimes the directional change dramat-
ically affects the stability (Gercek & Genis 1999).
Also, concerning the orientation of tunnel with respect
to the dominant joint sets, sudden directional changes
may significantly affect the stability picture (Fig. 2a).
Actually, in most tunneling projects, directional
changes are gradual, or the overall change in direction
may not warrant more than a single cross-sectional
analysis.
In summary, the 3-D regions in tunnels are impor-
tant but they pose some problems to designers.
3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR ANALYSIS
For proper stress and stability analysis of 3-D regions
in tunnels, there are a number of considerations that
should be taken into account, and these are as follows.
Firstly, the domain to be analyzed should include
the zone of influence of the 3-D region. It is the zone
outside of which the effect of the 3-D region practi-
cally diminishes. For the excavation face, the zone of
influence starts about two tunnel diameters ahead of
the face and extends to some distance behind the face.
This distance is about two to four diameters for a linear
160
Figure 2. Some of the stability problems at intersections
(Gercek 1986).
elastic rock while it can be several diameters for elasto-
plastic material behavior (Unlu & Gercek 2003).
The size of the zone of influence of a portal
depends on topographical and geometrical features of
the site. In this context, the size is influenced by the
extent to which the slopes of the portal cut are affected
by the tunnel excavation. In addition, the geomechan-
ical characteristics (e.g. quality and behavior of the
rock mass) are among the significant factors to be
considered. Figure 3 shows a possible domain that can
be considered in the stress analysis of a tunnel portal
and excavation face.
The extent of the zone of influence of an intersec-
tion, under a certain state of in situ stresses, primarily
depends on the intersection configuration. It is influ-
enced by the geometry (i.e. size and shape) of indi-
vidual openings and by their orientation with respect
to each other (Gercek 1986). Particularly, the angle of
intersection affects the 3-D zone within the pillar
between the branch tunnels. For sharp angled bifurca-
tions in Y- or X-junctions, this extent may reach
several tunnel diameters; alternatively, for T- or -
junctions formed in an elastic medium, the influence
of intersection is practically zero at about two tunnel
diameters from the center of intersection (Kaneshige
et al. 1964, Hocking 1978).
For the regions of sudden geometrical changes, the
extent of the zone of influence depends on the
degree/severity of the change. Unfortunately, this
matter is yet to be investigated, and, for this purpose,
a series of parametric studies may be helpful.
Secondly, realistic modeling of the in situ stresses
and boundary conditions may be a problem. Except
for the portals, the in situ stress tensor can be taken as
constant throughout the problem domain for all the
3-D regions if they are located at a considerable depth.
For portals, this tensor is expected to be highly variable
within the domain. Without sacrificing the accuracy,
every effort should be made to simplify the geometry,
boundary conditions, in situ stresses, etc. For exam-
ple, in many of the numerical studies involving the
excavation face, a circular tunnel located in a hydro-
static in situ stress field is considered to simplify the
problem, increase the tractability of results, and facil-
itate the use of axisymmetric solutions.
Thirdly, in the stress analysis of underground
openings, it used to be a formidable task to model
complex 3-D configurations accurately. Today, thanks
to the very capable and friendly computer codes, it is
much easier to model, discretize, modify, visualize, and
analyze such situations. For example, FLAC
3D
finite
difference computer program (Itasca 1997) includes
special library functions to assist the user to model
the excavation face and tunnel intersections easily.
Also, the application of 3-D visualization technology
(Nonomura et al. 2004) has been very informative.
Finally, simulation of sequential excavation and
support installation gives valuable insight into the
identification and causes of potential instabilities;
then, it can be possible to take actions to improve the
stability or remedy the problems. Again, even with the
high level of sophistication reached by the current
stress analysis programs, such simulations are difficult
and, to some degree, simplifications are necessary.
4 CONCLUSION
Stress and stability analysis of the 3-D regions in tun-
nels is discussed. It is emphasized that the 3-D nature
of these regions should be appreciated since the inter-
action of factors affecting the stability complicates
the problem. Although the tunnel engineers under-
stand that each case must be treated on its own merits,
the issues discussed in this paper should be given due
consideration for the proper modeling and analysis of
the 3-D regions.
REFERENCES
Barisone, G., Pelizza, S. & Pigorini, B. 1983. Italian experi-
ences with tunnel portals in difficult ground. In Proc.
Eurotunnel83: 157163. Bucks, UK: Access Conf. Ltd.
Barton, N.R., Lien, R. & Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classi-
fication of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.
Rock Mechanics 6(4): 189206.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1978. Personal communication. Dept. of
Mineral Engineering, Penn State University, University
Park, PA.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classi-
fications. New York: Wiley.
Del Greco, O. & Oggeri, C. 2004. Reinforcement design and
control of rock slopes above tunnel portals in northern
Italy. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 41(3). Proceedings of
th ISRM SINOROCK 2004 Symposium, Paper 3B02.
161
Figure 3. An hypothetical domain for modeling the portal
and excavation face of a tunnel (Gercek 1990).
Descoudres, F. 1974. Analyse tridimensionelle de la stabilit
dun tunnel au voisinage du front de taille dans une
roche lasto-plastique. In Advances in Rock Mechanics;
Proc. of the 3rd Int. Congress on Rock Mechanics 2:
11301135. ISRM.
Duffaut, P. & Piraud, J. 2002. Ideas on tunnel stability.
Tribune (22), http://www.ita-aites.org
Eberhardt, E. 2001. Numerical modelling of three-
dimensional stress rotation ahead of an advancing tunnel
face. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 38: 499518.
Ellis, I.T., Douglas, T.H. & Copeland, B.G.T. 1979.
Dinorwic power station, North Wales: design and con-
struction of tunnels and shafts. In M.J. Jones (ed.)
Tunnelling79: 1529. London: Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy.
Gercek, H. 1986. Stability considerations for underground
excavation intersections. Mining Science & Technology
4(1): 4957.
Gercek, H. 1990. Stability of and design of portals for tun-
nels and galleries (in Turkish). Kaya Mekanigi Bulteni
(4): 38.
Gercek, H. 1996. Stability of excavation intersections in
underground mining. In Milestones in Rock Engineering
The Bieniawski Jubilee Collection: 265274. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Gercek, H. & Genis, M. 1999. Effect of anisotropic in situ
stress field on the stability of underground openings. In
G. Vouille and P. Berest (eds), Proc. of the 9th Int. Congress
on Rock Mechanics 1: 367370. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B. & Yao, J.I. 2001.
Seismic design and analysis of underground structures.
Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology 16:
247293.
Hocking, G. 1976. Three-dimensional elastic stress distribu-
tion around the flat end of a cylindrical cavity. Int. J.
Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 13: 331337.
Hocking, G. 1978. Stresses around tunnel intersections. In
A. Burt (ed.), Computer Methods in Tunnel Design:
4160. London: Institution of Civil Engineers.
Itasca 1997. FLAC
3D
Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua
in 3 Dimensions V. 2.0, Users Manual, 5 vols.,
Minneapolis, MN: Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.
Kamata, H. & Mashimo, H. 2003. Centrifugal tests of tunnel
face reinforcement by bolting. Tunelling & Underground
Space Technology 18(23): 205212.
Kaneshige, O., Kawamoto, T. & Okamura, H. 1964. On the
state of stress distribution around the crossing gallery (in
Japanese). J. Min. & Metall. Inst. Japan 80: 659664.
Mller, L. 1978. DerFelsbau, Dritter Band: Tunnelbau.
Stuttgart: Ferdinant Enke Verlag.
Ng, C.W.W. & Lee, G.T.K. 2002. A three-dimensional para-
metric study of the use of soil nails for stabilising tunnel
faces. Computers & Geotechnics 29(8): 673697.
Nonomura, S., Kimura, H., Nakamura, J. & Tamura, S.
2004. Design and construction of tunnel intersection area
with special structure. Tunnelling & Underground Space
Technology 19: 490.
Pacher, F. 1974. Zur Sicherung grosser Tunnelvoreinschnitte.
Rock Mechanics, Suppl. 3: 7988.
Paterson, T. & Arthur, L.J. 1979. Tunnel portals at
Dinorwic. In M.J. Jones (ed.), Tunnelling 79: 314.
London: IMM.
Peila, D. & Pelizza, S. 2002. Criteria for technical and
environmental design of tunnel portals. Tunnelling &
Underground Space Technology 17: 335340.
Pelli, F., Kaiser, P.K. & Morgenstern, N.R. 1991. The influ-
ence of near face behaviour on monitoring of deep
tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 28: 226238.
Ranken, R.E. & Ghaboussi, J. 1975. Tunnel Design
Considerations: Analysis of Stresses and Deformations
Around Advancing Tunnels. Final Report to Federal
Railroad Administration, Report No. FRA OR&D
7584, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation.
Riley, W.F. 1964. Stresses at tunnel intersections. J. Eng.
Mech. Div. Proc. ASCE 90: 167179.
Rogers, G.K. & Haycocks, C. 1988. Portal stability in rock.
In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Ground Control in Mining:
7683. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.
Rogers, G.K. & Haycocks, C. 1989. Rock classification for
portal design. In A.W. Khair (ed.), Rock Mechanics as a
Guide for Efficient Utilization of Natural Resources; Proc.
29th US Symp. on Rock Mechanics: 2330. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Terzaghi, K. 1946. Introduction to tunnel geology. In
P.V. Proctor & T.L. White, Rock Tunneling with Steel
Supports, Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Co.
Tonon, F. & Amadei, B. 2002. Effect of elastic anisotropy on
tunnel wall displacements behind a tunnel face. Rock
Mech. & Rock Engineering 35(3): 141160.
Unlu, T. & Gercek, H. 2003. Effect of Poissons ratio on the
normalized radial displacements occurring around the
face of a circular tunnel. Tunnelling & Underground
Space Technology 18: 547553.
US Army Corps of Engineers 1978. Tunnels and Shafts in
Rock. Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-2901, Washington,
DC: Department of the Army.
Yoo, C. 2002. Finite element analysis of tunnel face rein-
forced by longitudinal pipes. Computers & Geotechnics
29(1): 7394.
Yoo, C. & Shin, H.K. 2003. Deformation behaviour of tun-
nel face reinforced with longitudinal pipes laboratory
and numerical investigation. Tunnelling & Underground
Space Technology 18(4): 309319.
162