Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.

477-488, 1991

0148-9062/91 $3.00 + 0.00

Copyright 1991 Pergamon Press pie

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

Time-dependent Tunnel Convergence II.

Advance Rate and Tunnel-Support Interaction
Y.-W. PANt
J.-J. D O N G t

A time-dependent model of tunnel convergence for tunnelling in a viscoelastic

rock mass is proposed in the accompanying paper (this issue, pp. 469-475) to
model the excavation-construction process during tunnelling in a rock mass
with rheological properties. In this paper, a parametric study based on this
model is presented to investigate the effects of the tunnelling advancing and
support installation, respectively, on the tunnel convergence and on the
support-pressure. Furthermore, a non-linear optimization procedure is
suggested to calibrate the required model parameters from the in situ measured
tunnel-convergence data. Discussion on the proper application of the proposed
model and the optimization calibration are also included.

INTRODUCTION

in which Ur(x "" oo) represents the radial displacement

of the tunnel wall at an infinite distance from the tunnel
face; it is equivalent to the radial displacement of a
tunnel in a plane-strain condition. F(x) is a normalized
displacement function relating to x, the distance from
the considered tunnel cross-section to the tunnel face.
Hocking [3] made use of the method of boundary
integral equations to evaluate the normalized displacement function F(x) under condition of an isotropic
stress field in an elastic medium. Based on the study of
the Frejus and Las Planas tunnels, Sulem et al. [4]
proposed the following empirical equation for the convergence of a rock tunnel when the creep effect of the
rock mass is excluded:

A time-dependent model of tunnel convergence for

tunnelling in a viscoelastic rock mass is proposed in an
accompanying paper [1]. In this hierarchical model,
various important factors including: (1) the rheological
properties of the rock mass; (2) the tunnelling advancement; and (3) the tunnel-support interaction, are taken
into account to model the excavation--construction process during tunnelling in a rock mass with rheological
properties.
In general, the creep-rate for an opening in a rock
mass decreases with age and increases with the depth of
the opening. The creep behaviour of a rock mass around
a tunnel depends not only on the rheological properties
of rock mass but also on the existing stress state [2]. As a
result, the convergence of tunnel can be considered as a
function of the rheological properties and the stress state
of rock mass. However, the stress state of rock mass
around a tunnel is strongly affected by the excavation/
support process of the tunnel construction, The resulting
effects of the excavation/support process of tunnelling,
in general, can be divided into the tunnelling advancement effect and the support installation effect.
The tunnel advancement effect mainly derives from
the restraint of the convergence of the already excavated
opening due to the unexcavated rock core ahead of the
tunnel face, which provides a natural internal support
pressure. This natural internal support decreases with
increasing distance from the considered tunnel crosssection to the tunnel face. The radial displacement of the
tunnel wall at any location in a circular tunnel can be
described by the following equation:
U~(x) = F ( x ) U r ( x

--,

oo);

in which X is a parameter of the rock-tunnel and C~x is

the tunnel convergence at x = ~ . From equations (1)
and (2), one can extract the following empirical function
to represent of the normalized displacement function

F(x):

(1)

tlnstitute of Civil Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University,

Hsinchu, Taiwan 30050, Republic of China.
477

The ground response curve (or the characteristic line

of a rock mass) portrays the relation between the tunnel
displacement and support pressure. Many analytical and
numerical solutions of the ground response curve considering elasto-plastic behaviour of a rock mass are available [5-10]. When the viscous behaviour of the rock
mass is considered, the ground reaction curve also
depends on the excavation sequence and the installation
time of the support [11]. Thus, the tunnel-support
interaction is also time-dependent.

478

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE

Some conclusions were drawn by Ward [12] on the

support pressure developing with the tunnel advancement. First, the closer to the face the support is installed,
the greater the load will be carried by the installed
support. Second, the load carried by the installed support is higher when the support stiffness is raised.
A formula for calculating the support pressure is proposed by Ward [12] as follows:
P~ Ks[1- F ( x ) ]
Po
Ks + 2G '

(4)

in which Ps is the support pressure, Ks is the support

stiffness and G is the shear modulus of the rock mass.
Ward [12] also found that in a weak rock, the displacement at the tunnel wall during tunnel advancement
depends not only on the tunnel face position, but also on
the elapsed time. This can explain why both the tunnel
displacement and the loading on a support near the
tunnel face tend to increase, no matter whether the
tunnel face advances or remains unchanged. This
phenomenon clearly demonstrates that creep behaviour
of a rock mass should be reasonably modelled in the
analysis of tunnel-support interaction.
In this paper, a parametric study of time-dependent
tunnel convergence and tunnel-support interaction
is presented. Furthermore, a non-linear optimization
procedure is proposed to calibrate the required
model parameters from the in situ measured tunnelconvergence data.

THE TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL-CONVERGENCE

MODEL

A time-dependent model of tunnel convergence is

proposed in the accompanying paper [I]. Based on this
model, the time-dependent radial displacement Ur(t) in
a circular opening with a radius a in a viscoelastic
medium at time t can be evaluated by the following
equation:
U~(t)
a

- g ~ [ h c ( t ) x Fc(t)]
-g~eK~Hs(t - ts)[D(t) Fc(t)],

(5)

in which
gve

compliance function,

K s = support stiffness,
Fc(t) = creep function,
d[P0 - Pc(t)]

he(t) =

dt
Po, P c ( t ) = initial pressure and the rock-core support
pressure, respectively,
Hs(t - ts) = unit step function such that Hs(t - q) = 1
for t i> t,, and Hs(t - is) = 0 for t < ts,
O ( t ) = the changing rate of the radial displacement:
d[Ur(t)- Ur(q)]
D(t) =
dt

II

Six influence functions [gve, F~(t), D(t), he(t), K, and

H ( t - t s ) ] are included in equation (5) to consider:
(a) the creep effect; (b) the tunnel advancement effect;
and (c) the support effect, respectively:
1. The creep effect results from F~(t) and gve.
2. The tunnel advancement effect results from h~(t)
and D(t).
3. The support effect results from K,, H~(t - t~) and
D(t), namely:
(a) the effect of support stiffness results from Ks;
(b) the effect of installation time results from
Hs(t - t s ) and O(t).
The creep Fc(t) and the compliance functions gw
depend on the assumed viscoelastic model. The function
he(t) depends on the tunnel advancement rate; Hs(t - ts)
and D ( t ) depend on the installation-time of the support
and the assumed viscoelastic model; and D ( t ) depends
on the support characteristics and the assumed viscoelastic model. In the next section, a parametric study is
performed to investigate the effects of the tunnelling
advancement and support installation, respectively, on
the tunnel convergence and support pressure. The timedependent tunnel-support interaction is also examined.

PARAMETRIC STUDY
Tunnel advancement effect

The effect of tunnel advancement arises from the

changing rate of the unexcavated rock-core pressure.
Suppose the tunnel face advances at a constant speed V,
then the unexcavated rock-core pressure can be related
to the tunnel advancement rate V through a normalized
displacement function F(x). Assume that equation (3) is
valid and Pc[x(t)] = PoE(x), then:
Pc(t)= Po 1-

(x + X )

=P0 1--

(Vt + X

(6)
It can be observed from the above equation that the
unexcavated rock-core pressure Pc(t) depends on the
elapsed time and tunnel advancement rate. As a consequence, the function he(t) also depends on the elapsed
time and the tunnel advancement rate. The effects of the
tunnel advancement rate can be noted in Figs 1-3 for
different viscoelastic models. Figures 1-3 show the influence of the tunnel advancement rate on the normalized
tunnel convergence (Ur/a) for the Kelvin, Maxwell and
generalized Kelvin models, respectively. For an identical
viscoelastic model (based on the same creep function),
the tunnel convergence approaches an identical final
value, but the rate of tunnel convergence apparently
varies with tunnel advancement rate. It reveals that the
final tunnel convergence does not depend on tunnel
advancement rate; however, a tunnel will take a longer
time to reach the final tunnel convergence for a slower
tunnel advancement rate than for a higher one. It can
also be noted that the initial convergence rate depends
on the tunnel advancement. Rate: the greater the tunnel

PAN and DANG:

TIME-DEPENDENT

TUNNEL

CONVERGENCE--II

479

0.020
A

.3
I
UJ
O

"-'0.015
O

0
c"

~ 0.010

ccccoV=
1 (m/day)
=====V= 2 (m/day)
.....
V= 5 ( m / d a y )
==.== V=lO (m/day)
the Kelvin's Model
(C1=-1, ~xI=-5, (x2=-5,
g,,,,=O.O0001 ./MPa, X~3.6 m,
K,=0.0 MPo/m, t,=0

>
cO
(0
-0

.N_ 0.005
O

E
12t

0.000

'1'

0.0

5.0

Fig. 1. The influence o f t u n n e l a d v a n c e m e n t

15.0
20.0
25.0
10.0
Time (days)
rate o n the normalized tunnel convergencefor the Kelvin model.
these figures, the curve for K, = 0 is equivalent to a
condition when no support is installed. For each model
(with the assumed parameters), the support is assumed
to be erected immediately after the tunnel is excavated.
It can be observed that the convergence of the tunnel
becomes saturated within a short time; the tunnel is
obviously stabilized from the contribution of the support. The tunnel convergence is largely repressed due to
the installation of a support; the higher is the stiffness,
the smaller the tunnel convergence that will occur. Take

advancement rate is, the greater the initial convergence

rate will be.

The support effects

The effects of stiffness and installation time of the
support on the radial tunnel displacement will be discussed subsequently.
Figures 4--6 show the influence of support stiffness on
the normalized tunnel convergence (U,/a) for the Kelvin,
Maxwell and generalized Kelvin models, respectively. In
0.030
to
I

uJ 0.025
0

"C--~0.020
d
0
C

~ 0.015

V: 1 (m/day)
V= 2 (m/day,)
,- -'-..:,= ,- V= 5 ( m / d a y )
V=lO (m/day)
the Mexwell's Model
(C~=0.00001, C2=1.5, a = - 5 ,
g,,.=O.O0001 ./MPQ, X-3.6 m

0
>
C
0

o 0.010
"O
O
N

"6
O
Z

K,=O.O

MPo/m,

t,=O

0.005

0.000

0.0

5.0

I0.0
15.0
Time (days)

20.0

25.0

Fig. 2. The influence of tunnel advancement rate on the normalized tunnel convergencefor the Maxwell model.

480

PAN and DANG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE--II

0.020
r~
I
hJ
0

~-" 0 . 0 1 5
0

d
0
E

So.o
o
%_
>
C
0
(.3

.....
._N 0 . 0 0 5
O

E
tO
Z

0.000

0.0

5.0

V=10 (m/day)
the Generalized Kelvin's Model
(CI=1, cx1=-5, C2=-1, ~2=-5,
g~,=O.O0001 /MPo, X=3.6 m
K,=O.O MPo/m, t,=O )

10.0
15.0
Time (days)

20.0

25.0

Fig. 3. The influence of tunnel advancement rate on the normalized tunnel convergence for the generalized Kelvin model.

the case of K, = 5000 MPa/m for example, the installed

support reduces the tunnel convergence by about 35%
for the Kelvin model, and about 45% for the Maxwell
model.
Figures 7-9 show the influence of support stiffness on
the normalized support pressure and the normalized
radial pressure of the rock mass, P/Po, for the Kelvin,
Maxwell and generalized Kelvin models, respectively.
The support is assumed to be erected immediately after
the tunnel is excavated (i.e. ts = 0). Ground response

0.020

I
Ld
O
~'0.015
0

curves corresponding to different values of K, are presented in these figures. The difference in the support
stiffness results in the variation of the ground response
curves. This clearly demonstrates that the tunnelsupport interaction during the tunnelling process should
be taken into account carefully.
Figures 10-12 show the influence of installed time
of a support on the normalized tunnel convergence
(Ur/a) for the Kelvin, Maxwell and generalized Kelvin
models, respectively. For each model (with the assumed

i.

C.

d
0

~0.010

&._

cooco K,=
0 . 0 (MPa/.rn)
===== K,=IO00.O (MPa/.m)
~'K,--5000.O (MPa/m)
K, =5000.0 (MPa/m)
the Kelvin's Model

>
C
0
(.9
-0
G)

.N 0.005

(C,=-1, ~ = - 5 , a ~ = - ~
g,,=O.OqO01 /MPa,. X 3.6 m,
V=2 m/day, t,=O )

E
0
Z

0.000

0.0

5.0

10.0
15.0
Time (days)

20.0

25.0

Fig. 4. The influence of support stiffness on the normalized tunnel convergence for the Kelvin model.

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE--II

481

0.030
r-)

I
o

w 0.025
v
O

"C0.020
E

0.015

c.~co K,=
O.0 ( M P a / m )
===== K,=IO00.O ( M P a / m )
===== K,=3000.O (MPo/m)

>
C
O

c) 0.010

.....

~3

K,=5000.O

N
(3

(MPo/m)

the Maxwell's
(CI=O.OO001,
gv,=0.Oq001
V=2 m/day,

0.005

Model
C~=1.5, = = - 5 ,
/ M P a , X=3.6 m
t,=O )

O
Z

0.000

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

Time

20.0

25.0

(days)

Fig. 5. The influence of support stiffness on the normalized tunnel convergence for the Maxwell model.

parameters), the support stiffness is assumed to be

3000 MPa/m. In these figures, the curve for t, = oo
corresponds to a condition when no support is installed.
From these figures, it can be observed that the sooner the
support is installed, the lower the final tunnel convergence that will be reached. It can also be seen that the
final tunnel convergence may be reduced significantly if
support is installed too late.
Figures 13-15 show the effect of support timing on the
support pressure and the normalized radial pressure of

the rock mass, P/Po, for the Kelvin, Maxwell and

generalized Kelvin models, respectively. The support
stiffness is assumed to be 3000 MPa/m. Ground response
curves corresponding to different support installation
times t,, are presented in these figures. The difference in
the support installation time results in the variation of
the ground response curve, These results evidently reveal
that the timing of the tunnel installation may greatly
influence the tunnel convergence as well as the support
pressure.

0.020
e,3

I
uJ
c)

"J0.015
O

hi

, ::

0
E

0.010

cocoa
=====
=====
......

>
C
O
o
"O
G)

._N 0 . 0 0 5

K,=
O.O (MPo/.m)
K,=IO00.O (M Pa /m )
K,='3000.O (MPa/m)
K,=5000.O (MPo/m)
the Generalized Kelvin's Model
(C~=1, cx,=-5, .C=-1, a~=-5,
g,,=0.0QO01

/MPo,. X=3.6

V=2 m/day, t,---O )

0
Z

0.000

I
0.0

,
5.0

,
I 0.0

Time

,
15.0

,
20.0

25.0

(days)

Fig. 6. The influence of support stiffness on the normalized tunnd convergence for the generalized Kelvin model.

PAN and DANG: TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE I1

482

1.10
1.00

0.90
0_0.80
.0.70
(0

0.60

c c c : o K,=
0.0
c : = = : K,=IO00.O
-~-~-~-~ K,=3000.O
.....
K,=5000.O
the Kelvin's
(C1=--1,

(MPa/m)
(MPo/.m)
(MPa/m)
(MPa/m)
Model

~X,=--5,

(Xz=--5,

gv,=O.O0001 /MPa, X=3.6 m.

V=2 m/day, t,=O )

(1)

o_ 0.50
-0

N
~ 0.40
O

0.30
0
Z

0.20
0.10
o.oo

0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Normalized Convergence, U r / o ( 1 0 E - 3 )
Fig. 7. The influence of support stiffness on the normalized pressure for the Kelvin model.
0.000

PARAMETER CALIBRATION FROM

TUNNEL-CONVERGENCE DATA USING THE
NON-LINEAR OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE

Non-linear optimization
Back analyses are often performed to find the required
material parameters of a model from in situ measurement [e.g. 13-15]. For the purpose of back analysis, the

non-linear optimization technique can be applied to

calibrate the required parameters of the proposed model
in terms of one or more sets of data from in situ
measurement. A non-linear optimization, in principle, is
to search for the optimized value of a non-linear object
function. A m o n g m a n y different non-linear optimization
techniques, the Levenberg-Marquardt method has been
well established, the required computer subroutines are

110
1.00
0.90
a_0.80
O_

0.70
o6o

(D
k.

n 0.50
o4o
0

E 0.30

O
Z

0.20
0.10

0.00
0.000

0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
Normalized Convergence, U r / o ( 1 0 E - 3 )
Fig. 8. The influence of support stiffness on the normalized pressure for the Maxwell model.

PAN and DONG: TIME-DEPENDENTTUNNEL CONVERGENCE--II

483

1.10

c e e e e K,=

0.0 (MPa/m)
" = " = K,=IO00.O (MPo/m)
.~=-'~ K,=3000.O {MPa/.m)
.....
K,=5000.O (MPo/m)
ceeee the Generolized Kelvin's Model
c---=---(C1=1, o(1=-5 , C2=-1 , ~2=--5,
-"-~-~':- g,,,=O.O0001 /MPo, X=3.6 m,
........ V=2 m/doy, t,=O )

1.00

0.90

~_0.80
(3._

0.70
0.60

e_ 0.50
"O

0.40
0

E 0.30
0

0.20
0.10

o.oo - ~
0.000

0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Normolized Convergence, U r / o ( l O E - 3 )

Fig. 9. The influenceof support stiffnesson the normalized pressure for the generalized Kelvin model.

also readily available in mathematic packages (e.g.

IMSL [16]). This method is suitable for locating the
global optimum [17-19]. Formulation of the non-linear
optimization method is beyond the scope of this study;
interested readers are referred to Fletcher [19].
The object function q~{x } in this ease is defined by a
non-linear "error square" function, which is the sum of
the squares of the differences between n (model) calcu-

lated data, Ui({x}), (i = 1, n) and n (in situ) measured

tunnel-convergence data, V~ (i = 1, n):
(~{x} = ~ [Ui({x})- Vi]2,
i=1

in which {x } is the matrix consisting of the undetermined

model parameters. The involved non-linear optimization, then, is to search for a set of unknown model

0.020
A

A'

~J0.015
O

Q;
C

~ 0.010

>
C
0

"tO

.N
O

0.005

(doys)
(doys)

~ ~ -~-" t,=
4
(,days)
. . . . . . t,=
8
(,doys)
-'~-'.''- t,=infinite (doys)
t h e Kelvin's Model
(C~=-1, ~ = - 5 . , ~2=-5,
gv,=0.O0001 /MPo, X=3.6 m,
V=2 m/doy, K,=3000 MPo/m )

0.000

0.(

5.0

(7)

10.0
15.0
Time (doys)

20.0

25.0

Fig. 10. The influenceof support timing on the normalized tunnel convergencefor the Kelvin model.

484

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE- Ii

0.050

w 0.025
o

[3

"~C-~0.020

0
C

~ 0.015

ooecot,=
oc ---" = t,=

0
>
C
0

0
2

(doys)
(`doys)

.....
t,= 8
.(dys)
:.~''~" t,=infinite (,days)
the Moxwell's Model
(C~=0.00001, C~=1.5, cx=-5,
g v,=O.O0.O01 /MPa, X=3.6 m.
V=2 m/day, K,=3000 MPo/m )

t) 0.01 0
-[3
(I)
N
O

E 0.005
0

0.000

0.0

5.0

10.0
15.0
Time (days)

20.0

25.0

Fig. 11. The influence of support timing on the normalized tunnel convergence for the Maxwell model.

one set or several independent sets of measured data; the

lower and upper bounds of each parameter can also
be defined. Besides, various weight functions can be
assigned to different sets of calibrated data in order to
distinguish the various reliabilities of different data sets.
For purposes of illustration, a set of in situ measured
tunnel-convergence data are taken from Sulem et al. [4]
to demonstrate the calibration method using a

parameters {x} corresponding to a series of Ui({x}),

(i = 1, n) such that the object function (the error square
function) is minimum. A computer program based
on the Levenberg-Marquardt method and the timedependent tunnel convergence model is developed for
calibrating the required parameters of the proposed
model in terms of data from in situ measured data. This
program can be used to perform calibration based on

0.020
r~

UJ
0

Z
o

Z
c

J.
--

~
=

o -o

"J0.015
[9

ys

d
0
C

~0.010
k(D
>
C
0

iii?i :L:,,o

t h e Generalized Kelvin's Model

(CI=1, (x~=-5, . C z = - l , a2=-5,

gv,=O.O0001 /MPo, X=3.6 .m.
V=2 m/day, K,=3000 MPo/m )

-3

.~ 0.005
0

0.000

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Time (days)
Fig. 12. The influence of support timing on the normalized tunnel convergence for the generalized Kelvin model.

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE--II

1.10

e:: : o t,=

(days)

* = = =" t , =
. . . . .
t,=

4
8

(days)
(days)

c==== t,=

1.00

485

(days)

the Kelvin's Model

( C t = - 1 , a1=--5 , e ~ = - 5 ,
gv,=O.O0001 /MPa, X=3.6 m,
V=2 m/day. K,=3000 MPa/m

0.90

o_0.80
o_
0.70

0.60
,
~- 0.50
"o
o4o
O3

.~

E 0.30

0
Z

0.20
0.10
0.00
0.000

0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Normalized Convergence, U r / o ( 1 0 E - 3 )

Fig. 13. The influence of support timing on the normalized pressure for the Kelvin model.

non-linear optimization technique. The adopted data

come from the measurement of the Las Planas tunnel,
Base A, section 7 [3].

The conditions for the considered tunnel are:

Pv= 1.84MPa and a = 10.5m. There are five parameters that need to be calibrated in this case:
X of equation (3),
gve of equation (5),
C1, ~t, ~2 of equation (8).

The results of tunnel-convergence calibration

The distortional stress-strain relation of the ground is
assumed to follow the Kelvin model. The creep function
Fc(t) takes the following form for the Kelvin model [1]:
Fc(t) = 1 + C, e - ' , ' -

(C, + 1)e-=:'.

1.10
1.00

0.90
0_0.80
o_
.0.70

(8)

The parameter calibration is based on the measured

data of tunnel convergence during the first 8 days. For
lack of actual properties and installation time of the

c::=ot,=
0
(days)
a = = = = t,=
2
(days)
= = = = ~ t,=
4
(days)
=-- . . . . t,=
8
(days)
oeceo t.=-=infinite (days)
the Maxwell's Model
(C~=0.00001, C~=1.5, (x=-5.
g,,=O.OqO01 /MPo, X=3.6 m,

v = 2 m/day, K,=3000 MPo/m )

0.60
O3

n 0.50
"0

0.40
0

E 0.30
0
Z
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.000

0.005
0.010
0.015
0.'020
Normalized Convergence, U r / o

0.025
0.030
(10E-.3)

Fig. 14. The influence of support timing on the normalized pressure for the Maxwell model.

486

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE-- 1I

1.10
1.00

c c c c o t,=
u==== ts=

0
2

(days)
{days~

. . . . . . . t~=

{days)

ooooo t,=infinite (days)

=c==3 the Generalized Kelvin's Model
~ - = ~ (C1=1, ~x~=-5, C ~ = - 1 , ~x2=-5,
gv,=O.O0001 /MPo, X=3.6 m,
V=2 m / d a y , Ks=3000 MPo/m )

0.90

o_0.80
[3_

.0.70
o

0.60
2

n 0.50
-0

0.40
'6
0.30
o
Z

0.20
0.10

o.oo 5~=
o.ooo

0.005
0.010
Normalized Convergence,

0.015
0.020
Ur/a (10E-3)

Fig. 15. The influence of support timing on the normalized pressure for the generalized Kelvin model.

lows: since the support effect significantly affects the final

deformation of a tunnel, the long-term calculated deformation which ignores the support effects tends to be
overestimated.

support, the support effect cannot be taken into account.

As a result, no support is assumed in the parameter
calibration illustrated.
The calculated results of the displacement time history
based on the calibrated parameters and the measured
displacement time history are compared in Fig. 16. It is
seen that agreement is extremely good in the early part
of the curve, but is relatively imperfect in the long-term
deformation. This discrepancy can be explained as fol-

Suggestions for model parameter calibration

The result shown in Fig. 16 is simply a demonstration
of the application of the optimization technique on the
model parameter calibration for the tunnel convergence.

6.50
6.00
0

"

5.50
5.00
E 4.5O

E
(1)
0

4.00

g 3.5o
300

e c c c o computed
= = = = = measured
the Kelvin's Model
(X=6.438 m, g=0.0000175 /MPa,
C~=5.65 e i - - - 1 2 . 3 6 e 2 = - 1 4 0 . 9 6 )

o 2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00

0.50

I
0.0

I
5.0

I "
J
i
10.0
15.0
20.0
Time ( d a y s )

25.0

30.0

Fig. 16. The comparison of the calculated and measured time histories of tunnel convergence for the illustrated case.

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE--II

To properly apply the proposed model and the optimization calibration, the following remarks are suggested:
1. The installation time and the properties of the
support should be taken into account when the
support conditions change from site to site.
2. The installation time of the convergence indicators
should remain the same for every monitored tunnel
cross-section. Otherwise, the installation time and
the distance from the tunnel face should be
recorded in order to eliminate the influence of the
initial convergence.
3. The selection of the creep function to represent the
rock behaviour should be very carefully made,
especially when the long-term tunnel convergence
is predicted based on a short-term convergence
curve. The appropriate viscoelastic models for
various types of rock can be found in the handbook of Lama and Vutukuri [20].

487

4. The initial convergence largely affects the interpretation of the long-term convergence. The installation
time of the convergence indicator and it's distance
from the tunnel face should remain constant.
Otherwise, the following items should be recorded
along with the in situ tunnel-convergence measurement: (1) the time when convergence indicators
are installed; and (2) the distance from the tunnelface.
5. To predict the long-term tunnel convergence and
support pressure, the time of support installation
should be recorded, especially for a stiffer support
system.
Acknowledgement--This work was financially supported by the
National Science Council of the Republic of China under Contract
No, NSC80-0410-E-009-10. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

Accepted for publication 19 March 1991.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

In this paper, a parametric study of time-dependent

tunnel convergence the tunnel-support interaction is
presented. Moreover, a non-linear optimization procedure is suggested to calibrate the required model
parameters from the in situ measured tunnel-convergence data. The following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Pan Y.-W. and Dong J.-J. Time-dependent tunnel convergence--I.

Formulation of the model. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 28, 469-475 (1991).
2. Reynolds T. D. and Gloyna E. F. Creep measurements in salt
mines. Proc. 4th Symp. Rock Mech., University Park, pp. 11-17
(1961).
3. Hocking G. Three-dimensional elastic stress distribution around
the flat end of a cylindrical cavity. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 13, 331-337 (1976).
4. Sulem J., Panet M. and Guenot A. Closure analysis in deep
tunnels. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 24,
145-154 (1987).
5. Brown K. M. and Dennis J. E. Algorithms for non-linear fitting.
In Non-linear Optimization (Edited by Powell M. J. D.), pp. 67-71.
Academic Press, New York (1982).
6. Florence A. L. and Schwer L. E. Axisymmetric compression of a
Mohr-Coulomb medium around a circular hole. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech. 2, 367-379 (1978).
7. Kennedy T. C. and Lindberg H. E. Model tests for plastic
response of lined tunnel. ASCE J. Engng Mech. 104, 1313-1326
(1978).
8. Ladanyi B. Use of the long-term strength concept in the
determination of ground pressure on tunnel linings. Proc. 3rd
Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver, Vol. 28, pp. 1150-1156
(1974).
9, Ogawa T. and Lo K. Y. Effects of dilatancy and yield criteria
on displacements around tunnels. Can. Geotech. J. 24, 100-113
(1987).
10, Pan Y.-W. and Chen Y. M. Plastic zones and characteristic-line
families for openings in elastoplastic rock mass. Rock Mech. Rock
Engng 23, 275-292 (1990).
11. Cristescu N., Fota D. and Medves E. Tunnel support analysis
incorporating rock creep. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. 24, 321-330 (1987).
12. Ward W. H. Eighteenth Rankine Lecture--ground supports for
tunnels in weak rock. Geotechnique 28, 133-171 (1978).
13. Cividini A., Gioda G. and Barla G. Calibration of a rheological
material model on the basis of field measurements. Fifth Int. Conf.
on Numerical Methods in Geomech., Nagoya, pp. 1621-1628
(1985).
14. Tanimoto C. et al. Determination of rock mass strength through
convergence measurements in tunnelling. 2rid Int. Syrup. on Field
Measurements in Geomech. (Edited by S. Sakurai), pp. 1069-1078
(1988).
15. Wang S., Yang Z. and Xue L. The back-analysis method from
displacements for a viscoelastic rock mass. 2rid Int. Syrup. on Field
Measurements in Geomech (Edited by S. Sakurai), pp. 1059-1068
(1988).
16. I M S L International Mathematical and Statistical Library, Edn 8,
Chap. Z (1981).

1. The proposed model in the accompanying paper [1]

takes the time factors, including the creep effect, the
tunnel advancement effect and the support effect,
into account.
2. From the parametric study, the following are
found:
(a) the tunnel advance rate does not affect the
final tunnel convergence of a tunnel; however, it affects the initial convergence and the
required time for a tunnel to reach the final
convergence;
(b) the tunnel convergence can be repressed due
to the support installation; the higher is the
support stiffness, the smaller the tunnel convergence will occur;
(c) the tunnel-support interaction during a tunnelling process should be taken into account
carefully;
(d) the sooner the support is installed, the lower
the final tunnel convergence which will be
reached. The final tunnel convergence may
not be reduced significantly if support is
installed too late;
(e) the timing of the tunnel installation may
greatly influence the tunnel convergence as
well as the support pressure.
3. An optimization technique is suggested to calibrate
the required parameters of the proposed model. In
using the suggested technique, the proper selection
of a viscoelastic rock-mass model is essential.

488

PAN and DONG:

TIME-DEPENDENT TUNNEL CONVERGENCE - I I

17. Bard Y. Comparison of gradient methods for the solution of

non-linear parameter estimation problems. SIAM J. 7, 157-186
(1970).
18. Brown E. T., Bray J. W., Ladanyi B. and Hoek E. Ground
response curve for rock tunnel. J. Geotech. Engng ASCE 109,
15-39 (1983).

19. Fletcher R. Practical Methods of Optimization. Wiley, New York

(1987).
20. Lama R. D. and Vutukuri V. S. Handbook on Mechanics of
Properties of Rocks, p. 3. Trans Tech Publications, Rockport, MA
(1978).