Rock Mechanics

and Rock Engineering 24, 31--51

Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering
9 Springer-Verlag1991
Printed in Austria

Application of Convergence Confinement Analysis to the Study

of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel
By
T. Kitagawa1, T. Kumeta1, T. Ichizyo I, S. Soga ~, M. Sato z, and M. Yasukawa2
1 Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
2 Japan Highway Public Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

Summary
This paper deals with a study on the geomechanical behavior of the rock mass
around the tunnel. The Convergence Confinement Analysis is one of the most
appropriate way to estimate this behavior. Elasto-plastic models proposed by Hoek
and Brown, Egger and Kastner were adopted in this study.
Measurements of the preceding displacement were performed in a road tunnel
in Japan, the geology of which is Neogene squeezing mudstone. The measured data
was compared with the results of Convergence Confinement Analysis.
The preceding displacement was about 40% against the upper bench face
converged displacement and 17 % against the final converged displacement. Mean-
while, it increased drastically in lower bench excavation step.
Back analysis was also executed to calculate the extension of the plastic zone
of the rock mass, which was half of that estimated by Convergence Confinement
Analysis in upper bench excavation step. But, in lower bench excavation step, the
results of the two analyses were very similar. The support pressure and support
stiffness were also calculated.

Introduction

The interaction effects between rock mass and supports are one of the
most interesting subjects in planning or designing a tunnel. In particular, it
is important to evaluate the de f or m at i on and the extension of the loosening
zone o f the rock mass ar ound the tunnel and the necessary support
pressure and support rigidity.
Numerical or theoretical analysis have been introduced to estimate
these items. Convergence C onf i ne m ent Analysis (C & C Analysis), or Char-
acteristic Curve Analysis, have been successfully p r o p o s e d by Egger (1973),
Kastner (1974) and H o e k and Brown (1980).
Measurements can be p e r f o r m e d generally after the excavation of the
tunnel. Meanwhile, the displacement before the c o m m e n c e m e n t of the
32 T. Kitagawa et al.:

measurement have a great significance on the geomechanical behavior of

the rock mass around the tunnel. But it have been very seldom to measure
the preceding displacement of a tunnel except the portal where the over-
burden is comparatively small. Much less, there had been no measure-
ments in a tunnel with geology of squeezing mudstone, and the overburden
is rather large.
Measurements of the preceding displacement were put into practice in
a road tunnel in Japan. Extensometers were installed from the service
tunnel going ahead of and parallel to the main tunnel. C & C Analyses
were performed and the results were compared.

Convergence Confinement Analysis

Convergence Confinement Analyses proposed by some authors, i. e.

Egger (1973), Kastner (1974) and Hoek and Brown (1980), are based on the
same assumptive conditions and equilibrium equations. However, their
failure criteria and constitutive equations differ slightly from each other.
Their expressions and equations are as follows.

Pi/Po

stress
I re I ease.~//" A
curve

roof
~'-~-~~- - l- x ~ sidewall

I \\ I
I \1
W I
t/i
0 I
~=~--ri, , , , , i
I
2 i 0 -I~ I
(xd) I
I
I
\ I
/ -,( d;i sp . curve
x
\ I
I t \1

"~II t t '~ X " "

Fig. 1. Convergence confinement analysis
'1
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 33

Assumptive Conditions

Basic assumptive conditions are as follows (Fig. 1).

1. Circular tunnel.
2. Two dimensional plane strain condition (i. e. no displacement along the
tunnel axis).
3. Homogeneous and isotropic material.
4. Elasto-plastic material.
5. Hydrostatical in-situ stress field.
6. Uniform radial support pressure.

Equilibrium Equation

The differential equation of equilibrium and the boundary conditions

are as follows.
dG 0-,.- 0-0
d--7 + r -o, (1)

r = ri; 0-,,=pi,
r = r e ; 0-~=o-,.e, (2)
r = c ~ ; 0-,-=P0
where Or: radial stress,
0-o: tangential stress,
Pi: support pressure,
Po: hydrostatical in-situ stress,
ri: tunnel radius,
re: radius of elastic and plastic boundary.

Failure Criteria

Hoek and Brown's Criteria

or1 = 0-3 + Vm0-c 0-3 + s 0-2 (elastic), (3)

or1 = 0-3 + Vm~ 0-~ ~r3 + s,. 0-2 (plastic), (4)
where 0-1,o-3: maximum and minimum principal stress,
O'c: unconfined strength of intact rock,
m , s; constants for elastic rock mass,
m,., s,.: constants for broken rock mass.
34 T. Kitagawa et al.:

Therefore, the j u d g i n g equations, whether the rock mass a r o u n d the

tunnel is elastic or plastic, are as follows.

P i c , _ 1 - M crc < 'p~ (elastic), (5)

P0 P0 P0

Pi" - 1 - M a c > p~ (elastic), (6)

Po Po Po
where Pi 9 support intensity, Picr :critical support intensity.
Po Po

M= 21
_-=-V ( - ~ - ) 2 + mP~ + s - - - .m (7)
Gc 8

Egger's a n d Kastner's Criteria

M o h r - C o u l o m b ' s failure criteria are adopted 9

1 + sin r cos r
cra=a3 1-sine + 2c 1 - s i n e ' (8)
where, c" cohesion,
r : internal friction angle.

Therefore, the judging equation, whether the rock mass a r o u n d the

tunnel is elastic or plastic, are as follows.
cos r p~
p~c, _ (1 - sin r - e < -- (elastic), (9)
p0 po po
cos r p~
Pi" - (1 - sin r - c > -- (plastic) 9 (10)
p0 p0 p0

Constitutive Equations

T u n n e l D i s p l a c e m e n t in Elastic C o n d i t i o n
l+v
ui- E ( P 0 - p i ) ri, (11)

where ui: displacement of tunnel wall,

E : Young's modulus,
v: Poisson's ratio 9

T u n n e l D i s p l a c e m e n t in Plastic C o n d i t i o n

9 a n d Brown's M e t h o d .

(12)
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 35

where
A={ 2(l+v)E Ma,,-G~, } . e x p ( 2N 4 Vm~a~p,+s,.~o2 ) ,(13)
m,. cTc

N = 2 Ill/-(P~ MG) Sr
+ -- (14)
[ m,. o-,, m,~ '

2 (Ue/r~) (r~/ri) 2
G,, = {(r~/r~)2_ 1} (1 + l / R ) ' (15)

re < 1 ~ - R = 2 D . I n ( 4 t (16)
ri \ r~/
re
-- > y3; R = 1.1D, (17)
ri

D=-m/ { m+ 4 ]V/\(-m- ~G ~ t / + s } (18)

9 Egger's Method (Rapid Fracturing Model).

Q, 1-v 2 (1+a2~ v )
ui = - -r;' + - -E 9PiPo a+ 4~ 1
-
v '
(19)

where
1--V 2 2po-ac(l+aZp v)
G,=r ,OUR, _ .r,~+1 - (20)
E -~p--71 a+Z,, 1 v '
,[ 2 p o - ac [-~, 1 (21)
r ' = r, " z- 4,- 1'

, 1 +E Vr, 2 ( 1 - v) p0 2~p-07-i G} (22)

UR - -

2c" cos r 1 + sin r

eL= l _ s i n ~ ; w Z,,- 1 - sin r (23)

G.p 1
a - . . (24)
Stp I

~,.,~: radial plastic strain velocity,

~,#: tangential plastic strain velocity.
9 Kastneffs Method.
l+v(2p0-G) r '2 (25)
ui - E Po 1 + Zp ri
36 T. Kitagawa et al.:

where

r'=r, [ ( 1 + 2 :tp)
{P0 (?~p- 1) + <}
- 1) +
]~ z ;tp
1 1' (26)

2 c- cos r I + sin r (27)

o-c- - { 2 2 s i n e , 2 p - 1--sine"
The rapid strength reduction and the dilation are considered in the
Hoek and Brown's Method, but not in the Kastner's Method.
The characteristic curves calculated by Eq. ( 1 1 ) - (28) show the
displacement of the sidewall of the tunnel. For that of the roof, the dead
weight of broken rock mass should be taken into consideration. Therefore,
the support pressure can be increased by the amount ?/(re - ri).

Rock Mass Classification and Rock Mass Properties

Barton et al. (1974) proposed the Q method for a rock mass classifi-
cation. Meanwhile, Kitagawa (1987) compared Q value and the degree of
the Japanese rock mass classification, and determined the material
constants from many measurements. The determined material constants
and strength parameters for each rock mass classes are shown in Table 1.

T a b l e 1. M a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t s a n d s t r e n g t h p a r a m e t e r s

C Material constants Strength Parameters

L e: E
Q value Original rock mass Broken rock mass c r
(MFa) (MPa)
S m s In, sr (MPa) (deg)
B 1 <Q~4 50 10000 0. 4 O. 0006 O. 1 O. 00003 4. 0~6. 0 55~65
C~ 0. 4<Q6 1 50 5000 0. 2 O. 00008 O. 04 O. 00001 2.4~4. 0 45~55
CM 0. I<Q~O. 4 50 1500 O. 1 O. 00004 O. 03 O. 00001 1.0~2. 4 38~45
CL O.01<Q~O. I 50 400 0.03 0. 00O01 0. Ol 0 0. 4~1.0 30~38
D O. 001 < Q~O. O1 50 100 O. O1 0 O. 001 0 0~0. 4 15~30

The strength parameters, i.e. cohesion and friction angle, were calcu-
lated as the critical support intensity by Egger's and Kastner's Method (Eq.
(9)) is equivalent to that of Hoek and Brown's Method (Eq. (5)). They are
shown in Table 2. The in-situ stress were assumed to be 0 . 5 - 3.0 MPa,
considering general overburdens.

T a b l e 2. S u p p o r t i n t e n s i t y

Support Intensity ( pJp o ) Cohesion Friction Angle

CLA~S
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 c (MPa) , r (deg)
0. 2 55

O. 125 45

0.05 38

0. 025 30

0.01 15

(]) Hoek & Brown (~) Egger, Kastuer

 StudyofPreceding DisplacementofaSqueezing Rock Tunnel 37

Nou Yunne ( L= 1,544 m )

Dt : Talus
W-Nms" Weathered Mudstone W-Nms ~ ~_~ ~.~
Nms : Fresh Mudstone S S vet ~ -/"" \ t ~ ~ "
west p o r t a ~

- - ~ ~ ? l t l / main tunne

STA . + . . . . . . . . . ~ +~
I_~ I [ I P I I I I I I \1 I i ,../ i
SuPport I 2 DIll DI DII DIV DII I
Pattern , ~11131~1] _ 1~ J z I~1 : 1E!]1211~121=1 2 11]4152121[ 2 ]312[,[Jl a [El

* t
200 , ~ ' ~ ',Ao / q

Conver- - [ I
gence ~ ~] I avv

I1r ~ ~ ~ I ~;~,,r
~") ' !~'; s,, u ,, s z i r,,, ,,Ze,', e I"'~-'1
0 I r
2.0 I , I
?" 2.2 l
I

o~o LL 150= I I I
I I p
(%) 100:
o---o | p 50:~ I rl
!I ..... F~ ";' I
0.: I I I
20- I I
I
le o~ I I I
30- I I I
I
Wn 20- o.L--o I I
l
(%) 10-
o_ I I I I
a o-~q,, o~: I I i __
o-- - -<L~.o
5 -7(up,,)5 :_
1I t ~ ~ I
07
RQD 50 :_ Non-Core__ I ~
(%) 100: Drilling
I I
6 I
I t r /\
E~ 4 I I I I ~ I
L I / \
2" I I .d 6 I
O- I
I
r 30- ' I
(meq q00g) I0- I
i
< 2.urn
60
40-
I
(%) 20-

Fig. 2. Topographical and geological profile of Nou Tunnel

7" Unit weight (• 10 -2 MN/m3), LL Liquid limit (%), Ip Plasticity index, I / F l o w index, w.
Natural water content (%), q. Unconfined compressive strength (MPa), ~ Competence factor
( = q./(7" h)), RQD Rock quality designation (%), Ex Expansive ratio (%), CEC Cation
exchange capacity (seq/100 g)
38 T. Kitagawa et al.:

Measurement of Preceding Displacement

Tunnel Profile
The N o u Tunnel, which is a rapid road tunnel and 2992 m long,
located at the middle part of Japan. The construction work was
commenced in 1984 and completed in 1987. The excavation work was done
by the mechanical short bench method. The section area of the upper
bench face is about 48 m 2, and that of the full face is about 90 m 2.
The geology is mainly the Neogene mudstone (Nou Valley Mudstone)
and siltstone. There are seams consisting of unconsolidated tuffaceous clay
or silt. Fig. 2 shows the topographical and geological profile of N o u
Tunnel.
Figure 2 also shows the measured maximum displacement of the
tunnel wall. The squeezing phenomena occurred from STA.232 and
maximum displacement 250 mm was measured at STA.225+20. Other
items, 7, LL, Ip, If, w,,, q,,, RQD, E~, CEC, are also presented in Fig. 2.

Measuremen t

The measurement of preceding displacement (i. e. Measurement Work

C) was done at three sections, STA.224+ 20, STA.224 + 10, STA.224 + 00,
from the service tunnel going ahead and parallel to the main tunnel. These
measuring sections locate at approximately 1375 m from the portal and the
overburden is about 80 m.

~5.0. 1.01.0 2.0 32.0

Fig. 3. Measurement Work C (preceding disp.)

Extensometers were installed and the measurement was commenced

when the distance to the upper bench face of the main tunnel was about
100 m and finished when the displacement of the full face converged.
Other measurements (i. e. Measurement Work A and B) were also done in
these sections. Fig. 3 shows the preceding displacement measurement
(Measurement Work C) from the service tunnel. Fig. 4 shows the
Measurement Work A, B and C in the main tunnel.
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 39

8m
Meae.Work ttems
Convergence
A o--- - - --o

4m C~ Heaving
l !Disp. of Roof
B ~ !Extensorneters
Axial Force
~ El ! S u p P o r t S t res-~

.. s . . . . , ,

~ " ~.~.7_~__ _ ~___ ~ J. j " . ---_.,._.._~

Fig. 4. M e a s u r e m e n t Work A, B and C

Measurement Work A:
9 Convergence.
9 Displacement of the roof.
9 Heaving of the floor.

Measurement Work B."

9 Relative displacement of rock mass (five holes of 8 m long x 6 points).
9 Axial force of rock bolt (five rock bolts of 4 m long x 4 points).
9 Ground pressure and support stress (3 points).

Measurement Work C:
9 Extensometers No. 1 (37 m long x 7 points, STA.224+ 20).
9 Extensometers No. 2 (31 m long x 6 points, STA.224+10).
9 Extensometers No. 3 (37 m long • 7 points, STA.224 + 00).

2 g
9- i - 4- +

Dir. of Face

If$111rNlllllnSUlllNl
~ I! ~
-
I n

I
L"Z

.F ".: o
9 o
E ~ ~]~]] C o a r s e G r a i n e d Mudstone
I :.: ~
?- k t "~ c ~ ~ Medium

Fine Grained
Grained Mudstone

Mudstone
LrZ.
~~ Sander
r
t00 50 0 100 50 0 100 50 0
RQD ROD RQD

Fig. 5. Geological columns at M e a s u r e m e n t Work C sections

40 T. K i t a g a w a et al.:

Figure 5 shows the geological columns of the measuring sections

which is mainly black-grey mudstone containing thin seam of blue-grey
unconsolidated clay. The core samples were collected in solid state at
STA.224+00 and STA.224+20. But unconsolidated clay core samples
could not be collected at STA.224 + 10.

NO. 1 STA. 224+ 20

8O
|
~'E 60 I II ]
E 40 I
20
O. ' ~4
(t)

"-- 0
-O I I

20
I
40
i
60 80 100 120

(day)
NO. 2 STA. 224 + I0
8O

6O
E
E
40

~x 20
O)
-.8
0

20 40 60 80 I00 120

(day)
NO. 3 STA. 224+ 00
8O I

6O
I I 21 , '
E 40

O.
20
(t)
--- 0
-O
, ' 1

) i J
0 20 40 60 80 10O 120

(day)
Fig. 6. Results of Measurement Work C
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel al

Results of Measurement
Measurement Work C
Figure 6 shows the relative displacement of the rock mass versus days
after the installation of extensometers. The figures affixed to the measured
lines are horizontal depths of the measuring points from the tunel wall. U,
L and I denote the day when upper bench face, lower face and invert face
passed through respectively. The results of No. 2 (STA.224+ 10) do not
correspond to the depth order.
The preceding displacement ratio is determined by Eq. (28).

where to: preceding displacement ratio,

6p: preceding displacement,
6: converged displacement.
Table 3 shows the displacements and the preceding displacement ratio
of eachmeasuring point. The individual values aresimilar for the results of
No. I (STA.224 + 20) and No. 3 (STA.224 + 00). But the results of No. 2 are
rather irregular and scattered. It seems that the irregularity comes from the
influence of the thin, unconsolidated silt seam, as mentioned above.
Table 3. Measuremen results of preceding displacement
STA. 224+20 224+10 224+00
{)epth (m) I ] 2 3 4 6 8 1 2 3 4 6 8 1 2 3 4 6 8
FP 4.5 3.7 2.4 2.5 1.9 0.5 5.5 3.2 1.4 2.2 1,2 2.2 7,8 7.3 6.3 4.0 3,8 2,7
s UB 8.8 8.6 6.9 5.8 3.2 1.6 I 17.0 6.8 6.8 4.0 3.0 3.0 19.2 16.7 13.5 7.8 9.0 6.8
(~m) F 6 26.3125.1. 23.8 22.6 11.7 5.0!42.4 28.7 26.3 33.7 23.4 12.0 49~6.6 43.7 36.1 23,6 23.0 21.1
u~6 51.1 43.0 34.8 43.1 59.4 27.8]32,4 47.1 20.6 55.0 40.0 73,3140.6 43.7 46.7 51.3 47.5 39.7
FD 17.1i14.7 16.1 I1.1
1--
16.2 10.0 13.0 11.1 5.3 6.5 5.1 18.3]15.7 16.7 17.5 16,9 16.5 12.8
R M 43.2

(04)
E
A
U6
FD
UB
13.2 L 44.7
9.9
44. 3
44,9
16.0

N FI) 13.0

PDR Preceding displacement ratio

FP When the upper bench face passed through
UB When the upper bench face displacement converged
FD When the final displacement converged

The mean value of the preceding displacement ratio is 44% against the
upper bench face and 13 % against the final converged displacement. The
ratio of' converged displacement of upper bench face to the final converged
displacement is almost 1:3, which was measured all along the tunnel.

Comparison of Results of Measurement Work A and B

Figure 7 shows the comparison of Measurement Work A, B and C at
STA.224 + 20. The base line is U, i.e. the day when the upper bench face
passed through.
42 T. Kitagawa et al.:

Measurement Work C
80

60
E
v
40 ,1

n
20
"O
0
i i
20 40 60 80 i00 120
(day)
Measurement Work B
8o

"" 60 -(~ (~
E I

'p~2
m 20 F
______

~r
0 I - -

l l
28 48 68 88 ,08 ,20
(day)
Measurement Work A

.-. 120

9o

2
-o 30 ~ / , / ~ ~ N ~ m b 0 r s .are "lJ
0 ~ J ~ ,referred, to Fi,g,4
28 48 68 88 108 120
(day)
Fig. 7. Results of Measurement Work A, B and C (STA.224 + 20)

The characteristics of the displacement are very similar between

Measuring Work A, B and C except those of the roof displacement. The
ratio of converged displacement of upper bench face to that of final
converged displacement is also 1 : 3.
After the comparison and examination of these measurements, the
authors confirmed that these data are rather accurate and reliable.
Therefore, the authors developed the following analysis.
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 43

Analysis of Preceding Displacement

Simulation of Preceding Displacement Curve

To simulate the p r e c e d i n g d i s p l a c e m e n t curve (Fig. 6), the authors
a d o p t e d the e x p o n e n t i a l r e c u r r e n c e curve for a p p r o x i m a t i o n . The most
simple and best fitting curve was p o i n t symmetrical curve having inflection
point o f (x~, ~1) as stated in Eq. (29), (30) and Fig. 8.
=A'[l-exp {-(x-xl) b}]+dl; (x-x1) >0, (29)
= -A-[1 - exp { - ( x - x 0 b}] + dl; (x - x 0 < 0. (30)
w h e r e A,/3: parameters.

6p
~ ~/Face Passed
nt

Through

X
X!

Fig. 8. Exponential recurrence curve

The authors a d o p t e d the m e a n m e a s u r e d data at three sections

b e t w e e n - 3 d and 3 d (d: d i a m e t e r o f the tunnel) for the u p p e r and lower
b e n c h face, a n d d e c i d e d the p a r a m e t e r s A and fl for each d e p t h from the
t u n n e l wall.
T h e results are s h o w n in Fig. 9 and T a b l e 4 . The p r e c e d i n g
d i s p l a c e m e n t ratio is almost 40%.
Upper Bench Face Model Lower Bench Face ModeJ
(m=) 5O
40 ~ 1 m

Z 2
3O ....

2O
10
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(xd) (•
Fig. 9. Simulation of preceding disp. curve
For 1 m depth (Upper) y = 7.43.[1- exp { - ( x - 0.06).3.25] + 7.43
(Lower) y = 10.79. [l - exp { - (x - 0.14). 1.68] + 25.66
44 T. Kitagawa et al.:

T a b l e 4. C o n s t a n t s for displacement curve

No. 1 2 3 4 6 8 Mean
A (em) 7.43 5.84 5.31 3.63 2,83 2,05 4.47
60 B 3.25 2.58 2.04 1.93 1.72 2.96 2.44
(%) 41.1 42. 1 50.0 39.6 38. 8 36. 1 40.8
A (cm) 10,8 9.62 9. t0 9.00 7. 06 4. 53 8.35
El B 1.68 t. 94 1.64 1.33 1.39 1.50 1.59
x (%) 39. 8 38. 4 36. 8 34. 7 32. 3 27.5 34. 9

UB Upper bench face

LB Lowerbench face

Convergence Confinement Method

Analysis by Convergence Confinement Method was done using the

results of preceding displacement measurement. The characteristic curve
for the rock mass of CL class was adopted.
The relative displacement of the rock mass was assumed to be
corrected by the following equation.

where 8: disp. o f tunnel wall at r = r,

6/ measured disp. at r = rj,
rj: radius o f measuring point.

The tunnel radius was assumed to be ri = 4 m for the upper bench face
model and ri = 5 m for the full face model, which was the radius of the
equal area circle. The mean value fl = 2.4 was adopted for the upper bench
face displacement curve, and the inflection point was calculated in the way
that the preceding displacement ratio tr = 0.40. The coefficients fl, xl and 61
for the full face model were calculated in the same manner.
Table 5 shows the corrected displacement curve for upper bench face
model and full face model.

T a b l e 5. C o r r e c t e d displacement curve

Tunnel Radius Position Corr. Ratio

Corrected Displacement Curve
r, (!) r, (!) ri/r]
UpperBench Face ~odel 4.0 5.0 1.25 y=915 [l-exp {-(x-0.09)'2.5} ] +9.5
Full Pace Model 5.0 6.0 1.20 y:t3.0 El-exp {-(x-0.27).t. 6] ] +32.0

The preceding displacement 6p just when the upper bench face passed
through can be calculated by the following equation.
6p = 2 . 9 . 5 90.40 = 7.6 (ram). (32)
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 45

Stress Release Ratio

The stress release ratio co is defined by the following Eq. (33).

co= ( 1 - P~0) -100~ (33)

where co: stress release ratio.

When the rock mass including the supports could be regarded as an
equivalent elastic material, the characteristic curve is like a line A in Fig. 1.
In this case, the stress release ratio co is equal to the preceding
displacement ratio x.

P,/po
Uppe'r Bench
Face Model #

-.o-o--o - o - o - - ~

w _J roof
J sidewall
J

w (,,.) u~ (era)
10.0 8,0 6.0 4.0 2.0

I I I
2 ] 0 -1
(xd)

I
~2• -z MN/mS
E = 400 MPa
q==50 MPa
v=0.3

/ |

!~ d=4-Om _

F i g . 10. E x a m p l e of C & C Analysis

 46 T. Kitagawa et al. :

On the other hand, the stress release ratio co calculated from C & C
Method is that of only rock mass, not including the supports. Therefore,
when the rock mass is in elastic condition, co > to, and when the rock mass
is in plastic condition, co < to.
An example of C & C Method analysis is shown in Fig. 10, combined
by the characteristic curves of the rock mass and preceding displacement
curves. The stress release ratio co can be obtained from the preceding
displacement ratio x and the preceding disp.
Table 6 shows the stress release ratios in each stage calculated by
Hoek and Brown's Method, using the corrected displacement curve.

Table 6. Stress release ratio

Upper Bench Face Model Full Face Model
Upper Bench Face Passed Through Upper Bench Face Converged Final Displacement Converged
pJpo SRR (X) p,/po SRR (g) p~/po SRR (~)
Hoek & Brown O. 63 37 0.47 53 0. 37 63
ggger 0.63 37 O. 29 71 O. 17 83
Kastner 0.63 37 0.25 75 0. 11 89
Disp. PDR Disp. PBR Disp. PBR
Measurement (m~) (~) (mm) (~) (m~) (~)
7.6 17 *(40. 0) 19. O 42 45. O lOB

Po= 1.58 MPa (overburden pressure), S R R Stress release ratio, PDR Preceding displacement
ratio, * (40.0) PDR against the upper bench face convergence

For the upper bench face model, the preceding displacement ratio 0.40 is
almost equal to the measured stress release ratio 0.37. The good coincidence
of both ratios means that the rock mass around the tunnel is in almost elastic
condition. That is to say that the supports of the upper bench face are good
enough to prevent the surrounding rock mass from loosening.
The characteristics of displacement of full face model are far from that of
the upper bench face model. From Table 6, the increase of stress release ratio
from the upper bench face convergence stage to the full face convergence
stage is only 10 - 14%. But the increase of measured displacement of the
tunnel is almost 58 %. This fact implies that the rock mass around the tunnel
moves drastically by smaller stress change. In other words, the plastic defor-
mation is very dominant in this stage. The difference between the stress
release ratio and the preceding displacement ratio is very large when the
plastic deformation is dominant.

Plastic Zone (Loosening Zone)

The back analysis was also done in this study at three excavation
stages, i. e. upper bench face convergence, lower bench face arrival and full
face convergence. The limit strain was assumed to be 1%. The results of
the extension of plastic zone are shown in Table 7, comparing with the
results of Hock and Brown's Method, Egger's Method and Kastner's
Method.
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 47

Table 7. Width of )lastic zone

Back Analysis Boek &Brown ggger Kastner
UB 0.7m 1.6m 1.2m 1.3rn
LB 2.6 2.4 1.9 2.3
FD 4.3 4.2 3.6 4.2
Notes Limit Shear Strain Failure Criterion Failure Criterion Failure Criterion
7 o =l. Og Boek I Brown Mohr Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb

UB U p p e r bench face disp. converged

LB L o w e r bench face passed t h r o u g h
FD Final disp. converged

Table 7 shows that in the upper bench face convergence stage, the
radius of the plastic zone of C & C Method is as twice as that of back
analysis. But after the arrival of lower bench face, the radius of the plastic
zone are very similar.
This is because the stress condition is almost hydrostatical, i.e. the
coefficient of the lateral pressure to the virtical pressure is nearly 1.0 - 1.2,
shown in Table 8. And this is also because the geometry of the tunnel
section is almost circle in the back analysis after the arrival of lower bench
face.

Table 8. Results of back analysis

Young's Modulus Coefficient of Lateral
Pressure
STA. Et (MPa) E2 (MPa) K
224+20 360 220 1.2
224+10 250 150 , 1.0
224400 I
i
320 190 I.O
Mean [ 310 190 l.l

E1 Neglecting the preceding disp., E2 Considering the preceding disp.

Support Pressure
The support pressure is assumed to be radially uniform to the tunnel
wall. In this study, using the characteristic curve and the measured
pL

p~.o, - - / - - -

0 ~ ul
Fig. 11. S u p p o r t p r e s s u r e and s u p p o r t stiffness
Pi s u p p o r t pressure, ri tunnel radius, u~0 preceding disp., u~e elastic part o f u~, k s u p p o r t stiffness
Pi' ri
bli ~ Uio -If- IAie; l'lie ~ k
48 T. Kitagawa et al."

displacement, the calculation of the support stiffness and the support

pressure was done.
The correlation between the support pressure Pi and the tunnel
displacement ui is shown in Fig. 11. The displacement of the tunnel
sidewall is calculated by the displacement curve shown in Table 5. The
vertical displacement of the roof is assumed to be the mean value at three
measuring sections. The preceding displacement when the upper bench
face arrived was assumed to be 7.6 mm from Eq. (32).
The results are shown in Table 9. Only the results by Hoek and
Brown's Method are shown in Fig. 12. The maximum support pressure and
the maximum support stiffness are 0.74 MPa and 270 MPa respectively.

p,/.Oo
Upper Bench
1.0
Hiek & Brown's
Method
Face Model I
0.8

/
7 0.4
~ .
s i, dewa I / ' ~
roof
~
/

w (m)
J

I0.0
J

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0

0.2

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

T
4.0
t
4.0
5.5
5.0

Pl/Po
1.O
Fu I'1 Face Model Hoek & Brown's
Method
0.8

/ 0.4

J l F-
J
0.2 ,,
5.0
10,0 13.7
w9 ul (c~)
10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

Fig. 12. S u p p o r t intensity and s u p p o r t stiffness

-- w h e n lower b e n c h face arrived, - - - w h e n full face disp. converged
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 49

Table 9. Support intensity and support stiffness

Hoek & Brown Egger Kastner
Disp. p~/po p~ (MPa) k (MPa) p~/p~ p~(MPa) k (MPa) p~/po pi(MPa) k (MPa)
Horizontal (mm) 10 O, 47 O. 74 270 O. 29 O. 46 166 O. 25 O. 40 144
UB
VertMeal (mm) 55 O. 37 O. 58 50 O. 16 O. 25 22 0.13 O. 21 17
Horizontal (mr,) 26 O. 45 O. 71 187 O. 26 O. 41 108 0.22 0.35 Bt
LB
Vertical (mr,) 100 0.36 0.57 31 O. 17 O. 27 15 O. 15 O. 24 13
Horizontal (mro) 45 O. 37 O. 58 77 O. 17 0.27 35 0. 11 0.17 23
FD
Vertical (mm) 137 0.34 0.54 21 O. 17 0. 27 [ 10 O. Ifi O. 25 10

UB Upper bench face disp. converged

LB Lower bench face passed through
FD Final disp. converged

The ratio of the horizontal support stiffness to the virtical support

stiffness, km/ki~, is 5 - 8 in the upper bench face model, and 2 - 3 in the
full face model. This implies that the horizontal support stiffness of the
upper bench face model is relatively larger than that of the full face model.
The support stiffness is the index of the restriction effect to the defor-
mation of the tunnel. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that the
tunnel wall can easily deform vertically in the upper bench face model and
horizontally in full face model.
The support pressure ratio piH/p., is 1.3 - 2.0 in the upper bench face
model and 1.0 in full face model. This results mean that the support
pressure is going to be radially uniform according to the advance of the
excavating face.
The convergence displacement of the tunnel wall uH can be calculated
from the vertical displacement of the roof using the characteristic curve,
assuming that the support pressure is radially equal. The results are shown
in Table 10. Only the results by Hoek and Brown's Method are shown in
Fig. 13.
Table 10. Horizontal and vertical displacement

Measurement Hoek & Brown Egger Kastner

Horizontal Vertical HorizontaI Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical
u, (mm) nv (~m) an (mm) av (mm) u. (~) n~ (mm) u. (mm) uv (mm)
Disp. i9 55 40 55 38 55 35 55
6B
Ratio 0. 35 0.02 O. 69 O. 64
Hisp. 2B I 100 50 [ 100 ~5 I 100 40 I 100
LB
Ratio O. 26 O. 50 0.45 0.40
FO
Oisp. 45 I 137 50 ] 137 45 [ 137 40 I 137
Ratio 0.33 O. 36 0. 33 0.29

UB Upper bench face disp. converged

LB Lower bench face passed through
FD Final disp. converged

The calculated values are getting closer to the measured values when
the tunnel approaches the full face converged stage. This implies that the
final condition of the mechanical movement of the rock mass around the
tunnel could be estimated by this method. The final support pressure was
calculated 0.25 - 0.55 MPa in this study.
50 T. Kitagawa et al.:

P,/po
Upper Bench 1-~ & Brown's

0.47 roof

0.4 S.37 / I ~

o.2 ~ " I]
w (m)
lO.O 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0
0361/1.9
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
I 5.5
5.0
u~(cm)
Pl/Po
1.O
Full Face Model Hoek & B r o w n ' s
Method
o. i I I

0.6 ~

J ~.~4a
4 ~..~
0.37
0.36 0.34 / Ii 7 //
J

,/ J [11
0"i.7t6~ " " 1 ,'0 13~.7 ul(m)
w ( m ) 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 I0.0 12.5 15.0
Fig. 13. Estimation of tunnel wall disp.
-- when lower bench face arrived, - - - when full face disp. converged

Conclusions
The authors measured preceding displacement of a squeezing
mudstone tunnel and analysed them using C & C Method based on the
classified characteristic curves. And the conclusive remarks are as follows.
1. Stress and Displacement.
Stress release ratio and preceding displacement ratio can be calculated
to suggest the difference of the movement of the tunnel wall at upper
bench face tunnelling and full face tunnelling.
2. Loosening Zone.
The extension of the loosening zone can be estimated with the advance
of the tunnel face by C & C Method.
 Study of Preceding Displacement of a Squeezing Rock Tunnel 51

3. Support.
The support stiffness ratio can be calculated to imply in which direction
the support is more flexible vertically or horizontally. And the support
measures can be selected according to the required maximum support
pressure.
4. Final Displacement.
The final converged displacement of the tunnel can be estimated by
C & C Method on the assumption that in-situ stress field is hydrostatical.
It is very important and useful to estimate specially the final
converged displacement and the extent of the final loosening zone in
planning or designing the tunnel. The C & C Method is rather convenient
to estimate them. The authors hope that this study can be very instructive
for planning and designing the tunnelling works.

Acknowledgements
This measurement work was entirely supported by the Japan Highway Public
Corporation. The authors would like to acknowledge J. H. P. C. for the permission to
use the measurement data in this paper. The support and cooperation of the persons
concerned have been instrumental in this study and are also greatly appreciated.

References
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J. (1974): Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Publi-
cation No. 106.
Egger, P. (1973): EinfluB des Post-Failure-Verhaltens yon Fels auf den
Tunnelausbau. Institut ftir Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik der Universit~t Fri-
dericiana, Karlsruhe.
Gesta, P. (1986): Recommendations for use of convergence-confinement
method. Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains, No. 73, Janvier-Fevrier.
Hoek, E., Brown E. T. (1980): Underground excavations in rock. The Insti-
tution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Kastner, H. (1974): Statik des Tunnel- und Stollenbaues. (Japanese edition.)
Kitagawa, T. (1987): Rock mass classification and rock-support interaction
analysis. JSCE 19th Symp. on Rock Mech. (In Japanese.)
Kitagawa, T., Ichizyo, T., Soga, S. (1987): A study on rock mass classification
and characteristic curve. JSCE 42nd Annual Academic Lecture Meeting. (In
Japanese.)
Sato, M., Yasukawa, M., Kitagawa, T., Ichizyo, T., Soga S. (1987 a): A study
on preceding displacement of tunnel by characteristic curve method. 7th Domestic
Syrup. on Rock Mech. (In Japanese.)
Sato, M., Yasukawa, M., Yano, N., Kumeta, T. (1987 b): Tunnel displacement
characteristic and effect of support in Nou Tunnel. Tunnel and Underground 18/9.
(In Japanese.)