Damage Evolution Analysis and

Pressure Prediction of Surrounding Rock

of a Tunnel Based on Rock Mass
Classification
Ming-Jie Zhao
Professor, Geotechnical section, School of River and Ocean Engineering,
Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400070,PR China
e-mail: lanchong1024@126.com

Xiao Sun
PhD student, Geotechnical section, School of River and Ocean Engineering,
Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400070,PR China
e-mail: 512930251@qq.com

Suo Wang
PhD student, Geotechnical section, School of River and Ocean Engineering,
Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400070,PR China
e-mail: 545091608@qq.com

ABSTRACT
Based on the relationship between each classification index for underground chambers and the
elastic wave velocity of rock mass, a corresponding relationship between the classification of
rocks that surround underground chambers and the initial damage variable is established by
using the wave velocity definition of the initial damage variable of rock masses. The
relationship between the damage variable and material parameters, such as elastic modulus,
Poisson’s ratio, cohesive force, and friction angle, is obtained through an analysis of damage
evolution during excavation. The analysis method of damage evolution is further established by
considering degradation of surrounding rock parameters. The elastic wave velocity is combined
with the empirical formula based on the empirical formula of the rock pressure prediction
model. The evolution tendency and rock pressure prediction model of the road tunnel is
established. However, the numerical method is combined with the characteristic curve method
based on the numerical simulation of progressive failure of the surrounding rock. The
prediction results from the two models are compared with the field data, which can verify the
reliability of the prediction model for pressure of the surrounding rock. A prediction method for
the evolution tendency of rock pressure in a road tunnel is proposed.
KEYWORDS: damage evolution, rock mass classification, surrounding rock pressure,
elastic wave velocity

- 603 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 604

INTRODUCTION
Many domestic and international tunnel engineering cases indicate that the instability of a
surrounding rock mass does not appear instantly, but occurs over time. The effects of the
progression from deformation to damage of the surrounding rock of a tunnel can be categorized
into two: the time effects of gradual release of the surrounding rock stress that is moved forward
by the excavation face and the rheological effect of the surrounding rock media (Sun Jun,
1996). Accidents can be caused by two factors: damage to the epigenetic layer of the
surrounding rock, which is caused by construction factors, and stress redistribution with
variation of the near load on the excavation face after excavation. This redistribution leads to
deformation of the surrounding rock, and this deformation increases gradually at some
structural faces or weak parts. The discontinuity surface, which includes joints and cracks in the
surrounding rock mass, constantly creeps and evolves. Macroscopic fractures and the new
linking sliding surface can then induce engineering instability (Liu Yongping, 2005). The
damage deformation of the surrounding rock is random, ambiguous, and unpredictable.
Therefore, the issue of the stability of surrounding rock under complex working conditions,
such as construction of a mountainous highway tunnel under unknown or poor engineering
geological conditions, has become increasingly urgent.
The original stress balance in the rock mass is broken by tunnel excavation as the tunnel
heading face moves forward. Damage to the surrounding rock gradually appears during tunnel
excavation, which leads to stress redistribution of the surrounding rock and strain softening of
the rock mass. Presently, theoretical research on surrounding rock lags behind the development
of engineering construction. However, addressing the failure mechanism of the surrounding
rock, ensuring engineering and excavation safety, and achieving smooth optimal support has
received increasing attention in theory and engineering circles. The rock mass contains
dimension defects at micro-, meso-, and macroscales under external load. Theoretically, these
defects propagate and link, which leads to the instability of the surrounding rock. A suitable
approach for stability evaluation and support for the surrounding rock of a tunnel can be
developed through research on the mechanism of gradual failure and damage evolution of the
surrounding rock from a theoretical point of view (Yi Shunmin and Zhu Zhende, 2005).
At present, research on the mechanism of gradual failure under stress of surrounding rock
excavation and the evolution tendency of surrounding rock pressure is imperfect. Thus, current
theories cannot fully reflect the degradation process, the evolution tendency of surrounding rock
stability, and the change rules of surrounding rock pressure during tunnel excavation. The
relationship among each classification of the surrounding rock and the elastic wave velocity of
rock mass is then established. A corresponding relationship between the classification of
surrounding rock and the initial damage variable is established by using the wave velocity
definition of the initial damage variable of rock masses. The relationship between the damage
variable and the surrounding rock material parameters is obtained by analyzing the damage
evolution of surrounding rock during excavation and that of the surrounding rock of a tunnel
under degradation of surrounding rock parameters. Based on the surrounding rock pressure
predicted by using an empirical formula with the elastic wave velocity, the evolution tendency
and rock pressure prediction model of a road tunnel is established. The numerical method is
combined with the characteristic curve method based on a numerical simulation of progressive
- 604 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 605

failure of the surrounding rock. The predicted results of the two models are compared with the
field data; this comparison can verify the reliability of the surrounding rock pressure prediction
model. Therefore, a prediction method of the rock pressure evolution tendency on the road
tunnel is proposed.

ANALYSIS OF INITIAL DAMAGE VARIABLE ON

SURROUNDING ROCK WITH ROCK MASS
CLASSIFICATION
Barton et al. obtained the relationship between the elastic p-wave velocity (Vp) of the
engineering rock mass and the rock quality index Q through statistics and a summary of the
rock engineering data obtained from Norway, Sweden, Mainland China, and the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region. This relationship is expressed as follows (Barton N, Lien R, and
Lunde J, 1974):

Q = 10Vp − 3.5. (1)

Different scholars have assigned empirical formulas for the RMR and Q systems for use in
different conditions. R. Coling utilized rock engineering data to divide Q into two types: Q and
Qunfactored , Qunfactored . This result indicates that when the Q value is SRF = 1, which represents
the rock mass under intermediate stress, the linear relationship is expressed as follows
(Rawlings C and Barton N, 1995):

RMR  6.5ln Qunfactored  48.6 (SRF=1) (2-a)

RMR  6.1ln Q  53.4 (SRF≠1) (2-b)

Qunfactored means that the Q value is obtained through SRF = 1. This linear relationship can
simulate the relationship between Q and RMR in many engineering cases.
Equation (1) is substituted into Equation (2), which allows us to obtain the following
relationship between RMR and the elastic P wave velocity:

RMR  14.9668V P  3.7838 (SRF = 1) (3-a)

RMR  14.0458V P  4.2398 (SRF ≠ 1) (3-b)

During tunnel excavation, the velocity of sound changes with the variation of the
surrounding rock stress, which reflects the variation of microcracks in the rock mass. The
velocity of sound is closely related to the elastic constant, density, and microcracks. The
damage variable can then comprehensively reflect the degradation degree of each parameter of
the surrounding rock, which is obtained by using the elastic velocity. The damage variable of
the surrounding rock can be expressed in terms of wave velocity based on the definition of the
elastic P wave velocity (Hongliang H and Ahrens T J, 1994):
2
V 
D0  1   Pm  (4)
 VPr 

- 605 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 606

where Vpm and Vpr are the initial rock damage and the elastic P-wave velocity, respectively.
The relationship between the RMR index and the corresponding initial damage D0(RMR) of
each rock mass in the RMR classification based on the initial damage definition and the
relationship between RMR and Vp can be derived as follows:

D0 RMR   1  A 2 (5)

where A  0.0096 RMR  0.0365 (SRF = 1) and A  0.0103 RMR  0.0435 (SRF ≠ 1).

A  0.0097 RMR  0.0366 (SRF = 1)

A  0.0103 RMR  0.0437 (SRF ≠ 1)

When RMR is equal to 100, no macrofissures are observed in the rock mass with an elastic
P-wave velocity that can be equivalent to that of the intact rock. The data in Table 1 and
Definition (4) that concern initial damage show that the range of the initial damage D0(RMR) of
each rock mass can be estimated by using the RMR classification.

Table 1: Initial damage range of rock mass with RMR classification (SRF=1)
Surrounding rock classification RMR VP (km/s) D0 ( SRF  1) D0 ( SRF  1)
I 81~100 >5.6 <0.34 <0.39
II 61~80 4.3~5.6 0.34~0.61 0.39~0.66
III 41~60 3.0~4.3 0.61~0.82 0.66~0.87
IV 21~40 1.6~3.0 0.82~0.95 0.87~0.98
V <20 <1.6 >0.95 >0.98

In the BQ method, the integrity index of the rock mass is one of the most important indices
for evaluating rock quality by testing it with elastic waves. We can define the corresponding
initial damage of each rock mass in the BQ system by combining Definition (4), which focuses
on the initial damage.
2
The integrity index is expressed as KV  (VPm VP r ) . The initial damage is expressed as
D0 ( BQ ) 1 KV .

Therefore, the range of the corresponding initial damage of each rock mass can be
estimated, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Initial damage range of rock mass with BQ system method

Surrounding rock classification KV D0 BQ 
I >0.75 <0.25
II 0.55~0.75 0.25~0.45
III 0.35~0.55 0.45~0.65
IV 0.15~0.35 0.65~0.85
V <0.15 >0.85

The expression formula of initial damage D0 with the two common surrounding rock
classifications is shown in Table 3, where a square relationship between D0 and RMR, and a
linear relationship between D0 and KV is observed. The range of each level of the initial
damage, which is estimated by using the ultrasonic classification of rock mass, is shown in
Table 4. The initial damage value obtained by using the RMR method for the same amount of
- 606 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 607

surrounding rock mass is higher than that obtained by using the BQ method. In actual
engineering, the different classification methods should use the corresponding initial damage
variable.

Table 3: Initial damage of rock mass with two surrounding rock classification
D0  1  A 2 RMR classification BQ system

SRF=1 0.0097 RMR  0.0366

value of A KV
SRF≠1 0.0103 RMR  0.0437
The physics-mechanical parameters of each level of the surrounding rock should be
obtained through a laboratory test or a field test. These parameters can be chosen by using Table
4 in the absence of test data and initial classification.

Table 4: Physical-mechanical standard values of various surrounding rock

Internal
Density Elastic Passion’s Calculation
Surrounding Deformation friction Cohesive
rock  resistance
modulus ratio angle C
friction angle
classification (kN/m3)
coefficient
E(GPa)  (MPa) c (

(
 )
k(MPa/m) )

Ⅰ 26~28 1800~2800 >33 <0.2 >60 >2.1 >78

Ⅱ 25~27 1200~1800 20~33 0.2~0.25 50~60 1.5~2.1 70~78

Ⅲ 23~25 500~1200 6~20 0.25~0.3 39~50 0.7~1.5 60~70

Ⅳ 20~23 200~500 1.3~6 0.3~0.35 27~39 0.2~0.7 50~60

Ⅴ 17~20 100~200 1~2 0.35~0.45 20~27 0.05~0.2 40~50

Ⅵ 15~17 <100 <1 0.4~0.5 <20 <0.2 30~40

In the above table, the value is not include loss strata, and when we select calculation friction angle, the internal
friction and cohesive are excluded.

DAMAGE EVOLUTION ANALYSIS OF SURROUNDING

ROCK DURING TUNNEL EXCAVATION

Damage variable evolution equation

During tunnel excavation, micro variations in microcracks and pore aggregation lead to the
gradual material failure. The macroscopic description of the damage evolution of surrounding
rock is denoted by damage variable D. If the material strength of the rock mass is consistent
with Weibull distribution, the damage variable follows statistical distribution. If two parameters
follow Weibull distribution, the equation for macroscopic statistic damage evolution when the
deformation modulus of rock mass changes with the strain variation under load bearing is (Xu
Weiya and Wei Lide, 2002)

D  1  exp     a  
m
(6)
 

- 607 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 608

where  is the strain, m is the shape parameter, and a、 m are not negative.Given the basic
formula of continuous damage mechanics,

  E 1  D   (7)

By substituting Equation (1) into Equation (2),

  E exp     a  
m
(8)
 

E / E  exp     a  
m
(9)
 

a、m are the physics-mechanical parameters of the material, which can be obtained
through a uniaxial compression experiment (Yang Minghui and Zhao Minghua, 2005):

m  1 ln  E  c / c   1 ln E ln Em , a   c m1/ m , peak stress  c  198.649  3.146 3 , peak strain

 c  2.849  0.07 3 , and Em is the secant modulus beyond peak load point.

Damage variable description of the Hoek–Brown standard

The relationship among the principle stresses of rock failure is expressed through the
Hoek–Brown standard as follows (Hoek E and Brown E T, 1980):

 1   3  m c 3  s c2 (10)

where  1 and  3 are the maximum and minimum principle stresses of rock mass failure,
respectively,  c is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, and m、s are the parameters
of rock mass quality. The estimation method between those parameters and the RMR
classification is as follows:

For disturbed rock mass

 m / m1  exp  RMR  100  / 14 

 s  exp  RMR  100  / 6  (11)
For undisturbed rock mass

m / m1  exp  RMR  100  / 28


 s  exp  RMR  100  / 9  (12)

By substituting Equation (5) into Equations (11) and (12), we can obtain the parameters
m、s that are described by the damage variable.

For disturbed rock mass

- 608 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 609

 m / m1  exp 7.4132 1  D  7.4131

  
  SRF  1 (13a)
 s  exp 17.2974 1  D  17.2973

m / m1  exp 6.9570 1  D  6.8400 

  
  SRF  1 (13b)
 s  exp 16.2330 1  D  15.9600 

For undisturbed rock mass

m / m1  exp 3.7066 1  D  3.7065

  
  SRF  1 (14a)
 s  exp 11.5316 1  D  11.5315

 m / m1  exp 3.4785 1  D  3.4200 

  
  SRF  1 (14b)
 s  exp 10.8220 1  D  10.6400 

Estimation of the parameters of surrounding rock mechanics

Bieniawski and Stille conducted an in-depth study of the estimation of deformation
modulus. Serafin and Pereira then added new data obtained from engineering practice and
established the following new relationship formula:
RMR 10
E  10 40
GPa  (15)

RMR can be expressed based on formula (5) as

 RMR  103.7843 1  D  3.7838  SRF  1

 (16)
 RMR  97.3978 1  D  4.2398  SRF  1
By substituting Equation (16) into Equation (15), we can obtain the relationship between
the damage and the elastic modulus of the rock mass as follows:

 Em  10
2.5948 1 D  0.3446
 SRF  1
 (17)
 Em  10
2.4353 1 D  0.1440
 SRF  1
The Poisson’s ratio of surrounding rock can be determined by using the following formula
(Guan Baoshu, 2003):

m  0.42  0.032Vp (18)

Given the definitions of formulas (4) and (5), we can obtain the following formula:

m  0.42  0.2219 1  DE (19)

- 609 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 610

Internal friction angle and cohesive strength can be estimated based on the Mohr–Coulomb
strength failure criterion. In the following formula,  is the internal friction angle of rock mass,
and c is the cohesive strength:

1  sin  2c cos 
1  3  (20)
1  sin  1  sin 

When 0   3  c , the stress and parameters of the jointed rock mass are estimated by
4
using the Hoek–Brown equation (Hoek E and Brown E T, 1997). The Hoek–Brown standard is
then simulated by using formula (20), which follows the rock mass. The linear expression of the
Hoek–Brown standard can be obtained through regression analysis as follows:

 1  K p 3  qb (21)

Formulas (20) and (21) are compared as follows:

1  sin  
Kp 
1  sin  
 (22)
2c cos  
qb 
1  sin  

K p、qb can be obtained through regression analysis

  
  
1 3
1 3 
Kp  n 
   2

  
2 3
(23)
3
n 
qb 
 1  M p  3 

n 
The material parameters, such as cohesion and the internal friction angle, can be obtained
by using formulas (22) and (23):

K p 1
  arcsin 
K p  1
 (24)
qb 1  sin   
c 
2 cos  
Degradation estimation of the surrounding rock parameters
based on numerical simulation results during excavation
The extent of material softening is directly related to the plastic strain variable. Therefore,
we can define a parameter for calculating the plastic strain to counter and simulate gradual
failure. In this paper, we can use the relationship between the damage variable and the
surrounding rock mechanics parameter to define the dynamic function of the material physical

- 610 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 611

parameter from different aspects, such as elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion force, and
internal friction angle.
Given the classification of the surrounding rock of the tunnel, which is obtained through
engineering geology exploration, the Code for the Design of Road Tunnels can serve as a
guideline for selecting the surrounding rock material parameter, which is the first construction
step. We then substitute the parameters into finite element models for numerical analysis.
The surrounding rock is divided into different damage zones according to the type and
degree of damage that can be expected during excavation based on the surrounding rock strain.
We can obtain the damage variation in different damage zones by substituting the surrounding
rock strain value of the different damage zones obtained from the first construction step into the
statistical equation of macrodamage evolution (6).
The material parameter value of the different damage zones after the first construction step
can be calculated by using formulas (17), (19), and (22). The parameters are then input at the
next step of the excavation simulation. The abovementioned process is repeated until the
excavation process simulation on the entire tunnel is complete.
If the elastic wave velocity test is used in field excavation, the surrounding rock mechanics
parameters of each excavation step can be calculated by using the elastic wave velocity of the
actual measurement. We then analyze the stress, strain, and displacement of the surrounding
rock to predict the stability of the surrounding rock.

PREDICTION MODEL FOR SURROUNDING ROCK PRESSURE

DURING EXCAVATION

Empirical formula method

The statistical empirical formula is theoretically built based on statistics of numerous

construction site landslides, which can reflect the surrounding rock pressure to some extent.
Most basic empirical formulas are given by Bieniawski (Li Zhaoxia, 2002):
100  RMR
P B (26)
100
where B is the tunnel span, and  is the rock density.
We can obtain the relationship between the surrounding rock and the elastic P wave
velocity damage variable by using formulas (3) and (5) as follows:

 P  (1.03784  0.14967V p ) B SRF  1

 (27)
 P  (0.95760  0.14046V p ) B SRF  1


 P  1.03784 1  1  D  B
  SRF  1
 (28)
 
 P  0.95760  0.97391 1  D  B SRF  1


- 611 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 612

Gradation analysis of the damage evolution of surrounding rock

For an axisymmetric problem, the deformation and stress of the surrounding rock in an
elastic zone are obtained as follows:

 re  p 0   p 0   R R0 / r 2 

0

   p 0   p 0   R R0 / r 2 
(29)
e
0

1   p 0 K p  1  2c K p R02
u  e
(30)
E K p 1 r

The surrounding rock stress at the elastic–plastic boundary is obtained as follows:

 
 r  2 p 0  2c K p / K p  1   R 

0
(31)
   2 p0   R 0


where K p  1  sin  1  sin  and p0 is the surrounding rock stress of the tunnel.
According to the numerical simulation, the relationship between the mechanic parameter
and the plastic strain of the surrounding rock is approximately linear, as shown in Figure 1.

E(GPa)
14

12

10

2
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Ⅲ level surrounding linear εp
rock
Ⅳ level surrounding rock linear

a) fitting results of E-  p

- 612 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 613

48
43
38
33
28
23
18
13
8
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Ⅲ level surrounding rock linear
εp
Ⅳ level surrounding rock linear

b) fitting result of  - p

1.2
c(MPa)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Ⅲ level surrounding rock linear εp
Ⅳlevel surrounding rock linear

c) fitting result of c-  p

Figure 1 Analysis on the Results of Numerical Simulation

The following moduli are used in all analyses in this paper: the elastic softening modulus
M E , which is the damage value of the unit plastic strain of the elastic modulus; the cohesion
softening modulus M c , which is the damage value of the unit plastic strain of the cohesion
modulus; and the internal friction angle softening modulus M  , which is the damage value of
the unit plastic strain of the internal friction angle modulus. The three moduli are relevant to the
rock mass itself but do not indicate the external force and excavation size of the tunnel.
Therefore, for the particular rock mass, M E , M c , and M  are certain. According to the results
of the finite element numerical simulation, we can determine the variation tendency of the
moduli, as shown in Figure 2, which can also be expressed as follows:

c  c*  *
ME  D Mc  M  (32)
 t f   te E  t f   te

- 613 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 614

a) internal friction angle softening modulus b) cohesion softening modulus

Figure 2: Rock Softening Modulus

Therefore, the equivalent mechanical parameters in the softening zone at any point are as
follows:
E  1  De E 0 ； c  c 0  M c   p ；    0  M    p （33）
The Mohr–Coulomb formula in the softening zone becomes

1  sin   1  sin 
      r  2c  (34)
1  sin   1  sin 

The surrounding rock stress and deformation of the softening zone are as follows:


 
 r
K p 1

 K p  1 p i  2c  K p  
1   
 p
    2c  K p 
K p 1 
r

  
r0  
 (35)
K p 
 
r
K p 1
 
 p   K p  1 p i  2c  K p    2c  K p   2c  K p 
K p 1  r0   


1   p 0 K p  1  2c  K p R02 1   M R02
up   (36)
E K p 1 r 2E r

R0 is the radius of the plastic softening zone ,

K p  1  sin 0  M   p  1  sin 0  M   p  ,

c  c0  M c   p , E 1 De  E0 ,   0.042  0.2219 1 De , M 

2
  
p K 1  2c K p
K p 1 0 p

Formula r  R0 is substituted into formulas (35) and (36), and formula (31) is considered. We can
then obtain the convergence characteristic curve and the support resistance as follows:
1

1   Mr0  M  K p 1

u r0 
 K  1 p
(37)
2E 
 p i 

- 614 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 615

K p 1
M  1   Mr0 

2c K p
pi   (38)
K p  1  2 E u rp0 
 K p 1

Formula (38) calculates the surrounding pressure and considers the damage variation during the
excavation and the elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion force, and internal friction angle of the
surrounding rock.

ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING EXAMPLE

The tunnel lies to the east of Bicheng and from east to west and across the middle of Jiyun
Mountain. The selected tunnel is located in Kejialaya Ridge because the corridor of the
beginning of the line is very narrow and the beginning of the line is near the tunnel entrance;
these factors influence the entrance location. The tunnel entrance is small because of the
restriction of the road line. The spacing between the right and left holes then expands gradually,
changes, then transitions to the separated tunnel, and then reduces again towards the exit. Both
ends of the tunnel are used as the cutting face. The pile number of the right hole ranges from
YK0 + 715 to YK3 + 705 and is 2,990 m long. The pile number of the left hole ranges from
ZK0 + 715 to ZK3 + 702 and is 2,987 m long. The tunnel has poor geological conditions. The
surrounding rock mainly consists of levels III, IV, and V. The tunnel, which has a maximum
depth of 313.146 m, is designed for a speed of 60 km/h, and the tunnel construction clearance is
10.25 m × 5.0 m. The arch radius is 5.40 m, the curved wall radius is 8.9 m, and the clearance
area is 62.23 m2.
In this paper, the section of the solid model is the ZK1 + 087 and ZK1 + 178 section. The
levels of the two sections are III and IV, respectively. Varying material parameters in the same
excavation section are considered different zones during tunnel excavation. Therefore, the
surrounding rock mass is divided into three zones in the numerical simulation: around the
tunnel, arch, and sidewalls, as shown in Figure 3. The division depends on the simulation
results of the construction steps.

Figure 3: Regional division of Surrounding Rock of Tunnel

- 615 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 616

In accordance with the Code for the Design of Road Tunnels, the ZK1 + 087 section is
excavated by using the benching tunneling method, and the ZK1+178 section is excavated by
using the benching and middling tunneling method. The excavation step of the construction is
shown in Figure 4. The characteristic of the finite element numerical calculation, which
simplifies the construction step, shows that the different surrounding rock levels are excavated
through different means. The specific simulation construction step is shown in Table 5.

a) section of ZK1+087 b) section of ZK1+178

Figure 4: Schematic Diagram of Tunnel Excavation
Table 5: Numerical simulation construction steps of each level Surrounding Rock
Typical section
ZK1+087 ZK1+178
Construction step

step1 Calculation of initial stress field Calculation of initial stress field

step2 Excavation of upper step Excavation of upper step

Step3 Initial support of arch Initial support of arch

Step4 Excavation of down step Excavation of middle step

Step5 Initial support of side walls Initial support of side walls

Step6 Excavation of down step

Figures 5 and 6 show the comparative analysis graph of the ZK1 + 087 and the ZK1 + 178
sections, respectively, on the relationship between the settlements of the vault, the peripheral
convergence displacement, and the results of the numerical simulation. The arch settlement of
the rockier surrounding rock is smaller than that of the less rocky surrounding rock from level
IV, and the tending towards stability of the surrounding rock from level III also requires a short
time. The surrounding rock of the tunnel with a lower elastic modulus has a large displacement
and slow convergence. If the surrounding rock has high elastic modulus, it has a small
displacement and fast convergence.

- 616 -
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 617

23
S
e
t
t
18
l
e
m
e
n
t
13
o
f
v
a
u
l
t
8
(
m
m
)

In-situ monitoring data

3
Result of numerical simulation

-2
1 2 3 4 5
Construction step

a) settlement of vault on section ZK1+087

11

c D 9
o i
n
v s
p
e l
7
r a
g c
e
n e
m
c
e e
n
5
(
m t
m o
) f
p
3
e
r
i
p
h
e
r In-situ monitoring data
a 1
Result of numerical simulation
l

-1
1 2 3 4 5
Construction step

b) displacement of peripheral convergence on section ZK1+087

Figure 5 Curves comparison between monitor data and predict data of section ZK1+087

- 617 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 618

41

36
S
e
t
t
31
l
e
m
e
26
n
t
o
f
21
v
a
u
16
l
t
(
m
m
11
)
In-situ monitoring data
6 Result of numerical simulation
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Construction step

a) settlement of vault on section ZK1+178

13
c D
o
n 11
i
s
v p
e
r l
a
g
e c
e9
n
c m
e
7
e
( n
t
m
m
) o
f
p5
e
r
i
p
h3
e
In-situ monitoring data
r
1
a
Result of numerical simulation
l

-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Construction step

b) displacement of peripheral convergence on section ZK1+178

Figure 6: Curves comparison between monitors data and predict data of section
ZK1+178
Figure 7 shows the damage evolution mechanism during tunnel excavation. The damage of
each zone gradually increases to a certain value. Under the same conditions as the surrounding
rock, damage to the surrounding rock damage of the sidewall zone with the upper levels is
greater than that of the arch zone. However, damage to the surrounding rock damage of the arch
zone is greater than that of the sidewall zone after tunnel excavation. The phenomenon is
caused by stress concentration during excavation of the upper levels. The damage around the
surrounding rock is caused by stress release during excavation. The movements are also
relatively small. At higher levels of the surrounding rock, the damage of the surrounding rock
has less influence.

- 618 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 619

0.95
De 0.9

0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
2 3 4 Construction step 5
Around surrounding rock
Vault surrounding rock Side wall surrounding rock

a) section of ZK1+087

De 0.92

0.9

0.88

0.86

0.84

0.82

0.8
2 3 4 5 6 7
Around surrounding rock Construction step
Vault surrounding rock Side wall surrounding rock

b) section of ZK1+178
Figure 7: Damage Evolutionary Process in Tunnel Excavation

Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11 show the variation of the deformation modulus, the internal friction
angle, the Poisson’s ratio, and the cohesive force during excavation, respectively. The
numerical simulation results show that the cohesive force is obviously lower when the strength
of each zone worsens, whereas the internal friction angle slightly decreases. The stress and
deformation shape of each point differ along the depth of plastic zone. The values of the
cohesive force and the internal friction angle are also different. Near the interface of the elastic
and plastic zone, their values are higher, whereas their values are much lower near the sides of
the cave. Increasing plastic deformation leads to the gradual decrease of the deformation
modulus and the gradual increase of the transverse deformation coefficient. Therefore, the
deformation modulus and the Poisson’s ratio in the plastic zone also change with the plastic
zone depth.

- 619 -
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 620

14
E（GPa）
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2 3 4 5
Around surrounding rock
Side wall surrounding rock Construction step
Vault surrounding rock

a) section of ZK1+087

7
E（GPa）
6

1
2 3
Around surrounding rock
Vault surrounding rock
4 5 6 7
Construction step
Side wall surrounding rock

b) section of ZK1+087
Figure 8: Condition of Elastic Modulus in Tunnel Excavation

50
φ(°)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
2 3 4 5
Around surrounding rock
Side wall surrounding rock Construction stp
Vault surrounding rock

- 620 -
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 621

a) section of ZK1+087

b) section of ZK1+178
Figure 9: Condition of Friction Angle in Tunnel Excavation

μ 0.37

0.35

0.33

0.31

0.29

0.27

0.25
2 3 4 5
Around surrounding rock Construction step
Side wall surrounding rock
Vault surrounding rock

a) section of ZK1+087

μ 0.36
0.35

0.34

0.33

0.32

0.31

0.3

0.29
2 3 4 5 6 7
Construction step
Around surrounding rock
Side wall surrounding rock
Vault surrounding rock

b) section of ZK1+178

- 621 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 622

Figure 10: Condition of Poisson Ratio in Tunnel Excavation

c(MPa)
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2 3 4 5
Around surrounding rock Construction step
Side wall surrounding rock
Vault surrounding rock

a) section of ZK1+087

c(MPa)
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2 3 4 5 6 7
Around surrounding rock Construction step
Side wall surrounding rock
Vault surrounding rock

b) section of ZK1+178

Figure 11: Condition of Cohesion in Tunnel Excavation

Figure 12 shows the comparative analysis graph of the ZK1 + 178 section, which analyzes the
relationship between the surrounding rock pressure value of each point on the vault, haunch, and foot.
The value of the theoretical model is greater than that of the empirical model, but the value of the
theoretical model agrees well with the field test value at the vault area.

- 622 -
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 623

S
0.400
u
r
r
o
0.350
u
n
d
i
n
g 0.300
0.250
r
o
surrounding rock pressure P(MPa)
c
k
p 0.200
r
0.150
e
s
Measured value
s
u
r 0.100
Empirical model prediction value
e
0.050
P
Theoretical model prediction value
(
M
P
0.000
a
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Construction step

a) Part of vault

S
u 0.500
0.450
r
r
o
0.400
u
n
d
0.350 Measured value
i
n
g
r 0.300 Empirical model prediction value
o
c
k 0.250 Theoretical model prediction value
0.200
p
r
e
0.150
s
s
u
0.100
r
e
P
( 0.050
M
P
a 0.000
)
1 3 5 7
Construction step

b) Part of left arch haunch

- 623 -
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 624

S
u 0.500
r
r 0.450
o
u
n 0.400
d
i
n 0.350 Measured value
0.300
g
r Empirical model prediction value
o
c
k 0.250 Theoretical model value
p
r 0.200
0.150
e
s
s
0.100
u
r
e
P
( 0.050
0.000
M
P
a
1 3 5 7
)
Construction step

c)
Part of right arch haunch
S
u
r 0.450
r
o
u 0.400
n
0.350
d
i
n Measured value
0.300
g
r Empirical model prediction value
0.250
o
Theoretical model value
c
k
p
r 0.200
e
s
s 0.150
u
r
e 0.100
0.050
P
(
M
0.000
P
a
)
1 3 5 7
Construction step

d) Part of left arch foot

S
u 0.450
0.400
r
r
o
0.350
u
Measured value
n
d
i 0.300
Empirical model prediction value
n
g
0.250
Theoretical model prediction value
r
o
0.200
c
k
p
r0.150
e
s
s0.100
u
r
e0.050
P
(0.000
M
-0.050
P
a
1 3 5 7
)

Construction step

- 624 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 625

e) Part of right arch foot

Figure 12: Curves comparison between monitors data and predict data of section
ZK1+178

CONCLUSIONS
We analyze the evolution process of dynamic damage of the surrounding rock of a tunnel
during excavation. The relationship between the damage variable and the surrounding rock
classification is established. We then obtain the relationship between the damage variable and
material parameters such as elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesive force, and friction angle.
The variations of the mechanical parameters of each level of the surrounding rock during
excavation are analyzed. The damage evolution mechanism of the surrounding rock during
excavation is also studied based on the gradual degradation of the surrounding rock. The
surrounding rock pressure prediction model is developed. This model provides a basis for the
support design of tunnels during excavation. The following conclusions were made:
(1) The damage evolution trend of levels III and IV of surrounding rock during excavation
shows that the maximum damage zone is initially located on the arch shoulder of the tunnel and
then moves to the tunnel vault. The maximum range of the damage zone for level IV of the
surrounding rock is about two times the diameter of the hole. The damage zone of level III of
the surrounding rock does not greatly affect that of level IV and is about half the diameter of the
hole. The instability and failure of the surrounding rock of the tunnel are caused by the
accumulated damage and gradual development of cracks. Given the initial damage and because
of the unloading effect, the stress field is constantly adjusted. The surrounding rock damage
also gradually accumulates and produces cracks, which leads to the instability of the
surrounding rock.
(2) The plastic zone of the surrounding rock during excavation of levels III and IV is
influenced by numerous factors such as rocky conditions, excavation method, support time, and
excavation size. The range of each plastic zone during construction is between 1 and 1.5 times
the diameter, especially when the excavation contour of tunnel is angular. The plastic zone that
appears at the stress concentration point or area is obvious. The increase of the plastic strain
value is influenced by continued excavation. The plastic zone also widens, which is consistent
with practical engineering.
(3) When the surrounding rock is merely a plastic zone, the physical property parameters of
the surrounding rock, such as elastic modulus, cohesion force, and friction angle, decrease
sharply, whereas the Poisson’s ratio increases sharply. When the surrounding rock is fully
plastic, the physical property parameters exhibit little variation. The value also stabilizes
gradually. An analysis of the surrounding rock strain evolution indicates that the strain of the
surrounding rock softens under excavation stress, which is divided into two areas. The
accelerating creep of the surrounding rock is restrained because of timely support.
(4) The surrounding rock pressure prediction model has the advantage of simple
calculations and objective parameters that combine the elastic wave velocity with the empirical
formula. Therefore, the model can be used conveniently by engineering staff. Based on the
numerical simulation of progressive failure of the surrounding rock, the numerical method is
- 625 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 626

combined with the characteristic curve method. The dynamic construction model is developed
by using the numerical method. The mechanical material parameters and the relationship
between each surrounding rock parameter and plastic strain are continuously adjusted based on
damage variation during construction. The radial displacement is analyzed, and the convergence
characteristic curve is established. The combination of the two methods cancels out the
disadvantages of the other and can objectively reflect the variation of the parameters of the
surrounding rock material during tunnel excavation. The comparison and analysis of the
practical monitor data indicate that the progressive surrounding rock pressure model can be
adapted by the empirical formula model. Both models supplement each other and can serve as a
guide for tunnel construction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the supports from the key project of Ministry in PR China under
Grant No. 200631874024.

REFERENCES
1. Sun Jun(1996)”The Design Theory and Practice of Underground Engineering,”Shanghai
Science and Technology Press,Shang Hai
2. Liu Yongping(2005)”Study on continuum damage of the tunnel brittle-quasibrittle
surrounding rocks,”Jilin University
3. Yi Shunmin, Zhu Zhende(2005)”Introduction of Fractured Rock Mass Damage
Mechanics,Science Press,Bei Jing
4. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J.,1974.Engineering classificaiton of rock masses for the design
of tunnel support.J. Rock Mechanics, 6(4),189-236
5. Rawlings C, Barton N. ,1995.The relationship between Q and RMR classification in rock
engineering.In:Tashio Fujill ed. Proc. 8th int. Congre. Rock Mech. Akasaka: Minato-
KuTokyo, Press, 5,29-31
6. Hongliang H， Ahrens T J.,1994.Mechanical properties of shock-damaged rocks. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci, 31(5),525-533
7. Xu Weiya, Wei Lide,2002.Study on staistical damage constitutive model of
rock.J.Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 21(6), 787- 791
8. Yang Minghui, Zhao Minghua, Cao Wengui, 2005.Rock damage softening statistical
constitutive model parameter determination.J. Water Resources Journal,,36 (3),345 -
349
9. Hoek E, Brown E T.,1980.Underground Excavations in Rock. Hortford.Stephen Austrain
and Sons, New York

- 626 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. C 627

10. Guan Baoshu,2003.Collections of Designing Points on Tunnel Engineering, China

Communications Press, Bei Jing
11. Hoek E,Brown ET.,1997.Practical estimates of rock mass strength.J.Int.J.Sci.Rock
Mech.and Min.34(8),1165-1 187
12. Li Zhaoxia,2002.Damage mechanics and its application,Science Press, Bei Jing

© 2014, EJGE

- 627 -