Massinas, S. A. & Sakellariou, M. G. (2010). Géotechnique 60, No. 7, 569–571 [doi: 10.1680/geot.8.D.

025]

DISCUSSION

Closed-form solution for plastic zone formation around a circular tunnel

in half-space obeying Mohr–Coulomb criterion
S . A . M A S S I NA S a n d M . G . S A K E L L A R I O U ( 2 0 0 9 ) . G é o t e c h n i q u e 5 9 , N o . 8 , 6 9 1 – 7 0 1 .

S. Chen and Y. N. Abousleiman, PoroMechanics Institute,
University of Oklahoma, USA
The authors present a closed-form solution for determin-
ing the plastic zone around a circular tunnel in an elasto-
plastic halfspace obeying the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The
elastic stress field is first derived in the bipolar coordinate
system, and the problem then reduced to find the elastic–
plastic interface by imposing the continuity of stresses be-
tween the elastic and plastic zones. However, we have a
number of comments on the theoretical analysis used in the
paper.
First the authors claim that at the elastic–plastic interface
the normal stress in the Æ direction can be expressed by
equation (14b), which is of the same form as equation (13),
with ri and di replaced by rc and dc, respectively. This
statement is not correct because equation (13) is derived
from the fact that the shear stress
Æ ¼ 0 at the tunnel
periphery Æ ¼ Æi and hence, the Mohr–Coulomb yield cri-
terion at this point is satisfied by the two principal stresses
Æ and  as shown in equation (11). At the elastic–plastic
interface Æc , where Æc ¼ f () is a function of  to be
determined, however, there is no guarantee that the shear
stress will also vanish. In this case the Mohr–Coulomb
criterion should be written as
8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi9
<   =
Æ þ  Æ
 2
º: þ þ
2Æ ;
2 2
8 9 (24)
<
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 = (cosh Æ
cos )
Æ þ  Æ


:
þ
2Æ ; ¼ Y
2 2
For the same reason, the stress in the elastic region can no
longer be obtained from equations (9) and (10) by simply
replacing Æi and Pi with Æc and Pc respectively. Actually, the
coefficients of the stress function for the elastic zone, after
taking the shear stress into account, become
k[

c cot  þ (Pc
P0 )(coth Æc
cos = sinh Æc )]
A1 ¼
2 sinh Æc (cos 
cosh Æc )
(25a)
B1 ¼
kP0
A1 (25b)
kf
c csc (1
cosh 2Æc ) þ 2[(Pc
P0 )(cos 

cosh Æc ) þ
c cot  sinh Æc ] sinh 2Æc g
C1 ¼
8(sinh Æc )4 (cos 
cosh Æc )
(25c)
B0 ¼ 2C1 (25d)
Obviously A1 , B1 , C1 and B0 are relevant to both the
pressure Pc (Æc , ) (Pc (Æc , ) ¼
Æ (Æc , )) and the shear
stress
c (Æc , ) (
c (Æc , ) ¼
Æ (Æc , )) along the elastic–
plastic interface. Now substituting equations (25a)–(25d)
back into the expression for the stress function /J, the
normal stress  at the elastic–plastic interface can be
expressed as a function of Pc ,
c , Æc and , say
  (Æc , ) ¼ F(Pc ,
c , Æc , ). By combining this with the
yield criterion equation (24), one obtains
8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 9
<  2 ffi=

Pc þF(Pc ,
c , Æc , )
Pc
F(Pc ,
c , Æc , )
º: þ þ
2c ;
2 2
8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 9
<   2 ffi=

Pc þF(Pc ,
c , Æc , )
Pc
F(Pc ,
c , Æc , )

:
þ
2c ;¼Y
2 2
(26)
This is the desired equation governing the normal and shear
stresses along the elastic–plastic interface that should be
used to replace the incorrect one, equation (14b), in the
paper.
The second point is the derivation of the stress compo-
nents in the plastic zone. In the paper the authors present
two simple expressions for Æ and  , equations (15a) and
(15b), which contain only one unknown A, but they have not
given the general differential equation of equilibrium in the
bipolar coordinate system. According to the formula for
the tensor divergence in orthogonal curvilinear coordinates
(Malvern, 1969), the equilibrium equations in the plastic
zone can be written as follows
 
@ Æ @
Æ
þ
@Æ @ (27)

( Æ sinh Æ þ 2
Æ sin 
  sinh Æ) ¼ 0
 
@
Æ @ 
(cosh Æ
cos ) þ
@Æ @ (28)

(  sin  þ 2
Æ sinh Æ
 Æ sin ) ¼ 0
These equations, together with the yield criterion (24), are in
principle sufficient to determine Æ ,  and
Æ in the plastic
zone. Unfortunately, they will be very difficult, if not
impossible, to solve mathematically. One certainly could not
expect that the solutions for the plastic stresses take the
particularly simple form like equations (15a) and (15b). Note
that equations (24), (27) and (28) constitute a system of
first-order partial differential equations; the general solutions
of Æ ,  and
Æ thus should include at least two arbitrary
constants.
Third, the authors assert that their closed-form solution
should be confirmed by way of comparison with the analy-
tical solution for the limiting case of a very deep tunnel. It
is true that the plastic zone and plastic stress distribution
around the tunnel calculated using the authors’ method will
reduce to the well-known formula corresponding to a circu-
lar tunnel in an infinite space, when the parameters k and d
approach infinite values. However, such accordance occurs
just by chance and may not have a deeper physical cause.
As is evident, as k, d ! 1, the bipolar coordinate system

569

Downloaded by [ Ecole Nationale des Points et Chaussees] on [20/11/15]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 570
(Æ, ) actually reduces to the conventional polar coordinate
system (r, Ł). Whereas in this special case, the shear stress

Æ ¼
rŁ will always be equal to zero owing to the symme-
try of the problem. It is thus not surprising that the general
solution proposed by the authors comprises the case of a
very deep tunnel. However, as discussed above, the whole
solution procedure in the paper must be incorrect as the
authors have completely missed the shear stress
Æ in both
the elastic and plastic regions.
Finally, we think that the last term (A1 cosh 2Æþ C1 sinh 2Æ)
(1
2 sinh Æ cos ) given for k in equation (10) should be
A1 cosh2Æþ C1 sinh2Æ
2(A1 sinh2Æþ C1 cosh2Æ)sinhÆcos:
REFERENCE
Malvern, L. E. (1969). Introduction to the mechanics of a contin-
uous medium. Prentice Hall.
M. El Tani, Lombardi SA, Minusio, Switzerland
On the ahead-of-print web page of Géotechnique, a paper
by Massinas & Sakalleriou retained my interest. The
authors have found an analytic solution for an excavated
circular tunnel in an elastoplastic material using the Mohr–
Coulomb law. They use the Mohr–Coulomb law without
verifying that the stresses should be principal stresses,
which is incorrect. I have found that the shear stress is not
zero and is
ð Pi
P0 Þ sinhðÆ
Æi Þ ðcosh Æ
cos Þ

¼
sinh2 Æi
This means that the stresses they are using are not the
principal stresses. It is possible that I have missed some-
thing, but I cannot find in the paper any indication that the
authors are using the principal stresses. Unless I am wrong
in this respect, their paper has no value.
Authors’ reply
The authors are grateful to Chen & Abousleiman and to El
Tani for their comments, which we respond to as follows. In
order to derive a closed-form solution for determining the
plastic zone around a circular tunnel in an elastoplastic half-
space obeying the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, a bipolar co-
ordinate system (Æ, ) was adopted and the differential
equations of equilibrium were derived in the Æ and 
directions. In order to derive a solution for the specific
geometric problem of the half-space we made the assump-
tion that the trajectories of the principal stresses coincided
with the bipolar coordinate system inside the plastic region,
and thus the shear stress
Æ was taken to be equal to zero.
In order to satisfy the continuity of stress components at the
elastic–plastic interface the shear stress
Æ must also be
taken as zero.
The discussion article by Chen & Abousleiman has given
us the opportunity to restate our hypothesis and, therefore to
avoid any misconceptions about the validity of our solution.
Others have previously used a bipolar coordinate system,
and assumed that the principal stresses’ trajectories and the
bipolar coordinate system coincide inside the plastic regions
(e.g. Grigoriev, 1968) in order to derive closed-form solu-
tions for plasticity problems in a half-space. The existence
of the straight boundary on the half-space seems to be
responsible for the co-identity of the principal stresses’
trajectories and the bipolar coordinate system. Using this
assumption we have been able to derive a solution that gives
very good results in comparison with the results from
numerical analysis using the finite difference method (see
finite difference examples that are shown in the original
paper).
Downloaded by [ Ecole Nationale des Points et Chaussees] on [20/11/15]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
The scope of our work was to compare the derived
solution with finite difference examples, as well as to
examine the overburden-effect problem in the plastic zone
shape according to Bray’s approach. In both cases the results
proved to be efficient. The hypothesis that was made about
the principal stresses’ trajectories is supported by the results
of numerical analyses.
The fact that in the deep tunnel case, Æ and  circles of
the bipolar coordinate system tend to be concentric circles
(Æ) and straight radial lines (), is due to our solution
procedure and assumptions, and not by chance as the authors
of the discussion article claim. The implementation of
logical assumptions and hypotheses does not lead to random
mathematical solutions. The best way to validate such solu-
tions is either through experimental or computational meth-
ods (e.g. finite difference examples), which proved to be
efficient.
In light of the above, it is clear that our solution is
correct, and as such also valid for the deep tunnel case. In
this case, where the bipolar coordinate system tends to be
polar, the trajectories of the principal stresses inside the
plastic zone tend to be perpendicular and tangential to the
concentric circles of the polar system. Therefore the shear
stress
a (Æ-concentric circles, -straight radial lines) inside
the plastic zone is equal to zero, a conclusion also reached
by Kachanov (1971) and Hill (1950).
In summary, it is evident from our analyses results that
the existence of a straight boundary on the half-space seems
to affect the direction of the principal stresses inside the
plastic zone.
We refer Chen & Abousleiman to the differential equation
of equilibrium that we used in order to derive the plastic
stresses. Please note that this differential equation is the
presented equation (27) in the discussion article and for the
case of
Æ ¼ 0 takes the following form
@ a
(cosh a
cos )
( a
  ) sinh a ¼ 0 (29)
@Æ
By combining this with the yield condition (11) and after
solving, equations (15a) and (15b) are derived that give the
plastic stresses  Æpl and   pl respectively. Please find below
the solution procedure
@ Æ sinh a
¼
½(º
1) Æ

@Æ cosh a
cos 
ð ð
@ Æ sinh a
) ¼
@Æ
(º
1) Æ
 cosh a
cos 
1
) ln ½(º
1) a
 ¼
ln ðcosh a
cos Þ
º
1
) (º
1) a
 ¼ Aðcosh a
cos Þ
(º
1)

)  Æ,pl ¼ þ Aðcosh a
cos Þ
(º
1)
º
1
We therefore cannot agree with Chen & Abousleiman’s
comments on our theoretical analysis. The results, for the
case where the trajectories of the principal stresses coincide
with the bipolar coordinate system inside the plastic region,
are proved to be efficient. Thus our initial hypothesis is
logical.
Please note that the last term
(A1 cosh 2a þ C1 sinh 2a)(1
2 sinh a cos )
in equation (10) is incorrect in the paper. The correct term
is the following
A1 cosh 2a þ C1 sinh 2a
2 sinh a cos (A1 sinh 2a þ C1 cosh 2a)
 DISCUSSION
Turning now to the discussion by El Tani, we note that he
has omitted the term after the fraction in equation (30).
Before the initial yielding, the shear stress in the half-space
is derived by differentiating equation (7) according to equa-
tion (6c), which gives the following expression (and not the
equation that is presented by El Tani)
(Pi
P0 )  sinh Æ  (cosh Æ
cos )

Æ ¼ elasic–plastic interface the above equation (31) gives
sinh2 Æi
 2 sin   (coth Æi  sinh Æ
cosh Æ)
where for Æ ¼ Æi (at the tunnel’s periphery) the shear stress
is equal to zero and the stresses are principal. Furthermore,
after initial yielding, where a plastic zone Æc is formed, by
adopting our hypothesis of coincidence of the principal
stresses’ trajectories and the bipolar coordinate system, the
shear stress
Æ inside the plastic region is taken to
be equal to zero. As a result of this, at the elastic part of
the half-space the shear stress is given by the following
equation
571
(Pc
P0 ) sinh Æ (cosh Æ
cos )

Æ ¼
sinh2 Æc (31)
3 2 sin  (coth Æc sinh Æ
cosh Æ)
where Pc is given by equation (14b) and is the critical value
that limits further extension of the plastic zone. At the
(30)
a ¼ 0, satisfying in that way our assumption about the
principal stresses’ trajectories inside the plastic zone.
REFERENCES
Kachanov, L. M. (1971). Foundations of the theory of plasticity.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
Grigoriev, O. D. (1968). On plastic equilibrium of an inhomoge-
neous half-plane when a smooth flat punch is pressed into it.
Prikladnaya Mekhanika 4, No. 1, 126–128.
Hill, R. (1950). The mathematical theory of plasticity, pp. 252–253.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Downloaded by [ Ecole Nationale des Points et Chaussees] on [20/11/15]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.