See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284086590

Upper-bound finite element analysis of stability of tunnel face subjected to

surcharge loading in cohesive-frictional soil

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · November 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-015-0067-z

CITATIONS READS

6 217

4 authors, including:

Lianheng Zhao
Central South University
82 PUBLICATIONS   514 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dimensionless Parameter Diagrams for the Active and Passive Stability of a Shallow 3D Tunnel Face View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lianheng Zhao on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-10 Geotechnical Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0067-z pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected

to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil
Feng Yang*, Jian Zhang**, Lianheng Zhao***, and Junsheng Yang****
Received January 21, 2015/Accepted September 14, 2015/Published Online November 13, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The stability of a plane strain tunnel face in a cohesive-frictional soil (idealized as a homogeneously Mohr-Coulomb material)
subjected to ground surface surcharge loading was investigated. Continuous loading is applied to the ground surface, and both
smooth and rough interface conditions are modeled. The upper-bound solutions with critical load parameters for a practical range of
tunnel depth-to-height values, as well as the soil properties, are obtained by using the Upper-bound Finite Element Method with
Rigid Translatory Moving Elements (UBFEM-RTME). For practical use, the results are presented in the form of dimensionless
stability charts. Failure mechanisms consisting of two groups of slip lines, which explicitly reflect the relative movement of blocks,
are also presented. To verify the solutions, the Upper-bound Finite Element Method with Plastic Deformation Elements (UMFEM-
PDE) has been developed and the collapsed loads are compared with those from UBFEM-RTME. The solutions obtained with these
two upper-bound finite element methods are found to be in good agreement with each other.
Keywords: plane strain tunnel face, upper-bound finite element method, rigid translatory moving elements, plastic deformation
elements, critical load parameter, failure mechanism
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction There are usually two main methods of obtaining the upper-
bound solutions of limit analysis. These are the failure-mechanism-
The face stability and failure mechanism of a shallow tunnel based upper-bound method (Davis et al. (1980), Fraldi and
during the construction process are important issues that must be Guarracino (2009, 2010), Yang and Huang (2013)) and the
addressed in tunnel engineering. Knowledge of how the stability upper-bound finite element method.
of a tunnel face is affected by surcharge loading would be very As the problem of underground excavation stability is inherently
useful, and the relevant research results have played a significant three-dimensional, a semi-analytical rigid-block method (Leca
role in the control of tunnel excavations and determining those and Dormieux (1990), Soubra (2000, 2002), Lee and Nam
areas requiring pre-reinforcement to avoid ground collapse. The (2001, 2003), Lee et al. (2004), Subrin (2002, 2009), Mollon et
most common methods used to study tunnel face stability include al. (2009, 2010)), which is subordinate to failure-mechanism-
the numerical simulation (Maynar and Rodríguez (2005), Li et based upper-bound method, has been used to find the upper-
al. (2009), Kim and Tonon (2010)), the model-based experiment bound solution for cases considered using the assumed three-
(Atkinson and Potts (1977), Schofield (1980), Davis et al. dimensional multi-block failure mechanism. Although tunnel face
(1980), Mair et al. (1993)) and the limit equilibrium method stability involves three-dimensions, much can be learned from
(Eisenstein and Samarasekara (1992), Anagnostou and Kovári the study of simpler two-dimensional models which can be
(1994), Jancsecz and Steiner (1994)). Recently, limit analysis, simplified as a plane strain heading for a tunnel with a large
based on the plastic theorems proposed by Drucker et al. (1951, width. Finite element limit analysis, which is more universal than
1952), has been widely used in the analysis of the stability of the conventionally used bound theorems, has been used to study
underground openings that are relevant to tunneling. This method the undrained stability of tunnels (Wilson et al. (2011, 2013,
provides a convenient way of obtaining the upper- and lower- 2014), Abbo et al. (2013)) and the stability of tunnels in cohesive-
bound solutions, as well as the failure mechanisms, without having frictional soils (Yang and yang (2010), Yamamoto et al. (2011a,
to considering a complicated elastic-plastic deformation process. 2011b, 2013), Sahoo and Kumar (2013a, 2013b, 2014), Chakraborty

*Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (E-mail: [email protected])
**Doctor, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (E-mail: [email protected])
***Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
[email protected])
****Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China (E-mail: [email protected])

−1−
 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

and Kumar (2013), Yang et al. (2015)). In most cases, rigorous been simplified into a two-dimensional plane-strain analysis,
upper- and lower-bound solutions were obtained generally to which is similar to the definition proposed by Augarde et al.
bracket the true solution. To study tunnel face stability, Sloan and (2003). The tunnel has a height D and a cover C. To study the
Assadi (1994) applied this method to analyze the undrained stability of the open face, rather than the rule of deformations, it
stability of a plane strain heading subjected to surcharge loading. is reasonable to place an infinitely strong lining along the
Augarde et al. (2003) then improved the solution algorithms and heading with rough interface condition considering the complex
extended previous research to non-homogeneous soils, for which of interface condition for lining-ground. The face is free to move
the undrained shear strength is assumed to increase linearly with and subjected to no loading. The ground surface is horizontal and
depth. Charts for assessing the stability of this type of underground a continuous loading, σs, is applied over the entire ground surface
opening have also been presented. Later, Song et al. (2011) and with both smooth and rough interface conditions. To realize the
Huang et al. (2013) applied a multi-rigid-block upper-bound rough interface between the loading and the soil, the horizontal
method to investigate the undrained stability of a plane strain velocity is fixed to zero (u = 0) along the ground surface, while
tunnel heading in non-homogeneous clay and proposed an no velocity constraints are imposed for the smooth case.
improved failure mechanism. The ground is modeled as a uniform Mohr-Coulomb material
As there are no reports or literature related to the stability of a with a unit weight γ, internal friction angle φ, and cohesion c.
tunnel face subjected to ground surface surcharge loading in a The tunnel face stability is described conveniently by the
cohesive-frictional soil (idealized as a homogeneously Mohr- dimensionless critical load parameter σs/c, which is a function of
Coulomb material), and only a limited amount of research, such φ, C/D, and γD/c, as given by the following equation:
as the works of Yang et al. (2010, 2015), has been undertaken to
study the distribution characteristics of a series of blocks in the σs ⁄ c = f ( φ, C ⁄ D, γD ⁄ c ) (1)
failure region, in this study we investigated this problem using
the Upper-Bound Finite Element Method with Rigid Translatory 3. Stability Analysis
Moving Elements (UBFEM-RTME) presented by Yang et al.
(2014). The effects of the soil properties and tunnel depths on the 3.1 Upper-bound Finite Element Method with Rigid Trans-
critical load parameters and failure mechanism were considered. latory Moving Elements (UBFEM-RTME)
The contact between the continuous loading and the ground Recently, it was proposed that a combination of the rigid
surface was assumed to be either smooth or rough. To enable the elements and changeable nodes of the upper-bound method
convenient generation of the structured mesh, a flat elliptical would produce a fine failure mode. Milani and Lourenco (2009)
curve was assumed as the tunnel face. Nonlinear programming is build sequential linear programming models using rigid triangular
applied to calculate the upper-bound solutions and determine the elements with Bezier curved edges. Based on multiple successive
evolution characteristics of the critical failure mechanisms. To perturbations, Hambleton and Sloan (2013) computed the rigorous
verity the solutions, the Upper-Bound Finite Element Method bounds on limit loads by optimizing the rigid block mechanisms
with Plastic Deformation Elements (UBFEM-PDE), as investigated using second-order cone programming. Later, based on these
by Sloan (1989), was also used to study the tunnel face stability concepts, Yang et al. (2014, 2015) developed upper-bound finite
based on linear programming. element method with rigid translatory moving elements (UBFEM-
RTME), and applied nonlinear programming to calculate the
2. Problem Description bounds for solving optimization problems. The obtained critical
failure mechanisms explicitly reflect the relative movement of
Figure 1 shows the analysis model for a shallow tunnel that has the blocks, which is in much the same way as the results of the
rigid-blocks upper-bound method, while the assumption of a
failure mechanism before optimization calculation is no longer
necessary. A brief introduction to UBFEM-RTME is given
below.
As shown in Fig. 2, the rigid translatory moving elements are
rigid triangular elements possessing the characteristics of
translational velocity and movable nodes. A velocity discontinuity
occurs at the common edge between two adjacent elements, as
defined by nodal pairs ①② and ③④. (uz, vz) and (uy, vy) are the
velocities in the x- and y-directions of the two adjacent elements,
respectively. The node coordinates, (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), are
treated as unknowns in addition to the element velocities.
An upper bound on collapse load can be obtained by
Fig. 1. Analysis Model of Tunnel Face Stability Subjected to Sur- minimizing the internal power dissipation minus the rate of work
charge Loading done by external forces with respect to the velocity boundary

−2− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil

and discontinuous velocity fields were permitted among the

elements. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is linearized with
the polygon which is circumscribed to the yield criterion. The
linear programming model can thus be cast in the following
form:
Minimize CT X (4)
Subject to AX = B (5)
where C is the coefficient vector of objective function (4), X is
decision variables comprising the velocities of each mesh-point
(unrestricted), the auxiliary parameters of the velocity discontinuities
Fig. 2. Velocity Discontinuity between two Adjacent Rigid Transla- (non-negative), and plastic multiplier rates (non-negative), A is
tory Moving Elements the matrix of the equality constraint coefficients, and B is the
right vector of the equality constraint (5).
Based on the aforementioned concept, an UBFEM-PDE
conditions, compatibility and flow rule requirements. After the
program has been compiled to obtain upper-bound solutions for
necessary assembly operation, the objective function (to minimize)
the tunnel face stability.
can be written as:
nd nt
3.3 Mesh Model
∑ Pd, i + ∑ Pt, i (2)
Figure 3 shows the upper bound meshes for C ⁄ D = 1 with a
i=1 i=1
smooth interface condition. To simplify the generation of
The constraints are
structured meshes, a flat elliptical curve, for which the ratio of
⎧ – ξ i ′ – ξ i″ ≤ 0; ξ i ′ – ξ i ″ ≤ 0( i = 1, …, nd ) the long shaft length to the short shaft length is 5, is used as a
⎪ substitute for the shape of the tunnel face. Fig. 3(a) shows that
⎪ ui cosθi + vi sinθi = ui ( i = 1, …, nv )
⎨ (3) 284 rigid elements and 486 velocity discontinuities were
⎪ –Ai ≤ 0( i = 1, …, nt ) considered when modeling the failure of the tunnel face with
⎪
⎩ yi = f ( xi )( i = 1, …, nb ) UBFEM-RTME. The actual meshes adopted in UBFEM-PDE,
as shown in Fig. 3(b), were much more refined and included
In Eq. (2), Pd,i is the power dissipation in the velocity 1864 elements and 2748 velocity discontinuities. The diffusion
discontinuities, while Pt,i is the rate of external work done by rate of the elements was obtained after trials and analysis. The
gravity. ξ i ′ and ξ i″ are auxiliary variables that relate to the number of sides of the polygon used to linearize the Mohr-
velocities and node coordinates of the adjacent elements. The Coulomb yield criterion in UBFEM-PDE is 36. The left and
element-velocity components (ui, vi) ( i = 1, …, nt ) and node right boundaries are constraints for which u = 0, v = 0 . The
coordinate components ( xi, yi ) ( i = 1, …, nn ) are decision variables. vertical and horizontal velocities along the lined section are zero.
The element-velocity components ( ui, vi ) ( i = 1, …, nv ) on the The horizontal velocity at the ground surface is set to zero and
model boundary are determined by the velocity boundary free for the rough and smooth interface conditions, respectively.
conditions. nt is the total number of elements; nn is the total No velocity constraints are imposed on the tunnel face. The
number of nodes; nd is the total number of velocity discontinuities; constraint created by the surcharge loading is set to ∫ v dS = 1 .
s
nv is the total number of elements at the velocity boundary; and The model is discretized in the structured meshes, and a local
nb is the total number of nodes at the geometric boundary. Ai is mesh refinement method is presented for those regions in which
the area of element i, and f ( xi ) is the boundary function. a failure may occur. The size of the soil domain for the considered
The initial value used to solve the above non-linear programming
problem with the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)
method is obtained by solving the linear programming problem
of the finite element upper bound solution with rigid translatory
elements for which the nodes are fixed.

3.2 Upper-Bound Finite Element Method with Plastic

Deformation Elements (UBFEM-PDE)
Sloan (1989, 1995) introduced the finite element technology to
the upper-bound method for limit analysis and established linear
programming models with three nodal triangular plastic deformation Fig. 3. Finite Element Meshes of Tunnel Face Stability Subjected
elements. The velocity variables changed linearly in each element to Surcharge Loading: (a) UBFEM-RTME, (b) UBFEM-PDE

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −3−

 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

tunnel face geometries is set such that the plasticity failure lies Table 1. A Comparison between the Present Results and those
within the domain. Available in Literature
Augarde Augarde
UBFEM- UBFEM-
et al. (2003; et al. (2003;
4. Results and Discussion RTME PDE
C/D γD/c LBFE) UBFE)
φ= φ= φ= φ= φ= φ=
A compact set of stability charts for the plane strain tunnel 0° 0.25° 0° 0.25° 0° 0°
heading problem in cohesive-frictional soils are presented using 0 - 4.31 4.28 4.34 4.00 4.39
1 - 2.81 2.79 2.84 2.46 2.89
both UBFEM-RTME and UBFEM-PDE. The computations are 1
2 - 1.30 1.27 1.31 0.85 1.39
carried out by varying (i) C/D between 1 and 4, (ii) φ between 0°
3 - -0.24 -0.29 -0.25 -0.74 -0.11
and 25°, and (iii) γD/c between 0 and 3.5. 0 - 5.51 5.43 5.51 5.05 5.68
To verify these two upper-bound finite element methods, the 1 - 2.99 2.93 3.01 2.40 3.18
values of σs/c obtained from the methods outline above with a 2
2 - 0.46 0.41 0.47 -0.20 0.68
flat elliptical tunnel face were compared with (i) the upper bound 3 - -2.09 -2.16 -2.11 -2.84 -1.82
solution of Augarde et al. (2003), and (ii) the lower bound 0 - 6.30 6.19 6.30 5.75 6.50
solution of Augarde et al. (2003) with a vertical tunnel face for 3
1 - 2.78 2.70 2.79 2.20 3.00
the smooth interface condition. It should be pointed out that the 2 - -0.77 -0.84 -0.76 -1.40 -0.50
3 - -4.33 -4.40 -4.35 -5.03 -4.00
solutions from UBFEM-RTME are for cases where φ = 0.25o to
0 - 6.89 6.76 6.89 6.25 7.21
avoid a zero denominator. The associated comparison of all the 1 - 2.36 2.27 2.37 1.71 2.71
results is provided in Table 1. Note that a positive value of σs/c 4
2 - -2.19 -2.27 -2.19 -2.86 -1.79
implies that a compressive normal stress can be applied to the 3 - -6.76 -6.84 -6.78 -7.49 -6.29

Table 2. Results of Critical Load Parameter σs/c for Smooth Interface Case
φ = 0° φ = 0.25° φ = 5° φ = 10° φ = 15° φ = 20° φ = 25°
C/D γD/c UBFEM
RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE
0 - 4.28 4.31 4.34 5.67 5.70 8.06 8.07 12.46 12.42 21.79 21.55 45.18 44.35
0.5 - 3.54 3.56 3.60 4.85 4.89 7.12 7.15 11.34 11.32 20.34 20.16 43.05 42.36
1 - 2.79 2.81 2.84 4.02 4.07 6.17 6.21 10.19 10.20 18.85 18.71 40.85 40.26
1.5 - 2.03 2.06 2.08 3.19 3.23 5.20 5.25 9.02 9.05 17.31 17.22 38.57 38.08
1
2 - 1.27 1.30 1.31 2.35 2.39 4.23 4.28 7.82 7.87 15.66 15.67 36.20 35.78
2.5 - 0.49 0.53 0.53 1.52 1.54 3.25 3.30 6.60 6.66 14.02 14.05 33.74 33.38
3 - -0.29 -0.24 -0.25 0.66 0.68 2.26 2.29 5.37 5.41 12.45 12.37 31.19 30.85
3.5 - -1.08 -1.01 -1.04 -0.19 -0.19 1.24 1.27 4.07 4.12 10.55 10.64 28.23 28.21
0 - 5.43 5.51 5.51 7.74 7.73 12.03 11.99 21.14 20.98 44.13 43.56 118.33 115.21
0.5 - 4.19 4.25 4.27 6.33 6.34 10.36 10.36 19.03 18.98 41.18 40.82 113.33 110.73
1 - 2.93 2.99 3.01 4.91 4.93 8.67 8.70 16.86 16.89 38.09 37.92 108.03 105.94
1.5 - 1.67 1.73 1.74 3.48 3.51 6.94 7.01 14.63 14.72 34.88 34.85 102.50 100.80
2
2 - 0.41 0.46 0.47 2.04 2.07 5.19 5.28 12.34 12.46 31.54 31.62 96.56 95.38
2.5 - -0.87 -0.81 -0.81 0.59 0.62 3.42 3.50 9.98 10.13 28.05 28.24 90.36 89.60
3 - -2.16 -2.09 -2.11 -0.87 -0.85 1.61 1.68 7.56 7.71 24.40 24.68 83.87 83.49
3.5 - -3.45 -3.37 -3.41 -2.33 -2.34 -0.23 -0.19 5.05 5.19 20.62 20.95 76.98 76.99
0 - 6.19 6.30 6.30 9.22 9.21 15.25 15.17 29.23 28.94 69.75 67.89 220.29 212.61
0.5 - 4.45 4.54 4.55 7.22 7.24 12.85 12.84 26.12 26.00 64.58 63.70 211.19 205.06
1 - 2.70 2.78 2.79 5.21 5.24 10.40 10.45 22.90 22.90 59.72 59.19 202.00 197.01
1.5 - 0.93 1.01 1.02 3.18 3.22 7.90 7.99 19.55 19.66 54.60 54.38 192.27 188.23
3
2 - -0.84 -0.77 -0.76 1.13 1.18 5.35 5.46 16.09 16.28 49.24 49.29 181.90 178.76
2.5 - -2.62 -2.54 -2.55 -0.93 -0.88 2.73 2.85 12.50 12.75 43.66 43.95 170.98 168.63
3 - -4.40 -4.33 -4.35 -3.00 -2.97 0.06 0.16 8.77 9.04 37.74 38.25 159.26 157.87
3.5 - -6.20 -6.11 -6.15 -5.10 -5.10 -2.69 -2.63 4.87 5.11 31.50 32.18 146.75 146.28
0 - 6.76 6.89 6.89 10.40 10.37 18.01 17.89 36.91 36.43 97.06 93.58 346.02 330.69
0.5 - 4.52 4.63 4.64 7.82 7.82 14.88 14.86 32.78 32.54 90.81 87.86 333.46 320.41
1 - 2.27 2.36 2.37 5.21 5.24 11.66 11.71 28.46 28.39 82.89 81.64 319.84 307.25
1.5 - 0.00 0.09 0.10 2.57 2.62 8.37 8.47 23.97 24.05 75.89 75.01 305.22 295.87
4
2 - -2.27 -2.19 -2.19 -0.08 -0.03 4.99 5.12 19.28 19.49 68.36 68.01 289.49 281.92
2.5 - -4.55 -4.47 -4.48 -2.76 -2.71 1.51 1.65 14.39 14.68 60.39 60.51 274.20 266.84
3 - -6.84 -6.76 -6.78 -5.47 -5.44 -2.08 -1.96 9.26 9.59 51.96 52.44 256.29 250.92
3.5 - -9.14 -9.05 -9.09 -8.22 -8.21 -5.88 -5.77 3.83 4.16 42.92 43.76 237.23 233.21

−4− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil

Table 3. Results of Critical Load Parameter σs/c for Rough Interface Case
φ = 0° φ = 0.25° φ = 5° φ = 10° φ = 15° φ = 20° φ = 25°
C/D γD/c UBFEM
RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE RTME PDE
0 - 4.39 4.45 4.45 5.83 5.88 8.23 8.34 12.72 12.95 22.20 22.56 46.17 46.90
0.5 - 3.65 3.71 3.71 5.00 5.06 7.28 7.40 11.57 11.82 20.71 21.09 43.99 44.76
1 - 2.90 2.96 2.96 4.18 4.23 6.32 6.44 10.40 10.66 19.18 19.57 41.73 42.52
1.5 - 2.15 2.21 2.20 3.34 3.39 5.34 5.47 9.21 9.46 17.61 18.00 39.38 40.20
1
2 - 1.38 1.45 1.43 2.50 2.54 4.36 4.48 8.00 8.22 16.00 16.39 36.96 37.80
2.5 - 0.61 0.68 0.65 1.65 1.68 3.37 3.47 6.76 6.96 14.35 14.72 34.44 35.27
3 - -0.17 -0.08 -0.13 0.80 0.81 2.37 2.45 5.48 5.68 12.64 13.00 31.84 32.64
3.5 - -0.96 -0.86 -0.93 -0.05 -0.07 1.36 1.41 4.20 4.36 10.86 11.22 29.14 39.90
0 - 5.52 5.56 5.61 7.81 7.89 12.16 12.30 21.33 21.65 44.50 45.19 120.34 121.11
0.5 - 4.28 4.31 4.37 6.39 6.49 10.48 10.65 19.20 19.56 41.50 42.34 115.17 116.40
1 - 3.03 3.05 3.11 4.96 5.07 8.76 8.96 17.01 17.40 38.37 39.35 109.72 111.39
1.5 - 1.77 1.79 1.84 3.53 3.64 7.03 7.23 14.75 15.18 35.10 36.20 103.97 106.08
2
2 - 0.50 0.52 0.57 2.08 2.19 5.26 5.46 12.48 12.88 31.72 32.89 98.19 100.48
2.5 - -0.77 -0.75 -0.72 0.63 0.73 3.47 3.66 10.10 10.50 28.18 29.41 91.87 94.46
3 - -2.06 -2.03 -2.01 -0.82 -0.76 1.66 1.81 7.65 8.03 24.51 25.76 85.23 88.09
3.5 - -3.36 -3.31 -3.31 -2.92 -2.26 -0.20 -0.08 5.13 5.46 20.68 21.88 77.87 81.26
0 - 6.28 6.34 6.40 9.28 9.39 15.36 15.55 29.43 29.86 70.32 70.55 222.13 222.36
0.5 - 4.54 4.58 4.65 7.28 7.40 12.94 13.18 26.28 26.83 65.74 66.13 213.54 214.56
1 - 2.79 2.82 2.88 5.26 5.39 10.47 10.74 23.03 23.63 60.10 61.44 204.31 206.14
1.5 - 1.03 1.05 1.11 3.22 3.36 7.95 8.23 19.66 20.29 54.93 56.46 194.49 197.13
3
2 - -0.74 -0.73 -0.67 1.17 1.30 5.38 5.65 16.18 16.82 49.41 51.21 184.07 187.41
2.5 - -2.52 -2.51 -2.46 -0.90 -0.79 2.76 3.00 12.57 13.20 43.88 45.69 172.97 176.90
3 - -4.31 -4.29 -4.26 -2.98 -2.90 0.08 0.28 8.82 9.40 37.91 39.79 161.20 165.66
3.5 - -6.11 -6.07 -6.06 -5.08 -5.03 -2.68 -2.55 4.90 5.39 31.63 33.52 148.66 153.54
0 - 6.85 6.92 6.98 10.45 10.56 18.10 18.34 37.11 37.58 97.74 96.96 352.31 346.09
0.5 - 4.62 4.66 4.73 7.86 7.99 14.94 15.24 32.94 33.54 91.46 91.05 338.76 335.21
1 - 2.35 2.39 2.46 5.24 5.38 11.71 12.03 28.59 29.27 83.34 84.64 325.69 323.18
1.5 - 0.09 0.12 0.19 2.60 2.74 8.40 8.72 24.06 24.81 76.15 77.80 312.04 309.89
4
2 - -2.18 -2.15 -2.10 -0.06 0.07 5.01 5.32 19.35 20.16 68.55 70.56 294.78 295.39
2.5 - -4.46 -4.43 -4.39 -2.75 -2.64 1.54 1.81 14.44 15.25 60.54 62.79 278.19 279.69
3 - -6.75 -6.72 -6.70 -5.46 -5.38 -2.07 -1.85 9.29 10.05 52.07 54.46 259.35 262.81
3.5 - -9.05 -9.02 -9.01 -8.20 -8.16 -5.86 -5.74 3.86 4.46 43.09 45.50 245.11 244.30

ground surface, while a negative value means that we can only expected, Fig. 5 shows that there is a similar linear relationship
apply a tensile normal stress to the soil surface, theoretically. For between σs/c and γD/c. σs/c decreases approximately (i) 103%
different values of γD/C, the obtained σs/c are found to be with φ = 5o and 37.5% with φ = 25o for C/D = 1, and (ii) 178%
marginally lower than the upper bound solutions and slightly with φ = 5o and 30.4% with φ = 25o for C/D = 4 when γD/c
greater than the lower bound solutions. These comparisons increases. Fig. 6 shows that for larger values of φ, the loading
indirectly indicate that the obtained solutions are found to be in parameter σs/c increases with φ for cases where φ > 20o, and the
good agreement with those in literature. influence of the depth becomes increasingly more significant.
Tables 2-3 list the upper-bound solutions obtained from For the case with a rough interface condition, the general trend is
UBFEM-RTME and UBFEM-PDE for ground surface loading almost the same as for the smooth case, but the critical load
with both smooth and rough interface conditions, respectively. parameters σs/c are slightly higher.
The results are also presented as dimensionless stability charts in The failure mechanism obtained with both UBFEM-PDE and
Figs. 4-6 for the smooth interface condition. Fig. 4 shows that UBFEM-RTME for (C/D = 1, γD/c = 1, φ = 15o) with a smooth
starting from φ =15o, the critical load parameter σs/c increases interface condition is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7(a) was obtained
with C/D when φ and γD/c remain constant, while σs/c decreases using UBFEM-PDE by deleting those elements for which the
with C/D when γD/c ≥ 2 in those cases where φ < 15o. Note that velocity approaches to zero, while Fig. 7(b) was acquired using
for φ = 25o, σs/c is found to vary approximately (i) 666% with UBFEM-RTME by removing non-active velocity discontinuities.
γD/c = 0, and (ii) 740% with γD/c = 3.5 as C/D increases. As Fig. 7(a) shows that the optimal mesh deformation diagram

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

Fig. 4. Upper Bounds on Critical Load Parameter (φ = 5°, 15°, 25°, smooth interface): (a) φ = 5o, (b) φ = 15o, (c) φ = 25o

Fig. 5. Upper Bounds on Critical Load Parameter (C/D = 1, 2, 3, 4, smooth interface): (a) C/D = 1, (b) C/D = 2, (c) C/D = 3, (d) C/D = 4

cannot illustrate the smooth slip lines because the element node failure mechanisms of the tunnel face are illustrated using results
coordinates are all fixed. The UBFEM-RTME method can obtained with UBFEM-RTME.
exhibit specific slip lines and explicitly reflect the relative Figures 8-10 show the failure mechanisms using UBFEM-
movement of blocks with the automatic adjustment of velocity RTME for the smooth interface condition. The figures clearly
discontinuities. Therefore, the following discussions on the illustrate the failure mechanisms with two groups of smooth

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil

Fig. 6. Upper Bounds on Critical Load Parameter (γD/c = 0,1,2,3, smooth interface): (a) γD/c = 0, (b) γD/c = 1, (c) γD/c = 2, (d) γD/c = 3

lines resulting from the automatic adjustment of velocity

discontinuities. For the case of the moderate γD/c presented in
Fig. 8, the failure patterns, ahead of the heading face, do not vary
significantly with γD/c, while the scale of the failure area
decreases from 2.2D to 1.85D as γD/c increases. Fig. 9 indicates
that the portion of the failure mechanism close to the ground
diminishes as φ increases, but the movement of the rigid blocks
Fig. 7. Failure Mechanism Obtained by Finite Element Upper-
bound Methods (C/D = 1, γD/c = 1, φ = 15°): (a) PDE, (b)
becomes more intense. These figures also show that, as φ
RTME increases, the failure mode evolves to include the region behind

Fig. 8. Effect of γD/c on Failure Mechanism (C/D = 2, φ = 15°, smooth interface): (a) γD/c = 0, (b) γD/c = 2, (c) γD/c = 3.5, (d) Failure Zone

Fig. 9. Effect of φ on Failure Mechanism (C/D = 2, φD/c = 2, smooth interface): (a) φ = 5o, (b) φ = 15o, (c) φ = 25o, (d) Failure Zone

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−

 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

γD/c = 3.5 as C/D increases.

2. The failure mechanisms obtained using UBFEM-RTME
exhibit specific slip lines and explicitly reflect the relative
movement of blocks with the automatic adjustment of the
velocity discontinuities. Compared to the case with the
smooth interface, the portion of the failure mechanism close
to the ground with the rough interface is closer to the tunnel
face. The failure patterns do not vary significantly with the
tunnel depths and γD/c but are sensitive to φ. For larger val-
ues of C/D, failure width at the ground surface increases
from 0.74D to 2.3D with γD/c = 3 and φ = 20o.

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (No. 51008309, 51208522, 51478477), and
Fig. 10. Effect of C/D on Failure Mechanism (γD/c = 3, φ = 20°, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of
smooth interface): (a) C/D = 1, (b) C/D =2, (c) C/D = 3, (d) Central South University (2014zzts045). The authors are grateful
C/D = 4, (e) Failure Zone to these institutions for this support.

References

Abbo, A. J., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2013).

“Undrained stability of wide rectangular tunnels.” Computers and
Geotechnics, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 46-59, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.
2013.04.005.
Fig. 11. Effect of Loading-ground Interface Condition on Failure Anagnostou, G. and Kovári K. (1994). “The face stability of slurry-
mechanism (C/D = 2, γD/c = 3, φ = 10°): (a) Smooth, (b) shield-driven tunnels.” Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,
Rough, (c) Failure Zone Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 165-174, DOI: 10.1016/0886-7798 (94)90028-0.
Atkinson, J. H. and Potts, D. M. (1977). “Stability of a shallow circular
tunnel in cohesionless soil.” Geotechnique, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 203-
the face above the tunnel. When C/D is increased as shown in 215, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1977.27.2.203.
Fig. 10, it may lead to wider failure area and a greater Augarde, C. E., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2003). “Stability of
contribution to plastic flow in the base of the heading. Failure undrained plane strain heading revisited.” Computers and Geotechnics,
Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 419-430, DOI: 10.1016/S0266-352X(03)00009-0.
width at the ground surface increases from 0.74D to 2.3D with
Chakraborty, D. and Kumar, J. (2013). “Stability of a long unsupported
an increase in C/D from 1 to 3. Fig. 11 compares the failure circular tunnel in soils with seismic forces.” Natural Hazards,
mechanisms obtained with both the smooth interface and rough Springer, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 419-431, DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-
interface conditions. As the horizontal velocity is fixed to zero 0633-y.
along the ground surface, the portion of the failure mechanism Davis, E. H., Guun, M. J., Mair, R. J. and Seneviratne, H. N. (1980).
close to the ground evolves, becoming closer to the tunnel face “The stability of shallow tunnels and underground openings in
with the rough interface condition. cohesive material.” Geotechnique, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 397-416, DOI:
10.1680/geot.1980.30.4.397.
Drucker, D. C., Greenberg, H. J., and Prager, W. (1951). “The safety
5. Conclusions factor of an elastic plastic body in plane strain.” Journal of Applied
Mechanics-Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 371-378.
The stability of a plane strain tunnel face in a cohesive-frictional Drucker, D. C., Prager, W., and Greenberg, H. J. (1952). “Extended limit
soil subjected to surcharge loading was investigated using both design theorems for continuous media.” Quarterly of Applied
UBFEM-RTME and UBFEM-PDE. The results of these analyses Mathematics, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 381-389.
have been presented in the form of dimensionless stability charts Eisenstein, Z. and Samarasekara, L. (1992). “Stability of unsupported
and failure mechanisms. The results produced by these two tunnels in clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
methods are in good agreement with one another. 609-613, DOI: 10.1139/t92-068.
Fraldi, M. and Guarracino, F. (2009). “Limit analysis of collapse
1. Different interface conditions have no discernible effect on
mechanismsin cavities and tunnels according to the Hoek-Brown
the upper-bound solutions. The critical load parameter σs/c failure criterion.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
decreases linearly with γD/c and varies significantly as φ Mining Sciences, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 665-673, DOI: 10.1016/
increases, especially for φ > 20o. For φ = 25o, σs/c increases j.ijrmms.2008.09.014.
approximately (i) 666% with γD/c = 0, and (ii) 740% with Fraldi, M. and Guarracino, F. (2010). “Analytical solutions for collapse

−8− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Upper-bound Finite Element Analysis of Stability of Tunnel Face Subjected to Surcharge Loading in Cohesive-frictional Soil

mechanisms in tunnels with arbitrary cross sections.” International Vol. 79, No. 64, pp. 807-815.
Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 216-223, DOI: Sahoo, J. P. and Kumar, J. (2013b). “Stability of long unsupported twin
10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.09.028. circular tunnels in soils.” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Hambleton, J. P. and Sloan, S. W. (2013). “A perturbation method for Technology, Vol. 38, pp. 326-335, DOI: 10.1016/ j.tust.2013.07.005.
optimization of rigid block mechanisms in the kinematic method of Sahoo, J. P. and Kumar, J. (2014). “Stability of a circular tunnel in
limit analysis.” Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 260- presence of pseudostatic seismic body forces.” Tunnelling and
271, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.07.012. Underground Space Technology, Vol. 42, pp. 264-276, DOI:
Huang, M. S. and Song, C. X. (2013). “Upper-bound stability analysis 10.1016/j.tust.2014.03.003.
of a plane strain heanding in non-homogeneous clay.” Tunnelling Schofield, A. N. (1980). “Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations.”
and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp. 213-223, Geotechnique, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 227-267, DOI: 10.1680/geot.
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2013.07.012. 1980.30.3.227.
Jancsecz, S. and Steiner, W. (1994). “Face support for a large mix-shield Sloan, S. W. (1989). “Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements
in heterogeneous ground conditions.” Tunneling, London, pp. 531- and linear programming.” Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, Vol.
550. 13, No. 3, pp. 263-282, DOI: 10.1002/nag. 1610130304.
Kim, S. H. and Tonon, F. (2010). “Face stability and required support Sloan, S. W. and Assadi, A. (1994). “Undrained stability of a plane
pressure for TBM driven tunnels with ideal face membrane-Drained strain heading.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.
case.” Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 25, No. 443-50, DOI: 10.1139/t94-051.
5, pp. 526-542, DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2010.03.002. Sloan, S. W. and Kleeman, P. W., (1995). “Upper bound limit analysis
Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. (1990). “Upper and lower bound solutions using discontinuous velocity fields.” Computer Methods in Applied
for the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material.” Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 11, pp. 293-314.
Géotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 581-606, DOI: 10.1680/geot. Song, C. X., Huang, M. S., and Lv, X. L. (2011). “Upper bound analysis
1990.40.4.581. of plane strain tunnel in nonhomogeneous clays.” Rock and Soil
Lee, I. M. and Nam, S. W. (2001). “The study of seepage forces acting Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 2645-2651, DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.
on the tunnel lining and tunnel face in shallow tunnels.” Tunnels and 1000-7598.2011.09.014. (in chinese)
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 31-40, DOI: Soubra, A. H. (2000). Three-dimensional face stability analysis of
10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00028-1. shallow circular tunnels, International Conference on Geotechnical
Lee, I. M., Lee, J. S., and Nam, S. W. (2004). “Effect of seepage force and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, pp. 19-24.
on tunnel face stability reinforced with muti-step pipe grouting.” Soubra, A. H. (2002). Kinematical approach to the face stability analysis
Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. of shallow circular tunnels, In: Proceedings of the 8th International
551-565, DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2004.01.003. Symposium on Plasticity. British Columbia, Canada, pp. 443-445.
Lee, I. M., Nam, S. W., and Jae, H. A. (2003). “Effect of seepage force Subrin, D. and Wong, H. (2002). “Tunnel face stability in frictional material:
on tunnel face stability.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, A New 3D failure mechanism.” Comptes Rendus Mecanique, Vol. 330,
No. 2, pp. 342-350, DOI: 10.1139/t02-120. No. 7, pp. 513-519, DOI: S1631-0721(02)01491-2.
Li, Y., Emeriault, F., Kastner, R., and Zhang, Z. X. (2009). “Stability Subrin, D., Branque, D., Berthoz, N., and Wong, H. (2009). Kinematic
analysis of large slurry shield driven tunnel in soft clay.” Tunnelling 3D approaches to evaluate TBM face stability: Comparison with
and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 472-481, experimental laboratory observations, 2th International conference
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2008.10.007. on computational methods in tunneling, Ruhr University Bochum,
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., and Bracegirdle, A. (1993). “Subsurface settlement pp. 801-808.
profiles above tunnels in clays.” Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. Wilson, D. W., Abbo, A. J., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2011).
315-320, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.315. “Undrained stability of a circular tunnel where the shear strength
Maynar, M. J. M. and Rodríguez, L. E. M. (2005). “Discrete numerical increases linearly with depth.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
model for analysis of earth pressure balance tunnel excavation.” 48, No. 9, pp. 1328-1342, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1325.8882.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. Wilson, D. W., Abbo, A. J., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2013).
131, No. 10, pp. 1234-1242, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 “Undrained stability of a square tunnel where the shear strength
(2005)131:10(1234). increases linearly with depth.” Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 49,
Milani, G. and Lourenco, P. B. (2009). “A discontinuous quasi-upper pp. 314-325, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.005.
bound limit analysis approach with sequential linear programming Wilson, D. W., Abbo, A. J., Sloan, S. W., and Lyamin, A. V. (2014).
mesh adaptation.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, “Undrained stability of dual circular tunnels.” International Journal
Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 89-104, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2008.10.010. of Geomechanics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 69-79, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
Mollon, G., Dias, D., and Soubra, A. H. (2009). “Probalilistic analysis GM. 1943-5622.0000288.
and design of circular tunnels against face stability.” International Yamamoto, K., Lyamin, A. V., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., Abbo, A. J.
Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 237-249, DOI: 10.1061/ (2011b). “Stability of a single tunnel in cohesive-frictional soil
(ASCE)1532-364120099:6237. subjected to surcharge loading.” Can. Geotech. J, Vol. 48, pp. 1841-
Mollon, G., Dias, D., and Soubra, A. H. (2010). “Face stability analysis 1854, DOI: 10.1139/T11-078.
of circular tunnels driven by a pressurized shield.” Journal of Yamamoto, K., Lyamin, A. V., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., and Abbo,
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 1, A. J. (2011a). “Stability of a circular tunnel in cohesive-frictional
pp. 215-229, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000194. soil subjected to surcharge loading.” Computers and Geotechnics,
Sahoo, J. P. and Kumar, J. (2013a). “Stability of a long unsupported Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 504-514, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.02.014.
circular tunnel in clayey soil by using upper bound finite element Yamamoto, K., Lyamin, A. V., Wilson, D. W., Sloan, S. W., and Abbo,
limit analysis.” Proceedings, Indian National Science, Academy, A. J. (2013). “Stability of dual circular tunnels in cohesive-frictional

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −9−

 Feng Yang, Jian Zhang, Lianheng Zhao, and Junsheng Yang

soil subjected to surcharge loading.” Computer and Geotechnics, upper-bound method with rigid translatory moving elements.”
Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 41-54, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.12.008. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 50, No. 8, pp.
Yang, F. and Yang, J. S. (2010). “Stability of shallow tunnel using rigid 13-22, DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2010.06.005.
blocks and finite-element upper bound solutions.” International Yang, F., Zhao, L. H., Zhang, J., and Yangm J. S. (2014). Investigation
Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 242-247, DOI: of finite element upper bound solution based on rigid translatory
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000011. moving element.” Rock and Soil Mechanics, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.
Yang, F., Yang, J. S., and Zhao, L. H. (2010). “Failure mechanism an 1782-1786. (in chinese)
support pressure for shallow tunnel face.” Chinese Journal of Yang, X. L. and Huang, F. (2013). “Three-dimensional failure mechanism
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 279-284. (in chinese) of a rectangular cavity in a Hoek-Brown rock medium.” International
Yang, F., Zhang, J., Yang, J. S., Zhao, L. H., and Zheng, X. C., 2015. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp.
“Stability analysis of unlined elliptical tunnel using finite element 189-195, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.02.014.

− 10 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

View publication stats