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

net/publication/265215501

Why the convergence confinement method is not much used in practice

Conference Paper · January 2010

CITATION READS

1 284

1 author:

Leandro Alejano
University of Vigo
137 PUBLICATIONS   1,233 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

HM rock mass behavior characterization View project

Rock mechanics course slides (in spanish) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leandro Alejano on 09 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Why the convergence confinement method is not much used in practice?
L.R. Alejano
Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Vigo, Spain

ABSTRACT: The convergence-confinement method is a tool that enables us to give an appreciation of the
nature of the interplay between the rock-mass and the support, and the effect of the variation in the properties
of the rock on the support load. From a theoretical scope, the approach to the tunnel behaviour is rigorous.
However, this technique is not much used in practice. We think this is due to some reasons, which are briefly
reviewed in this article. A significant issue for a reliable application of the approach is which behavior model
is selected, together with the inaccuracy of the longitudinal deformation profiles. This work intends to discuss
some of these topics.

1 INTRODUCTION calculations not as exact as desired (as in many rock

1.1 Drawbacks of the CCM
The convergence-confinement method (CCM) con-
sists of three basic components in the form of three
graphs: the longitudinal deformation profile (LDP),
which relates tunnel deformation to distance to the
tunnel face; the support characteristic curve (SCC),
which represents the stress–strain relationship in the
support system; and the ground reaction or response
curve (GRC).
From a physical-mathematical scope, the general
approach and solution of the tunnel behaviour and
ground reaction curve seems to be smart. However,
this approach has not been and is not widely used in
engineering practice. This is due to several reasons,
among which the following can be highlighted:
1) The stringent initial assumptions needed to ob-
tain analytically the GRC,
2) The difficulties to adequately define the be-
haviour and characterize the rock mass,
3) The rigorousness of the calculation procedure,
4) The lack of clear indications on when and how
to use it. There are apparently different pro-
posed criteria for its field application,
5) The difficulties associated to the correct con-
struction of the support and reinforcement
characteristic curve SCC and the LDP,
6) The typical natural variability of rock mass
parameters and
7) The current availability of numerical models
to analyse the problem.
While the first and sixth given reasons have been
widely and old known and they make the general
mechanics approaches, on the other hand), we think
that the second to fifth topics represent the core of
the reasons why the method is seldom utilized. This
is due to the lack of a standard technique with which
we would be able to identify different possible post-
failure behaviour modes in rock masses. Further-
more, once these behaviour modes are identified, we
would still have some difficulties in implementing
them in the methods that we use to rigorously obtain
the GRCs. The topic number fifth is out of the scope
of this paper, but some comments are also given.
2 REVIEW OF WEAK POINTS
2.1 Stringent assumptions
A series of stringent assumptions are needed to ob-
tain analytical GRC: cylindrical excavation of radius
R, radial symmetry, homogeneous and isotropic rock
mass, tunnel submitted to an hydrostatic stress field,
plane and small strain conditions, deep tunnels,
time-dependence, dynamic effects, conditions of
work execution and stress path influence. These four
last topics are not considered in the CCM approach.
While some of these assumptions make the calcu-
lation procedure not applicable for particular cases
(non-cylindrical tunnels, shallow tunnels or highly
non-isotropic stress-fields) and some others induce
errors usually not significant (plane-strain, execution
conditions, long-term behavior), the influence of the
3D-nature of stress and the stress-path (Eberhardt,
2000) may produce significant differences in the fi-
nal results. For very deep excavations, understand-
ing the 3D redistribution of stresses is essential.
However, in the case of elasto-plastic yielding, the
influence is apparently not so significant.
2.2 Rock mass behaviour models
Hoek and Brown (1997) were among the first au-
thors that clearly put forward the fact that for rock
masses with average or high geotechnical quality
(GSI > 30) the elastic-perfectly plastic assumption
was not correct, that is to say, that once achieved the
maximum strength, this assumption is not kept if the
rock is to admit further strain (Figure 1). This means
that elastic perfectly plastic solutions can only be
applied to low quality rock masses (GSI< 30). Then,
for average quality rock masses, the strain-softening
behavior model is needed. It is also to note that for
high quality rock masses (GSI >70) a type of brittle
behavior could be expected, that does not fit the
Hoek-Brown failure criteria approach (Kaiser at al.,
2000).
Figure 1. Different behaviour models and the corresponding
different Ground Reaction Curves for different rock mass GSI.
However, the definition of the stress-strain curve
of a rock mass is not complete with these guidelines;
the values of the peak and residual strength enve-
lopes, the elastic parameters, the dilatancy and the
drop deformational modulus are needed to com-
pletely define stress-strain behaviour. It should be
also pointed out that dilation and drop modulus have
been reported to be confining stress-dependent on
rock samples and apparently on rock masses, which
makes rock behaviour more complex.
An effort has been recently made (Alejano et al.,
2009) to suggest guidelines in order to obtain all the
parameters needed to characterize a strain-softening
average quality rock mass, in such a way that its
GRC can be calculated.
In the last decades, different general types or
families of curves were proposed and implemented
in widely used programs, such as RocSupport (Roc-
science, 2003). On the one hand, we have the elas-
tic-perfectly-plastic GRC as defined by Panet (1993)
for Mohr-Coulomb materials or by Carranza-Torres
& Fairhurst (1999) for Hoek-Brown materials. We
also have GRC for tunnels excavated in perfectly
brittle rock masses as the cases defined by Panet
(1993) and Carranza-Torres (2004). On the other
hand, we have the so-called strain-softening GRC
calculations as proposed by Brown et al. (1983)
(non-rigorous) or more rigorous models as proposed
by Alonso et al. (2003) or Guan et al. (2007).
If the guidelines of Hoek & Brown (1997) are
followed, it turns out that according to the rock mass
quality and, therefore, to the model selected, differ-
ent types of indicated approaches must be applied to
estimate the GRC and, finally, the support for a tun-
nel.
2.3 Rigorousness of the calculation procedure
It is also important to remark how rigorousness has
not facilitated the utilization of this method of tunnel
calculation in the past. In what concerns the GRC,
and according to Guan et al. (2007), the methods can
be divided into two categories. One is that regarding
simplified methods in terms of total plastic strain,
and it is represented by Brown et al. (1983) and oth-
ers. The other is the rigorous method in terms of in-
cremental plastic strain, and it is represented by Car-
ranza-Torres & Fairhurst (1999), Alonso et al.
(2003) and others. It could be concluded that, even if
the calculation of stresses is accurate in every case,
there is a discrepancy between rigorous and non-
rigorous methods in depicting the displacement dis-
tribution of the plastic region. The rigorous methods
reflect the nature of tunnel excavation more realisti-
cally, so they are convenient to reliably represent
tunnel behavior.
2.4 Different proposed criteria for its field of
application
The indications of different authors on when to ap-
ply the method are apparently controversial.
On the one hand, Brady & Brown (2004) recom-
mended its application for the cases when the
stresses around the drift or tunnel are well over the
rock mass strength. These authors proposed to use
this method to design support and reinforcement. It
seems therefore applicable for highly stressed tun-
nels on discontinuous rock masses (Fig. 2). This is
apparently coincident with the approach by Hoek et
al. (1995), who recommended its application in tun-
nels excavated in highly jointed rock masses submit-
ted to very high stress levels (Fig. 3).
On the other hand, Hoek & Marinos (2000) first
proposed a plot of tunnel convergence against the ra-
tio of rock mass strength to in situ stress. That plot
was made for unsupported tunnels and according to
the GRC calculation approaches, which regarded
elastic-perfectly-plastic rock masses. On that plot
they identified an estimated relationship between
strain and the degree of difficulty associated with
tunneling through squeezing rock. From this plot,
they suggested that the convergence confinement
method could be used in tunnels with maximum
strain in the range of 1 to 2.5 % to predict the forma-
tion of a plastic zone in the rock mass surrounding a
tunnel and the interaction between the progressive
development of this zone and different types of sup-
port. They suggested the use of the method to select
rock-bolts and shotcrete as a support to control mi-
nor squeezing problems. For lower expected strains,
the application of recommendations based upon rock
mass classification systems provided an adequate
basis for design. However, in the case of strains over
2.5 %, they suggested the use of 3D-FEM. This ob-
vious non-coincidence with the previous approach is
due to the fact that when rock masses attain great de-
formation, the role of stability in the face behavior is
extremely important. Since the CCM do not dis-
tinctly account for this effect, it should be discarded
for very low quality rock masses and other methods
should be used, namely 3D numerical models.
Figure 2. When to apply the GRC support design method ac-
cording to the approach by Brady & Brown (2004).
Figure 3. Types of failure in underground excavations accord-
ing to the stress state and rock mass quality (according to Hoek
et al., 1995) and pictures by the authors.
In a different way, this was already pointed out
earlier, when Panet (1993) proposed to estimate the
so-called parameter N (=2·σ0 / σc), and he indicated
how the value of this parameter affects the applica-
bility of the method. If N>5, the plastic zone in the
tunnel face and that around the tunnel join, produc-
ing a continuous plastic zone difficult to control and
to stabilize. In this case, the CCM may not be a suit-
able tool.
In a similar way, Vlachoupoulos & Diederichs
(2009) indicated that face problems may arise when
the ratio between the plastic radius and that of the
tunnel is over 2, accounting for the fact that, in this
case, the LDP changes in such a way that large pe-
riphery deformations are expected in the tunnel face.
Either to apply the CCM or to perform numerical
models is very important to use a set of significant
parameters representative of the actual behavior of
the rock. In this way, they do not recommend the use
of the CCM in this case, for reasons well different
than the good quality rock masses, and this should
be clearly stated. In fact, the CCM method can be
and is still used and useful in combination with an
approach able to account for the tunnel face effect.
2.5 Difficulties associated to the correct
construction of the SCC
There exist a series of texts where the classical con-
struction of the support characteristic curve SCC can
be obtained (Carranza-Torres & Fairhurst, 2000;
Hoek, 1999; Oreste 2004). These approaches present
a series of open issues, which include the role of
shotcrete curing or the role of reinforcement. These
difficulties also deal with how to estimate the maxi-
mum admissible strain of the different or combined
types of support or how to obtain a reliable safety
factor (stress or strain-SF).
It is also extremely important to know when the
support and reinforcement system starts to be
loaded, for which, regardless the actual distance to
the tunnel face when installing support, a reliably
realistic LDP is needed. Elastic LDPs, as provided
by Panet (1993), have shown to be rare in practice,
so empirical proposals seem to be more realistic.
Recently, Vlachoupoulos & Diederichs (2009) have
provided a series of LDPs for different values of
rock-mass GSI, which seem to be a reasonable op-
tion to correctly introduce in the CCM the distance
to the face when installing the support. However,
this approach refers to elastic perfectly plastic be-
haviour, so one should be cautious.
2.6 Natural variability of parameters
Hoek (1998) put forward that the uncertainty associ-
ated with estimating the properties of in situ rock
masses has a significant impact on the design of tun-
nels in rock, as he demonstrated in a simple GRC
example. This example showed that, even when us-
ing the ‘best’ estimates available, the range of calcu-
lated factors of safety were uncomfortably large.
These ranges become alarmingly large when poor
investigation and lab procedures were used. Given
the inherent difficulty of assigning reliable numeri-
cal values to rock mass characteristics, it is unlikely
that ‘accurate’ methods for estimating rock mass
properties will be developed in the foreseeable fu-
ture. Consequently, the user of the Hoek-Brown pro-
cedure or of any other equivalent procedure for es-
timating rock mass properties should not assume that
the calculations produce unique reliable numbers.
2.7 Numerical approaches
Practical analyses are carried out using numerical
modeling of specific geometrical and rock property
parameters, but without the benefit of the insight
that can be gained from examining the relationship
between the parameters. This insight is especially
important for geotechnical design, since the appro-
priate field-scale values of the parameters are not
well known. Certainly, numerical models work well
in rapidly verifying tunnels linings. However, when
it comes to design, the CCM has a number of advan-
tages, such as the possibility of deciding the face
distance for support installation. CCM, unlike
numerical methods, can also be used to design
supports that fulfill particular safety factor design
criteria.
3 CONCLUSIONS
We have focused our study on specific difficulties
on the application of the CCM, highlighting, in par-
ticular, certain issues that previous research had left
unclear.
One such issue is the correct definition of post-
failure behaviour of the rock mass, which has a bear-
ing on rock mass behaviour in the plastic zone.
It is important to highlight the high level of error
obtained in practical engineering when oversimpli-
fied models are used to obtain GRCs or to imple-
ment numerical models. Furthermore, this is one of
the reasons why the use of GRCs is still very lim-
ited. We have highlighted that high quality estimates
of field-scale rock mass post-peak parameters have
improved confidence in forward modeling of ground
support. Post-failure behaviour is extremely signifi-
cant in the continuous approach to modeling rock
masses. The Hoek-Brown strain-softening behaviour
model appears to be capable of correctly represent-
ing the behaviour of rock masses with poor to aver-
age geomechanical quality (30<GSI<60).
A further study on LDPs is also needed for a bet-
ter understanding on tunneling.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks the Spanish Ministry of Science and Tech-
nology for financial support awarded under Contract Reference
Number BIA2009-09673 for the research project entitled
‘Study of underground excavations in rock masses’.
View publication stats
REFERENCES
Alejano, L.R., Alonso, E., Rguez-Dono, A. & Fdez-Manin, G.
2010. Application of the convergence-confinement method
for tunnels excavated in rock masses exhibiting Hoek-
Brown strain-softening behaviour. Int. J. of Rock Mech. &
Min. Sci .In Press.
Alonso, E., Alejano, L.R., Varas, F., Fdez-Manin, G. & Car-
ranza-Torres. C. 2003. Ground reaction curves for rock
masses exhibiting strain-softening behaviour. Int. J. Num.
& Anal. Meth. In Geomech, 27: 1153-1185.
Brady, B.G.H. & Brown, E.T. 2004. Rock mechanics for un-
derground mining. 3rd ed. Springer, Vienna, Austria.
Brown, E.T., Bray, J.W., Ladanyi, B., Hoek, E.. 1983. Ground
response curves for rock tunnels. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE
1983. 109, 15–39.
Carranza-Torres, C. & Fairhurst, C. 1999. The elasto-plastic
response of underground excavations in rock masses that
satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 1999. 36 (6), 777–809.
Carranza-Torres, C. 2004. Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel
problems using the generalized form of the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion. In Hudson & Xia-Ting (eds.), Proc. ISRM
SINOROCK2004 Symp. China. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci.: 41(3) 480–481.
Carranza-Torres, C., Fairhurst, C. 2000. Application of con-
vergence-confinement method of tunnel design to rock
masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tun.
& Undergr. Sp. Tech. 15 (2), 187–213.
Eberhart E. 2000. Numerical modeling of three-dimension
stress rotation ahead of an advancing tunnel face. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci, 38:499–518.
Guan Z., Jiang, Y., Tanabasi, Y, 2007. Ground reaction analy-
ses in conventional tunneling excavation. Tun. & Undergr.
Sp. Tech. 22 (2) 230–237.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, PK. & Bawden, WF. 1995. Support of Un-
derground Excavations in Hard Rock.. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Hoek E. 1998. Reliability of Hoek-Brown estimates of rock
mass properties and their impact on design. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr. 35: 63-8.
Hoek, E. & Marinos, P. 2000. Predicting tunnel squeezing
problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses. Tunnels and
Tunneling International.
Hoek, E. Carranza-Torres, C., Diederichs, M. & Corkum, B.
The 2008 Kersten Lecture Integration of geotechnical and
structural design in tunneling. 56th Annual Geotechnical
Engineering Conference. 2008. University of Minnesota.
Hoek, E. 1999. Support for very weak rock associated with
faults and shear zones. In Villaescusa, Windsor y Thomp-
son (eds) Rock support and reinforcement practice in min-
ing, pp. 19-34. 1999. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 34: 1165–1186.
Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, D, Sharpe, J and Steiner,
W. 2000. Underground Works in Hard Rock Tunnelling
and Mining. In Proceedings, GeoEng 2000, Melbourne.
Technomic Publishing: Lancaster, pp. 841-926.
Oreste, P. 2003. Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels
using the covergence–confinement approach. Tun. & Un-
dergr. Sp. Tech.: 18. 347–363.
Panet, M. 1993. Understanding Deformations in Tunnels.
Comprehensive Rock Engineering. Vol. I: 663-690. Hudson
(Ed.). Pergamon Press.
ROCSCIENCE. 2007. RocSupport. Rocscience Inc. Toronto,
Canada, 2007.
Vlachopoulos, N. & Diederichs, MS. 2009. Improved Longitu-
dinal deformation Profiles for Convergence-Confinement
Analysis in deep tunnels. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 42:131-49.