The Response Curves of a Tunnel

with Shotcreting and Anchoring

Support

Jian-gong Chen and Fei-xiang Sun*

School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
*Corresponding author: e-mail: 20151602039@cqu.edu.cn

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to get the response curves of a circular tunnel constructed with shotcreting and
anchoring support. The response curves include support response curve and ground response curve.
The support response curve represents the behavior of the shotcreting and anchoring support, and the
response of the rock mass around a tunnel is represented by the ground response curve. The
mechanical behavior of the response curves is analyzed using the convergence-confinement approach.
At first, considering the fact that the generalized Hoek–Brown yield criterion is more appropriate in
many practical situations, the elastic–brittle–plastic model is used in the formulation of ground
response curve. And then, a calculation procedure is presented which is able to provide the response
curve of shotcreting and anchoring support by considering the composite stiffness which is related to
the thickness of shotcrete lining and the reinforced surrounding rock. In this study, the shotcrete lining
and the reinforced rock mass are treated as a support system. Elastic method is used to calculate the
stiffness of shotcrete lining and the reinforced surrounding rock, and the formulation of the composite
stiffness is based on deformation compatibility of them. At last, a calculation example is present, and
the ground-support interaction is shown on the diagram. In order to learn the effect of different
variables on the composite stiffness, the reinforcement-density coefficient and the lining thickness are
analyzed respectively, and the results show that increasing the lining thickness or reinforcement-
density can improve the composite stiffness. The proposed procedure presents a useful tool for
understanding the behavior of this widely used support system. It also provides a way to assess the
fundamental parameters, such as the lining thickness and the reinforcement-density of rockbolts and so
on, which can help to make full use of the self-support ability of the surrounding rock mass.

KEYWORDS: Convergence-confinement method; Hoek-Brown criterion; Shotcreting and

anchoring support; Composite stiffness

- 5421 -
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5422

INTRODUCTION
The convergence-confinement method (CCM) is a useful theoretical tool for designing support
for underground excavations in rock. It was developed initially in the1930s, was further refined by
various researchers and practitioners (Hoek E., Brown E.T., 1980; Brown E.T., et al.,1983). The
convergence-confinement method is commonly represented by ground response curves and support
response curves on the ground-support interaction diagram. In order to obtain the ground response
curves for circular tunnels, a number of analytical solutions have been presented by considering the
elastic-perfectly plastic and elastic–brittle–plastic models of material behavior with the linear Mohr–
Coulomb (M–C) and nonlinear Hoek–Brown (H–B) criteria. Brown et al. (1983) gave two solutions
to calculate the ground response curves which take account of nonlinear peak and residual rock mass
strength criteria. Wang (1996) used the nonlinear Hoek-Brown criterion to calculate the ground
response curves of an elastoplastic model. Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (1999) formulated a
dimensionless formulation of the Hoek-Brown criterion that allows the criterion to be coupled
directly to the classical solutions, with the result that estimates of practical concerns such as extent of
the inelastic zone, effect of support pressure, etc. can be made immediately, once the appropriate
Hoek-Brown parameters for the rock mass have been defined. Sharan (2005) presented a simple exact
solution for the elastic–brittle–plastic plane strain analysis of displacements around circular openings
in an isotropic Hoek–Brown rock subjected to a hydrostatic in situ stress. Carranza-Torres (2004)
obtained analytical and numerical methods of tunnel problems by using the generalized Hoek-Brown
failure criterion in terms of transformed stress quantities.

Rockbolts reinforcement has been used widely as a means of stabilizing civil engineering tunnels
for a long time (Hoek E., Brown E.T.,1980; Windsor C.R.,1996). Lang (1961,1962) introduced the
concept that rockbolts can be used to ‘lock together’ blocks in heavily jointed rock masses to create a
‘reinforced arch’ around an underground opening to keep stability of the cavity. Lang (1961) also
conducted a classical experiment that demonstrates the ‘locking’ effect provided by rockbolts. Osgoui
and Oreste (2007) used the equivalent material approach to introduce a method for the analysis of
rock tunnels reinforced by rockbolts, based on the convergence-control approach. Carranza-Torres
(2009) presented a closed-form solution for stress and displacement distributions around a circular
tunnel excavated in elastic material and reinforced by rockbolts.

The main objective of this paper is to develop an improved procedure for obtaining the response
curve of a circular tunnel excavated in elastic–brittle–plastic rock mass with shotcreting and
anchoring support by using the convergence-confinement method. Considering the effect of
rockbolts, the strength and deformation performance of reinforced surrounding rock has been greatly
improved. It means that both shotcrete lining and reinforced surrounding rock should be taken into
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5423

consideration in CCM. In order to take into account the synergies of shotcrete lining and reinforced
regions of the rock, the composite stiffness of them is formulated.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESPONSE CURVE

An ideal case of a deep, circular tunnel in a continuous, homogeneous, isotropic, elastic–brittle–
plastic rock mass，characterized by a Young’s Modulus E and a Poisson’s Ratio ν, is applied. Plane
strain conditions of deformation are assumed. The sketch of anchoring and shotcreting support system
is shown as Fig. 1.

Figure 1: The sketch of anchoring and Figure 2: Elastic–brittle–plastic model for

shotcreting support system rock mass

Construction of the Ground Response Curve

Considering the fact that the reinforced surrounding rock is treated as the support structure, it is
not appropriate to calculate the ground response curve directly. In order to ignore the effect of
reinforced surrounding rock, the reinforced region is considered to be dug out, temporarily. Several
solutions of this type, based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for the rock, have been published
in the past (Hoek E., Brown E.T., 1980; Papanastasiou P., Durban D.,1997). However, in many
practical situations such yield criteria may not be justified and the Hoek–Brown yield criterion (Hoek
E., Brown E.T., 1980) can be more appropriate. Sharan (2008) developed a theoretically consistent
closed-form solution for the analysis of displacements around a circular opening in an elastic–brittle–
plastic rock mass obeying the generalized Hoek–Brown yield criterion. The elastic–brittle–plastic
model used for rock mass is shown in Fig. 2. The generalized Hoek–Brown yield criterion is given
by: ε
1
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5424

𝜎𝜎3 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟
𝜎𝜎1 = 𝜎𝜎3 + 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
+ 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 � (1)

The Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) can be constructed by Sharan’s (2008) solution of a circular
tunnel with a radius of r2, subject to a hydrostatic stress p0 and uniform internal pressure p2 (see Fig
3). It may happen that the stresses induced in the rock following excavation will exceed the yield
strength of the rock mass and that a plastic zone with a radius of rp will develop around the tunnel.
The rock outside the boundary defined by rp is assumed to remain elastic. In the plastic zone of the
tunnel, the generalized Hoek–Brown yield criterion can be modified as Eq. (2):

𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟
𝜎𝜎𝜃𝜃 = 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 + 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
+ 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 � ( 2)

Where σcir, mbr, sr and ar are the residual values of σci, mb, s and a, respectively; σci is the uniaxial
compressive strength of the intact rock, and σcir is the residual value of σci; mb, s and a are the
generalized Hoek-Brown criterion constants for the rock mass before yielding, and they can be
calculated by:

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 − 100
𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏 = 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � � ( 3)
28 − 14𝐷𝐷

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 − 100
𝑠𝑠 = 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � � ( 4)
9 − 3𝐷𝐷

1 1 −𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 −20
𝑎𝑎 = + �𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � � − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � �� ( 5)
2 6 15 3
Where mi is a material constant for the intact rock, GSI is the Geological Strength Index of the rock
mass, and D is a rock mass disturbance factor (Hoek E., et al., 2002).

The residual values, mbr, sr and ar, can be gotten just by replacing GSI with GSIr, where GSIr is
the residual value of the geological strength index (GSI) (Wang Y., et al., 2013), and considering the
post-peak rock mass has been destroyed, then the rock weakening factor D in the Eqs. (3) and (4) is
changed to the residual value Dr.

The force equilibrium equation, in the plastic zone, can be written as:

d𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟

d𝑟𝑟
−
𝑟𝑟
�𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
+ 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 � = 0 ( 6)

The above equation can be solved by using the boundary condition σr = p2 at r = r2, and the result
is shown as:
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5425

[(𝑝𝑝2 𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 )1−𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 + (1 − 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 )𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑟𝑟⁄𝑟𝑟2 )]1⁄(1−𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 ) − 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟
𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 = (7)
𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

The extent of the plastic region rp that develops around the tunnel was given by Sharan (2008)：

1−𝑎𝑎
𝑟𝑟
�𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 � − (𝑝𝑝2 𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ⁄𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 )1−𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟
𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 = 𝑟𝑟2 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � � (8)
𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (1 − 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 )

Where, σrp is the radial stress of the elastic–plastic interface (r = rp), its expression is Eqs. (9)

𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟
2�𝑝𝑝0 − 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 � − 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
+ 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 � = 0 (9)

The above equation may be solved for σrp by using a numerical method such as the Newton–
Raphson method.
𝑝𝑝0

Elastic Zone

𝑟𝑟2
𝑝𝑝0 𝑝𝑝2 𝑝𝑝0
𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝

Plastic Zone

Figure 3: The axisymmetric tunnel model

According to the Eq. (8), when σrp ≤ p2, the surrounding rock is still in elastic state. Then the
relationship between the radial displacements ue (r = r2) and internal pressure p2 is given by the Eq.
(11):

1 + 𝜐𝜐
𝑢𝑢𝑒𝑒 = 𝑟𝑟 (𝑝𝑝 − 𝑝𝑝2 ) (11)
𝐸𝐸 2 0

Provided σrp ≥ p2, a plastic zone with a radius of rp will develop around the tunnel. The
relationship between the radial displacements up (r = r2) and internal pressure p2 is given by by
Sharan (2008):
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5426

(1 + 𝜈𝜈𝑟𝑟 ) −𝐾𝐾𝑑𝑑 𝐾𝐾 −1 𝐾𝐾 −1 𝐾𝐾 +1 𝐾𝐾 +1
𝑢𝑢𝑝𝑝 = 𝑟𝑟2 �𝐹𝐹1 �𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑 − 𝑟𝑟2 𝑑𝑑 �−𝐹𝐹2 (1 − 2𝜈𝜈𝑟𝑟 )�𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑 − 𝑟𝑟2 𝑑𝑑 ��
𝐸𝐸𝑟𝑟
𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝
(12 )
+ 𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ( )𝐾𝐾𝑑𝑑
𝑟𝑟2

Where

𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝2 𝑟𝑟22 �𝑝𝑝2 − 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 �

𝐹𝐹1 =
𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝2 − 𝑟𝑟22
(13)
�𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − 𝑝𝑝0 �𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝2 − (𝑝𝑝2 − 𝑝𝑝0 )𝑟𝑟22
𝐹𝐹2 =
𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝2 − 𝑟𝑟22
(14 )
1 + 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝜓𝜓
𝐾𝐾𝑑𝑑 =
1 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝜓𝜓
(15)

ψ is the dilation angle of rock.

urp is the radial displacement at the elastic-plastic interface (r = rp), and the expression for urp is
given by

1 + 𝜐𝜐
𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑟𝑟 �𝑝𝑝 − 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 � (16 )
𝐸𝐸 𝑝𝑝 0

ν is the Poisson’s ratio and E is the Young’s modulus of the rock mass, and the modulus of
deformation equation proposed by Hoek et al.(2002).

𝐷𝐷 𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �
(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺−10)
� (17a )
𝐸𝐸(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) = �1 − � � ∙ 10 40
2 100

𝐷𝐷 �
(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺−10)
� (17b )
𝐸𝐸(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) = �1 − � 10 40
2

νr and Er are Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus of elasticity of the rock mass after failure,
respectively (Hoek E., Brown E.T., 1997). It should be noted that Eqs. (17a) and (17b) are suitable for
σ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≤ 100MPa and σ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≥ 100MPa, respectively.

The Shotcrete Lining

Fig. 4 shows a circular shotcrete lining being used in the tunnel, subjected to a uniform pressure
p1. The geometrical and mechanical parameters of the shotcrete lining are assumed to be not varied.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5427

The radial stiffness 𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠 of the shotcrete lining can be calculated as shown in Eq. (18). The Eq. (20)
shows how to calculate the maximum support pressure. The radial displacement of the outer edge
(𝑟𝑟 = 𝑟𝑟1 ) is shown in Eq. (21).

𝑝𝑝1

𝑟𝑟1

𝑟𝑟0

Figure 4: A shotcrete circular lining

𝑟𝑟12 − 𝑟𝑟02 1
𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠 = 2 2 ∙ ∙ 𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠
(1 + 𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 ) ∙ [(1 − 2 ∙ 𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 ) ∙ 𝑟𝑟1 + 𝑟𝑟0 ] 𝑟𝑟1
(18)

𝑟𝑟0 = 𝑟𝑟1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠 (19 )

𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑟02
𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
2
∙ �1 − 2 �
𝑟𝑟1
( 20 )
𝑝𝑝1
𝑢𝑢𝑠𝑠 =
𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠
( 21)
where:
𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 is the elastic modulus of the shotcrete;
𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 is the Poisson ratio of the shotcrete;
𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠 is the lining thickness;
𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 is the value of the shotcrete uniaxial compressive strength.

The Composite Stiffness of Shotcrete Lining and Reinforced

Surrounding Rock

Fig. 5 shows a reinforced surrounding rock being excavated in the ideal rock mass. The outer
surface of the reinforced surrounding rock is subjected to an external pressure p2. The inner surface is
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5428

subjected to an internal pressure p1 which is the reaction force produced by the shotcrete lining. At
present, the viewpoint that rockbolts can improve the strength of rock and soil has become consensus
(Yang S.S., Zhang B.S., 2003), rockbolts can improve the stress state of the rock mass, increase
strength index, and form high strength index and strong deformation adaptability of the reinforced
surrounding rock.

Elasto-plastic solutions for reinforcement elements in tunnels developed by Hoek and Brown
(1980), Indraratna and Kaiser (1990a, 1990b), Oreste and Peila (1996) have been used widely over
the years. Carranza-Torres (2009) used a simplified model of a circular tunnel reinforced with
rockbolts to quantify the mechanical contribution of rockbolts installed systematically around tunnels
excavated in rock masses. A fundamental assumption of the reinforced tunnel problem is that the
axial load of the rockbolt can be assumed to be ‘smeared’ on the area of influence of the rockbolt
within the ground-i.e., the axial stress of rockbolt 𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 can be considered to be uniformly distributed on
an area, and the boundary of the area is at the midpoint of the adjacent rockbolts. Assuming that the
rockbolt is elastic and characterized by a Young’s modulus Eb, the axial stress of the anchor σb, can
be written in the terms of the axial strain 𝜀𝜀𝑏𝑏 of the rockbolt:

𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 = 𝜀𝜀𝑏𝑏 ∙ 𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 ( 22 )

The ‘smeared’ axial stress of the rockbolt 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 is shown in Eqs. (23)-(25):

𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 = 𝛼𝛼 ∙ 𝜌𝜌 ∙ 𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 ( 23)

𝑛𝑛𝑏𝑏 ∙ 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏
𝛼𝛼 =
2 ∙ 𝜋𝜋 ∙ 𝑟𝑟1 ∙ 𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿
( 24 )
𝑟𝑟1
𝜌𝜌 =
𝑟𝑟
( 25)
where:

α is defined as a reinforcement-density coefficient, nb is the number of anchors in the tunnel

section, andAb is the cross-sectional area of the anchor;

SL is the distance between rockbolts in the direction along the axis of the tunnel;

ρ is the transformed radial distance, ρ = 1 corresponds to the wall of the tunnel, ρ =

r1 ⁄r2 corresponds to the foot of the anchor and ρ = 0 corresponds the infinite radial distance to the
far-boundary.

Here mainly taking account of grouted rockbolts, and the deformation of rockbolts and ground
are assumed to be the same. This condition is expressed in terms of radial strains for rockbolt and
ground as follows：
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5429

𝜀𝜀𝑏𝑏 = 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 ( 25)

The equilibrium condition of the reinforced region in Fig. 5 can now be expressed in terms of σr,
σθ and 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 as follows

𝑑𝑑(𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 + 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 ) 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 + 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 − 𝜎𝜎𝜃𝜃

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
−
𝜌𝜌
=0 ( 26 )

where, σr, σθ are the radial stresses and the hoop stresses in the ground, which can be expressed as:

𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 = 2𝐺𝐺(1 + 𝜇𝜇)𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 + 2𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝜀𝜀𝜃𝜃 ( 27 )

𝜎𝜎𝜃𝜃 = 2𝐺𝐺(1 + 𝜇𝜇)𝜀𝜀𝜃𝜃 + 2𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 ( 28)

Both the hoop strain εθ and the radial strain εθ can be expressed in terms of the radial
displacement ur and the variable ρ as follows (Carranza-Torres C., Zhao J., 2009):

𝜌𝜌2 𝑑𝑑𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 = −
𝑟𝑟1 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
( 29 )
𝜌𝜌
𝜀𝜀𝜃𝜃 = 𝑢𝑢
𝑟𝑟1 𝑟𝑟
( 30 )

Replacing the stresses σr, σθ and 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 by the equivalent expressions of stresses given by Eqs. (27),
(28), and (22), and using the definition of strains given by Eqs. (29) and (30), the equilibrium Eq. (26)
can be written in terms of radial displacements as follows:

𝑑𝑑 2 𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 1 + 𝜇𝜇 + 2𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 1 𝑑𝑑𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟

2
+ − =0 ( 31)
𝑑𝑑𝜌𝜌 1 + 𝜇𝜇 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 𝜌𝜌 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 + 𝜇𝜇 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 𝜌𝜌2

The general solution of the differential Eq. (31) is as follows:

𝑐𝑐1 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 1 + 𝜇𝜇 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽
𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 =
𝜌𝜌
+ 𝑐𝑐2
𝛽𝛽
�1 −
𝛽𝛽 𝜌𝜌
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �
1 + 𝜇𝜇
�� ( 32 )

where c1 and c2 are undetermined constants.

Furthermore, considering the boundary conditions of the anchored region Eqs.(33) and (34)， the
undetermined constants can be calculated by Eqs. (35) and (36):
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5430

𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 |𝜌𝜌=1 + 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 |𝜌𝜌=1 = 𝑝𝑝1 ( 33)

𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟 |𝜌𝜌=𝑟𝑟1 ⁄𝑟𝑟2 + 𝜎𝜎�𝑏𝑏 |𝜌𝜌=𝑟𝑟1 ⁄𝑟𝑟2 = 𝑝𝑝2 ( 34 )

𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑝𝑝1 𝑧𝑧4
𝑐𝑐1 =
𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4
( 35)
𝑝𝑝1 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧1
𝑐𝑐2 =
𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4
( 36 )

The solution for radial displacements 𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 is given as Eq. (37)

𝑝𝑝2

Rockbolt

𝑟𝑟1
𝑝𝑝1

𝑟𝑟2

Rock Mass

Reinforced Surrounding Rock

Figure 5: The anchored surrounding rock

𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑝𝑝1 𝑧𝑧4 𝑝𝑝1 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧1 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽

𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 = +
𝜌𝜌(𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 ) 𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 𝛽𝛽
�1 −
𝛽𝛽 𝜌𝜌
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 +
1 + 𝜇𝜇
�� ( 37 )

And, the coefficients z1, z2, z3, z4, β, G and μ in Eq. (37) are

2𝐺𝐺
𝑧𝑧1 =
𝑟𝑟1
(1 + 2𝜇𝜇 + 𝛽𝛽) ( 38)
2𝐺𝐺(1 + 𝜇𝜇) 2𝜇𝜇2 + (3 + 𝛽𝛽)𝜇𝜇 + 𝛽𝛽 + 1 𝛽𝛽
𝑧𝑧2 = − � 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 + �
𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1 𝛽𝛽 1 + 𝜇𝜇
( 39 )
1 + 2𝜇𝜇2 + 3𝜇𝜇 + (2𝜇𝜇 + 1)𝛽𝛽
− �
1 + 𝜇𝜇 + 𝛽𝛽
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5431

2𝐺𝐺 [𝑟𝑟2 (1 + 2𝜇𝜇) + 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1 ]

𝑧𝑧3 =
𝑟𝑟1 𝑟𝑟2
( 40 )
2𝐺𝐺(1 + 𝜇𝜇) (1 + 𝜇𝜇)[𝑟𝑟2 (1 + 2𝜇𝜇) + 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1 ] 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1
𝑧𝑧4 = − � 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 + �
𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟2 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1 (1 + 𝜇𝜇)𝑟𝑟2
(1 + 2𝜇𝜇2 + 3𝜇𝜇)𝑟𝑟2 + (2𝜇𝜇 + 1)𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1
( 41)
− �
(1 + 𝜇𝜇)𝑟𝑟2 + 𝛽𝛽𝑟𝑟1

𝛼𝛼𝐸𝐸𝑎𝑎
𝛽𝛽 = ( 42 )
2𝐺𝐺
𝐸𝐸𝑟𝑟
𝐺𝐺 =
2(1 + 𝜐𝜐𝑟𝑟 )
( 43)
𝜐𝜐𝑟𝑟
𝜇𝜇 =
1 − 2𝜐𝜐𝑟𝑟
( 44 )

Considering the fact that the shotcrete lining is closely integrated with the inner edge of
reinforced surrounding rock, deformation compatibility is useful, the relationship of displacement
between the reinforced opening wall, ur1, and the outer edge of shotcrete lining, us0, can be shown as
Eq. (45):

𝑢𝑢𝑠𝑠0 = 𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟1 ( 45)

Combined Eqs. (18), (21), (37) and (45), the relationship can be presented as Eq. (46):

1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝛽𝛽 𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4

𝑝𝑝1 �𝑧𝑧4 − 𝑧𝑧3 �1 − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 + �� + �
𝛽𝛽 𝛽𝛽 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠
1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝛽𝛽
( 46 )
= 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧1 �1 − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 + ��
𝛽𝛽 𝛽𝛽 1 + 𝜇𝜇

Then, the Eq. (37) can be turned into Eq. (47):

𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧5 𝑧𝑧4 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧5 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑝𝑝2 𝑧𝑧1 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽
𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 =
𝜌𝜌(𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 )
+
𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 𝛽𝛽
�1 −
𝛽𝛽 𝜌𝜌
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 +
1 + 𝜇𝜇
�� ( 47 )

And the coefficient z5 in Eq. (47) is:

 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5432

1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 2 𝛽𝛽
𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑧𝑧1 � −� � 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 + ��
𝛽𝛽 𝛽𝛽 1 + 𝜇𝜇
𝑧𝑧5 = ( 48)
1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 2 𝛽𝛽 𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4
𝑧𝑧4 − 𝑧𝑧3 � −� � 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 + �� + 2 3
𝛽𝛽 𝛽𝛽 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠

For the composite support structure, the radial displacement of outer edge (where 𝜌𝜌 = 𝑟𝑟1 ⁄𝑟𝑟2 ) , ua1
can be calculated as shown in Eq. (48):

𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑧𝑧5 𝑧𝑧4 𝑟𝑟1 𝑧𝑧5 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 1 + 𝜇𝜇 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑟𝑟1 𝛽𝛽 𝑟𝑟2

𝑢𝑢𝑎𝑎1 = 𝑝𝑝2 � +
𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 𝑟𝑟2 𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 𝛽𝛽
�1 −
𝛽𝛽 𝑟𝑟2
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 +
1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑟𝑟1
��� ( 49 )

The composite stiffness of shotcrete lining and reinforced surrounding rock kc can be calculated
by:

1
𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 =
𝑧𝑧2 − 𝑧𝑧5 𝑧𝑧4 𝑟𝑟1 𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧 − 𝑧𝑧1 1 + 𝜇𝜇
+ 5 3 �1 −
1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑟𝑟1
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �1 +
𝛽𝛽 𝑟𝑟2
��
( 50 )
𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 𝑟𝑟2 𝑧𝑧2 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧1 𝑧𝑧4 𝛽𝛽 𝛽𝛽 𝑟𝑟2 1 + 𝜇𝜇 𝑟𝑟1

CALCULATION EXAMPLE AND PARAMETRIC STUDIES

Calculation Example

An example refers to a 5m radius tunnel, excavated in the average quality rock mass is used to
examine the effects of this improved procedure. The geomechanical parameters of this rock mass are
mainly taken from Hoek and Brown (1997) and are given in Table 1. In this example, the rock
weakening factor D is assumed to 0. The H–B constants mb, s, a and the residual values of them can
be calculated by the equations above, which are given in Table 2. The residual values of H–B
constants are shown in Table 2, it is assumed that Dr = 0.5, νr = ν, σcir = σci, and GSIr = 0.5GSI. The
situ hydrostatic stress p0 is 15.0MPa. The lining has a thickness of 10cm. The mechanical parameters
of shotcrete are given in Table 3. The geometrical parameters of rockbolt scheme are listed in Table
4.

The response curve of the lining is shown in Fig. 5 for this example. In Fig. 5, there are two
response curves, the ground response curve (a) and support response curve (b). For the ground
response curve (a), it consists of two parts: the elastic part (p2 ≥ σrp), and the plastic part (p2 ≤ σrp).
The radial stress of elasto-plastic boundary σrp is equal to 8.234MPa, which can be calculated from
geomechanical parameters of the rock mass.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5433

Table 1: Geomechanical parameters of the rock mass

GSI σci (MPa) σcir (MPa) E (GPa) Er (GPa) ν mi
50 80 80 9 5 0.25 12

Table 2: Hoek–Brown constants and dilation parameter of rock mass

a mb s ar mbr sr Kd
0.51 2.01 0.0039 0.53 0.34 0 1.15

Table 3: Shotcrete mechanical parameters

Parameter Value
Elastic modulus ,Es 12000MPa
Poisson’s ratio, νs 0.15
Uniaxial compressive strength, σsc 27MPa
Thickness, ts 10cm

Table 4: Geometrical parameters of rockbolt

Parameter Value
Length of anchor, Lb 3.0 m
Young’s modulus of anchor, Eb 210 000MPa
Diameter of anchor, db 25 mm
The tunnel-axis distance of anchor, SL 1.5 m
The number of anchors in the tunnel section, nb 21

u
0 Radial displacement u
(mm)
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5434

P2（M Pa）
(a) Ground Response
Curve

(b) Support Response Curve

𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟

Radial displacement u (mm)

Figure 5: Reaction curves of the composite structure of shotcrete lining and anchored
surrounding rock

For the support response curve (b), according to the parameters given in Table 1, Table 2 and
Table 3. u0 is assumed the starting point of the support response curve, and it is the radial
displacement of outer edge of the reinforcement rock mass (where 𝜌𝜌 = 𝑟𝑟1 ⁄𝑟𝑟2 )when p2 is equal to σrp.
When the force acting on the composite structure becomes enough large, the composite structure
cannot continue to work, and the largest force can be gotten by Eqs.(20) and (46).

Variables Reinforcement-density Coefficient α and Lining

Thickness ts

There are many fundamental parameters have relationship with the composite stiffness of the
support system, such as reinforcement-density coefficient α, the lining thickness ts, the length of
rockbolt Lb and so on. Considering the relationship between the length of rockbolt Lb and the
composite stiffness is more complex, the impact of reinforcement-density coefficient α and the lining
thickness ts on the composite stiffness will be discussed here respectively. And the calculation
example will be still used in the next analysis. The difference is that here α and ts are selected as
variables, respectively. Figs. 6 and 7 show the effect of α and ts on the composite stiffness kc,
respectively.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5435

Composite stiffness kc(MPa·m-1)

Reinforcement-density coefficient α
Figure 6: The relationship between the reinforcement-density coefficient and the composite
stiffness
Composite stiffness kc (MPa·m-1)

The lining thickness ts (m)

Figure 7: The relationship between the lining thickness and the composite stiffness

Carranza-Torres (2009) pointed out the coefficient α is expected to lie in the range 10-4 to 0.01.
Fig. 6 indicates that the value of the composite stiffness will increase with α vary from 10-4 to 0.01.
For Fig. 7, increasing the lining thickness ts can also improve the composite stiffness, and it should be
mentioned that the value of ts needs to be limited to a certain range, in Fig.7, the thickness of lining is
limited 0 to 30cm.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5436

CONCLUSIONS
The understanding of the behavior of a shotcrete lining has always been difficult. The widely
used convergence-confinement method is used to takes into account the mechanical behavior of
shotcreting and anchoring support. An improved and new procedure for the determination of the
reaction curve of the shotcrete lining and reinforced surrounding rock has been presented in this paper
which also allows one to consider:

- The thickness of shotcrete lining ts;

- The reinforcement-density of the rockbolts α.

By associating the support response curve to the ground response curve, the final equilibrium
point is gotten and the final pressure acting on the reinforced surrounding rock is computed.

The improved calculation procedure also allows one to study the relationship between some
fundamental parameters and the composite stiffness, such as the thickness of shotcrete lining ts ,the
reinforcement-density of the rockbolts α and so on. In this way, it is possible to assess the
fundamental parameters and choose appropriate parameters for the lining thickness and the
reinforcement-density of rockbolts.

REFERENCES
1. Brown E.T., Bray J.W., Ladanyi B., Hoek E. (1983). Ground response curves for rock
tunnels. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering; 109(1):15-39.

2. Carranza-Torres C. (2004). Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using the generalized

form of the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences; 41(41):480-481.

3. Carranza-Torres C., (2009). Analytical and numerical study of the mechanics of rockbolt
reinforcement around tunnels in rock masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering;
42(2):175-228.

4. Carranza-Torres C., Fairhurst, C. (1999). The elasto-plastic response of underground

excavations in rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences; 36(6):777-809.

5. Carranza-Torres C., Zhao J. (2009). Analytical and numerical study of the effect of water
pore pressure on the mechanical response of cylindrical lined tunnels in elastic and
elasto-plastic porous media. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences; 46(3): 531–547.
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5437

6. Hoek E., Brown E.T. (1980). Underground excavations in rock. The Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy; London.527.

7. Hoek E., Brown E.T. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences; 34(8):1165-1186.

8. Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Corkum B. (2002). Hoek–Brown failure criterion, 2002 edn.
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Rock Mechanics Symposium; 1:18-22.

9. Indraratna B., Kaiser P.K. (1990a). Analytical model for the design of anchored rock bolts.
Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech; 14: 227–251.

10. Indraratna B., Kaiser P.K. (1990b). Design for anchored rock bolts based on the
convergence control method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr; 27(4): 269–281.

11. Lang T.A. (1961). Theory and practice of rock bolting. Trans Soc Min Engrs Am Inst
Min Metall Petrolm Engrs; 220: 333–348.

12. Lang T.A. (1962). Notes on rock mechanics and engineering for rock construction.
University of California at Berkeley, Vol. I and II, 1962–1964.

13. Oreste P.P., Peila D. (1996). Radial passive rockbolting in tunneling design with a new
convergence confinement model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr; 3(5): 443–
454.

14. Osgoui R.R., Oreste P. (2007). Convergence-control approach for rock tunnels reinforced
by anchored bolts, using the homogenization concept. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering; 25(4):431-440.

15. Papanastasiou P., Durban D. (1997). Elastoplastic analysis of cylindrical cavity problems
in geomaterials. International Journal for Numerical Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics; 21(7):423-441.

16. Sharan S.K. (2005). Exact and approximate solutions for displacements around circular
openings in elastic–brittle–plastic Hoek–Brown rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences; 42(4):542-549.

17. Sharan S.K. (2008). Analytical solutions for stresses and displacements around a circular
opening in a generalized Hoek–Brown rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences; 45(1):78-85.

18. Wang Y. (1996). Ground response of circular tunnel in poorly consolidated rock. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering; 122(9):703-708.
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 14 5438

19. Wang Y., Xiao L.I., Shouding L.I., Hou W., Yusong W.U. (2013). A method for
determining residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses. Chinese Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Engineering; 32(8):1701-1713.

20. Windsor C.R. (1996). Rock reinforcement systems. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences; 34(6):919-951.

21. Yang S.S., Zhang B.S. (2003). The influence of bolt action force to the mechanical
property of rocks. Rock and Soil Mechanics; No. S2, pp. 279-282.

© 2017 ejge

Editor’s note.
This paper may be referred to, in other articles, as:
Jian-gong Chen and Fei-xiang Sun: “The Response Curves of a Tunnel
with Shotcreting and Anchoring Support” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2017 (22.14), pp 5421-5438. Available at
ejge.com.