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

net/publication/310257509

COMPARATIVE NUMERICAL STUDY OF 2D AND 3D FINITE ELEMENT

MODELING OF HYDROPOWER TUNNEL: CASE STUDY FROM LESSER
HIMALAYAN REGION OF NEPAL

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATION READS

1 869

4 authors:

Shyam Sundar Khadka António M. Topa Gomes

Kathmandu University University of Porto
20 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seokwon Jeon Ramesh Kumar Maskey

Seoul National University Kathmandu University
142 PUBLICATIONS   2,133 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   431 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

CDW_LongTerm - Valorisation of Construction and Demolition Wastes in geosynthetic reinforced structures - Prediction of long-term behaviour (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-
030452) View project

Study on the Opportunities for Water Resource Development through Social Accounting System in Durlung Watershed, Kavre, Nepal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shyam Sundar Khadka on 15 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMPARATIVE NUMERICAL STUDY OF 2D AND 3D FINITE ELEMENT
MODELLING OF HYDROPOWER TUNNELS: CASE STUDY FROM THE LESSER
HIMALAYAN REGION OF NEPAL
ESTUDO NUMÉRICO COMPARATIVO DA MODELAÇÃO 2D E 3D EM ELEMENTOS
FINITOS DE TÚNEIS HIDROELÉTRICOS: CASO DA REGIÃO INFERIOR DOS
HIMALAIAS DO NEPAL

Khadka, Shyam Sundar; University of Porto, Portugal /Kathmandu University, Nepal, sskhadka@ku.edu.np
Topa Gomes, António; University of Porto, Portugal, atgomes@fe.up.pt
Jeon, Seokwon; Seoul National University, Korea, sjeon@snu.ac.kr
Maskey, Ramesh; Kathmandu University, Nepal, rmaskey@ku.edu.np

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the numerical analysis of hydropower tunnels in the Lesser Himalayan Region of
Nepal. Excessive deformation of rock mass around the periphery of tunnels and high induced stress are the
major stability problems in this region, due to weak rock mass and high overburden pressure. In such
geological conditions, the induced stress in the opening exceeds the rock mass strength and tunnels
undergo excessive deformation. The existing empirical and analytical methods for the stability of such
tunnels are used for the estimation of support pressure and design support. From past experience, the
existing design support system only is not sufficient to address such phenomenon. In this paper, a detailed
numerical investigation is carried out using both 2D and 3D finite element modelling to represent the real
behaviour of tunnels in such region. A comparison is made between 2D and 3D modelling of tunnels in
weak rock mass and with high overburden pressure.

RESUMO

Este artigo apresenta um estudo numérico tridimensional de túneis hidroelétricos na região inferior dos
Himalaias, no Nepal. As características precárias do maciço rochoso, associadas às elevadas tensões
geostáticas, produzem deformação excessiva. Os critérios de projeto adotados no Nepal são essencialmente
baseados em critérios empíricos e ou analíticos, sendo os únicos usados para a verificação da estabilidade
do túnel e cálculo do suporte. A experiência recente tem demonstrado que tal metodologia não é suficiente
para compreender totalmente o fenómeno, pelo que, neste artigo, é apresentada uma investigação
numérica com cálculos 2D e 3D, visando compreender o verdadeiro comportamento associado à escavação
de um túnel. No final do trabalho são realizadas comparações entre simulações 2D e 3D para as condições
típicas do Nepal, isto é, maciços rochosos pouco resistentes e elevadas tensões geostáticas.

1- INTRODUCTION

In the Himalayan region of Nepal, the estimation of rock support pressure and selection of tunnel support
are carried out by empirical approaches based on the rock mass classification. Among them, the Q-system
of rock mass classification proposed by Barton et al. (1974) is mostly used in the Himalayan region to
design the tunnel support. Due to the high overburden pressure and weak rock quality there is excessive
deformation in the hydropower tunnels during and after construction. The Q–system rock mass
classification approach is not able to predict the deformation of tunnels and the designed support system
is not able to control deformation in tunnels in weak rock mass conditions. Modern analytical and numerical
solutions for 2D and 3D nonlinear problems have provided engineers with better understanding of the
interaction between support structure and rock mass.

Tunnel excavation is a three dimensional problem and to study stress and deformation around the tunnel
face 3D modelling is necessary. However, the two-dimensional modelling approach is still the most common
tool in the current practice of tunnel projects' design calculations due to its reduced calculation time and
relative simplicity (Janin et al.,2015).

Many researchers compared the 2D and 3D numerical modelling approach and their uses. Eberhardt (2001)
demonstrated that three-dimensional numerical analysis allows a more detailed examination of stress
concentration around the ends and edges of an excavation. In the case of an advancing tunnel face, three-
dimensional stress effects play an important role, especially with respect to induced stress concentration
and rock strength degradation. Dahawan et al. (2002) performed 2D and 3D elastoplastic analyses for four
underground openings and compared the results with in situ measurements. They found that 2D analysis
underestimates the deformation, while on the other hand 3D analysis results are comparable with in situ
measurements.
Janin et al. (2015) investigated and compared the ability of the 2D and 3D numerical approaches to
reproduce the real behaviour of tunnels, based on in situ measurements. The 3D calculation correctly
simulates the in situ data, confirming that this tool can represent the complexity of a tunnel excavation
process. 2D calculations were also performed, and stress release coefficients were determined by fitting
the 2D results to the 3D results. This solution produced numerical results that reproduced the in situ ground
deformations globally; however, the 2D approach is shown to be unable to represent the real phenomenon
of tunnel excavation in all its complexity. 2D simulation cannot represent the complex three-dimensional
phenomenon of support loading, particularly near the tunnel face.

In this study, a comparison is made between 2D and 3D numerical simulations of a circular shape tunnel
located in the Lesser Himalayan region of Nepal. The tunnel passes through very weak and poor rock mass
and has high rock cover. The problem consists of the full face excavation of a circular tunnel of radius 2.0
m, in homogenous, isotropic rock mass, subjected to an isotropic state of stress. The excavation is
supported by 0.3 m thick shotcrete thickness.

2- SELECTION OF CASE STUDY

In this work, two hydropower tunnels, the Kulekhani-III hydropower project and the Chameliya hydropower
project, are taken as case studies. Both projects lie in Lesser Himalayan region of Nepal, an area
characterized by metasedimentary rocks. The length of the headrace tunnel and diameter of the Kulekhani-
III hydropower project tunnel are 4221.63 m and 4 m, respectively. The tunnel passes across marble,
schists, quartzite phyllite, siliceous dolomite and slaty phyllite. The longitudinal geological profile of the
tunnel is shown in Figure 1. In this study, the section between chainage 725 m to 990 m is taken for
analysis, where the main rock type is Garnetiferous schist. The maximum overburden at this section is 130
m and is characterized as poor rock mass (NEA, 1997).

Figure 1 – Longitudinal geological section along Kulekhani III headrace tunnel (NEA, 1997)

Chameliya Hydroelectric Project (CHP) is an under construction national priority project of Nepal. The main
rock types within the project area are dolomite, sandstone, slate, dolomite intercalated with slate, talcosic
dolomite and dolomite interbedded with phyllite (Basnet, 2013). The longitudinal geological profile of the
headrace tunnel is shown in Figure 2. The maximum rock cover above the headrace tunnel is nearly 470 m
in between the adit 1 and adit 2. The rock cover between adit 2 and adit 3 is nearly 275 m and rock mass
is poor compared to the rest of the tunnel alignment. Due to the high overburden and weak rock mass, the
headrace tunnel in between these sections has had excessive deformation during tunnel excavation. It has
been found that nearly 800 m of tunnel, from chainage 3+102 m to 3+922 m, are severely squeezed. The
main rock type around the tunnel consists of kaoline and phyllite.

Figure 2 – Longitudinal geological section along the Chameliya headrace tunnel (Basnet, 2013)
In this study, the chainage from 3+420 m to 3+499 m is taken for analysis. The main rock type is fractured
and crushed talcosic phyllite with few bands of dolomite. The geological strength index (GSI) is about 20,
which is considered as very poor weak rock mass and the overburden is 275 m.

3- ESTIMATION OF ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

The generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion has been used for estimation of rock mass properties. Rock
mass strength is estimated by equation 1 as suggested by Hoek et al. (2002).
m a−1
(mb +4s−a(mb −8s))( b +s)
σcm = σci 4
[1]
2(1+a)(2+a)

where σcm is the unconfined compressive strength of rock mass in MPa, σci is the uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock in MPa, mb, s and a are the material constants defined in the Hoek-Brown failure
criterion.
The rock mass modulus is given by equation 2
𝐺𝑆𝐼−10
𝐷 𝜎 ( )
𝑐𝑖
𝐸𝑚 (𝐺𝑃𝑎) = (1 − 2 ) √100 ∗ 10 40 [2]

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) is necessary to estimate the rock mass strength. The GSI values are
estimated using the mapped rock mass rating (RMR) during subsequent tunnel excavation. RMR can be
calculated from the Q-system of rock mass classification proposed by Barton et al. (1974). The disturbance
factor (D) is assumed to be zero for controlled blasting. The material constant mi for Garnetiferous schist
is taken as 12 and for talcosic phyllite as 7. The dilation angle is taken as zero for the weak rock mass. In
this study, Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and GSI values are calculated using equations 3 and 4 proposed by
Barton (1995) and Hoek and Diederichs (2006), respectively. The estimated rock mass properties are
summarized in Table 1.

𝑅𝑀𝑅 = 15 ∗ log 𝑄 + 50 [3]

𝐺𝑆𝐼 = 𝑅𝑀𝑅 − 5 [4]

Table 1 - Estimated rock mass properties for numerical modelling

Description Garnetiferous Schist Talcosic Phyllite

Rock type weak rock very weak rock

Intact Uniaxial Compression Strength (σci), MPa 35 15
Intact Modulus (Ei) ,MPa 9000 8250
Material constant (mi) 12 7
Geological Strength Index(GSI) 45 20
Distribution factor (D) 0 0
Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.22 0.3
Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 2.7 2.7
Rock Overburden (m) 130 275
mb 1.683 0.402
Hoek Brown Criterion s 0.002 0.000137
a 0.508 0.544
Cohesion (c ), MPa 0.592 0.317
Friction angle(ϕ ), degree 44.127 19.99
Dilation angle (ψ), degree 0 0
Tensile strength of rock mass (σtm), MPa 0.002 0.002
Uniaxial compressive rock mass strength (σ cm), MPa 1.57 0.119
Modulus of deformation of rock mass (E rm), MPa 2012.84 376.8

Table 2 - Material properties of concrete lining

Description Concrete
Young’s modulus (GPa) 30
Poisson’s ratio 0.15
Thickness of lining (m) 0.3
4- 2D AND 3D NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

The numerical analysis has been performed using RS2 and RS3, 2D and 3D finite element programs for soil
and rock applications developed by Rocscience. RS3 is used for 3-dimensional analysis of underground
excavation, tunnel support design and other geotechnical works. It uses a series of extruded 2-dimensional
slices to create a 3D model. It offers the fastest and simplest way to model multistage excavation and
support installation. It offers a wide variety of support elements for support design including bolts, liners,
beams and piles. Different types of loading can be modelled, restraints and boundary conditions can be
easily applied and also meshing is automatic with 4-noded or 10-noded tetrahedral elements. A number of
options are available to view and display the results in 2D and 3D. RS2 is used for 2-dimensional analysis
and design of underground tunnels in hard rock, weak rock, jointed rock, and soft ground and other
geotechnical works. Multi-stage analysis and advanced support design tools simplify the design of tunnel
lining systems. Both programs use Mohr-Coulomb and generalized Hoek-Brown failure criteria and others
for material modelling (Rocscience, 2016).

Hydrostatic stress field is assumed for analysis in which vertical and horizontal stresses are equal. The rock
mass is modelled as an elastic perfectly plastic material with the generalized Hoek-Brown failure criteria.
For tunnel support concrete lining is modelled as an elastic material. A 0.3 m thick concrete lining is used
for tunnel support around the tunnel periphery. The material properties of concrete lining are given in Table
2. The dimensions of 2D and 3D models are illustrated in Figure 3. The length, depth and width of the
model is taken as six times the diameter of the circular tunnel in the case of 3D modelling and for 2D
modelling the length and width of model is also considered as six times the circular tunnel diameter.

Figure 3 - 2D and 3D models for circular tunnel analysis

In 2D, the tunnel is analysed in two stages, shown in Figure 4, before and after the support installation.
Because it is not possible to install the support immediately after excavation, part of load is taken by the
surrounding rock mass itself during face advancement. Due to this reason in 2D analysis the load is split
between two stages and compared with 3D analysis. The load split is used to simulate the 3D effect of an
advancing tunnel face by using a 2D model. This can be used to simulate the delayed installation of support,
at an advancing tunnel face. The load split option in RS2 allows to "split" the field stress induced load
between any stages of the model, rather than applying the entire load in the first stage. This allows to
gradually apply the field stress load as the excavation proceeds.

Figure 4 - Two stages of 2D model for actual tunnel a) before suport installation b) after support installation
In 3D analysis, stage wise excavation has been simulated by removing the elements in sequence, in steps
of 1 m in the longitudinal direction. Then support is installed behind 2.0 m from the tunnel face sequentially,
as illustrated in Figure 5(a), and also shown in the 3D model of Figure 3, according to the actual tunnelling
method in the Himalayan Region. The stresses and deformations are observed at the crown, wall and invert
of the tunnel in two conditions: first, when the support is 1 m behind the observed section, at section A-A’,
shown in Figure 5(a), which is 1 m behind the tunnel face; and second, when the support is installed at
that section, that is, section B-B’, shown in Figure 5 (b).

Figure 5 - Illustration of stage wise tunnel excavation and support installation in 3D model of actual tunneling method
(a) support installed 1m behind observed section (b) with support

5- RESULTS

The numerical results obtained from the 2D and 3D analyses are compared in terms of stresses and
displacements at the crown, sidewall and invert of tunnel, represented as C, S and I as shown in Figures 3
and 5. The analyses are performed for both tunnels having different rock properties. The Kulekhani III
tunnel has good quality rock mass when compared to the Chameliya tunnel. The garnetiferous schist of
Kulekhani III tunnel and the talcosic phyllite of Chameliya tunnel are classified as weak rock and very weak
rock, respectively, based on their mechanical properties. In the 2D case, two types of analysis are carried
out. The first is without load splitting, in which support is immediately installed after excavation. In the
second, load is split into two stages, before and after support installation, as shown in Figure 4.

In the 3D case, the depth of the model is 24 m, which is the six times the tunnel diameter, as shown in
Figure 3. The stresses and deformations are measured at three times the tunnel diameter from the
advancing face where plane strain conditions are assumed as it is far from the advancing face and compared
with the 2D analysis in terms of before and after support installation, which are described in Figures 4 and
5, respectively.

5.1 - Analysis of Kulekhani III tunnel

The stresses and displacements of Kulekhani III tunnel are shown in Table 3. The maximum deformation
of tunnel is 4.0 mm before and after installation of support. It is found that the stresses are slightly
increased after the support is installed. In 3D analysis, the induced stress, σ1, is less than the 1.57 MPa
compressive strength of rock mass around the tunnel, before support installation. The induced stress at
the crown is more than that of side wall and invert. The stress around the tunnel increases after support
installation. In any case, the stresses in the numerical code are derived from an extrapolation based on the
stresses at the Gauss points and thus the obtained results are not exact. The maximum deformation of the
tunnel is the same before and after support installation in 3D analysis. In 2D analysis, the induced stresses
around the tunnel are more than 3D analysis but also less than compressive strength of rock mass. The
maximum tunnel deformation is 6 mm without support. If the support is installed with the excavation, the
maximum tunnel deformation is reduced to 1 mm, as shown in Table 4.

Table 3 - Stresses and displacements before and after installation of support in 3D analysis
Stress (σ1) (MPa) Total Displacement (mm)
Description
C S I C S I
Before Support Installation 1.50 1.28 1.37 4.0 4.0 4.0
After Support Installation 1.91 2.04 1.89 4.0 4.0 4.0
 Table 4 - Stresses and displacements before and after installation of support in 2D analysis without load splitting
Stress (σ1) (MPa) Total Displacement (mm)
Description
C S I C S I
Before Support Installation 1.34 0.83 0.66 6.0 6.0 6.0
After Support Installation 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.0 1.0 1.0

It is assumed that after excavation, the face itself before support installation takes some part of load during
tunnel face advancement. Then a number of 2D analyses are carried out in two stages before and after
support installation, shown in Figure 4, with different load split factors and compared with the 3D analysis.

Initially, the induced field stress is split into 50 percent in each stage and compared with 3D analysis. It is
found that in stage 1 both stress and displacement are more than 3D analysis before support installation.
The differences are more than 30% in stage 1 and above 100% in stage 2 as compared with 3D analysis
as shown in Table 5. As the load factor increases in stage 1 and decreases in stage 2, the results from both
2D and 3D analysis are getting closer. The results are very close as the load is split into 70 % in stage 1
and remaining 30% in stage 2. It is found that the stresses are close in both stages and also tunnel
deformations, as shown in Table 5. From this analysis, it is concluded that 70% of the field stress is taken
by the face itself during tunnelling and the remaining 30% after support installation.

Table 5 - Stresses and displacements before and after installation of support in 2D analysis with load splitting
Error in percentage compared with 3D analysis
Description Stress (σ1) Total Displacement Stress (σ1) Total Displacement
(MPa) (mm) (%) (%)
Load Factors C S I C S I C S I C S I
50% 1.64 1.66 1.66 2.0 2.0 2.0 -9 -30 21 50 50 50
50% 3.84 3.86 3.86 3.0 3.0 3.0 -101 -89 -104 25 25 25
60% 1.64 1.67 1.60 3.0 3.0 3.0 -9 -30 -17 25 25 25
40% 3.40 3.43 3.36 3.0 3.0 3.0 -78 -68 -78 25 25 25
57% 1.60 1.64 1.64 2.0 2.0 2.0 -7 -28 -20 50 50 50
43% 3.49 3.53 3.55 3.0 3.0 3.0 -83 -73 -88 25 25 25
70% 1.29 1.07 1.06 4.0 4.0 4.0 14 16 23 0 0 0
30% 2.62 2.39 2.38 4.0 4.0 4.0 -37 -17 -26 0 0 0
67% 1.36 1.03 1.22 3.0 3.0 3.0 9 20 11 25 25 25
33% 2.81 2.48 2.68 4.0 4.0 4.0 -47 -22 -42 0 0 0

5.2 - Analysis of Chameliya tunnel

Similarly, the same analysis is also performed for the very weak rock mass of the Chameliya hydropower
tunnel. The stresses and displacements around the tunnel obtained by 3D and 2D analyses are shown in
Tables 6 and 7, respectively. In 2D analysis, stresses and displacements around tunnel are bigger than in
3D analysis when there is no support installed. After installation of support, the stresses are drastically
increased and slightly higher than in situ stress and displacement is drastically reduced from 171 mm to 3
mm as compare to 3D analysis.

So, the results from 2D and 3D analysis for such very weak rock are very different. In 2D analysis, the load
is split into two stages as before and the same load splitting factors are used. It is found that the results
are closer after the support is installed rather than without support, when 70% of field stress load is applied
in stage 1 and the remaining 30% in stage 2. The results are summarized in Table 8.

Table 6 - Stresses and displacements before and after installation of support in 3D analysis
Stress (σ1) (MPa) Total Displacement (mm)
Description
C S I C S I
Before Support Installation 0.12 0.11 0.74 168 168 165
After Support Installation 2.15 2.53 2.3 171 171 179

Table 7 - Stresses and displacements before and after installation of support in 2D analysis without load splitting
Stress (σ1) (MPa) Total Displacement (mm)
Description
C S I C S I
Before Support Installation 0.46 0.38 0.34 283 284 283
After Support Installation 7.85 7.87 7.87 3 3 3
 Table 8 - Stresses and displacements before and after installation of support in 2D analysis with load splitting
Error (in %) compared with 3D analysis
Description Stress (σ1) Total Displacement Stress (σ1) Total Displacement
(MPa) (mm) (%) (%)
Load Factors C S I C S I C S I C S I
50% 0.31 0.17 0.2 86 87 87 -158 -55 73 49 48 47
50% 4.24 4.1 4.13 88 88 89 -97 -62 -80 49 49 50
60% 0.3 0.27 0.31 116 117 115 -150 -145 58 31 30 30
40% 3.43 3.43 3.45 117 118 116 -60 -36 -50 32 31 35
57% 0.35 0.28 0.3 107 107 107 -192 -155 59 36 36 35
43% 3.72 3.68 3.69 108 108 108 -73 -45 -60 37 37 40
70% 0.31 0.28 0.33 154 154 154 -158 -155 55 8 8 7
30% 2.66 2.65 2.69 155 155 155 -24 -5 -17 9 9 13
67% 0.26 0.37 0.24 144 144 145 -117 -236 68 14 14 12
33% 2.84 2.98 2.84 145 145 145 -32 -18 -23 15 15 19

5.3 - Stress path in advancing tunnel

A comparative numerical analysis is performed for both rock types in 3D and 2D in terms of stress patterns
in the rock mass surrounding the advancing circular tunnel. The numerical analysis is also compared with
the analytical closed formed solutions for a circular hole in a linearly elastic plate, subjected to an isotropic
or anisotropic state of stress. The stresses are plotted in terms of mean total normal stress (s) and shear
stress (t), which are given in equation 5 and 6,
𝜎𝑣 + 𝜎ℎ
𝑠= [5]
2
𝜎𝑣 − 𝜎ℎ
𝑡= [6]
2

where σv and σh are vertical and horizontal stress, respectively. The analysis is carried out for hydrostatic
stress field (K=1). In 3D analysis, as illustrated in Figure 6, tunnel excavation is carried out by removing
elements in steps of 1 m in length inside the tunnel in sequence along the longitudinal direction. The stress
paths are obtained in typical locations of tunnels, in the crown and side wall, at 1 m distance from the
tunnel contour. The state of stresses is studied at the observed section, at a distance of 12 m from the
beginning of model shown in Figure 3 3D model, as tunnel excavation towards the observing section and
far from the observed section, shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 - Longitudinal section of advancing tunnel and location of x-x cross section

The mean normal stress and shear stress are normalized by the in situ stress (so) and compared with the
2D and analytical solution for both types of rock. The stress paths obtained from the 3D analysis are
different from both 2D and analytical closed form solution. As the tunnel face approaches the section, the
mean normal stress increases and it decreases as tunnel face reaches near to the section and remains
decreasing as the face crosses the section and again reaches the initial value as the excavation moves on
away from the section. This is shown in Figure 7.
 Figure 7 - Stress paths at the crown and side wall during the face advancement of Kulekhani III tunnel

The major and minor principal stresses are also examined at these typical locations, crown and sidewall,
during tunnel advancement. Generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion is used for assessing and predicting
rock mass yielding in both case studies. The relation between major and minor principal stresses at crown
and sidewall of Kulekhani III tunnel is shown in Figure 8. It is found that the rock mass has not yielded, as
shown in Figure 8, because the stress point lies below the failure plane, which is represented by the dotted
line. In this rock type, the minor principal stress is continuously decreasing as the face reaches and passes
the excavation, while the major principal stress is not significantly changing and the rock mass does not
yield.

20
Failure line Crown

15
σ1 (MPa)

10

0
0 1 2 3 4
σ3 (MPa)

Figure 8 - Relation between major and minor principal stress for

generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion for Kulekhani III tunnel

In the case of the Chameliya tunnel, with very weak rock mass, the stress path is quite different from that
of the Kulekhani III tunnel. The mean normal stress is slightly decreasing as the excavation approaches
the section and it is gradually decreasing as the excavation reaches the section and remains decreasing as
excavation passes the section as shown in Figure 9. In case of weak rock, when the excavation is far from
the observed section both major and minor principal stresses are equal. Then the minor principal stress
starts to decrease and as the excavation passes the section the minor principal stress drastically decreases
and follows the failure plane as shown in Figure 10.
 Figure 9 - Stress paths at Crown and Side wall of tunnel during the face advancement of Chameliya tunnel

16
Crown
14 Failure line

12
σ1 (MPa)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
σ3 (MPa)

Figure 10 - Relation between major and minor principal stress for generalized Hoek-Brown failure criteria for
Chameliya tunnel

6- CONCLUSION

Finite element analysis is carried out for two hydropower tunnels excavated through weak and very weak
rock types in the Lesser Himalayan Region of Nepal. The analysis is performed in both 2D and 3D by using
Rocscience software and the results are compared in terms of stress and deformation at the crown, sidewall
and invert of the tunnels.

The 3D effect of an advancing tunnel can be simulated by the 2D analysis by splitting the initial field stress
into two different stages. This load splitting method adopted in the 2D analysis of Kulekhani III tunnel has
good agreement with 3D analysis when the initial field stress is split in 70% for the first stage, without
support, and the remaining 30 % for the second stage, with support. The load splitting method is not
significant for very weak rocks like Chameliya tunnel. The 2D analysis alone, without load splitting, is not
sufficient to analyse and design the tunnel in such weak rock mass conditions. The effect of tunnel face
advancement is well described by the 3D analysis, as compared to the 2D and closed form solution. The
stress paths by the 2D analysis and closed form solutions are linear and are not able to predict the state
of stress at different locations during tunnel advancement in terms of tunnel stability.

REFERENCES

Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support,
Rock Mechanics, 6, 189-236.

Barton, N. (1995). The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses, Proceedings of 8th ISRM Congress,
Tokyo, pp. 1023 -1032, Balkema, Rotterdam.
 Basnet, C.B. (2013). Evaluation on the Squeezing Phenomenon at the Headrace Tunnel of Chameliya Hydroelectric
Project Nepal. Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.

Dahawan, K.R., Singh, D.N. & Gupta, I.D. (2002). 2D and 3D finite element analysis of underground openings in an
inhomogeneous rock mass. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Science, Vol. 39, pp. 217-227.

Eberhardt, E. (2001). Numerical modelling of three-dimensional stress rotation ahead of an advancing tunnel face.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Rock Mechanics, Vol.38, pp. 499-518.

Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown failure criterion 2002 Edition. Proceedings of NARMS-
TAC Conference. Toronto, pp. 267-273.

Hoek, E. and Diederichs, M. (2006). Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 43, 203–215.

Janin, J.P., Dias, D., Emeriault, F., Kastner, R., Le Bissonnais, H., Guilloux A. (2015). Numerical back-analysis of the
southern Toulon tunnel measurements: A comparison of 3D and 2D approaches. Engineering Geology, 195 pp.42–
52.

NEA (1997). Detailed design report, Kulekhani III Hydroelectric Project, Nepal. Nepal Electricity Authority.

Rocscience Inc. (2016). RS3, 3D finite element analysis. Version: 1.013, User Manual.

Rocscience Inc. (2016). RS2, 2D finite element analysis. Version: 9.008, User Manual.

View publication stats