Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2022) 15: 1490

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10710-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Application of different stochastic numerical procedures in rock tunnel

lining design
Masoud Mazraehli1   · Shokrollah Zare1

Received: 8 December 2021 / Accepted: 12 August 2022 / Published online: 6 September 2022
© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2022

Abstract
This paper aims to utilize different stochastic numerical procedures for designing a rock tunnel lining, namely, strength clas-
sification (SCM) and random field (RFM) methods. The procedures are implemented in a finite difference scheme, while a
stochastic process based on the Monte Carlo simulation technique is followed for rock mass characterization, considering
its property variability. Moreover, a performance function is defined to investigate the lining serviceability based on the
interactions between bending moment, thrust, and shear forces. The effects of coefficient of variation and correlation length
on the results are also investigated. Finally, the probabilistic analysis results are compared with the deterministic ones and
the in situ measurements. The results show that the effect of the coefficient of variation on the spatial variability is more
significant than the effect of the correlation length. It can also be observed that the SCM models calculate lower support
requirements than the RFMs when CoV is smaller than 30%. Moreover, the cross-correlated models lead to lower PoF, which
can be related to the assumed negative cross-correlation between c and 𝜑.

Keywords  Tunnel lining · Probabilistic stability analysis · FDM · RFM · SCM · MCS

Introduction one of the principal uncertainty sources in rock engineering,

Stability analysis and lining design are significant issues
during the construction of underground excavations in
rock. There are a large number of researches related to this
topic which can be divided into deterministic (Chehade
and Shahrour 2008; Funatsu et al. 2008; Han et al. 2021;
Pelizza et al. 2000; Zhu et al. 2003) and probabilistic stud-
ies (Behnia and Seifabad 2018; Cai 2011; Heidarzadeh et al.
2020; Idris and Nordlund 2019; Idris et al. 2011, 2012, 2016;
Jiale and Xiaohong 2021; Seguini and Nedjar 2016; Tiwari
et al. 2017, 2018). The deterministic methods have been
widely used, but the probabilistic studies are restricted in
quantity (Fortsakis et al. 2011; Kroetz et al. 2018; Lang-
ford and Diederichs 2013; Napa-García et al. 2017; Oreste
2005). Despite the popularity of the deterministic techniques
in practice, these methods are impotent to reckon with the
inherent randomness of geo-mechanical properties, which is
Responsible Editor: Zeynal Abiddin Erguler
* Masoud Mazraehli
1
Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics Engineering,
Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
the others being measurement and transformation error (Cai
2011; Hoek 1998; Phoon and Kulhawy 1999; Riedmüller
and Schubert 1999). Ignorance of these uncertainties can
remarkably influence the analysis results and may lead to
applying too conservative or unfavorable safety factors in
the design (Song et al. 2011).
The probabilistic stability analysis methods have been
established to capture a more realistic perspective on how
over- or under-estimated response variables can affect the
remedial requirements and design aspects (Yu et al. 2019).
The Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), first-order (FORM) and
second-order reliability methods (SORM), and point esti-
mate method (PEM) might be utilized as the general scheme
for probabilistic analysis, though there are some differences
in their applications. For instance, the methods can be clas-
sified into two classes considering rock mass heterogeneity
(Idris et al. 2016). Based on the assumption, while the MCS
is categorized in a group that takes account of the spatial
variability of rock mass properties, the other methods are
placed in another group because they cannot consider the
variability in the analysis.
In recent years, the MCS has started a scientific revolu-
tion. It is now practical to get insight into how a problem

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1490 Page 2 of 18
solution is affected by the input parameter variation using
the method (Binder and Heermann 2010; Sari 2009; Sari
and Karpuz 2006). In geotechnical engineering, the MCS
was first applied in many aspects, such as single random
geo-mechanical variables (SRV) (e.g., Behnia and Seifabad
2018; Tiwari et al. 2017, 2018). Although these researches
furthered the MCS applications in geotechnical engineer-
ing, they neglected spatial randomness. Subsequently, some
researchers attempted to fill the gap by utilizing the MCS
coupled with numerical software packages. Hsu and Nelson
(2006) and Srivastava (2012) incorporated numerical meth-
ods and the MCS to analyze slope stability in spatially vari-
able weak rocks. Idris and Nordlund (2019) and Idris et al.
(2011, 2012, 2016) used the finite difference method (FDM)
for analyzing the stability of underground mine stopes con-
sidering spatial variability. Yu et al. (2019) took advantage
of stochastic numerical modeling to investigate tunnel liner
performance and concluded that the procedure could lead to
a more equitable and economical design.
The above-mentioned studies established the MCS
applications in modeling the inherent randomness of rock
mass properties. There are, however, some aspects that still
require more research. Uncertainty in the distribution of the
input parameters is one of these aspects that needs more
surveillance. Tiwari et al. (2017) used the PEM for stability
analysis of underground structures, implementing normal
distribution functions for input variables. Analyzing consid-
erable number of geo-mechanical laboratory and field data,
Mazraehli and Zare (2020) demonstrated that distributions
of rock mass properties do not necessarily follow normal and
lognormal distribution function rules.
The stochastic numerical method was first adopted for
the stability analysis of soil slopes. The MCS was combined
with the numerical analysis to introduce the spatially vari-
able soil properties as random field models (RFMs) (Fenton
1999; Kim and Major 1978). Compared to the soil, rock is
a more complicated environment due to the effect of dif-
ferent parameters such as strength properties (e.g., uniaxial
compressive strength, elastic modulus, cohesion, friction),
joint properties (e.g., roughness, spacing, and orientation),
weathering, and so on (Cai et al. 2004; Cai 2011; Chen et al.
2019; Ching et al. 2011). Similar researches were carried out
for rocks afterward (Haldar and Babu 2008; Lü et al. 2018;
Pandit and Babu 2021; Pandit et al. 2018; Song et al. 2011).
Song et al. (2011) investigated the effect of spatial variability
of rock mass properties on the ground deformation due to
tunnelling. Idris et al. (2016) proposed the strength classifi-
cation method (SCM) for analyzing tunnel stability in spa-
tially variable rocks, which requires a lower computational
time than the RFM. Yu et al. (2019) evaluated the tunnel
liner performance using conditional and unconditional RFM
models. Zhang et al. (2022) compared the number of stud-
ies conducted in the field of spatial variability over different
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
periods, stating that the topic is becoming more demand-
ing over time. One of the advantages of these methods is
that they can determine the statistical distribution of the
response. In this regard, it would be possible to calculate
the probability of failure (PoF) for stability analysis. Fur-
thermore, there is a lack of study for the lining design of the
tunnel excavated in spatially variable rocks based on interac-
tions between the acting moments and forces.
This paper implements the SCM and RFM for analyzing
the stability of a supported tunnel, considering variability
in geo-mechanical properties. A procedure is followed to
take account of spatial rock mass variability in the stability
analysis, combining the MCS and FDM methods. The vari-
ance reduction technique is utilized in the RFM, while the
stochastic mapping approach is adopted in the SCM models.
The stochastic results are compared to each other. Another
comparison is also made between the stochastic, determin-
istic, and monitoring data.
Probabilistic numerical modeling
A square FDM model with a 70 m side length was built
using FLAC and, as said before, was discretized with 78,400
finite difference quadrilateral zones, with 280 zones in both
x and y directions. It means that each zone has a side length
of 0.25 m. As a result, it provides an acceptable resolution
for random property mapping and reasonable numerical
accuracy.
The roller and fixed boundary conditions were applied to
different boundaries. The upper side was fixed in the y direc-
tion, while the displacements of the other sides were fixed in
both x and y directions. Before modeling the tunnel excava-
tion, the numerical calculation was performed to approach
the balanced condition for initial in situ stresses. Figure 1
illustrates the model geometry and boundary conditions. The
field stresses for the studied section were set, defining a con-
stant hydrostatic in situ stress field ( k = 1 ) (Geodata 2016).
The sequential excavation method is being utilized in the
construction phase through top heading and bench technique
(i.e., two stages). The top heading of the tunnel is in the form
of an arc with a diameter of 13 m, and the rectangular bench
has a side length of 3.3 m with a total tunnel height of 9.8 m.
After excavation of each sequence, the support system was
installed using liner elements. Three numerical monitoring
points were selected based on the predefined measurement
points on the crown and sidewalls. The excavation sequences
and measurement points are also presented in Fig. 1.
The MCS method was implemented in FLAC using a FISH
function. FISH is a scripting language embedded within the
software to define new variables and functions (Itasca 2015).
The scripted function involves an iterative process of assign-
ing random variables to the numerical zones. As said before,
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
Fig. 1  a Boundary conditions and model geometry; b excavation sequences (S1 and S2) and measurement points (C, L, and R)
two different procedures were followed for property mapping,
which are described below.
Stochastic mapping approach
This method divides probability density functions into diverse
classes based on the mean value and standard deviation. Sub-
sequently, it selects the class representatives and assigns them
stochastically to the model zones. The schematic illustration
and the flowchart of the mapping process are presented in
Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Each model realization might be
specified by a matrix in the form of [zij ]280×280 , where zij rep-
resents a zone located in the ith row and jth column whose
centroid coordinates are distinguished by
xi = l∕(n + 1) + i.sl i = 0.1.2 … .279
yj = l∕(n + 1) + j.sl j = 0.1.2 … .279
where sl is the side length of each zone and n + 1 represents
the number of zones in horizontal or vertical directions.
After determining the zone centroid, random properties are
assigned to the corresponding zones denoted by zij . To this
end, the zones are selected randomly using the following
equations:
k = int ((i).urand) + 1 kcount ≤ number of calculated class zones
Page 3 of 18 1490
l = int ((j).urand) + 1 lcount ≤ number of calculated class zones
(4)
where the pair (k.l) shows a zone located in the kth row and
lth column. The pair is selected randomly, and its property
variables are assigned based on a certain property class
weaker or stronger than the mean values. The function int
rounds the product of i and urand to its nearest integer, while
urand is a stochastic uniform value between 0 and 1. The
process continues until the pair number approaches the cal-
culated frequency for each class zones (a–f in Fig. 2):
The process of random properties realization might be
summarized as follows:
(1) Construction of model grid with n + 2 nodes in both x
(1) and y directions
(2) Determination of zone centroid coordinates (xi , yi ) using
Eqs. (1) and (2)
(2)
(3) Calculating proportional frequency for every property
class of the variables
(4) Assigning mean values of the properties based on their
distribution functions to all numerical zones
(5) Allocating random numerical zones using Eqs. (3) and
(4)
(6) Assigning the values that belong to the other classes
(weaker or stronger than the mean) to the specified
zones in the last step
(3)
13
1490 Page 4 of 18
Fig. 2  Schematic illustration of the property assignment process in SCM
(7) Repeating steps 5 and 6 to the point that all the zones
are assigned
(8) Repeating steps 1 to 7 to the point that the quantity of
simulations does not significantly affect the response
required
In this regard, each realization corresponds to a possible
arrangement of geo-mechanical properties of the ground.
Moreover, using the procedure, the average values for the
model parameters remain very close to the mean values.
Furthermore, analyzing several realizations would result in
a preferable perspective on the tunnel response.
Random field mapping approach
The random field theory provides a practical tool for inves-
tigating the spatial variability of geo-mechanical properties.
The essential principles of the method have been introduced
by Vanmarcke (1977, 1983), based on which three statisti-
cal features are required to define a random field: (1) mean
value; (2) variance (or standard deviation or coefficient of
variation); and (3) scale of fluctuation or correlation length.
Due to the inherent randomness of the analysis, it is clear
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
that the variability would be different from one realization
to another. It is, hence, required to generate an adequate
number of realizations for the analysis. In this regard, there
are some differences between the SCM and RFM techniques
as follows:
• All the values in the variation range are probable to occur
in a random field, while the SCM uses the representative
values for each probability class.
• The RFM considers the correlation between different
points in space, while it is ignored in the SCM.
• In contrast to the SCM, the cross-correlation between
cohesion ( c ) and friction angle ( 𝜑 ) is considered in the
random fields.
Figure 4 presents the flowchart of the random field map-
ping process. The detailed formulation of the random field
generation process is described in the following subsections.
Correlation structure
Geo-materials, especially sedimentary rocks, demonstrate
spatial randomness in their properties due to the formation
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490 Page 5 of 18 1490

START

ith realization construction

j = j+1 Yes j < nicount

Model descretization

No
Assigning mean values to all
zone

Calculating the class frequency

ni = ni+1 Yes ni < nn
(nicount)

Allocating zone j centroid No

Assigning representative value to

i = i+1 Yes i<n
zone centroid

END

Fig. 3  Flowchart of the property assignment process in SCM

process. In this study, the Markov autocorrelation function the model to consider the sample size effect (Fenton and
has been used in defining the correlation between different Griffiths 2008). 𝜎T2 can be determined by Eq. (6) as follows:
points in the space. The two-dimensional (2D) form of this
function might be presented as 𝜎T2 = 𝜎 2 Γ(T) (6)
�
⎛ � where  Γ(T) denotes the variance reduction factor and
�� 2𝜏 �2 � 2𝜏y �2 ⎞
𝜌(𝜏x , 𝜏y ) = exp ⎜−� x
+ ⎟ (5) reduces the point variance (𝜎 2 ) under local averaging. Fur-
⎜ 𝜃x 𝜃y ⎟ thermore, T is the averaging domain of the random field.
⎝ ⎠
The 2D form of  Γ(T) in a squared finite difference mesh
where 𝜌 is the correlation coefficient between two points would be:
separated by known distances ( 𝜏x and 𝜏y ) in the x and y direc- T T
tions, respectively. The parameters 𝜃x and 𝜃y are the correla- 4
Γ(T) = (T − 𝜏x )(T − 𝜏y )𝜌d𝜏x d𝜏y (7)
tion lengths in these directions as well. In this paper, it is T4 ∫ 0∫ 0
assumed that the correlation lengths are identical in the both Due to the complexity of Eq. (7), it is often practical to
directions (i.e., 𝜃x = 𝜃y = 𝜃). define a dimensionless spatial correlation length ( Δ ) as

Local averaging and variance reduction 𝜃

Δ= (8)
T
The given variance 𝜎 2 of inherent spatial variability is at the
The numerical integration of Eq. (7) leads to the graphi-
point level, while it is needed to calculate the variance of an
cal illustration of the variance reduction function, presented
element size ( 𝜎T2  ) in the random field generation. The local
in Fig. 5. It can be observed that Γ(T) increases with the
averaging process is adopted to obtain 𝜎T2  , which enables
increase of the dimensionless correlation length.

13
1490 Page 6 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490

START Is the variable auto-

No
correlated?

ith realization construction

Yes

Model descretization to nicount

zones Implementing auto-correlation
function
Generating standard normal
number

Are the variables

No
Generating variable based on the cross-correlated?
statistics

Yes
Allocating zone j centroid

Implementing cross-correlation
function
Assigning variable to zone centroid

i = i+1 Yes i<n

j = j+1 Yes j < nicount

No
No

END

Fig. 4  Flowchart of the property assignment process in RFM

Effect of the variance reduction on the random field

fluctuation

The Gaussian random field might be generated by Eq. (9)

using the mean value ( 𝜇 ) and the product of normalized
correlated random field ( U2 ) and standard deviation in ele-
ment size ( 𝜎T ):
U = 𝜇 + 𝜎T .U2 (9)
The normalized correlated random field U2 can be
expressed as follows:
U2 = L.U1 (10)
where L is the lower triangular of the covariance matrix
decomposition and U1 is the standard Gaussian random
field. The Cholesky decomposition was used to obtain L.
Substituting Eqs. (10) and (6) in Eq. (9) would result in Fig. 5  Variance reduction factor versus Δ for a Markov correlation
Eq. (11): function

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
√
U = 𝜇 + 𝜎 Γ.L.U1
The Cholesky decomposition might also be used to derive
the cross-correlation between c and 𝜑 . The cross-correlation
matrix is defined as follows:
[ ]
1 𝜌c𝜑 � �
𝜌cc = = L TL (12)
𝜌c𝜑 1
where 𝜌c𝜑 = −0.6 is the cross-correlation factor and L and
�
L T are the lower triangular of the cross-correlation matrix
�
decomposition and its transpose, respectively.
The cross-correlated standard normal matrix might be defined as
�
U3 = L .U2
Finally, the cross-correlated random field can be expressed
using Eq. (14) as follows:
√ (Table 2).
U = 𝜇 + 𝜎 Γ.U3 (14)
It should be noted that this study is focused on the uncer-
tainty of the geo-mechanical properties, while discontinuities
are the other aspects of uncertainty in rock engineering. In the
current paper, the effect of discontinuities has been implicitly
considered in the GSI, which is used for rock mass classifica-
tion purposes. On the other hand, it is also possible to explic-
itly consider the effect of discontinuities by utilizing stochastic
modeling techniques such as discrete fracture network (DFN).
Based on the available literature, it has been reported that dis-
continuities cause some irregularities in stress and displace-
ment distribution so that the larger displacements occur adja-
cent to these structures (e.g., Jia and Tang 2008; Maazallahi
and Majdi 2020; Taghizadeh et al. 2020; Xing et al. 2018).
Case study and modeling specifications
The Alborz twin tunnels include an essential part of the Teh-
ran–North expressway with 6300 m in length each (Geodata
Fig. 6  Longitudinal profile of the Alborz twin tunnels (Geodata 2016)
Page 7 of 18 1490
(11) 2016). Figure 6 presents the longitudinal profile of the tun-
nel. According to the profile, the studied section is located in
the Shemshak Formation, close to the north portal (chainage
0 + 293.20 m). The formation mainly consists of argillite
and sandstone sequences with coal lenses and dacite dykes.
The highest uniaxial strength values are associated with the
dacite samples, while the median and the lowest are related
to the sandstone and the argillite samples, respectively. Fur-
thermore, the groundwater condition is in the form of drip-
ping (e.g., 0.1 to 0.3 lit/s) in this section.
The coefficients of variation of rock mass properties
were considered based on the literature (Mazraehli and Zare
2020). Table 1 presents the coefficients of variation ( CoVs )
(13) of different properties. Different correlation lengths were
assumed for the random fields which include 0.1, 0.25, 0.5,
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 m. Based on this table and the mean values
of the properties, the statistical parameters were calculated
Spatial variability and statistical features
As stated above, it is required to introduce three different
statistics for random field generation: mean value, disper-
sion index, and scale of fluctuation. The mean value is the
constant part of the variable, and the others determine its
variation around it. As a non-dimensional parameter, it is
sometimes beneficial to use CoV instead of standard devia-
tion ( 𝜎 ) to describe relative data dispersion. Figure 7 com-
pares different realizations developed using the RFM and
SCM methods. It also shows the effect of 𝜃 and CoV on
the random field realizations of the geo-mechanical proper-
ties. According to the figure, the variability increases with 𝜃
and CoV  , but the effect of the latter one is more significant.
Contrarily, the spatial variation level remains almost con-
stant for an SCM realization since there are only a certain
number of classes for each property. In this case, the spatial
13
1490 Page 8 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490

Table 1  Coefficients of Characteristic CoV (%)
variation of the geo-mechanical
properties 70
Gm
Km 70
𝜎tm 84
c 25
𝜙 11
variation of the properties specifies the difference among
the realizations.
Sample size
The accuracy of the MCS technique largely depends on the
number of simulations (Ang and Tang 1984). It is, therefore,
clear that an increase in the number of simulations would
result in a higher level of accuracy. In order to achieve an
acceptable level of accuracy, it was tried to evaluate the effect
of the sample size on the tunnel displacement before support
installation. Figure 8 shows the mean displacements versus
the sample size for the RFM procedure (i.e., with different
correlation lengths). The displacement increases with the
sample size up to a definite value, and after that, some fluctua-
tions were recorded. Afterward, the mean displacement con-
verges to a representative value that remains almost constant
up to 110 simulations. Hence, it is decided to use the samples
with 100 simulations as the representative sample size for
the RFM. Since the influencing parameters for the SCM are
fewer than the RFM, the same number of simulations was
considered sufficient to produce the corresponding dataset.
After estimating the required sample size, it was tried to
select the optimum number of classes for the SCM mod-
els. Accordingly, seven sets of SCM models were examined
with different class numbers. Figure 9 presents the repre-
sentative values for these models. Since there was no need
to repeat the same simulation 100 times, the mean values
were assigned to a single model for the first case. After cal-
culation, the representative values were assigned to the cor-
responding model using the SCM scheme (as illustrated in
Fig. 3). According to Fig. 9b, the second realization set has
two property classes for each parameter, which comprise
50% of the model zones in each realization. The third one,
however, has three property classes for which the major class
includes 68.2% of the zones, while the minor two possess
15.7% of them each and so on.
To select the optimum class number, the modeling results
were compared for unlined tunnels. Figure 10 shows the
mean displacements versus the number of property classes.
It can be observed that the displacement values increase by
increasing the class numbers. It is mainly because of the
local presence of weaker zones in the tunnel boundary for
the models with a higher number of classes. On the other
hand, the displacements for the last set with seven property
classes are almost identical to its lower set. It was, therefore,
decided to select the set with six property classes as the
representative set for the SCM procedure.

Stress relaxation factor

Table 2  PDFs and their statistical parameters of rock mass
characteristics
The concept of stress relaxation was used to consider the effect
Characteristic Statistic Value of three-dimensional condition in the models. The value of
stress relaxation can be calculated using Eq. (15), presented
Gm(GPa) Mean 1.40
by Panet (1995):
Standard deviation 1.00
PDF Gamma � �2
ur ⎡ ⎤
0.75
Km(GPa) Mean 1.70 𝜆= = 0.25 + 0.75 ⎢1 − ⎥ (15)
Standard deviation 1.20 urmax ⎢ 0.75 + x
⎥
⎣ r ⎦
PDF Lognormal
𝜎tm(MPa) Mean 0.75 where x is the advance rate, r denotes the tunnel radius, ur
Standard deviation 0.63 is the displacement after the advance rate is completed, and
PDF Lognormal urmax denotes the final displacement of the tunnel. Here, the
c(MPa) Mean 0.44 advance rate of the tunnel was 3 m, and its equivalent radius
Standard deviation 0.11 ( r ) was calculated as (13 + 9.8)∕4 = 5.7 m.
PDF Normal
𝜙(◦) Mean 40.19
Standard deviation 4.36 Performance function
PDF Normal
GSI Mean 45.00 The liner elements were utilized to simulate the support sys-
Standard deviation 8.30 tem. The elements are capable of tolerating bending moment
PDF Normal ( M  ), thrust ( N  ), and shear ( Q ) forces. Since the paper was

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490 Page 9 of 18 1490

Fig. 7  Stochastic realization
for a RFM with 𝜃 = 0.5m
and CoV = 10% ; b RFM with
𝜃 = 0.5m and CoV = 50%
c RFM with 𝜃 = 5m and
CoV = 10% ; d RFM with
𝜃 = 5m and CoV = 50% ; e SCM

not intended to study the support–ground interface, the inter-
action was ignored. The liner elements were installed after
excavating each sequence (top or bench) and stress relaxa-
tion. Furthermore, the stresses generated in the lining were
used to define the tunnel liner performance function.
Stresses induced in the support system
As shown in Fig. 11, the stresses counteract the internal
forces to maintain the equilibrium state. In this regard, the
axial stress resulting from the thrust would be constant
throughout the liner cross-section and can be determined as
follows (e.g., Timoshenko 1976):
N
𝜎N = (16)
A
In this equation, 𝜎N denotes the axial stress induced by the
thrust N  , and A is the area of the liner cross-section. The bend-
ing stress induced by the bending moment M can be expressed
by Eq. (17) (e.g., Timoshenko 1976):

13
1490 Page 10 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490

Mean right displacement (m) 0.035 0.040

Mean roof displacement (m)

0.030 0.035

0.030
0.025
0.025
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.010
Theta 0.1 Theta 0.1
0.005 Theta 2.0 Theta 2.0
0.005
Theta 5.0 Theta 5.0
0.000 0.000
0 50 100 0 50 100
Number of simulations Number of simulations
(a) (c)
0.035 0.080

Mean floor displacement (m)

Mean left displacement (m)

0.030 0.070

0.060
0.025
0.050
0.020
0.040
0.015
0.030
0.010
0.020
Theta 0.1 Theta 0.1
0.005 Theta 2.0 Theta 2.0
0.010
Theta 5.0 Theta 5.0
0.000 0.000
0 50 100 0 50 100
Number of simulations Number of simulations
(b) (d)

Fig. 8  Mean values of displacement versus number of simulations in the a right wall; b left wall; c crown; d invert

Mz In this equation, 𝜎 max and 𝜎min are the maximum and

𝜎M = − (17)
I minimum axial stresses at the intrados and extrados of the
liner, respectively. The parameter t also denotes the lining
where 𝜎M is the bending stress resulted from the bending moment
thickness. It should be noted that since shotcrete is an engi-
M , I denotes the moment of inertia, and z is the perpendicular
neered material, its properties were considered constant
distance to the neutral axis of the liner which is positive above
over the occupied space. The resulting shear stress 𝜏 can
the axis. It is, therefore, concluded that M causes compressive
also be calculated using Eq. (19) (e.g., Timoshenko 1976):
stress in the area below the neutral axis and tensile stress in the
[ ( )2 ]
opposite side. Moreover, the maximum bending stresses occur at 3Q 2z
the intrados and extrados of the lining cross-section. 𝜏= 1− (19)
2A t
The maximum and minimum axial stresses induced in
the tunnel lining might be determined by superposition The minimum shear stress is equal to zero at the intra-
of the N − M interaction, as presented by Eq. (18) (e.g., dos and extrados of the liner, while the maximum values
Timoshenko 1976): occur at the neutral axis and equals 3Q∕2A . It is, therefore,
obvious that the effect of Q on the stress state reaches its
N Mt highest level at the neutral axis. The principal stresses can
(18)
max
𝜎min = ±
A I 2

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490 Page 11 of 18 1490

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)

Fig. 9  Representative values of each property class for different SCM models

be calculated in terms of the maximum shear stress ( 𝜏max ) Lining failure definition
and 𝜎N as follows (e.g., Timoshenko 1976):
√ Since the purpose of this paper was to design shotcrete lin-
( 𝜎 )2
1
𝜎3 =
𝜎N
± N 2
+ 𝜏max (20) ing, it is necessary to investigate the safety and reliability of
2 2 the support system. The compressive and tensile strengths
of the lining were supposed as 20 and − 4 MPa, respectively.
where 𝜎 1 and 𝜎3 are the major and minor principal stresses at
Its original design thickness ( w ) was also assumed to be
a point located at the neutral axis, respectively.
0.1 m. The resistances provided by the lining support can
be described as follows:

13
1490 Page 12 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490

0.025 shotcrete liner is often accompanied by local supports such

as lattice girders and rock bolts.
Mean displacement (m)

0.020 Based on the interactions due to the induced stresses, it

can be inferred that there are four expected failure modes
0.015 for the support system, including (1) failure in compression
due to N − M interaction; (2) failure in tension due to N − M
0.010 interaction; (3) failure in compression due to N − Q inter-
Roof action; and (4) failure in tension due to N − Q interaction.
0.005
Floor In the case of the N − M interaction, the tunnel liner would
Right fail in compression when 𝜎 max exceeds Rc . On the other hand,
Left
tensile failure can occur when 𝜎min is less than Rt . Similarly,
for the N − Q interaction, the compressional liner failure takes
0.000
0 2 4 6 8
Number of SCM classes place when 𝜎 1 at the neutral axis exceeds Rc . Contrarily, the
tensile failure, in this case, would be the result of minimum
Fig. 10  Mean displacements versus number of property classes principal stress ( 𝜎3 ) less than Rt (considering its negative sign).

Performance function formulation

Rc = FoS.𝜎c (21)
It is required to define a performance function to inves-
Rt = FoS.𝜎t (22) tigate the serviceability of the lining. This function was
used here to determine the PoF, defined using Eq. (23):
where Rc and Rt are the compressive and tensile resistances,
respectively, 𝜎c and 𝜎t also denote the compressive and ten- g(x) = U − R(x) (23)
sile strengths of the lining, and FoS is the factor of safety
provided by the lining. The FoS was considered since a where U is the liner resistance ( Rc or Rt ), and R(x) denotes
the variable induced stress.

Fig. 11  Stresses in tunnel
support due to the interaction of
a thrust force–bending moment;
b thrust–shear force

(a)

(b)

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490 Page 13 of 18 1490

When the performance function becomes negative
( g(x) < 0 ), it implies that the corresponding stress exceeds
the resistance limit and a failure event is probable. Con-
trarily, when g(x) > 0 , the liner would be stable, and its
performance is desirable. The limit state surface is also
defined by g(x) = 0 , which is the boundary between the
unstable and the stable conditions.
To establish a non-dimensional criterion of failure, the
induced stresses were divided by the compressive and ten-
sile strengths of the liner. It would introduce a parameter
that is called strength factor and may be different regarding
the interaction and failure mode type as follows:
Ccnm = 𝜎max ∕𝜎c
Ctnm = 𝜎min ∕𝜎t
Ccnq = 𝜎1 ∕𝜎c
nq
Ct = 𝜎3 ∕𝜎t
In the above equations, Ccnm and Cc are the compressional
nq
strength factors in the N − M and N − Q interaction, respec-
tively. Furthermore, Ctnm and Ct are also the tensile strength
nq
factors in the N − M and N − Q interaction, respectively.
The mean values of strength factors obtained from differ-
ent procedures are presented in Table 3. As stated in the pre-
vious sections, these procedures include the SCM and RFM.
Four different sets were considered in the RFM models: (1)
𝜃 = 0.5m , cross-correlated c and 𝜑 ; (2) 𝜃 = 5m , cross-cor-
related c and 𝜑 ; (3) 𝜃 = 0.5m , independent c and 𝜑 ; and (4)
𝜃 = 5m , independent c and 𝜑 . According to the table, the
N − Q strength factors are smaller than the others, while the
correlation length effect is significant in the RFM models.
As a result, the PoF of the tunnel lining can be defined
for different modes as
[ ] [ ]
pnm
c
= P 𝜎max > Rc = P Ccnm > FoS (28)
[ ] [ ]
pnm = P 𝜎min < Rt = P Ctnm > FoS
t
[ ] [ ]
pnq = P 𝜎1 > Rc = P Ccnq > FoS (30)
c
nq [ ] [ nq ]
pt = P 𝜎3 > Rt = P Ct > FoS (31)
where pnmc and c are the compressional PoF in the
nq
p N−M
and N − Q interaction, respectively. Furthermore, pnm and
t
pt are also the tensile PoF in the N − M and N − Q interac-
nq
tion, respectively.
Probability of failure (PoF)
(24) The FoS is the first parameter needed for determining the PoF.
The primary factor of safety provided by the liner has been
considered as 1.2. The computed probabilities of failure for
(25)
the SCM analysis are presented in Fig. 12. It can be observed
that the N − M tensile failure ( pnm t = 72%
 ) would be more
(26) probable than the other modes, and the N − M compressional
failure ( pnm
c = 4% ) stands in the second place among others.
(27) Moreover, the PoFs due to the N − Q interaction (both in
compression and tension) are negligible (almost zero).
The obtained PoF values for different procedures are pre-
sented and compared in Table 4. It can be observed that the
implementation of cross-correlated parameters has led to a lower
PoF. It can be related to the negative cross-correlation factor
between c and 𝜑 , which equates to − 0.6. It results in a larger
cohesion value where the friction angle is small and vice versa.
Besides, the effect of correlation length is obvious in this table.
It can be seen that the PoFs in the N − M interaction are more
significant than in the N − Q interaction. Furthermore, the cor-
responding SCM values are higher than the RFM probabilities.
Effect of statistical parameters on PoF
In this section, the effect of CoV and 𝜃 was investigated on the
PoF of the tunnel liner. According to Fig. 13, the tensile PoF in
the N − M interaction is more than in the other failure modes.
Even with an increase in CoV and 𝜃 , the N − Q compressional
(29) and tensile PoFs are almost zero. It is also observed that the
N − M curves steepen beyond the CoV of 30%. It means that
the wider the variation range of geo-mechanical properties,
the higher the liner PoF.

Table 3  Mean values of strength factors from different procedures

PoF SCM Cross-correlated RFM Independent RFM Discussion
𝜃 = 0.5m 𝜃 = 5m 𝜃 = 0.5m 𝜃 = 5m
In the above sections, different procedures were adopted for
Ccnm 0.72 0.78 0.99 0.75 0.88 stochastic–numerical analysis of tunnel lining performance,
Ctnm 1.49 0.66 1.23 0.47 1.20 including the SCM and RFM methods. Although the running
nq
Cc 0.23 0.36 0.40 0.33 0.36 time for the SCM is considerably lower than the RFM, the
nq
Ct 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 former lacks incorporation of the effect of the correlation

13
1490 Page 14 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490

Fig. 12  Liner probability of failure in a compressional N − M  ; b tensile N − M  ; c compressional N − Q ; d tensile N − Q

length on the response of interest. It is also observed that underground excavations during construction and service
the effect of CoV is more significant on the SCM result so periods to control and investigate the ground behavior. The
that it increases beyond 30% of variation around the mean Alborz tunnel was instrumented to monitor inward deforma-
property values. tions using convergence pins and extensometers. Conver-
This section compares the modeling results obtained from gence pins are the most common tools used for tunnel move-
different methods with the in situ measurements to outline ment measurement, which evaluate the relative displacement
the most probable variability characteristics of the studied of two points on the excavation boundary with respect to
section. It is essential to utilize monitoring techniques in each other (Kavvadas 2003). The monitoring results are pre-
sented in Fig. 14. According to the figure, relative displace-
Table 4  Probability of failure from different procedures ( FoS = 1.2) ments were equal to 4 mm for the hypothetical line connect-
ing the left and the right walls (L-R) and 3 mm for the crown
PoF SCM Cross-correlated RFM Independent RFM to both the right wall (C-R) and the left wall (C-L).
𝜃 = 0.5m 𝜃 = 5m 𝜃 = 0.5m 𝜃 = 5m The convergence values from numerical analysis and
the measured values by monitoring surveys are compared
pnm 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.05 0.12
c
in Table 5. In this regard, it would be possible to obtain a
pnm 0.72 0.15 0.51 0.50 0.63
t
perspective on how the geo-mechanical properties vary in
nq
pc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
the studied section. It must be noted that the accuracy of
nq
pt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
the monitoring tool was in millimeters, but the numerical

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
Fig. 13  CoV and 𝜃 effects on probability of failure in a compressional N − M  ; b tensile N − M  ; c compressional N − Q ; d tensile N − Q
displacements were calculated in 0.01 mm. The mean numer-
ical convergences are in good accordance with the moni-
tored displacements. However, it seems that the determin-
istic model underestimates the convergences. Furthermore,
it can be observed that a higher correlation length results
in the overestimation of convergence for this case. On the
other hand, when the cross-correlation between c and 𝜑 is
neglected, the calculated convergence values would be larger
than the cross-correlated case. Accordingly, the cross-cor-
related models with a lower correlation length reflect more
realistic in situ condition. Last but not least, the stochastic
modeling techniques require more computational efforts than
the deterministic analyses, but they can be considered more
realistic.
Conclusions
Tunnel lining performance was stochastically analyzed using
different procedures, including strength classification (SCM)
and random field (RFM) methods. The spatial variability of
rock mass properties was considered using the stochastic
Page 15 of 18 1490
finite difference method. In this regard, the lining perfor-
mance function was defined based on the compressional and
tensile failure modes. Besides, the deterministic numerical
analysis was also performed for comparison purposes, and the
numerical results were compared to the in situ measurements
to check the validity. According to the results, the following
conclusions can be reported from the conducted study:
• Compared to the correlation length ( 𝜃 ), the coefficient
of variation ( CoV  ) has a more significant effect on the
spatial variability of a random field. On the other hand,
the spatial variability decreases with increasing 𝜃.
• The SCM models calculate lower support requirements
than RFMs when CoV is smaller than 30%. After this
point, the design values increase drastically for the
SCM procedure.
• The cross-correlation between cohesion ( c ) and friction
angle ( 𝜑 ) affects the probability of failure (PoF), so the
cross-correlated models have led to lower PoF. It can
be related to the negative cross-correlation between c
and 𝜑 in this study.
13
1490 Page 16 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490

Fig. 14  Monitoring results

Table 5  Calculated and Convergence In situ Deterministic SCM Cross-correlated RFM Independent RFM
measured convergences (mm)
𝜃 = 0.5m 𝜃 = 5m 𝜃 = 0.5m 𝜃 = 5m

L-R 4.00 1.55 3.84 4.11 4.26 5.64 6.11

C-R 3.00 1.55 3.11 3.22 3.71 4.09 4.44
C-L 3.00 1.57 2.78 3.19 3.88 4.12 4.65

• The effect of the axial thrust–bending moment interac-
tion on the lining failure is more significant than the
axial thrust–shear force interaction. In this case, it was
also observed that the probability of tensile failure
mode was much higher than the compressional failure.
• The PoFs in both compressional and tensile mode due
to thrust–shear force interaction were almost zero, even
with increasing CoV and 𝜃 values.
• In general, it can be concluded that the spatial variabil-
ity has a remarkable effect on the tunnel lining design,
which must be considered. It would result in a reliable
design process compared to the conventional procedures.
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to express their grateful
appreciation to Geodata Engineering SpA and Tehran-Shomal Freeway
Company for providing the required data during the study.
Data availability  The data that support the findings of this study are
available on request from the corresponding author.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no competing interests.
References

Finally, it can be stated that defining the performance
function based on the strength factors would enable the
future studies to consider the effect of different factors of
safety ( FoS ) provided by the support system.
Ang AHS, Tang WH (1984) Probability concepts in engineering planning
and design. vol 2: Decision, risk, and reliability. Wiley, New York
Behnia M, Seifabad MC (2018) Stability analysis and optimization of
the support system of an underground powerhouse cavern consid-
ering rock mass variability. Environ Earth Sci 77(18):645

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
Binder K, Heermann DW (2010) Monte Carlo simulation in statistical
physics. Springer, Heidelberg
Cai M (2011) Rock mass characterization and rock property variability
considerations for tunnel and cavern design. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 44(4):379–399
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Maejima T, Morioka H, Minami M
(2004) Generalized crack initiation and crack damage stress
thresholds of brittle rock masses near underground excavations.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(5):833–847
Chehade FH, Shahrour I (2008) Numerical analysis of the interaction
between twin-tunnels: influence of the relative position and con-
struction procedure. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(2):210–214
Chen D, Xu D, Ren G, Jiang Q, Liu G, Wan L, Li N (2019) Simula-
tion of cross-correlated non-Gaussian random fields for layered
rock mass mechanical parameters. Comput Geotech 112:104–119
Ching J, Hu YG, Yang ZY, Shiau JQ, Chen JC, Li YS (2011) Relia-
bility-based design for allowable bearing capacity of footings on
rock masses by considering angle of distortion. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 48(5):728–740
Fenton GA (1999) Estimation for stochastic soil models. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 125(6):470–485
Fenton GA, Griffiths DV (2008) Risk assessment in geotechnical engi-
neering. Wiley
Fortsakis P, Litsas D, Kavvadas M, Trezos K (2011) Reliability analy-
sis of tunnel final lining. Geotech Safe Risk: ISGSR;409–418
Funatsu T, Hoshino T, Sawae H, Shimizu N (2008) Numerical analy-
sis to better understand the mechanism of the effects of ground
supports and reinforcements on the stability of tunnels using
the distinct element method. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
23(5):561–573
Geodata (2016) Detailed design of Alborz main tunnel. Retrieved from
Tehran-Shomal freeway project. Turin
Haldar S, Babu GS (2008) Effect of soil spatial variability on the
response of laterally loaded pile in undrained clay. Comp Geo-
tech 35(4):537–547
Han W, Jiang Y, Li N, Koga D, Sakaguchi O, Chen H (2021) Safety
evaluation and failure behavior of degraded tunnel structure with
compound diseases of voids and lining defects. Arab J Geosci
14(15):1–10
Heidarzadeh S, Saeidi A, Rouleau A (2020) Use of probabilistic
numerical modeling to evaluate the effect of geomechanical
parameter variability on the probability of open-stope failure: a
case study of the Niobec Mine, Quebec (Canada). Rock Mech
Rock Eng 53(3):1411–1431
Hoek E (1998) Reliability of Hoek-Brown estimates of rock mass
properties and their impact on design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
35(1):63–68
Hsu SC, Nelson PP (2006) Material spatial variability and slope
stability for weak rock masses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
132(2):183–193
Idris MA, Nordlund E (2019) Probabilistic-based stope design method-
ology for complex ore body with rock mass property variability.
J Min Sci 55:743–750
Idris MA, Saiang D, Nordlund E (2011) Numerical analyses of the
effects of rock mass property variability on open stope stabil-
ity. In: 45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium:
American Rock Mechanics Association. OnePetro. San Francisco,
California
Idris MA, Saiang D, Nordlund E (2012) Consideration of the rock
mass property variability in numerical modeling of open stope
stability. In: Bergmekanikdag: Stiftelsen bergteknisk forskning-
Befo, Stockholm, Sweden, 111–123
Idris MA, Nordlund E, Saiang D (2016) Comparison of different proba-
bilistic methods for analyzing stability of underground rock exca-
vations. Electron J Geotech Eng 21(21):6555–6585
Page 17 of 18 1490
Itasca (2015) FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Version
7.0. Minneapolis, Minnesota
Jiale H, Xiaohong L (2021) Reliability analysis considering spatial
variability by combining spectral representation method and sup-
port vector machine. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 25(6):1136–1157
Jia P, Tang CA (2008) Numerical study on failure mechanism of tunnel
in jointed rock mass. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(5):500–507
Kavvadas MJ (2003) Monitoring and modeling ground deformations
during tunnelling. In: Proceedings of the 11th FIG Symposium
on Deformation Measurements. Santorini, Greece, pp 371–390
Kim H, Major G (1978) Application of Monte Carlo techniques to
slope stability analysis. In: the 19th US Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium: American Rock Mechanics Association. OnePetro. State-
line, Nevada
Kroetz HM, Do NA, Dias D, Beck AT (2018) Reliability of tunnel lin-
ing design using the hyperstatic reaction method. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 77:59–67
Langford JC, Diederichs M (2013) Reliability based approach to tunnel
lining design using a modified point estimate method. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 60:263–276
Lü Q, Xiao Z, Zheng J, Shang Y (2018) Probabilistic assessment of
tunnel convergence considering spatial variability in rock mass
properties using interpolated autocorrelation and response surface
method. Geosci Front 9(6):1619–1629
Maazallahi V, Majdi A (2020) Numerical appraisal of rock mass ani-
sotropy effect on elastic deformations of a circular tunnel. Arab
J Geosci 13(13):1–17
Mazraehli M, Zare S (2020) An application of uncertainty analysis to
rock mass properties characterization at porphyry copper mines.
Bul Eng Geolog Environ 79(7):3721–3739
Napa-García GF, Beck AT, Celestino TB (2017) Reliability analyses
of underground openings with the point estimate method. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 64:154–163
Oreste P (2005) A probabilistic design approach for tunnel supports.
Comput Geotech 32(7):520–534
Pandit B, Babu GS (2021) Probabilistic stability assessment of tunnel-
support system considering spatial variability in weak rock mass.
Comp Geotech 137:104242
Pandit B, Tiwari G, Latha GM, Sivakumar Babu GL (2018) Stability
analysis of a large gold mine open-pit slope using advanced proba-
bilistic method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(7):2153–2174
Panet M (1995) Le calcul des tunnels par la méthode convergence-
confinement. Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses,
Paris
Pelizza S, Oreste P, Peila D, Oggeri C (2000) Stability analysis of a
large cavern in Italy for quarrying exploitation of a pink marble.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 15(4):421–435
Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH (1999) Characterization of geotechnical vari-
ability. Can Geotech J 36(4):612–624
Riedmüller G, Schubert W (1999) Rock mass modeling in tunnelling
versus rock mass classification using rating methods. In: Vail
Rocks 1999, The 37th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. One-
Petro. Vail, Colorado, 601–605
Sari M (2009) The stochastic assessment of strength and deformability
characteristics for a pyroclastic rock mass. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 46:613–626
Sari M, Karpuz C (2006) Rock variability and establishing confining
pressure levels for triaxial tests on rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 43:328–335
Seguini M, Nedjar D (2016) Modeling of soil-structure interaction
behaviour: geometric nonlinearity of buried structures combined
to spatial variability. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 10(2):134–141
Song KI, Cho GC, Lee SW (2011) Effects of spatially variable
weathered rock properties on tunnel behavior. Prob Eng Mech
26(3):413–426
13
1490 Page 18 of 18
Srivastava A (2012) Spatial variability modeling of geotechnical
parameters and stability of highly weathered rock slope. Indian
Geotech J 42(3):179–185
Taghizadeh H, Zare S, Mazraehli M (2020) Analysis of rock load for
tunnel lining design. Geotech Geolog Eng 38(3):2989–3005
Timoshenko SP (1976) Strength of materials, 3rd edn. Krieger Publish-
ing Company, Florida
Tiwari G, Pandit B, Gali ML, Babu GS (2017) Probabilistic analysis
of tunnels considering uncertainty in peak and post-peak strength
parameters. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 70:375–387
Tiwari G, Pandit B, Gali ML, Babu GS (2018) Analysis of tunnel sup-
port requirements using deterministic and probabilistic approaches
in average quality rock mass. Int J Geomech 18(4):1–20
Vanmarcke EH (1977) Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. J Geo-
tech Eng Div 103(11):1227–1246
Vanmarcke E (1983) Random fields.  The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 1490
Xing Y, Kulatilake PH, Sandbak LA (2018) Effect of rock mass and
discontinuity mechanical properties and delayed rock supporting
on tunnel stability in an underground mine. Eng Geolog 238:62–75
Yu X, Cheng J, Cao C, Li E, Feng J (2019) Probabilistic analysis of
tunnel liner performance using random field theory. Adv Civ Eng
2019
Zhang W, Han L, Gu X, Wang L, Chen F, Liu H (2022) Tunneling and
deep excavations in spatially variable soil and rock masses: a short
review. Undergr Space 7(3):380–407
Zhu W, Li S, Li S, Chen W, Lee C (2003) Systematic numerical simu-
lation of rock tunnel stability considering different rock condi-
tions and construction effects. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
18(5):531–536
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.