World Tunnel Congress 2008 - Underground Facilities for Better Environment and Safety - India

The influence of in situ stress state on tunnel design

Antiga Andrea & Coppola Pietro
Soil S.r.l., Milano, Italy

SYNOPSIS: The knowledge of in situ stress has to be considered one of the key input parameter in tunnel
design. Several approaches have been developed to analyze the behaviour of a rock mass around a tunnel
excavation and to estimate the support pressure required to control the extent of the plastic zone and the
resulting tunnel convergence. The development of numerical analysis has provided engineers with an
extremely powerful analysis tool; it allows simulating complex in situ conditions and an accurate
representation of the soil-structure interactions. Analyses carried out by mean of numerical models reveal that
rock behaviour is influenced in a decisive way by the state of in situ stress, in particular the horizontal to
vertical stress ratio. Since stresses in rock masses are a fundamental concern in the design of underground
excavations, it is very important to measure the stress components and to acquire such information before the
design. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of the state of in situ stress on tunnel design.
It illustrates and sums up the results of a great number of numerical analyses carried out varying the
horizontal to vertical stress ratio k and considering different geomechanical conditions.

1.

INTRODUCTION

This common approach ignores that in the

majority of stress states measured throughout the
world the horizontal component of the stress field
has greater magnitude than the vertical component
and that the stability of the underground structures
is often compromised by mechanisms, for instance
bending stress, that are influenced by the state of in
situ stress, in particular the horizontal to vertical
stress ratio, in a way much greater than the rock
strength parameters. The purpose of this paper is to
investigate, by means of numerical analyses
performed using the finite difference method and
the FLAC 2D code, the influence of the state of in
situ stress on tunnel design; in particular it analyzes
the influence of in situ state of stress on tunnel
convergences, on shape and extension of the failure
zone and on choice of the most appropriate support.
At the start, it is presented an overview of the
possible way to predict the magnitudes of the
principal stresses. Later on, we illustrate and sum up
the results of a great number of numerical analyses
carried out varying the horizontal to vertical stress
ratio k and considering different geomechanical
situations.

Stresses in the subsurface are commonly divided

into primary and secondary; the primary stress, or in
situ stress, is the cumulative product of events in its
geological history, while the secondary rock stress
is man made by e.g. excavations. Therefore, rock or
soil, in natural state, is an uncommon engineering
material because it is preload, i.e. there is a preexisting state of stress in the rock; these loading
forces are of unknown magnitude and orientation.
The tunnel designer is often inclined to ignore
specification and determination of the state of
stress.
It is generally considered that the behaviour of
an underground structure is above all influenced by
the relationship between the rock strength and the
weight of the overburden; fairly often the ratio of
the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass
to the weight of the overlying strata, i.e. *z where
is the unit weight of the overlying material and z
is the depth below surface, is the only parameter
considered in tunnel design. The state of stress is
usually represented with vertical stress component
valued equal to the horizontal component
(hydrostatic condition), identified with (*z).
The same goes for the support pressure
required to control the convergences and the extent
of the plastic zone.

2.

IN SITU STRESS STATE

The tunnel engineer has always to consider that the

rock medium is subject to initial stress prior to

193

excavation; so the final, i.e. post excavation, state of

stress in any underground structure is the resultant
of the initial state of stress and of the stresses
induced by excavation. Since induced stresses are
directly related to the initial stresses, it is clear that
it is a necessary precursor to any design analysis.
Measuring the in situ stress is demanding and timeconsuming but, since stresses in rock masses are a
fundamental concern, it is very important to
measure the pre-existing stress components and to
acquire such information before the design.

Measurements made of the in situ stress, in

various mining and civil engineering sites around
the world, confirm that the estimate (1) of the
vertical stress component is basically correct
although there is a significant amount of cases
where the predicted component is different to the
measured component; there are cases at depth less
than 500m where the measured value is about 45
times the predicted value.
The horizontal stress is much more difficult to
estimate. The main sources for horizontal forces are
continental plate tectonics and vertical movements
of less dense areas of bedrock. It is globally
dominant near the surface.
Usually, the ratio of the average horizontal
stress to the vertical stress is denoted by the letter
k:

2.1 Stress condition

The in situ stress state is generally described by the
orientations and the magnitudes of the three
principal stresses assuming an approximation that
they are one vertical component and two horizontal
components. Following this assumption concerning
orientations, it becomes possible to predict the
magnitudes of these principal stresses through the
use of elasticity theory.
The in situ principal stresses are in general
different and are connected to the geological
history. Changes in the state of stress in a rock mass
may be related to temperature changes and thermal
stress, and chemical and physicochemical processes
such as leaching, precipitation and re-crystallisation
of constituent minerals. Mechanical processes such
as fracture generation slip on fracture surfaces and
viscoplastic flow throughout the medium can be
expected to produce both complex and
heterogeneous states of stress.
The vertical stress is mostly based on the depth
and density of rock; we might expect that the
vertical component increases in magnitude as the
depth below the ground surface increases due to the
weight of the overburden; so this stress is estimated
from this relationship:

= z

= k v

(2)

The measurements made of the horizontal in

situ stress allow determining two formulae as
envelopes for all data (Hoek [3]):
100

1500

z + 0.3 < k < z + 0.5

(3)

Sheorey [6] defined an equation that can be

used to estimate the value of k:
1

k = 0.25 + 7 E h 0.001 +
z

(4)

where: z (m) is the depth, Eh (GPa) is the average

deformation modulus measured in a horizontal
direction.
A plot of equation (4), overlapped to the
measured values and fit curves (3) is given in figure
1 for a range of deformation moduli. It is observed a
good congruence between the curves. Sheorey
equation (4) is therefore considered to provide a
reasonable basis for estimating the value of k.
Hudson [4] gives a good explanation of the
different reasons that cause high horizontal stress
and underline it is caused by factors as erosion,
tectonics, rock anisotropy, discontinuities; in case of
horizontal stress component derived only from
gravity we have 0 < k < 1.
Observing the data, it is manifestly clear that it
is the rule rather than the exception that the
horizontal stress component is larger than the

(1)

where: is the unit weight of the overlying material,

z is the depth below surface.
In areas of uniform bedrock structure, for
example, sedimentary basins, the vertical force at a
known depth is dependent on the weight of
overlying rock according to hydrostatic pressure. In
areas of more complex geology, for example
crystalline, hard rock, the vertical stress does not
follow this rule with such accuracy.

194

vertical stress component, in particular at depths

typical of civil engineering.
We can at last observe that, the previous
equations and the existing measurements provide a
good predictive estimation of the in situ stresses,
particularly for the vertical component; however
they are not reliable to give an adequate estimation
in a specific location (Figure 1).
The previous comments also point out that the
in situ state of stress in a rock mass is not amenable
to calculation by any known method and must be
determined experimentally.

with a small number of random stress

measurements. The solution is to develop a sitespecific strategy to sample the stress tensor at a
number of points in the mass, taking account of the
rock structure. It may then be necessary to average
the results obtained, in away consistent with the
distribution of measurements, to obtain a site
representative value.
Moreover, stress measurements faces a basic
obstacle in that stress is not a physical phenomenon
that can be measured directly but it is a concept
defined within the framework of continuum
mechanics. It is possible to determine the mean
stress provided a relationship between the mean
stress and a measurable effect that this stress
produces over that region (Faihrust [2]):
(5)
=
where is an operator that translates the measured
quantity into the stress.
The simplest example of operator is the elastic
modulus E of an isotropic elastic specimen loaded
in uniaxial compression generating the measured
uniaxial strain . All stress determination techniques
require a relation of the equation (5) and the validity
of the stress determination depends of the degree of
reliability of this relation.

2.2 Systems of stress estimate

The direct experimentally determination of in situ
stress presents some difficulty. In particular, the
spatial variability of the stress tensor suggests that
any single experimental determination may bear
little relation to volume averages of the tensor
components.
In the design of an underground structure, it is
the average state of stress in the zone of influence of
the structure which exerts a primary control on the
rock behaviour and on the tunnel stability. A
satisfactory determination of a representative
solution of the in situ state of stress is not possible

Eh(GPa)
10
25
50
75
100

Figure 1. Vertical stress and ratio horizontal to vertical stress k (after Hoek 1998)

195

The stress state in a rock, or soil, mass is

described by six parameters; it is generally
presented in terms of the magnitude and orientation
of the principal stresses (Figure 2). The stress state
is completely described by six parameters and so
any system utilized for estimating the in situ stress
state must involve a minimum of six independent
measurements.
It is possible to distinguish between direct
and indirect methods of estimating the in situ
stresses.
The ISRM recommends four direct methods
[5]: (1) flat jack test, (2) hydraulic fracturing test,
(3) USBM overcoring torpedo and (4) CSIRO
overcoring gauge.
In Figure 3 the stress tensor obtainable by a
single application of each of the cited ISRM direct
methods is represented.
Among the indirect methods we mention:
borehole breakouts-damage to a borehole indicating
principal stress orientations, acoustic emission-the
rock emits low-intensity noise when it is stressed,
observations of discontinuity states, e.g. open
discontinuities are not transmitting stress across the
gap.
An accurate description of methods used to
determine the in situ stress is reported in Hudson
[4].
3.

invariable rock mechanics characteristics and

varying overburden so to investigate different
geomechanical behaviour according to Hoeks
squeeze theory. Hoek [7] published details of an
analysis showed that the ratio of the uniaxial
compressive strength cm of the rock mass to the
in situ stress P0 can be used as an indicator of
potential tunnel squeezing problems. One of the
most interesting aspects of this approach is that
potential tunnel squeezing problems are predicted in
terms of dimensionless parameters (the ratio of the
uniaxial compressive strength cm of the rock
mass to the in situ stress P0 and the ratio of
convergence to the tunnel radius i.e. strain ).
Figure 4 shows Hoek categories and the relationship
between the strain and the potential tunnel
squeezing problems associated with tunnelling
through squeezing rock.
In order to analyze the influence of the in situ
stress on the analyses results, we have made
reference to a "very poor quality rock mass", as
defined by Hoek [3], varying the value of the tunnel
depth so to cover, with the numerical analyses, the
entire range of deformations and conditions of
squeeze proposed by Hoek (Figure 5). After all, the
rock mass chosen for discussion is characterized by
the parameters summarized in Table 1.
We observe that the significant depths are:
140 m (case A), 223 m (case B), 315 m (case C) and
443 m (case D) (Figure 6).
Online general, we think that the brought back
analyses and the results obtained can be extended
also to soil or rock mass with mechanics
characteristic different from those indicated,
conserving the assumption of perfectly plastic
behaviour, having like reference the value of
squeeze .

NUMERICAL ANALYSES:
GEOMECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION

In order to estimate the influence of the state of

stress on convergences, shape and extension of the
failure zone and actions eccentricity a great number
of numerical analyses have been carried out. The
numerical analyses have been carried out using

0 0
0 0
0 0
1

Figure 2.

196

1.

Flatjack

Symm.

xx

xy

yy

xz

yz

zz

3.
xy

yy

xz

yz

zz

Hydraulic fracturing

0 0
0
Symm.

One normal stress

component
determined, say
parallel to x-axsis

USBM overcoring torpedo

Symm.

xx

2.

3.

Three components in 2-D

determined from three
measurements of borehole
diameter change.

CSIRO overcoring gauge

Symm.

xx

Principal stresses assumed

parallel to axes i.e. plane of the
fracture, two determined, say 1
and 3, one estimated, say 2.

xy

yy

xz

yz

zz

All six components

determined from six (or
more) measurements of
strain at one time.

Figure 3. (after Hudson1997)

Figure 4. Hoek categories of tunnel squeezing (after Hoek 2000)

Table 1. Parameters of the rock mass chosen for discussion
Intact rock strength ci

20 MPa

Poissons ratio

0.3

Hoek-Brown constant mi

Dilation angle

Geological Strength Index GSI

30

Friction angle

24

Rock mass compressive strength cm

1.7 MPa

Cohesive strength c

0.55MPa

Deformation modulus Em

1400 MPa

197

12.00
CASE D
H= 445 m
10.00

= 10%

8.00
STRAIN (%)

D
CASE C
H= 315 m

6.00
= 5%

4.00
= 2.5%

2.00

CASE B
H= 223 m

CASE A
H= 140 m

= 1%

0.00
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

DEPTH (m)

Figure 5. Tunnel depths chosen for discussion

4.

INFLUENCE OF IN SITU STRESS ON

CONVERGENCE AND FAILURE ZONE

differences are greater when geomechanical

conditions become worse. In these cases not
hydrostatic conditions methods can be useful
only to make qualitative parametric studies and
it will be necessary to use numerical models
also in the preliminary stages of design, taking
into account real tunnel geometry and rock
mass conditions.

In a previous paper [1] Antiga, Chiorboli &

Coppola analysed, for a circular tunnel, the
influence of a not hydrostatic state of stress on
convergence and on the shape and extension of the
failure zone. The results of the studied cases show
that:

In Table 2 the values of convergence to the

equilibrium (i.e. p=0) for all the analyzed cases are
brought back; the convergence is normalised to the
value find by hydrostatic conditions (i.e. ratio of
not hydrostatic solutions convergence to
hydrostatic conditions convergence is represented).
In Figure 6 a prudent corrective factor
(CFconvergence), for circular shape cross section, is
fixed to calculate the correct convergence value
from hydrostatic solutions value.

(a) for horizontal to vertical stress ratio k 1 the

hydrostatic conditions provide valid results.
Some corrective coefficients were defined
for convergence (CFconvergence) and failure
zone dimensions (CFfailure zone), useful to
evaluate the effects of k 1 starting from
results obtained by hydrostatic conditions.
(b) for horizontal to vertical stress ratio k 1.5 the
results obtained with hydrostatic solutions
solution differ in a substantial way from those
obtained from the not hydrostatic solutions; the

Table 2. Ratio of numerical convergence to analytic convergence

Table of differences of displacements
Tunnel
Depth (m)

k =0.5

k =0.75

k =1

k =1.5

k =2

A - 140
B - 223
C - 315
D - 445

0,81
0,78
0,78
0,81

0,85
0,84
0,83
0,83

1
1
1
1

2,09
2,26
2,14
1,94

3,94
4,06
3,69

average

0,79

0,84

2,11

3,90

= MAX / THEORETICAL

198

Figure 6. Corrective factor of convergence - (CFconvergence)

The Table 3 reassumes the results regarding

the shape and the extension of the failure zone for
circular shape cross sections. The dimensions of the
failure zone are normalised to the failure zone
radius of the hydrostatic conditions solutions.
It is observed, as already seen for
convergences, that the results obtained with the
hydrostatic conditions solution are valid until the
coefficient k reach a limit value. In particular, up to
k=1.5 it is possible to use for the definition of the
shape and of the extension of failure zone the
results of the hydrostatic conditions formulation
adopting the corrective coefficients defined in table
3. For k > 1.5 the failure zone shape becomes
strongly irregular and it is not possible to define a
corrective coefficient.
5.

n.3 (case A, B, C and D). The numerical study is

based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion which
gives a very simple solution for the progressive
failure of the rock mass surrounding the tunnel;
moreover the FLAC code is built to work directly
with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and generates
a Hoek-Brown failure surface by manipulating the
Mohr-Coulomb model. The analyses have been
performed varying the tunnel depth (z) and the ratio
of the average horizontal stress to the vertical
stress k.
In Table 4 the maximum eccentricity (e=M/N)
values, determined for various lining thickness (25,
50, 75, 100) cm are resumed. The value e in each
table is the medium eccentricity value.
We observe that, for a definite thickness and k,
the eccentricity maximum value for internal actions
is basically a constant, also varying the
geomechanical conditions. Moreover, the value of
the eccentricity is almost the same for values of k
equidistant from k=1, i.e. for internal actions there
are not appreciable differences inverting horizontal
with vertical stress. From now on eccentricity is the
medium eccentricity value e.
In Figure 7a the trend of e value is
represented depending on k (horizontal to vertical
stress ratio) for each of the analyzed thickness. We
observe that the eccentricity value increases in a
considerable way increasing lining thickness
(eccentricity e is plotted in logarithmic scale).
In Figure 7b the trend of e* value is
represented depending on k for the four analyzed
lining thickness (e* is the value of e normalised
to lining thickness, i.e. ratio of eccentricity to lining
thickness. e* = e / t in percentage).

INFLUENCE OF IN SITU STATE OF

STRESS ON SUPPORT ACTIONS

In order to estimate the influence of in situ stress

state on eccentricity of support actions, n. 80 new
numerical analyses have been carried out. We have
considered a circular tunnel section with excavation
area of 100 square metres (R=5.64 m), we have
varied horizontal to vertical stress ratio k (0.50,
0,75, 1.00, 1,50 and 2.00) and tunnel lining
thickness (0.25 m, 0.50 m, 0.75 m and 1.00 m).
The numerical analyses have been developed
using the finite difference element codes Flac 2D
(Itasca). The ground around the tunnel has been
assumed to behave according to a perfectly plastic,
homogeneous and isotropic medium. Several
different geomechanical conditions have been
considered
according
to
hypothesis
of
geomechanical characterization defined in chapter

199

Table 3. Corrective coefficients for failure zone - (CFfailure zone)

B
C
D

Rpmax

Rpmin

Rpmax

K0 = 1

Rpmin

Rp

Rpmin

0.45

0.70

Rpmax

1.11

1.04

Rpmin

0.42

0.66

Rpmax

1.11

1.04

Rpmin

0.44

0.67

Rpmax

1.16

1.07

Rpmin

0.44

0.65

Rpmax

1.17

1.08

K0 = 1.5

1.00
1.00
1.00

K0 = 2

Rpmax

K0 = 0.75

Rpmin

K0 = 0.5

Rp= RpK1
RpK=1

Rpmin

ax
m
Rp

0.79

1.06

1.47

3.79

0.85

1.11

1.47

4.97

0.87

1.08

1.57

6.27

0.86

1.00

1.50

Table 4. Eccentricity (e=M/N) values

Tunnel Depth (m)

A - 140
B - 223
C - 315
D - 445

k =0.5
0,004
0,004
0,003
0,003

e (m)

0,004

Tunnel Depth (m)

A - 140
B - 223
C - 315
D - 445
e (m)

Eccentricity of internal actions e = M/N

for a liner of thickness 0.25 m
k =0.75
k =1
k =1.5
k =2
0,001
0
0,002
0,003
0,001
0
0,002
0,003
0,002
0
0,002
0,004
0,002
0
0,002
0,004
0,002

0,002

0,023

0,035

k =0.5
0,025
0,025
0,025
0,020

e (m)

0,024

0,004

Eccentricity of internal actions e = M/N

for a liner of thickness 0.75 m
k =0.5
k =0.75
k =1
k =1.5
k =2
0,068
0,023
0
0,035
0,067
0,067
0,023
0
0,035
0,064
0,067
0,023
0
0,035
0,061
0,064
0,023
0
0,035
0,060
0,067

Tunnel Depth (m)

A - 140
B - 223
C - 315
D - 445

Tunnel Depth (m)

A - 140
B - 223
C - 315
D - 445
e (m)

0,063

1,5

0,142

0,012

0,049

0,072

1,5

100,000

0.25 m (t/R=0.04)

0.25 m (t/R=0.04)
10,000

0.50 m (t/R=0.09)

0.50 m(t/R=0.09)
0.75 m (t/R=0.13)

0.75 m (t/R=0.13)

1.00 m (t/R=0.18)

1.00 m (t/R=0.18)

1,000

e* (%)

e (m)

0,010

0,021

Eccentricity of internal actions e = M/N

for a liner of thickness 1.00 m
k =0.5
k =0.75
k =1
k =1.5
k =2
0,142
0,049
0
0,072
0,142
0,142
0,049
0
0,072
0,142
0,142
0,049
0
0,072
0,142
0,142
0,049
0
0,072
0,142

0,5

1,000

0,100

0,008

0,142

Percentual eccentricity e* of internal actions (e/thickness)

Eccentricity of internal actions e=M/N

0,5

Eccentricity of internal actions e = M/N

for a liner of thickness 0.50 m
k =0.75
k =1
k =1.5
k =2
0,008
0
0,012
0,025
0,008
0
0,012
0,020
0,008
0
0,012
0,020
0,008
0
0,012
0,020

0,100

0,010

0,001
0,001

0,000

0,000

K (horizontal to vertical stress ratio)

K (horizontal to vertical stress ratio)

b
Figure 7. Medium eccentricity value e

200

In Table 5 the value of e* are summarized. It

should be noted that, if for the same k we normalize
the value of e* to the value of e* obtained for
t = 0.25m, we obtain a progression of values on
average equal to 1, 3, 6, 9; this observation
highlights that the influence of not hydrostatic state
of stress is higher when the lining thickness
increases and the internal actions eccentricity
increase more than proportionally compared to
basic value t of lining thickness.
In Figure 8 the minimum and the maximum
stresses for analyzed cases are summarized; the
stresses are normalised to hydrostatic conditions
stress, i.e. ratio of (k 1) for to hydrostatic
conditions stress (k = 1).
Stress acting in a general situation (k 1)
(unitary length):
1, 2 =

N
(1 6 e* )
t

stress). Further developing analyses, that will be

theme of a future paper, reveal that for not-circular
cross section these effects turn much more critical
and marked choking of the resistant lining cross
section happens.
6.

In case the real in situ stress state it is not defined

properly and rough analyses in hydrostatic
conditions are carried out, the obtained results
diverge from the real ones as a function of the value
of the horizontal to vertical stress ratio k.
The analyses carried out, for circular tunnel,
enable to draw some general conclusions useful to
weigh the reliability of the design of an
underground structure.

(6)

(1) Convergence of an unlined tunnel

Stress acting in hydrostatic condition (k = 1)

(unitary length):

K =1 =

N
t

(1a) for k < 1.5 the hydrostatic conditions

provide valid results; we observe values of
convergence that differ from real values at the
most of 2030 %; it is possible to correct the
hydrostatic convergence values by mean of
corrective factors (CFconvergence) defined
at chapter n.4;

(1b) for horizontal to vertical stress ratio k

1.5 the results obtained with hydrostatic
solution differ in a substantial way from those
obtained from the not hydrostatic solutions; it
is not possible to define corrective factors; the
results can be useful only to make qualitative
studies.

(7)

Stress acting in a general situation (k 1)

normalised to stress acting in hydrostatic conditions
(k = 1) (unitary length):

*1, 2 = (1 6 e* )

CONCLUSIONS

(8)

For analyzed situations, circular tunnel and

horizontal to vertical stress ratio (0.5 k 2.0), the
lining cross-section remains entirely in compression
(i.e. there is no traction stresses). For not
hydrostatic conditions, we observe that increasing
lining thickness the maximum normalised stresses
rises while the minimum normalised stresses
decreases; so the growth of lining thickness
handicaps the behaviour of the resistant lining cross
section that resists in a heavily not homogeneous
way (maximum stress much greater than minimum
stress). This effect is greater for values of k farther
from k=1 (for k=1 maximum stress equal minimum

(2) Shape and extension of the failure zone of an

unlined tunnel
-

(2a) up to k=1.5 it is possible to use for the

definition of the shape and of the extension of
failure zone the results of the hydrostatic
conditions formulation adopting the corrective
coefficients defined in Table 3;

Table 5
t (m)
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

k=0.5
1.4
4.75
8.867
14.2

e* = (e/t)
k=0.75
0.6
1.6
3.067
4.9

k=1
0
0
0
0

k=1.5
0.8
2.4
4.667
7.2

k=2
1.4
4.25
8.4
14.2

t (m)
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

201

k=0.5
1
3
6
10

e*(t)/e*(t=0.25)
k=0.75
k=1
1
0
3
0
5
0
8
0

k=1.5
1
3
6
9

k=2
1
3
6
10

Thickness=0.50m (t/R=0.09)
*=(16e*)

Thickness=0.25m (t/R=0.04)
*=(16e*)
0,5

1,5

0,5

1,8

1,8

1,6

1,6

1,5

1
2

1,4

1,4

1,2

1,2

1
0,8

0,8

0,6

0,6

0,4

0,4
0,2

0,2
0

K (horizontal to vertical stress ratio)

K (horizontal to vertical stress ratio)

Thickness=1.00m (t/R=0.18)
*=(16e*)

Thickness=0.75m (t/R=0.13)
*=(16e*)
0,5

1,5

0,5

1,8

1,8

1,5

1
1,6

1,6
2

1,4

1,4

1,2

1,2

1
0,8

0,8

0,6

0,6
0,4

0,4
0,2

0,2
0

K (horizontal to vertical stress ratio)

K (horizontal to vertical stress ratio)

Figure 8. Medium eccentricity value e

REFERENCES

(2b) for k > 1.5 the failure zone shape becomes

strongly irregular and it is not possible to
define a corrective coefficient.
(3) Eccentricity of support actions
the influence on action eccentricity of not
hydrostatic state of stress is higher when the
lining thickness increases;
for all analysed cases (0.5 k 2.0), even if the
eccentricity increases for higher k, the crosssection remains completely in compression
stress;
for k 1 we observe an increasing in lining
stresses that became more and more significant
for higher thickness and for value of k more
different from k=1.
All the cited influences, of the k value on
structural and geomechanical behaviour of a tunnel,
are evaluated for a circular cross section.
It is evident that, the effects of a not
hydrostatic state of stress will be greater for a not
circular cross section; in that case an erroneous
evaluation of the in situ state of stress can easily
lead to an inadequate design.
This will be subject of further studies.

202

1.

Antiga A., Chiorboli M., Coppola P. - Convergenceconfinement method: limit of application of the
closed form solutions compared with numerical
models. ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on
Computational Methods in Tunnelling (EURO:TUN
2007). Vienna, 2007.

2.

Fairhurst C: Stress estimation in rock: a brief history

and review. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 957-973. Elsevier
Ltd.

3.

Hoek E, Brown ET: Underground Excavations in

Rock. Champan & Hall: London, 1980.

4.

Hudson J A: Engineering Rock Mechanics -Elsevier

Science Ltd 1997.

5.

ISRM: Suggested Methods for Rock

Estimation Part 1, 2, 3, 4; October 2003.

6.

Sheorey, P.R.: A theory for in situ stresses in

isotropic and transversely isotropic rock. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 311:23-34,
1994.

7.

Hoek E, Marinos P: Predicting tunnel squeezing

problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses.
Tunnels and Tunnelling International Part 1
November 2000, Part 2 - December 2000.

Stress

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF THE AUTHORS

he is Technical Director. At present, he is working at the

design of some important geotechnical work and tunnels,
included a stretch of a subway line in Milan.

Andrea Antiga obtained the Doctorate

in Civil Engineering at the University
of Padua (Italy) in 1989.

Pietro Coppola graduated in Civil

Engineering in 2002 at the State
University of Bologna ( Italy ).

From 1991 he has been involved in

some of the most important tunnel
project in Italy.

He specialized in seismic engineering

and in numerical modelling of FEM
and FDM structures and soil.

He began to work at Rocksoil S.p.A.

(Milan - Italy) specializing in tunnelling and underground
constructions.

He mainly deals with civil engineering

design, geotechnical and underground works.

Since 2002 he has been worked at Soil S.r.l. (Milan

Italy), specializing in geotechnic and tunnelling, of which

He has been collaborating with Soil s.r.l. (Milan-Italy)

since 2003.

203