The document discusses using a 2D numerical model to simulate 3D tunneling effects by varying the number of deconfinement phases. It compares models with 5 phases versus 11 phases of tunnel excavation and support installation. The 11-phase model achieved greater maximum deformations and developed bending moments in the tunnel lining that were approximately 20% less. However, the document notes that the number of modeling phases impacts the results and that more comprehensive modeling and analysis is still needed to establish guidelines for 2D tunneling simulations.
The document discusses using a 2D numerical model to simulate 3D tunneling effects by varying the number of deconfinement phases. It compares models with 5 phases versus 11 phases of tunnel excavation and support installation. The 11-phase model achieved greater maximum deformations and developed bending moments in the tunnel lining that were approximately 20% less. However, the document notes that the number of modeling phases impacts the results and that more comprehensive modeling and analysis is still needed to establish guidelines for 2D tunneling simulations.
The document discusses using a 2D numerical model to simulate 3D tunneling effects by varying the number of deconfinement phases. It compares models with 5 phases versus 11 phases of tunnel excavation and support installation. The 11-phase model achieved greater maximum deformations and developed bending moments in the tunnel lining that were approximately 20% less. However, the document notes that the number of modeling phases impacts the results and that more comprehensive modeling and analysis is still needed to establish guidelines for 2D tunneling simulations.
The document discusses using a 2D numerical model to simulate 3D tunneling effects by varying the number of deconfinement phases. It compares models with 5 phases versus 11 phases of tunnel excavation and support installation. The 11-phase model achieved greater maximum deformations and developed bending moments in the tunnel lining that were approximately 20% less. However, the document notes that the number of modeling phases impacts the results and that more comprehensive modeling and analysis is still needed to establish guidelines for 2D tunneling simulations.
3D Tunnelling Simulation in 2D using deconfinement approach -
Impact of number of stages on the tunnel support load
Marzieh Rajabi Geotechnical Engineer Introduction
Deconfinement or β-method is recommended in PLAXIS 2D user manual as an option to simulate the soil or rock relaxation during the phase between when the face materials have been excavated and the support system installed (3D arching effect). This technique aims to take the 3D nature of the tunnel wall deformation in vicinity of the face into account in the support system load development. As a continuation to the previous presentation of the 2D numerical modelling of the tunnels (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marzieh-rajabi-842b6a36_3d-tunnelling-simulation-in-2d-activity- 6824664571807182848-LWIT), this presentation discusses the impact of number of phases on the support system load development using PLAXIS 2D. Model geometry and rock mass conditions:
The example presented in PLAXIS 2D “Tutorial Manual – Excavation of an NATM tunnel [GSE], (16 March, 2021)” was used as case study
The tunnel excavation and lining
installation have been simulated as follows:
1. 5 phases (as mentioned in the
manual). 2. 11 phases (to check the impact number of phases) 5 Phases model
1. Initial 2. 60% deconfinement for the heading, no support. 3. 100% deconfinement for the heading and lining installation in the heading. 4. 60% deconfinement for the lower section, no support in lower section. 5. 100% deconfinement for the lower section, full support installation. 5 Phases model 11 Phases model
1. Initial 2. 20% deconfinement for the heading, no support. 7. 20% deconfinement for the lower section, no support in lower section. 3. 40% deconfinement for the heading, no support. 8. 40% deconfinement for the lower section, no support in lower section. 4. 60% deconfinement for the heading, no support. 9. 60% deconfinement for the lower section, no support in lower section. 10. 80% deconfinement for the lower section, no support in lower section. 5. 80% deconfinement for the heading, no support. 11. 100% deconfinement for the lower section, full support installation. 6. 100% deconfinement for the heading and lining installation in the heading. 11 Phases model Discussion and Conclusion
Followings are the results for this simple and preliminary assessment:
1. With the higher number of modelling stages ( 11 stages), the greater maximum deformation is achieved.
2. Bending moment developed in the lining is approximately 20% less for the model with more stages.
3. As discussed in the previous presentation, impact of distance between the ground support and the tunnel face on the tunnel convergence and support system load is a 3D problem. As discussed by Vlachopoulos and Diedrichs (2014), the number of stages used in 2D model would have impact on the modelling results.
4. This assessment is very brief, more cases with various geometry and geotechnical characterisations must be simulated with 3D and 2D techniques to stablish a guideline for 2D modelling of tunnels. • References
• 1. Brady BHG, Brown ET (1993) Rock mechanics for underground mining. Chapman and Hall 1993:57.
• 2. Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C (2000) Application of the convergence–confinement method of
tunnel design to rock masses that satisfy the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 15(2):187–213.
• 3. Vlachopoulos N, Diederichs MS (2014). Appropriate uses and practical limitations of 2D numerical
