ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station
Bao-you Zhao , Zhen-yue Ma
School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning, China

a r t i c l e in fo
Article history: Received 23 March 2008 Received in revised form 28 September 2008 Accepted 19 October 2008 Keywords: Large cavern groups Critical cavern spacing Damaged plasticity model Seismic motion Static/dynamic damage

abstract
Many factors inuence the static and dynamic stabilities of the rocks surrounding large cavern groups, such as in a hydropower station. In order to study the inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of adjacent caverns, two kinds of dynamic-history simulation models for large cavern groups were set up by considering three different strengths of rock masses (soft rock, medium hard rock, and hard rock). One model included two caverns and the other included three caverns. The numerical simulations of these models were conducted under the loading of gravity and the combined loadings of gravity and earthquake motion, separately. To fully consider the dynamic features of rock masses, a damaged plasticity model with a non-associated potential ow was adopted for the surrounding rocks. Due to the stress redistribution and the scattering effect, simulated results indicate that, taking the caverns located in soft rocks, for example, if the spacing is less than one cavern characteristic length (taken to the biggest width of a cavern in the group), the static and dynamic responses of adjacent caverns are signicantly affected by their spacing. The damage and the distribution of tensile stress surrounding the caverns are extremely extensive. Once the spacing approaches or exceeds twice the cavern characteristic length, the damage and the distribution of tensile stress of caverns keep unchanged, and the effect of nearby caverns disappears. In some situations, as the rock strength decreases, the damage becomes more severe and the area of tensile stress becomes more extensive. The critical distance of cavern spacing decreases as the strength of the surrounding rocks increases. The conclusions of this work could be used as a primary guidance to the anti-earthquake design for practical engineering. Crown Copyright & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Underground structures have their own features, such as the most notably their complete enclosure by soil or rock, which make their seismic behavior distinct from most surface structures. The design of underground facilities to withstand seismic loading consequently has aspects that are very different from the seismic design of surface structures. Historically, underground facilities have experienced a lower rate of damage than surface structures. Nevertheless, some underground structures have experienced signicant damage in recent large earthquakes, including the 1976 Tangshan, China earthquake [1,2], the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake [3], the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake [4], and the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake [5]. Dowding and Roten [6] had investigated the seismic disasters of seventy-one tunnels located in rock masses in various locations. Forty-one tunnels among them had experienced signicant damage. Some had cracks, and some even collapsed. All previous severe seismic damages have changed the engineers general belief that due to the strong

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 41184708519; fax: +86 41184708551.

E-mail addresses: rocksoul@163.com (B.-y. Zhao), dmzy@dlut.edu.cn (Z.-y. Ma).

constraint of surrounding rocks, the effect of earthquakes on tunnels and underground structures was not important. The damages also changed their belief that the underground structures had the ability to sustain earthquakes with little damage, and it was unnecessary to study their anti-earthquake performance. Many researchers developed extensive research on the dynamic characteristics of underground structures. Refs. [710] summarize the seismic characteristics and anti-seismic methods of underground structures. The 3D shell theory was adopted to analyze the response of cylindrical underground structure under seismic shear wave action and the corresponding analytical expressions were derived [11]. Others studies can be obtained according to recent papers. Earthquakes in China are rather frequent, especially in western regions which are seismic accumulative and high frequency areas causing the complex geologic conditions. The regions conceive a great deal of water and other energy resources. Along with the drive of western development in China, numerous great underground structures have been built, or being built. For instance, deep mining tunnels, long line shape water tunnels, mountain tunnels, large scale underground structures of hydraulic stations, and nuclear plant stations. The stability of surrounding rocks of large cavern groups differs from that of a single cavern because

1365-1609/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

cavern spacing signicantly inuences the responses of adjacent caverns once the cavern space is less than the critical cavern spacing. The related literature has not been presented before. Therefore, from the background of practical engineering, two kinds of dynamic time-history simulation models of large cavern groups located in three different strengths of rocks with different cavern spaces were set up. One kind of model included two caverns, and the other included three caverns. By considering three different strengths of surrounding rocks (soft rock, medium hard rock and hard rock) for each kind model, the inuence of cavern spacing to the static and dynamic stabilities of cavern groups was achieved separately under the loading of gravity and the combined loadings of gravity and earthquake. To fully consider the dynamic features of rock masses, the damaged plasticity model with a non-associated potential ow was adopted for rock masses [12,13]. To simplify the analysis and easily capture the inuence of the cavern spacing on the stabilities of cavern groups, the discontinuities of rock masses were not considered in this paper, such as joints, active or non-causative faults, weak zones, etc.

the post-failure stage during earthquake loading, the unloading stiffness of the rock mass is less than its initial stiffness. This softening behavior can be better considered by a damaged plasticity model. The damaged plasticity model is primarily intended to provide a general capability for the analysis of concrete structures under cyclic or dynamic loading. Detailed descriptions of the constitutive model are derived below. According to the incremental theory, the total strain  can be written as the summation of elastic strain e and equivalent plastic strain pl , yielding

 e pl

(1)

The stress and strain relations of undamaged material can be written as

s De  pl
e

(2)

where s is the Cauchy stress. D is the initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material. For the damaged material, the relations can be formulated as

s 1 dsef 1 dDe  pl

2. The 2D dynamic numerical model of cavern groups By considering three different strengths of rocks (soft, medium hard, and hard) two dynamic time-history numerical models are set up. One kind of model includes a main power house and the main transformer chamber. The other model not only includes the two caverns mentioned above but also includes the tailrace surge chamber. For convenience, the main power house, the main transformer chamber, and the tailrace surge chamber are denoted as caverns A, B and C, separately in the following. 2.1. Physical dimension of the model According to the geological information of the project, the embedded depth of caverns is around 300 m. In these two models, the overburden is set up to the ground surface, which is 300 m. The side surrounding rocks is 300 m. The bedrock is also 300 m. Cavern A is 74.4 m high and 30 m wide. Cavern B is 30.5 m high and 20 m wide. Cavern C is 92.7 m high and 22 m wide. The physical geometric model including three caverns is shown in Fig. 1. 2.2. Damaged plasticity constitutive model During the service life of underground structures, the surrounding rocks may experience strong dynamic or cyclic loading or the seismic motion. Once the rock masses unload in
ef

(3)

where s is the effective stress. Under cyclic loading conditions the degradation mechanisms are quite complex. The stiffness recovery effect, also known as the unilateral effect, is usually more pronounced as the load changes from tension to compression. In order to fully consider the effect, stiffness reduction variable d is written as 1 d 1 st dc 1 sc dt ; 0pst ; sc p1 (4)

where d is the scalar stiffness degradation variable which controls the stiffness recovery effects of material. dc and dt are the stiffness reduction variables in compression and tension state, respectively. st and sc are functions of the stress state that are introduced to represent stiffness recovery effects associated with stress reversals. They are dened by formulae (5) and (6): st 1 wt r sef ; 0pwt p1 0pwc p1 (5) (6)

sc 1 wc r 1 r sef ; where P3 ef 1 hsi i r sef Pi3 ; ef i1 jsi j

0pr sef p1

(7)

the weight factors wt and wc are assumed to be material properties and control the recovery of the tensile and compressive stiffness upon load reversal. sief (i 1, 2, 3) are the principal stress components. r sef is a multiaxial stress weight factor, it is the function of principal stress. The Macauley bracket /S is dened by hxi x jxj=2. The model makes use of the yield function proposed in [12], with the modications proposed by Lee and Fenves [13] to account for different evolution of strength under tension and compression. The evolution of the yield surface is controlled by pl the hardening variables, epl t and ec . In terms of effective stresses, the yield function takes the form F sef ; pl 1 q 3zp bpl hsef max i 1z 1 ef pl ghsef max i sc c p0 1z

(8)

with

z
Fig. 1. Geometric model including three caverns.

sb0 =sc0 1 ; 2sb0 =sc0 1

0pzp0:5

(9)

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]
pl sef c c 1 z 1 z pl sef t t

bpl

(10)

Table 1 Values of parameters of rock masses in damaged plasticity model. Material Youngs modulus (GPa) 18 40 88 Poissons ratio 0.25 0.20 0.20 Density (kg m3) 2 500 2 550 2 600 Rayleigh stiffness damping 0.034 0.034 0.034

31 K c g 2K c 1 p q
ef 1 3trace

(11) (12) (13)

Soft rocks Medium rocks Hard rocks

q 3 2S : S ;

S pI sef

where z and g are the material constant. sef max is the maximum principal effective stress. sb0/sc0 is the ratio of initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive yield stress. Kc represents the shape of yield function in meridian plane. q is the Mises equivalent stress. p is the hydrostatic pressure. S is the equivalent deviatonic stress. The damaged plasticity model assumes non-associated potential plastic ow. The ow potential G used for this model is the DruckerPrager hyperbolic function q G Pst0 tan f2 q2 p tan f (14)

Table 2 Values of parameters of rock masses in damaged plasticity model. Material Dilation angle (1) 36.0 36.0 36.0 Compressive initial yield stress (MPa) 13.7 34.3 76 Compressive ultimate stress (MPa) 19.5 46.3 101 Tensile failure stress (MPa)

Soft rocks Medium rocks Hard rocks

1.7 2.0 2.7

where f is the dilation angle at high conning pressure. st0 is the Q uniaxial tension stress at failure. is a parameter that denes the rate at which the function approaches the asymptote. The model is also suitable for the analysis of other quasi-brittle materials, such as rocks. The author of this article had veried its applicability to study the dynamic response of underground rock cavern [14]. The cracking displacement and stiffness reduction variable dt relations and the post-failure tensile stress cracking displacement curve for these three kinds of rocks are shown in Fig. 2. The denition of the relations for cracking displacement and dt is based on the method in [15]. The other mechanical parameters of these three rock masses for the simulation of this paper are given in Tables 1 and 2. 2.3. Boundary conditions and earthquake loadings The innite elements built into ABAQUS can be used as boundary conditions for both static and dynamic simulations. In static analysis, the innite elements provide static boundary conditions, and in dynamic analysis, the elements can absorb the reected waves. Koyna earthquake record [16] is selected as the seismic excitation, see Fig. 3. The maximum horizontal and vertical accelerations are 2.37 m/s2(t 3.13 s) and 1.55 m/s2(t 3.80 s), respectively. Each model is synchronously subjected to the vertical excitation on all nodes in the bottom boundary as well as subjected to the horizontal excitation on all nodes in the left side boundary. The total time of seismic excitation is 11 s.

3. Analyzing the inuence of cavern spacing on stability of adjacent caverns In the two-cavern model, xing the location of cavern A, the thickness of rocks between the two caverns is selected as 10, 25 50, 75, and 90 m, respectively. In the three-cavern model, the locations of caverns A and C are xed. The thickness of rocks between caverns A and B is the same as that of the two-cavern model. Therefore, thirty (two kinds of models with ve different spaces located in three different strengths of rocks) simulations are carried out in this paper. For each simulation, rstly, a static analysis under gravity is completed to generate the initial natural stress conditions. Then, displacements of the model are set to zero. Finally, on the basis of previous conditions the dynamic simulation is achieved. Geometric and material non-linearities have been considered in both the static and dynamic steps.

Fig. 2. Tensile properties of the three kinds of rocks: (a) tensile damage versus cracking displacement curve; (b) post-failure tensile stress versus cracking displacement curve.

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

3.1.1. Damage of two caverns model Figs. 46 show the damaged area with different cavern spaces for caverns in two caverns model located in three different strengths of rocks. Several conclusions can be drawn from these results: (a) Once the cavern spacing is less than one cavern characteristic length (the biggest width of adjacent caverns in cavern groups), the static and dynamic damage of adjacent caverns located in any kind strength of rocks is rather signicant. It means that the damage is dramatically affected by their spacing. (b) The transition zone from instability to stability corresponds to the cavern spacing changing from one characteristic cavern length to two characteristic lengths. (c) The amplitude of variation for damage is mostly minor as the cavern spacing approaches or exceeds twice the cavern characteristic length. Finally, the caverns are in a state of dynamic stability with slight or without static and dynamic damage changing. (d) For a xed cavern spacing, the static and dynamic damage of the caverns is more signicant as the strength of the surrounding rocks becomes less.

Fig. 3. Seismic acceleration curves [16]: (a) vertical acceleration; (b) transverse acceleration.

The results of each simulation indicate that the compressive damage is not prominent compared to tensile damage. The compressive stiffness reduction variable even does not exceed 0.3. So the compressive damage could be neglected. A formula is introduced below to calculate the damage areas of all damaged elements for each cavern. At
n X i 1

Fig. 4. Static and dynamic damaged areas with different cavern spaces of each cavern in two-cavern model in soft rocks.

At i di ; di X0:1

or

At 0; di o0:1

(15)

where At is the total tensile damaged area of all elements in each P model. is the sum operator. Ait is the tensile damaged area of each single element. dit is the corresponding tensile stiffness reduction variable. n is the number of damaged elements. The inuence of spacing on the stabilities of caverns is achieved through analyzing the static and dynamic damaged areas and distributed regions of tensile stress of caverns in each model. 3.1. Damage analysis All the results of simulations indicate that most of the damages occur at the arc crown and oor. Therefore, taking the overall damage area as an evaluation criterion to analyze the inuence of the cavern spacing on the stability of adjacent caverns is associated with formula (15).

Fig. 5. Static and dynamic damaged areas with different cavern spaces of each cavern in two-cavern model in medium hard rocks.

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 5

Fig. 6. Static and dynamic damaged areas with different cavern spaces of each cavern in two-cavern model in hard rocks.

Fig. 7. Static and dynamic damaged areas with different cavern spaces of each cavern in three-cavern model in soft rocks.

(e) The critical cavern spacing of adjacent caverns decreases as the strength of surrounding rocks increases. The critical cavern spacing of the two caverns model for the caverns located in soft rocks, medium hard rocks and hard rock is twice the cavern characteristic length, between one and twice the cavern characteristic length and one cavern characteristic length, respectively. (f) From the aspect of damage of cavern, if the strength of surrounding rocks is among that of rocks mentioned above, a cavern spacing of twice the cavern characteristic length is enough to ensure the static and dynamic stabilities of adjacent caverns. If the strength of surrounding rocks is harder than the strength of hard rock in this paper, the cavern spacing between one and twice the cavern characteristic length can also ensure no static and dynamic interactions between adjacent caverns. (g) If the cavern spacing is less than the critical cavern spacing, especially if it is less than one characteristic length, the damage of cavern B is larger than that of cavern A. It is related to cross section, shape, and relative spatial location of caverns. These inuencing factors lead each cavern to have different responses under the action of gravity redistribution and seismic motion. 3.1.2. Damage of three-cavern model In the three-cavern model, the locations of caverns A and C are xed. Cavern B is moving from the right side of cavern A to the left side of cavern C. Figs. 79 show the damaged area corresponding to different cavern spacings, for the three-cavern model located in three different strengths of rocks. The spacing in these three gures is the same as the spacing for caverns A and B. From these gures we can conclude that: (a) As the spacing for caverns A and B changes from 10 to 90 m, the damage degree and variation of cavern A is the same as that of cavern A in the two-cavern model. The static and dynamic damages of cavern decrease non-linearly with the increase in spacing. When the spacing increases from 10 to 25 m, the damage decreases dramatically, whereas the damage decreases slowly as the spacing exceeds 25 m. In particular, if the cavern spacing is less than one cavern characteristic length, the static and dynamic interactions between caverns A and B are signicant.

Fig. 8. Static and dynamic damaged areas with different cavern spaces of each cavern in three-cavern model in medium hard rocks.

Fig. 9. Static and dynamic damaged areas with different cavern spaces of each cavern in three-cavern model in hard rocks.

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

(b) The damage changing tendency of cavern C is the same as that of cavern A. The damage decreases with the spacing between caverns C and B increasing. However, the damaged degree of cavern C is greatly less than that of cavern A in the condition of the same spacing with cavern B. Taking the caverns located in soft rocks for example, the dynamic damage for caverns A and C is 34.5 and 8.1 m2, respectively, when the spacing between caverns A and B is 25 m, that is the same as the spacing between caverns C and B. This phenomenon may have the relation to the shape and dimension of cavern cross section. (c) The changing trend and amplitude of damage for caverns A and B are similar as that of caverns in two-cavern model. As cavern B is located in the middle of other two caverns, the damage of cavern B is mostly small. From the middle location, cavern B moves toward to any side of left or right, the damage of two caverns close to each other is increasing, correspondingly, the damage of another cavern apart from cavern B is decreasing. (d) The critical cavern spacing is decreased with the increasing of the strength of surrounding rocks. For the three-or-morecavern model, if the spacing equals to or approaches to twice the cavern characteristic length, the static and dynamic stabilities of caverns located in the rock mass with its strength among that of rocks mentioned above can be satised. For the practical project, the surrounding rock is medium hard rock. The thickness of rocks for caverns A and B and the thickness of rocks for caverns B and C is 48 and 52 m, separately. From the analysis above, it can be initially proved that there is hardly static and dynamic interaction between the adjacent caverns.

3.2. Stress analysis The failure modes of underground structures are mostly tensile and shearing failures. These failure modes are inuenced by the distribution area and the magnitude of the maximum principal stress. Considering the damage analysis of caverns above, the distribution of tensile stress of caverns after the seismic excitation in two- and three-cavern models is analyzed below. 3.2.1. Tensile stress of two-cavern model As shown in Fig. 10, the distribution of tensile stress distributes almost in the arc, oor, and in the rocks between the two caverns under the combined loading of gravity and seismic motion. The distributed area of tensile stress decreases along with the increase in cavern spacing. The decreased amplitude of tensile stress for the rocks between the two caverns is mostly remarkable. Once the cavern spacing increases to twice the cavern characteristic length, the area of tensile stress of each cavern will not decrease anymore. Then there is no distribution of tensile stress except the lower of left and right hand corners of cavern A. Therefore, the tensile stress for the rocks between the two caverns will not occur as the spacing exceeds 50 m. The numerical results also indicate that the distributed area for tensile stress of caverns located in three different strengths of rocks will keep unchanging when the spacing approaches or exceeds twice the cavern characteristic length. So Fig. 11 only gives the results that are affected by the spacing. By comparing the results of Fig. 10 with that of Fig. 11, some conclusions can be gained: (a) The critical cavern spacing for adjacent caverns decreases as the stiffness of the surrounding rocks increases.

Fig. 10. The distribution of tensile stress of caverns in two-cavern model located in soft rocks.

Fig. 11. The distribution of tensile stress of caverns in two-cavern model located in medium hard rocks and hard rocks.

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 7

Fig. 12. The distribution of tensile stress of caverns in three-cavern model located in soft rocks.

(b) For a xed cavern spacing, the distributed region of tensile stress of the two-cavern model in different rocks does not vary with rock strength. (c) Caverns located in hard rocks can sustain larger stresses than can caverns located in soft rocks. This is the reason that more damage occurs in caverns in soft rocks than in hard rocks, under the same static and dynamic loadings.

3.2.2. Tensile stress of three-cavern model For the three-cavern model, the distribution of tensile stress is similar to that of the two-cavern model. Taking the caverns in soft rocks for instance to illustrate the distribution of tensile stress, see Fig. 12. It distinctly shows that the distributed area of tensile stress for each cavern is most small as cavern B is located in the middle of the other two caverns. The changing tendency of the distributed area of tensile stress for each cavern is same as that of the caverns in two-cavern model. The distributed area of tensile stress of the two caverns closing to each other obviously increases and the area of that of another cavern apart from cavern B keeps unchanging when cavern B moves horizontally from middle position towards to cavern A or cavern C. Especially, in the case of the spacing less than one cavern characteristic length, the changing amplitude of the area of tensile stress for the adjacent caverns is dramatically severe.

The changing trend of tensile stress for caverns in the other two models located in medium hard rocks and hard rocks is the same as the results in Fig. 12. The different result is that the values of the ultimate tensile stresses of the caverns located in different strengths of rocks are not the same. The stiffer the strength of the surrounding rocks, the higher the tensile stress that the caverns can bear. For the practical project, by considering the analysis above, it can be proved that the position of cavern B is reasonable. The stability of the cavern groups can be satised if appropriate supporting schemes and effective anti-seismic reinforcement are adopted.

4. Conclusions Regardless of the strength of the rocks that the caverns are located in, once the cavern spacing is less than one cavern characteristic length, the stability of adjacent caverns is dramatically affected by the cavern spacing. The damage and tensile stress areas of adjacent caverns are extremely extensive. The changing of damage amplitude is rather signicant. The stiffer the rocks are, the smaller is the critical cavern spacing. The corresponding critical cavern spacing for the adjacent caverns located in these rocks mentioned in this paper (soft rock,

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 B.-y. Zhao, Z.-y. Ma / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

medium hard rock and hard rock), is twice, less than twice, and one time the cavern characteristic length, respectively. Once the cavern spacing exceeds the critical cavern spacing, the static and dynamic damage and the distributed area of tensile stress will hardly develop any further. That also indicates that the cavern spacing will hardly have any inuence on the stability of adjacent caverns. From the view of economy and of the safety of the practical engineering, the stabilities of the cavern groups can be assured if the thickness of rocks between the adjacent caverns exceeds the critical cavern spacing in the conditions of adopting appropriate supporting schemes and effective anti-seismic reinforcement. Considering the development of numerical analysis at present, from the view of reducing the calculations, it is advisable to study the dynamic response of each cavern separately from the cavern groups if the spacing of adjacent caverns is more than its critical cavern spacing. References
[1] Lee CF. Performance of underground coal mines during the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 1987;2(2):199202. [2] Chinese Ministry of Coal Industry, Coal Mines Planning and Design Institute. Damage to structures and installations in the underground excavations of the Kailuan colliery during the Tangshan earthquake. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib 1982;2(1):6777.

[3] Tajimi M. Damage done by the great earthquake disaster of the Hanshin Awaji district to the Kobe Municipal Subway System and restoration works of the damage. Jpn Railw Eng 1996;137:1923. [4] Wang WL, Wang TT, Su JJ, Lin CH, Seng CR, Huang TH. Assessment of damage in mountain tunnels due to the Taiwan chi-chi Earthquake. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2001;16(3):13350. [5] Dalgc - S. Tunneling in squeezing rock, the bolu tunnel, Anatolian motorway, Turkey. Eng Geol 2002;67:7396. [6] Dowding CH, Rozen A. Damage to rock tunnels from earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng 1978;104(GT2):17591. [7] Lin G. Summarization of earthquake resistance analysis of underground structures (rst). World Earthquake Eng 1990;6(2):19. [8] Lin G. Summarization of earthquake resistance analysis of underground structures (second). World Earthquake Eng 1990;6(3):110. [9] Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JIC. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2001; 16(4):24793. [10] Pakbaz MC, Yareevand A. 2-D analysis of circular tunnel against earthquake loading. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2005;20(5):4117. [11] Kouretzis GP, Bouckovalas GD, Gantes CJ. 3-D shell analysis of cylindrical underground structures under seismic shear (S) wave action. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26(10):90921. ate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J [12] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, On Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299329. [13] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892900. [14] Zhao BY, Ma ZY, Liang B, Jin CY. Seismic analysis of underground structures based on damaged plasticity model. Chin J Rock Soil Mech 2009;30(5), in press. [15] ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.6. ABAQUS Theory Manual. ABAQUS; 2006. [16] ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.6. ABAQUS Users Manual. ABAQUS; 2006.

Please cite this article as: Zhao B-y, Ma Z-y. Inuence of cavern spacing on the stability of large cavern groups in a hydraulic power station. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.10.002