NATM-tunnelling in softening stiff clays and weak rocks

S.C. Möller & P. A. Vermeer

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Germany
T. Marcher
ILF Consulting Engineers ZT GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria

ABSTRACT: This numerical study concerns the mechanical behaviour of tunnels in non-structured stiff clays
and weak rocks. A constitutive model will be presented, which accounts for isotropic hardening as well as for
softening. Attention will be focused on cohesion softening rather than friction softening. The hardening-
softening model is formulated by adopting a non-local continuum, as softening behaviour yields ill-posed
problems when formulated within classical continuum mechanics. For computing ground response curves,
numerical analyses are carried out for a very shallow and a medium deep NATM tunnel. It is shown that such
situations differ from very deep tunnels in the sense that material softening can produce progressive failure,
as demonstrated by a trough-like ground response curve.

1 INTRODUCTION the framework of a monitoring programme, whereas

Stiff clays and weak rocks tend to show a peak
strength and a much lower residual strength. The
transition from the peak to the residual strength is
referred to as softening and it usual occurs in com-
bination with the localization of deformations in
shear bands, i.e. thin zones of intensively shearing
material. Softening shear bands imply a reduction of
shear stresses both inside and outside the band; oth-
erwise there would be no equilibrium. In adjacent
regions outside the band the shear stress reduction
causes a quasi-elastic unloading so that one observes
more or less rigid block movements.
The softening related effect of progressive failure is
well-known for clay slopes, e.g. by the papers of
Skempton (1964), Chen et al. (1992) and Potts et al.
(1997). In tunnelling, softening may result in a con-
cave ground-response curve as considered e.g. by
Pacher (1964) and more recently by Vavrovsky
(1994).
In stiff clays softening occurs both for the friction
angle and the cohesion, but friction softening is not
as dangerous as cohesion softening. This relates to
the fact that bonds between particles conferring ef-
fective cohesion are destroyed after small deforma-
tions, finally resulting in zero cohesion. In contrast,
friction angles tend to drop much more slowly down
to a residual value often well above zero. A gradual
loss of stability due to ductile friction softening is
thus less severe and more readily observed within
more brittle cohesion softening may lead to a more
sudden loss of stability. It is thus logic to concen-
trate first of all on cohesion softening, at least when
considering effects in tunnelling.
The constitutive model will be formulated within the
framework of rate-independent plasticity with iso-
tropic hardening and softening. A particular idea in
which friction hardening is combined with softening
in the cohesion is elaborate. This idea seems promis-
ing, as it yields brittle behaviour at low stress levels
and increasing ductility with higher stress levels.
Moreover in this paper attention will be focussed on
isotropic ground without a macro structure due to
stratification, schistarity or jointing.
The hardening-softening model is formulated by
adopting a non-local (De Borst et al., 1993) contin-
uum, as softening behaviour yields ill-posed prob-
lems when formulated within classical continuum
mechanics. A relatively simple method is obtained
by using a single non-local parameter, namely the
softening parameter. It will be shown that this leads
to mesh-independent finite-element analyses.
Results of numerical analyses will be shown for
NATM-tunnelling. Here the so-called ground re-
sponse curve, also referred to as Fenner-Pacher
curve, is computed for two different tunnels. The
hypothesis by Pacher (1964) concerning a trough-
shaped ground response curve in softening ground is
to be investigated.
2 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL WITH COHESION
SOFTENING
2.1 Plastic shear strain in primary loading
One of the ideas for the formulation of the model is
the hyperbolic relationship between the shear strain
γ and the deviatoric stress q=σ1′-σ3′ in a standard
drained triaxial test. For primary loading, we adopt
the hyperbolic equation
γ p ≡ ε1p − ε 3p = γ 50p ⋅ q /(qa − q )
where γ50p is the plastic shear strain for q=qa/2 and
qa is the asymptotical failure stress. The above equa-
tion may also be written as
γ p = α ⋅ sin ϕ m /(sin ϕ a − sin ϕ m )
where φa is the asymptotic friction angle and
α = γ 50p ⋅ (1 − sin ϕ a )
sin ϕ m = q /(σ 1′ + σ 3′ + 2a) , a = c′ ⋅ cot ϕ a .
On using the mobilized friction angle φm instead of
the ratio q/qa as done in Equation 1, one obtains a
shear strain formula that can be extended to general
three dimensional states of stress and strain. Indeed,
the formula implies Mohr-Coulomb type shear strain
contours in principal stress space. As test data sug-
gest smooth cones rather than irregular hexagonal
cones, it is appropriate to define
9 ⋅ I 3a − I1a ⋅ I 2a
sin 2ϕ m ≡
I 3a − I1a ⋅ I 2a
where
I1a = σ 1a + σ 2a + σ 3a , I 3a = σ 1a ⋅ σ 2a ⋅ σ 3a ,
I 2a = − σ 1a ⋅ σ 2a − σ 2a ⋅ σ 3a − σ 3a ⋅ σ 1a ,
and
σ ia = σ i′ + a , a = c′ ⋅ cot ϕ ′
Figure 1. Generalized definition of mobilized friction using
stress invariants.
For triaxial conditions with σ1=σ2, Equation 4 re-
duces to Equation 3b, but surfaces of constant mobi-
lized φm-values are smooth as indicated in Figure 1.
According to Equation 2, φm increases as a function
of γp and approaches the failure value φa. The as-
ymptotic surface for φm= φa is a failure surface as
proposed by Matsuoka & Nakai (1982).
2.2 Yield function for friction hardening
A proper elastoplastic model is obtained by convert-
(1) ing Equation 4 into the yield function
I1a ⋅ I 2a 9 − sin 2 ϕ m
f = − (7)
I 3a 1 − sin 2 ϕ m
For plastic yielding with f=0, this equation reduces
(2) again to Equation 4. Stress-hardening is included as
φm relates to γp. Indeed, Equation 2 may be inverted
to obtain
(3a)
sin ϕ m = sin ϕ a ⋅ γ p /(α + γ p ) (8a)
(3b) with γp=∫ γ& p dt and
1
γ& p = ⋅ (ε&1p − ε&2p ) 2 + (ε&2p − ε&3p ) 2 + (ε&3p − ε&1p ) 2 (8b)
2
Equations 7 and 8 define an isotropic yield function
with the plastic shear strain as a hardening parame-
ter. Important input parameters are used in the ex-
pression
1− m
 p′ + a 
α = (1 − sin ϕ a ) ⋅ γ p
50 = (1 − sin ϕ a ) ⋅ γ po
50 ⋅   (9)
(4)  p0 + a 
where p0 is a fixed reference stress of 100 kPa, p′ is
the effective mean stress and γ50p as well as m and φa
are material constants. For m=1 successive yield loci
in p-q-plane are straight lines, but a curvature is ob-
(5) tained for m<1. In addition there is a curvature due
to the definition of the cohesion c´.
(6) 2.3 Extension to cohesion softening
The hardening function can easily be extended to in-
clude both friction softening (Marcher & Vermeer,
2001) and cohesion softening. To this end both φa
and c′ have to be related to a distortion measure γ*.
In the present paper, however, φa is taken constant
and only c′ is linked to γ* by the relation
c′ = c peak − hc ⋅ γ * (10)
where hc is a softening modulus. From a view point
of consistency it would be logical to take the (local)
plastic shear strain γp, but this (local) softening does
not allow for stable numerical procedures and mesh-
independent results. Hence, the model has to be
regularised by introducing either a polar continuum,
second-order gradients of strain or non-local strains.
In coarse-grained materials, particle rotations may
occur and one might adopt a polar continuum. In this
paper, however, the focus is on fine-grained materi-
als and we adopt the non-local plastic shear strain
1
γ * = ∫ γ& * dt , γ& * = ⋅ ∫ w(r ) ⋅ γ& p dV
Vw
with
2
1 r
w(r ) =
l⋅ π
⋅ exp−   ,
l
Vw = ∫ w dV
where r is the distance to the material point consid-
ered and l is an internal length. Marcher (2003)
found a strong coupling between the internal length l
and the thickness ts of shear bands in finite element
analysis, namely such that ts≈2l. Hence the thickness
of numerical shear bands is fixed by the choice of
the internal length.
2.4 Completion of the model
In this section the model will be completed by add-
ing a plastic potential function g. Adopting a non-
associated model the plastic potential differs from
the yield function, but it is formulated in analogy to
the yield function of Equation 7 by defining
I1b ⋅ I 2b 9 − sin 2 ψ m
g = − (13)
I 3b 1 − sin 2 ψ m
where ψm is a mobilized angle of dilatancy and the
invariants Ib are obtained by using σb=σ′+b. The
added stress b is computed such that we have g=0.
Hence b depends both on the state of stress and the
mobilized dilatancy angle. The latter is computed
from Rowe’s so-called stress-dilatancy equation
sin ϕ m − sin ϕ cv
sin ψ m =
1 − sin ϕ m ⋅ sin ϕ cv
The dilatancy angle is thus positive as soon as ψm
exceeds a constant-volume angle φcv. Considering
dense materials contraction is excluded by taking
ψm=0 for φm<φcv. Together with the yield function
the plastic potential determines the rates of plastic
strain on the basis of the corresponding flow rule
and the consistency condition.
Elastic strain rates are formulated using Hooke’s
law in hypoelastic form. The stress dependent
Young’s modulus is chosen to be
m  E50
0  p´ + a 
E ur = Eur  
 p + a 
0
where Eur0 is the tangent modulus for a reference
mean stress of p′=p0=100kPa. The indices ur refer
to unloading-reloading. Similarly Poisson’s ratio is
(11)
Figure 2. Typical curve of a drained triaxial compression test.
(12)
denoted as νur. The cohesion dependent stress a and
the input parameter m have already been used to de-
fine the yield function f. According to Equation 9 the
yield function also involves a plastic shear strain as
an input parameter. As engineers have more affinity
with stiffness moduli than with magnitudes of strain,
we consider stiffness moduli as more suitable input
parameters. For this reason, we consider the secant
modulus E50, as indicated in Figure 2. This modulus
relates to the elastic and the plastic strain in a stan-
dard drained triaxial test. From the yield function for
the plastic strains and the formulation of elastic
strains, it can be deduced that
m
 p´ + a 
E 50 = E 0
50
 (16)
p
 0 + a 
where E500 is obtained for p′=p0=100kPa. The se-
cant modulus E50 is closely related to the shear strain
γ50 at least for incompressible soils. Indeed, consid-
ering a triaxial test with ε2=ε3, it yields
γ = ε1 − ε 3 = ∆ε1 − ∆ε 3 (17)
where ∆ε1 and ∆ε3 are measured in the shearing
phase of loading after isotropic compression. On in-
troducing the equation ∆εvol=∆ε1+2∆ε3, it follows
that
(14)
1 q50
γ 50 = ⋅ 3∆ε 1 − ∆ε vol ≈ 1.5 ⋅ ∆ε 1 = 1.5 ⋅ (18)
2 50 50 E50
Especially in case of hard soils and soft rocks volu-
metric strains tend to be small and can be disre-
garded in the above expression. The subscript 50 im-
plies that the deviatoric stress is chosen such that
q50=qa/2. The plastic shear strain at q=qa/2 is ob-
tained by subtracting elastic strains, i.e.
 1.5 1 + ν ur 
γ 50p = γ 50 − γ 50e =  − q50 (19)
Eur 
(15) The plastic shear strain constant γ50p0, as used in the
yield function f, is obtained for a stress state with
p′=p0.
For the analyses presented in this paper, tensile
stresses are excluded by using a tension cut-off.
3 ON THE GROUND RESPONSE CURVE

In NATM-tunnelling the ground response curve , as

indicated in Figure 3, is used to illustrate the ground
pressure on the lining as a function of deformations.
A steep ground response curve with a low minimum
indicates a stiff and strong ground which needs little
support of a lining. Such a ground is able to carry
the overburden load by arching around the tunnel. Figure 3. Geometry and typical pressure-displacement curve
Vice versa, a relatively flat ground response curve (ground response curve).
with a high minimum corresponds to a relatively soft
ground that needs significant support from a lining. elements inside the tunnel. This does not disturb the
Attention will be focussed on relatively shallow equilibrium as equivalent pressures are applied on
tunnels and the constitutive model will be used in fi- the inside of the entire tunnel. The minimum amount
nite element analyses to compute ground response of pressure needed to support the tunnel is then de-
curves. Most recently this was done for deep tunnels termined by a stepwise reduction of the supporting
by Bliem & Fellin (2001) to find non-concave pressure.
curves. In contrast, we will consider shallow tunnels
to find trough-like ground response curves.
All subsequent analyses of the ground response 4 VERY SHALLOW UNLINED TUNNEL
curve have been obtained by using an earlier version
of the hardening-softening model. In this early ver- In this section a tunnel with a cover of H = 8 m is
sion we used the Mohr-Coulomb yield function considered. Firstly a response curve was computed
f=(σ1′-σ3′)/(σ1′+σ3′+2a)-sinφm. For f=0 this yields a for a non-cohesive ground to obtain the dashed up-
hexagonal yield surface in principal stress space, per curve in Figure 4 with a failure pressure of
rather than the smooth one after Matsuoka & Nakai pf = 0.4γD. Secondly a non-softening cohesive
(1982). ground with c′ = 40 kPa was considered to obtain
the lower curve in Figure 4 with a slightly negative
We consider an unlined circular tunnel with a di- failure pressure indicating a stable situation. Analy-
ameter of 8 m and concentrate on a plane strain ses involving cohesion softening should obviously
situation. As symmetrical tunnels are considered, render ground response curves in between the upper
calculations are based on only half a circular tunnel. curve for c′ = 0 kPa and the lower curve for
The ground is represented by 6-noded triangular c′ = 40 kPa.
elements. The boundary conditions of the finite ele- In order to model softening in narrow shear bands
ment mesh are as follows: The ground surface is free sufficiently accurate, we used a very fine mesh
to displace, the side surfaces have roller boundaries around the tunnel, as indicated in Figure 5. In fact,
and the base is fixed. Initial stresses are assumed to such a fine mesh is needed when applying a non-
be geostatic according to σ´h = K0 σ´v, where σ´h is local model in combination with a small internal
the horizontal effective stress and σ´v is the vertical length (see Section 2). First of all a softening analy-
one. The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest sis was carried out for a stiff clay with a softening
is taken as K0 = 1. modulus hc = 600 kPa. This yields the ground
The considered ground has a unit weight of
γ = 20 kN/m³, a friction angle of ϕ′a = 30° and an
initial effective cohesion of cpeak = 40 kPa and dila-
tancy angel ψ=0. The stiffness moduli are taken as
Eur0=90 MPa and E500=30 MPa. The Poisson’s ratio
is νur=0.2 and m=1.
The softening modulus hc can be obtained on the
basis of high-quality triaxial tests with a relatively
homogeneous post-peak sample deformations. At
Stuttgart University such tests were carried out on a
particular stiff clay, named Beaucaire Marl
(Marcher, 2002), to find hc = 600 kPa. As different
clays will give different values of hc, we used
600 kPa as a reference value in the context of a sen-
sitivity analysis, by varying hc=300; 600; 1200 kPa. Figure 4. Computed ground response curves for a shallow tun-
The first stage of the calculations is to remove the nel with H/D = 1.
response curve in the middle of Figure 4 with a
marked peak in point A. Well before peak this curve
deviates already from the non-softening lower bound
and it meets the non-cohesive upper bound finally in
point B. The peak point A yields a peak pressure of
pf = 0.23γD, being about half way in between the
failure pressures for non-softening materials with
c′ = 0 kPa and c′ = 40 kPa respectively.
As different clays will have different softening
moduli, we have varied the softening modulus
around the above value of hc = 600 kPa. Resulting
ground response curves for hc = 300 kPa and
hc = 1200 kPa are indicated by the curves next to the
middle one in Figure 4. A very slight decrease of the
minimum pressure is observed for hc = 300 kPa and
a noticeable increase for hc = 1200 kPa.
Figure 5 shows a close up around the tunnel with
softening zones at and beyond peak, i.e. for point A,
B and C of the middle curve in Figure 4. The lightest
zones indicate regions where cohesion has softened
down to about 10 kPa. States B and C in Figure 5
show post-peak softening zones with a shear band
starting at the tunnel side and gradually growing to-
wards the surface. In the middle of these shear bands
the soil has fully softened. Similar results have been
obtained by Schuller & Schweiger (2002) using a
multilaminate model that includes softening behav-
iour.
Figure 5. Development of softening zones for materials with
hc = 600 kPa. Red indicates fully softened material with c´ = 0.
First for failure state, then for intermediate state and finally for
residual state.
Figure 6. Computed ground response curves for a deeper tun-
nel with H/D = 4.
5 DEEPER UNLINED TUNNEL IN SOFTENING
GROUND
In this section a deeper tunnel with a cover of
H = 32 m is considered and all other parameters
conform to the shallow tunnel of the previous sec-
tion. The initial supporting pressure is given by
p0 = γ (H + 0.5D) and this pressure is stepwise re-
duced to failure. As in the previous section, upper
and lower bounds to the ground response curve are
obtained for non-softening material with c′ = 0 and
c′ = 40 kPa respectively. Instead of showing the full
curves starting at p = 4.5γD, Figure 6 focuses on the
lower part from p = 2γD down to failure. As in the
previous section the upper curve reaches a failure
pressure of pf = 0.4γD and the lower curve reaches a
slightly negative failure pressure.
The computed ground response curve for the stiff
clay with a softening modulus of hc = 600 kPa is
found to be well in between the bound solutions.
However, there is a distinct difference to the re-
sponse curve of a shallow tunnel. Instead of follow-
ing the lower bound for c′ = 40 kPa, the deep-tunnel
response curve tends to remain closer to the upper
bound for c′ = 0 kPa. Accordingly the computed
peak of pf = 0.33γD at point A is only slightly below
the upper bound of pf = 0.4γD. In fact, there is a dif-
ference of only ∆ pf = 0.07γD with non-cohesive
material. At the same time the deeper tunnel is sub-
ject to much larger deformations than the shallow
tunnel, as can be observed by comparing Figures 4
and 6. No doubt, the relatively large deformations in
deep tunnelling induce a relatively large amount of
cohesion softening.
Figure 7 shows the development of the softening
zone around the tunnel. In the following we concen-
trate on the fully softened zone. At failure (state A)
one observes already a thin fully softened zone and
post peak this zone increases rapidly. For state C,
one observes the initiation of a shear band towards
the surface. For state D this shear band has extended
to the surface, but the fully softened part of the band
has not yet reached the surface.
Figure 7. Development of softening zones for a deep tunnel.
6 CONCLUSIONS
On tunnelling: Attention has been focussed on tun-
nels in softening ground. To study consequences of
cohesion degradation, ground response curves have
been computed both for a very shallow tunnel and a
deeper one. The computed ground response curves
appear to depend significantly on tunnel depth. For
the very shallow tunnel, a trough-like Fenner-Pacher
curve is computed with a marked minimum as fail-
ure pressure. The deeper the tunnel, however, the
smaller the softening behaviour on the structural
level of the tunnel. The present study suggests that
ground response curves for very deep tunnels will
show no softening at all. This is conform to recent
numerical studies by Bliem & Fellin (2001). More-
over it confirms practical experiences by Vavrovsky
(1994).
In practical tunnelling one has to consider the sta-
bility of the tunnel heading. In closed-face shield
tunnelling the heading is supported by a support
pressure, but in (open-face) NATM-tunnelling there
is no support pressure and the stability of the head-
ing depends heavily on the cohesion as shown by
Vermeer et al. (2003). Considering present computa-
tional results for the ground-response curve, it would
seem interesting to consider the three-dimensional
tunnel-heading stability also on the basis of cohesion
softening.
For shallow tunnels, it may also be of importance
to use the present model in 3D settlement analyses
as described by Vermeer et al. (2003).
On modelling: Stiff clays and clay stones do not
only show cohesion softening but also friction sof-
tening. The latter is especially important when the
clay fraction dominates the silt fraction (Lupini et
al., 1981) and it would seem that both phenomena
can be well-described by means of the non-local sof-
tening parameter γ*. The related softening moduli hc
may for instance be measured in a direct-shear test
or a ring-shear test. Unfortunately these softening
moduli relate directly to the internal length l, which
governs the thickness ts≈2l of shear bands.
In reality clays have vanishing thin shear bands and
a real thickness simulation requires vanishing small
finite elements. In order to limit the computational
effort, one has to simulate relatively thick shear
bands by means of an artificially large internal
length and an artificially high softening modulus. On
increasing this modulus one approaches an abrupt
type of softening which renders numerical proce-
dures unstable again. As a consequence there is an
upper bound for the shear band thickness and thus
for the size of the elements.
Therefore realistic simulations of yielding in stiff
clays will require extremely fine meshes. No doubt
this finding applies to all regularisation methods, i.e.
non-local, second-order gradient and the polar con-
tinuum. For clay problems, it would seam appropri-
ate to allow for strong (displacement) discontinuities
rather than for finite element meshes with weak dis-
continuities as considered in this paper.
7 ACKNOWLEGMENT
The authors are indebted to Dr. Paul Bonnier of the
Plaxis software company for his work on the imple-
mentation of the constitutive model.
8 REFERENCES
Bliem, C. & Fellin, W. (2001). The ground response curve (in
German). Bautechnik 78 (4): 296-305.
De Borst, R., Sluys, L.J., Mühlhaus, H.-B. & Pamin, J. (1993).
Fundamental issues in finite element analysis of localiza-
tion of deformation. Eng. Comp. (10): 99-121.
Chen, Z., Morgenstern, N.R. & Chan, D.H. (1992). Progressive
failure of the Carsington Dam: a numerical study. Can.
Geotech. 29 (6): 971-988.
Lupini, J. F., Sinner, A. E. & Vqughan, P. R. (1981). The drai-
ned residual strength of cohesive soils. Géotechnique 31(2):
181-213.
Marcher, T., Vermeer, P. A. (2001). Macromodelling of Sof-
tening in Noncohesive Soils. Continuous and Discontinu-
ous Modelling of Cohesive-Frictional Materials, (Ed.)
Vermeer, P.A. (u.a.): 89 – 110. Berlin: Springer.
Marcher, T. (2002). Results of an experimental study on Beau-
caire-marl (in German). Mitteilung des Instituts für Geo-
technik der Universität Stuttgart 49.
Marcher, T. (2003). Non-local modelling of softening of dense
sands and stiff clays (in German). Mitteilung des Instituts
für Geotechnik der Universität Stuttgart (doctoral thesis)
49.
Matsuoka, H. & Nakai, T. (1982). A new failure criterion for
soils in three-dimensional stresses. IUTAM Conference on
Deformation and Failure of Granular Materials, Delft, 31
August-3 September 1982. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Pacher, F. (1964). Deformation measurement in a test gallery
for the exploration of ground response and tunnel design
(in German). Felsmechanik u. Ingenieurgeologie, Suppl. I.
Potts, D., Kovacevic, N. & Vaughan, P.R. (1997). Delayed col-
lapse of cut slopes in stiff clays. Géotechnique 47, No. 5,
953-982.
Schuller & Schweiger (2002). Application of a multilaminate
model to the shear and formation in NATM tunneling.
Computers and Geotechnics 29, No. 7, 501-524.
Skempton, A.W. (1964). Fourth Rankine Lecture: Long-term
stability of clay slopes. Géotechnique 14, No. 2, 77-102.
Vavrovsky, G.-M. (1994). Development of groundpressure,
deformation and tunnel design (in German). Felsbau 12 (5):
312-329.
Vermeer, P.A., Ruse, N., Marcher, T. (2002). Tunnel Heading
Stability in Drained Ground. Felsbau, Jg. 20(6): 8-18.
Vermeer, P.A., Möller, S.C., Ruse, N. (2003). On the Applica-
tion of Numerical Analysis in Tunnelling. Post proceedings
12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (12 ARC), Singapore, 4-8 Au-
gust 2003, 2: 1539-1549.