Elasto-plastic Behavior of Raghadan Tunnel Based on RMR and Hoek–Brown Classifications

  • Faisal I. Shalabi
  • Husam A. Al-Qablan
  • Omar H. Al-Hattamleh
Original Paper


Lining contact pressure and ground deformation of Raghadan transportation tunnel (Amman, Jordan) were investigated. The tunnel is 1.1 km in length and 13.5 m in diameter. This study was intended to integrate useful relations among the widely used rock classification system (RMR: rock mass rating), Hoek–Brown classification, and lining-ground interaction. The materials encountered along the tunnel alignment were limestone, dolomatic limestone, marly limestone, dolomite, and sillicified limestone. The ground conditions along the tunnel alignment including bedding planes, joint sets and joint conditions, rock quality, water flow, and rock strength were evaluated based on the drilled boreholes and rock exposures. Elasto-plastic finite element analyses were conducted to study the effect of rock mass conditions and tunnel face advance on the behavior of lining-ground interaction. The results of the analyses showed that lining contact pressure decreases linearly with the increase in RMR value. Also the results showed that tunnel lining contact pressure and crown inward displacement decreases with the increase in the unsupported distance (distance between tunnel face and the end of the erected lining). Ground displacement above the tunnel crown was found to be increases in an increasing rate with the decrease in the depth above the crown. This displacement was also found to be affected by the RMR value and the unsupported distance.


Tunnels Contact pressure Deformations FE analyses RMR Elasto-plastic 


  1. ABAQUS (2005) Theory and user manual, version 6.4. Habbit, Karlsson and Sorenseb Inc., PawtuketGoogle Scholar
  2. Augarde CE, Burd HJ (2001) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of lined tunnels. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 25:243–262. doi: 10.1002/nag.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balmer G (1952) A general analytical solution for Mohr’s envelope. Am Soc Test Mater 52:1260–1271Google Scholar
  4. Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–239. doi: 10.1007/BF01239496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton NR, Loset F, Lien R, Lunde J (1980) Application of the Q-system in design decision. In: Bergman M (ed) Subsurface space, vol 2. Pergamon, New York, pp 553–561Google Scholar
  6. Bieniawski ZT (1976) Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. In: Proceedings of the symposium in exploration for rock engineering, Cape Town. Balkema, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  7. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bierbaumer (1913) Die Dimensionerung des Tunnelmauerwerks. Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  9. Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C (1999) The elasto-plastic response of underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:777–809. doi: 10.1016/S0148-9062(99)00047-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cording EJ, Deere DU (1972) Rock tunnel supports and field measurements. In: Proceedings of the 1st NARETC, Chicago, pp 601–622Google Scholar
  11. Cording EJ, Mahar JW (1974) The effects of natural geologic discontinuities on behavior of rock in tunnels. In: Proceedings of the 2nd rapid excavation and tunneling conference, AIME, San Francisco, pp 107–138Google Scholar
  12. Dar SM, Bates RC (1974) Stress analysis of hollow cylindrical inclusions. J Geotech Eng Div 100(GT2):123–138Google Scholar
  13. Deere DU, Peck RB, Monsees JE, Parker HW, Schmidt B (1969) Design of tunnel support systems. Highway Research Record No. 339, pp 26–33Google Scholar
  14. Einstein HH, Schwartz CW (1979) Simplified analysis for tunnel supports. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 105(GT4):499–517Google Scholar
  15. Hoeg K (1968) Stresses against underground structural cylinders. J Soil Mech Found Div 94(SM4):833–858Google Scholar
  16. Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. A. A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. ISRM (1981) Suggested methods: rock characterization, testing and monitoringGoogle Scholar
  18. Kulhawy FH (1974) Finite element modeling criteria for underground openings in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 11:465–472. doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(74)91996-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI—a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In: Proceeding of GeoEng2000 conference, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohraz B, Hendron AJ, Ranken RE, Salem MH (1975) Liner-medium interaction in tunnels. J Construct Div 101(CO1):127–141Google Scholar
  21. Morgan HD (1961) A contribution to the analysis of stress in a circular tunnel. Geotechnique 11(1):37–46Google Scholar
  22. Pan XD, Hudson JA (1988) Plane strain analysis in modeling three-dimensional tunnel excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech 25(5):331–337. doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(88)90010-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Panet M, Guenot A (1982) Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. Tunnelling 82, IMM, Brighton, pp 199–204Google Scholar
  24. Peck RB, Hendron AJ, Mohraz B (1972) State of the art of soft-ground tunneling. In: International proceedings of the North American rapid excavation and tunneling conference, Chicago, IL, pp 259–286Google Scholar
  25. Penzien J, Wu CL (1998) Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 27:283–300. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199803)27:3≤283::AID-EQE732≥3.0.CO;2-TGoogle Scholar
  26. Ranken RE, Ghaboussi J, Hendron AJ (1987) Analysis of ground-liner interaction for tunnels. Rep. UMTA-IL-06-0043-78-3. US Dep. Transportation, Wahsington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Consideration of the geomechanical classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering geology and underground construction, Lisbon 1(II), pp 33–44Google Scholar
  28. Shalabi FI (2004) Assessment of tunnel design based on different empirical approaches: case study in Jordan. In: International conference on structural and geotechnical engineering and construction technology, Mansoura, Egypt, 23–25 MarchGoogle Scholar
  29. Shalabi FI (2005) FE analysis of time-dependent behavior of tunneling in squeezing ground using two different creep models. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 20:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shalabi FI, Cording EJ (2005) 3D-finite element analysis of segmental concrete tunnel lining deformation and moments under the effect of static and earthquake loading. In: Proceeding of the 11th international conference on computer methods and advances in geomechanics, Torino, Italy, 19–24 JuneGoogle Scholar
  31. Stini J (1950) Tunnelbaugeologie. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Terzaghi K (1946) Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. In: Proctor RV, White TL (eds) Rock tunneling with steel supports. Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company, YoungstownGoogle Scholar
  33. Wickham GE, Tiedemann HR, Skinner EG (1974) Ground support prediction model—RSR concept. In: Proceedings of the 2nd RETC. AIME, New York, pp 691–707Google Scholar
  34. Wood AM (1975) The circular tunnel in elastic ground. Geotechnique 25(1):115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faisal I. Shalabi
    • 1
  • Husam A. Al-Qablan
    • 1
  • Omar H. Al-Hattamleh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringHashemite UniversityZarqaJordan

Personalised recommendations