www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Mechanical mechanism analysis

of rockburst in deep‑buried tunnel
with high in‑situ stress
Chao Zhou 1,2,3, Zhihong Dong 1*, Chunhua Zhou 1, Ping Fu 1 & Sheng Luo 1

The Qinling water conveyance tunnel has a large buried depth and high in-situ stress level, and
rockburst disasters frequently occurred during excavation. In order to find out the mechanical
mechanism of rockburst, the research work in this paper is as follows: (1) In-situ three-dimensional
hydraulic fracturing method was used to measure the in-situ stress of the deep buried tunnel crossing
the ridge. (2) Based on the measured in-situ stress results, the stress distribution characteristics of the
tunnel crossing the ridge were obtained by the multiple linear regression method, and the rockburst
tendency during construction was predicted. (3) A three-dimensional numerical model of tunnel
excavation was established to analyze the dynamic adjustment characteristics of the surrounding
rock stress and elastic strain energy during TBM excavation, and to clarify the mechanical mechanism
of rockburst. The research results show that the maximum principal stress of the deep-buried tunnel
crossing the ridge of Qinling is 40–66 MPa, which belongs to extremely high in-situ stress level,
and medium-strong rockburst may occur during excavation. In the process of TBM excavation, the
stress of the surrounding rock in the range of 2.6 times the diameter of the tunnel before and after
the working face is adjusted violently, and the concentrated zones after the stress redistribution are
mainly distributed in the arch roof and arch bottom, and the stress concentration coefficient can reach
2.06. The arch roof, arch waist, and arch bottom are susceptible to immediate rockburst due to stress
transient unloading at the moment of excavation. After the elastic strain energy of the surrounding
rock at the arch roof and the arch bottom is released and accumulated, it is easy to cause time delayed
rockburst, and the depth of the rockburst pit can reach 3.5 m, which is consistent with the rockburst
phenomenon in the field.

Keywords Deep-buried tunnel, In-situ stress, Rockburst, Stress redistribution, Elastic strain energy

The excavation of underground caverns is actually a complex physical and mechanical process of dynamically
adjusting the stress balance of the original rock. The excavation unloading breaks the initial stress field equilib-
rium state of the original rock. Due to the influence of disturbance, the surrounding rock readjusts the stress to
produce a secondary stress field or a disturbed stress field to achieve a new stress ­equilibrium1–4. In this process
of stress redistribution, the stress of the hard and brittle surrounding cave walls in high stress environment is
differentiated, and the elastic strain energy stored in the rock mass is suddenly released, leading to rockburst
geological disasters such as bursting, loosening, spalling, ejection and even t­ hrowing5–8. Due to its randomness,
suddenness and destructiveness, rockburst seriously threatens the construction of the project, and the inocula-
tion mechanism in the process of surrounding rock stress adjustment is still unclear. Therefore, it is necessary to
deeply study the influence of the surrounding rock disturbance on the triggering effect of rockburst.
In recent years, scholars have deeply studied the mechanical mechanism of rockburst. There are many factors
that affect rockburst, including microscopic aspects such as rock mineral composition and rock grain properties,
and macroscopic aspects such as temperature, rock mass conditions, stress conditions, excavation methods, and
loading and unloading rates. At the microscopic level, Liu et al.9 and He et al.10 explored the rockburst mecha-
nism from the perspective of rock mineral cementation type, grain properties and other microstructures. He
et al.11 and Fan et al.12–15 analyzed the destruction characteristics of solid microstructure under conditions such
as thermal–mechanical coupling, high stress and high strain rate from the perspective of crystal structure. Bai

1
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Mechanics and Engineering of Ministry of Water Resources, Yangtze River
Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan 430010, Hubei, China. 2State Key Laboratory of Water Resources Engineering
and Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, Hubei, China. 3Key Laboratory of Rock Mechanics in
Hydraulic Structural Engineering, Ministry of Education, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China. *email:
[email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

et al.16,17, Tian et al.18 and Fan et al.19 analyzed the plastic deformation characteristics of the crystal structure of
solid materials under dynamic conditions. Liu et al.20 and Fan et al.21–25 studied the nonequilibrium evolution
characteristics of microstructures driven by energy fields in complex material systems. Zhao et al.26 studied the
influence of microstructural characteristics such as mineral composition and grain size on rockburst prediction
indicators Wet and B. At the macroscopic level, Si et al.27 revealed the mechanism of the influence of temperature
thermal effect on rockburst through true triaxial tests on granite cubes with a circular through hole. Si et al.28
used true triaxial tests to study the influence of lithology and bedding angle on the failure behavior of the sur-
rounding rock of a “D” type tunnel. Su et al.29 conducted a model test on the tunnel working face with a granite
non-circular hole specimen to investigate the effect of tunnel axial stress and the rock column thickness on the
working face rockburst during bidirectional excavation, and explained the process of rockburst formation on
the tunnel working face in terms of the local energy release rate LERR index by numerical simulation. Wu et al.30
studied the characteristics and mechanism of strain-induced rockburst failure under different pre-stress condi-
tions using a new biaxial Hopkinson equipment. Li et al.31 explained the energy source of strain rockburst and
energy conversion in the process of rockburst with conceptual theoretical model, and distinguished the dissipated
energy and released energy of surrounding rock during tunnel excavation by numerical simulation. Zhu et al.32
studied the failure characteristics and the distribution of stress field and energy field of the surrounding rock after
tunnel excavation under different in-situ stress levels by discrete element method, and determined the rockburst
tendency by multiple indexes such as rock characteristics, rock integrity and releasable elastic strain energy of
the surrounding rock. Qiu et al.33 inverted the in-situ stress field in the engineering area based on the measured
in-situ stress data, and combined with the advanced geological exploration data to predict the rockburst intensity
in front of the working face. Liu et al.34 realized the monitoring and prediction of rockburst by analyzing the
characteristics of microseismic activity during the excavation of deep-buried tunnel with high in-situ stress. The
above researches have carried out a series of studies on the mechanism of rockburst from micro and macro levels,
but its understanding is not comprehensive enough. There are few studies on the dynamic process of elastic strain
energy release and accumulation of surrounding rock caused by stress redistribution during tunnel excavation.
In this paper, aiming at the problem of rockburst disaster in the construction process of the Qinling water
conveyance tunnel of the Hanjiang-to-Weihe River Diversion Project, firstly, the three-dimensional hydraulic
fracturing method is used to measure the in-situ stress of the main ridge section to understand the background
in-situ stress field. Secondly, the stress distribution characteristics of the tunnel crossing the ridge are obtained
by regression inversion according to the measured in-situ stress results, and the rockburst tendency during the
construction period is preliminarily predicted according to the strength-stress ratio. Finally, a numerical model
is established to simulate the excavation process of the tunnel, and the dynamic adjustment process of the stress
and elastic strain energy of the surrounding rock is analyzed. The rockburst tendency is predicted by the energy
index and compared with the rockburst in the field.

Rockburst criterion
The formation mechanism of rockburst is extremely complicated, and scholars at home and abroad have no uni-
fied understanding of the classification and occurrence mechanism of rockburst. Based on laboratory research
and field investigation, scholars from all over the world have proposed various rockburst discrimination indexes,
mainly including single-index discrimination method such as lithology, critical buried depth, stress and energy,
and multi-index comprehensive discrimination m ­ ethod35,36. Each criterion has its own application conditions,
with certain limitations, but the root causes are related to the geological conditions, stress, energy and physical
and mechanical properties of the rock mass where the rockburst occurs. Therefore, this paper discriminates
rockburst from stress and energy.

Stress criterion of rockburst

The in-situ stress is the force source condition of the rockburst, and the maximum principal stress controls
the area and energy of the rockburst. Tunnel excavation causes stress redistribution in the surrounding rock,
and the surrounding rock stress in the stress concentration area often exceeds the critical stress of rockburst,
and then rockbusrt occurs. According to the ratio of saturated uniaxial compressive strength σc to maximum
initial principal stress σm, rockburst are classified in the Code for Engineering Geological Investigation of Water
Resources and ­Hydropower37, as follows:
 �

 4 ≤ σc � σm ≤ 7 Light rockburst
2 ≤ σc � σm ≤ 4 Medium rockburst


 1 ≤ σc σm ≤ 2 Strong rockburst
 �
σc σm < 1 Extremely strong rockburst

This criterion can be used to predict the rockburst during tunnel construction according to the in-situ stress
field and rock mass properties.

Energy criterion of rockburst

If the deep-buried tunnel is not excavated, a certain degree of elastic strain energy will accumulate in the rock
mass. Excavation will result in the release and accumulation of strain energy in the surrounding rock. When the
energy exceeds the energy storage of the rock mass, the strain energy will be suddenly released and may cause a
rockburst. Chen et al.38 conducted pre-peak and post-peak unloading confining pressure tests on granite under
different confining pressures, different control methods and different unloading rates, analyzed the characteristics

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

of energy dissipation and energy release in the process of rock deformation and failure, and proposed a simple
and practical energy discriminant index that can quantitatively predict rockburst in numerical simulation:
 �

 Ue U0 <� 0.3 Light rockburst
0.3 ≤ Ue � U0 < 0.5 Medium rockburst


 0.5 ≤ Ue � U0 < 0.7 Strong rockburst
0.7 ≤ Ue U0 Extremely strong rockburst


where Ue is the elastic releasable strain energy of the rock mass element, and U0 is the ultimate energy storage
of the rock mass element under specific confining pressure, which can be calculated by the following formulas
respectively:
σ12 + σ22 + σ32 − 2ν(σ1 σ2 + σ2 σ3 + σ1 σ3 )
Ue = (1)
2E

σc3
U0 = (2)
2E(σ1 − σ3 )
where σ1, σ2 and σ3 are the first, second and third principal stresses of the element respectively after tunnel excava-
tion; σc is uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass; E is Young’s modulus; v is Poisson ’s ratio.

Project Overview
Engineering background
The Hanjiang-to-Weihe River Diversion Project is a South-to-North Water Diversion Project in Shanxi Province,
China, which consists of a water diversion project and a water transmission and distribution project. The water
diversion project includes the Golden Gorge Water Conservancy Hub, the Sanhekou Water Conservancy Hub
and the Qinling Water Conveyance Tunnel crossing the Qinling Mountains with a total length of 98.3 km and a
maximum buried depth of about 2012 m. The total length of the tunnel crossing the ridge is 81.779 km, of which
39.08 km through the main ridge of Qinling Mountains is constructed by TBM, and the section of the tunnel is
a circle with a diameter of 8.02 m.
In this paper, the total length of K36 + 000–K49 + 000 in the study area is 13 km with the buried depth of more
than 800 m. The surrounding rocks of the tunnel in this area are granite, diorite and meta sandstone, in which
the granite and diorite sections are slightly weathered to unweathered and dominated by Class II surrounding
rocks, while the meta sandstone section is weakly weathered to slightly weathered and dominated by Class III
surrounding rocks. The QF4 and f8 fault fracture zones and influence zones are distributed in the diorite and
meta sandstone section, and the tectonic action is strong. Figure 1 is the geological profile of the ridge-crossing
section. The geological conditions of the deep-buried tunnel section are complicated, and the surrounding rock
is in the complex mechanical environment of “three highs and one disturbance” during excavation, which makes
the rockburst disaster problem prominent.

Characteristics of rockburst during construction period

From March 28, 2019 to April 8, 2020, the TBM excavation work of K39 + 550–K40 + 850 (1288 m) was com-
pleted on the south side of the ridge. The buried depth of this tunnel section ranges from 1304 to 1510 m. A
total of 720 rockbursts occurred during excavation, including 146 light rockbursts, 216 medium rockbursts and
358 strong rockbursts. Figure 2 is the statistic of the number of rockbursts of different grades at different depths
and mileages in this tunnel section. It can be seen that the buried depth is different under different rockburst
grades, and the rockburst grade is directly proportional to the buried depth. The greater the buried depth, the
stronger the rockburst intensity.

ELevation(m) ELevation(m)
2250 2250
K36+000m South Nouth K49+000m
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000
QF4 f8

500 500
Granite Diorite Meta sandstone Meta sandstone
DMss DMss Fault Tunnel
5 4 2C 2-3q

Figure 1.  Geological profile of the ridge-crossing section.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

1520
Depth
1500 Light rockburst
1 28
Medium rockburst
50
Strong rockburst
12 3

Tunnel buried depth (m)

34
1450

1400 15 15

1350 1 32 2 36 20
40
54 104 91 74 17
91

1300
39550 39633 40055 40162 40298 40393 40571 40850
Stake number (m)

Figure 2.  Rockburst statistics.

According to the field statistics, light rockbursts mainly occurred at the arch roof within one times the tun-
nel diameter from the working face, with fewer side walls and no arch bottom. Moderate and strong rockbursts
mainly occurred at the arch roof and shoulder of the tunnel within 2–3 times the tunnel diameter from the
working face, accounting for about 66% of the total number of rockbursts. The probability of occurrence is
about 20% at the arch waist and occasionally at the right arch bottom. The damage depth of surrounding rock
caused by rockburst is 0.1–3.8 m, and the shape of the pit is mainly triangular and conical. From the geological
conditions of the on-site rockburst location, rockbursts mostly occurred in intact hard surrounding rock, and
the compressive strength of the surrounding rock is mainly between 100 and 200 MPa. When the compressive
strength is less than 100 MPa, rockburst rarely occurred. The development degree and direction of joints are
closely related to rockbursts.

Study on the in situ stress in the ridge cross section

In‑situ stress measurement
In-situ stress and excavation disturbance are two basic factors of rock burst during tunnel e­ xcavation39,40. There-
fore, the research team conducted three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing in-situ stress tests at K38 + 850 (buried
depth of about 1300 m) in the south of the ridge granite section and K46 + 190 (buried depth of about 1170 m)
in the north of the ridge meta sandstone section of the Qinling deep buried tunnel. The three-dimensional
hydraulic fracturing method does not assume that the borehole axis is one of the principal stress directions, and
thus a more accurate three-dimensional stress state can be obtained than the results obtained by the conventional
hydraulic fracturing method. The principle of the method is to conduct conventional hydraulic fracturing tests
by using three boreholes in different directions to form a three-dimensional in-situ stress measurement section,
and then obtain the three-dimensional in-situ stress values and directions by the coordinate transformation of
the stress components and the solving of linear algebraic equations. The detailed principle of the 3D hydraulic
fracturing method is described by Zhou et al.41. The boreholes layout is shown in Fig. 3. The field test condition
and typical fracturing curve are shown in Fig. 4.
Due to space limitations and for ease of later application, only the results of the vertical boreholes (Table 1)
and the final three-dimensional results (Table 2) are presented in this paper. It can be seen that the horizontal
principal stress obtained by the three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing method is basically consistent with that
obtained by the two-dimensional hydraulic fracturing method for vertical boreholes, which confirms the reli-
ability of the test results. The maximum principal stress of the Qinling tunnel crossing the ridge reaches 62.8–65.0
MPa, which is an extremely high stress level. In terms of horizontal principal stresses, the principal stresses of the

S55°W N61°W S67°W N53°W

Vertical borehole

ZK03 Horizontal borehole

ZK02 ZK02 ZK03

ZK01 ZK01 tunnel N7°E

Sanhekou Reservoir K38+850 K46+190 Huangchigou

Figure 3.  Boreholes layout.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

50
45
40
35

Pressure (MPa)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s)
(a) Field test condition (b) Typical fracturing curve

Figure 4.  Field test condition and typical fracturing curve.

Borhole Depth/m σH/MPa σh/MPa σZ/MPa λH λh αH/°

10.0 40.6 22.2 33.3 1.2 0.7
14.1 42.8 22.7 33.4 1.3 0.7
K38 + 850 17.7 49.1 27.4 33.5 1.5 0.8
ZK01 20.1 53.6 28.5 33.5 1.6 0.9 117°
24.4 54.2 28.6 33.7 1.6 0.8
27.8 53.1 28.0 33.7 1.6 0.8 103°
12.8 52.4 33.1 31.9 1.6 1.0 86°
14.7 62.3 38.3 32.0 1.9 1.2
16.3 57.3 34.3 32.0 1.8 1.1
K46 + 190
17.9* 34.3 27.3 32.1 1.8 0.9
ZK01
19.5 59.7 36.3 32.1 1.9 1.1
21.1 65.5 38.2 32.2 2.0 1.2 81°
25.2 62.7 34.8 32.3 1.9 1.1

Table 1.  In-situ stress test results from vertical boreholes. σH: maximum horizontal principal stress; σh:
minimum horizontal principal stress; σZ: self-weight stress; λH: maximum horizontal lateral stress factor,
λH = σH/σZ; λh: minimum horizontal lateral stress factor, λh = σh/σZ; αH: maximum horizontal principal stress
azimuth.

Spatial principal stress Horizontal principal stress

σ1 σ2 σ3 σH σh αH
Experimental Value Dip angle Azimuth Value Dip angle Azimuth Value Dip angl Azimuth Value Value Azimuth
position (MPa) (°) angle (°) (MPa) (°) angle (°) (MPa) e °) angle (°) (MPa) (MPa) angle (°)
K38 + 850 62.8 37 276 37.1 25 165 25.5 42 49 51.1 33.2 107
K46 + 190 65.0 9 269 49.6 48 11 26.8 40 172 64.5 36.4 86

Table 2.  Three-dimensional in-situ stress test results.

south of the ridge granite section mainly show σH > σZ > σh, and the principal stresses of the north of the ridge meta
sandstone section mainly show σH > σh ≥ σZ, both of which are dominated by horizontal tectonic stress. Influenced
by the topography and fault structure, the horizontal principal stress direction in the north of the ridge and in
the north of the ridge is slightly different. The stress direction in the south of the ridge is mainly NWW, and the
stress direction in the north of the ridge is mainly NEE. According to the overall analysis, the stress direction
of the Qinling tunnel is generally EW, which is consistent with the characteristics of the second-stage tectonic
stress field, where the stress field is dominated by NWW-SEE compression.

Inversion analysis of in‑situ stress field

In-situ stress testing is the most direct way to understand the stress field in the engineering area. However, due
to factors such as expensive testing costs, test site limitations and complex geological conditions, it is impossible
to conduct detailed and extensive testing, and the measurement results at each measuring point can only reflect
­ eld41. Therefore, this paper adopts the multivariate linear regression m
the local stress fi ­ ethod42 to invert the

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

in-situ stress field in the ridge section of the Qinling deep buried tunnel in order to understand the distribution
law of the in-situ stress field.

Model and mechanical parameters

The 3D numerical calculation model with a total length of 13 km from K36 + 000 to K49 + 000 in the ridge section
of the Qinling tunnel is established, which reflects the main lithology and geological structure in the project area,
as shown in Fig. 5. The linear elastic constitutive model is used in the calculation. The calculation parameters
of the rock mass are comprehensively selected according to the tunnel investigation test, as shown in Table 3.

Analysis of inversion results

The stress field inversion aims at the initial in-situ stress field in the engineering area, while the measured in-situ
stress is measured in the excavated tunnel, and the shallow stress of the surrounding rock is mainly the secondary
stress field disturbed by the excavation, so the shallow measuring points cannot be used for stress field inversion.
According to the measured results and engineering experience, the undisturbed in-situ stress is about 2 times
the diameter of the tunnel, which can be used for the inversion of the initial in-situ stress field. Based on the in-
situ stress data from deep measuring points, the initial in-situ stress field in the engineering area of the Qinling
tunnel crossing the ridge is obtained by inversion. Figure 6 shows the distribution of maximum and minimum
principal stresses of the model obtained by inversion.
Figure 7 shows the comparison between the measured and the calculated values of each measuring point
outside the range of 2 times the tunnel diameter of the vertical borehole. The results show that the measured
values of each measuring point are in good agreement with the regression calculated values, and the calculated
maximum horizontal principal stress direction is close to the measured direction. Therefore, the in-situ stress
field obtained by regression is reasonable.

Stress distribution law in the axial direction of the tunnel

In order to understand the stress state of the tunnel, and to provide a reference for the study of rockburst mecha-
nism and engineering design during tunnel construction, the stress values of the tunnel at different positions
are obtained by interpolation from the regression results of the in-situ stress field. Figures 8 and 9 show the

Weathering layer

f8 DMss
2-3q
QF4 Meta
sandstone
Tunnel 4 DMss
2C
Diorite Meta
sandstone
5
Granite

Figure 5.  3D numerical calculation model drawn using Altair 2021 Hypermesh software.

Young’s modulus Internal friction Tensile strength

Lithology (GPa) Poisson’s ratio Density (kg/m3) angle (°) Cohesion (MPa) (MPa)
Granite (γ5) 37.1 0.2 2660 58 2.4 2.7
Diorite (δ4) 26.3 0.22 2700 56 2.1 2.4
Meta
sandstone(DMss 20.6 0.25 2640 48 1.5 2
2C)
Meta
sandstone(DMss 18.7 0.27 2630 44 1.3 1.8
2-3q)
Fault 1.1 0.33 2350 25 0.18 0.1
Weathering layer 0.7 0.4 1950 20 0.1 –

Table 3.  Rock mechanical parameters.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

(a) 1 (b) 3

Figure 6.  Model principal stress distribution drawn using ITASCA’s ­FLAC3D 7.0 software(unit: Pa).

Measured stress-K38+850(ZK01) Measured azimuth angle-K38+850(ZK01)

Measured stress-K46+190(ZK01) Measured azimuth angle-K46+190(ZK01)
Calculated stress Calculated azimuth angle
70 120
H

65 h 115
Z
60
110
55

Azimuth angle (
105
Stress (MPa)

50
100
45
95
40
90
35

30 85

25 80
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Depth (m)

Figure 7.  Comparison of measured and calculated values.

130 Buried depth 2000

5 4 DMss
2C
DMss
2-3q
120 1 H 1800
110 2 h QF4 1600
f8
100

Buried depth (m)

3 Z 1400
90
Stress (MPa)

80 1200
70 1000
60 800
50 600
40
30 400
20 200
10 0
36000 37000 38000 39000 40000 41000 42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000
Stake number (m)

Figure 8.  Principal stress distribution law.

distribution of principal stresses and buried depth, lateral pressure coefficients and azimuth angles of maximum
horizontal principal stresses in relation to the stake number on the tunnel axis in the Qinling tunnel crossing
the ridge, respectively.
It can be seen that the stress at the lithologic boundary and the fault is significantly different, and the stress
in the fault influence zone is significantly lower than that in the complete rock mass. The first principal stress
of the tunnel is 32.8–71.9 MPa, the second principal stress is 25.9–50.7 MPa, and the third principal stress is

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

5 100
90
Lateral pressure coefficient of
horizontal principal stress
4 80
Azimuth angle

Azimuth angle (°)

H
70
3 h
60
50
2 40
30
1 20
10
0 0
36000 37000 38000 39000 40000 41000 42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000
Stake number (m)

Figure 9.  Lateral pressure coefficient and azimuthal angle distribution law.

15.9–34.3 MPa. The maximum horizontal principal stress is 31.7–71.8 MPa, the minimum horizontal principal
stress is 21.4–43.5 MPa and the self-weight stress is 17.0–60.7 MPa. The stress field of the tunnel is mainly hori-
zontal stress, and the lateral pressure coefficients of the maximum and minimum horizontal principal stress are
distributed in 0.88–2.14 and 0.41–1.71, respectively, mainly concentrated in 1.4–1.7 and 0.6–1.2, respectively.
The buried depth of the granite and diorite tunnel section is greater than 1100 m, and the horizontal principal
stress is σH > σZ > σh. The buried depth of the meta sandstone tunnel section is less than 1100 m, and the hori-
zontal principal stress is σH > σh > σZ. The maximum horizontal principal stress azimuth angle of the tunnel is
concentrated at 85° ~ 95°, which is nearly perpendicular to the tunnel axis, which is unfavorable to the stability
of the surrounding rock of the tunnel.

Rockburst tendency during construction period

Based on the σc/σm rockburst criterion, the rockburst tendency of the Qinling tunnel crossing the ridge during
the construction period was predicted. The saturated uniaxial compressive strength of granite (γ5), diorite (δ4),
meta sandstone (DMss 2C) and meta sandstone (DMss 2-3q) is 150 MPa, 125 MPa, 120 MPa and 115 MPa
respectively, and σc/σm was calculated along the tunnel. The rockburst tendency during construction period
along the tunnel is shown in Fig. 10.
It can be seen that during the excavation of the tunnel construction, there is a possibility of medium rockburst
in the granite tunnel section on the south side of the ridge, and the probability of strong rockburst gradually
increases with the increase of the buried depth of the tunnel. In the diorite tunnel section, if the buried depth is
greater than about 1500 m, strong rockburst may occur. If the buried depth is less than about 1500 m, medium
rockburst may occur. In addition, strong rockburst may occur in the tunnel section near the QF4 fault influence
zone. Medium rockburst may occur in the tunnel section of meta sandstone (DMss 2C), while strong rockburst
may occur near the f8 fault influence zone. Strong rockburst may occur in the tunnel section of meta sandstone
(DMss 2-3q).

Numerical simulation analysis of TBM excavation in rockburst tunnel section

Model and monitoring points
A three-dimensional numerical model of the tunnel excavation was established using the example of the
K39 + 550–K40 + 850 rockburst tunnel section with an average buried depth of 1400 m in the granite tunnel sec-
tion on the south side of the ridge in “Characteristics of rockburst during construction period” section. The size
of the model is 100 m × 60 m × 100 m (X × Y × Z), and the excavation diameter of the tunnel is 8.02 m, as shown
in Fig. 11a. The X-axis is the horizontal axis perpendicular to the tunnel axis, the Y-axis is along the direction

7 Strong rockburst 2000

5 4 DMss
2C
DMss
2-3q
Medium rockburst 1800
Buried depth QF4 f8 1600
c/ m
Buried depth (m)

1400
4 1200
c/ m

1000
800
2 600
400
1
200
0 0
36000 37000 38000 39000 40000 41000 42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000
Stake number (m)

Figure 10.  Rockburst tendency during construction period along the tunnel.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

1#
8# 2#

7# 3#

6# 4#
5#

(a) Calculation model (b) Monitoring points

Figure 11.  Calculation model and monitoring points.

of the tunnel axis, and the Z-axis is straight up. In the process of tunnel excavation, eight measurement points,
including the arch roof (1#), the right arch shoulder (2#), the right arch waist (3#), the right arch foot (4#), the
arch bottom (5#), the left arch foot (6#), the left arch waist (7#), the left arch shoulder (8#) on the monitoring
section Y = 30 m in the central part of the model are monitored, and the arrangement of the monitoring points
is shown in Fig. 11b.
The Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model is used in the calculation, and the model parameters are shown in
Table 3. The initial stress field of the model is interpolated and balanced directly from the overall in-situ stress
field obtained by inversion. Then, the continuous construction process of the TBM excavation is simulated, with
each excavation step of 1 m.

Dynamic adjustment characteristics of the surrounding rock stress

Figure 12a shows the stress redistribution of the surrounding rock after tunnel excavation, and Fig. 12b shows
the stress distribution at different distances from the tunnel wall in the radial OA and OB directions. It can be
seen that after tunnel excavation, the surrounding rock stress is redistributed, and the adjustment range is about
3.5 times the diameter of the tunnel. The surrounding rock stress is basically symmetrically distributed, and the
angle between the symmetry plane and the vertical direction is about 5°. The surrounding rock stress in the range
of about 0.3 m around the tunnel is apparently released, forming a loose circle. The arch roof and arch bottom
of the tunnel form stress concentration zones (the maximum principal stress can reach 96.8 MPa) in the depth

A 100 100
90
80 OA
90 70
OB
Stress (MPa)

60
80
5° 50
40
70 30
Stress (MPa)

20
60 10

O B 50
0
0 1 2
Distance (m)
3 4

40
30
Initial stress
20
10
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Distance (m)
(b) Surrounding rock Stress distribution at different distances
(a) Maximum principal stress distribution (unit: Pa)
from the tunnel wall
Figure 12.  Surrounding rock stress distribution.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

range of 0.3–28 m from the tunnel wall, of which the range of 0.3–5 m is the most obvious. The left and right
side walls of the tunnel form stress concentration zones (the maximum principal stress can reach 58.1 MPa) in
the depth range of 0.3–3.5 m, and stress unloading zones are formed in the depth range of 3.5–24 m.
Figure 13 shows the stress dynamic variation law of each monitoring point on the monitoring section during
TBM excavation. Due to the symmetry of the surrounding rock stress distribution, only 1#–5# measuring points
are analyzed here. The principal stress states of σ1, σ2, and σ3 under initial stress are basically the same as those
of σX, σZ, and σY respectively, that is, the direction of maximum principal stress σ1 is perpendicular to the tunnel
axis, the direction of intermediate principal stress σ2 is basically vertical, and the direction of minimum principal

100
1 x 1 x
70
90 2 y 2 y

80 3 z 60 3 z

70
50

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

60
40
50
40 30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Distance (m) Distance (m)
(a) 1# measuring point (b) 2# measuring point
60 80
1 x
70 2 y
50
3 z
60
40
50
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

30 40

30
20
1 x
20
2 y
10
3 z 10

0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Distance (m) Distance (m)
(c) 3# measuring point (d) 4# measuring point
100
1 x
90
2 y
80 3 z

70
Stress (MPa)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Distance (m)
(e) 4# measuring point

Figure 13.  Stress dynamics change law at each monitoring point.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

stress σ3 is the tunnel axis. During the TBM excavation, stress adjustment occurred in the range of approximately
3.7 times the tunnel diameter (− 15 to 15 m) before and after the working face.
As can be seen from Fig. 13a,e, the stress evolution law of the arch roof and arch bottom is basically the same.
As the working face is close to the monitoring section, σ1 and σ2 gradually increase, while σ3 first decreases and
then increases. As the working face passes through the monitoring section and moves far away, σ1 continues to
increase until stability is reached, and σ2, σ3 first decrease and then increase until stability is reached. After the
surrounding rock stress is stabilized, σ1 shows obvious stress concentration, σ2 stress level is slightly increased
but not significant, and σ3 shows obvious stress unloading effect, and the quantities of σ1, σ2, and σ3 are 2.06, 1.24,
and 0.22 times of the initial stress state, respectively. The values of σ1 and σ3 after adjustment for the surrounding
rock stress are consistent with the values of σX, and σZ, respectively, and the difference between σ2 and σY is about
10 MPa. It indicates that the stress directions of σ2 and σ3 at the arc roof and arch bottom was changed, the stress
direction of σ2 was changed from the vertical to a small angle intersecting with the tunnel axis, and the stress
direction of σ3 was changed from the tunnel axis to the vertical.
As can be seen from Fig. 13b,d, the stress evolution law of the arch shoulder and arch foot is basically the same
except for the magnitude. As the working face is close to the monitoring section, σ1 and σ2 gradually increase,
while σ3 first decreases and then increases. As the working face passes through the monitoring section and
moves far away, σ1, σ2, and σ3 first decrease and then increase until stability is reached. After the surrounding
rock stress is stabilized, σ1 shows obvious stress concentration, σ2 and σ3 shows obvious stress unloading effect.
The quantities of σ1, σ2, and σ3 of the arch shoulder are 1.47, 0.92, and 0.19 times of the initial stress state, and
the quantities of σ1, σ2, and σ3 of the arch shoulder are 1.64, 1.02, and 0.23 times of the initial stress state. The
values of σ2 and σZ after adjustment for the surrounding rock stress are consistent, and the values of σ1 and σ2 are
different from those of σ1 and σ2, respectively, but the magnitude relationships of σX, σY, and σZ are still consistent
with the initial stress state. It indicates that the principal stress directions of the arch shoulder and arch foot did
not change much after the stress redistribution of the surrounding rock.
From Fig. 13c, it can be seen that as the working face is close to the monitoring section, σ1 and σ2 gradually
increase at the arch waist, while σ3 first decreases and then increases. As the working face passes through the
monitoring section and moves far away, σ1, σ2, and σ3 first decrease and then increase until stability is reached.
After the surrounding rock stress is stabilized, σ1 shows obvious stress concentration, σ2 and σ3 shows obvious
stress unloading effect, and the quantities of σ1, σ2, and σ3 are 1.21, 0.77, and 0.15 times of the initial stress state,
respectively. The values of σ1 and σ3 after adjustment for the surrounding rock stress are consistent with the values
of σZ, and σX, respectively, and the difference between σ2 and σY is about 7 MPa. It indicates that the stress direc-
tions at the arc waist was changed, the stress direction of σ1 was changed from the perpendicular to the tunnel
axis to the vertical, the stress direction of σ2 was changed from the vertical to a small angle intersecting with the
tunnel axis, and the stress direction of σ3 was changed from the tunnel axis to the perpendicular to the tunnel axis.

Dynamic adjustment characteristics of the strain energy of the surrounding rock

During tunnel excavation, due to the release of confining pressure, the surrounding rock stress is redistributed,
resulting in the release and accumulation of elastic strain energy. When the elastic strain energy in a certain part
accumulates to the energy storage limit of the rock mass, rockburst may occur. Figure 14 shows the distribution
of elastic strain energy of the surrounding rock and the change in elastic strain energy after tunnel excavation.

(b) Change in elastic strain energy before and after

(a) Elastic strain energy distribution after excavation
excavation
Figure 14.  Distribution and change of strain energy after tunnel excavation (unit: J m
­ 3).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 15 shows the variation of elastic strain energy at each monitoring point on the monitoring section with
the TBM excavation.
As can be seen from Fig. 14, after excavation, the elastic strain energy of the surrounding rock in the range
of 0–0.5 m around the tunnel wall decreases, while the strain energy of other parts increases, and elastic strain
energy accumulation zones appear at the arch roof and arch bottom, and the maximum accumulated energy
can reach 118.1 kJ/m3. As can be seen from Fig. 15, as the working face progresses, the elastic strain energy of
each measurement point on the monitoring section undergoes a cyclic dynamic adjustment process of release
and accumulation, eventually reaching a stable state. For the elastic strain energy stabilized after each excava-
tion step, the elastic strain energy begins to increase significantly at approximately 10 m from the front of the
working face. As the working face approaches the monitoring section, the elastic strain energy at each measuring
point gradually increases. When the working face reaches the monitoring section, the elastic strain energy at
each measuring point increases to the peak value before excavation. When the working face passes through the
monitoring section and moves far away, the elastic strain energy of the arch shoulder, arch waist, and arch foot
drops sharply at 1 m behind the working face and then continues to increase, while the elastic strain energy of
the arch roof and arch bottom continues to increase. The elastic strain energy of each measurement point tends
to stabilize when the working face is 20 m away from the monitoring section. The elastic strain energy after
excavation stabilization is higher than that before excavation at each measuring point, and the increases of arch
bottom and arch roof are the largest, which is 3.49 times that before excavation. The arch foot and arch shoulder
are 2.19 times and 1.78 times respectively before excavation. The arch waist is the smallest, which is 1.20 times
of that before excavation.

Rockburst mechanical mechanism analysis

The stress state of the surrounding rock of the deep buried tunnel is very complicated. When the tunnel is not
excavated, the rock mass is in a three-way and six-sided stress state, while when the tunnel is excavated, the
surrounding rock at the surface of the tunnel changes to a three-way and five-sided stress state (Fig. 16), and the
deeper part is in a three-way and six-sided stress state, which may lead to ­rockburst43,44.
Figure 17 shows the stress path changes at each monitoring point on the monitoring section during tunnel
excavation. It can be seen that the stress state at each point is constantly adjusted closer to the strength envelope
as the excavation step progresses. From Fig. 17a, the arch roof, arch waist and arch bottom have stress transient
unloading at the moment of excavation, and the rock mass element has yielded, which is prone to occur imme-
diate rockburst at this time, and then the stress state is readjusted. From the stress state after each excavation
step of the tunnel (Fig. 17b), when the working face reaches the monitoring surface, except for the arch roof, the
stress state of the other four monitoring points is close to the strength envelope. When the working face passes
2–3 m through the monitoring section, the stress state of all measuring points reaches the vicinity of the strength
envelope, and then the stress state develops basically parallel to the strength envelope. The stress state of the arch
roof and arch bottom has basically reached a critical state, and rockburst is most likely to occur after an external
disturbance, which is a time delayed rockburst.
According to the variation law of the stress path of the surrounding rock during tunnel excavation, the poten-
tial risk area of rockburst can be identified, and the force source conditions of rockburst can be found out, but it
is difficult to determine the rockburst intensity. According to the rockburst energy criterion in “Energy criterion
of rockburst” Section, the distribution of the ratio Ue/U0 between the elastic strain energy storage Ue and the
ultimate energy storage U0 of the surrounding rock was obtained, as shown in Fig. 18a. It can be seen that the
maximum value of Ue/U0 at the arch roof and arch bottom of the tunnel can reach 0.54, and there is a possibility
of strong rockburst. The distance between the critical point of the strong rockburst and the tunnel surface is about
3.6 m, which is consistent with the depth of rockburst pit of 0.1–3.8 m according to the field statistics (Fig. 18b).

140 100 140 1#

80 2#
120 120 3#
Elastic strain energy (KJ/m3)

Elastic strain energy (KJ/m3)

60
4#
40
100 100 5#
20
3.5 4.0 4.5

80 1# 80
2#
3#
60 4# 60
5#
40 40

20 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Calculation time step( ) Distance (m)

(a) History of elastic strain energy change (b) Variation of elastic strain energy with excavation step

Figure 15.  Evolution law of elastic strain energy at monitoring points.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Z Z
Y Y

X X X Free surface

Y Y
Z Z

Before excavation After excavation

Figure 16.  Stress state of rock mass before and after excavation.

100 1# 100 1#
i t e r i on

erion
Calculation time step 2# Excavation step 2#
3# 3#

mb crit
m b cr

90 89619 0 90 60 1
4# 4#
C ou l o

5# 5#

Coulo
80 80
F2
(MPa)

(MPa)
M oh r -

Mohr-
70 70
1

60 60

50 50 The working face reaches

the monitoring surface

40 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3 (MPa) 3 (MPa)

(a) History of stress path change (b) Stress path change after each excavation

Figure 17.  Stress path change at monitoring points during tunnel excavation.

Rockburst pit
3.6m

Tunnel contour line

(a) Ue/U0 distribution (unit: J m3) (b) On-site rockburst

Figure 18.  Comparison of rockburst analysis results.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

During the actual construction process on site, rockbursts rarely occurred at the right arch bottom, which was
mainly due to the influence of the TBM’s own weight, which changed the stress distribution near the bottom. It
is worth noting that the influence of the TBM’s own weight on the surrounding rock stress was not considered
in the numerical simulation, but this did not affect the analysis results of other parts.

Conclustion
Through the in-situ stress test and inversion of the deep buried Qinling tunnel crossing the ridge, combined with
the dynamic adjustment law of stress and elastic strain energy of the surrounding rock during tunnel excavation,
the stress and energy conditions of the rockburst occurred during excavation are proved. The main conclusions
are as follows:

1. The maximum principal stress of the deep buried tunnel crossing the ridge of Qinling is 40–66 MPa, which
belongs to extremely high in-situ stress level, and medium-strong rockburst may occur during excavation.
2. In the process of TBM excavation, the surrounding rock stress in the range of 3.7 times the diameter of the
tunnel before and after the working face is violently adjusted. The concentrated zones after stress redistri-
bution are mainly distributed in the arch roof and arch bottom, and the stress concentration factor can be
up to 2.06. The arch roof, arch waist, and arch bottom are susceptible to immediate rockburst due to stress
transient unloading at the moment of excavation. The arch roof and arch bottom are susceptible to time
delayed rockburst after stress redistribution.
3. The elastic strain energy of the surrounding rock has experienced the process of release and accumulation.
The rockburst energy index Ue/U0 shows the strong rockburst tendency at the arch roof and arch bottom,
and the maximum depth of the rockburs pit can reach 3.5 m, which is basically consistent with the location
and depth of the rockburst observed in the field.

Data availability
Data will be made available on request and can be obtained by contacting Chao Zhou (email: czhouwhu@whu.
edu.cn).

Received: 11 May 2024; Accepted: 2 August 2024

References
1. Siren, T., Kantia, P. & Rinne, M. Considerations and observations of stress-induced and construction-induced excavation damage
zone in crystalline rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 73, 165–174 (2015).
2. Zhao, Z., Tan, Y., Chen, S., Ma, Q. & Gao, X. Theoretical analyses of stress field in surrounding rocks of weakly consolidated tunnel
in a high-humidity deep enevironment. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 122, 104064 (2019).
3. Xue, T. et al. Geo-mechanical model test on the water inrush induced by zonal disintegration of deep tunnel under hydro-
mechanical coupling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 160, 105278 (2022).
4. Gao, L. et al. Stress distribution characteristics of the surrounding rock of the gob-side coal–rock roadway in a gently inclined coal
seam under the influence of excavation and mining disturbance based on infrared detection. Int. J. Geomech. 23(12), 04023233
(2023).
5. Cook, N. G. W. The basic mechanics of rockbursts. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 64(3), 71–81 (1963).
6. Cook, N. G. W. A note on rockbursts considered as a problem of stability. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 65(8), 437–446 (1965).
7. Feng, X. et al. Studies on the evolution process of rockbursts in deep tunnels. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. 4(4), 289–295 (2012).
8. Xiao, Y., Feng, X., Li, S. & Yu, Y. Rock mass failure mechanisms during the evolution process of rockbursts in tunnels. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. 83, 174–181 (2016).
9. Liu, J., Gao, Y., Chen, F. & Cao, Z. Mechanism study and tendency judgement of rockburst in deep-buried underground engineer-
ing. Minerals 12, 1241 (2022).
10. He, M. C., Nie, W., Zhao, Z. Y. & Guo, W. H. Experimental investigation of bedding plane orientation on the rockburst behavior
of sandstone. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 45, 311–326 (2012).
11. He, M., Yang, Y., Gao, F. & Fan, Y. Stress sensitivity origin of extended defects production under coupled irradiation and mechanical
loading. Acta Mater. 248, 118758 (2023).
12. Fan, Y., Iwashita, T. & Egami, T. Evolution of elastic heterogeneity during aging in metallic glasses. Phys. Rev. E 89(6), 062313
(2014).
13. Fan, Y., Osetskiy, Y. N., Yip, S. & Yildiz, B. Mapping strain rate dependence of dislocation-defect interactions by atomistic simula-
tions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110(44), 17756–17761 (2013).
14. Fan, Y., Yildiz, B. & Yip, S. Analogy between glass rheology and crystal plasticity: Yielding at high strain rate. Soft Matter 9(40),
9511–9514 (2013).
15. Fan, Y., Osetsky, Y. N., Yip, S. & Yildiz, B. Onset mechanism of strain-rate-induced flow stress upturn. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(13),
135503 (2012).
16. Bai, Z., Balbus, G. H., Gianola, D. S. & Fan, Y. Mapping the kinetic evolution of metastable grain boundaries under non-equilibrium
processing. Acta Mater. 200, 328–337 (2020).
17. Bai, Z. & Fan, Y. Abnormal strain rate sensitivity driven by a unit dislocation-obstacle interaction in bcc Fe. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(12),
125504 (2018).
18. Tian, L., Fan, Y., Li, L. & Mousseau, N. Identifying flow defects in amorphous alloys using machine learning outlier detection
methods. Scripta Mater. 186, 185–189 (2020).
19. Fan, Y., Iwashita, T. & Egami, T. How thermally activated deformation starts in metallic glass. Nat. Commun. 5(1), 5083 (2014).
20. Liu, C., Guan, P. & Fan, Y. Correlating defects density in metallic glasses with the distribution of inherent structures in potential
energy landscape. Acta Mater. 161, 295–301 (2018).
21. Fan, Y., Iwashita, T. & Egami, T. Energy landscape-driven non-equilibrium evolution of inherent structure in disordered material.
Nat. Commun. 8(1), 15417 (2017).
22. Fan, Y., Iwashita, T. & Egami, T. Crossover from localized to cascade relaxations in metallic glasses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115(4), 045501
(2015).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

23. Fan, Y., Yip, S. & Yildiz, B. Autonomous basin climbing method with sampling of multiple transition pathways: Application to
anisotropic diffusion of point defects in hcp Zr. J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 26(36), 365402 (2014).
24. Fan, Y., Kushima, A., Yip, S. & Yildiz, B. Mechanism of void nucleation and growth in bcc Fe: Atomistic simulations at experimental
time scales. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(12), 125501 (2011).
25. Fan, Y., Kushima, A. & Yildiz, B. Unfaulting mechanism of trapped self-interstitial atom clusters in bcc Fe: A kinetic study based
on the potential energy landscape. Phys. Rev. B 81(10), 104102 (2010).
26. Zhao, Z., Ali, E., Wu, G. & Wang, X. Assessment of strain energy storage and rock brittleness indices of rockburst potential from
microfabric characterizations. Am. J. Earth Sci. 2(8), 32 (2015).
27. Si, X., Luo, Y., Gong, F., Huang, J. & Han, K. Temperature effect of rockburst in granite caverns: Insights from reduced-scale model
true-triaxial test. Geomech. Geophys. Geol. 10(1), 26 (2024).
28. Si, X., Luo, Y. & Luo, S. Influence of lithology and bedding orientation on failure behavior of “D” shaped tunnel. Theor. Appl. Fract.
Mech. 129, 104219 (2024).
29. Su, G., Ren, H., Jiang, J. & Hu, X. Experimental study on the characteristics of rockburst occurring at the working face during
tunnel excavation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 164, 105347 (2023).
30. Wu, W., Gong, F., Ren, L. & He, L. Strain rockburst failure characteristics and mechanism of high stress circular hard rock tunnel
triggered by dynamic impact load. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 171, 105575 (2023).
31. Li, C. C., Zhao, T., Zhang, Y. & Wan, W. A study on the energy sources and the role of the surrounding rock mass in strain burst.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 154, 105114 (2022).
32. Zhu, B., Fan, J., Shi, X., Liu, P. & Guo, J. Study on rockburst proneness of deep tunnel under different geo-stress conditions based
on DEM. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 40, 1373–1386 (2022).
33. Qiu, D. et al. Rockburst prediction based on tunnel geological exploration and ground stress field inverse analysis. Rock Soil Mech.
36(07), 2034–2040 (2015) ((in Chinese)).
34. Liu, F., Zhang, Y. & Ma, T. Rockburst and microseismicity characteristics in the qinling water conveyance tunnel of the hanjiang-
to-weihe river diversion project. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 148, 104973 (2021).
35. Askaripour, M., Saeidi, A., Rouleau, A. & Mercier-Langevin, P. Rockburst in underground excavations: A review of mechanism,
classification, and prediction methods. Undergr. Space 7(4), 577–607 (2022).
36. Lu, J., Gong, Q., Wei, J., Han, B. & Yin, L. Determination of rockburst reduction coefficient βA in the modified rock mass classifica-
tion system for TBM tunnels and tunneling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 174, 105657 (2024).
37. The National Standards Compilation Group of People’s Republic of China. GB 50287-2016 Code for Engineering Geological Inves-
tigation of Water Resources and Hydropower 139–140 (China Planning Press, 2016) (in Chinese).
38. Chen, W., Lu, S., Guo, X. & Qiao, C. Research on unloading confining pressure tests and rockburst criterion based on energy
theory. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 28(8), 1530–1540 (2009) ((in Chinese)).
39. Orlecka-Sikora, B., Lasocki, S., Lizurek, G. & Rudziński, Ł. Response of seismic activity in mines to the stress changes due to min-
ing induced strong seismic events. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 53, 151–158 (2012).
40. Wang, G. F. et al. Evolution of stress concentration and energy release before rock bursts: Two case studies from Xingan coal mine,
Hegang, China. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 49, 3393–3401 (2016).
41. Zhou, C., Yin, J., Liu, Y., Han, X. & Zhang, X. Inversion analysis of the complex initial stress field of an extra-long tunnel based on
"overlapping partition-integration. In ISRM International Symposium-Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium. ISRM-ARMS11, ISRM
(2021).
42. Zhou, C. et al. The partitioned inversion method of initial stress field of extra-long tunnel considering the direction of boundary
load. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 41(S1), 2725–2734 (2022) ((in Chinese)).
43. He, M. & Sousa, L.R. Experiments on rock burst and its control. In Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference, Sidney
19–31 (2014).
44. Si, X. & Gong, F. Strength-weakening effect and shear-tension failure mode transformation mechanism of rockburst for fine-grained
granite under triaxial unloading compression. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 131, 104347 (2020).

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Major science and technology special plan of Yunnan Province [grant num-
bers 202002AF080003, 202102AF080001], and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central public welfare
research institutes [grant numbers CKSF2023308/YT, CKSF2023316/YT]. The authors thanks to all supporters.

Author contributions
C.Z.: Writing-original draft, Software, Investigation, Data curation. Z.D.: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Funding acquisition, Writing—review & editing. C.Z.: Investigation, Data curation. P.F.: Data curation. S.L.:
Investigation, Data curation.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Z.D.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 15

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and
your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​
licen​ses/​by-​nc-​nd/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:18076 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69274-x 16

Vol:.(1234567890)