IOP Conference Series:
Earth and
Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like
- CFD analysis of flow over ogee spillway
Tunnel Stability Analysis Under Seismic Load with varying upstream face slope
I Siva Parvathi and Atiya Neelofer
Using Finite Element Method: A Case Study of - Characterizations of flow over stepped
spillways with steps having transverse
Spillway Tunnel, Sidan Dam, Bali, Indonesia slopes
A S Ali and O S Q Yousif
To cite this article: Benny Arianto et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1244 012021 - The influence of structure parameters on
the pressure characteristics of spillway
tunnel
Chen Funan, Huang Xiaoying, Xue Yang
et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 176.123.29.203 on 06/09/2025 at 20:39
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
Tunnel Stability Analysis Under Seismic Load Using Finite
Element Method: A Case Study of Spillway Tunnel,
Sidan Dam, Bali, Indonesia
Benny Arianto1,2, I Gde Budi Indrawan1, and I Wayan Warmada1
1. Gadjah Mada University, Geological Engineering Department, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia
2. Ministry of Public Works and Housing of Indonesia
*E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. The location of the Sidan Spillway Tunnel, as shown on the Earthquake Hazard
Zone Map of Bali Island, is in a moderate hazard zone. The support system of the spillway
tunnel of the Sidan Dam, Indonesia, was empirically designed based on rock mass
classification systems. The objective of this research was to verify the performance of the
proposed support system by a numerical method considering the uncertainty in using rock mass
classification systems for designing a tunnel support system. In addition, being located in an
active seismic region, the seismic load was not considered in the empirical tunnel support
design. The proposed tunnel support design was numerically modeled in two dimensions using
a finite element method and subjected to a seismic load obtained from probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis. A numerical analysis without seismic load was also conducted for comparison.
Phase2 software was used for the tunnel stability analysis. The input parameters in the
numerical analysis were derived from field investigations (surface engineering geological
mapping and evaluation of drilling cores) and laboratory tests. The spillway tunnel area
consists of pyroclastic rocks, and the Generalized Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion was selected
for the strength parameter of rocks. The suggested support designs are systematic rock bolts
(20 mm diameter fully grouted), wired mesh, shotcrete, and steel ribs at specific locations. The
numerical models determined that applying the proposed tunnel support system recommended
based on the empirical method resulted in a roof strength factor of more than 1.5 under static
load & 1.1 under seismic load and roof displacements lower than a 10 cm maximum
displacement at every stage of construction. The results verify that the tunnel construction will
be stable and fulfill the required safety standard, both under and without seismic loads.
1. Introduction
Tunnel construction for the spillway of Sidan dam positioned at Gianyar Regency, Bali Province,
Indonesia. The lithology in this area is composed of pyroclastic rocks which are relatively weak rocks.
According to the Earthquake Hazard Zone Map of Bali Island, the location of the tunnel is in a
moderate hazard zone [1] (Figure 1). The tunnel has the potential to be impacted by quakes of
magnitude VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) and earthquake sources with moderate
depth (30 to 80 km). Initially, this tunnel's design planning employs an empirical approach that relies
on the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) classification system in the detailed designing stage, however, the
problem is considerably more complicated, involving earthquake factors, changes in pore pressure,
plasticity, lining deformations, and existing structures. Therefore, numerical analysis is required in
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
order to evaluate the design and verify tunnel construction safety. This study aims to quantitatively
evaluate the assessed tunnel support design based on an empirical methodology.
Figure 1. Hazard zone of research area map [1]
The finite element method is frequently used in tunnel construction analysis since it can analyze
more challenging problems, such as: simulating construction sequences, dealing with varied ground
conditions, modeling realistic soil behavior, handling complicated hydraulic conditions, accounting for
adjacent services and structures, simulating intermediate and long-term conditions, and dealing with
multiple tunnels [2]. In previous tunnel projects, this method has been applied in evaluating the
effectiveness of the design and mitigating the earthquake effect on the road [3], rail [4], and dam [5]
tunnels in Indonesia.
2. Methodology
During the tunnel design process, the rock mass classification and geological cross-section profile
were obtained by processing conducted field observation and drilling reports. The tunnel support
system was evaluated by the RMR [6], Q-System [7], RMi [8], GSI [9], and JSCE [10] classifications.
This research implements the 2D Finite Element Method (FEM) associated with the Phase2
software (Rocscience Inc.). The numerical analysis was conducted prior to the commencement of
tunnel excavation. The Generalized Hoek-Brown parameters, deformation modulus, uniaxial
compressive strength, Poisson’s Ratio, and vertical and horizontal stresses (in situ) have been utilized
to undertake a numerical analysis.
2.1. The Generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion
The Generalized Hoek-Brown criterion to quantify rock mass strength is expressed as below formula
(1). The criterion was chosen due to its applicability to extremely weak rock masses and the
computation of comparable Mohr-Coulomb parameters from the Hoek-Brown failure envelope [11].
Phase2 simulates the material failure by initially yielding the intact strength and dropping to a lower
residual state.
= + + (1)
2
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
Where and are the major and minor effective principal stresses at failure, is the uniaxial
compressive strength of the intact rock material, mb is the decreased value of the material constant mi
that calculated by considering the Geological Strength Index (GSI) rating of the rock and disturbance
factor (D) (2). D is a variable that depends on the degree of disturbance caused by blast damage and
stress relaxation to the rock mass. It ranges from 0 for intact rock masses in situ to 1 for extremely
disturbed rock masses. s and a are constants for the rock mass given by the following relationships.
= exp( ) (2)
= exp ( ) (3)
/ /
= + − (4)
The rock mass modulus of deformation that has been used for numerical analysis was derived by
the Generalized Hoek-Diederichs [12] method, expressed in equation 5. The residual strength
parameter of the rock was determined by the relationship between GSI residual/GSI and GSI (6) [13].
/
= 0.02 + (5)
( )
( . )
= (6)
2.2. Field Stress
Tunnel stability analysis necessarily requires the use of field stresses to characterize the in situ stresses
that occur. This in situ stress is measured as horizontal (σh) and vertical (σv) two-way stresses in the
rock. In determining σv, the depth of the overburden plays a role (7), whereas the stress ratio is applied
to compare the K ratio (8) with Sheorey's model when determining σh [14]. It is presumed that the
vertical stress increases linearly with depth due to the weight of the overburden.
=γxH (7)
= 0.25 + 7 (0.001 + ) (8)
2.3. The Seismic Load
The seismic load coefficient of the site study was derived using pseudo-static analysis based on SNI
8460: 2017 [15] and a peak acceleration map in bedrock (PGA) for a 7% probability of exceeding 75
years by the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing of Indonesia [16]. Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) is the maximum acceleration of the ground caused by earthquake shaking at a
particular location. PGA is obtained by identifying seismic zones according to the Indonesian seismic
code and ground types based on the average standard penetration test. However, the maximum
considered earthquake geometric mean PGA adjusted for site class effects (PGAm) is the value that is
applied in generating the stability model of the tunnel (9). Site coefficients (FPGA) were empirically
determined from the site class of the research area and PGA value.
= (9)
3. Results & Discussions
3.1. Engineering Geology Characteristics and Rock Mass Classifications
Based on engineering geology surface mapping and core analysis, the tunnel is located in the
pyroclastic breccia rock unit (Figure 1), which is described as follows: blackish, lapilli to block-sized
(2-30 cm) angular lithic and scoria fragments, poorly sorted, matrix ash sized supported and fining
upward. As the matrix fraction increases, the upper portion of this unit can be identified as sub-unit
tuff breccia. The results of the rock mass classification are included in Table 1. The rock properties
3
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
utilized in numerical modeling are the results of laboratory tests conducted on samples from the tunnel
portal, which are interpreted to represent the rock units' properties (Table 2).
Figure 2. Spillway tunnel lithology cross-section
Table 1. Rock mass classification identifications at tunnel elevation
RMR Q-System RMi JSCE GSI
No. Borehole
Class Class Class Class Rating
1 BPS Fair Poor Medium D II 46
2 BHT 6 Fair Very Poor High C II 45
3 BHT 7 Fair Poor High C II 51
Table 2. Rock units’ properties
Unit
Modulus Friction Unit Weight
UCS Poisson Cohesion Weight
No. Lithology Intact Angle Dry mi D
(MPa) Ratio MPa 0 3 Saturated
MPa () MN/m 3
MN/m
1 Soil - 0.3 - 0.02 43.92 0.011 0.015 - -
2 Lapilli 1 0.3 - 0.07 33.00 0.005 0.011 13 0
3 Tuff Breccia 7.56 0.07 213 0.24 38.66 0.010 0.015 19 0
Pyroclastic
4 20.58 0.03 2082 0.203 34.99 0.015 0.017 19 0
Breccia
3.2. Tunnel Support Design
The recommendations for the tunnel wall and roof primary reinforcement system using shotcrete and
rock bolts are presented in Tables 3 through 5. The crown shotcrete thickness of the tunnel varies
between 60 and 200 millimeters, and the wall shotcrete thickness varies between 30 and 400
millimeters. In addition, the rock bolt spacing and length range from 2.6 to 6 meters and 1 to 2.5
meters, respectively, for the tunnel's roof and wall supports. Shotcrete reinforced with wire mesh is
implemented in accordance with System Q, RMR, and RMi recommendations.
4
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
Table 3. Crown and wall shotcrete design
Support
No. Borehole Crown shotcrete thickness (mm) Wall shotcrete thickness (mm)
RMR Q-System JSCE RMi RMR Q-System JSCE RMi
1 BPS 50-100 100 250 100 30 60 400 55
2 BHT 6 50-100 100 150 60 30 60 400 40
3 BHT 7 50-100 90 150 60 30 60 400 40
Table 4. Roof rock bolt design
Roof support
Location/
No. Rock bolt length (m) Rock bolt spacing (m)
Borehole
RMR Q-System JSCE RMi RMR Q-System JSCE RMi
1 BPS 4 4 6 3.3 1.5-2 1.7 1 1.25
2 BHT 6 4 4 4 3.3 1.5-2 1.6 1.2 1.5
3 BHT 7 4 4 4 3.3 1.5-2 1.8 1.2 1.5
Table 5. Wall rock bolt design
Wall support
Location/
No. Rock bolt length (m) Rock bolt spacing (m)
Borehole
RMR Q-System JSCE RMi RMR Q-System JSCE RMi
1 BPS 4 2.6 6 2.6 1.5-2 1.9 1 1.5
2 BHT 6 4 2.6 4 2.6 1.5-2 1.9 1.2 2.5
3 BHT 7 4 2.6 4 2.6 1.5-2 1.9 1.2 2.5
The support properties used in the numerical analysis were derived from the software Phase2
database which partially has been modified based on the design plan, as shown in Table 6. In
numerical modeling, the support is classified as an elastic material. On the basis of the evaluation of
the JSCE system, it is suggested that H200 (DII) and H150 (CII) steel sets be used to reinforce the
tunnel's arch and walls.
Table 6. Support properties
Steel Rib H-200 Steel Rib H-150
Shotcrete Wire Mesh Rock Bolt
(DII JSCE’s Class) (CII JSCE’s Class)
Young's Modulus H-Beam (W): H-Beam (W):
Diameter (mm): 12 Type: Fully Bonded
(Mpa): 24000 W200x100 W150x37.1
4 4 4
Poisson Ratio : 0.15Moment Inertia (m ): Diameter (mm): 20 Moment Inertia (m ): Moment Inertia (m ):
1.02x10-9 1.13x10-4 2.22x10-5
Compressive Strength Young's Modulus Young's Modulus Young's Modulus Young's Modulus
(MPa): 25 (MPa): 200000 (MPa): 200000 (MPa): 200000 (MPa): 200000
Tensile Strength Tensile Capacity
Poisson Ratio : 0.25 Poisson Ratio : 0.25 Poisson Ratio : 0.25
(MPa): 1.25 (MN): 0.178
Compressive Strength Compressive Strength Compressive Strength
(MPa): 400 (MPa): 400 (MPa): 400
Tensile Strength Tensile Strength Tensile Strength
(MPa): 400 (MPa): 400 (MPa): 400
5
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
3.3. Finite Element Analysis
Phase2 automatically calculates failure criterion properties based on intact rock properties, GSI values,
and the disturbance factor (Table 7). K Ratio and PGAm were derived from formulas 8 and 9.
Utilizing Mohr & Coloumb and Generalized Hoek Brown failure criteria, numerical modeling
classifies soils and rocks as plastic materials.
Table 7. Failure criterion, field stress, and seismic load properties
Rock
GSI H Em K Material
No. Borehole Mass mb s A PGAm
Residual (m) (MPa) Ratio Type
GSI
1 BPS 45 24.6 2.665 0.0022 0.51 73 466 0.30 0.44 Plastic
2 BHT 6 41 23.7 2.310 0.0014 0.51 108 356 0.28 0.44 Plastic
3 BHT 7 45 24.6 2.665 0.0022 0.51 69 466 0.30 0.44 Plastic
A finite element analysis is conducted at different stages of implementation, including the head
excavation and support stage, the bench excavation and support stage, and the post-construction stage
under seismic load (Figure 3). The results and analysis of drilling data are used to determine the
thickness of the soil and rock layers and the position of the groundwater table. The results of
numerical analysis concentrate on the value of the total displacement (TD) and strength factor on the
tunnel's roof (RS), as shown in Figure 4, and the results of each model are summarized in Table 8.
Figure 3. Modelling stages
6
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
Figure 4. Total displacement (TD) and roof strength factor (RS) model (BPS section-RMR)
Table 8: Finite element analysis results
Rock Mass Classification Support Design
RMR Q-System RMi JSCE
No. Stages
TD TD TD TD
RS RS RS RS
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
BPS
Head Excavation &
1 1.2 2.00 1.2 2.15 1.2 2.05 1.4 4.38
Support
Bench Excavation &
2 1.2 2.38 1.2 2.52 1.2 2.44 1.5 9.32
Full Support
3 Under Seismic Load 2.0 1.65 2.0 1.72 2.0 1.69 2.1 1.69
BHT-6
Head Excavation &
1 2.7 2.58 2.7 2.63 2.5 1.80 3.0 4.23
Support
Bench Excavation &
2 2.6 3.08 2.6 3.19 2.4 1.97 3.1 6.57
Full Support
3 Under Seismic Load 3.0 2.79 3.0 2.89 2.9 1.92 3.4 4.20
BHT-7
Head Excavation &
1 2.4 2.16 2.3 2.00 2.3 1.76 2.5 3.48
Support
Bench Excavation &
2 2.3 2.62 2.4 2.41 2.3 1.99 2.6 5.12
Full Support
3 Under Seismic Load 3.2 1.86 3.2 1.83 3.2 1.67 3.3 2.01
According to the assessments of the finite element analysis, several locations have a potential total
displacement range of 1.2 to 3.4 cm, with the roof strength factor value varying between 1.65 and
9.32. The BHT6 bore with the highest overburden value has a higher potential for total displacement
than the location with the lower overburden value in the static condition, however, the deeper the
tunnel, the less impact the seismic load will have on the tunnel's stability. The use of a tunnel support
system based on the JSCE recommendation yields a greater roof strength factor than other
recommendations because this system provides a greater number of support systems than other
systems. The influence of seismic load conditions has a negative effect on the total displacement value
7
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
and roof strength factor by increasing the potential roof displacement by 10-67% and decreasing the
roof strength factor by 3% up to 82%, relative to static load conditions.
4. Conclusions
In general, the analysis results determine that the total displacements below 10 cm and roof strength
factor above 1.5 under static load and 1.1 under seismic load, indicating that the tunnel will be in
stable condition, despite the fact that this tunnel is situated in an area that is moderately prone to
earthquakes hazard. The numerical results validate that the empirical method for selecting
reinforcement and excavation methods based on rock mass classification systems can be implemented
safely during the tunnel design process. However, the numerical analysis illustrates that although the
roof strength factor is still above the safety threshold, there is still an indication of the potential for
displacement of the tunnel roof. Hence, the installation of additional reinforcement and further
analysis during the excavation stage is required to minimize the potential for the displacement of the
tunnel.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratefulness to Balai Wilayah Sungai Bali Penida for their assistance,
management support, and permission to access the data. In addition, the first authors gratefully
acknowledge the Indonesian Ministry of Public Works and Housing for granting the master's study
program scholarship.
References
[1] Supartoyo, Suantika G and Djaja 2009 Peta Kawasan Rawan Bencana Gempabumi Pulau Bali
Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Indonesia
[2] Potts D M, Zdravković L, Addenbrooke T I, Higgins K G and Kovačević N 2001 Finite element
analysis in geotechnical engineering: application vol 2 (Thomas Telford London)
[3] Nugraha J A N, Indrawan I G B and Karnawati D 2019 Numerical Evaluation of Earthquake
Effect on Cisumdawu Tunnel Stability Journal of Applied Geology 4 73–81
[4] Pramono R, Indrawan I G B and Junica M I 2021 Numerical evaluation of support design: A case
study Jakarta–Bandung, Indonesia High-Speed Railway Tunnel 7 IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science vol 871 (IOP Publishing) p 012062
[5] Fatkhiandari I A, Indrawan I G B and Karnawati D 2020 Numerical Evaluation of Tunnel Portal
Slope Stability at Bagong Dam Site, East Java, Indonesia Journal of Applied Geology 5 40–
52
[6] Bieniawski Z T 1989 Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for engineers
and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering (John Wiley & Sons)
[7] Barton N, Lien R and Lunde J 1974 Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support Rock mechanics 6 189–236
[8] Palmström A 1996 Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering:
Part 2: Some practical applications of the rock mass index (RMi) Tunnelling and
underground space technology 11 287–303
[9] Hoek E, Carter T G and Diederichs M S 2013 Quantification of the geological strength index
chart 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium (OnePetro)
[10] Japan Society of Civil Engineers 2007 Standard Specifications for Tunneling—2006: Mountain
Tunnels Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Civil Engineers
[11] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C and Corkum B 2002 Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition
Proceedings of NARMS-Tac 1 267–73
[12] Hoek E and Diederichs M S 2006 Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus International
journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences 43 203–15
8
ICEEDM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1244 (2023) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1244/1/012021
[13] Cai M, Kaiser P K, Tasaka Y and Minami M 2007 Determination of residual strength parameters
of jointed rock masses using the GSI system International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 44 247–65
[14] Sheorey P R 1994 A theory for in situ stresses in isotropic and transverseley isotropic rock
International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences & geomechanics abstracts vol
31 (Elsevier) pp 23–34
[15] Standar Nasional Indonesia 2017 Persyaratan perancangan geoteknik SNI 8460 2017
[16] Tim Pusat Studi Gempa Nasional 2017 Peta sumber dan bahaya gempa Indonesia tahun
2017 Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat
