INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETRIC INPUTS FOR NUMERICAL

MODELING OF CAVERN/TUNNEL OF HYDROPOWER PROJECTS IN HIMALAYAS.

RADHAKRISHNAN.S
Engineering Geologist
Jindal Power Limited
sradhakrishnan@jindalsteel.com

PRAMOD SINGH
Civil Engineer
Jindal Power Limited
Pramod.singh@jindalsteel.com

DHEERAJ MARWAHA
Civil Engineer
Jindal Power Limited
Dheeraj.marwaha@jindalsteel.com

ABSTRACT:
The immense Himlayan mountain range was formed by tectonic forces and sculpted by weathering and erosion.
The closing and subduction of the Tethyan Ocean, located between India and Asia during the Paleozoic,
followed by continent-continent collision - Indian and Eurasian plates produced the structures and lithologies as
seen today in the Himalayas. Consequently, the mountains and surrounding regions are characterized by
astounding complexity, represented by a variety of deformed and collision-produced lithologies and
representing several phases of tectonic and deformational events. Stress conditions (magnitude and orientation)
can be potentially more extreme and adverse in the hydro power projects in Himalayan region than even has
been encountered in the rest of the world. Underground excavations usually possess different shapes, varying
from straight tunnels to complex excavations in hydroelectric projects. Excavations in rock mass cause a redistribution of stresses, and as such, the amount of deformations and stress distribution around the underground
opening are significant to analyze stability as well as to design a proper support system. Although empirical
knowledge and engineering judgment play an important role in practical rock mechanics, numerical analyses
have also become crucial with the advancement of computer skills to determine the rock mass behavior and its
rock support determination for underground structure. In this paper an attempt has been made to combine all key
Geological and geotechnical input parameters and suggestions to arrive at the optimum best suited project
specific input parameters for equivalent continuum and discontinuum numerical modeling were discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION:
The closing and sub-duction of the Tethyan Ocean, located between India and Asia during the Palaeozoic,
followed by collision of continents produced the structures and Lithology in the Himalayas. These plate
boundaries generate huge horizontal stress condition in the Himlayan region. The stress conditions (magnitude
and orientation) can be potentially more extreme and adverse in the hydropower projects in geologically and
tectonically complex Himalayan region than even has been encountered in the rest of the world.
The prediction of the rock mass excavation behavior of cavern/ tunnel is a complex task. The interest at the
design stage is to assess the stability conditions of the excavation in the intrinsic condition (when no support/
stabilization measures are installed) and to decide suitable methods of excavation/ construction and support. The
success of such a process lies with the level of understanding of rock mass condition in terms of geological and
geotechnical parameters, in-situ stress pattern and ground water levels.
The key geological and geotechnical parametric input is very vital to find out the best optimum behavior of rock
mass by stress analysis with numerical models.

2. EQUIVALENT CONTINUUM APPROACH OR DIS-CONTINUUM APPROACH

Various methods are available for the stress analysis of cavern/ tunnel, from the earlier closed form solution to
the most recent numerical methods. For numerical modeling in the rigorous analysis of tunneling problems, the
decision that the rock engineers need to make at the design analysis stage is the choice between the following
two approaches:
Equivalent continuum approach: The rock mass is treated as a continuum with equal in all directions
input data for the strength and deformability properties, which defines a given constitutive relation for the
medium i.e. elastic, elasto-plastic, etc.

INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

Dis-Continuum approach : The rock mass is modeled as a system of individual rock blocks interacting
along their boundaries, and it is therefore possible to predict potential rock falls or to study details of the
local instability. The essential input is joint pattern and strength parameters of the rock joints. The
magnitude of in-situ stresses, particularly the horizontal stresses, is also crucial input for discontinuous
modeling.

This decision to choose continuum or discontinuum method depends on the study of mechanism like sliding
along joints, opening of joints, block rotation and movements etc, which may influence tunnel stability, and the
joint spacing relative to the size of excavation. To start with the figure -1 shown below will guide to choose
between the methods.

Fig-1: Showing the condition of block size with (Application of Hoek-brown criterion to) different scale of
rock mass (After Hoek-Brown 1998)
From our experience, the understanding is that first, fourth and fifth block conditions depicted in fig-1 could be
used in continuum analysis method and for second and third block situation where block movement is
prominent the dis-continuum method of analysis could be used. Accordingly we may have to gather the input
data for both analyses.
Parameters are the variables comprising properties of material and the external conditions like field stress and
groundwater. Accurate estimation of input parameter determines the accuracy of result after the analysis.
Therefore, precise determination of input parameters is a challenging task to engineering geologists and civil
engineers. It is very much essential to perform a statistical approach for determining the most appropriate input
key parameters to represent the rock mass.

3. GEOLOGICAL AND GEO-MECHANICAL KEY PARAMETERS:

All geological and geomechanical data are collected from the surface rock outcrops or underground excavation
for garnering information for modeling. This includes rock type, weathering grade, joints charactertics etc, and
their details are collected from project site. The joint mapping involves its orientation, spacing, persistence,
roughness, Joint roughness coefficient (JRC), filling, Joint compressive strength (JCS) etc. Geological strength
index (GSI) is good tool to be used to determine the quality of the rock mass using the observations made from
the joint network for its block size and inter joint shear strength by measuring the joint roughness and fillings.

INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

4. LABORATORY AND IN-SITU TESTS:

Laboratory test of the rock core samples are carried out for determining the key properties like ci (Uniaxial
compressive strength of intact rock), and the material constants mi and s (which depends on properties of rock),
which can be obtained based upon result of uniaxial and triaxial laboratory test along with Youngs modulus
(Ei), Poisson ratio, Density, Shear strength and also the rock mass strength i.e. cohesive strength, C and the
friction angle, , can be found from laboratory triaxial tests or direct shear tests. An optimum number of test
results for the each rock type is required in order to generate a statistical distribution of all key input parameters.
Post peak parameter of the lab test is important to understand the plastic behavior of rock mass. In the field issitu test, the shear strength and deformation parameters of the rock mass are determined to understand both
elastic and plastic nature of rock mass.

5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON THE KEY INPUT PARAMETERS:

The correlation between the UCS and Ei is very useful to know the behavior of the test results and this is the key
analysis to be performed for screening the input data and find out the optimum results. The pattern of results
analyzed is very important and any test values which falls away from the major population could be screened
out from the data sets. Statistical distribution of key parameters like GSI, UCS, Ei, density, mi is attempted.
Minimum, maximum, average and standard deviation of the input data range is selected for analysis to know the
variation.

6. DETERMINATION OF ROCK MASS PROPERTIES:

The most common way to solve this problem is to scale the intact rock properties down to the rock mass
properties. The required strength parameters are dependent on the selected failure criterion. Usually either
Mohr-Coulomb or Hoek-Brown is utilized. In Mohr-Coulomb, the rock mass strength is defined by the cohesive
strength, c and the friction angle, .
Required Hoek-Brown parameters are the ci (Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock), and the material
constants mi and s (which depends on properties of rock), which can be obtained laboratory test. Thereafter by
using known correlation i.e the degree of disturbance to the rock which will vary according to rock type
excavation method with the geological strength index (GSI) or through rock mass classification systems as Q
and RMR and rock mass parameter such as mb and s can be estimated.
The Hoek-Brown strength criterion is described by the following equation Eqn-1

'1 = ' 3 + ci mb

'3
+ s
ci

(1)

where:

"mb" (which may be considered similar to the friction angle in the Mohr-Coulomb criterion) is a
reduced value (for the rock mass) of the material constant mi (for the intact rock)

"s" (is the cohesive component of the GHB criterion) and "a" (essentially controls the curvature of
the GHB failure) are constants which depend upon the characteristics of the rock mass

ci is the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock pieces.

1 and 3 are the axial and confining effective principal stresses respectively.

In most cases it is practically impossible to carry out triaxial or shear tests on the rock masses at a scale which is
necessary to obtain direct values of the parameters in the Hoek-Brown equation. Therefore some practical
means of estimating the material constants mb, s, a and Em is required. According to the latest research, the
parameters of the generalized Hoek-Brown criterion [Hoek, Carranza-Torres & Corkum (2002)], can be
determined from the following equations Eqn 2, 3, 4 & 5.

INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

GSI 100
mb = mi exp

28 14 D

(2)

GSI 100
s = exp

9 3D

(3)

a=

1 1 GSI 15 20 3
+ e
e
2 6

D
Em (GPa) = 1 ci .10((GSI 10 ) 40 )
2 100

(4)

(5)

where:
GSI is the Geological Strength Index
mi is a material constant for the intact rock
The parameter D is a "disturbance factor" which depends upon the degree of disturbance to which the
rock mass has been subjected by blast damage and stress relaxation. It varies from 0 for undisturbed insitu rock masses to 1 for very disturbed rock masses.
From our experience it is suggested that the lower limit of the values of deformation modulus and shear strength
could be the result obtained from the field test carried out in the representative rock mass if conducted or else
the value calculated from the Hoek-Brown strength criterion could be used.
Post peak parameters for deformability and shear strength are also vital input parameters. No definite rules for
dealing with the post peak parameters can be given but, based on the experience in numerical analysis of a
variety of practical problems, the post-failure characteristics, as illustrated in Figure 2, are suggested as a
starting point.

Fig 2 : Post peak failure behavior of rock mass (After J.J. Crowder and W.F. Bawden)
a. Brittle failure: in such case it is assumed that, when the rock mass strength is exceeded, a sudden strength
drop occurs. This is associated with significant dilation of rock mass, which is considered to behave as a
medium with zero cohesive strength and finite friction angle.
b. Softening: it is reasonable to assume that a strain softening behaviour occur as the rock mass strength is
reduced from the in-situ to broken state; then, once this final, "residual" state is reached, deformation will occur
at a constant stress level.
c. Ductile: the rock mass behaviour is adequately represented by assuming that it behaves perfectly plastic,
which means that deformation, continues to a constant stress level and that no volume change is associated with
the ongoing failure.
From our experience it is suggested that the post peak failure parameters for deformation modulus and shear
strength could be reduced based on the strength drop pattern as observed from the lab and field test carried out
in the post peak failure loading stage in same rock mass of particular project.

INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

7. DETERMINATION OF JOINT PROPERTIES:

In the discontinuum method of analysis the joint properties like shear strength and joint stiffness are the key
input parameters to observed and calculated.

7.1 Determination of Shear strength of Rock joints:

Using the Barton Brandis method the shear strength of joints is calculated using the key inputs like JRC, JCS
measured from the site and integrating to the basic friction angle of the rock using the desired required normal
stress. Statistical analyses of all these key parameters are carried out and minimum, maximum, average and
standard deviation of the input data range are selected for analysis and the variation in the shear strength of
joints is calculated.
The original Barton equation for the shear strength of a rock joint is given in Eqn.5:
(5)
Where b the basic friction angle of the failure surface, JRC is joint roughness coefficient and JCS is joint wall
compressive strength [Barton, 1973, 1976]. Further instantaneous friction and cohesion could be calculated.
With our experience it is suggested the Post peak shear strength of the joints could be taken a 2-5% of reduction
of peak value which again depends on the internal friction angle of joints.

7.2 Determination of Joint Stiffness of rock joints:

Normal stiffness and shear stiffness are the one of the key parameters in the discontinuum analysis of rock mass.
The normal and shear stiffness of joints can be estimated from rock mass modulus, intact rock modulus and joint
spacing. If we assume that the deformability of a rock mass is due to the deformability of the intact rock and the
deformability of the joints in the rock mass, then we can write Equation 6.
(6)
Where Em = rock mass modulus, Ei = intact rock modulus, kn = joint normal stiffness, L = mean joint spacing.
This assumes a single joint set with an average spacing L, oriented perpendicularly to the direction of loading.
This can be re-arranged to give Equation 7, the joint normal stiffness [Barton 1972].
(7)
The same reasoning can be used to derive an expression for the joint shear stiffness in Equation 8 shown below.
(8)
Where, Gm = rock mass shear modulus, Gi = intact rock shear modulus, ks = joint shear stiffness, L = mean joint
spacing.
From our experience it is suggested the observation of actual block size resulted from the wedge failure near the
study area is the most practical way to assess the optimum spacing of joints and block size. These data is used in
the calculation to get optimum stiffness values of the rock joint.
Another approach to estimating joint stiffness, assumes that a joint has an infill material with known elastic
properties. The stiffness of a joint can be estimated from thickness and modulus of infilling material by
following equations 9 & 10.

INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

(9)
(10)
where:
kn = joint normal stiffness
ks = joint shear stiffness
Eo = Youngs modulus of infill material
Go = shear modulus of infill material
h = joint thickness or aperture
The joint stiffness is also determined by testing on the intact joints available in the drill core with the required
normal stress condition.

8. IN-SITU STRESS:
Any effort to design a cavern or tunnels in rock mass it necessitates the knowledge of prevailing in-situ stress
field. These In-situ stresses are obtained from hydrofrac or other similar means. This in-situ stress value is then
resolved to cavern/tunnel for getting the exact value of in plane and out of plane virgin stress in 2D stress
analysis.

9. GROUNDWATER OR HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONDITION:

This is again difficult to define the groundwater above the structure. The groundwater level in the nearest drill
hole, natural spring, topography and nature of rock mass are used for interpreting the groundwater levels above
or below the structural grade.

10. GEOLOGICAL AND NUMERICAL MODELS:

A concept and schematic geological and geotechnical model is formed by integrating data and information
acquired from geological mapping, lab and field testing, groundwater and in-situ stress values. This is then
developed in numerical modeling software, and the rock mass excavation behavior in cavern/ tunnel is
predicted.

11. CONCLUSION:
All key input parameters to understand the excavation behavior of rock mass in tunneling or cavern excavation
are discussed with respect to the continuum and discontinuum numerical model methods under horizontal stress
condition of Himalayan region. The key suggestions representing the project condition are on the selection of
continuum and discontinuum method of analysis, key aspects to decide the optimistic deformation modulus,
shear strength, and post peak parameters of rock mass, properties of joints, in-situ stress and ground water.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
We are thankful to Mr. Sripad Naik, NIRM, Bangalore and Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Moserbaer Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi for their valuable guidance. We are also most grateful to Dr.P.C.Nawani and Mr. D.K. Joshi of
Jindal power limited, Gurgaon, Haryana for their comments and suggestions, which greatly helped improve this
manuscript.

REFERENCES:
Hasan Abdullah and Sachin Gupta.CSMRS ,New delhi Laboratory Study of Indian Gneisses.

INDOROCK 2014: Fifth Indian Rock Conference

12 14 Nov 2014

Barton, N.R. (1972). A model study of rock-joint deformation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 9, 579-602.
Barton, N.R. (1973). Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Engng Geol. 7, 287-332.
Barton, N.R. (1976). The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int. J. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.
13(10), 1-24.
E. Hoek, E.T.Brown. Hoek-Brown failure criterion a 1998 update.
E. Hoek, C. Carranza-Torres and B. Corkum. Hoek-Brown failure criterion 2002.
J.J. Crowder and W.F. Bawden, Lassonde Institute, University of Toronto .Review of Post-Peak Parameters and
Behavior of Rock Masses: Current Trends.