34 INSIGHT Against limit state design in rock Dr Philip J N Pells, Adjunct Professor at the University of New South Wales and director of Pells Consulting, argues against the usefulness of limit state design in underground construction through rock tis inappropriate if not meaningless, to attempt to apply mit state design ‘methods, uch as those encapsulated in Eurocode 7, tothe design of primary ‘support for tunnels in roc, particularly weak rock or any rock under high stress. By reference to some 41 case histories of major tunnel fares, this article shows that more ‘than 85 percent wee the result of unexpected geology or hydrogeology. tis submitted thatthe unknowns and Uncertainties in geology and hyarobogy cannot be propery deat with by applying codified factors to geotechnical parameters. Its concluded that working stress methods shouldbe retained fr tunnel support ‘design, and that such design would bene {ar mor, ftom competent geological and hydrogeological understanding, than fom faith in cade factors Introduction Limit state design care from structural engineering where structure, loads, ‘deformations and collapse modes are reasonably easy 1 know, oF postulate, and ‘can be appropriately factored. The factors in structural engineering are inked, closely to fale probability because material properties, and loadings can be defined statistically. ‘hore have been great dificutes in fining iit stage design for geotechnical |works, and in particular for works where there fe eubstantial interaction between ‘man-made structure and the ground (eft Hangzhou metro pit collapse, 2008 and 2). Since the mid-1980s, Limit State ‘Tunnels & Tunneling Intemational FEBRUARY 2011 Codes have been developed in many Counties fortwo kinds of geotechnical works, namely piles (AS 2159) and. retaining structures (AS 4678 and BS 8002), These codes are quite complex, ‘even for these simple types of works ‘where each unit in the ground usually has conly a few variables, namely * Uncrained conditions: unit weight, ‘undead shear strength and stiness, + Effective stress conltons: unit weight, ‘tfectve stress cohesion and fiction, rained stiiness. ‘The publication of Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Design (and BS EM 1997-1) has changed the landscape dramatically. Now ther Is bureaucratic pressure on the {geotechnical profession to do all design sing it state methodology. However, design of primary support for tunnels in weak rock, r any rock under righ tress, s substantially more complex than designing piles or retaining walls. In this application, mit state design is inappropriate, and counterproductve. ‘This isnot to say that limit state methodology Is appropriate inal tunnel suppor design It probably could be used for segment design in soft ground tunnels, but whether it would add any value to present design procedures is questionable. Learning from others. In 1981, when he viewed what became Eurocode 7, approacting aver the horzon, MD Botton ef 1), then aleturer at Cambridge, produced an enue ate, in ‘which he wrote: “Weare therfore entering acetic petlodin which @ concerted input of effort willbe requied in order to avoid pivotal piilosophical mistakes which could so \www-tunnetsandtunnelting.comconstrain designers as to affect the degree (of security of soll constructions in Europe for many years” He made, and justified, some very wise suggestions forthe way forward, all of hich seem to have boon ignored. He also ‘noted that, “Deterministic calculations ‘based on abservable mechanisms offer a ‘more reliable route to decision-making in {geotechnical design than do the processes of statistic inference," and, “The omission ofa limit state mode wil rot be rectified by application of arger factors against those liit-modes that have been recognised.” ‘Along sila lines Day, Wong and Poulos (022) note: Fora probabilty calculation to work there is an assumption thatthe actions and resistances ae independent variables, Le. that changes tothe lading do not influence the resistance and visa versa..n the design of sol retaining structures this is rot tue because the same sol acts as a load and a resistance. A lecture by Dr Colin Smith of the University of Shetietd fet 3) seeks to explain how limit state design, according to Euracode 7, can be implemented for the two simple problems of bearing capacity ofa pad footing, and a cantilever retaining wal. The process isnot simple, oritutve, ‘The Nicoll Highway collapse of 2004 Smith points out two important points that are relevant o this article, namely Undefined, calculation factor of safety appliod ina ciferont way. 1. For Utimate Limit State (ULS) analyses, However, tunnel support design must Eurocode 7 requires fve separate require consideration of QU, STR, GEO, _In passing, Day notes the folowing checks: UPL and HYD, and is anyway usually lemma when appiying ultimate limit state EQU: loss of equibrium ctated by allowable movements, namely (ULS) concept to retaining wal desig. STR: faire ofthe structure SLS! Welcome to the word of acronyms "Te earth pressure and pore water GEO: faltxe ofthe ground and valid logic, but inthis authors opinion, pressure are intereated through UPL: fale by upktt Impossibie application. ‘equilrium and the laws of physics, Partial HYD: hydraulic heave, and ‘The substantial cificuties associated factor mi state caleuations apply factors with mit state design n geotechnical to the soll pressure and the water pressures, 2. The Eurocode 7 factors address Uitimate engineering re described clearly by Day independent to determine the ultimate Limit State ony, andthe code states (re 4) who concludes: load. Ths utimate load does not represent (24.844: “it may be verified that a “Te foloving important points must be the tue load atthe init state and has no sufciently low fraction of the ground understood when using limit state’ code physical mearing, it violates equibrium strength is mobilsed to keep methods. ‘and the theories that were used to ‘eformatione within the required *The partial factor method was adopted by determine the loads in the frst place. serviceabity limits, provided this Sructutal design codes asa convenient Ttmay be thought that alli wellin simplified approach s restricted to ‘way to cary out routine design based on structural engineering, at east where there design situations where: probabistic considerations. tproduces a isnot stuctura-ground interaction. The * Avalue ofthe deformation is not ‘more consistent probabily of fale than atc by Alasdair Beal et 5), in the June requied to check the Serviceabilty the working stress method. 2010 issue of Now Gail Engineer, wil Limit State (85). ‘The ulate load is a mathematical rapidly dgpel this false view. tis almost a + Estabished comparable experience concept. It has no physical meaning horror story, and offerte folowing ‘exists with similar ground, structures + In geotechnical codes the partial factors extracts as examples: | ‘and application method.” ‘arent based onrelabilty analysis 2s) Language and symbo's | they rein structural codes. “The most surpeising aspect is that ‘Smith suggests that only STR and GEO are + For geotechnical design the partial factor __—Eurocodes aso attempt to create a new required for ULS for design of footings and lit state design codes are simply the old technica language for engineering. Al retaining wal, SLS islet for a separate, traditional design methods, but with the ‘over the word, English-language wwu:tunnelsandtunneling.com FEBRUARY 2011 Tunnels & Tunneling Intemational | 35. fefi INSIGHT | LIMIT STATE DESIGN NI ———— tendon 19p1 | Unepacod okay 2 London 1965 | Urepeced gsooas ra Art fos spat 3 SodhertenSen | 1995 | Urerpeced wet “4 Ceage-Fa, Sh Aza | 1970 | Unspace jas, i opr alr Fe 5 Manic 1980 | Loca rlaton ged 6 MART, Hong Kong 1983, (Misinterpretation of geology 7 Rerwria 1085 | Urepaced ony orb 1960 | Unepecit st 7 ose 1901) | Unepecd godoay andhyeiooeday eu ao apport io Sead 19812) | Unetpeced wear es gant 11 Sex 1992 | Aster Sen 191) 12 Sed {89() | Aster Secu 1910) E 1a Sood 1n5@) | Aster Secu 1901) 4 as 1005.5 | Estemegrundvete ns and rossi 15 _HeatrowEspess | 1884 | PoavTaragert wranstip aqua rel 16 Munch | i968 ‘Unexpected geology 17 Lon Prose 1005 | Urepecid gota, revat eis King Te Deeanes, Uc | f098 | Dae evr PEM bono 19 bers 1291-96 | TEM ot mare conpecoecogy 2 Ha [1998 | Wt ae src nes ding conson 21 —Tesgu ShhKorea | 2000 | Unewpected oro and nogeclony 22 CramedTevel RAL 228 | Coleen of nerectnd wet 2 Mateo Meto,Fanee | ANI | Notte 24 Shanghai 2003 Falure of ground freezing iid 25 Heteter Tava, | 1991-2004 Unemected gecogyandycooecogy 26 SMVET,Maiyia | 20032008 Unepected as gosiogy ar Goes Gy Motrnay | 2008 | Flay recent at abo 35m pm ana, Snes 2 Kooning Tova | 2005 2) BacekraMero | 2005 & Lara Cova, Senay | 2005 | Fae io dg er fe unepected pay 31 tausare | 0S Unapecd ogy andhydensogy 2 Bacekre 2005 | Unsipected at 8 Kowloon, HongKong_| 2008 | Consucn ero wi sary TEM 3 MK Taree Case, | 2007 | Fale ofroaa, tte usa aan Cruecaata, Ose 35 Railway Tunnel, ‘2007 ‘Unexpected groundwater oe ter Merge a | 38 Ronen, Hong Kong | 2207 Conan anor ceed “aT SaPaso 2x77 | ales account goby $8 GrdeLre,Shgiboe | 2008 | Lease grand 32 Sbvay Time, | 2008 | Unepected coy and radar Heros Osho 40 Subway Tunnel, ‘2009 Unexpected geology Cuca, Geary “1 BirvaTund, aque | 2010 | Tree capees, Kl won 208, xpeted | spdogy ari geurdvatr engineering textbooks and codes have moment, ‘shear, torsion’, and been writen fr over a century in ‘imposed deformation. standard tecnical Engle, using the Howeve, Euocodes set out replace ‘aii terms ‘tess this wth anew anguage based onthe compression, Tension word acto’ which is vena new 26 | Tunnels & Tunneling International FEBRUARY 2011 ‘meaning of Toad or imposed \formation’ In this new language, loads become ‘rect actions, Impased deformations are ‘ingrect actions’ and axial forces, shear forces and moments become action affects, which may be ‘transverse’, angen and 50 on. Dead load becomes a ‘permanent dict ‘action’ and imposed loads are ‘variable iocton actions.” (W Caleuatons “Eurocode load combinations iwvalve Considering each imposed load in turn as.a ‘leading varable action’, while other imposed loads and deformations are applied as reduced ‘accompanying variable actions. Al the diferent possible permutations of factors must then be considered to find which has. the worst effect. For those who enjoy calculations and working with numbers, there is certainly fun tobe had, However, before the ‘governing equation can be apple the engineer must identify which variable ‘actions can be considered as being separate actions inthe calculation and which cannot, 0 a5 to apply the factors correctly. This also affcts safety and ‘economy, because the total imposed load can be vied into separate ‘actions, this reduces the design load and the stucture’s safety factor. The more the loading onthe suctur can be vied up into separate actions, the lower the saety factor comes." (i) Geotechnical design “Eurocode 7 par 1 for geotechnical {design isthe most raccal and iferent of all Euocodes. proposes a complete ‘change from past practice, with a new, ‘complex eystom of partial factors replacing the ractional global safety factors of geotechnical design. ‘According to Bond (rt 6: “When Ilast counted, there were 112 partial factors to choose fom in EN 1997-1, with a further 34 converted from characteristic values to design values by the application of specific factors: Eurocode 7 changes almost everthing that is said about geotechnical design in ‘exiting sol mechanics books and codes of practon, yet f engineers ae to desion structures to Eurocodes, they will have to master it" ‘The show-stopper: problems in tunnel support design Following from the above discussion, itis, ‘concluded that there are three reasons wwu:tunnelsandtunneling.comee \why limit state design of primary support for cavers in rock, particularly weak rock for any rock under high stress Is much ‘more complex than design of ples or retaining wal. 1. There fs no separation between ‘structure and ‘ground overall ‘behaviour is one of interaction, with the support elements affecting loading from the ground and groundwater, and the ‘round and groundwater affecting the ‘support elements. 2. The engineering behaviour of just a single Geotechnical Unt, a function of ‘many variables, namely: + Unit weight + Substance stiffness. «+ Substance strength ‘Number of defect sots. + Spacing and continuity of defects. ‘+ Dip and dip rection of each set of detects ‘Normal and shear stitiess ofeach defect set ‘Peak cohesion and fiction of each sat of fects. + Water pressures Frequently thore area least thre defect sets (bedding, joints and sheers) so the above list amounts to 38 variables. ‘Some ofthese variables have to be increased to increase load on the: support system, some have to be reduced to ineease load. “Then there may be two to six Geotechnical Unis, giving 76 to. 228 variables, each which has tobe factored, somehow, 3, Ground reinforcements, such as ‘ntansioned ful grouted bots or cables, ‘are neler ‘structure’ nor ‘round’, but ‘serve to modify the ground behaviour \www:tunnelsandtunneling.com Given the above, its no wonder that thece fe no specific Limit Design Code for independent strength factors ofall equal design of primary suppor for cavers i rock. However, Eurocode 7 isa ‘catch ‘code, and there are major tunneling projects in Australia, and, no doubt, elsewhere inthe World, curently under an unrealistically occurrence (assuming ‘design, ostensibly, according to this code, all have an equal probabilly is 0.0018 = ‘The wrlterhas examined the procedures 1x10-15, which isan unrealistically low ‘set outin the design manual for one such _probabilly of occurrence for design, project, and concludes thatthe methodology is non-sensical ‘As a small example; folowing to Eurocode 7, the dead load is supposedly variables, as discussed above itis faity factored up by 1.35 by inereasing the unit obvious that we are likely to find weight of the rock. However, as any trained rock mechanics engineer knows, to the reasonableness of the probability of the load on tunnel supports a function of failure of our final design. Notwithstanding the horizontal stresses as much as the fverburden stresses; and also the relative fundamental reason wy limit state sifness ofthe rock mass and the support; and also the sequence of ‘suppot Installation asthe face advanck Factoring the unt weight by 1.95 does factor the load by 1.35. And factoring t ‘natural horizontal stress by 1.35 wil, in ‘some situations, lead toa lesser load on of Hong Kong (ef 8), and also taken from the support, not greater. Again, a8 any trained rock mechanies engineer knows, _eccurred betwoon 6 ‘this wil depend on whether, inthe deintions of Lauffer (ret 7), we are ‘dealing with loosening pressures’, or "tru rock pressures’ ‘Then there isthe Isve pointed out by conditions, three to management coupled Wong, Day and Poulos (rt 2: "The code requires that the design resistance is equal tothe characteristic construction. strength of the material multipied by teach of the factors in series, The problem with this appraach is that basio the Wison tunnel in Hawai, can the falure statistics demonstrates thatthe probability of such a design value ‘eccurring Is miniscule. For example, fa gasin the ground. strength factor of 0.8 is meant to represent a 0.1 per cent (0.001) probabilly of a more adverse value LIMIT STATE DESIGN | nscit Above: The comer of the residential building directly over the collap Lote Plan diagram of the Lane Cove tunnel project wit the collapse site shown ‘occurring, then if there are five in t0.0.8, the resuitant strength factor Is ‘all’ 0.85 = 0.3, and the probability of foccurrence (assuming all have an equal probability is 0.0015 = 1x10-15, which is particularly remembering thatthe loads will also be factored up.” we have between 76 and 228 ‘ourselves in unknown terior in respect this dificult, there is even more phitosophyy should not be applied to tunnel support design. This is geological ee, uncertainty. not Table 1 summarises major tunnel the failures, documented by the Civil Enginoering and Development Department the writer's own experience. The failures 11964 and 2010, some with trl loss fife, al with great financial pain. Of these 41 fallures, 35 @5 per cont) are ascribed to Unexpected geological or hycrogeological with design, and thre to construction tears, Al the failures occurred during Jacobs (re 9} discusses five other significant tunnel failures. In only one case, bo ascribed to flawed design The other {allures elated to geology, to water and to Eurocode 7 protagonists may argue that because about 85 per cent ofthe major tunnel failures, documented in FEBRUARY 2011 Tunools & Tunnating Iniornatonal | 97fh INSIGHT | LIMIT STATE DESIGN “Table 1, were caused by unexpected ology or hydrogeotogy, we should apply @ factor to geology. But this is Impossible. Firstly, how do you apply a factor to something of whose existence you are ignorant. Secondly, how does ‘one apply sensible factors to all the parameters listed when itis not clear which changes are adverse. Thirdly, given that the fundamental intent of imi state design procedures, such as Eurocode 7, is to achieve a known low probabilty of failure, how do we know what factors to select when we have no way of knowing what isthe lkaly failure probabilty of the final design Given the above facts, we have two choices, ‘We could, nat unreasonaby, adopt the view of Nassim Taleb (et 10), that the ‘geological and grouncivater conditions that led to the fares in Table tare ‘Black ‘Swans'- unexpected, unpredictable, utiors, carrying extreme impact With the Botton, MLD. Limit Stato Design in Geotchnical Engineering, Ground Engnecting, September 198 ay, R.A, Wong, PK. and Poulos, HG. “Ften years of geotechnical mit state signin ‘Ausra. Prt |= Retaining structures". Proc. 10th ‘Australia-New Zealand Geomechanics Con. Aust. Geomechanics. Society, 2 596-601, 2007. And “Part 2= Foundations”. Pro. 10th Austraia-Now Zealand Geomechanics Con, Aust. ‘Geomechanics. Society, 2: 602-607, 2007. ‘Smith, C. Practical Appication of Geotechnical Lint Analyt in Limit State Design, University of ‘Shot, 2008 Day, LA. Limit Stato Dosign for Structures and Gootechnics. What doos it realy mean? University ‘of Quoensiand, 1958. Bea, AN. Eurocodes in tain: The questions that ‘il need answering, Now Civil Engineer Intemational, 08.2010, p25 Bond, A When aninessible force meets an Jmmovablo object. GeoDring Intemational (04.2007, p22. Lauteg H, Gobrgaklasainung fur de Stallenbau Geologie und Batnesen, Vol 24, No.1, 1952 Chil Engineering and Development Department. Catalogue of Notable Tunnel Falues Case Histories (up to December 2008), Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, 2008. Jacobs, JD. Some Tunnel Falls and what they hhave Taught. Hazards in Tunneling and on Falsowerk. Inst. Of Cl Engineers, London, 1975, "Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The Black Swan. Random House, New York, 2007 Above: The Pinheios station cavern and shaft collapse in Sao Paulo in January 2007 "Black Swan’ view we may as wel shrug ‘ur shoulders and hope. ‘Or we take my view that it is blatantly ‘obvious that our profession should be ‘concentrating on the proper training of engineering geologists, namely geologists ‘who propery understand rock mechanics, ‘and we should rly on these people, and not be trying to apply meaningless factors to, often, quessed geotechnical parameters. Inthe first drafts of this article I set out to document, what thought was, a ‘sensible path for using the principles of Eurocode 7 inthe design of tunnal ‘support. These were the procedures that | had documented to introduce into a major ‘Australian project which was locked into Eurocode 7. They included consideration (0 80 factors fr the geotechnical parameters, not including the orientations of joins, faults and bedding, and ground water pressures. However, when came to thi nal atl hha to cut that out. My reasons ar threeold, Firstly, the only way could achieve ‘something sensible out of Eurocode 7 was to reduce itto something itis not, namely a system of partial factors of satel. ‘Secondly, was wrong in my ‘assessment of the factors - the reason boing as set aut by Wong, Day and Poulos (2007), and quoted above. The ‘combination of al the factors gave a ridiculously low probability, but @ ‘meaningless one, because the real issue was uncertainty inthe structural geology ‘Thirdly, | found myself being sucked Into the very place that should be rejected. This isthe place where tenginoers consider that geologists and 88 | Tunnels & Tunneling Intemational FEBRUARY 2011 hydro geologists have limited value, and the laws of physics ae insufficient, oF too ficult. And so we produce bureaucratic procedures to hide behind, and to make ‘ourselves more comfortable, Parting comment ‘Agquote, attributed to Bran Simpson, ‘encapsulates the issue An understanding of limit state design ‘can be obtained by contrasting it with ‘working state design: + Working state design: Anaiyse the expected working state, then apply ‘margins of safety + Limit state design: Analyse the Unexpected states at which the structure has reached an unacceptable nit ‘Make sure the init states ae urwealistic (erat least unticey,” “The issue is that selection of meaningful “unexpected and ‘unrealistic’ states is Impossible, or meaningless. For design of tunnel suppor, which, in weak rack, or rock under high stress, s dominated by ‘geological materials and geological structures, and wth the loading of the ‘suppor being a function ofthe mass sitfness of the ground and the stfiness of the suppor elements. We should, in fact we must, retain working state design, based on the ‘expected. The expacted should be ‘based on detailed site investigations Imorpreted by the best engineering geologists, of whom there are too few. ‘Then we must propery use the Observational Method, by whatever name we chose to cal, even the New Australian Tunneling Method! www-tunnelsontine info