Rock Mechanics Rock Mechanics

and Rock Engineering 17, 183--190 (1984) and Rock Engineering

O by Springer-Verlag 1984

Technical Note

The Design Process in Rock Engineering

By
Z. T. Bieniawski

The Pennsylvania State University, U. S. A.

Summary
The engineering design process, often systematically used in other branches of
engineering, such as mechanical or architectural engineering, is seldom applied in
rock engineering. While it is sometimes claimed that rock excavations are actually
designed, little attention is paid to the engineering design philosophy. This paper
emphasizes the need for a systematic design process in rock engineering and shows
that the rock engineer can no longer claim that engineering practice mandates em-
piricism and "rule of thumb" methods. The engineering design process is described
and the design approaches for rock engineering are outlined.

Introduction

"Scientists discover what is;

engineers create what has
never been."
Theodore von Karman (1911)

The engineer's genie or his creative ability manifests itself in one word:
design. It is design which makes engineers out of applied scientists and it is
design that represents the culmination of all engineering training. Although
impressive progress has been made in the field or rock mechanics, the knowl-
edge accumulated has not been fully utilized in rock engineering design.
This situation can be improved by a better understanding of the design
process.
The Engineers' Council for Professional Development made this defini-
tion in 1975:
"Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or
process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-makdng process (often
iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering
sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated
184 Z.T. Bieniawski:

objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are

the establishment of objectives and criteria, analysis, synthesis, con-
struction, testing and evaluation. Central to the process are the essential
and complementary roles of analysis and synthesis. In addition, socio-
logical, economic, aesthetic, legal and ethical considerations need to be
included in the design process."
It is clear from the above definition that the solution to any real engi-
neering problem is never merely technological ( F l o r m a n , 1976).
In essence, the engineering design process, iterative in character, con-
sists of the following relatively distinct stages: identification of a need or an
opportunity; selection or creation of a method, concept or model; analysis
and/or experimentation; decision; development and implementation (B i e n i-
a w s k i , 1984). The design process is concerned with the methodology of
problem-solving, and the achievement of a final product.

Design Stages
The various distinguishable stages of the engineering design process are
depicted in Fig. 1. The stages are as follows (Rallis, 1973):
1) Recognition o[ a need or a problem. The existence of a problem
must be identified before any attempt can be made to solve it. In desigmtype
situations, this involves the recognition of a need, or an opportunity.
2) Statement o[ the problem. After establishing that a problem exists,
it is then necessary to define it in a clear and concise manner. In rock engi-
neering, this action means setting of the objectives in terms of stability,
safety, and economy.
3) Collection o[ in[ormation. This phase involves gathering, investigat-
ing, processing and screening information to determine the specific charac-
teristics of the problem. In rock engineering, collection of information in-
cludes site exploration (involving geological and geophysical investigations),
and laboratory and field testing to establish the characteristics of the rock
strata, in situ stresses and applied loads.
4) Analysis o[ solution components (including searching for a method/
theory/model or a hypothesis). Depending on the nature of the problem,
either a search is conducted for the most promising method o[ solution or a
hypothesis is selected or invented. Design analyses at this stage may involve
concept forming, mathematical and numerical simulations, physical model
studies, observations and monitoring, or empirical analyses. Intuition, imagi-
nation, and innovation should be utilized in a manner not unlike that of a
creative artist.
5) Synthesis to create a detailed solution. This phase of the design pro-
cess is a decision-making stage in which the design activity is directed to
creating detailed alternative solutions. This stage should comprise design
calculations and specifications, performance predictions, cost estimates, sched-
uling procedures, experimental results and the like. Decision-making is the
main characteristic of this phase.
 The Design Process in Rock Engineering 185

6) Evaluation and testing. The solution proposed must now be assessed

by comparing it with the original hypothesis, specifications, facts, assump-
tions, requirements, or constraints. This assessment will require the exercise
of engineering judgment. The duty of the design engineer is to produce a
balanced design involving all the factors which interact.
If, as is frequently the case, such an evaluation shows up deficiencies
or suggests more promising alternatives, some of the foregoing stages must
be repeated.

11 RECOGNITION
OF NEED

I STATEMENTOF PRO~LE~ I

3 I
1
COLLECTIONOF INFORMATION

1
I ANALYSIS OF SOLUTIONCOMPONENTS~'-------,

i
5 ISYNTHESIS TO CREATE DETAILED,....qOLUTION~"-~-~

6 ] EVALUATION AND TESTING ~, -,

71 OPTIMIZATION F-----,

8 I
l
RECOMMENDATION

91
l
COMMUNICATION F------"

I0[
~
IMPLEMENTATION
NO

1
. J

Fig. 1. The engineering design process

7) Optimization. Most engineering situations do not have a unique solu-

tion. The proposed solution may have to be reconsidered in an attempt to
approach a feasible compromise between the generally conflicting require-
ments and resources (Wilde, 1978).
8) Recommendation. Conclusions and recommendations are the essence
of the entire design process in that they provide a concise restatement of the
answer to the problem, point out limitations or restrictions, and indicate
the direction to be followed in implementing the solution.
186 Z.T. Bieniawski:

9) Communication. Achievement of the design objectives requires the

engineer to communicate or "sell" the findings. Effective communication re-
quires that all pertinent facts be properly presented. If a mathematician were
to sum up these thoughts, he might well do so by equation*:

E = M C2

where E equals effectiveness, M equals mastery o[ the subject matter and

C equals communication.
10) Implementation. This stage entails putting the plan into action, and
generally involves a high order of organizational skill as well as knowledge
and experience of costs, labor, law, and equipment.

Design Approaches in Rock Engineering

O b e r t (1973) emphysized that compared with the time that man has
been involved in mining, the concept of designing structures in and on rock
is a relatively recent innovation. One reason for this situation is that the
problem of designing a mine, a tunnel or a slope is different from that of
designing a conventional structure such as a building or a bridge.
In a conventional engineering design, the external loads to be applied
are first determined and a material is then prescribed with the appropriate
strength characteristics, following which the structural geometry is selected.
In rock mechanics, the design deals with complex rock masses and specific
material properties cannot be prescribed to meet design requirements. Fur-
thermore, the applied loads are not as important in rock masses as the forces
resulting from the redistribution of the original stresses, i. e. those existing
before the excavation was made. Also, a number of possible failure modes
can exist in a rock structure so that determination of the "material strength"
is a major problem. Moreover, the geometry of a structure in rock may
depend on the configuration of the geological features. Hence, the design of
an excavation in rock must include a thorough appraisal of the geological
conditions and especially of possible geological hazards.
Clearly then, any design approaches for excavations in rock call for
close cooperation between rock mechanics engineers and engineering geo-
logists. In fact, a new breed of geological engineers (not to be confused with
engineering geologists) has emerged in the U. S. A. combining skills in engi-
neering design, rock mechanics, soil mechanics, geology, and geophysics.
Does this mean that the engineering design process discussed in the
previous section cannot be applied in rock mechanics design ? Certainly not!
It does mean, however, that the design of excavations in rock requires extra
considerations involving the special geotechnical conditions. In this respect
an excellent design philosophy was offered by H o e k (Hoek, 1981; H o e k
and B r o w n , 1980; H o e k and L o n d e , 1974):

* With apologies to Albert Einstein.

 The Design Process in Rock Engineering 187

"The basic aim of any excavation design should be to utilize the rock
itself as the principal structural material, crating as little disturbance as
possible during the excavation and adding as little as possible in the
way of concrete and steel support. In their intact state and when sub-
jected to compressive stresses, most hard rocks are far stronger than
concrete and many are of the same order of strength as steel. Conse-
quently, it does not make economic sense to replace a material which
may be perfectly adequate with one which may be no better."
"A good engineering design is a balanced design in which all the fac-
tors which interact, even those which cannot be quantified, are taken
into account. The duty of the design engineer is not to compute accu-
rately but to judge soundly."
In essence, rock engineering design incorporates such aspects as planning
the location of structures, determining their dimensions and shapes, their
orientations and layout, excavation procedures, support selection, and in-
strumentation. The rock mechanics engineer studies the original in situ
stresses, monitors the changes in stress caused by the excavation process,
determines rock properties, analyze stresses, deformations, and water condb
tions (pressure and flow) and interprets instrumentation data.
Unfortunately, the application of the design process in rock engineering
has not progressed at the same rate as for other engineering fields. The
result has been excessive safety factors in many aspects of rock engineering
projects. It is believed that an increasing demand for more realistic safety
factors as well as the recognition of the money-saving potential of rock
mechanics will lead to greater application of design in rock engineering.
Nevertheless, while extensive research is being conducted in rock mechanics
today, there still seems to be a major problem in "translating" the research
findings into innovative and concise design procedures.

Design Methods
The design methods which are available for assessing the performance
of structures in and on rock can be categorized as follows:
i) Analytical Methods.
ii) Observational Methods.
iii) Empirical Methods.
Analytical Methods use the analyses of stresses and deformations caused
by structures in and on rock. The methods include such techniques as closed
form solutions, numerical methods (finite elements, finite difference, bound-
ary elements), analog simulations (electrical and photoeleastic), and physical
modeling (St. J o h n and H a r d y , 1978).
Observational Methods rely on monitoring of ground movement during
excavation to detect measurable instability, and on the analysis of ground-
support interaction. These methods include the New Austrian Tunneling
Method. Although considered as separate methods, observational approaches
are the only way to check the results and predictions of the other methods.
188 Z.T. Bieniawski:

Empirical Methods assess the performance of structures in and on rock

by the use of statistical analyses of observations. Engineering rock mass
classifications are the best known empirical approach for assessing the sta-
bility of excavations in rock (Hoek and B r o w n , 1980; G o o d m a n , 1980).
Empirical methods have received increasing attention in recent years (Ein-
stein et al., 1979) and in many tunneling projects this approach has been
used as the only practical basis for design. In mining, recent applications in-
clude metal mining ( K e n d o r s k i et al., 1983) and coal mining ( B i e n i a w s k i
et al., 1980; Ghose, 1981).
All methods require geological information and consideration of statu-
tory safety regulations.
Geological techniques are used to identify geological structures and
other features affecting structural stability (Ealy et al., 1979). For this pur-
pose, core drilling, geological mapping, isopach mapping, aerial photography,
lineament analysis, and satellite imagery are employed. A method of "hazard
analysis" has also been developed (Ellison and T h u r m a n , 1976). The
latest major breakthrough in exploration technology in the U. S. A. is geo-
logical remote sensing from the space shuttle "Columbia" (T a r a nik, 1982).
Considerations of safety regulations must be included because regard-
less of the results of the design methods, the designers must comply with
the mining or tunneling regulations and/or other underground limitations,
e. g. ventilation, transportation, etc.
The principal factors affecting the stability of excavations in rock are:
i) The stress fields to which an underground excavation is subjected
especially those caused by mining in its vicinity.
ii) The interaction between adjacent excavations.
iii) The strength and other properties of the rock strata through which
the excavation passes.
iv) The groundwater conditions.
v) The method and quality of excavation.
vi) The support of the rock strata.
A simplified design chart is illustrated in Fig. 2. An important observa-
tion to be made is that no rock engineering design may be considered final
until the construction of the structure is complete.
It should be noted that designing a mine, a tunnel or a slope involves
the design of many systems besides those involved in rock mechanics design.
A good treatment of this aspect for mining was provided by L u x b a c h e r
and R a m a n i (1980).
Finally, successful completion of major rock engineering projects de-
pends not only on careful engineering design and construction procedures,
but also on good project management and, most of all, sound contractual
provisions. An efficient design may not materialize into a successful project
if problems arise in contracting matters. However, a treatment of these
aspects is behind the scope of this paper.
 The Design Process in Rock Engineering 189

I
ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS

Function, Size, Shape, Layout,

Method of Excavation
1
OBJECTIVES
Safety, Stability, Economy

DETERMINATION OF INPUT DATA

Geologic Structure
(engineering geological mapping and geotechnical core logging)
Rock and Rock Strata Properties
(strength, deformability and factors of influence)
Groundwater In Situ Stress Field
Applied Loads

!i DESIGN METHODS f
Analytical Observational
(numerical and Empirical (field measurements)
physical modeling, (rock mass
failure criteria) classifications
and experience)

I OUTPUT SPECIFICIFATIONS I
i
For mines and tunnels:
Roof spans; stand-up time; support guidelines
For slopes and foundations:
Rock mass cohesion and friction; deformation modulus

FEEDBACK i
Selection of Instrumentation for Performance Monitoring
Remedial Measures in Case of Instability

Fig. 2. Simplified design chart for rock engineering

Conclusion

The time has come to place a greater emphasis on the systematic design
process in rock engineering, the way it has been done for decades in other
branches of engineering, such as mechanical or architectural engineering.
The rock engineer can no longer claim that the engineering practice means
practical empiricism only and we need to convince ourselves and teach our
students that engineers are designers. T h e term "engineer" does not derive
f r o m the w o r k "engine" but f r o m the French w o r d "genie" meaning in-
geneous or creative. If rock engineering is to make meaningful progress,
the engineer's ingenuity should be turned into design innovations.
190 Z.T. Bieniawski: The Design Process in Rock Engineering

References
B ienia w s k i, Z. T. (1984): Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling.
Rotterdam/Boston: A. A. Balkema Publishers.
Bieniawski, Z. T., Rafia, F., Newman, D. A. (1980): Ground Control In-
vestigations for Assessment of Roof Conditions in Coal Mines. Proc. 21st U. S.
Syrup. Rock Mech., University of Missouri, Rolla, 523--535.
Ealy, D. L., Mazurak, R.E., Laugrand, E.L. (1979): A Geological Ap-
proach for Predicting Unstable Roof and Floor Conditions in Advance of Mining.
Mining Congress J. 65, (no. 3), 17--22.
Einstein, H.H., Steiner, W., Baecher, G. B. (1979): Assessment of Em-
pirical Design Methods for Tunnels in Rocks. Proc. 4th Rapid Excavation and
Tunnel. Conf., AIME, New York, 1, 683--706.
Ellison, R., Thurman, A.G. (1976): Geotechnology: An Integral Part of
Mine Planning. Coal Exploration. W. Miur (ed.). San Francisco: Miller-Freeman,
324--372.
Florman, S. C. (1976): The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. New York:
St. Martin's Press.
Ghose, A. K., Raju, N. M. (1981): Characterization of Rock Mass vis-a-vis
Application of Rock Bohing-Modeling of Indian Coal Measures. Proc. 22nd U. S.
Syrup. on Rock Mech., MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 422---427.
Goodman, R. E. (1980): Introduction to Rock Mechanics. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hoek, E. (1981): Geotechnical Design of Large Openings at Depth. Proc.
Rapid Excavation and Tunnel. Conf., AIME, New York, 2, 1032--1044.
Hoek, E., Brown, E. T. (1980): Underground Excavations in Rock. Institu-
tion of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., Londe, P. (1974): The Design of Rock Slopes and Foundations.
Proc. 3rd International Congress of Rock Mech, ISRM, Denver, 1 A, General Re-
port, 613--752.
Kendorski, F. S., Cummings, R. A., Bieniawski, Z. T., Skinner, E. H.
(1983): A Rock Mass Classification Scheme for the Planning of Caving Mine Drift
Supports. Proc. Rapid Excavation and Tunnel. Conf., AIME, New York, 191--223.
Luxbacher, W.G., Ramani, R.V. (1980): The Interrelationship Between
Coal Mine Plant and Ventilation System Design. Proc. 2nd Int. Mine Ventilation
Congress, AIME, New York, 73--82.
Muir Wood, A.M. (1979): Ground Behavior and Support for Mining and
Tunneling. Tunnels and Tunneling, June, 47--51.
Obert, L.A. (1973): Philosophy of Design. U. S. Bureau of Mines Informa-
tion Circular, IC 8585, 6--7.
Rallis, C. J. (1973): Design - - the Goal of Engineering Activity. S. Aft. Mech.
Engr., April, 62--71.
St. John, C. M., Hardy, M. P. (1978): Geotechnical Models and Their Appli-
cation in Mine Design. SME-AIME Fall Meeting, Mini-Symposium, Preprint No.
78-1, 43--52.
Taranik, J. V. (1982): Geological Remote Sensing and Space Shuttle. Mining
Congress Journal, July, 18--44.
Wilde, D.J. (1978): Globally Optimal Design. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.