Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, 72 VAYASAN SAINTEK k

YOGYAKART

ROCK ENGINE
LIBRAR'

Geomechanics Princip
in the Design of Tunnel
and Caverns in Rock
M. Ashraf Mahtab and Piergiorgo Grasso .

GEODATA, Corso Duca deg Ii Abruzzi, 48/e, 10129 Turin, Italy

YAVASAN S~!NT~~EBUMIAN

1~-~l1-Y~ •
ROCK ENGINEERING
LIBRARY

ELSEVIER
Amsterdam-London-New York- Tokyo 1992
ELSEVIERSCIENCEPUBLISHERS B.V.
Sara Burgerhartstraat 25
P.O. Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

H1htJb, H. A. <H. Ashraf>

Geoaechan,cs pr1nciples in the design of tunnels and caverns 1n
rocks IM. Ashraf H1ht1b and Piersiorgo Grasso.
p. . ca. -- IDevelopaents 1n geotechn,ca I eng1neer1ng : 721
Includes b1b11ograph1c1l references and Index.
ISBN 0-444-88308-B lllk. p1perl
1. Tunneling. 2. Rock •echanics. 3. Underground construction.
!. Grasso, P1erg1orgo. II. T1tle. IJJ. Ser1es.
TA815.H3.Q 1992
62.(.1 '93--dc20 92-32794
CJP

ISBN 0·444-883088

~ 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior written permission ofthe publisher, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Copyright and Permis-
sions Department, P.O. Box 521, 1000 AM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Special regulations for readers in the U.S.A. - This publication has been registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCCI, Salem, Massachusetts. Information can be obtained from
the CCC about conditions under which photocopies of pans of this publication may be made in the
U.S.A. All other copyright questions, including photocopying outside of the U.S.A., should be
referred to the publisher.

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or proper-
ty as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any
methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Printed in The Netherlands

Further titles in this series:
Volumes 2,3,5-7,910, 12. 13, 15, 16A. 22and 26are out of print

1. G. SANGLERAT -THE PENETROMETER ANO SOIL EXPLORATION

,. R. SILVESTER-COASTAL ENGINEERING, 1 and 2
8. LN. PERS EN-ROCK DYNAMICS AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION
Introduction to Stress Waves in Rocks
11. .H.K. GUPTA ANO B.K. RASTOGI-DAMS ANO EAATHQUAKES
1,. B. VOIGHT!Editorl-ROCKSLIDES ANO AVALANCHES, 1 and 2
17. A.P.S. SELVADURAI - ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF SOIL-FOUNDATION INTERACTION
18. J. FEDA-STRESSIN SUBSOILAND METHODSOF FINAL SEmEMENTCALCULATION
19. A. KEZDI-STABILIZEO EARTHROADS
20. E.W. BRANDAND R.P. BRENNER(Editorsl-SOFT-CLAYENGINEERING
21. A. MYSLIVEANO Z. KYSELA- THE BEARINGCAPACITYOF BUILDINGFOUNDATIONS
23. P. BRUUN-STABILITY OF TIDALINLETS- Theory and Engineering
24. Z. BA~NT-METHOOS OF FOUNDATIONENGINEERING
25. A. KEZDI-SOIL PHYSICS-SelectedTopics
27. D. STEPHENSON-ROCKFILLIN HYDRAULICENGINEERING
28. P.E. FRIVIK,N. JANBU, R. SAETERSDALANOLI. FINBORUO(Editorsl-GROUNOFREEZING1980
29. P. PETER-CANALANDRIVERLEVEES .
30. J. FEOA-MECHANICSOF PARTICULATE MATERIALS-The PrinciplBS
31. Q. ZARUBA ANDV. MENCL-LANDSLIDES AND THEIRCONTROL
Sacond completelyrevised edition
32. I.W. FARMER(Editorl-STRATA MECHANICS
33. L. HOBSTANO J. ZAJiC-ANCHORINGIN ROCKAND SOIL
Second completelyrevised edition
3,. G. SANGLERAT,G. OLIVAR!AND B. CAMBOU-PRACTICALPROBLEMSIN SOIL MECHANICSAND
FOUNDATIONENGINEERING.1 and 2
35. L .RETHATl -GROUNDWATER IN CIVILENGINEERING
36. S.S. VYALOV- RHEOLOGICALFUNDAMENTALSOF SOIL MECHANICS
37. P. BRUUN (Editori -DESIGN ANO CONSTRUCTIONOF MOUNOS FOR BREAKWATERS ANO COASTAL
PROTECTION
38. W.F.CHENAND G.Y. BALAOI-SOIL PLASTICITY-Theoryand Implementation
39. E.T. HANRAHAN - THE GEOTECTONICS OF REALMATERIALS:THE Eg £~ METHOD
40. J. ALDORFANO K. EXNER-MINE OPENINGS-Stabilityand Suppor1
41. J.E. GILLOT-CLAY.IN ENGINEERINGGEOLOGY
42. A.S. CAKMAK (Editorl-SOIL DYNAMICSAND LIQUEFACTION
43. A.S. CAKMAK IEdi1orl-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
44. A.S. CAKMAK (Editorl-GROUND MOTIONAND ENGINEERINGSEISMOLOGY
45. A.S. CAKMAK (Editorl-STRUCTURES,UNDERGROUNDSTRUCTURES.DAMS. AND STOCHASTIC
METHODS
46. L RETHATI-PROBABILISTIC SOLUTIONSIN GEOTECTONICS
,1. B.M. OAS- THEORETICALFOUNDATIONENGINEERING
48. W. OERSKI.R. IZBICKl,I. KISIELANO Z. MROZ-ROCKANO SOILMECHANICS
49. T. ARIMAN, M. HAMADA, A.C. SINGHAL.M.A. HAROUNANO A.S. CAKMAK IEdi1orsl-RECENT
ADVANCESIN LIFELINEEARTQUAKEENGINEERING
50. B.M. DAS-EARTH ANCHORS
51. K. THIEL-ROCK MECHANICSIN HYOROENGINEERING
52. W.F.CHENANO X.L. LIU-LIMIT ANALYSISIN SOILMECHANICS
53. W.F.CHENANOE. MIZUNO-NONLINEARANALYSISIN SOILMECHANICS
54. F.H. CHEN-FOUNDATIONSON EXPANSIVESOILS
55. J. VERFEL-ROCKGROUTINGANO DIAPHRAGMWALLCONSTRUCTION
56. B.N_. WHITTAKERANO O.J. REOOISH-SUBSIOENCE-Occurrence, Prediction and Control
57. E. NONVEILLER-GROUTING.THEORYANO PRACTICE
58. V. KOLM ANO I. NJ;MEC-MODELLING OF SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
59A. R.S. SINHA IEdilor)- UNDERGROUNDSTRUCTURES-Design and Instrumentation
598. R.S. SINHA IEditorl-UNOERGROUNO STRUCTURES-Design and Construction
60. R.L. HARLAN, K.E. KOLM AND E.D. GUTENTAG-WATER-WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
61. I. KASDA-FINITE ELEMENT TECHNIQUES IN GROUNDWATER FLOW STUDIES
62. L. FIALOVSZKY (EdnorJ- SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR OPE RATIONAL PRINCIPLES
63. H. GIL- THE THEORY OF STRATA MECHANICS
64. H.K. GUPTA-RESERVOIR-INDUCED EARTHQUAKES
65. V.J. LU NARDINI- HEAT TRANSFER WITH FREEZING AND THAWING
67. E. JUHASOVA-SEISMIC EFFECTS ON STRUCTURES
70. D. MILOVIC-STRESSES AND DISPLACEMENTS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
71. B.N. WHITTAKER. R.N. SINGH AND G. SUN- ROCK FRACTURE MECHANICS- Principles. Design and ApplicatiDM
 PREFACE

The statement: "a well-stated problem takes you half way to the solu
not too far off the mark when it concerns the problems in the design of
and caverns in rock. The assumption here is that the statement of th
lem involves a preliminary look at the conceptual model of the undei
structure vis-a-vis the character of the rock mass and potential ground
problems. This assumption may hold true in a small fraction of the
acal cases, but it provides a rationale for the way in which the autho
structured this book. Rock mass characterization is assigned its well-rec
significance in tunnel design. Analysis methods and design criteria ar
duced at a rudimentary, but generally-adequate level for problem definit
selection of the solution approach. A treatment of the ground control I
is given as an essential pa.rt of the practice of geomechanics while the c
on special problems and case histories are provided to complete the a
perspective on the subject.
Not only is the subject of tunneling (design and construction) vast,
associated subjects, like analysis methods, have also generated a pre
amount of literature. For good reasons, the authors have kept the s
the book within narrow limits. The book is directed to educators, pr,
engineers, and students with the hope that they will find use for some
· · material presented here.
Much of the material in the book is derived from the work of previou
tigators; references a.re given in the text and the authors' gratitute for th
the material is recorded in the accompanying section on Acknowledgmen
authors wish to express their gratitude to the following individuals for
of the manuscript and for their constructive comments and suggestions
Dr. M. Cravero of CNR, Torino, and Mr. J. D. Dixon of the U.S. Bu
Mines, Spokane, for the entire manuscript; Drs. J. F. Borges and M. Casi
of LNEC, Lisbon and Dr. T. M. Yegulalp of Columbia University, New Y
Sec. 4.2; Dr. M. B. Reed of Brunel University, Uxbridge, and Dr. J. No
of LBL, Berkeley, for Ch. 3; and several colleagues at Geodata for
chapters.
viii Preface

Special thanks are expressed by the authors to Mrs. Luciana Borghesi for
typing the manuscript, to Mr. Massimo Boerio for drafting the figures, a.nd to
Mrs. Eleni Muratidu for preparing the tables.

1992 M.A.M.
P. G.
 xi

CONTENTS page

PREFACE vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Historical perspective of underground construction in rock 1
1.2 The role of geomechanics in design of rock excavations 2
/
1.3 Organization and scope of the book ~ 2

2. ROCK MASS CHARACTERIZATION 5

2.1 Significant properties of rock mass 5
2.2 Sampling, exploration, and testing of significant properties 8
2.3 Quantification of properties for design input 11
2.4 Sampling and mapping of structural data 13
2.5 Quantification of joint orientations 14
2.5.1 Identification of clusters 14
2.5.2 Analysis of clusters using Arnold distribution 18
2.5.3 Confidence interval for the mean of a hemispherical
normal distribution 21
2.5.4 Fit of observations to the hemispherical normal distribution 24
2.6 Quantification of joint extent and spacing 27
2.6.1 Statistical modeling of joint extent and spacing 27
2.6.2 Comparative analysis of example data sets 29
2. 7 General rock mass classification schemes 31
2. 7 .1 Terzaghi: Rock load classification 32
2.7.2 Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner: Rock structure rating
(RSR) system 32
2.7.3 Bieniawski: Rock mass rating (RMR) system 38
 ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank the following individuals and organizations
for permission to reproduce the previously published material ( author and year
of publication are quoted in the text and a complete quotation is provided in
the References):
A. A. Bal.kema, Rotterdam (Tables 2.1, 2.9, 2.10, 2.14, 6.5, Figs. 2,14, 6.15,
6.16, 6.17); Society of Mining Engineers - AIME (Tables 2.5--2.8, 4.2, 6.4,
Figs. 2.11, 2.12, 4.9, 6.10); J. Wtley & Sons, Inc. (Table 2.11, Figs. 5.16,
5.17); Springer-Verlag, Wien, (Fig. 2.13); Inst. Min. Metall., IMM (Figs. 3.12,
6.21, Table 6.2) Am. Soc. Civil Eng., ASCE (Figs. 4.11, 5.10, 5.11, 6.14);
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (Tables 5.1, 5.3); Pergamon Press, Oxford
(Figs. 5.4-5.6, 5.12, 5.13, 6.1-6.6, 6.11, 7.1-7.6, Table 6.1); Cambridge Univ.
Press (Figs. 6.7-6.9); Prentice-hall, Inc. (Fig. 6.12); Assoc. Min. Subalpiaa;
Torino (various extracts from Bol.. 20, no. 3-4); Columbia Univ., New York
(Table 4.2); J. A. Franklin (Table 2.1); D. Rose (Table 2.5, Fig. 2.11); G. E.
Wickham (Tables 2.&-2.8, Fig. 2.12); Z. T. Bieniawski (Tables 2.9-2.11); N.
Barton (Fig. 2.13); H. J. Olivier (Fig. 2.14); n: H. Laubscher (Table 2.14); M.
Cravero(Figs. 3.12, 7.1,·7.2, 7.5, 7.6); E. Hoek (Fig. 4.5, Table4.l); J. F. Borges
& M. Castanheta (Figs. 4.12-4.14); A. M. Hasonfer (Fig. 4.11); T. M. Yegulalp
(Fig. 4.9, Table 4.2); J; Sulem (Figs. 5.4-5.6); F. B. Gularte (Figs. 5.7-5.9); W.
H. Baker (Figs. 5.12, 5.13); S.S. Peng (Figs. 5.16, 5.17); S. Pelizza (Fig. 5.20);
W. M. Telford (Figs. 6.7-6.9); B. M. New (Fig. 6.11, Table 6.1); C.H. Dowding
(Fig. 6.12); P. Egger (Figs. 6.15-6.17); R. Heystee (Fig. 6.20).

YAYASAN SAINTEK KEBUMIAN

YOGYAKARTA

ROCK ENGi NEERING

LIBRARY
xii Contents

2.7.4 Barton, Lien, and Lunde: the Q-system 42

2.7.5 Olivier: Ro.ck durability classification (RDC) system 45
2. 7.6 Correlation among selected classification schemes 46
2.8 Specific classification schemes for weak rock 46
2.8.1 Significant characteristics of weak rocks 48
2.8.2 Laubscher and Taylor (1976): Modified RMR system 49
2.8.3 Modified Q-system · 49

3. ANALYSIS METHODS 52
3.1 Fundamental equations of linear elasticity 52
3.2 Nonlinear inelastic behavior of rock mass 63
3.3 Analytical approach 66
3.3.1 Close-form solutions for-simple geometries 66
3.3.2 The key block analysis 72
3.4 Numerical methods 76
3.4.1 Finite element method 77
3A.2 Boundary element method 82
3.4.3 Finite difference method 86
3.4.4 Distinct element method 86

4. DESIGN CRITERIA 88
4.1 Failure criteria. 88
4.2 Safety factor 101
4.3 Probabilistic approach . 103
4.4 Relation between safety factor and probability of failure 105
4.4.1 The normal distribution 106
4.4.2 The extreme. distribution 106
4.4.3 Calculation of probability of failure 111

5. EXCAVATIONAND GROUND CONTROL 119

5.1 Rock excavation 119
5.1.1 Rock excavation by drilling and blasting 119
5.1.2 Rock excavation by machines 120
5.1.3 Soft ground tunneling 123
5.2 Ground control and improvement . 124
5.2.1 The NATM_ approach 124
5.2.2 The convergence confinement concept 125
5.2.3 Ground improvement .in advance of excavation 134
5.2.3.1 Rock improvement by grouting 134
Contents xiii

5.2.3.2 Rock pre-reinforcement 144

5.2.4 Ground support after excavation 152
5.2.4.1 Initial support 152
5.2.4.2 Final support 158
5.2.5 Monitoring ground behavior and design modification 158

6. SPECIAL PROBLEMS 165

6.1 Swelling 165
6.1.1 The swelling mechanism . 165
6.1.2 Laboratory tests and in-situ measurementsof swelling 167
6.1.3 Analysis and design of tunnels in swellingrock 171
6.2 Blast vibrations 173
6.2.1 Peak particle velocity 174
6.2.2 Damage criteria 176
6 .2.3 Controlled blasting 179
6.3 Shallow tunnels · 182
6.3.1 Stresses around a shallow tunnel 183
6.3.2 Estimates of load on a shallow tunnel 185
6.4 Portal construction 187
6.4.l Statement of.the problem 188
6.4.2 Some difficult site conditions: examplesfrom Italy 188
6.4.3 Portal construction methods 190
6.5 Water inflow 191
6.5.1 Type and influence 193
6.5.2 Forecast · 194
6.5.3 Control 198

7. CASE HISTORIES 200

r.i Multiple openings at shallow depth 200
7.1.1 Introduction 200
7.1.2 Rock mass characterization 201
).1.3 Stability a.nalyses 205
7.1.4 Rock reinforcement and support 208
7.1.5 Monitoring of displacement and load 210
7.2 Pre-reinforcement of rock for stabilizing a tunnel 210
7.2.1 Introduction 212
7.2.2 Geologicsetting 213
7.2.3 Construction methodology 213
7.2.4 Rock reinforcement for stabilizing 215
7.2.5 Conclusion 218
xiv Contents

REFERENCES 219
APPENDIX:APPROACHESFOR
ANALYZING NON-CIRCULARLY
DISTRIBUTED ORIENTATIONS 239
A.1 Clustering of orientations using an objective function 239
A.2 Analysis of dusters using Bingham distribution 241
A.3 Numerical example 243
A.4 Criterion for acceptance (or rejection) of unassigned points 245

INDEX 248
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Tunnels and caverns are excavated in rock for mining, civil, and de
needs for access, transportation, and storage .. Geomechanics principles pr
input to the feasibility, design, construction, and long-term stability of
excavations.

1.1 Historical perspective of underground constructio

rock
In the first millennium.B.C., underground excavation for mining was o
ring in Egyptian and Roman mines to depths of the order of 200m. L
6th century B.C., the estimated advance rate of a hand-worked gallery in
rock did not exceed 9m/year (Beall, 1973). Today, near the end of the se
millennium A.D., mechanized mining and tunnelling has increased the ad
rate by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. Together with the augmented speed c
cavation, the dimensions of underground openings have increased, the wo
conditions have improved, and the diversity of the use of underground :
has widened dramatically. ·
Rapidly advancing technologyin the production of engineering material
the excavation equipment during the post World War II period has mal
the increased need for underground construction resulting from urban pres
for making high-speed travel, saving the environment, and supplementin.
ever-vanishing surface of the globe.
The complexity of design and support of the tunnels and caverns has
kept pace with theexpanded use of the underground. Much of this comp!
stems from the inflexibility in the location of the openings and, therefor
the choice of the rock mass and the size of the engineering site. Geomech
principles are relied upon to ease the complexity in the design process.
 Introduction

1.2 The role of geomechanics in design of rock excavations

The input from geomechanics at various stages of development of an under-
ground excavation, from its conception to its operation, is shown in Fig. 1.1.
It should be recognized that the size, shape, and location of an underground
excavation system is often based on criteria that are unrelated to geomechanics
principles. In fact, the excavation method ( conventional or mechanical excava-
tion) is also selected in the planning stages. Since it takes about 7-12 months
to take delivery of a TBM (Da Via et al., 1992) or of conventional mining equip-
ment, very little input from geomechanics is available for use in this selection.
A bulk of the input from geomechanics is related to the preliminary and
final design stages as well as to monitoring the behavior of the rock around the
excavation during construction, for possible modification to the design.

1.3 Organization and scope of the book

After this brief introduction, a sequential approach to excavation design (in
terms of geomechanics principles) .is followed in Chapters 2 to 5. This sequence
is in general agreement with the flow c.bart given in Fig. 1.1.
Rock mass characterization, discussed in Ch. 2, is perhaps the most impor-
tant, and yet the most elusive, element in geomechanics. Emphasis has been
· given to the principles of sampling and quantification of rock mass characteris-
tics, especially joints, and rock mass classification schemes. For laboratory and
in-situ measurement techniques for rock properties, the various cited references
may be consulted (e.g. ISRM, 1981). Properly obtained andquantified index
tests may provide useful estimates of physical properties; a discussion of this
topic and an extensive reference list is given by Grasso et al., 1992b.
In general, the boundary value problems associated with tunnels and caverns
are three dimensional in nature. This is especially true when there is a need to
model the portals of tunnels, intersection of openings, variable topography and
in-situ stress, and rock joints. In many practical cases, however, it is possible
(and common) to make simplifying assumptions that allow the use of a two-
dimensional analysis approach.
The methods of analysis of two-dimensional boundary value probi rzns a.re
reviewed in Ch. 3. Sufficient background in theory of elasticity is provided for
conceptual modeling of problems for both analytical and numerical approaches.
The close-form solutions for simple shapes (especially, the circular opening)
are presented and the numerical methods of analysis are summarized. It is
assumed that most of the interested readers will find access to one or more of
the several excellent texts ( on both analytical and numerical techniques) that
are referenced in Ch. 3.
Introduction 3

Materials Financi Input from

Handling; Excavation Geornechanics
Labor& System Principles
Equipment;
Contractual,
Legal, &
En~ronmenlal
Aspects Geotechnical . !oration
In-Situ Measurements
Laboratory Tests
Modeling & Stability Analyses

Yes
Final
Desi n

Production
Excavation

Operation

Fig. 1.1. Flowchart of an underground excavation system showing input from

geomechanics principles.
 Introduction

The simple, 2-dimensional failure criteria. for rock are discussed in Ch. 4.
The concepts of safety factor and probability of failure are introduced to a
signi'6.cantly greater extent than is normally seen in the geomechanics literature.
The expectation here is that some of the readers may further enlarge the scope
of probabilistic analysis of the stability of tunnels and caverns.
Chapter 5 contains the material on excavation and ground control. Starting
with a brief account of the excavation techniques, the emphasis shifts to the
control of ground during and in advance of the excavation.
Some categories of special problems are outlined in Ch. 6; these include
swelling, blast vibrations, water inflow, portal construction, and shallow tun-
nels. ·
Two case histories are included in Ch. 7: (1) to demonstrate the resolution
of the problems due to complex geometry of openings at shallow depth and
(2) to achieve an improvement in the natural rock mass characteristics (and
stability) as a result of pre-reinforcement.
Chapter 2

ROCK MASS CHARACTERIZATION

Rock mass characterization or quantitative description of rock mass for de-

sign and construction of excavations in geologic media. is probably the most
crucial and demanding element in geomechanics. The need for characterizing
the rock is normally clearly perceived from the viewpoints of economy, safety,
and contractual obligations in construction of the caverns or tunnels. In addi-
tion, an accelerating demand for precise numerical values for design-input data.
is being generated by the ever-increasing sophistication in the analysis tech-
niques. However, the progress in quantification of rock mass characteristics
is impeded by the inherent variability of geologic media and the difficulty in
sampling and measuring the characteristics in situ.
Despite these odds, much progress has occurred since the mid sixties in
describing the properties of rock mass for excavation design based on field mea-
surements, laboratory tests, and rock classification schemes. A comprehensive
treatment of the subject is provided in this chapter. A discussion of the sig-
nificant properties of rock mass (Sec. 2.1) is followed by a summary of the
properties (Sec. 2.2). A discussion of the laboratory and in-situ testing meth-
ods is considered outside the scope of this book. References are provided to the
Ii terature covering these tests in detail.
Quantification of rock mass properties (Sec. 2.3), and in particular, the quan-
tification of joint geometry (Secs. 2.4-2.6), is treated in detail. A summary of
general rock mass classification schemes (Sec. 2.7) is followed by a discussion of
specific classification schemes for weak rock (Sec. 2.8).

2.1 Significant properties of rock mass

The principal requirement imposed on rock as an engineering material, from
the view point of excavating tunnels and caverns, is the ability of the rock to
be stable, given a reasonable amount of support. Therefore, the significant
properties for design and construction are related to the immediate and long-
term load-deformation behavior of the rock mass.
6 Significant properties

Broadly speaking, the term rock mass includes the rock fabric (made up of
crystalline minerals and their derivatives, pores, and microfissures) and joints.
Three groups of rock can be distinguished, based on their origin: igneous, sed-
imentary, and metamorphic .. Detailed geologic description is warranted when
discussing specificproblems. The emphasis is otherwise on the mechanical prop-
erties of the rock and characteristics of the discontinuities which are important
for both mechanical and fluid-flowbehavior of the rock mass.
In "the following discussion, some immediately a.ppropria.te remarks will be
quoted from the results of two group efforts on the subject of rock character-
ization: ISRM (1981) a.nd Barla and Ma.hta.b(1983), and from an excellent
summary by Franklin (1979).
An informative flowchart is given by Franklin (1979) that shows the inter-
relationship among the design, construction, testing, and monitoring activities.
The elements of his flowchart are given below without the time-frame, but in
his order of chronology:
A Planing a.nd construction
- Feasibility study
- · Preliminary design
- Pilot project
- Final design
- Specifications
- Construction
- Design adjustments
- Remedial works
- Ba.ck analysis
B Oeotechnical analysis
- Data review
- Surface exploration
- Subsurface exploration
- Analytical and physical models
- Trial excavations and trial support
- Materials evaluation
C Index testing
- Discontinuity survey
- Classification and mapping
- Stress measurement
- Design tests (lab and field)
- Monitoring
- Quality control tests
The above list is a comprehensive or ideal series of activities that should
be included in a project. However, several of these activities would be missing
Significant propertie$ 1

in actual practice. The important point is to note the role of feedback from
data collection to geomechanical analysis 'and then to planning and construc-
tion. For our purposes, we will assume that the feasibility of constructing the
underground cavity has already been. established and we are interested in the
three, interrelated aspects of site characterization:
1. identification of significant properties of rock mass,
2. methodology for measurement of significant properties, and
3. quantification of rock mass properties.
These three aspects are discussed in this and subsequent subsections of this
chapter.
The properties that are significant for design and construction of an under-
ground cavity must, in general, relate to the objective or function of the cavity,
the site characteristics, the applicable design approach, and the available con-
struction methodology. Site exploration and quantification of these properties
are also influenced by socioeconomicvariables. It is, therefore, difficult to pre-
scribe a standard list of significant properties of rock mass. The followingis an
attempt to identify the properties of rock mass that are significant from two
broad points of view (Barla and Mahtab, 1983): .

1. Properties significant from viewpoints of site charac-

teristics and function of cavity
- Topography, climate, access.
- Location of cavity with respect to ground surface and boundaries of rock
formations.
- Structural stability of the rock body (seism.isity,faults, stress concentra-
tions).
- Hydrologic regime and its perturbation (permeability of ground and ground
water fl.ow rates).
- Potential for subsidence and other surface effects.
- Rock types, genesis, homogeneity.
- Degree of weathering and wea.thera.bility.
- Geologic discontinuities and other defects.
8 Sampling, e:tplora:tion, and te3ting

2. Properties significant from viewpoint of analysis, de-

sign, and construction of cavities
- Deform.abilitycharacteristics under short- and long-term loading.
- Strength characteristics in reference to a. rational failure criterion.
- In-situ stress and hydraulic a:nd/or dynamic loads.
- Permeability and its variation and control.
- Geometric and mechanical properties of systematic and extensive disconti-
nuities.
It is generally understood that the significanceof a property should relate
to its definition, the methodology to be used for its measurement and quantifi-
cation, and its incorporation in the design. This understanding is, however, not
always followedin constructing a list of the properties. A major reason for this
discrepancy appears to be a lack of coordination between the designer and the
field and laboratory personnel. Other reasons derive from the limitation of the
method of analysis, lack of methodology for measuring some of the properties,
and the cost considerations.
The relative importance of a property may depend on the size and use of a
cavity. There is, therefore, a need to examine which properties show the size ef-
fect. Site specificproperties, such as softening and swelling of minerals and rock
mass, are important and can, perhaps, be described by the field or engineering
geologist. Finally, there is always a danger of making the list of required prop-
erties too long. A high priority should be assigned to those properties which go
into the design.

·2.2 Sampling, exploration, and testing of significant prop-

erties
Although' an extensive list of techniques for measurement of rock properties
may be suggested (e.g., Table 2.1) for excavations in rock masses, the extent of
the testing program should depend on the type of project. Experience shows
that in several actual projects, the extent of geotechrucalexploration was gener-
ally insufficient to produce data which could be used for an adequate design. In
such instances, design proceeds (post-excavation) by trial and error. Only the
major production problems produce the need for a geotechnical investigation.
Even in this case, sufficient funds or time are seldom available for an adequate
Sampling, exploration, and testing 9

exploration and testing program. The problem, therefore, reduces to an opti-

mization of the available funds and time by selecting a good sampling scheme
and the mostbeneficial measurement program.
Another problem that exists in measurement of significant properties of rock
mass is the lack of understanding between the field engineer and the designer
as to what variables are being measured, for what purpose, and with what
precision. Consequentely, inadequate sampling and quantification of variables,
when input to analytical or numerical 'models, produce designs which may bear ·
little resemblance to reality or engineering experience.
The suggestion which emerges from the foregoingdiscussion is that the sam-
pling, measurement, and testing programs should produce quantifiable data,
together with a degree of confidence that can be translated into the results of
analysis of the cavity, that is, the predicted behaviour of underground openings.
It is suggested that the following questions would be appropriate for defining a
program for measurement of rock mass properties:
1 What are the available funds, time, manpower, and equipment?
2 What tests (strength, deformation modulus, etc.) should be made in-situ
and. in the laboratory?
3 How will the test results be used in modeling, design, and construction of
the cavity?
The methodology for measuring significant properties should depend on the
type of project (that is, tunnel excavation, nuclear-waste repository, or other),
means of excavation ( conventional, tunnel boring ma.chine},and the structure of
the rock mass vis-a-vis the size of the cavity. The following paragraphs express
the needs a.nd concerns of the U.S.-Italy workshop participants on the subject
of measurement·of properties (Barla and Mahtab, 1983).
• The site investigator needs to ask himself several questions, for example:
Are the tests physically feasible a.nd economically justifiable? In view of
time and budget constraints, what is the minimum number of tests and the
value of the information? Are the results of the tests to be incorporated into
design and how strongly do they affect the design? ·
• An important issue is: how does the mechanics applied to rock differ from
the mechanics applied to other materials? Does it require scale-dependent
constitutive equations? How do the mechanicalproperties vary with geologic
properties?
• The type of tests should relate to:
- in-situ stress
- discontinuum versus continuum assumptions
- access and funding
- site geology (mineralogy, lithology, etc.)
• A high level of redundancy should be allowed in a properly developed sam-
pling strategy. The number of tests should not be determined beforehand.
10 Sampling, explora.tion, and teating

TABLE 2.1
Mea.suringtechniques for field and laboratory tests (after Franklin, 1979).

1. Field "index tests" for characterization

A. Discontinuities
• Geometry; number of sets, orientation, spacing, persistence, aperture,
roughness, block size.
• Other charcteristics: :filling, wall strength, RQD, seepage.
B. Geophysical logging of boreholes, seismic refraction (single and cross hole),
acoustic, temperature, resistivity, induction, and gama ray logs.
2. Field "design tests"
A. Deformability: borehole Jack (flexible, rigid), fiat jack test, plate test (sur-
face, borehole), and in situ uniaxial/triaxial test.
B. _ Shear strength ( direct, torsional) tests.
C. Fluid flow: piezometric head, permeability, flow velocity and path.
D. Stress determination: fiat jack, door stopper, strain-gage cell, USBM-type
gage, CSIRO gage and hydraulic fracturing.
3. Field "quality control tests,,
A. Rock bolt (cable) tension and anchor tests
B. Shotcrete: visual assessment, pull tests, box mold tests, core tests.
4. Field monitoring
A. Movements: inclinometer; tilt meter, borehole extensometer; convergence
meter; joint & fault displacement; triangulation, levelling, and offset surveys.
B. Other measurements: vibration and blast monitoring, hydraulic pressure
cells, rock stress changes, strains in linings and steel ribs.
5. Laboratory index tests for characterization
A. Water content, porosity, void index, density.
B. Swellingpressure, swelling strain, slake durability.
C. Hardness, resistance 'to abrasion (Los Angeles test), petrographic descrip-
tion.
D. Uniaxial test for compressive strength and moduli (E, v).
E. Schmidt hammer rebound and point load index.
6. Laboratorv "design tests"
A. Tensile strength (direct and Brazilian), triaxial strength, and direct shear
tests.
B. Permeability.
C. Time dependent and plastic properties.
 Quantification of properties for design 11

Rather, sampling should be an iterative or sequential process that depends

on the variability in the properties, and ultimately leads to the required
confidence level in the mean values or other selected parameters.
• Tests can be made according to the standards suggested by ISRM and
ASTM. In some instances, the client may recommend the standards to be
used. Some of the available standards may be incorrect or not applicable
to a specific situation. The size of core may be too small or the number of
tests may be too large (exceptionally) or too small (normally).
• Data from laboratory tests are sometimes not used in design or are used
incorrectly. The situation may be remedied by improving the methodology
for treatment of the data.
• Extrapolation of laboratory tests to in-situ conditions is not possible except
in simple projects and mainly in homogeneous and uniform rock masses.
There is a possibility of doing very simple tests to reduce the number of very
expensive tests. This requires help from reliable correlation between index
values and corresponding rock properties. Grasso et al. ( 1992b) discuss the
problems and promises of index testing for obtaining rock properties and
provide a comprehensive list of references on the subject.
• Methods for projecting (forecasting) properties to other locations need to be
developed. Geostatistical principles may be of use in describing or forecast-
ing regional variability.
• The field and laboratory tests need to be put in a framework and may be
linked to each other. Follow up and continuity with in-situ investigation is
important for this framework.
• The diameter of the boreholes for field investigation should be the same as
used in the laboratory for obtaining rock cores.
• Borehole and core logs can serve as a measure of the variability in various
characteristics of the rock mass, including point-load index, RQD, resistivity,
dynamic elastic moduli, and fracture density. Rock classification schemes
. are useful. Sometimes, they require data that a.re not readily available, for
example; the state of in situ stress.

2.3 Quantification of properties for design input

Once the characteristics of the rock mass have been measured in the field
and in the laboratory, they need to be quantified or assessed for input to design
of cavities. The assessment of rock properties may range from highly subjective
characterizations such as "weak, moderately strong, and strong rock" to specific
assignments of numerical values to attributes like compressivestrength, geome-
try and resistance of joint sets, and deformation modulus. The criteria used for
quantification are highly dependent on the purpose of making the observation
 Quantification of propertie$ for de$ign

of rock mass properties, namely, the desired degree of confidence in the analysis
and design of the cavity.
In general, the values of the mechanical properties of rocks, such as strength
and modulus, are assumed to :fit the normal distribution (see Sec. 4.4.1) and
the arithmetic mean is considered as the representative value for use in design.
This procedure may or may not be adequate· depending on the actual distribu-
tion that fits the data, dispersion of the data. about the mean, the size of the
sample (number of tests), and specific sensitivity of the rock mass behaviour to
a variation in the property.
Rock joints, when present in a systematic fashion, permit quantification of
their mechanical and geometric properties, which are assigned to the families or
sets of the joints. H joints are randomly distributed, they may be characterized
individually (when widely spaced) or considered as a part of the rock mass
_matrix(when closely spaced).
Among the mechanical properties of joints, the most prominent are the fric-
tion angle and cohesion whose values are assigned on the basis of an assumed
(or :fitted-to-data) strength envelope, for example: (1) linear (Coulomb, 1773),
(2) bilinear (Patton, 1966), or (3) curved (Barton and Bandis, 1990). Defor-
mational characteristics of joints (normal and shear stiffness) are also used in
description of joint elements for numerical analysis ( e.g., Goodman et al . ., 1968;
and Mahtab & Goodman, 1970).
Quantification of the mechanical properties of joints may be performed using
the general concepts discussed earlier. However, we shall not discuss details of
the mechanical characteristics of joints here. For further information, reference
may be made to several specialty conferences on rock joints (e.g. the Loen,
Norway Conf. of 1990 referenced under Barton and Bandis, 1990).
The geometric variables associated with rock joints (orientation, spacing,
extent) can be analyzed iD terms of mean values and dispersion coefficients
using computer-based statistical techniques. Procedures for quantification of
joint orientations are discussed in Sec. 2.5 whereas the quantification of joint
spacing and extent is treated in Sec. 2.6.
The in-situ tests for deformability and strength are expensive and time con-
suming. Although these tesi s are generally not made for input to mine design,
they might be necessary fo~ design of large underground civil structures, such
as powerhouses and storage cavities. Extrapolation of laboratory test data to
in-situ conditions is a usefr concept in many practical applications. This ex-
trapolation can be based 01., empirical formulas developed ( among others) by
Protoclialconov(1964), Bieniawski {1978),and Hoek and Brown (1980b).
Other schemes for incorporating significant properties of rock mass into de-
sign use geometric relations such as in the case of defining a key block ( Good-
man and Shi, 1985) or probabilistic analysis such as in the case of defining a
Quantification of joint orientations 13

kinema.ticallyfeasible wedge on a. rock face,. or a. simulation method (Monte-

Carlo approach -. Sec. 4.3) for incorporating the rock mass variability into a.
deterministic analysis.

2.4 Sampling and mapping of structural data

For the purpose of tunnel design, it is convenient to make the following
distinction among the structural features or discontinuities;
- microfractures, on the sea.leof laboratory samples,
- fractures or joints, on the scale of the excavations,
- faults, on the sea.leof the engineering site or region.
On the other extreme are faults which are more generally spaced a.t tens
of meters or more. Normally, faults will be treated as single features for their
potential influence on tunnel design. Should the faults be closely spaced, they
would need to be treated as another group of joints. The distinction usually
made between joints and faults (based on the evidence of relative movements
between the two walls or faces of the discontinuity) is to be considered important
only for the purpose of identification and not for sampling.
Discontinuities that fall in the intermediate range of scale, namely joints,
exert a dominant influence on the design and behavior of the excavation. The
subsequent discussion of sampling and quantification of structural data. will be
centered on joints.
As discussed earlier, certain considerations should precede the planning of
a program for sampling structural data from the site. It would be necessary
to have a fairly good idea of the extent of the data to be collected and the.
method to be used for analyzing the data for input to design. The extent of
the da.ta. will largely depend on the available time and resources. The method
for quantification of the da.ta. will depend on the design needs as well as on the
criteria for quantification.
Traditionally, the data on joints have included the geometric characteristics
(attitude, spacing, extent, aperture, roughness) and some comments on infill-
ing materials and condition of the walls. Joints are then grouped into families
based on similarity of attitudes or "preferred orientation" (see Sec. 2.5). Other
characteristics of the joints are subsequently referred to these families or sets.
No theoretical reason has ever been given for selecting the preferred orientation
as the sole criterion for partitioning the structural data into sets. The results
have, however, been universally accepted and appear to satisfy the design re-
quirements. A sampling and mapping scheme is, therefore, required to recognize
the criterion of preferred joint orientation for grouping the data. Hence, a vi-
sual assignment of joints sets is sometimes necessary during field mapping to
observe and record values of joint spacing and other geometric variables.
 Quantification of joint orientation.,

2.5 Quantification of joint orientations

Very often the attitudes of fractures in a site are observed to be nonrandomly
distributed and, in most of these instances, it is possible to group the fractures
into sets such that the elements of each set have a statistically preferred attitude.
'When constructing models of discontinuous rock containing sets of joints, it
is essential to estimate a single direction for each set and to obtain a measure of
precision of this estimate so that the corresponding precision can be computed
in the output of the structural analyses that employ these models.
Until the early 70's, the generally accepted techniques for defining mean
orientation of joints sets (or clusters) had been the use of planar projections
of a unit hemisphere. Lambert azimuthal equal-area (or Schmidt) projection
continues to be in use for analysis of joint orientations ( e.g., Hoek and Brown,
1980b). · The projection of the traces of the joint normals, called a point' dia-
gram, is displayed on the equal-area net. Point concentrations ( expressed as
percentages of the total points that occupy 1-percent area of the hemisphere)
are obtained by manually counting the points in 1-percent area circles centered
on intersections of a grid that is superimposed on the projection. There are
several variations of this basic counting technique, including the use of count-
ing cells of trapezoidal or curvilinear shapes. However,none of these techniques
properly compensates for the distortion in the azimuthal projection, which is
most pronounced for the equitorial areas.
A computer-based technique of quantifying joint orientations on the surface
of a unit hemisphere was developed by Mahtab et al. (1972). [Some additional
techniques are reviewed by Grossman, 1985, Kulatila.ke, 1985, and Kendorski
and Bindokas, 1987]. This technique, published as program PATCH, uses two
distinct steps for analysis of orientations: (1) identifying significant concentra-
tions, or clusters, which occur in the data; and (2) determining attitudes of
joint clusters; both steps involve the application of statistical principles. The
technique is simple, comprehensive, and useful in various situations where the
orientations in a set are (hemispherically) normally distributed. The essential
elements of the technique are discussed below.

2.5.1 Identification of clusters

Joint orientations may be expressed as the orientations of the joint normals
which are directions without sense; that is, a joint normal can be directed in the
positive or negative sense along an axis normal to the joint plane. However, the
sense of a joint normal can be :fixed by definingit as being normal to the directed
dip line in a left-handed Cartesian frame. Thus, if the dip, </,,, (0 :5 c/>i $ 90°)
and the azimuth of dip, (Ji, (0 $ 8, $ 360°), of the joint plane, i, are observed
 Qua.ntification of joint orientation., 15

in the field, the joint normal originating from the center of a. unit sphere will
be directed toward the upper hemisphere. The a.ngula.rcoordinates of the joint
normal can then be specified by its colatitude, <Pi, a.nd its longitude, (h (Fig. 2.1 ).
The densities of the plots of joint normals on the surface of the unit -hemi-
sphere were obtained by counting the number of points falling in the 100, equal-
area. cells, or patches, which cover the hemisphere (see Fig. 2.2). In designing
the configuration of the patches, it was recognized that an error is introduced
-- in the measured azimuth as a function of the dip (Muller, 1933). A gra.ph of
the error in azimuth is shown in Fig. 2.3 for an instrument error of 5°. The
pa.tches of Fig. 2.2 were designed to account for this error. Therefore, the ra.nge
of azimuth for patches in the nine bands (Fig. 2.4) is a nonlinear function of
the band number (band 9 starting with 0° dip a.nd band 1 ending at 90° dip).
A close qualitative similarity ca.n be noted between Figs. 2.3 a.nd 2.4, indicat-
ing that the scheme of subdivision of the hemisphere in Fig. 2.2 appropriately
exploits the error in measured azimuth, thus producing an efficient design of
the 100 patches.
Referring to Fig. 2.2, the density of a patch is given by the number of
observations that plot in it; for example, patch 65 has a density of 5. In order
- to define significant concentrations, some kind of randomness test is required to
indicate the acceptable level of significance, or "threshold" density. Clusters are
then defined as collections of all points in adjacent patches, where each patch
possesses a density which exceeds the threshold value. The Poisson distribution
model (see Stauffer, 1966) provides a. means of obtaining the threshold density.
The Poisson model sta.tes that the probability of occurrence ·of a random
density D(D > x) is given by:

x -m j
P( D > x) = 1 - Le
. 0 J.
. rm (2.1)
1=

where m is the density of the sample averaged over the 100 patches.
For general use, the largest value of integer x satisfying

P(D > x) ~ 0.05

may be selected a.s the threshold density.

16 Quantification of joint orientation..,

------ - ~"' ...........

.....
-,

X. N
Fig. 2.1. . Rectangular and pola.r coordinates of a joint normal intersecting the
upper (unit) hemisphere (a.ft.er Mahtab et al., 1973).

2
1
A~-....,~---1--~
Clj/) Of o-
Fig. 2.2. Division of the upper hemisphere i=:.o 100 equal-area patches (after
Mahtab et al., 1972).
:ation of joint orientationJ 1

Sin fJ -= ton 8 cot ,f>

where 8 = probable error in measurement of azimuth
/3,..;" = 8 for tj, =90°
flmo& : 90° for ,f> = a

,..-Graph of f3 for S = 5°
/

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
OIP,<#i0

Error in measured azimuth of dip as a. function of dip (after Muller

I I I I I I I

I
r -
-

-
I
I I I I I I I I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SANO NUMBER 'N'

simuth range for patches as a. function of ba.nd number - see Fig. 2.2
rab et al., 1972).
18 Quantification of joint orientation$

2.5.2 Analysis of clusters using Arnold distribution

Assuming that the cluster has N observations, the direction cosines of the
unit vector representing observation i are (from Fig. 2.1):

li = sin ¢ii cos ei

mi = sin <Pi sin (h (2.2)
ni =cos¢,;

where i = 1, 2, ... , N, and the resultant, R, of these N observed unit vec-

tors passes through the center of gravity of the cluster. The magnitude of the
resultant is given by

(2.3)

The direction of R is that of the vector sum of the unit vectors representing the
normals to the observed joints. The angular coordinates of the resultant are
obtained as follows:

2 . 2) 1 /2
• -i ( (EI,) + (Em.)
¢, = tan . t"" (2.4a)
L,Tii

and
t"" m·I
8~ = t an -1 --
L,
(2.4b)
Eli
These coordinates estimate ( the coordinates of) the mean orientation vector of
the joint set under study:
Arnold (1941) derived the probability density function in two variablescor-
responding to the colatitude,_¢,, and longitude, 8, coordinates on a hemisphere
such that the distribution corresponds in some manner to the two-dimensional
normal curve for rectangular coordinates on a plane. The hemispherical normal
distribution is often ascribed only to Fisher (1953) who, like Arnold (1941), also
formulated the spherical normal distribution.
The center of gravity approach of Arnold asks that the probability func-
tion assume a maximum nearest the center of gravity of the N sample points,
each of weight k. With reference to a left-handed rectangular coordinate
system (Fig. 2.1), the direction cosines of a point ¢,, 8, are (see eq. 2.2):
sin¢,cos8,sinq,sin9, and cos o; the direction cosines of the center of gravity
J
are: sin cos 9, sin¢ sine, and cos ¢.
Quantification of joint orientation., 19

Suppose v, is the angular displacement between the points ef,, 81 and J, 8,

then 1/J is given by

cos VJ = cos i cos ,p + sin J sin </> cos( 8 - 8) (2.5)

Let the probability density function

U = U(ef,,8,i,o)

be expressed as
e1, cos VJ
u-~---=---=,--~-:--~~~ (2.6)
- J fo2"' ek cos VJ sin ,pd8drp
01r

Note that sin ef,d8d,p is a differential area on the hemisphere. Evaluating the
integral in the denominator and substituting for the expression in parentheses
in the numerator, the distribution can be written as

U(VJ,k) = 4,r(ek-1)
k i cos VJ (2.7)

where VJ is a random variable which assumes values "Pi, i = 1 to N, and k is a

measure of dispersion. This is apparent since, when k is large, the distribution
is confined to a small portion of the hemisphere in the neighborhood of the
mean orientation vector, and when k is zero, the distributicn is uniform over
the hemispherical surface.
The maximum likelihood estimate of k ( denoted by k) is given by the solution
of the followingequation:
N
~ 8logU(VJi,k) =O
~
1=1
8k
or

N (;- ~) + tCO.SVJi = 0
k ek -1 i=l

Substitution of I:! 1 cos VJ;= IRI in the above equation, yields the expres-
sion
IRI 1
(2.8)
Ji= I- ei-1
Now, in the analysis of the m~y groups of orientation data examined by
Mahtab et al. (1972), the value of k was found to be greater than 6. It is reason-
able to assume that the data points in joint sets ( defined through application of
£0 Quantification of joint orienta.tioru

the Poisson test) will not occupy a sizable portion of the hemispherical surface.
Large values of k are, therefore, assured. Assuming k ~ 6, equation 2.8 reduces
to the following form:
(2.9)

which can be rewritten as

~ N
(2.10)
k= N-IRI
This provides a convenient formula for estimating the measure of disp - :·sion of
a set of orientation data.
The radial coordinate a of the center of gravity of the cluster of points on
the hemisphere is expressed by the left-band side of equation 2.8; that is .

~
a=-
IRI (2.11)
N
This too is an excellent indicator of the scatter of the data points. For ex-
ample, when a approaches unity, the data points will bunch around a single
direction. Pincus (1953, p. 506) discusses the relationship between a and k for
the hemispherical. normal distribution.
Arnold al.so tabulated the probability integral .for the hemisphere. This
integral is represented by the area on the hemisphere that is cut by a cone whose
vertex lies at the center of the sphere. Arnold (1941) gives the probability, P,
of an observation lying within an (angular) distance ,/J of the mean for several
values of k, The relationship is as follows:

1 _ e-k(l- cos¢)
P= ~~~~~~~ (2.12)
1- e-k

When k is greater than 6, this equation reduces to

1
cos ,/J = 1 + k loge(l - P) (2.13)

Note that equations 2.10 and 2.13 are identically derivable fork~ 3 from the
spherical normal distribution (Arnold, 1941, and Fisher, 1953). In the spherical
normal distribution
U,,(t/J, k) = ~ ek cos tf;
41r sin h k
the value of k is espressed by

1 A IRI
cothk- - = -
k N
Quantification of joint orientatio~ 21

and for k 2: 3, we recover eq. 2.10, i.e.,

- . N
k= N-IRI
The probability of finding an observation within displacement 'I/, of the mean
of a spherical normal distribution is espressed by

p = 1- ek(l - cost/,)
(2.12a)
1 - e-Zi:

Fork 2: 3, eq. 2.12a reduces to eq. 2.13 which is illustrated graphically in

Fig. 2.5; the figure, fashioned after Watson and Irving (1957, Fig. 1), should
further clarify the meaning of k.

2.5.3 Confidence interval for the mean of a hemispherical

normal distribution·
Since the mean of a random sample rarely equals the mea.nof the population
from which the sample is drawn, it is desirable to construct a confidence inter-
val around the sample mean, which gives a measure of how close the sample
mean is to the true population mean. For univariate data, the formulas for the
confidence limits, which define the boundaries of the confidence interval, are
available for several parametric distributions (Krumbein and Graybill, 1965).
The process of constructing confidence intervals a.round the mean of bivariate
orientation data, however, becomes more complex.
Fisher (1953) derives the followingformula for computing the radius c (or
the vertex angle) of the cone of confidencefor the mean of the spherical normal
distribution in the case where k 2: 3:

-
cos c - 1 +
N-
I RI
IRI [(.!.)p
I/(N-1)
- 1
l (2.14)

In equation 2.14, N is the number of data points in the cluster, IRI is the length
of the resultant vector as given in equation 2.3, and P is the probability level.
It can be shown, by starting with the hemispherical normal distribution and
followingFisher's arguments for the spherical normal distribution, that equation
2.14 also holds for the hemispherical normal distribution when k 2: 6.
The radius c of the cone of confidencecan be resolved to give the confidence
limits for the dip (±Jc) and the azimuth of dip (±Oc) by the followingrelations:
 Qua.ntifica.tion of joint orienta.tiom

60

.
'="'" for k>S
50
z
s... CDS ~ • 1+ ~loge Ii-Pl
...
...z
c:: where P • percent of observations
... 40 11nd k • a ~easure of dispersion
zu about the 111nn
0
u
Lt.
0 30
~
0
u
Lt.
0
..., 20
...J
"'z
:!
...
:,:
U1
10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DlSPEASlON, k

Fig. 2.5. Radius of cone of confidence, vi, as a function of dispersion, k; the curves
represent the probability or percent of observations that would fall within ,J,0 of
the mean direction (after Watson and Irwing, 1957).
z

ClusterJ(j)

Y, E---+

X. N
Fig. 2.6. Comparison of angle, a, between the means of two clusters Ico and Juh
with their cones of confidence, 'Yl1(i) and 'YICJU}, in a similarity test (after Mabtab
and Yegulalp, 1984).
 Quantification of joint orientation.., £3

and
sin6c = sine/ sinJ, for J >0
The concept of the cone of confidencehas the potential for useful application
in site characterization. Two instances of such application a.re cited below.
The first example is from the work of Bolstad et al. (1973) who used the
confidence cone derived from the preliminary sampling stage in selecting the
number of observations to be made in the final sampling plan. They rewrote
equation 2.14 in terms of Ni, the number of data points required for a cluster i:

Ni =1+ logc(l/ P) (2.15)

logc[l + (k - 1)(1 - cos c)J
The probability, P, was set at 0.95, c was given a value of 1 °, and k was
obtained from the analysis of the preliminary sample. Note that the rather
small value of c( = 1 °) selected in this example was possible because the mean
dip was near 90° and k was large.
The second example refers to a similarity test based en the cone of confi-
dence (Mahtab and Yegulap, 1984). In this example, the data from a number
of stations in an engineering site is analyzed into clusters. The followingpro-
cedure is used to test the similarity between every pair of stations or samples,
grouping similar samples, and ultimately grouping all similar groups ( or groups
and samples). The various symbols used in the test procedure are defined below
and in Fig. 2.6: ·
• I and J are two samples being compared
• I(i) is cluster number i in sample I, i=l or 2 or 3, etc.
• J(i) is cluster number j in sample J, j=l or 2 or 3, etc.
• T,l,I(i) is the cone of confidence for the mean of cluster I(i)
• tf,J(j) is the cone of confidence for the mean of cluster J(j)
• cos a [I(i), JU)] is the acute angle between the means of I(i) and J(j)
Note that the statistics for each sample ( clusters, their means, and cones of
confidence for the means) are computed by using PATCH. When two or more
samples are combined into a. group, the group becomes a. new sample containing
all observations of its constituent samples.
Step 1 Compare all clusters in sample I with all clusters in sample J. If cluster
l(i), or cluster J(j), has less than 10% of the number of observations in sample
I, or sample J, respectevely, no comparison is ma.de between I(i) and J(j).
Step 2 Compare I(i) and J(j) as follows (see Fig. 2.6 for an illustration of this
comparison): . .
(a) Compute the acute angle, a[I(i), J(j)], between the means of clusters I(i)
and J(j).
(b) If lcosa[I(i),J(j)JI > cos',l,I(i) or cos',l,J(j), then accept the combination
of samples I and J, otherwise reject.
 Qv.a.ntifica.tion of joint orientation.,

~Printout all accepted combinations of samples in the site (comparing a

pair of samples a.t a time), together with the associated clusters ( the identifica-
tion number and statistics of each cluster).
Step 4 As a rule, group any two similar, adjacent samples (witbjout having
a dissimilar intervening sampling station), disregarding geologic and tectonic
expression on the ma.p of the site.
~ Use the groups defined in step 4 and the uncombined samples as a set
of new samples and repeat steps 1 and 4.
~ Repeat step 5 until no new combinations are formed.
Note that the influence of any apparent axis of symmetry in the site, which
may indicate antipodal similarity, is disregarded either through the restriction
of step 4 (intervening dissimilar sampling station) or through visual inspection.
Since grouping of similar samples is done manually (step 4), there is an oppor-
tunity to exercise judgment, if necessary, based on :fieldobservations of geologic
anomalies.

2.5.4 Fit of observations to the hemispherical normal dis-

tribution
To compare the data in ea.ch cluster with the hemispherical normal distribu-
tion given in equation 2. 7, the x2 goodness-of-fit test, indicated by the following
general formula, may be used:

(2.16)

where JO and Jr. a.re the observed and expected frequencies, respectively, and
Ne is the. total number of classes chosen.
To complete the test, the value of x2 obtained in equation 2.16 is compared
with the theoretical x2 value (e.g., Li, 1964, Table 4). For a given probability
(say, 0.05), the test is successful if the actual x2 is less than the theoretical x2
which depends on the degrees of freedom: D.F.) for the case under examination.
D.F. is given by
D .F. = Ne - 1 - N1 (2.17)
where Ne is the number of classes ( discussed later) and N1 = number of un-
known para.meters to be estimated. In this case, each data. point i bas only
two parameters, ,Pi and Oi, its angular distance from, and its azimuthal angle
a.bout, the mean direction ( J, 8), respectively. Thus, for the hemispherical nor-
mal distribution, Np = 2 and D.F. = Ne - 3. Equation 2.5 defines 1Pi· The
value of a; is determined by proceeding in the following manner:
Qua.ntification of joint orienta.tioru

Rotate the x-y plane ( while keeping the z-axis fixed) such that the mean has
0° azimuth. The transformed coordinates for point i a.re
, - -
xi = x1 cos(}+ Yi sin(}
-
(2.i8)

Next, rotate the pole to the mean; that is, rotate the z - x' plane through
J
angle while keeping y' fixed. The new coordinates a.re given by
"
x1 = x1, cos ¢, - - . ¢,
Zi sm
-
I I -
0
(2.19)
zi = xi sin¢, - z; cos ¢,
-

The azimuthal angle ai, of observation i about the new mean direction
(J = 0,9 = 0) is then
given by

(2.20)

Regarding the choice of the number of classes (Ne) to be used in the x2 test,
there is a wide divergence of opinion in the statistical literature. A lower limit
of 16 is chosen here for Ne, such that Na = N.,, = 4, where Ne = NI/I· Na,
Nw =number of annuli or number of 1/7-classes (Fig. 2.7), and Na =number of
sectors in each annulus. · Keeping Na constant, N ,J, is varied to a maximum
value of 8 such that the upper limit of Ne is 32. It is assumed that N0 = 4
provides an adequate measure of the azimuth dispersion. For N;, > 4 it is
required that the expected frequency should be at lea.st one in each of the four
sectors of a.111/7-annuli, except the last. Note that the neglect in accounting for
the theoretical frequency in the last 1/7-annulus will result in a slightly increased
sensitivity of the x2 test.
. Now the probability that a direction will be observed which makes an angle
1Po -or more with the mean orientation vector can be written (by using equation
2.12 for k ~ 6) as
(2.21)
For a given distribution, the expected frequency in any 1/7-intervalcan be found
by using equation 2.21. For example, in the interval [1/11, 1/121,

(2.22)

The expected frequency for each sector in this interval is then given by

(2.23)
£6 Qu4ntification of joint orientation.,

Fig. 2. 7. Scheme for division of cluster data into Ne classes for x2 test.

The observed frequency, f0, for each of the Ne classes is obtained by ac-
tually counting the data points falling within the class limits. The process of
comparing data in a cluster with the hemispherical normal distribution can be
programmed for the computer as was done for PATCH where (as mentioned
earlier) Ne= 16 was used with the division scheme shown in Fig. 2.7.
Note that, in the absence of any theoretically defined threshold for the mun-
ber of observation that should be made for each joint set, we may require that
the expected frequency in each class be at least one, thus requiring 16 points
per cluster. Allowing for a 25% rejection of field observations by the Poisson
randomness test, a. minimum of 20 observations should be made for each joint
set that is identified in the site for each distinct domain. ·
_Joint e:i:tent and Jpacing !7

There are numerous examples when the chi-square test shows the inapplica-
bility of Arnold's circular normal distribution. Some alternative approaches for
non-circularly distributed data. are given in the Appendix.

2.6 Quantification of joint extent and spacing

The extent a.nd spacing of joints in a rock mass need to be quantified for
design and construction of excavations. For instance, the value of spacing is
used for estimating RQD, for characterizing geometry of rock blocks, for de-
scribing a.n "equivalent" continuum, a.nd as input to rock mass classification.
The magnitude of joint extent (also called persistence) is an important input
to evaluation of effective shear strength of discontinuous joints, estimation of
volumetric RQD, and the key block theory.

2.6.1 Statistical modeling of joint extent and spacing

Recognizing the variability in the data, several investigators have used sta-
tistical distributions to characterize joint spacing and extent. Table 2.2 lists the
distributions thathave been wed by various investigators to model the spacing
and extent of joints. With very few exceptions, the exponential and lognormal
distributios were used for this modeling.
The well-known relationship between RQD and joint spacing (Priest and
Hudson, 1976)

RQD = 100(1 + 0.L\)e-o.u (2.24)

employs the exponential distribution with the parameter >. representing the
average number of joints along a scanline. Mah.tab et al. (1992) used five
distributions: normal, lognormal, exponential, Weibull (1939), and Gamma, to
analyse data on extent and spacing from various sites.
The normal distribution (see Sec. 4.4.1) is the most commonly used statisti-
cal distribution in rock mechanics. However,it has seen limited use in modeling
joint spacing and extent. As mentioned earlier, lognormal and exponential dis-
tributions a.re the two most dominant forms found in the literature. The Weibull
distribution, as a special form of the type III extreme distribution is referred to
in Sec. 4.4.2. For a description of the Gamma distribution, reference may be
made to Haugen (1968) and Dershowitz (1984).
 Joint eztent and apa.cing

rABLE 2.2
larious distributions used to model joint spacing and extent.
Reference Distri.b.Jtion
Snacina ~ent
Rebert sen ( 19 7 0) exponential
McMah::m ( 19 71 ) lognonnal
Bridges (1976) lognormal logno:rmal
call et al. (19T6) exponential e>i;>C)nential
Priest and l:l.ldson ( 19 7 6) e,q>onential
Baecher et al. (1977) exponential lognonnal
CrudEl'l( 1977) exponential
Bartai (1978) lognornal iognonnal
Hu:isai and Priest ( 1979) exponential
Wallis am King(1980) exponential
Priest and lildson (1981) normal exponential
Segall and Polard ( 19 83 ) hyperbolic
Dershowitz (1984) Gama
Sal and Kazi ( 1984) lognonral
Rculeau a.rd Gale ( 1985) normal, lognornal
exponental, exponential
Weibull
Bardsley et al. (1990) Weibull
Sen and Eissa (1992) exoonential,
lognol."lml
Mahtab et al. (1992) nomal normal
lognol."lml lognonnal
exponential exponential
Weib.lll Weirull
Ganrna Ganma

rABLE 2.3
Exanpledata used for testing the applicability of the five selected
:listributions (after Mahtabet al. , 1992).
Location 'fype of Type of Data No. of
Excavation Data Sets Obs.
1.San M3ruel,AZ,U.S.A. Block-CavingCopper Jllllle Spacing, 1 254
extent
2.0leyenne,l'l.'Y',
U.S.A. Horse a:-eekUndergrcmxl Spacing, 11 1300
limesta,e mine extent
3.Mingoco.mcy, WI/, U.S.A. strip (coal) mine spac~. 3 168
extent
4. ll.lllterdcn Co.mty surface quarry in gneiss spacing, 1 240
NJ, 'U.S.A. extent.
5. Aqua Bianca NE Italy Undergramd quarry in narble extent 1 97
6.Beer Sheva., Israel Natural cliff in chalk extent l 45

[terns 1 to 4 refer to data collected using the scan line survey or its variation
(Kendorski am Bin1okas, 1987).
ttem 5, data from CZavero and Iabichino (1!?92 l, was also calletted usirg" the
scan line sursey.
tten 6 refers to data collected fran one of seven layers of chalk in a cliff
(B:ulat, 1988, '!able 1).
Joint extent a.nd &pacing

2.6.2 Comparative analysis of example data sets

The five alternative distributions (mentioned above) were used by Mahta.bet
al. (1992) to analyze the data sets referenced in Table 2.3. The various data. sets
of Table 2.3 were divided into clusters for analyzing only those clusters which
had at lea.st 30 observations. The PATCH program (discussed in Sec. 2.5) was
used to obtain the clusters in the orientation data. The corresponding clusters of
spacing and extent were then extracted from the parent (non-clustered) data set.
Note that most investigators do not separate their data. into joint sets or dusters
before fitting the various distributions. This approach may be adequate for
relating joint spacing to RQD in a. given direction, but it is clearly unsatisfactory
for other applications, such as input to rock mass classification schemes and for
estimating volumetric RQD or block size.
Both the clustered and non-clusterd data sets are compared with the selected
distributions using the Kolmogorov-Sm.imov(K-S) goodness-of-fit test. A sig-
nificant advantage of the K-S test (compared to the x2-test, Sec. 2.5.4) is that
the observations need not be grouped into arbitrary classes. As a. consequence,
the K-S test is more sensitive than the x2-test to the thinly populated tails of
the distributions. Examples of the K-S goodness-of-fitof selected distributions
to joint spacing and extent data. are provided in Fig. 2.8 (good fit) and Fig. 2.9
(poor fit). A summary of the comparison of the selected distributions is given
in Table 2.4.
The following comments can be ma.deregarding the difference in character-
izing the clustered and non-clustered sets of data,
In the case of joint extent the number of successful fits of any distribution
is significantly lower (in general less than half) for the non-clustered data. than
for the clustered data.. This comment is equally applicable to the case of joint
spacing.
In general, the results suggest that, for statistical characterization of joint
spacing and extent, it is useful to delineate clusters in the data. before fitting
a. candidate distribution. An indiscriminate and exclusive use of a given dis-
tribution for describing the joint-spacing or extent is not recommended. One
may also not find a. distribution to fit a given set of data, in which case some
alternative approach should be used to quantify the data for input to design.
 Joint e%tent and 3pacing

·1 ···········-····t·············-··: .
. ..
.
·-············ . .l
r··· ···r
.
.

+. ····1·
. .
····+·
0 2 4 6 8
Joint Spacing {ft), cluster 1 of WYl

re relative frequency histogram of joint spacing, cluster 1,

e K-S test to lognorma.l distribution. [Note the very good

.... ·
:.
. - i
.::.
.
:.
. .
... :. . .

.
.
.J·-··········-·· .
[: .
··f--······ ···+
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Joint Extent (ft). non-clustered Wi4

e relative frequency histogram of joint ex-tent using the non·

-4 data. set and the K-S test to Weibull distribution. [Note
General rock ma.s.s cla.ssification scbemes 91

TABLE 2.4
comparison of various distributions for fitting the exampledata of Table
2 3 {after Mahtab et al., 1992).
Total Distribution Fitted
O:lta number No
category of Nonral Log- Exponential Weibull Ganma simple fit
cases normal available
EXtent
non-clustered 16 7 10 6 ·9 9 6
Eletent
clustered 17 l 5 3 4 3 12
Spacing
non-clustered 12 l 8 3 7 6 4
Spacing
clustered 16 l . 5 l 4 3 I 11

2.7 General rock mass classification schemes

Excellent summaries of the various rock and rock mass classificationschemes
are given by Hoek and Brown (1980b) and Bieniawski (1984 and 1989). A very
informative assessment of the rock classification schemes or "empirical design
methods for tunnels in rock" is given by Einstein et al. (1979). There are many
additional sources of information and examples of application of the classifi-
cation systems, some of which will be referenced here. However, as suggested
by Einstein et al., an interested reader should read the source material before
deciding on.the merits of a given system for a specific application.
Bieniawski (1989) lists 10 "major engineering rock mass classificationscur-
rently in use" and further lists 16 extensions to his (1973) RMR system and
3 extensions to the Q system of Barton et al. (1974). In the following we
shall consider 4 of the major systems: Terzaghi (1946), Wickham et al. (1972),
Bieniawski (1973), and Barton et al. (1974) and one of the RMR-extensions:
Laubscher and Taylor (1976). Our objective is to obtain a perspective on the
use of the general classification schemes for characterizing rock mass and, in
particular, on the estimates of ground-support requirements. This last aspect
(that is, estimates of support) will have a bearing on the discussion of ground
support in Chapt. 5. In addition, we shall outline the rock durability classifi-
cation of Olivier (1976) for the purpose of input to a possible classificationof
weak rocks based on the Q system.
32 General rock ma.s.s cla.s.sificati.on schemes

2.7.1 Terzaghi {1946): Rocle load classification

The rock condition is classified into 9 categories ranging from hard and
intact rock, class 1, to swelling rock, class 9. Steel-arch support is estimated
for each class based on the concept shown in Fig. 2.10 on construction of the
tunnel (of width B and height H1), the movement of the loosened rock zone
abdc is resisted by friction along surfaces bd and ac, thus transferring a major
part of the overburden, W1, onto the abutments. the balance of the load to be
supported by the steel arches is equivalent to a height Hp which will depend on
the rock mass characteristics and the tunnel dimensions.
The rock load, Hp, for the 9 conditions (or classes) of rock is given in Ta-
ble 2.5 which includes the modification ma.deby Rose (1982), to conditions 4,
5, and 6, based on the assuption that the rock load is not influenced by the
water table.
We note that Terzaghi's (1946) classification has performed adequately
(though, perhaps conservatively) for many years and has the essential bases
for application to tunnels in weak rock even today, providing engineering expe-
rience is used to modify the recommendations (Fig. 2.11).

2. 7.2 Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972 and 1974):

Rock structure rating (RSR) system ·
The RSR concept is the first co::::::r.prehensive rock mass classification system
since Terzaghi's (1946) system. The RSR system uses weighted values of se-
lected rode mass pa.ra.meters. taken from case.histories and published material.
The geologic and construction parameters are grouped into 3 categories:
• Parameter A (gener~ area geology):Based on the rock type, hardness, and
intensity of folding and faulting: a. numerical range of 6-30 is assigned to this
parameter (see Table 2.6). .
• Parameter B (joint pattern, erection of drive): A numerical range of 7 to
45 is assigned to parameter B 6=-pendingon joint spacing, strike of the joint
relative to the tunnel axis, an::. the direction of drive with respect to the
joint dip (see Table 2.7;
• Parameter C (ground v:;:.;.er, jci::t condition): A numerical rating of 6 to 25
is assigned to this parameter basedon the mechanical condition of the joints,
and the rate of water inflow. -:wo slightly different rating scales are used
depending on whether the sum of values for parameters A and B is above or
below the threshold value of E. (see Table 2.8). Relationship between RSR
and typical steel ribs required : · supporting various sizes of tunnel can be
prepared in the form of ehara, The RSR concept is useful for selecting
steel-rib support.
. Genera.I rock ma.,,, cltU.sifica.tion seheme« 39

Surface

~~~~::~~Avr~
~J : . : . : ... : . : -. - : -: . .: .
I . : . : . : . : : . : . : . : -:~
I .-:-:-:-
. · · · ·
-:-:-:-:-:-.-:: :-:-:1:-:-:-:-:-
I . · . · . · . . · . · _ · . · . · . · ~ · . · . · . · . · 1 · ·. · ·_ · ~oo_se~ed
· · · · ·B · · · · ·. · · ·
rock
I!
H

Hp

Fig. 2.10. Terzaghi's {1946) concept of movement of loosened rock toward a.

tunnel {of width Band height H1) and transfer of rock load, H, (see Table 2.5).

The RSR value for a. tunnel section is given by the sum of the ratings for
parameters A, B, and C:
RSR=A+B+C
with the limiting values of RSR being 19 (worst condition) and 100 (best con-
ditions).
 General rock ma.,., cltu.,ifica.tion schemes

.BLE2.5
~zaghi's (1946) rock load classification for steel-arch supported
nnels as modified b.)r Rose (1982).
ROCK CONDITION RQD ROCJ{LOAD REMARKS
R ft(m) t
Hard and intact 95-100 zero Light lining required
only if spal 1 ing
or popping occurs.

Hard stratified 90-99 Oto 0. 5 B Light support, mainly

or schistose for protect ion
I•
against spalls .
I
Massive,
moderately . 55..;95
j
l
!
Oto 0. 25 B Load may
change erratically
jointed from point to point.
'
Moderately l1s-ss • 0.25 B to No side pressure.
blocky and
seamy . 0.20
0.25
(B+~)
B to
0.35 (B+~)

Very blocky 30-75 • 0.20 to Little or no side

and seamy
. 0.60 (B+~)
0.35tol.10
(B+Hcl
pressure.

cornp;t.etely 3-30 •o.60tol.10 Consid~rablesi~e

crushed and (B+Hcl pressure.Softening
chemically intact effects of seepage

. Sa'ld and gravel 0-3 . 1.10 to 1. 40

towards bottom of
tunnel requires either
I

(B+Hcl continuous support for

lower ends of ribs or
circular ribs.

Squeezing rock, Ne-:: l.10to2.10 Heavy side pressure,

moderate depth ~pplic. (B+}{t) invert struts
reguired.Circularribs
Squeezing rock, Ne:. 2 .10 to 4. SO are recommended.
great depth spp l i c . (B+Hc)
I
!
swelling rock Ne: q:, to 250 ft (75rn) Circular ribs are
ipplic. irrespective required. In ext rerne
of value of (B+Ht) cases use yielding
suooort. I
Rock load Hp is in ft (m) of rock on roof support (see Fig. 2.10) in
tunnel with width B ft (ml and height He ft (ml at depth of more than 1. 5
(B+}\). .
Modification by Rose (1982). Hp values for conditions 4, 5, and 6 are
reduced by 50% considering no effect of water table.
Values of Terzaghi (1946).
General rock ma.,., cla.J.,ification schemes 35

2.8 r----T-~----..-1

\.
\
---.-· ~ f: " '
\
2.4
a. j;
i-t--..,__-+-----+--
T
AECOHlDA TIONS FOR~
OESIGN ROCK LOADS
T • Terzagl'li 11946)
I
b • Oeere etal. (19691. reduced Terzaghi
' c • Deere etal. 119691. TB"'
II 2.0 --,
' .....-- d • Cording and Deere 119721:
c rock bolted Cha•
R • Rose 11982). revised Terzaghi
' \ Point data: Oeere et ar., 1969
\
a: 1. 6 \
0
I-
u
<(
LL.

D 1. 2
<(
0 0 0
_J

0
:x:
u 0.8
0
er
0
0 '° o 0 ... ...
' ...
•I
0.4 0
•
.-:,
l--
t.-
0
0 20. 40 60 80
Ivery poor
I
I I
Poor Fair Sood
I
-----------1-- 85 95
Sand and t 3
Completely
30
Very blocky and seamy
75
t Massive.
moderately
gravel crushed
Moderately blocky jointed
and seamy
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION. RQO
Fig. 2.11. Terzaghi's classification as revisedby Rose (1982) - with superimposed
earlier modifications by Deere et al. (1969) and Cording and Deere (1972) - after
Rose (1982).
'6 General rock maaa cla.uifica.tion scheme»

7ffiLE 2. 6
iock Structure Pa.ting, Parameter A: General Area Geology (after Wickham
!t al. 1974) •
I

Ba.sic Rock 'fype Geological Structure

!HARD ~. SOFTIDECOMP. I
IGNEOUS l l 2 3 4 SLIGHTLY M:>DERA'IELY INTENSELY
~RPHIC:
SEDlMENJ'ARY I 2
TYPE 1
1 2 3
3 4 l 4
4 I MASSIVE

301
FAULTED
OR FOLDED
22
FAUL'IED
OR FOLDED
15
FAULT.ED
OR FOLDED
9
TYPE 2 27 20 13 8
TYPE 3 24 18 12 I 7
TYPE 4 ! 19 15 10 6
maxim.Im value
'ABLE 2. 7
.ock Structure Rating, Paraneter B: Joint Pattem, Directicn of Drive (after
rickham et al., 1974).

Strike perpendicular Strike parallel

QB c to axis to axis
I""

ci
c Direction of drive Direction of drive -
with dip I against dip

: iJ
~ both both
4 dip of dip of
prominent ioints prominent -; oints
flat dii;p:iI:g ven. ,dii;pir.g vert. flat dil:pkg vert.
1 2 .
'Ihickness, in.
~
l.Very closely jointed 9 11 13 I 10 12 9 9 7
2.Closelyjointed 13 16 19 I 15 17 14 14 11
3 .Moderately jointed 23 24 28 I 19 22 23 23 19
4 .Moderate to block.v 30 32 36 I 25 28 30 28 24
5.Blockv to massive 36 38 40 I 33 35 36 34 28
6.Massive 40 43 4St I 37 40 I 40 38 34
::1IES: Flat= 0-20·; Dipping= 20·-so·; Vertical= so=sc-. t maxim.Jmvalue.

ABLE 2.8
ock Structure Rating, Parameter C: Gro.md\.,eter,Joint Condition (after
ickham et al., 1974).
5lM OF PARAMETERS A + B
4c; -zs
.Anticipated
Water Inflow
(gpm/ lOOOft) Good
1 "I - t4

Fair
.,nnrr ~,
Poor Good Fair Poor
-~ .
None 22 18 12 25t 22 18
Slight (<200 gpm) 19 15 9 23 19 14
Moderate (200-1000 gpm) 15 11 7 21 16 12
Heavy (>1000 gpm) 10 8 I 6 18 14 10
Joint condition: good= tight or ceillented; fair= slightly
weathered oraltered; poor= severely weathered, altered, or open.
MaximJm value.
Generol rock ma..,s classification schemes 31

In order to achieve their main objective of relating the RSR values to tunnel
support, Wickham et al. (1972, 1974) use a. datum called the rib ratio, RR,
which could be determined "theoretically" for all situations and against which
the "actual" support requirements could be evaluated. The rib ratio wa.s based
on Terzaghi's (i946) formula.for roof loads on tunnels in loose sa.nd below the
water table. By using the tables provided in Terzaghi (1946), the theoretical
spacing required for various rib sizes and. tunnel diameters wa.s determined for
the datum condition.
The rib ratio, RR, is then obtained as:

theoretical spacing (Sd)

RR = x 100 (2.29)
actual spacing (Sa)

For example (using Table 4 of Wickham et al., 1974 and leaving the units
in the FPS system), the theoretical spacing of 8W 40 in a 22-ft tunnel is 2.3 ft.
The RR for an actual spacing of 4.6 ft will then be 50. The limits of RR will be
100 (for actual=theoretical spacing) and O (for an unsupported tunnel). The
followingrelationships are given by Wickham et al. (1972).
The correlation between RSR and RR: ·

(RR+ 10)(RSR + 8) = 600q (2.30)

For the datum condition, the vertical load on the rib (in lb perlineal ft) is
given by:
Pt"= l.38(B + H1)Bit (2.31)
where Band He are the width and height of the tunnel (see Fig. 2.12, p. 41)
and it is the density of the rock. Assuming a circular tunnel of diameter D
(with B = H1 = D) and it= 120 lbs/cu ft, we have

Pt= 331D2 (2.32}

If Pr is the allowable load (lb per ft of width), then the theoretical spacing
Sa. is given by:
S - PrD - ....!l._ (2.33)
a. - Pt - 331D
Given the actual spacing Sa., the unit rock load Wr kips/ft2 can be expressed
in three alternative forms:
(2.34)

D [ 6000 ]
Wr = 302 RS R + 8 - 70 (2.35)
38

and
D
Wr = 302RR (2.36)

It is noted tha.t eq.(2.35) relates Wr directly to RSR even though the "da-
tum" correlations ( eqs. 2.30 and 2.36) are implied.

2.7.3 Bieniawski (1973 and 1979): Rock mass rating

(RMR) system
The RMR is one of the two most commonly used systems ( the other being
the Q-system) for classifying rock mass for support of tunnels. Six parameters,
all measurable in the site, a.re assigned ratings (higher ratings indicating better
quality). The parameters are: rock strength (unconfined compressive strength,
C0, or point-load index Ia), RQD, joint spacing, joint condition, ground water
condition, and orientation of joints ( used as an adjustment to the sum of the
rating for the other five parameters). The RMR scheme is given in Table 2.9
with the explanation of effect of joint orientations being provided in Table 2.10.
The RMR system shares several features with the earlier RSR system of
Wickham et al. (1972) and incorporates the RQD index (10cm + lengths of
NX-size core as a. percent of hole length) of Deere (1964) a.nd the standup-time
concept of Lauffer (1958). Several investigators ( e.g., Panek, 1984, and Bik-
erman and Mahtab, 1986) have expressed reservations a.bout the unrestrained
use of RQD. The empirical index (RQD) is easy to obtain and has become an
integral pa.rt of the R.MRas well as the Q system for classification of rock mass.
The total rating (0-100) divides the rock mass into 5 classes, at intervals of
20 (Table 2.9, Sec. C). The practic.tl significance of the five classes (very .good,
good, fair, poor, and very poor rock) is given in Sec. D of Table 2.9 in terms of
stand-up time, and Coulomb parameters: angle of friction, </,, and cohesion, c.
Bieniawski (1989) has provided guidelines for the selection of rock support
for horse-shoe shaped tunnels excavated by the drill-and-blast technique (see
Table 2.11). Bienia.wski(1989) refers to the use of the RMR system by Unal
(1983) to obtain the followingestimate of the support load, P(kN), for a tunnel
of width, B(m), and a rock of density 1(kg/m3):

P- 100-RMR
- 100 ,B (2.37~

Correlations between RMR and the in situ modulus of deformation of rock

E (GPa), have also been proposed; for example, Bieniawski (1978) and. Serafir
and Pereira. (1983) give the following correlations:

E= 2(RMR-50) (2.38
t mcu.s cla.3.sification .sch.eme.J 99

e
<,
...... U'I

l!l 0
N
.....
(\ "

0
N Ill l!l ,x:
I I <I' N 0
..... Ill ..... N
N I
Ill 0
N

.....
0 e
...... 0
Ill
0
..... NN .-. ,x: I
I ~ .-i 0 0
<I' 0 ..... 0
..... v
0

dlll
o•
0
0
,. IN. ·o
O· e QJ
i:: ,x:
..... l!l l!l
N .-< NN
0
0 0 0
(\
(\ dP I\ z
0
<71

(II

,..
(I)
.....
(I)
(II

,..
(I)

a. c a.
OJ c
.u...
(I) ~ ::, .c:
Ou u 0
....
0 ....
......
...i:: 0e c
c "'
:i:
c
0
e
.... H
QJ
,-1 ..-<
.... u
-~ 5
'O CJ
c OJ
0 ....
u 'O
...... ... I
 I
x
c ~E xc.
u
0
w
N LI) 0 0 > ·g 0
..... N ID N > M
0 0 ..... 0
.....v
I I I v 0
....I::
M
Q,,

.
>

Ii x
u a
.Cl)
~
x
0
.....
LI)
..... 0 .,,.0 0
M Ill E 0
I I
LI)
I ....
I >
H
M
.l:! LI)
0
N
I
N 0 0
0 0
i:,. .....

x ~
u x
LI) r- 11'1
N
0
ID H
0
w ...
H
0
...,
0

.,,.....
I I I H
I H M H
..... 0
I
Ill 0

"' N

x ~
o x
0 0 0
N
I
N
I
Ill
I
CIC)
I
....ID
H
H
1-1
'O
...
H
..,.
0

I
0 0
0
C) ...,
0

l
x
u
0
0 1-1
....
0
H 'O
0
ll)
w
0 0 0 ....
I

CIC)
0
C)
1/)
ll)
j
> u
tl'l
1/)

Cl) ~
c ;
0
.....,.,
Cl)
...... tO Cl)
QJ 'O QJ
c c 0.
c
c ::::, 0
e "' 0 .....
ll)
0
0
......
,.,
a.
Cl)
OI
z ......
....c 0 tn
c
.....
Ill w
,., .o ,., Ill o
Ol
Ill
0:
0:

C)
Ill
0:
'°
......
C)
QI
Q
Cl
General rock ma.,3 cl433ification schemes

!"Diameter
Rock Bolts

70 0.5
-- --
(.!)
z
60
1.0 -
~
1.5 u..
---
6~20 ~~

H
I-
a
[/)
.:,.: <,
a: 111
.....a. p.1,S
3.0 ~
-a~f4S --
o --

<,

' '
~Datu~-'':::,..,-:-----
~ (Rib Ratio=100) ...... j-;
CJ
O 20
a: ~actical Limit
I For Rib And Bolt
I Spacing
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
RIB SPACING (Ft.)
BOLT SPACING (Ft.xFt.)
SHOTCAETE THICKNESS (In.)
Fig. 2.12. Support requirement for a. 20 ft (6.1 m) diameter tunnel using the RSR
concept (after Wickam et al., 1972).

TABLE 2.10
Theeffect of discontinuity strike and dip in tunneling (after Bieniawski,
1979).
--·

Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis Dip

Strike parallel
Drive with dip Drive against dip o·-20·
to tunnel axis
irresp.
Dip 45"-90" Dip 20"-45" Dip 45"-90 Dip 20"-45" !Dip 45· -90 Dip 20"-45 of strike

Very Very
favorable Favorable Fair Uhfa.vorablePtlfavorablE Fair .... .
 General rod: ma.u cla..,Jification Jchemr.J

E= lO(RMR-10)/40 (2.39)
The two equations are nearly equivalent at RM R = 55. However, eq. 2.38
is valid only for RM R > 50 whereas eq. 2.39 gives a. (perhaps unduly) rapid
increase in the value of E for RM R > 85.
Correlation between RMR and the parameters m ands of the failure criterion
of Hoek and Brown (1988) shall be mentioned in Ch. 4.

2. 7.4 Barton, Lien, and Lunde {1974): The Q-system

Six parameters were grouped into 3 quotients to give a.n overall rock quality
index, Q, which is further used to indicate support requirements for tunnels.

Q=RQD X Jr X~
i: s. SKF
The six parameters: RQD, Jn, Jr, la., J.,,, and SRF ca.n be assigned ratings
by using the 3 tables and extensive notes provided by Barton et al. (1974,
pp. 194-200). We shall limit our description to the essential definition of these
parameters as follows:
• RQD is the rock quality designation varying over a range of 5 intervals, from
0-25, for very poor rock to 90-100, for excellent rock.
• Jn is the joint set number with 9 discrete values (between 0.5 a.nd 20); the
value of Jn is inversely propotional to the frequency of joints.
• Jr is the joint roughness number with 7 discrete values (between 0.5 and 4);
the value of Jr increases with the roughness of the joints.
• la. is the joint alteration number with 12 basic values or ranges of values
(between (0. 75 and 20) whose magnitude increases with the descreasing angle
of frinction (assessed on the basis of joint infilling and joint wall condition).
• J.,, is the joint water reduction factor with 6 values or ranges of values
(between 0.05 and 1) whose magnitude decreases with increasing a.mount of
water inflow.
• SRF is the stress reduction factor with values ranging between 0.5 and 20
depending on the competence of the rock and the presence of weak zones or
squeezing/swelling rock.
The value of the rock mass quality index, Q, generally ranges between 10-3
and 103• The three quotients in the expression for Q are understood as follows:
RQD/Jn: represents the rock structure and is a crude measure of the particle
size.
Jr/ Ja.: represents the shear strength of the joints (and rock mass).
J,,,/SRF: represents what Hoek and Brown (1980b) call the "active stress" or
wha.t we shall call the "active stress quotient" (ASQ).
rock ma.s..f cl~.,ification ..fchemea

(II
u
QI
CII
......
QI
(]J
u
CII

....C Ee 'Oc aJ
•
<II
o iv o
E Ill
u e .... en ....tlJ
e0
0
0
(]Jc
• 'O O
u NE· ...
I ~(II~

~ ~i..c8
.... u .... Ln

.0."'..
I
~
0
N

CII :,!.
CII
j 8M 0
N
u ,.. v
Cl)
8 > ..
i ~ I
s <II
>
 General rock ma.,., clu.,ification scheme«

The support requirements for a tunnel are obtained by first defining an

equivalent dimension as a ratio of the tunnel span ( or height) and the excavation
support ratio, ESR, which is a function of the type (or purpose) of excavation.
The relationship between Q and the equivalent dimension then determines the
support requirement.
Barton et al. (1974) delimit 38 support categories (see Fig. 2.13) and provide
tables for estimating permanent support.

E
11
c .µ
0
....
ti)
s:
Cl
....
iOO~~~~~~~~~~~~:~POOA~~~F~!lR~:~8000~~~~~~~
40 r
c Q)
20 ~+-'-1-,1:,1:,&1,1--
a.> I
E L 10
0 0 cc
en
.µ
c
L
Q)
w
Q) .µ
..... Q)
re E
> -~ 0.4
·; D
cr 0.2
UJ c 0.1 .__.....................~ ........._.._.........~ .....................~ ..........&...L..........~..:.......:..1.-~----.a..........l ....... ~
m
a. ,oo
tn 0.001 0.01 0 .1 1 10 1000

Rock Mass Quality Q

Fig. 2.13. Equivalent dimension of tunnel versus rock mass quality, Q (after
Barton et al., 1974).

The relationship between the roof support pressure, P, and Q is

p = 21;1Q-l/3 (2.40)

H the number of joint sets Jn is less than 2, then

(2.41)

Bieniawski (1976) developed the following correlation between the Q and

RMR systems:
(2.42)
General rock mass cla.sJification schemes 45
2.1.s .. Olivier (1976): .Rock durability classification (RDC)
system
·This system focusses on the swelling characteristics of rock mass. Swelling
( discussed in Sec. 6.1) is a. prominent feature of weak rock a.nd a source of prob-
lems in providing support of tunnels. The RDC is a moderately easy measure of ·
durability of rock mass based on a relationship between the Duncan et al. (1968)
swelling coefficient (e) and the compressive strength of the rock. The swelling
coefficient, e, can be determined in the field by means of the free-swelling test
(see Fig. 6.3).
If the deformation modulus of the rock is known, the swelling stress, a ~, can
be determined and plotted against the unconfined compressive strength, C0,
to obtain the "Rock durability classes" of rocks (see Fig. 2.14). The RDC is
directly applicable both as an approximate index and as input to the modified
Q-system discussed later.

a."
~
CJO
I
350
:r:
t- 300
A-E:ROCK DURABILITY CLASSES
(.'.) VERY HIGH
z STRENGTH
LU
cc 250
t-
sr.
LU
>
200
t--( 0-POOR
U1
z HIGH
LU
150 STRENGTH
cc
Q..
E-VERY POOR
~ 100
0
u MEOIUH
STRENGTH
..J .
<( 50 LOW STRENGTH
t--(
x VERY LOW STA.
<(
t--( 0
z::)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
INTERNAL SATURATION SWELLING STRESS, a5-MP8

Fig. 2.14 Rock drillability classification, RDC ( after Olivier, 1976).

 Cla.uification .,ckeme., for weak rock

2. 7.6 Correlation among selected classification schemes

Correlations. between any two of the principal rock mass classification
schemes are useful in practice, especially when the inp~t to one of the schemes
is insufficient. The correlation between RMR and Q (eq. 2.42) is a valuable
example; reference to its use is further made in Sec. 4.l.
It is not generally possible to establish an algebraic relationship between two
classification schemes, particularly when these schemes do not involve indices
like RMR and Q. In such instances, a tabular form of correlation is a welcome
alternative. Russo (1992) ha.s compiled a correlation table (Table 2.12) among
several major schemes using the classification of Terzaghi (1946) as the reference
scheme.

2.8 Specific classification schemes for weak rock

Weak rock, in a broad sense, is the opposite of competent, high-strength rock
and will invariably indicate immediate support requirements during tunneling.
Where designated for its quality, a.s in some engineering classification schemes,
weak rock is synonymous with poor to very poor rock (for instance, classes 4
and 5 of Bieniawski, 1973). Weak rocks may "have high permeability and are
dangerously water-bearing, some have a clay content leading to swelling and
slaking behavior with cyclic variations of moisture, some have purely structural
defects or wea.knessesn (Duffaut, 1981 ).
The available rock mass classification systems recognize the strength of rock,
the pattern and condition of discontinuities, and ground water condition. How-
ever, their treatment of the bottom end of the classification scale, the weak
rocks, has several limitations. First, the potential for a change in the state
of the rock upon excavation is not included. Second, the class intervals are
generally uniform, creating a narrow definition for a potentially wide range of
requirements for support and construction procedures at the lower end of the
scale. Third, the classification systems are (inherently) limited to application to
the data base used for their development. This is not a criticism of the systems
but an indication that the available classification may need to be modified for
application to new situations, particularly to weak rocks encountered during
tunneling in the complex formations, for example, in the Italian Alps and the
Appennines.
tion .,cheme., for weak rock

-
~
pf N
-
N e- N
.....
U'l
N
0
..... e-
Q)
e--
Q)

!0. v ,-1 ' 1

...... N ' a,
I 0
N
' '
(I)
N
. u,
u,
I
0
I

\0
:i:

.,.- M
--.....
e-
a,
.....
...
.....
I - ,.,a, 0 0

-g ,_;
01
(JI

..,
..
'e
......
~
.....
v
.....
,., I
u,
.....I
\0
.....
I
.....
e-
N.
0
N
I
Q)

.,
u,
ID
..... .....1
\0
0
N
t
\0
N
0
N

,.,a,
I

6'. ..... ,-1

~
lil
i Q) ,., .....
0
,.,
0
0 0
0 0 0 ..... ~ 0

N u, ID I 0 0 0 0
(JI 0
N
1
u,
t I ..... I
..... I
.....I .....I
0 N ,-1
1\1 ..... N 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

' VI
e ,-1 .....I ,., u, <D
I
VI 0
..... 0
.....
0
.....
v I
.....
I
u,
(I)
I
::c '
0. N I /\ /\

- -'2
M a,
Q)
VI
M
e-
Ill

-..... !-o
0\

0 O'\ 0 ..... ..... N

.....
H ..... r-- e-- .....I N ..... .....
..... I
\D I
a,
ili I 0 /\J
I
..... N
I
0
I
\D
I
u,
.....
u, v v
0
0
<D r- u, M N
~ ,-1

.....I ..a
u,
go
-
(I] u,
lil UI

"'
.....
..... N N M
-- - I I
..0
u,
..0
u,
o
M

- JI-
.....

.....
.a e- - \0
- ,...;-..... -.... --
.....
-
N e- 0 lil
u,
0 ... c--i :i:' '; ~u
"' :I: :I:

a -ffi --
0\ I I
(J ..... 0. QI I I
N + \D + t + I

-·-
H N 0 • a:i ..... Ill Ne
:i:: .e

u
N
- -
0 o- .....

! ~
0.
m
en
....."1
..... N I I M ..... "1
u,
.Q
Ill I

i (J

- - -:c..,
- --
Ill a, 0
N
Cl)
"' \D
GI a, a:I lil
Ill ~- ;:::; ..... in
-
-~ "' ....;- -e
u,
..... ~ .....
0\ 0 u,
N u, + 0
:C
... . . ; :i:' N o.J
..... :c" u,
"'GI Ne I
+ I + I
..... +
:I: I + r-
Ne o·- ..... - .-
0 0
0. N I 0 "N \D Ill • lil ..... a:i
QI ::c I o.

- - - -
w 0

~
.....
"'
"'
u
QI
0 0
I 0 N

- --
..... .....
ID al a:I
u,
in
': -;:; -:i:"' '"!t- r;i..... ~ in......-:t'
'""!
.....

- e-:i:"'
0 u,
O'\ .§. "! O:i:; I
..... "' I +
"'e-
-o- - -..... - ,.,;-
QI 0 u, + ..... + I +
0 Ll\ al M Ill ..... al • al ..... Ill
~ N I I N-
H
:i::
+
I.Cl
0 0
0
- -
~ ....; (JI

.....~ . .
! :z:" u ..... N M ..... u, ID r- Q'.J 0\
48 Cla,Jaificationschemes for weak rock

2.8.1 Significant characteristics of weak rocks

The following is a list of characteristics of weak rocks which we consider
to be significant (not listed, necessarily, in the order of importance). Most
of these characteristics have been included in the major classification schemes
or modified schemes; the following abbreviations are used for the referenced
schemes.
RSR: Rocle Structure Rating, Wickham et al. (1972),
RMR: Rocle Mass Rating, Bieniawski (1973),
Q: Rocle Mass Quality, Barton et al. (1974),
MRMR: Modified Rock Mass Rating, Laubscher & Taylor (1976),
RDC: Rock Durability Classification, Olivier (1976).
As seen from Table 2.13, the two comprehensive classification systems, the
RMR (with its modified system MRMR) and Q system, include a majority of
the 7 characteristics listed above. These systems, together with some additional
systems of interst for weak rock classification are further discussed in the next
section.
TABLE 2.13
Significant characteristics of weak rocks included in the various
classification-schemes
Included Explicity in

1. Geologic Constitution
Rock type, lithology,
texture.weathering, folding RSR, Q (included in SRF)
2. Core Recovery
Total or modified (RQD) RMR, MRMR, Q
3. Intact Rock Strength
unconfined compression (C0)
or point load index (I6) RMR, MRMR, RDC
4. Ground Water Condition
Inflow rate, influence of
water on rock behavior RSR, RMR,MRMR, Q, RDC
5. Durability Q (partially included
swelling index or pressure in SRF), RDC
6. Discontinuities
Spacing or number of sets RSR, RMR, MRMR, Q
Joint condition (resistance) RMR, MRMR, Q
Joint-set orientation RSR, RMR, MRMR
7. In-situ stress
or change in stress MRMR, Q (both partially)
Cla.J3ification schemes for wealc roclc

2.8.2 Laubscher and Taylor (1976): Modified RMR sys-

tem
Modifications to the· RMR system were made by Laubscher and Taylor
(1976) for classification of jointed rock mass in mining operations. However,
these modifications also included a subdivision of the five classes of RMR into
subclasses A and B (see Table 2.14). Modifications (essentially, adjustments to
the ratings of RMR) were made in the followingcategories:
1. Joint spacing - the range as well as the mean, maximum, and minimum
values, were used in arriving at the adjusted rating.
2. Condition of joints: this is the most comprehensiveof the adjustments and
appears particularly suited to weak, but jointed rocks. The adjustment of a
maximum rating can vary from nearly 1.0 (100%) to nearly 0.0.
3. The joint orientation adjustment (0.7 to 0.9) recognizes both the number
and dip of joints.
4. The influence of blasting is included with an adjustment of 0.8 to 1.0.
5. The infl.uenceof weathering is recognizedin RQD, Co, and condition of joints
(range of adjustment is from .82 to .96)
Laubscher and Taylor (1976) provide guidelines for selection of support for
the various adjusted classes ofrock (see Table 2.14). A support guide is provided
for the adjusted classes. We note that the modifiedMR.MRsystem of Laubscher
and Taylor is restricted in its application to jointed rock mass.

2.8.3 Modified Q-system

The ASQ (active stress quotient, lw/SRF) is most significant for weak rocks and
it is here that we propose using the RDC system of Olivier (1976) to standardize
the value of the stress reduction factor SRF, in the Q-system as follows:
1. Measure Duncan swelling coefficient,e, for rock samples.
2. Measure the deformation modulus, E, of the rock in the sampling borehole.
3. Measure the point load index I~ for companion samples from the borehole.
If the rock is very weak, perform shear tests in the borehole (Pitt and Rohde,
1984) and obtain a value of unconfined compressive strength C0 from the
Coulomb failure envelope in the principal-stress space.
4. Define the swelling ratio, SR, as

SR= e · -E = -----_;;_,;;;...._
swellingpressure _
C0 unconfined compression strength

The lower limit of SR is zero. The upper limit for SR cannot be fixed
because of the large dispersion in the possible data set. Based on experience
and literature survey, we have initially assumed an upper limit" of 3. These
50 Cla.JJifica.tion Jcheme.9 for weal: rock

TABLE 2.14
Supp:>rt guide for tunnels (after Laubscher and Taylor, 1976).
In situ classes
Adjusted
classes
lA lB 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B SA SB

1 and 2

3A a a a a

3B b b b b

4A
c,d c,d c,d,e d,e

4B
g f,g f,g,j h, t., j

i i h,i,j h,j
SA

SB k k 1 )

a= Generally no support but locally joint intersections might require

bolting.
b= Patterned grouted bolts at 1 m collar spacing.
c= Patterned grouted bolts at 0.75 m collar spacing.
d= Patterned grouted bolts at 1 m collar spacing and shotcrete 50 mm
thick.
e= Patterned grouted bolts at 1 m collar spacing and massive concrete
300 mm thick and only used if stress changes are not excessive.
f = Patterned grouted, bolts at O. 75 m collar spacing and shotcrete 100
mm thick.
g = Patterned grouted bolts at O. 75 m collar spacing with mesh reinforced
shotcrete 100 mro thick.
h= Massive concrete 450 mm thick with patterned grouted boltsat 1 m
spacing if stress changes are not excessive.
i= Grouted bolts at 0.75 m collar spacing if reir.!orcing potential is
present, and 100 nun reinforced shotcrete, and then yielding steel
arches as a repair technique if stress changes are excessive.
j::: Stabilise with rope cover support and massive concrete 450 .mm thick
it stress changes are not excessive.
k= Stabilise with rope cover support followed by shotcrete to, and
including face, if necessary; and then closely-spaced yielding arches
as a repair technique where stress changes are excessive.
l = Avoic development in this ground, otherwise use support systems •j •
or "k".
ClaJ.,ijication. .,cheme., for weak rock 51

limits on SR will give a. maximum value of SRF of 20 and a minimum value of

5, using the relation;
SRF = 5 ·(SR+ 1)
In the above discussion two modified classification schemes were selected:
MRMR of Laubscher and Taylor (1976) and Modified Q-system, using RDC
of Olivier (1976) to determine the SRF coefficient in the _Q-system of Barton
et al. (1974). These two schemes are applicable to weak rock and swelling
rock. However, a problem arises when the rock mass behaves almost like a soil
exhibiting very high swellability. In some other instances, jointing is either not
evident or not important for the material behavior. For low strength materials
(for instance, some clays) the concept of unconfined compressive strength is not
quite . appropriate.
For the above reasons, the modified classification scheme may not be ade-
quate for geomecha.nical classification of weak rocks. It is therefore, suggested
that the rock mass classification should be linked to soil classification scheme
to properly cover the range of weak rocks.
Chapter 3

ANALYSIS METHODS

The two essential steps in the design of openings in rock are: (1) conceptual
modeling of the boundary value problem, that is, stating the problem in terms
of geometry, rock mass characterization, and boundary conditions, including in-
situ stresses a.nd (2) selecting an approach for analysis of the problem in terms
of stress concentrations, deformations, and failure and/or support mechanisms.
Some uncertainty is inherent in conceptual modeling of the problem and
this requires a series of simplifying assum.ptions. Selection of the methods of
analysis may require additional assumptions, but these are generally less se-
vere than the assumptions for material characterization. The discussion in this
chapter will include a summary of the elastic and inelastic representation of
rock mass behavior, a.nd the analysis approach using both close-form solutions
and numerical methods.

3.1 Fundamental equations of linear elasticity

t

Many excellent text books provide an in-depth discussion of the theory of

elasticity: Timoschenko and Goodier (1970), Sokolnikof (1956), Obert and Du-
vall (1967), and Jaeger and Cook (1979). For the purpose of this chapter it
would suffice to reiterate the essential equations of linear elasticity. Before
doing so, some terms need to be defined as follows.
u, v, w, are the deformations or displacements referred to the rectangular Carte-
sian frame :i:, y, z.
fr, fy, fz are the three normal strains.
/X'lf, "f11z, r z: are the three shear Strains, with /2:J = /J/Xl etc.
ax, a 11, a z are the three normal stresses
Tx11, r11z, Tzx are the three shear stresses, with Txp = Tpx, etc.
The general (boundary value) problem in elasticity consists of determining
the stresses, strains, and displacements (a total of 15 unknowns: 6 stresses, 6
strains, and 3 displacements) in a body of given shape subject to body forces and
boundary conditions (loads, displacements) at the exterior surfaces of the body.
Fundamental equation., of linear ela.sticity 59

The following four sets of differential equations, together with the boundary
conditions, provide the necessary and sufficientconditions for determining the
15 unknowns in linear elasticity.

1) The strain-displacement relations

If the components of strain are small enough such that their products and
squares can be ignored, we may invoke the assumption of infinitesimal or lin-
earized strain (producing geometric linearity in the material). Thus:

{Ju
€z=-
ax
av
€ --
y - ay
€;r;=-
aw
8x
8u av (3.1)
'Yzy = 8y + ax
8v aw
IY'Z = 8z + 8y
aw 8u
/U = QX + OZ

2) The stress-strain relations

If the material is mechanically linear, we may express the Hooke's law ( or
constitutive law, or stress-strain relations) for this material in terms of 36 elastic
constants relating 6 stresses to 6 strains. Conditions of symmetry reduce the
number of coefficientsto 21 for a completely anisotropic case. For the linear,
isotropic material, the stress-strain relations require only two constants, the
Young's modulus, E, and Poisson's ratio, t/, Thus:
 Funda.menta.l egua.tion., of linea.r ela.3ticity

J1E E
Ur,= ) )~+--Er,
(1 + II (1 - 211 l + JI
_ 11E ~ ~E
tr 'fl - (1 + II )(1 - 211) + 1 + JI II

vE E
«, = )~ +--Ez
(1 + II )(1 - 211 l + II (3.2)
E
Tr.11= ( '\....,
2 1 + 11 J rzy
E
Tyz = 2( '\....,
. 1 + v JTYZ
E
Tzz=----
2(l+v)-rzz:

where ~ is the expression for the 1st strain invariant,

These relations can be written more simply using the two constants of Lame,

.>. = vE
· (l+v)(l-2v)
G= E
2(1 + 11)
then we have
Ur,=,\~+ 2GEr,
Uy= .A~+ 2GEy
<7z =.A~+ 2Gfz
(3.3)
Tzy:::: G,zy
T11z = G,yz
Tzz = G,:z
Two useful specializations of Hooke's law may be introduced for solving
planar problems, that is, the plane stress and plane strain cases.
In the case of plane stress, all stresses are in or parallel to the plane of
interest, the x-y plane; for example, a thin plate subjected to forces in its plane.
Several theory of elasticity solutions for 2-dimensional boundary value problems
are given for the plane-stress case using the assumptions
Fundamental eq-uation.,· of linear elasticity 55

Ez =/: 0 (free slice)

the inverse Hooke's law or strain-stress relations are derived from (3.2), thus,

1
f2: = E(a:z: - vay)
1 (3.4)
fy = E(ay - va2:)
"'fzy = rxy/G

The strain in the z-direction is

(3.5)

Hooke's law for plane stress case is given by inversion of (3.4) as:

E
O':,: = l - 112(fz + VEy)
E (3.6)
a,= -21(fy
-v
+ Vfz)
'r:,:y = G,:zy

The case of plane strain is illustrated by long, cylindrical openings, such

as tunnels. If z represents the axis of the opening, the displacements of all
points in the plane of the cross section (x-y plane) are not zero, but the shear
strains associated with the z-direction are zero ('Yy., ='Yu= 0), and e., must be
constant (it is normally set to zero). Under these conditions, the Hooke's law
becomes:
a: = (>. + 2G)e:z: + Afy
a 'J = (>. + 2G)Ey + .Afz (3.7)
r:y = G"'f:y

There is a stress in the z-direction (because of the constrained slice) and it

is given by
a.,= v(a:z + a,) (3.8)
The corresponding strain-stress relations for plane. strain are:

f: = ![(1 - v2)cr:r - v(l + v)u,]

Ey = _!_[(1 - v2)cry - v(l + v)az] (3.9)
E
"'fr.y = r:y/G
56 Fundamental equ4tion$ of linear ela.,ticity

Note that plane stress-solutions may be converted into plane-strain solutions

by the followingsubstitution:

(3.10)

where the letter c refers to the constrained slice, or plane strain, and the letter
refers to the free slice, or plane stress.

3) The equilibrium equations

For an infinitesimal element of a body in equilibrium

LFz=LF11=LFz=O
Referring to Fig. 3.1 and considering the six stresses, together with body
forces X, Y, Z along x, y, z axes, we have:

(3.11)

4) The compatibility relations

If the displacements ( u, v, w) and the strains (ez, ey, ez, 'Yzy, 'Yyz, 'Yn:) are re-
quired to be continuous functions of the coordinates (x, y, z ), they are considered
to be compatible. Thus, when a body is strained, the resulting displacements
produce no gaps between small, adjacent elements of the body. The following
six compatibility equations that need to be satisfied are obtained by various
combinations of the partial derivatives of the six strains, eq.(3.1), with respect
to the coordinates:
fynda.mental equatioru of linear e/a.,ticity 57

&2er
-+-=--
82ey 82 ,z.,
oy2 8x2 8x8y ·
tfley tfler. a2,.,,,
8z2 + 8y2 = 8y8z
82e,, 82er 82,z:r
axi + 8z2 = azax
(3.12)
2 ( 82er) = ~ (- 8,yz: + &rzr + a,ry)
ayaz ax ax ay 8z
2 ( a2ey) = ~ (aiyz - &rz:r. + a,r.y)
azax 8y ax 8y az
2 ( 82 e,,)
axay
= ~
az
(81yr + a,,,r. _ 8,r.y)
ax 8y 8z
Two approaches can be used to solve for the 15 unknowns (6 stresses, 6
strains, and 3 displacements). The first approach begins with substituting the
strain-displacement relations (3.1) into the stress-strain relations (3.2) obtaining
the stress-displacement relations which a.re then substituted in the equilibrium.
equations (3.11). This approach results in the three Navier (displacement)
equations of equilibrium.

2
'v'u=---+-
1 84! x
1- 211 DX G
2 1 84! y
'v' v=---+-
l- 211 oy G
(3.13)
2 1 8<p z
'v' w=---+-
1 - 211 oz G
where
a2 &2 a2
'v'2 = 8x2 + 8y2 + 8z2

and <p and G are defined in (3.2).

Eq. 3.13 a.re solved for displacements u, v, w which are then used to obtain
strains and then stresses. Since this approach began with (continuous) displace-
ments, the compatibility conditions are automatically satisfied.
The second approach considers stresses (and strain) as the starting quanti-
ties. The compatibility equations (3.12) have now to be satisfied. These are
expressed in terms of the (inverse of) stress- strain law (3.2) and the equilib-
rium. equations (3.11). The resulting six equations are the Beltrami-Michell
stress-compatibility equations. These equations may be solved, using the stress
58 Fundamental equationa of linear eltuticity

I
dz

Clz I
I
>-~~~~~~~~---'~
;/

Fig. 3.1. Equilibrium conditions for rectangular coordinates.

av

"h-

i
t"
av
Fig. 3.2. Stress distribution around a circular opening in a biaxial stress field.
F'unda.mental equation., of linear ~luticity 59

boundary conditions, for the 6 stresses from which the strains a.nddisplacements
can be obtained.

V2rr:i:+ _1_ fPI1 = ~ (oX +BY+ az) _2ax

1 + v 8x2 1- v ax 8y az ax
V rr +-1- fPI1 = ~
2 (8X +BY+ 8Z) _2aY
1 + v 8y
Y 1 - v ax By az 2 8y
V2 +-1- fPI1 =~(ax+
<7: 8Y + az) _2az
1+ 8z 1- ax 8y 8z
II 2 8z II
(3.14)
'v2T z+ _1_ a 1i = -(aY + az) 2
y1 + Oy8z 8z 8y
II

v2r::::i: + _1_ ffZ I1 = _ ·(az + ax)

1 + II 8z8x OX 8z
v2r:,;
Y
+ _1_ a2 I1
1 + v 8r8y
=_(ax+
8y
aY)
ax
where
11 = Cf:,; + er y + q" · is 1 ~t stress invariant

5} The biharmonic equation and the problem of a cir-

cular hole in an infinite plate
In two dimensions, an important result is the biharmonic equation

(3.15)

where U is known as Airy's stress function. For details of the derivation of

(3'.15) reference may be made to text books such as Jaeger and Cook (1979, p.
122) The basic approach to eq. 3.15 is a follows:
For the plane problem, the fundamental relations are:
strain-displacement (plane stress and plane strain),

au
I::,:= or' (3.16)

equilibrium conditions,
. /

ar:i:y + X -- 0, ar:, oq,

{}q :i:
-+--
ax By -+-+Y=O
ax oy (3.17)
60 Fundamental equation$ of linear e.la.ati

compatibility conditions,

(3..

and strain-stress relations given by eq. 3.4 for plane stress and eq. 3.9 for pl:
strain.
Substitution of the strains in the compatibility conditions (3.18) gives
stress compatibility equations in which we substitute the derivatives of
equilibrium conditions (3.17). H the body forces (X, Y) are assumed as const
or zero, the resulting equations are:

Now suppose Airy's function U is defined as

(3.2

It is seen by substitution that U satisfies the equilibrium conditions (3.1.

Substitution of (3.20) into (3.19) gives the biharmonic equation (3.15)

B4U B4U B4U

8x4 + 2 8x28Y2 + 8y4 = O (3.2

For polar coordinates (r, 9), Airy's stress function is defined as

1"r8 = __:~(~au)
OT r 89
(3.2

with the corresponding biharmonic equation defined as

1

a2 1 a
( 8r2 + r 8r +
a
1 2 ) ( EP u 1 au 1 a2 u)
r2 892 8r2 +r 8r + r2 092 - O (3.23:

The general solution to the differential equation (3.23) can be obtains

through complexvariables (as discussedby Jaeger and Cook, 1979, pp. 241-246
or through integration by the method of separation of variables (as detailed b;
Obert and Duvall, 1967, pp. 75-80). One of the solutions to (3.23) is for tb
problem of a circular bole in an infinite plate. This problem is of great signil
icance to the design of tunnels. The essential steps in the solution, which wa
first obtained by Kirsch in 1898, are given below. For details of the solution
Fundamental equGtions of linear ela.3ticity 61

reference may be made to Obert a.nd Duvall (1967, pp.98-168) or Jaeger and
Cook (1979, pp.249-254). _
With reference to Fig. 3.2, consider an infinite plate subjected to boundary
stresses <Th. and <T v along the x and y axes, respectively, containing a circular
hole of radius a. centered at the origin.
For solution of the stresses, <Tr, <T9, Trs, Airy's stress function is given the
form:
U(r9) = Alnr + Br2 + (Cr2 + Dr4 + E/r2 + F) cos 29· (3.24)
and the following boundary conditions are used to evaluate the constants in
(3.24):
at r = a
<Tr=0=Tr8 (3.25a)
at r = oo and for any value of 9

(3.25b)

(3.25c)

The various derivatives of U are substituted into equations (3.22), the results
are compared at the boundaries with eq. 3.25 to evaluate the constants, and
finally the following expressions are obtained for the stresses around the circular
hole:
1 a 1 a a
<Tr= 2
- (C7h + <T.,)[l - (-)2]
r
+ -2(<T11.- <T.,)[l - 4(-)2
r
+ 3(-)4]
r
COS 29
1 a 1 a
(79 = -( (jh + <T .,)[1 + ( - )2] - -( (jh - (j.,)[l + 3( - )4] cos 29 (3.26)
2 r 2 r
· Tr9 = - ~(C7h
2
- <T.,)[1 + 2(~-)2 - 3( ~)4] sin 29
r r

The displacements of points around the circular hole are obtained by inte-
grating the stress-displacement relations (which will be different for plane stress
and plane strain). Details of the derivation may be found in Obert and Duvall
(1967).
For plane stress conditions, the displacements (radial displacement, u, and
tangential displacement v) a.re obtained by integrating the stress-displacement
equations:
6! Fu.nda.menta.l equa.tion.s of linear elasticity

8u 1
or= E(C1r-VC19)
u 1 ov 1
-r + --
roe E = -(us - VO'r) (3.2.
1 au ov v 2(1 + v)
--+---=
r 88 or r E
Tr8

with the result that

(3.28}

and
2:2
v = ~ [ ~ (uh ; u.~) (r sin 28]
+ + :: )
-; [(O'h;O"v) (r- ~ + ;:)sin28] 2

The displacements for the plane strain case can be recovered from (3.28) by
ma.king the substitution for the moduli given in (3.10), with the result that .

(3.29)
and
v = 1 ~v 2 [- ( ~h ; u v) (r + 2;sin 28]
2
+ :: )

- v(l; v) [ ( O'h; O"v) (r- ~ + ::) sin28]

2

when r = a, the displacement are:

l -v2
u = ~[a(uh + uv) + 2a(uh - u.,)cos28]
and
Nonlinear ineld.$tic beha.11ior 69

3.2 Nonlinear inelastic behavior of rock mass.

A linear material will, as mentioned In Sec. 3.1, followthe linearized Hooke's
law which, in a uniaxial condition, may be expressed as

u= E€ (3.30)

The material is perfectly elastic if an application of loa.d produces instant

deformation and the material returns to its original sta.te on removal of the
load. Thus, an elastic relation
<T=f(c) (3.31)
admits nonlinearity, with the modulus of deformation defined at any instant by

du/d€ (3.32)

The actual behavior of rock may be approximated by the hypothetical O"-f curve
of Fig. 3.3 resulting from an unconfined compression test in a stiff-testing or
servo-controlled machine.

Strain hardening F,

-
a
F
er

Fig. 3.3. The complete stress-strain curve for rock.

 Non.linear inelutic beha.vior l
The curve is divided into three segments. In the initial segment, OL, th~
rock behaves nearly linearly and elastically, the point L representmg about 2/'!,
of the peak strength, C0• The second segment, LP, represents nonlinear a.nd
inelastic behavior with decreasing value of do /de. until the peak stress at P. The
last segment, PF, has a negative slope and ends in a brittle failure at F, with
sudden loss of strength or resistance across the failure plane (or surface). In
fact, failure begins at P where the maximum stress, Co, has been reached.
AIJ. important concept in the a - e behavior ;.: rock is its ductility or ability
to resist load while undergoing permanent de: ·:mation as in segments LP of
Fig. 3.3. Ductile behavior is demonstrated by s · .me rocks in confined compres-
sion tests and under the influence of temperature, This behavior is described
by the theory of plasticity (Hill, 1950). With reference to Fig. 3.3., the mate-
rial (after the peak stress at P) may experience strain softening (segment PG),
perfect plasticity {line PP), or strain-hardening (line PF').
The stresses at every point in a plastically deforming body must satisfy a
yield criterion. The various simple yield criteria that have been proposed are
expressible in terms of the invariants of stress, 11, I2, [3 and of stress deviation,
J1, J2, J3• These invariants are first listed below in terms of the principal stresses
(j1, (j2, and <73 and then used to express the (normal and shear) octahedral
stresses. {Note that the principal stresses are the stress components relative to
those (principal) axes along which the shear stress is zero.)

11 = <71 + 0-2 + <73 (3.33)

l2 = -<71<72 - (j2<73 - (j3U1 (3.34)
[3 = 0"1(j20'3 (3.35)

If we define the mean normal stress as S, where

(3.36)

then the stress deviations are:

S; = az:-S, s'/1 = uy-S, S:::=(jz-S

(3.37)
s'/IZ = Tyz, Su= Tz'&,

and the principal stress deviations are:

S1 = <71 - S = (2a1 - a2 - u3'J/3

S2 = a2 - S = (2cr2 - a1 - a3)/3 (3.38)
S3 = (j3 - S = (2a3 - a1 - a2)/3
Nonlinear inela..stic behavior 65

The invariants of stress deviations ma.ynow be defined as:

J1 = S-z +Sy+ S; = O (3.39)

Jz = -(S.11Sz: + SZS'Z + S,zSy) + s;z: + s: + S!,
1
= -(s;
2
+ si + s:) (3.40)

J3 = S,zSySz + 2SyzSz,zS,zy - s.s; - SyS;'Z - Sz:S;y (3.41)

Some of the yield criteria use the normal and shear stresses associated with
the octahedral plane whose normal has direction cosines

1
f =m=n= y'3 (3.42)

and is equally inclined to the principal axes or to u1, uz, 0'3. The two stresses
are the octahedral normal stress,

(3.43)

and the octahedral shear stress,

Tact= i{(a-1 - cr2)2 + (u2 - cr3)2 + (cr3 - cr1)2} 1

= ,/2{cr12 + cr22 + C1'23 - cr1cr2 - cr2cr3 - cr3cr1

}.l1
3 (3.44)
,/2 2 l.
=3 {I1
+312}1
= (2J2/3)t
66 Analytical Approach,

3.3 Analytical Approach

Since the early 1960's, there bas been an increasing use of the computer-
based, numerical methods of structural analyses for design of tunnels. There.
are many instances where the choice for using the numerical methods is deax/
as in the case of problems in nonlinear, inelastic, inhomogeneous rock mass,
especially under the imposition of coupled phenomena ( e.g., combination of
thermal, hydraulic, and mechanical loads). However,there are several situations
where close- form or anaivticel solutions for the boundary-value problem can
be directly applicable, especially as a first approximation.
There are frequent examples of actual field problems where the input data.
( material characteristics and state of in situ stress) are known at an elementary :
level of confidence. In such instances, the use of close-formsolutions becomes an•
appropriate means for performing sensitivity or parametric analyses, for making .
a preliminary design, and for establishing the need and scope of geotechn.ical
exploration of the rock mass.
The scope of the close-formsolutions is limited to isotropic homogeneous, lin-
ear, elastic materials (LEM). Some anisotropic cases (for example, a tranversely
isotropic or layered rock) have been treated at times (e.g., Lekhnitskii, 1963,
Amadei, 1984, and Bray, 1987). In other instances, an "equivalent-material" ap-
proach has been used to solve problems in composite materials, such as jointed
or reinforced rock.
A large body of the literature (for instance, see the references listed by
Brown et al., 1983) focuses on the problem of the failure zone around a circular
tunnel and the interaction of rock and support. The analytical solutions to this
problem have used a range of constitutive description of the material ranging
from elastic to elastoplastic to viscoelastic. The following section introduces
some examples of application of close-formsolutions to tunnels in LEM.

3.3.1 Close-form solutions for simple geometries

Three examples will be discussed in this section to demonstrate a range of
application of the close-form solutions to analyses of stresses and stability in
tunneling. The total range of the problems thus solved, and to be solved, using
analytical methods is much broader.
Recognizing another limitation of these solutions, only simple geometries
(ellipse and circle) for the cross-section of a long, cylindrical opening will be
considered. The nomenclature for the various quantities will be as follows:
• x, y are the horizontal and vertical. directions in the plane of cross section
of the horizontal tunnel, and z is axis of the tunnel
- a = tunnel radius;
Analytical Approach 61

- r = radial distance of a point in the rock a.round the tunnel,

- (}=angular distance of the point from the horizontal axis,
- CT r = radial stress at the point ( r, 8),
- t:T9 = tangential stress at the point (r, 8),
- Tr8 = shear stress at the point (r, 8),
- CT v = vertical in situ stress,
- t:Th = horizontal in situ stress,
- o-1 = major principal stress at point (r, 8), compression is positive,
- CT3 = minor principal stress at point (r, 8),
• Coulomb constants are:
- c = cohesion,
- </> = friction angle. _
• a and r a.re normal and shear stresses associated with a potential plane of
failure.
Note that, unless otherwise stated, compressive stresses will be assumed to
be positive.

1) Field Stresses Around Elliptical and Ovaloidal

Openings
Elliptical and ovaloidal shapes, though not common in tunneling, may pro-
vide a good rationale for optimizing the shape with respect to the in situ stresses
and the resulting stress concentrations.
The problem of field stress distribution (stresses at the boundary and in
the vicinity of the opening) for an elliptical hole subjected to uniaxial pressure
was solved by Kolosov (1909) and Neuber (1946). Using Neuber's solution,
Terzaghi and Richart (1952) tabulated values for field stress concentrations for
an elliptical opening for a number of cases but did not provide plots of the data..
Geldart (1962) derived equations for a state of biaxial pressure around an el-
liptical hole using the stress functions given by Timoshen.koand Goodier (1951).
The equations for stress concentrations around elliptical and ovaloidal boles a.re
too lengthy to be listed here. Interested readers are referred to Dhar et al.
(1970) for these equations a.s well as for the treatment of stress concentrations
a.round ovaloidal openings.
Using Geldart's equations, Mahtab (1965) provided plots of field stress con-
centrations under various axis-ratios for a.n elliptical hole subjected to different
68 .Analytical .Approach

ratios of in situ stresses, CTI& and CT 11• The results of two different cases (k=0.2
and 1.5, where k = CTk/CTu) are shown in Fig. 3.4 and Fig. 3.5.
Fig. 3.4 shows contours of the major a.nd minor principal stress concentra-
tions, CTi/CTv and CT3/CT.,, for an axis ratio a/b, of 1.5 (where a and b are the
semi-major and semi-minor axes of the ellipse). Because of symmetry about
the x and y axes, the results for only one quadrant are shown. The maximum
compression (3.8 CTv) accurs at the ends of the major axis (the walls) while a
tension of 0.5 a" occurs at the crown of the opening. The results of a special
case (K=l.5=a/b) are shown for one quadrant of the elliptical opening in Fig.
3.5. An all-around compression now exists around the opening with a maximum
tangential stress of 1.67 CT" at the boundary of the opening. As a corollary to
this result, it may be possible to select a shape of the tunnel section such that
its a.xis ratio approximates the ratio K, thus reducing the potential for rock
failure and, therefore, the support requirements.
Fig. 3.5 also shows that a zone of nearly isotropic compression (with a mag-
nitude of only 0.85 CTv) develops at a short distance (nearly equal to the length
of the semi-major a.xis of the ellipse) from the walls, suggesting an optimum
measure for the spacing between the tunnel and an adjacent opening, or for the
thickness of the pillar between the twin bores of a tunnel. Note that the "shape
effect" in reducing the stress concentration in the pillar is a special case of the
"stress shadow" phenomenon discussed by Hoek and Brown (1980b, P: 124).

2) Plastic Zones Around Circular Tunnels

The stability of underground excavations in yielding rock depends on the
shear strength.of the surrounding mass.· Westergaard (1940) published a solu-
tion for the stresses around a borehole, assuming that a plastic zone develops
around the bole when the material fails according to the Coulomb criterion.
Hendron and Aiyer (1972) advanced a solution to this problem by assuming
that the yielding material behaved as an incompressible sol.id and accounted for
the dilata.nt behavior of the rock mass. The plastic zone, sometimes called the
damaged rock zone, DRZ, around the periphery of a tunnel represents a zone
of stress redistribution. The high stresses that develop in this zone in response
to the excavation are transferred deeper into the abutments as the rock fails. A
determination of the extent of the DRZ, therefore, requires the calculation of
stresses around the tunnel and a criterion according to which the rock will fail.
For the sake of simplicity, we shall select the Coulomb ( more usually called the
Mohr-Coulomb) criterion of failure.
The two-dimensional state of stress at any point around a circular tunnel,
see Fig. 3.2, subjected to a biaxial stress field is given by eq. (3.26). .
A nalytica.l A pproa.ck 69

0110.: ---

o3/ov , -----

K•Oh/o, •0.2
•IUS IIUICI • •,\ • 1. 5

- S ,1):fllll'TKAl (OORDINATES
,o·

Fig. 3.4. Contours of major and minor principal stress concentrations around an
elliptical opening of axis ratio 1.5 & K = 0.2 (after Mahtah, 1965). [Note max
stress concentration: compression = 3.8, tension = -0.5.]

0110•: ---

03/0• : -------
Oh
K •Oh/0• •1.5
AXIS RA TIO • -Ji. o l.5
11·90

60°
'

30• /
', I
;',.
I
I
I
15• I
--l
I
{
I
I .
'J,Q• I .'

Fig. 3.5. Contours of stress concentrations for geometry of Fig. 3.4 ( after Mahtab,
1965). [Note uniform, max stress concentration = 1.67.)
70 Analytical Approach

- ELASTIC ~

PLASTIC

l
Fig. 3.6. Plastic zone around a circular tunnel subjected to an isotropic in-situ
stress.

The simplest case of the plastic zone around a circular tunnel is for a hy-
drostatic stress field, P0 = CT h = CT v· If we further assume that CT r is continuous
across the interface of the elastic and broken zones, we get an expression for
the radius, R, of the plastic zone shown in Fig. 3.6 (for a derivation of the
expression, see Jaeger and Cook, 1979,p.420)

R = { (2Po - C~)(l -q) - Co(l + q')

a (1 + q')[p,(1 - q) - C0]
r (3.45)
Analytical Approach. 11

where p; is the internal pressure, and the pairs of coefficients C~, q1 a.nd C0, q
represent the Coulomb criterion for the elastic a.nd plastic material, respectively.
For example, for intact rock

.
(1' (J = C'o + qI O' r, (3.46)

where
C~ = unconfined compressive strength, and
q1 =tan2(45 + ef>/2)
Further discussion of the damaged rock zone around tunnels is included in
Chapter 5.

3) Size Effect on Stability of Tunnels in Jointed Rock

Presence of joints around a tunnel introduces further potential for insta-
bility. The influence of joint spacing on the stability of tunnels (the size ef-
fect) is well recognized. Most of the literature concentrates on the stability of
two-dimensional rock wedges ( e.g. Crawford and Bray, 1983, Sofianos, 1986,
Elsworth, 1986, and Belytschko et al., 1984). A plane-strain model of a circular
tunnel is subjected to either horizontal or hydrostatic stress in these analyses.
Some of the analyses use numerical methods, including the use of joint stiffness
in addition to a Coulomb type of failure criterion.
Khan and Mahtab (1989) analyze the stability of a circular tunnel as a func-
tion of joint-spacing in terms of the stability of triangular wedges (types I, II,
or III, see Fig. 3.7) formed by two joint sets. The Kirsch (1898) solution is used
to obtain stresses around the tunnel. The procedure for determining the largest
failed wedge around the tunnel examines the potential for failure ( according to
Coulomb) on each of the two faces of the wedge (Fig. 3.8). Numerical integra-
tion is used to calculate the normal and shear forces on the faces of the wedge
(Fig. 3.9). If one face of the wedge fails, the excess shear stress on that face
is transferred to the second face of the wedge and the stability of the second
face is now examined. The wedge is considered to have failed if the second face
also fails. All the possible wedges formed in the roof and sides of the cavern
are examined in this manner and the biggest failing wedges in the roof and the
sides are identified.
Non-continuity of the joints is incorporated in the analysis through the use of
an integral or equivalent value of cohesion (taking account of the discontinuous
segments of a joint and the rock bridges) on the wedge faces. The results show
that the extent of wedge failure around the periphery of the cavern decreases
with increasing joint spacing (Figs. 3.10 & 3.11). Conversely, given a joint spac-
ing, the tunnel becomes more stable with decreasing diameter. This observation
7f. Analytical .Approach

I
L
'
---
--

d1 Dip of joint set 1

---
d2 Dip of ioint set 2
(Th,(TV In situ vert1cal and horiz.ontal
stresses
I. II, III, IV : Blocks ccntaining wedges
Fig. 3. 7. Wedges formed by 2 joint sets around a circular underground opening
(after Khan and Ma.htab, 1989).

has direct relevance to the potential decrease in stability of a tunnel section that
is excavated by enlarging a pilot bore (by conventional or mechanical means).

3.3.2 The key block analysis

The term, "key block", in the context of instability of "blocky" rock, appears
to have first been used by Muir Wood {1979) while stating that " ... the prac-
ticing engineer will start with the knowledge of the importance of preventing
progressive failure whereby the rock arch becomes un.keyed by the fall or slip of
successive key blocks". However, the first formal procedures for the key block
analysis were given by Shi and Goodman {1981) with subsequent elaboration
by Goodman and Shi {1985).
Analytical Approach. 79

(1v

i i L-
--
--
--
-- O'h
--
W = Weight of the wedge
--
Fig. 3.8. Forces acting on a. triangular wedge (after Khan and Ma.htab, 1989).

Fig. 3.9. Calculation of the normal and shear forces on the wedge faces ( after
Khan and Ma.htab, 1989).
 Analytical Approach

,. t
. ,.
10 MP&
t t t
' ' '
-
cc
0.14
0.12
i -"'
--c
.
:i:

~ 0.10 ~
L
:,
0.08
~
'~
I 4 4 + 4

:: I ¢ • 35'
~ 0.06 1
-0
u 0.04
Cr• 20 MP;,
K • 0.75
}c
0.02

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Spacing I 2R

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

. Spacing (rr,etersl
Fig. 3.10. Variations of fraction of failed perimeter (Block I and joint dips of 30°
a.nd 150°) with increase in joint spacing/tunnel diameter ratio (after Khan and
Mahta.b, 1989).
,,,,,,,,, 10 MPa .

0 .14 -1\)
:i:
-- -c,
DI
0.12
cc
N 0.10

t:,
- 0.08

(:1. 0.06 o • 35•

0
C • 20 MPa
u 0.04 K • 0.75
...
L

0.02

0.00 +--.-- ......... --.----.~~----~

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Spacing I 2R
I I I I I
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 '1.0
Spacing (meters)
Fig. 3.11. Variation of fraction of failed perimeter (Block I a.nd joint dips of 30°
and 135°) with increase in joint spacing/tunnel diameter ratio (after Khan and
. Mahta.b, 1989).
Analytical Approa.ch. 15

The concept of Shi and Goodman was based on the assumption of rigid
blocks formed by joint sets of invariant mean attitudes and infinite extent.
Probabilistic treatment of the geometric and mechanical parameters of the joint
sets were included in extensions of the key block analysis by various authors,
including Hoerger and Young (1990), Kulatilake et al.(1985), and Cravero et
al. (199la). The following description of the key block analysis procedure is
adapted from Cravero et al. (199la).
The aim of block theory is to search for the critical unstable blocks, or
"key blocks", of maximum dimension, located along the excavation profile. The
key block analysis may be carried out by graphical means, using the equi-
angle stereographic projection. This kind of projection arranges on a single
drawing all the block types produced by the joint sets. Specific analyses of the
geometrical and graphical aspects that lead to identification of rock blocks along
the excavation boundary a.re beyond the scope of this book. Here we introduce
only the basic steps involved in block classification and in stability evaluation.
1) The maximum movable area of rock blocks is identified by orthographic
projection of joint pyramid ( JP) edges on the tunnel cross-section ( JP edges
are the vertices of the curved regions represented in Fig. 3.12.). The JP are
identified by a series of codes. For example, 1111 signifiesa block which has
separated from the rock mass, and 1101 defines the block that has slid on
plane 3. In other words, 1 denotes the space below the joint plane and O
denotes the space above the joint plane in question.
2) Specification of the direction of movement is made for a given block type on
the basis of the direction of the external, resultant force acting on the block.
Neglecting the possibility of rotations, three modes are possible: separation
of joints (mode O); sliding on a given joint i (mode i); sliding along the
intersection of two joints ij (mode ij).
3) Equilibrium analysis of rock block by means of limit-equilibrium concept,
based on the specific mode of the block.
In order to provide rough estimates, this kind of analysis can also be done
manually by means of simple calculations and drawings.
The input to the key block analysis may include the geometry of joint (sets)
as well as their shear resistance. The results include the mode of failure and
the required stabilizing force.
16 Nv.merica.l M etkoda

RESll..TAtlT
0.0 O.D -1.0
DIP AN> DIP DlRECTlON
61.0 1.7
86.6 66.1
BS.1 188.3
59.4 211.8
FOCUS TD CENTER
0.0 0.0 1.0
TUNNEL. AXIS ANGLE
300.D O.D

tOOS

Fig. 3.12. Results of key block analysis showing the failure mode for joint pyra-
mids; ,;', = 28°, P=0.95 (after Cravero et al., 199la).

3.4 Numerical Methods

The computational or numerical methods for analysis of stresses and defor-
mations around excavations fall into two main groups: differential methods and
integral methods.
The differential methods include the finite element (FEM), the finite dif-
ference (FDM), and the distinct or discrete element (DEM) approaches. The
rock mass is discretized as a mesh of elements (FEM, DEM) or a grid of points
(FDM). The field equations and constitutive relations are specified within each
element. The global behavior of the interacting elements in the "mesh" is deter-
mined through satisfaction of continuity and force-equilibrium conditions. The
differential methods allow a representation of complex constitutive behavior.
Numerical Method.3 11

Some computational inefficiencyis associated with the need to discretize the

entire domain of the problem.
The integral methods (boundary element, boundary integral, etc.) are now
synonymous with the boundary element method which provides a simple, but
useful formulation of the problem in terms of surface geometry and tractions
( or displacements) applied at the surface. Thus, the geometric order of a prob-
lem can be reduced by one: from 3-dimensional to 2-dimensional, and from
2-dimensionalto !-dimensional problem, with consequent reduction in the com-
putational effort. Since the integral method invokes the principle of superpo-
sition, the solutions are generally limited to linear constitutive behavior of the
medium.
With the growing speed of computation and the escalating sophistication
and prowess of the computer codes to solve many complex problems, there is
a distinct danger that an investigator may favor the computed results over the
intuitive judgement based on experience. Or, as stated by Philip (1991), "a
disquieting aspect of computer-based modeling is the gap between the model
and the real-world events". This concern over the tendency of the users of the
numerical methods "to become increasingly impressed by the sheer power of the
computer procedure, and decreasingly concerned with relating the computer
output to the expected behavior of the real structure under investigation" has
been voiced by Clough (1980) .who coined the name "finite element method"
(Clough, 1960) and who is one of the founding fathers of FEM (see Turner et
al., 1956). With this cautionary foreword, we give below a summary of the
various numerical methods.

3.4.1 Finite element method

The finite element concept of structural analysis ( as we know it today) was
perhaps first discussed by Turner et al. (1956). The method progressed rapidly
in. the 1960's, in parallel with the advances that occurred in the capabilities
of the digital computers. Further advances have since been made to make the
method universally acceptable for application to a wide class of boundary value
problems in solid and fluid mechanics. In addition to solving the conventional
linear and quasi-static problems, the FEM has for some time ( e.g., see Owen and
Hinton, 1980) been able to treat the elasto-viscoplastic behavior and dynamic
transient problems.
A number of text books have been published on the finite element method,
including: Zienk:iewicz(1967, 1977), Zien.kiewiczand Taylor (1989, 1991), Desai
andAbel (1972), Bathe and Wilson (1976), Dhatt and Touzot (1984), and Pantle
et al. (1990). The followingdescription of the method is based on a review of
the above mentioned books as well as of additional published material which
78 Numerical M ethod.J '

includes: Bra.dy a.nd Brown (1985), Reddy (1984), Barla a.nd Mahtab (1983),
and other articles with specific references given in the text.
The finite element method may be defined, as per Zienkiewicz (1977), as "a
general discretization procedure of continuum problems posed by mathemati-
cally defined statements". The discretization of finite element approximation
of engineering problems may be illustrated by the example of a hypothetical,
horse-shoe shaped tunnel shorn in Fig. 3.13(a).
A simple :finite-element mesh ior the symmetrical (right half) section is shown
in Fig. 3.13(b ), using linear, ~ .iadilateral elements. The quadrilateral element
with its local coordinates and oSsumed displacements is shown in Fig. 3.13(c).
The following brief develoj.ment of the "displacement approach" to the fi-
nite element analysis of the l:ypothetical problem is based on the format of
Zienkiewicz (1977). The assumption of pla.ne strain will be used with the.typi-
cal section of the long tunnel represented in the xy plane.
(1) A typical finite element (Fig. 3.13(c)) is defined by its "nodes": 1, 2, 3,
4 in both the global, xy coordinates and the element's natural, or intrinsic,
coordinates, {, T/· In the finite-element approach, the displacement, u, at any
point in the element is obtained by interpolating from the nodal values, a.
Using suitable interpolating or "shape", "basis", functions, N, and defining the
nodal displacement vector as a, we have:

u=Na (3.47)

where

(3.48)
u = {:} = [N.,N,,N,,N,J { ~}

The displacements at a general point (x, y) are given by:

u= {u(x,y)} (3.49)
v(x,y)

and the displacements at node i are

(3.50)
Numencal Method., 19

Pyy

t> t
j I
[""
- cb y
-- Pxx

j 1 x
!
(8)

Pyy t
y
( 1. 1)

r··
- Pu
(-1, 11

ux "0 (-1, -1)

1
x
uy :,Q

(b) (c)
Fig. 3.13. Finite element discretization for a hypothetical tunnel section in the
x-y plane.
(a.) Tunnel section with in situ loads. (b) Finite element mesh for symmetrical,
half section. ( c) Linear, quadrilateral element.
80 Nu.mt.rica.l M eth.od.,

The shape functions associated w:ith the linear, quadrilateral element

Fig. 3.13(c) are
1
N1 = - {)(1 - TJ)
4(1
N2 = !(1 + 0(1 - TJ)
4
(3.51)
1
N3 = +{)(1 + TJ)
4(1
1
N, =
4(1 - 0(1 + TJ)
The displacements u as well as the global coordinates (x, y) of any point in
the element can now be expressed as linear combinations of the nodal values.
The relation of the coordinates is:
4. 4.
x= }:N;x;, y= }:N;y; (3.52)
i-1 i-1

(2) Next, the strains, e, are derived from the displacements, u, by means of the
strain-displacement relations, L; thus

e se Lu. (3.53)

l {:}
or

J
a,
(3.54)

Substituting for the displacement, from (3.47), into (3.53), we get

e:=LNa (3.55)

or
e:=Ba
(3) Using the stress-strain relations for plane strain (eq. 3.7), the stresses er art

cr=De: (3.57

·" z } _ [ A+ 2G
Uy - A (3.58
{
Tr;y O
Numerical M ethocu 81

Substituting 3.56 into 3.57, we have

a = DBa (3.59)

( 4) The next. step is to determine the nodal forces, q, which are statically equiv-
alent to the tractions applied at the boundary and other distributed loads, such
as gravity (distributed loads are not considered here for the sake of simplicity).
Two, ma.thematically-equivalentapproaches are possible: using the principle
of virtual work or minimizing the potential energy functional. The virtual work
approach is given below.
A set of virtual displacements, Ba, are imposed on the nodes and the external
work done by the forces is equated to the internal virtual work done by the
stresses. Using (3.47) and (3.56), the element displacements and strains are

au= Noa and oe = Boa (3.60)

The (external) work done by the nodal forces, q, through the nodal displace-
ment, 8a, is
We= 8aTq (3.61)
The (internal) work, per unit volume, done by the stresses, O', is

(3.62)

Equating We with the internal work, integrated over the volume of the
element, gives
(3.63)
or
q = 1 BT a du (3.64)

substituting for O' from (3.59)

(3.65)

or
q=Ka (3.66)
where
K = 1 BTDBdv (3.67)

is the "stiffness" of the element.

8£ N v.merical M eth.orij

The contributions from all elements of the problem, or mesh, are assembl~
to obtain a set of global equations of the form (3.66). These equations are th~
solved for the nodal displacements, a, from which the strains a.nd stresses a.rl
derived using the previously discussed relations. :
Clearly, a major pa.rt of the computational effort is involved in forming and
assemblingthe stiffness matrix. including performing the integration of eq. 3.6t
and, especially, in solving the equations (3.66) for the entire mesh. The design
of the mesh and choice of the shape functions influence the outcome of the
finite element approximation. The need to extend the mesh boundaries to
sufficiently-great distances (and thus increasing the computational effort) has
been mitigated by the advent of the infinite element (for example, Bettess, 1977t
and Beer, 1983). '

3.4.2 Boundary element method

Boundary integral formulations of engineering differential equations can be
traced back for over 50 years (Banerjee and Dargush, 1988). The method gained
more prominence with the advent of digital computers in the 60's and acquired
the name boundary element method (BEM) in the 70ts. In the following wt
give a brief description of the method. The interested reader may wish to pick
up details of BEM from various texts: Brebbia (1978), Banerjee and Butterfield
(1981), a.nd Crouch and Starfield (1983).
BEM is most suited to solving problems in linear, elastic media. Devel·
opment of the method for elastoplastic analysis is discussed by Banerjee and
Dargush {1988). The development and application of a "linkage" of BEM with
the finite element method and the distinct element method are discussed by
Brady (1987).
Two formulations of BEM are used: the direct and the indirect. In the
direct method, the reciprocal theorem is used to obtain a solution directly in
terms of the unknown variables ( e.g. displacements and tractions). In the
indirect method (e.g. Crouch and Starfield, 1983), the singularities that satisfy
the specified boundary conditions are first solved; the rest of the boundary
parameters are then computed (indirectly) in terms of these singular solutions.
The followingdiscussion of the BEM will be restricted to the direct method.
The boundary element method defines and solves the problem of an infinite
domain in terms of the boundary ( or surface) values of traction and displace-
ment. This development is possible through the use of the principle of superpo-
sition. A particular solution, modeling the stress and displacement fields whicl:
do not vanish at infinity is superimposed on the boundary element component!
(or the complementary fields) which vanish at infinity ( Crotty and Wardle
Numerical Method., 89

1985). H superscripts T and P denote the total a.nd particular solution, respec-
tively (and the boundary element components are not superscripted), the total
solutions for traction and displacement are:

(3.68)

(3.69)
where a = l , 2 for the two-dimensional problem.
The solution to the tunnel problem of Fig. 3.13 using the superposition
principleof BEM is illustrated in Fig. 3.13 which is fashioned after Brady (1987).
The cross section of the tunnel in the x1x2 plane is shown in Fig. 3.14,
together with the stresses Pap at infinity (o , /3 = 1, 2). The surface of the
tunnel, S, is traction free, but is subjected to the displacements, u1 and u2. The
problem is decomposed into two components. Fig. 3.14(b) shows a. uniformly
stressed, infinite body, without the excavation and Fig. 3.14(c) shows only the
tunnel surface S which is subject to displacements ua and tractions ta. In the
absence of body forces, the following boundary integral equation relates the
tractions and displacements (Crotty and Wardle, 1985):

Cap(P)up(P) + l Tap(P, Q)up(Q)ds = l Uap(P, Q)tp(Q)ds (3.70)

where P and Q are points on the surface S.

If a fictitious, unit load is applied at P in a-direction, then the resulting
>9-componentsof the tractions and displacements at Q are Tap and Uap, re-
spectively. The term Cap represents the behavior of the singularity (smooth
part of S or a comer) in TafJ· The traction at Q is expressed in terms of the
unit outward normal n-y and the stresses PP-r at Q:

tp(Q) = n-y(Q)pp-y(Q) (3.71)

The next step in the solution is to reduce the integral equation into a set
of linear equations by discretizing the boundary S into a number of elements
and modeling the tractions and displacements, piecewise, over the elements. A
discretization scheme of the tunnel boundary is shown in Fig. 3.14(d).
If a straight-line, linear element is selected, as shown in Fig. 3.14( d), the linear
interpolation formulation is

(3.72)
 Numerical Method,

.: p22

~L i
r-------,
I ~
I I
I .I
I I
I I
I I
L------.J

t f~
(b)

r-------, r-------,
I s Ct., U2 I I s I
I , I I I
I u I I
I
11 I
l I I -1 CD
l I I
L------.J L---'------.J

(c) (d) Ce)

Fig. 3.14. BEM solution of.hypothetical tunnel using superposition.

( a) Tunnel cross section in infinite med.iuin. (b) Problem component without the
tunnel. ·
(c) Problem component with tunnel boundary only. (d) Discretization of the
tunnel boundary into elements. ( e) Enlarged view of a. linear boundary element
in intrinsic coordinates.
Numerical M etho~ 85

where
p = I, 2 - 1-~ ~ ~ I and NP are shape functions.

Equation (3.70) is now expressed in terms of surface integrals over the set
of n elements that compose the surface, S:

Cap(P)up(P) + t 1.s,
i=l
Tap(P,e)up(~)Ji(~)d~ = t
i=l
Uap(P,e)tp(OJi(O~
(3.73)
where the Jacobian for the coordinate transformation is

(3.74)

After integration, equation (3.73) is reduced to the followingmatrix relation

between the displacements u and the tractions t over the boundary S.

Au =Bt (3.75)

A and B are square matrices of influence coefficientsand u and t a.re column

vectors of displacements and tractions. The equations (3.75) are ordered such
that the all the unknowns are moved to the left hand side while all the knowns
are moved to the right hand side. The new arrangement,

ZX=R (3.76)

is then solved for the unknowns in vector X.

Once the values of the displacements and tractions at the boundary are
known, the displacements ( and stresses) at any point in the interior of the body
can be obtained by using an interior form of equation (3.73).
Chapter 4

DESIGN CRITERIA

The general criteria. for rock excavations refer to their usefulness in meeting
the design objectives: long-term stability under forecast conditions, ready ac-
cess for intended use of the excavation, and safety of the public. The specific
geomecha.nics( design) criteria may include limits on the development of rock
failure and the _extent and rate of rock deformations around the excavation.

4.1 Failure Criteria

The terms: failure criterion and yield criterion, describe the condition at
which the rock will fracture or attain the peak load. Two of the well-known
failure criteria in two dimensions are those of Coulomb (1173), Mohr (1900),
Griffith (1924), and Hoek-Brown (1980a); these are briefly described below.

1. Coulomb criterion
The failure criterion of Coulomb (1773) describes the condition of shear
failure in rock as a straight-line relationship between the shear and normal
stresses, T and a, associated with the failure plane.

lrl = c + a tan tp (4.1)

where c is the cohesion, or inherent shear strength of the rock, an ¢ is the
angle of internal friction. The criterion is usually plotted in the a - r plane,
Fig. 4.l(a), together with the Mohr circle representing the state of stress in the
rock. The shear and normal stresses, r , a of eq.( 4.1) are related to the principal
stresses, a1, 03, by

(4.2a)
Failure Criteria 89

r = - ~(0"1 - 0"3) sin 2{:J (4.2b)

where f3 is the angle between a and the major principal stress, 0'1.
We can define the value of f3 at failure by requiring that the difference
Ir! - O' tan ef, from eq.(4.1) reach its maximum value. Substituting (4.2) into
(4.1), we get

2c = (0'1 - 0"3)(sin 2{3 - cos 2{3tan <P) - (a1 + a3) tan <P ( 4.3)

and differentiating ( 4.3) with respect to f3 for maximizing c, gives

tan2f3 = - cot<f, (4.4)

or

f3 = 1r /4 + ef>/2 (4.5)
Note that ( 4.5) can also be deduced from the geometry of Fig. 4.l(a) and
note also the trignometric identities for subsequent use:

tan f3 = 1 + sin ef, = cos _ef, = ( 1 + s~n ef>) i (4.6)

cos ef> 1 - sin ef, 1- sin ef>

Substituting ( 4.5) in ( 4.3), we get the familiar "soil mechanics" form of the
Coulomb criterion:
2ccos ef> 1 + sin <P
0'1 = . ,1..
1 - sm ..,.,
+ 0'3 . .L
1 - sin w
(4.7)

we can rewrite ( 4. 7) into another useful form by using ( 4.6)

(4.8a)
or
( 4.8b)
The criterion ( 4.8) is shown in Fig. 4. l(b) in o-1 - <T3 plane. The intercept
on the CT1-axis is the unconfined compressivestrength

C0 = 2ctan /3 (4.9)
and the slope of the line is
q = tan2 f3 (4.10)
90 Failure Criteria

As discussed by Jaeger and Cook (1979, p. 96), the intercept of the criterion
( 4.7) on the u3-axis does not represent foe tensile strength of the rock. In fact,
the implicit assumption in (4.1) tha.t a be positive, requires tha.t

Hence, only the line ABD in Fig. 4.l(b) represents the criterion. For the
region u3 < 0, Pa.ul (1961) suggests a. limiting value, UL, of u1

such tha.t for u1 > a L, the criterion ( 4.8) is valid and, for u1 < o L, 0"3 = T0
( tensile strength).

a1 a 0
(a) (b)

Fig. 4.1. The Coulomb criterion. ( a.) CT - T plane. (b) CT1 - CT3 plane.

2. Mohr criterion
The failure criterion of Mohr (1900) is more general than the linear criterion
of Coulomb, that is,

lrl = J(u) ( 4.12)

is a curve which envelopes the Mohr circles (Fig. 4.2) for different stress states
( U1, 0"3).
The failure "envelope" is obtained from the results of experiments and is,
therefore, called an "empirical" criterion. For instance, Fig. 4.2 shows the
envelope ABD which is tangent to the various stress circles such as the circle
Failure Criteria . 91

with center C and radius CB. In general, the Mohr envelope is.elightly concave
downwards. In the limit, the envelope ma.y assume the form of a straight line
(Coulomb criterion) or a. para.bola. (Griffith criterion).

\
\
\
\
\
D \
\
\
0 c (}'

Fig. 4.2. The Mohr envelope.

3. The Griffith criterion

Griffith (1924) developed a criterion based on the assumption that failure will
occur a.round the prevailing elliptical micro-cracks in rock when the maximum.
tensile stress exceeds the strength of the rock. If a1 and a3 are the principal
stresses and T0 is the magnitude of tensile strength, then Griffith criterion can
be written as:

for (4.13)

a3 = -To for (4.14)

Referring to Fig. 4.3( a), we note that the Griffith criterion is described by a
parabolic curve EDC, eq.(4.13) which joins a straight line CEA, eq.(4.14); the
9£ Fa.ilure Criteria

,
<T3 /
/
/
/ E
/
/
0 /
A/ A 0 CJ
O" 1
B To c (b)
[al

Fig. 4.3. The Griffith criterion in two dimensions. ( a) 0-1 - 0-3 pla.ne. (b) ~ - T

plane.

junction or limiting point, C, is located at C13 = -T0 and e11 = 3T0 whereas the
initial point A of the straight-line portion is given by C13 = -T0, 0'1 = -'.r~.
The uniaxial strength is recovered from ( 4.13), for 0'3 = 0, as

( 4.15)
However, this result generally overestimates the tensile strength of rock. · · ·
The Mohr envelope for Griffith's criterion can be constructed as the envelope
of circle with center (e1m,O) and radius (rm) in the a -T plane, where:

C1'm = (u1 +e13)/2 ( 4.16)

Tm= (e11 - CTa)/2 (4.17)

Substitution of (4.16) and (4.17) into (4.13) and (4.14) gives the Griffith
criterion in the following form

for 2C1'm > Tm ( 4.18)

Tm= O'm+To . for 2Um < Tm ( 4.19)

The equation of a Mohr circle with center (um; 0) and radius rm can be
written as
 Failure Criteria 99

(O' -crm)2 + ('T' - o)2 = 'T';.. (4.20)

or, substituting for
. 'T'! from ( 4.18)
(O' - CTm)2 + 1"2 - 4ToCTm = 0.
Differentiating (19) with respect to CT m, we have

<7 - <7 m + 2To = 0 (4.22)

or
CTm =CT+ 2T0 (4.23)
Substituting for er m in ( 4.21 ), finally gives the Mohr envelope ABC of Fig.
4.3(b) as

(4.24)

4. The modified Griffith criterion

McClintock and Walsh (1962) suggested that the Griffith cracks may be
closed under a compressive stress, CT c, applied at infinity. They included the
effect of resistance to sliding in the modified criterion:

(4.25)

. where µ=coefficient of sliding friction.

The Coulomb criterion is recovered from (25) if we assume that <7 c = 0, thus

cr1[(µ2 + l)i - µ] - 0-3[(µ2 + l)i + µ] = 4To, ( 4.26)

The above equation is identical to the Coulomb criterion ( 4. 7) if we write

µ = tan ip and 2T0 = c

94 Failure Cri1··
5. Hoek and Brown criterion ·
The modified Griffith criterion of McClintock and Walsh (1962) does.
always produce good agreement with experimental results.. Hoek and Broi
(1980a) presented an empirical criterion which was conceptually based on Gj
£th theory but actually derived as a.result of trial and error to fit a wide rangi
rock strength, including that of jointed or broken rock. The criterion is writt
as:

. (4.~
where
u1= major principal stress
0'3= minor principal stress
C0= unia.xial compressive strength of intact rock
m= empirical constant ranging from 0.001, for highly disturbed rock mass,
to about 25 for hard rock
s= empirical constant ranging from 0, for jointed rock masses, to 1 for
intact rock.

The uniaxial compressive strength C0 of the rock can be obtained from ( 4.l
by letting 0'3 = 0:

(4.l
The tensile strength, T0, of a rock mass is recovered from ( 4.27) by substituti
a1 = 0, solving the resulting quadratic equation, and selecting the root wh
requires T0 = 0 for s = 0, thus

(4.:

The graph of the Hoek-Brown criterion (4.27) in the principal stress spt
is shown in Fig. 4.4(a) together with the location of the
cr1 and era intercepts given by (4.28) and (4.29).
The Mohr envelope for (4. 27) is graphed in Fig. 4 .4(b) and has the follow:
expression:
mCo
T = ( cot 'Pi - COS </>i)-- (4.:
8
with the "instantaneous" angle of friction at (e, r) defined by (Hoek, 1983)

'Pi= arctan[(4h cos2(30 + ! arcsin h-l) - 1]-i (4.:

3
Failure Criteria 95

where
h =1 16(m0'+ sC0)
+ 3m2C0
Hoek and Brown (1988) classify the rock mass into five "types" and six
geomechanical "qualities", thus giving a matrix of 30 different sets of m and s
values for both disturbed and undisturbed rock mass. (Table 4.1). They also
provide a relationship between the rock mass rating, RMR, of Bieniawski (1973)
and the material constants m and s, These relationships ma.ybe written as:

RMR-100) (4.32)
m = mi exp ( 141m
where mi is the value of m for intact rock (RM R = 100)

Im = { 1 for undisturbed rock mass

2 for disturbed rock mass

_ (RMR-100) (4.33)
s - exp BI,

I, = { 1 for undisturbed rock mass

1.5 for disturbed rock mass
Note that, as suggested by Bieniawski (1976), the Q index of Barton et al.
(1974) may be used to estimate the RMR using:

RM R = 9 loge Q + 44 (4.34)
Hoek and Brown (1988) also indicate some restrictions in the range of ap-
plicability of their criterion (see Fig. 4.5). They make the followingstatement:
"When the volume of rock under consideration contains four or more closely
spaced discontinuity sets and where none of these discontinuity sets is significa.lly
weaker than any others, the Hoek-Browncriterion can be used and the m and
s values can be estimated from Table 4.1.
If one of the discontinuities is very weak as compared with the others, the rock
mass should be treated as anisotropic and the Hoek- Brown criterion should
not be used unless allowance is made for this anisotrophy."
 F4ilure Criteria.

Hoek-Brown Criterion
in UtU3 space
~ • U3 + (m Co a; +s C/) 1/2

0.5 1.5
or principal stress a3 (a)

~hr envelope for

~ek-Brown Criterion
~//
/
/
..-:::

a. c0 a1
ormal stress a (b)
of the Hoek-Brown criterion.
Pa.ilure Criteria. 9'.

rABLE 4.1
Division of rock mass into 5 •types• and 6 •qualities• and assignment
:if Hoek-BrOWl constants (after Hoek and Brown, 1988).

HOEK-BROWN FAILURE CRITERION

UI
.:,: <II -
0 ..... <II
>, (U
..... tn
....0
..... (II
O Ill Ol M rl! ...ix
M .c 111 0 > (ll Ill O
UI
UI >rl! 0 "' ...
.C O.CII""
MO
Cl) M
a1 = major principal stress ::1 • (ll J.I .-IN c Cl)
0 (ll ...i ·.-1'0 0 u .... Q) .....
a3 = minor principal stress a, C O 3= c M ec QI ....
Ol O qj.-1"' >,·.-! ........
<1l ... 0 en "' :, ..............0
C0 = uniaxial cOlll)ress i ve .-I UI 1,J XUIUO' Q.-1 M >,

strength of intact rock. "" ...

tJl.-1 .....
0.-1
0"' >.'O
en O.rl! oc
U...-<1-;
M"" I!! MU i...·c 'O UI O
Ill UI E: UI O Ill Ql·.-1'0'0
'O • 0
M en ....
::1M'OQI
c» c
'Ihe enpirical constants are: QI (ll c
.... 0 • "'
0 0 <U C
...... c- Q) 0.0 1-dll
"' (ll QI
l,J
m', s • for disturbed rock mass ~ o OIOIO u tn :J·...+ en
....... (U rtl C.-1 UI O UI ,U
m, s for undisturbed rock mass .C UI I,) CO <11'0 Q)QI Q) .a
....
... 'lJ rd
:::, .....
(ll M >c C tn'O Ill
..... c
1-1 u Q)"' i;:: .....
..:I 6 UI ,< tll o
en "' ... rl! 'O

INI'ACT ROCK Sl\MPLES m' 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00

Laboratory size spreci.mens s' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
free from discontinuities rn 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00
*RMR = 100 O = 500 s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
VERY GOOD QUALIT'i ROCK MASS
Tightly interlocking rn' 2.40 3.43 5.14 5.82 8.56
undisturbed rock with s' 0.082 0.082 o. '.J82 0.082 0.082
unweathered joints at 1-3 rn. rn 4.10 5.85 8.78 9.95 14.63
RMR = 85, Q = 100 s 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189
GOODQUALITY ROCK MASS
Fresh to slightly weathered m• 0.575 0.821 1.231 1.395 2.052
rock, slightly disturbed s' 0.00293 0.002930.00293 0.00293 0.00293
with joints at 1 to 3 m. rn 2.006 2.865 4.298 4.871 I 7.163
RMR = 65, Q = 10 s 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 I 0.0205
FAIR QUALITY ROCK MASS
Several sets of moderately m: 0.128 0.183 0.275 0.311 0.458
weathered joints spaced at s' 0-9E-04 0-9E-040·9E-04 0·9E-04 0-9E-04
0.3tolm. rn o.947 1.3s3 2.030 2.301 I
I
3.3a3
RMR = 44, O = 1 S 0.00198 0.001980.00198 0.00198 I 0.00198
POOR QUALITY Rcx:K MASS
NUmerous weathered joints rn' 0.029 0.041 0.061 0.069 0.102
at 30-500 mn somegouge. s' 0-3E-05 0-)E-050-3E-05 0·3E-05 0-3E-05
Clean canpacted waste rock rn 0.447 0.639 0.959 1.087 1.598
RMR::: 23, Q = 0.1 s 0.00019 0.000190.00019 0.00019 0.00019
VERY POOR QUALIT'i ROCK MASS
Numerousheavily weathered rn' 0.007 0.010 0.15 0.17 0.025
joints spaced <50 nm with s' O·lE-06 O·lE-06O·lE-06 O·lE-06 0 · lE-06
gouge. Waste rock with fines. m 0.219 0.313 0.469 0.532 0.782
RMR::: 3, Q::: 0.01 s 0.2E-04 0-2E-040-2E-04 0·2E-04 0-2E-04
" assume RMR = 9 lnQ + 44.
98 Failure Criteria

Applicability
Hoek • Brown crilerion
~- inlAd roCil rn
A svalla

HoM· a,_,, crilerion not

·applicablHrM anisolropc
cr~9'iool such as lhal by
Arnadel (19811

Hoelt-Br- c:ril.,ion nol

applic:ablHIM aniaolro~
crilariDn such aa Iha! br
Arneellii (11188)
Hoa•·Brown crilarion
applicable wilh c:ara ~ more
lhan4jon Nb ..tlhunilorm
stranglh

Hoek • Brown crilerion

applatNHIMTable 1 10
-.iemandsw"-5111'
roc11-

* numerous, closely-spaced joints

Fig. 4.5. Applicability of the Hoek-Brown criterion to different sca.les of rock
mass (after Hoek and Brown, 1988).

6. Estimates of Coulomb parameters from· Hoek and

Brown parameters
In a recent publication, Hoek (1990) has provided relationships for estimat-
ing the Coulomb parameters ( ¢ and c) from the Hoek a.nd Brown criterion.
Thus, the "instantaneous" cohesion, Ci, corresponding to the point (a, r) is
given by

Ci = T - (7 iasi </, i ( 4.35)

Referring back to the Coulomb criterion ( 4.7), the uniaxial compressive
strength C0 (mass) of rock mass with these 'Pi and Ci values is given by:

2CiCOS 'Pi
Co ( mass ) = . (4.36)
1 - .sm¢i
For the situation where a3 is specified, the following relations are provided
by Hoek (1990) to obtain the Coulomb parameters.
First, a1 is obtained from ( 4.27) and input to the following calculations:
Fa.ilure Criteria. gg

(4.37)

T" = (u - a-a) (4.38)

. ((
</>; = 90 - arcsm 2, )) (4.39)
0'1 - 0'3

The cohesion, Ci is then obtained from ( 4.35) whereas the To (mass) and C0
(mass) are obtained from (4.29) and (4.36), respectively.
For another situation where the uniaxial strength of the rock mass is the
same for both criteria and may be assumed to be given by,

C0 (mass)= /sCo ( 4.40)

the following prncedure is used by Hoek (1990) to obtain the Coulomb param-
eters:
2sC0
(7 - (4.41)
- 4yls +m

r = a-Jl + 2 Js (4.42)

¢i = 90 - arcsin ( }s-~ 0) ( 4.43)

The cohesion, Ci, is again obtained from (4..35).

If we use the previous definition of {3 as the a.nglebetween the major principal
stress a1, and the stress, a, normal to the failure plane, then from the geometry
of Fig. 4.4(b ), we have:

f3 = 45 + ¢; (4.44)
2
The intercept of the tangent to the Mohr envelope at (er,,,) with the r-axis
given the "instanteneous" cohesion c, as

Ci =r- O' tan ¢i (4.45)

100 Failure Criteria

1. Estimates of Hoek and Brown parameters from

Coulomb parameters
Dr. S. Xu (1991) has derived the "converse" relationships between the Hoek-
Brown (HB) parameters, m ands, and the Coulomb (CU) parameters, c and
</,, for the following three situations. [The quantities assumed to be known are:
C0, associated with the intact rock and c, </, associated with the rock mass.]
1. For Co (mua) HB = Co (mau) CU
2
2ccos </)
(4.46)
s = [ (1 - sin</>)C0 )

m= 4vs tan ¢ ( 1 +cossin,p 4>) (4.47)

2. For a given <13

m= -
4 [Ca(maaa)CU(ccot~+u3)] tany,.J. (l+sin,p) (4.48)
C0 ccot </> cos</>

s-
__ l_[{Co(mau)CU(ccot</>+<13)}
C0 2
,1..
ccot y,
2
- m
C
o<13 l (4.49)

2ccos<f>
where C0 (mau)CU = (l _sin</>)

3. For a given a in the Coulomb criterion

r = c +utan</>

Sr sin ¢(1 + sin</))

m= (4.50)
C0 cos3 </>

s= _1_ (4,2- mCo(u- ccos<f>)(l - sin¢;)]

( 4.51)
c/ cos2 </J
· Safety factor io:
4.2 Safety factor
The conventional and straightforward definition of safety factor (SF) is the
ratio of the average (governing) strength, or resistance, R, to the average (gov-
erning) stress, S.
il
SF=-=- (4.52)
S
[We note that the terms strength and stress should be viewed in their broadest
sense to include the available resistance of the structure to the imposed loading
conditions.]
This hitherto useful definition of SF assumes the average values of R a.nd S
to be representative and requires a preassigned or specifiedvalue of SF to assure
reliability of the structure. It is remarkable that this definition has prevailed
in geomechanicsfor so long against the uncertainty in our knowledge of the
ranges and distributions of the geologic variables, including strength and in
situ stress. The credit for the many safe (without knowing how safe) designs
goes to the intuitive ( or experienced) judgment of the designer and, sometimes,
to the benignly excessive,regulated SF.
The inadequacy of the conventional safety factor for structural design has
been discussed by various authors, including: Kececiogluand Cormier (1964),
Haugen (1968), Hasofer and Lind (1974), Baecher (1982); Priest and Brown
(1983), and Ramachadran and Hosking (1985).
In geomechanics, much attention has been focussed on the safety and sta-
bility of rock slopes. -,
Using the simple problem of a rock wedgesliding on a joint plane with inclina-
tion, a, and angle of friction </> (Fig. 4.6) Baecher (1982) illustrates the pitfall
in the use of the SF. If the asperities a.re inclined at i to the mean joint plane,
two mechanically equivalent SF's are obtained at limiting equilibrium:

SFl = tan(</>+ i) ( 4.53)

tan a

SF2 = tan rp (4.54)

tan(a - i)
S Fl recognizesthe improved resistance, fl., due to dilation ( or over-ridingeffect)
of the asperities (Patton, 1966) whereas SF2 uses the angle i to reduce the
inclination of the joint and, therefore, the stress, S.
10£ Safety factor

Fig. 4.6. Simple wedge sliding on a. joint with average inclination, a, and with
asperities a.ti to the mea.njoint pla.ne (aiter Baecher, 1982).

SF1 = SF2 = 1.0, if a = ,Ji+ i, but for all other combinations, SF1 :f. SF2.
For instance, if ,Ji = 30°, i =·10°, and a= 20°; SF1 = 2.31 and SF2 = 3.27.
The problem of inconsistency or variability in SF is not removed by intro-
ducing the variation measures, AR and b.S, into the strength or resistance, R,
and stress, S, averages, respectively. Thus, following the discussion in Haugen
(1968), if the variations are introduced to obtain bounds on the safety factor,
then we have:
SF= ~±AR (4.55)
S±AS
Eq.(4.55) may ·be used (and perhaps, is used) to calculate a "required" SF
which is equivalent to the minimum safety factor of Haugen (1968). Thus, if
the variation in both strength and stress is 15%, we have:

. d) = 1 + AR 1.15
S F ( reqwre
1- ss 0.85 = 1.35
= -- (4.56)

A more elaborate SF may be obtained by introducing AR and AS as func-

tions of standard deviation of the (assumed) normal distributions of strength
and stress. In all cases, however, the calculated SF remains "non-invariant"
(using the terminology of Baecher, 1982). The SF also gives no indication of
the probability of failure.
The term, safety factor, assumes a slightly different connotation in the design
and excavation of mine openings. Except in the case of the relatively long-term
openings (used for access, haulage, and ventilation), mine economics suggests
a SF of near 1.0. Certain mining methods (such as block caving and longwall
Probabili.stic approach 103

mining) require a SF of less than 1.0 in order for the caving to occur. The
production drifts or faces are provided support to achieve a SF greater than 1.
The actual, operating value of the SF is largely unknown and, once again, the
probability of failure is not considered.

4.3 Probabilistic approach

The uncertainty in the engineering parameters requires a probabilistic ap-
proach to design of excavations in geologic media. To illustrate this concept,
the variability in the (nominal) strength, R, and the nominal stress, S, given
by their respective probability density functions, J(R) and J(S), is shown in
Fig. 4.7 (Haugen, 1968; Kececioglu and Cormier, 1964). The overlap between
the strength and stress distributions indicates the zone that contributes to the
probability of failure, PI ( or conversely,the "reliability", as 1 - PI). Depend-
ing on the degree of overlap, the probability of failure can vary from a very low
value to nearly unity.

stress distribution Strength distribution

f (S) f (Al
f (SJ
· f (R)

0
s R.

Fig. 4.7. Stress (s) and strength (R) distributions, includingprobability offailure,
shown in a "Warner diagram". (aiter Haugen, 1968).
104 Proba.biliJtic a.ppTOa.ch

The reliability concept is further developed (for details see Haugen, 1968,
ch. 4) to give the followingresults. The reliability, L, of a structural component
is the probability of strength being greater then the stress:

(4.57)

Conversely,the probability of failure (or stress exceeding the strength) is:

M = 1-: J(S) .[fsco f(R)dR] es. M = P1 (4.58)

Note that
L+M=l (4.59)
and
1-:f(R)dR = 1 = 1-:f(S)dS (4.60)

The above development, though used in structural mechanics, has not been
followed (to the best of our knowledge) in design of excavations. Perhaps the
main reason for this is the lack of information on the density function of stress,
f(S).
In rock mechanics, the so called parametricor sensitivity analyses have tra-
ditionally been performed to select the critical values of strength parameters
for an acceptable factor of safety. Sensitivity analyses are at best only quasi-
probabilistic because of the n~ to vary one parameter at a time while the
others are kept constant.
The Monte Carlo simulation appro~ ( to generate a probabilistic distribu-
tion of the safety factor), has found much favor in geomechanics, particularly
in stability analysis of rock slopes. For details of the method, reference may
be made to Haugen (1968, ch. 6) and for its application, to Priest and Brown
(1983).
For use in probabilistic problems, the direct "Monte Carle, approach" is
to select random numbers between O and 1 and substitute them with values
of the random variable which will be input to the calculation of the safety
factor. A minimum number of selections, N, ranging between 200 and 2000, is
necessary in practice ( depending on the desired accuracy) to model the tails of
the distributions of the random variable.
The simulation output ( the safety factor, in this case) is also a random
variable. The output may be processed in several ways. One approach is to
define the probability that the SF is less than a prescribed value F0 by the
Safety fa.ctor and probability of failure 105

ratio N, where n is the total number of ~rialsin which the simulated SF is less
than F0• Thus, -
n
P(SF <Fa)= - (4.61)
N
Another approach is to plot a cumulative distribution of the random SF, such
as shown in Fig. 4.8 which can be used to define the probability of a SF being
less than a. given value. For example, in Fig. 4.8, the P(SF < 1.0) is 0.27.

1.0

0.8

- 0.6
lL
~
e, 0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Factor of safety.SF

Fig. 4.8. Cumulative distribution of Moote Carlo results.

4.4 Relation between Safety Factor and Probability of

Failure
For determining the relationship of SF and Pi, we shall consider two forms
of distributions for the random variables R (resistance) and S (stress), namely,
the norm.al distribution and the extreme distribution.
The normal distribution is the most commonly used form in rock engineering;
it is given a brief recapitulation. The extreme distribution (Gumbel, 1958)
is less familiar to the workers in geomechanics. However, it is considered to
be appropriate for characterizing rock strength (Yegulalp and Mahtab, 1983),
rock joint-resistance ( Cravero et al., 1991a), and loads (Borges and Casta.nheta,
1971). It is, therefore, discussed in more detail.
106 Safety factor and probability of failure

4.4.1 The normal distribution

The distribution function of the normal distribution is

F(.x) = 1
;;c
<1y27r
1~ [
-oo
exp - (.x-µ)2]
CT 2
dx (4.62)

with its density function g:ven by

f{.x) = _l_ exp [--'-(x_--'--µ-'-)2] (4.63)

• , CT~ 2CT2

The normal distribution is described by two parameters:

1 n
the mean µ, estimated by x= -I:xi
n
and (4.64)

1 n
standard deviation CT, estimated by s = [ n _ 1 L(.xi - x)2
l ! (4.65)

where n is the number of observations of the random variable x.

The terms variance(= CT2) and coefficient of variation(= CT/µ) a:re com-
monly used when discussing normal and other distributions. Some specific and
useful characteristics of the normal distribution are that the sum of two normal
distributions is normal (or, more precisely, the sum of two normally distributed
random variables is also a normally distributed variable), the mean of the sum
of two normal distributions is the sum of the individual means, and the com-
bined variance of the two distributions is the sum of the two variances [tlie last
property is used in eq.(4.88)].

4.4.2 The extreme distribution

It is now well recognized that the failure phenomenon for rock ( or other
structural materials) is not adequately represented by the average strength.
The failure may, in fact, be better explained by the values of strength observed
at the lower tail of the density function. This reasoning justifies the use of
an extreme distribution in representing mechanical properties of rock observed
via a failure mechanism. The well-known Weibull (1939) distribution is an
·extreme distribution which was developed as an empirical model for describing
failure in tension. In fact, the Weibull distribution is a special case of a more
general distribution function referred to in the literature as the third asymptotic
distribution of the smallest values (Gumbel, 1958).
Safety factor and probability of failure 101

In his book on Statistics of Extremes, Gumbel (1958) discusses the extreme

distribution both as the exact distribution of the extremes and as asymptotic
forms which will be briefly outlined here.
Three asymptotic forms of the extreme distribution, or asymptotic distribu-
tions, exist, each assuming a specific behavior for absolute large ( or small) values
of the random variable. The three asymptotic distributions of the largest values
are related by a principle of symmetry to the three corresponding asymptotic
distributions of the smallest values.
Suppose N samples, each of size n, are taken from the same population of
the random. variable x, There exists the largest value in each sample. The
largest value in the total, N n, observations is the same as the largest of the N
largest values taken from the samples of size n.
The stability postulate of Fisher and Tippet as used by Gumbel (1958) states
that:
The distribution of the largest value in N n observations will tend to the same
aymptotic expression (except for a linear transformation) as the distribution of
the largest value in samples of size n, provided that such an asymptote exists.
Consequently, the asymptote must be such that the largest value of a sample
of size n taken from it must have the same asymptotic distribution.
Since the form of the distribution is not changed by a linear transforma-
tion, the probability <I>(::z:) that the largest value is below ::z: should equal the
probability of a linear function of z , that is,

(4.66a)

where <I> ( a,.x + b,.) is the unknown asymptotic distribution of the largest value,
and a,. > 0 and b,. are unknown functions of the sample size n, assumed to be
large. The solution of this equation leads to three and only three asymptotic
distributions of extremes. They are shown in Table 4.2.
The asymptotic probability that the smallest value is equal. to or above z, is
derived from <I>( x) through the principle of symmetry ( Gumbel, 1958, Sec. 3.1.1):

( 4.66b)
where ::z:1, and x,. are the smallest and largest values taken from a symmetric
distribution. Thus, from a distribution of the largest value ( of a variate x), one
may obtain a distribution of the smallest value by changing the sign of x,
In Table 4.2, the asymptotes of the largest and smallest values are indicated
, respectively, by
<I> ( i) and

with i=l, 2, or 3, indicating the type of the asymptote.

108 Sa.fety factor and probability of failure

TABLE 4.2
AsyJTptotic Distributions of Extremes (after Gumbel, 1958, and Yegulalp
& Wane, 1968).

'I'tpe Largest Values Conditions smallest Values ~onditions

I -of, x--0) a>O a(x--0) a.>0

cl>(1)(x)= -e x (1)( x)= -e
e 1-e
(Exponential) --<x<eo --<x<eo

0-£ IC
ci>-0 IC
II 0>£ X.?:£ Ekco xsco
(Cauchy) cl>(2)(x)= e -( x-£~ 1'>0 n (2)( x) = 1· e -( Cl>-X) x>O

cx-£)1C
III $(3)(X)= e-c:::f co>0 x<co n <3l( x)= 1· e - 0-£ £<0 .X>£
(Bounded) x>O x>O

RETURN PERIOD
so 20

... III
I
·/ II
,' I
)(

,
/ I
I
uj
::,
.J
<(
I
>
0
UJ
>
cc:
UJ
ti)
co
0

/
»>
_.-_... III
• I

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 .c.o 5.0 6.0

·-
7.0

REDUCED VARIABLE. y
- --- l..lRGEST Y.&I.UES -- SMAU..EST VALUES

Fig. 4.9. Plots of extreme value distributions of the three types, on Gurnbel's
preba.bilitypaper, using symmetric distributions of the largest a.nd smallest values
(after Yegulalp and Wa.ne, 1968).
 109

We note that the asymptotic distribution of type m for the smallest values
le
x-e
( )
II(x)=l:-e O-e (4.67)

was shown by Yegulalp and Mahtab (1983) to represent well a variety of me-
chanical properties of rocks, including the compressive and tensile strengths.
Further examination of this asymptote shows that the Weibull distribution re-
sults as a special case of this general form when the lower bound, e, in the
denominator of the exponent is taken as zero, i.e.,
le
x-e
( )
II(x)=l-e O (4.68)

Gumbel (1958) gives the followingprocedure for estimating the three parameters
(k, 0, and e) of the asymptote of type III, minima. Starting from moments of
( :c - e ), the parameters O, e, and k a.re estimated using the sample mean, sample
standard deviation, and tabulated values of Gamma functions of k.
The I.th moment of ( :c - e) is

E(x - e/ = (0 - e)lr(l +l/k) (4.69)

where
r(1 + £/k) = (£/k)! (4.70)
and where
9= characteristic smallest value of :z:,
e= lower limit of x.
The first moment, for l = 1 in eq.( 4.69), gives the mean

i = e + (0 - e)f(l + 1/k) (4.71)

The standard deviation is given by

a = (0 - e)[r(1 + 2/k) - r2(1 + 1/k)] t (4.72)

H we define B ( k) and A( k) as standardized differencesfrom the characteristic

value, 0, to the lower limit, e, a.nd the mean, i, respectively, then

B(k) = O -a e = (I'(l + 2/k) - f2(1 + 1/k)J-t (4.73)

110 Safety factor and probability of failure

A(k) = -8-x = [1- r(l

CT
+ 1/k)]B(k) (4.74)

Another function of k which is required and which Gumbel (1958, Ta-

ble 7.2.3) tabulates against 1/k is the reduced third moment or skewness:

..jiJij = B3(k)(r(1 + 3/k)- 3r(1 + 2/k)r(l + 1/k) + 2r3(1 + 1/k)J (4.75)

The calculations of 8, E., and k using equations ( 4. 73) to ( 4.75) requires the
calculations of the third moment. This may be avoided if 8, the characteristic
value, is estimated from an order statistic. H the data (in a sample of size N)
are ranked from high (top) to low (bottom), then 8 is estimated as the m'th
value from the bottom with

m' = 0.63212(N + 1) (4.76)

and through interpolation between the two values at ranks m and m + 1 such
that m < m' < m + 1.
Using sample mean and sample standard deviation, the estimates of k and E.
can be obtained from equations (4.74) and (4.73), respectively, with the values
of A(k) and B(k) provided in tables like Table 7.2.3 of Gumbel (1958). For a
discussion of alternate procedures for estimating k, 8, and E., reference may be
made to the text by Gumbel (1958).
Once the form and the parameters for an extreme distribution have been
obtained, the next step is to plot the actual and the theoretical distributions.
This is discussed next.
For developing a special graph paper for plotting data that may follow one
of the asymptotes, it is convenient to write the asymptotes (say for the largest
values) in the common or "reduced" form as

(4.77)

where the reduced variable y is given by

y = -en[-en~J (4.78)

Gumbel's extreme value probability paper is shown in Fig. 4.9 and Fig. 4.10
where the abscissa is represented by three scales, probability ~(x) and reduced
variable y at the bottom and return period, T(x) (defined below), at the top.
The ordinate of the graph paper is represented by the observed variable, z ,
In order to define the return period, let us consider the random variable x
with the probability function F(x ). The probability that X is less than or equal
to xis
P(x) = 1-F(x) (4. 79)
Safety fa.ctor a.nd proba.bility of fa.ilu.re 111

The return period, T( ::c) is the expected number of observations required to

exceed x once:
1
T(x) = P(x) > 1 (4.80)

In the case of engineering variates, such as strength, the return period is the
mean number of observations that are required to reach a. value greater or equal
to x.
Fig. 4.10 may be used to illustrate the use of the return period. From the
theoretical curve of the tail distribution, the tensile strength of the schist is at
least 6.5 MPa. with a probability, 1- ~(x) = 0.95. Therefore, the return period
(expected number of observations) required to produce any tensile strength
below 6.5 MPa will be
1 .
T::c)=--=20
( ( 4.81)
~(x)
Both the theoretical curve and the plot of the actual data are shown in
Fig. 4.10. The observations are plotted by first ranking them in a. decreasing
( or increasing) order of magnitude and the calculating their plotting positions
(pp) on the probability paper using,

j
pp·=-- (4.82)
1 n +1
where j is the rank of the observation in a. sample of size n. In case of repeated
values of observations, an average rank may be assigned to the repeated variate.

4.4.3 Calculation of probability of failure

The followingdiscussion of the procedure for computing the probability of
failure generally follows the description of Borges and Casta.nheta.(1971).
The distribution functions Fs a.nd FR of the random variables Sand Rare
defined as
Fs(x) = P(S < x) (4.83)
FR(::c) = P(R < x) (4.84)
with the corresponding density functions defined as fs(x) and fR(x).
If Fs and FR are independent, the probability of failure of the structural
element with resistance, R, and under a. load, S, is given by

P1 = P(S > R) = 1oa FR(x)fs(x)dx (4.85)

 Safety factor and probability of failure

..
I I I I
0
.
0

I
I
OON .-a.-
I+ I ++I
WWW WWW I :
:
tfl 000 001.0
0:::: Ot.O"'lt OON
w O"'lt-.;r 01"1t.O
I- oo.-
I ..
/
0
w Ot.01.0 001.0
:'? ...
.-N-.;r
<( OCOO'> IOCOO'> ~ .:
0:::
<( I -
0

s .
0

a.. II II II II II II 0

I i
z<(
II
0
•
wq ::
'-) ;:,,< Z2Ul

,
d
t:
/
... : .-
.m
0
CD
~
<
j
;o
0 0::
(j a.
:w
. o>

J : ~
.~
: • ::>

_j I . ::>
u
.
0

f
r--
.
0

I
I
I
;

11
,' I .
': ci
:
.
. .
0

~,;
'!

J ci
~r
:0

-?
fl
•.
.
~
/
I .
ij

·21 ·01 ·9 ·11

(~dW) Yt fius. ..q S a 11 sua I

Safety fa.ctor and probcibility of fciilu.re 119

or, identically

Pt= P(S > R) = 1 00(1-Fs(x))JR(x)dx (4.86)

with the integral extended from only O to oo based on physical limitations.

The relation between Pt and the "central" factor of safety, ;01 defined as the
ratio between the mean values of FR(x) and Fs(x) is discussed by Borges and
and Castanheta for various combinations of the distributions and coefficients of
variation of Rand S (CR and Cs, respectively):
R: Normal (N) and Extreme type I, minima (rr<1>).
S: Normal (N), Extreme type I, maxima (~<1>), and extreme type II maxima
(~(2)).
CR= 0.05; 0.10; 0.15; and 0.20
Cs= 0.0; 0.10; 0.20; and 0.30 (Cs= 0.0 corresponds to a deterministic load).
We have selected two cases for illustrative purposes; these are summarized be-
low:
Case 1: R, Sare both normally distributed
The probability of failure may· be expressed through the reduced form of
the normal distribution (by using the standardized normal variate t = :;e in
eq. 4.62):

Pt= --1 lcr e- t,/2 dt (4.87).

$ -co

The upper integration limit, a, may be interpreted trough the following consid-
erations. The probability of failure P(R - S) < 0 is equal to the probability of
obtaining less than the mean at a distance greater than

a=-----
R-S (4.88)
( O"it + oj)l/2
Where R, S are the means and a- R, a- s are the standard deviations.
A physical interpretation of a is given by Hasofar and Lind (1974). With
reference to Fig. 4.11, if the failure and safe regions, G*(r, s), and G(r, s) a.re
represented in the plane of Rand S, then for failure to occur, the distance from
the origin to G*(r,s) must be greater than a.
For computation of Pt using graphical means, Borges and Castanheta give
the geometric construction of Fig. 4.12. The abscissa (with S as the origin)
represents the random variables R and S while the ordinate gives the Pi. The
distributions Fs(x), FR(x), and FR~s(x) are straight lines. The intersection
11.4 Safety factor and probability of failure

of FR-s(x) with the ordinate (at S) gives .P,. The figure also illustrates the
correspondence among the values of a R, r,5, and a R-S for a given Pt.
Returning to eq.(4.88), we can express a in terms of the coefficients of vari-
ation and the safety factor, ,o thus

1-,o
(4.89)
a= - (C~ + ,:ch)1/2
The relationship between 'Yo and Pt can now be graphed for various combi-
nations of Cs and CR, as shown in Fig. 4.13. Note that, as would be intuitively
expected, the factor of safety corresponding to a given probability increases for
increasing coefficients of variation in Rand S. Conversely, a threshould of Pt
is reached for large variations in strength and loading. For instance, for Cs
and CR larger than 0.2, the probability of failure will not be lower than 10-4
regardless of the magnitude of the safety factor.

Case 2: R is distributed according to extreme type 1 (minima), and S is dis-

_tributed according to extreme type 2 (maxima).
In this case, the probability of failure is

Pt= 1 00[1-Fs(x)]fn(x)dx (4.90)

With Fs( x) further specialized by assuming e = 0 in the expression for 4> ~!~ of
Table 4.2, thus
E's(x) = exp[- ( ex)-k. ] ( 4.91)

The parameters k and 8 are estimated by Borges and Casta.nheta (1971)

using the following equations:

x = OI'(l - 1/k) {4.92)

s = B[r(l - 2/ k) - I'2(1 - 1/ k )]112 ( 4.93)

where x and s are sample mean and standard deviation. These two equations
may be solved iteratively or graphical solution may be obtained using the graphs
of x/fJ and .s/i versus 1/k.
The probability density function /R(x) to be input to eq.(4.90) is the deriva-
tive of IT(l)(x) of Table 4.2.

fn(x) = a exp[a(x - 0)- e4(z;-B)] (4.94)

Safety factor and probability of failure 115

F CR. SJ •O

Safe region G(r.s)

F CR. S) >O

Value of
0 s•(S-S)
O's

Fig. 4.11. Physical interpretation of probability of failure ( after Hasofar a.nd Lind..
1974). .

0.16
o.,ot-----+---++-".---+-r'--lll'--tt-------1

,~·L-~__,.~~ . . . . --...._ _ __..__ """'--'.._____.

s R ~
Fig. 4.12. Geometric construction for computing proba.bility of failure for nor-
mally distributed Rand S (after Borges and Ca.stanheta., 1971).
116 Safety factor and probability off ailure

The parameters a and 9 are estimated from the relations

a = 1.2s25 Is and ( 4.95)

8 = x + 0.5772/a (4.96)
where x ands are again the sample mean and standard deviation.
We may recall that in Fig. 4.13, all of the plots curve toward higher safety
factors in response to the variation in R a.nd S and, for CR and Cs values
greater than 0.15, tend to become asymptotic to given Pi values. Comparing
Fig. 4.13 with Fig. 4.14, we note that for the "bundle" of curves corresponding
to CR= 0.2 a.nd O::; Cs ::; 0.3 (that is, the group of curves marked as no. 13,
14, 15, and 16), the Pi threshold is raised from 10-4 in case 1 (normal R and
S) to more than 10-3 for case 2 (extremal R and S). The sensivity of Pi is
more pronounced for a variation in R than for a variation in S.
The above methodology for relating the probability of failure to the safety
factor should be readily applicable to geomecha.nicproblems in the design of
underground excavations. Perhaps example applications are available and will
soon be reported in the literature.
fa.ctor a.nd proba.bility of failure

RESISTANCE NORMAL
LOADING. NORMAL
BABILITY OF FAILURE
2 5 36 74 B 9 10 11

Cs
CR
0 0:1 0.2 0.3
0.05 1 2 3 4
0.10 5 6 7 8
0.15 9 10 11 12
0.20 13 14 15 16

) 1.4 1.8 22 26 3.0 3.4 3.8

FACTOR OF SAFETY

13. Relationship between probability of failure and factor of safet

ly distributed strength a.nd load ( after Borges and Castanheta, 1971
 Safety factor and probability of failure

RESI STAN·C E EXTREME 1

LOADING EXTREME II
SABILITY OF FAILURE
2

1-4
15
0 0.1
1 2
5 6
o. ,~ g 10 11 12
0.20 13 14 15 16

1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2

FACTOR OF SAFETY. Y0

14. Relationship between probability of failure and factor of safety for

lee distributed as extreme I(min) and loa.d distributed as extreme H(mu,)
3orges and Castanheta, 1971).
Chapter 5

EXCAVATION
AND GROUND CONTROL
The subject of tunnel and underground cavity construction is indeed vast.
Our intent here is to introduce the rock excavation techniques, discuss the
geomechanical principles used in construction of the openings, and review the
various ground control techniques that are currently practiced.

5.1 Rock excavation

The followingis an overview of the techniques of excavation in rock ( drilling
and blasting and mechanical) and the approaches for excavating soft ground.

5.1.1 Rock Excavation by drilling and blasting

Despite the advent of the mechanical excavators (roadheaders and TBM's)
in the 1950's, the conventional drilling and blasting procedure is most common
in excavating openings in rock. The conventional method may also be more
appropriate under the following conditions:
• Very strong rock
• Highly variable ground conditions
• Variable dimensions as in caverns other than tunnels·
• Limited length(s) of opening(s)
The basic operations in the conventional excavation of an underground open-
ing: drilling, blasting, mucking, and haulage of the rock a.re discussed by Jacobs
(1973); the following outline of the drilling and blasting procedure is adapted
from the discussion by Jacobs.
The pattern of drill holes in each "round" to be blasted will depend on
the size of the tunnel (small, medium, large). Drilling of the blast holes is
1!0

generally performed by automatic feed-machines or "drifters" in medium-

large tunnels. The modern drifter is mounted on a hydraulically position
boom that is attached to a portable carriage or "jumbo" which rides on wh
It is a common practice to estimate the number of holes that need to be drill
and then provide a sufficient number of drills such that the average number e
holes/drill/round does not exceed 8 to 10.
The actual number of holes required for loading the explosives per round i
based on the theoretical design of a typical round as well as on the meehaniea
characteristics of the rock. Several field trials are generally necessary to derin
the correct number of drill holes and the type of cut (burn or angle) to be ~
for the round.
The drill holes are loaded with (gelatin dynamite or a.n:..:noniumnitrate:
explosive with the quantity of explosive required per m3 of rock varying with
the strength of the rock and the cross-section to be excavated.
The explosive charge is detonated using delays ( as required between group
of holes, generally receding from the free-face created by the cut. The detonatior
delays are timed from 25ms to 2 sec. between two consecutive delays. Tht
potential damage ( due to blasting) to the rock around the excavation and tht
neighboring structures is an area of special concern; this is further discussed ii
Sec. 6.2.

5.1.2 Rock Excavation by machines

Where applicable, excavation of rock mass by machines provides an attrac·
tive alternative to drilling and blasting with the inherent advantage of reduce
disturbance to the rock around the excavation. The two principal types of ex
cavating machines, the road.header and the tunnel boring machine, TBM, ari
briefly discusse here. For details of the machines, reference may be made to tb
various books and articles listed as references. Worthy of note also are the by
draulic impact hammers for use in full-face tunneling. The experience with th•
hammer, mainly in Italy, holds promise for economic excavation of undergroun
openings in a variety of situations (Smith, 1988).

Road headers

The boom-type tunnelling machines, or roadheaders, provide an alternativ

to conventional excavation in relatively soft rock. The road.headers were :firf
used in East Europe in the late 1950's for mining. Their use then spread fc
tunneling in Europe and North America. The following description is adapte
Rack euavation 121

from Bougard (1984), Kogelmann and Schenck (1982), and Whittaker and Frith
(1990). - .
The roadheader consists of a drilling and cutting head tha.t is attached to one
or more arms which can negotiate horizontally as well as vertically. The arms
are mounted on a self-powered wheel-base. The head ma.y either turn around
the axis of the arm ( radial cutting) or a.round an axis tha.t is perpendicular to
the arm (transverse cutting), the latter usually giving a. better weight/power
ratio (Bongard, 1984). The upper limit of unconfined compressive strength of
rock is estimated to be a.bout 120 MPa. (Kogelmann and Schenck, 1982).

Tunnel boring machines

The TBM is used to excavate the entire face of an opening (most usually
circular in cross section) in one pa.ss. There are numerous examples of the use
of a TBM for excavating a. smaller pilot bore, the final, enlarged section, being
obtained by conventional excavation or, occasionally, by a. reaming TBM. The
relative advantages and disadvantages of conventional and mechanical enlarge-
ment of pilot bores are discussed by Da Via. et al. (1992).
The historical development of the TBM is described among others, by Thon
(1982). The first recorded TBM wa.s developed in 1856 by J. Wilson and used
for boring ouly 3 m of the Hoosac railway tunnel in Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Colonel Beaumont's TBMs successfully bored sections of a tunnel under the
Mersey River in England and in 1882, bored 1.6 km long pilot tunnels from
both sides of the proposed English Channel Tunnel. However, full worldwide
attention wa.s not a.chiwed by TBMs until a.bout 1956 when a. TBM designed
by J .S. Robbins drove a sewer tunnel in Toronto Canada trough limestone,
sandstone, and shale with an unconfined compressive strength range of about
55-186 MPa. According to Ta.ble 5.1, the formation bored by the TBM (3.3 m
diameter, equipped with 24 rotary disc cutter) was a. medium to ha.rd rock.
Cox (1973) discusses three types of TBMs: jumbo, shield, and gripper. All
types have (1) a cutterhead with mechanical elements for breaking the rock,
(2) devices (usually bucket type) to pick up the broken rock, and (3) a non-
rotating structural member that hears the cutterhead and houses the steering
mechanism.
Jumbo machines: these are used in soft rock for tunnels of diameter 7.5 to 12
m. The cutterhead is attached to the face-end of the supporting member which
resembles a conventional shield machines: these borers consist of a. conventional
shield with thrust arms and erector system. The cutterhead and its supporting
member a.re contained within the shield. These machines a.re more commonly
applied in soil formations or in situations having variable ground or mixed faces.
 Rock excat1ation

Gripper ma.chines: these machines are designed for use in competent and
usually self-supporting rock. The tunnel walls must be capable of accepting the
gripper or wall-thrust that is required to generate the face-thrust of the TBM.
A number of variables suggested by Cox (1973) for input to the flexibil-
ity equation for a TBM a.re: drillability, abrasiveness, thrust, rotational speed,
cuttings removal, and maintenance. A general guide for classifying rock forma-
tions for tunneling, base on their unconfined compressive strength, is given in
Table 5.1 (after Thon, 1982).

TABLE 5.1
Classification of formations on the basis of. their characteristics. for
tunneling (after Thon, 1982).
UNCONFINED
CLASSIFICATION COMPRESSIVE TYPICAL FORMATIONS
STRENGTH (MPa) *

Soft Ground Uncanenteddep:lsits of clay, silt, sarrl and gravel,

possibly saturated, mu-1.

Soft Rock Less than 55 Shale, tuff, claystone, sandstone.

Medium
Ha.rd Rock 55 to 170 Somebasalt, granite, and andesite; average
sarxistmeard linestme; d::>lanite,dwk, rtrfolite,
gneiss, schist.

Hard Rock over 170 Sane basalt, granitli! ard andesi te; well-cementa::
sandstone and limestone; marble, diorite,
quartzite, argillite.

* converted fran psi to MPa ard rounded to closest llllltiple of 5.

The following is a list of the advantages and disadvantages of TB Ms ( Cox,

1973, a.nd Bouga.rd, 1984).
Advantages:
Increased rate of advance (as a function of rock strength)
Near-absence of overbreak
Smooth and more stable opening, requiring less support
Reduced damage at ground surface
Safer working conditions
Rock e:ca.11a.tion

Disa.dvanta.ges:
High capital cost
. Lead time for constructing the TBM
Lack of versatility vis-a.-visthe ground conditions
Expensive replacement for consumable tools
Low advance ra.te in very strong rock (or in very poor rock).

5.1.3 Soft ground tunneling

In reference to tunneling, McCusker (1982) defines soft ground as the "ma-
terial which can be removed with reasonable facility using hand tools, even
though such tolls may not, in fa.ct, be the ones employed". Soft ground excava-
tion is, therefore, of peripheral interest to the designer of tunnels and caverns
in rock. However, given the vagaries of geologic nature a.nd a reasonably long
excavation, encounters with soft ground a.re not ra.re. This is especially true for
the portal regions of rock tunnels.
Soft ground ma.y consist of plastic layers of geologic material; gravel, sa.nd,
and other cohesionless material; or swelling material. The ma.in problem in
tunneling through such ground is tha.t it weakens a.nd tends to sink into the
opening-a. phenomenon called "decompression" (Bouga.rd, 1984)-the prob-
lem being ma.de more severe in the presence of water. The elimination of the
decompression, therefore, takes. the first priority a.nd is accomplished by the
followingmethods.
The traditional methods, variously dubbed as English, German, Australian,
or Belgian, basically used a. timbered, pilot gallery for exca.va.tingthe tunnel
arch by widening the gallery. This was followedby excavation of the lower pa.rt
and placement of masona.ry rings.
The newer, more advanced methods involve various, more effi.cien~ ways of
overcoming decompression. Bougard (1984) discusses the techniques that are
listed below. Some of these techniques are further discussed in Sec.5.2 together
with techniques like jet grouting.
· Ground improvement ( to eliminate seepage a.nd enhance the mechanical
properties)
· Use of new material (e.g., steel, concrete)
· Ground recompression (using hydraulic jacks)
· Preca.st lining segments
· Use of shield (for safety and speed)
- Mechanical precutting ( the precut arch is filled with shotcrete before pro-
ceeding with excavation)
- Presupport with umbrella. arch of grouted metal tubes.
 Ground control and improvement

Note that the terms presupport and pre-reinforcement may be used inter-
changeably in several instances. However, pre-reinforcement is generally in-
stalled to improve the quality and strength of the ground.

5.2 Ground Control and Improvement

There are very few examples of underground construction for civil use where
the rock is sufficiently competent to support itself. Some measure of external
support or ground reinforcement is generally necessary at some stage of the
excavation.
When an opening is made below the ground surface, stress redistribution oc-
curs in the rock mass surrounding the opening. The stress concentrations and
deformations are a function of: (1) The in situ stress, (2) the geometry (cross
section, orientation, depth) of the opening, and (3) the mechaninca.l charac-
teristic of the material (modulus of deformation, structure, and failure mode).
Material heterogeneity, anisotropy, and presence of water are additional factors
that influence the behavior of the rock mass around the cavity.
The material may fail (according to a specified criterion) as a function of
time of excavation, size of excavation, and distance from the face (unsupported
span). Failure is possible in the roof, walls, floor, or face of the opening.
The conventional concept of support of an excavation accounts for the per-
manent support installed at a certain distance from the face where "steady
state" conditions are prevalent. The more modern concept involves the integra-
tion of a temporary and final support in the portion of the excavation between
the face and the steady state location. It also accounts for the rock mass and
support interaction. The concept of presupport goes a step further and aims to
modify the behavior of the material (Grasso et al., 1992a).
In the following subsections, we shall outline the ground control and im-
provement procedure commonly used in tunneling.

5.2.1.The N ATM approach

The new Austrian tunneling method, so named by Rabcewicz (1964) and
now generally known as NATM, consists of a series of principles for matching
support to the characteristics of the ground being excavated.
· The first, and perhaps the most important, of these principles appears to
be to transform the rock mass around the tunnel "into a very effective carrying
member, provided that its surface is sufficiently strengthened by a relatively
very thin semi-rigid lining or by other similar appropriate means in such a way
that permanent equilibrium is obtained a.fter a relatively short time", Rabcewicz
Ground control a.nd impnn,ement 1!5

(1969, p. 225). Note that the theoretical. basis for this principle is rooted in
the ground-reaction curve or convergence-confinement concept discussed in the
next section.
The second main principle of NATM is a sophisticated measuring program
(for tunnel convergence and support loads) "allowing determination of whether
the chosen support-resistance corresponds with the type of rock in question, and
what kind of additional reinforcing measures are needed, if any", (Rabcewicz
and Golser, 1973, p. 92).
The third major principle concerns the timing of support emplacement which
will vary from case to case. For example, in deep tunnels (in hard rock and
under high in-situ stresses), sufficient deformation of the ground around the
tunnel needs to be allowed. However, in soft ground at shallow depths, the
invert must be closed quickly to form a complete, tube-like lining. As noted by
Brown (1981, p. 16), the principle of forming a load-bearing ring quickly has
long been used in soft ground tunneling.
We believe that the three principles given above are the essential and distinct
domainofNATM. However, Brown (1981), in his excellent reviewofNATM tab-
ulates 7 principles. Bieniawski (1984), in his very clear explanation of NATM,
also lists 7 principles. An example of the use of NATM is included in Sec. 7.2.
For further reading on NATM, reference may be made to Braun (1980), John
(1981), and Garrett (1991). (An informal commentary on NATM and its ho-
mophones is given by Brierley, 1989.]

5.2.2 The convergence-confinement concept

The "characteristic line" concept, first described by Pacher (1964), has been
discussed by various authors, for example, Deere et al. (1969), Daemen and
Fairhurst (1970), Lada.nyi (1974), Brown et al. (1983), and Sulem et al. (1987b).
The working group of AFTES (Gesta, 1986) recommended the use of the term
convergence-confinement to include the concept of characteristic curve and the
basic aim in NATM and similar approaches to limit convergence of the openings
by providing confinement through support. In what follows, we will assume the
term convergence-confinement to be synonymous with rock-support interaction.
The "expansion" of the circular tunnel has been discussed by various au-
thors in forms that are slightly different from eq.(3.45) ( e.g., Ladanyi, 1967),
depending on the plastic zone. Close-form solutions have also been obtained for
creeping rock (Ladanyi and Gill, 1984, and Sulem et al., 1987b). A solution to
the elasto-plastic analysis of a circular tunnel subjected to anisotropic stresses
(across the tunnel) was derived by Detournay (1983) and applied by St.John et
al. (1984) to develop design charts for tunnel support requirements.
126 Ground co.ntrol a.nd improvement

In general, however, the solutions to the a.xisymmetricproblem of a circular

tunnel have provided the basis for the characteristic-curve method for design-
ing tunnel support. A summary of some selected solutions is given below after
an introduction to the basic principles of the convergence-con£.nement(rock-
support interaction) approach. Essentially, the term rock-support interaction
refers to both the influence of the support on the rock movement and the load-
ing imposed on the support by the rock-support deformation; for a detailed
discussion, reference may be made to Brown et al. (1983).
For a circular tunnel of radius a, subjected to a uniform pressure, p0, appli-
cation of an internal supporting pressure: Pi = Po will inhibit the development
of a broken or plastic zone (see earlier discussion and Fig. 3.6). The stress
concentration must, of course, exceed the. rock strength.
The practical situation is illustrated in Fig. 5.1 in terms of the ground and
support reaction to the radial displacement. The ground behavior becomes non-
linear afte~ point B. Support is installed after a certain displacement (indicated
by point C) has occurred. The support reaction line, CD, and the ground reac-
tion curve, AE, meet at the point of equilibrium, D. We note that CD may not
be straight line; the argument for this is given by Dixon (1992): "The support
reaction curve probably is not a straight line, but a curve that gradually steep-
ens with increasing deformation. This is because there is a lack of a perfectly
'tight fit' between the lining and the rock, and because lining materials like
shotcrete develop stiffness as a function of time after application."
The important input to the estimate of the pressures are: the external load,
Po, the strength criterion, the time of installation of the support (or the extent
of the deformation), and the deformational behavior of the failed rock.
Three solutions are selected for illustrating the approach to estimating the
support pressure. The differences in the various solutions are noted in the
followingsummaries. ·

1. The classical solution using Coulomb criterion

The basic from of the solution (after Jaeger and Cook, 1979), given in
eq.(3.45) and with reference to Fig. 3.6 and 5.2, is

R
a
= { (2Po -
(1
C~)(l - q) - Co(l + q')
+ q')[pi(l
- q) - Co]
r (5.1)

where: R and a are the radii of the plastic zone and the tunnel, respectively;
P» and Pi are the· external and internal radial pressures;
(Jo=C~ + q1(Jr is the Coulomb criterion {3.46) for intact rock with unconfined
compressivestrength, C~, cohesion c, and angle of friction, ¢;
Ground contTol and improvement 1!1

p A
0
a.
....
oi
e,
::,
en
en
GI
e,
a.
+>
e,
0
c.
c.
:::,
in
.....,,
....
.,,
'C E
a:

oruo-J c
Radial deformation. u
Fig. 5.1. Simplified characteristic curves for ground and support reaction.

<19 = C0 + q<rr is the coulomb criterion for _broken rock with compressive
strength, C0, cohesion c, and angle of friction~-
The broken or plastic zone ( a $ r $ R) is not only characterized by reduced
strength (thus producing a discontinuity in <18 at r = R, see Fig. 5.3.) but, as
suggested by Daemen and Fairhurst (1970), also reduced modulus and density
(increase in specific volume).
Daem.enand Fairhurst (1970) also suggest that for preliminary analysis, one
could assume that the cohesion of the material decreases linearly from c at
r ~ a to c at r = R, without an associated change in the angle of friction;
this is equivalent to a gradual loweringof the Coulomb envelope parallel to the
initial envelope.
128 Ground control and improvement

-----

Elastic

Broken

Fig. 5.2. Stresses and displacements around a. circular tunnel ( after Ladanyi,
1974).

2. Solution using nonlinear failure envelope and volu-

metric strain
In a more general solution to the problem, a nonlinear failure envelope may
be used, together with volume dilation and the influence of time. Lacla.nyi
(1974) used the parabolic failure criterion of Fairhurst (1964) to obtain at the
stresses and deformations around a cylindrical tunnel and the support pressures
required in the short- and the long-term.
Ground control and improvement 129

· 111" 3 =constant I
bcr,
• ....
b

+
Fig. 5.3. Material behavior model used by Brown et al. (1983).
aJ

I I I

--~-' - -- l1
""i: ,'.,"".,::,·:.::-::::+•:'
: .. L,,:• --
~;o~ fl,\ 0
I I I

'.l-' ~
.l.=0 0<.l.<1 .l.:1
o,=po a,=11-.l.)p0 o,=O

Fig. 5.4. (a) Fictitious lining pressure. (b) Notations for stresses around the
tunnel (after Sulem et al., 1987b).
190 Ground control a.nd improvement

In the following we summarize the approach of Brown et al. (1983) who

use the nonlinear, Hoek-Brown failure criterion and the post-peak volumetric
strain for the rock. The effect of time is not considered in this analysis.
First, we may list the Hoek and Brown criterion ( eq. 4.27) in terms of
the residual strength parameters, '."1lr, Sr, uncon£ned strength of rock, C0 and
principal stresses, 0-1, 0"3 :

(5.2)

The radius of the plastic zone, R, is then given as

(5,3)

where
(5.4)

M = ~[ (7 r + m ~: + s] -; {5.5)

Referring to Fig. 5.3, the associated flow rule is defined as:

(5.6)

or
F= m/ { 2(maR/C + s)!}
0 (5.7)

where a R is the radial stress at radius R.

Finally, the radial displacement at the tunnel periphery, ui, and the support
pressure, Pi, are related by

Uj MCo
a
- G(F+2) (5.8)

where G = 2(1~,,)
and ( ~) is a function of Pi,Po, and rock mass properties (see eq. 5.3).
Ground control a.nd improvement 191

3. Approach of Sulem, Panet; and Guenot (1987a and

1987b)
The following is a. brief summary of the solution for displacements a.nd lining
pressure in circular tunnel proposed in a. set of two articles by Sulem et al.
(1987a, 1987b ).
A plane-strain formulation is used for the tunnel of radius a under a. homo-
geneous external pressure p0• The coordinate x is along the advancing axis of
the tunnel whose cross-section is represented by r, 8 coordinates.
The failure criterion is that of Coulomb,

(5.9)

with C0 and q representing initial ( or peak) values.

If we define the principal stresses in terms of a parameter X (Fig. 5.4)

CTr = Po(l - ,\) (5.10)

CT9 = Po(l +,\) (5.11)

and if we defined the yield condition when,\= Ae, then substituting for CTr and
~i in (5.9) gives:

,\e = -- 1 ( q - 1 + -Co) (5.12)

q+1 Po
For,\ > Ae, a broken zone will develop around the cavity with its radius R
(see Fig. 5.2) given by:
_l_

R[x(t)] [ 2 Po(q-l)+C0 ]'-1

(5.13)
a · = q + 1 . (q - l){l - ,\[x(t)]}p0 +C0

Note that both R a.nd ,\ are functions of the distance x from the face which,
in turn, is a. function of time, t.
Incidentally, if we use the definition of Sulem et al. (1987b) for the support
pressure:
p; = {1- ,\[x(t)]}po (5.14)
we recover eq.(5.13) from eq.(5.1) for the case of constant strength properties,
i.e., Co = C0 and q = q.
19£ Ground control and improvement

The radial displacement u; a.tr= a (see Fig. 5.2), in the case of a.n unlined
tunnel, can be expressed as a. product of two functions, one depending on the
face advance and the other on creep, thus

(5.15)

where G0 and G J are moduli of shear and creep, respectively.

The result (eq. 5.15) is consistent with the expression proposed by Sulem
et al. (1987a.) for the convergence C ( defined as the change in the distance
between the ends of a tunnel diameter):

(5.16)

The function C1 ( x) depends on the following factors:

- x : distance from the face,
- x: "distance of influence" of the face, and
- Coo: : "instantaneous closure" for an infinite rate of advance (no time effect).

(5.17)

The second function, C2(t), depends on time, t, and a characteristic param-

eter of the time-dependent properties of the rock.

(5.18)

The factor min eq.(5.16) is used to relate the final closure to the instanta-
neous closure, thus:
final closure = (1 + m )Coo: (5.19)
To illustrate the results of Sulem et al. (1987b) in terms of the radial dis-
placement and the lining pressure (Fig. 5.5), we take the case when the support
is installed ( at t = t0) and the yield condition has been reached.
The radial displacement is given by (eq. 5.15) which may be written in a
contracted form as:
(5.20)
Ground control and. improvement 199

The normalizedradius of the broken zone, ~, is given by a modified eq.(5.13),

by including the support pressure p., in the denominator on the right-hand side,
thus:
R { 2 (q-l)Po+Co
-;= q+l · (q-1}[(1-..\)po+Pa)+Co
-1-
}'-L (S.2l)
with
p.,=K.,
. ( Ui---
a
Uo)
a
(5.22)

where
- u0 = deformation occurring after t0, a.nd
- K., = modulus of rigidity of the support.
The final objective of the approach is to achieve an acceptable intersection
of the convergence-confinement curves (Fig. 5.6).

Po
=--Confinement
line

Ur
r
Fig. 5.5. Functions (1 - .\(t))Po and Fig. 5.6. Convergence-Confinementlines
p,(t) (after Sulem et al., 1987b). (after Sulem et al., 1987b).
194 Ground control and impro.,,ement

5.2.3 Ground improvement in advance of excavation

In broad terms, rock improvement can be considered as part of a set of pro-
cesses grouped under "rock mass modification", (as done in the U.S. National
Committee for Rock Mechanics, USNC, 1990, report) with the objectives of
modifying stability, deformability, hydraulic conductivity, and chemical reac-
tivity. Table 5.2 (after USNC, 1990) indicates the relationship between the set
of modification processes and the set of rock mass properties which are mod-
ified. The strength of the relationship is indicated by solid (strong) and open
(weak) circles.
Until about a couple of decades ago, the concept of improving the rock
characteristics in advance of excavation, or pre-reinforcing it in some manner,
· did not find too many "supporters", especially in the tunneling industry. Today,
rock "preconditioning" is done as a matter of routine when tunneling in ·very
poor ground.
There are several important reasons for improving or reinforcing a rock mass
in advance of the face of a tunnel:
1. In very poor rock where the standup time is nearly zero, both the economics
and the rate of excavation will benefit from the preconditioning.
2. The enhanced mechanical properties of the rock mass ( especially its shear
strength and deformability) and the improved integrity of the excavation
boundaries (confining and "nailing" effect through prereinforcement) will
reduce the net a.mount of the final support required for stability of the open-
ing.
3. Since preconditioning of the ground (inherently entailing poor geologic con-
ditions) will require some degree of quantitative (empirical or trial-and-
error) basis for designing the improvement measures, a greater margin of
safety (and a reduced element of surprise) will be present in the completed
work. Two important methods of improving the ground are discussed below,
namely, grouting and pre-reinforcement.

5.2.3.1 Rock improvement by grouting

Injection of weak ground ahead of the tunnel face by a grout may improve the
strength and deformation modulus of the ground, thus assisting in stabilization
of the underground excavation. Grout is introduced through boreholes using
various techniques and types of grout which differ for various local conditions
and practice. From a study of the literature, a description of the principles,
methodology, and application of grouting for ground improvement are compiled
in the followingparagraphs.
Ground control ,ind improvement 195

TABLE 5.2
ROCkmass properties and their relationship to modification process (after
-
USNC ' 1990. ) .- . . ···- . -

....a
....
J.J

OI
0
ROCK J.J
c: ~ >, DESIGN
QI
u
0 .....J.J
.....8
OSJB:TIVES
I
J.t
MASS en
.cJ.J .....
;1 QI ,-f

PROPERTIES .,,
J.J
~
,-f U1
.,, ....tdu ....QIe ARE

1
0 J.J
en u
.....td J.t
2' CONl'ROL OF:
B.,, .cs ........u uGIM
(II QI 0 J.t
QI 0.
a
MODIFICATION PROCF.SS
u
M
Cil
.....
0
(II

i J.J
Cil Cil o (I) (I)
QI
0..

Loading Dead Loads • • 0 0 0 Stability

Bolts • • 0 0 0 Stree
Tendons • • 0 0 0 Structure
• •
..
Drains 0 0 0 Strength
Permeability
Void/Joint Cement 0 •
Filling Chani.cal 0 • Deformabil ity
Stress
'lhernal Freezing • • 0 0
• Structure
Loa.ding Heating • • Stiffness
Strength
Re~nforcing Dowels • • Permeability
Pins • •
surface Shotcrete .. • Hydraulic
Conductivi.ty
Coatings sealants • Stress
External Shotcrete • • Structure
support Liners • • Permeability
Steel Sets • • Chem .
Buttress • • saturation
Backfill • •
Chemical
Fracture Hydraulic • • • Reactivity
Explosive • • • Temperature
Mechanical
Heat
• • •
0
Structure
saturation
0 0
surfactant 0 0 0 Chem.
Corrpos it ion
Electro- E. osroosis 0

Magnetic Discharge • •
Loading

Fluid Chemical 0
• •
Plmping water 0 • 0
Hydrothermal • Legend
ExCllvation surface • • • • Closely related
SUbsurface • • • O Loosely related
Wells/holes 0 •
196 Ground control and improvement

Grouting Principles

Grout may be classified into two main categories (Cambefort, 1977): (1)
suspension of particles which may comprise cement, clay, or bentonite and (2)
liquids which are usually colloidal solutions which "set" into a gel. The essential
properties of grouts include grout stability (the settlement of suspensions), the
setting time, and viscosity and rigidity.
Pure cement grouts are unstable but may be transformed into stable grouts
with the addition of bentonite or clay. The grout sets or acquires a certain
rigidity, after some time. Cements set gradually in a few hours. Their setting
may be delayed with the addition of clay or bentonite. Chemical grouts or
silicates set suddenly. Depending on the requirements of grout flow, injection
may be only correctly performed during half or two-thirds of the setting time
required. .
The three important methods currently used for grouting a.re permeation, jet
and compaction grouting (Gularte, 1989). Permeation grouting involves filling
the voids in the ground with either cement or chemical binders of grouts. Jet
grouting involves the use of high- pressure fluid jet excavation of the material
around the borehole and replacing it with a mixture of cement and the excavated
material. Compaction grouting comprises densification of the material loosened
by excavation of the opening by injection of a grout. A pictorial explanation of
the three methods of grouting is given in Fig. 5.7. The approximate ranges of
the types of ground (soil), where a. specific method is applicable, are also given
in the figure.

Grouting methodology

The following is a summary of the methodology used for the permeation,

compaction, and jet grouting (after Gularte, 1989).

Permeation grouting

Two types of grouting materials are used in this technique:

- Cement (normal Portland and microfine) for application in sand and gravel
(with cement) and down to clear sand, passing the 200 mesh (with microfine).
'.iround control and improvement 191

Se!:tlerneri Contrd Jet Gr~ Process

0
UVI

Soi Types Soi Types Soi TyPes

'ig. 5.7. Explanation of three types of grouting for application to tunnels (after
;ularte, 1989).

- Chemicals ( usually sodium silicate with various reactans] which are totally
dissolved and have broader penetration range down to 20% fine passing the
200 mesh.
Depending on requirements of one or more depths for grouting or on
iultiple-injection stages of grouting, one of the three types of grout pipes shown
1 Fig. 5.8 can be used. A driven or jetted pipe is best used for grout injection
t a single depth as long as soil or rock conditions allow the installation. A
198 Ground control and improvement

slotted grout pipe can be used for grouting an isolated or "captive", relatively
pervious bed of soil or rock mass. The sleeve-port pipe provides flexibility as
to depth a.nd multi-stage grouting.
The spacing and depth of the grout pipes will depend on the permeability
of the ground, type of grout and site access. Ea.ch type of ground has an
optimum rate of injection for a given pumping pressure ( often the ra.te for
chemical grouting is between 0.5 and 6 gpm). If the pumping pressure is too
high for a given depth, fra.cturing also ca.lled or "claquege" (Ca.mbefort, 1977),
is usually considered necessary (toward the end of the injection process) to
achieve complete grout penetration.

Compaction grouting

Compaction grouting is mainly applicable to tunnelling in soft ground or in

urban areas where settlement of the ground is a potential problem. Important
parameters for compaction grouting include: the spacing, size, and distance of
the grout bulb from the openings; the rate of injection, and the type and depth
of the ground.
The grout mix consists of cement, water, and granular soil with 20 to 40%
passing the mesh. Additives like bentonite may be introduced to improve
pumpability. Compa.ction grouting is normally performed from the surface
through 2-inch plus diameter grout pipes installed by direct driving of place-
ment in drill holes. The use of a grout mix without cementation material permits
compaction grouting to be performed from the tunnel heading.

Jet grouting

Jet grouting uses a high-pressure jet of fluid to erode and excavate the soil
in place and allow the simultaneous formation of "soil- cement" elements. Two
techniques are used in jet grouting, the slurry jet and the water jet. The slurry
jet technique uses a high-pressure jet of cement slurry to erode and excavate,
and then to mix with the soil, producing the final soil-cement element. The
water jet technique uses a high-pressure jet of water to erode and excavate ·
the material, combined with a multiple down-tube to introduce cement grout
below the water jet, thus forming the desired soil-cement element (Fig. 5.9).
The water-jet technique allows greater flexibility with respect to soil-cement
element size and strength.
Ground control and impro11ement 199

.. .

-------
:
..

Fig. 5.8. Three types of grout pipes installed for permeation grouting (after
Gula.rte, 1989).
./0 Ground control ,md improvement

.,
II)

~
o~ :s
'O
c C) -c
cu
-= c
~~
c, CJ
,:,; - c
0
c:
.
iii
e
a..
,-,.
0)
co
0)
"'
:)

....or
Cl)

:a
'"3
cII)

E
0
.
I)

~
-
~
1\1
II)

~
r-----
,r--- ....------,
_.
I
.
u
0
p.
bO
I I I I c
I I I :;;
I
Cl
c J I
,,, ) I ... .
:::,
0
bO
...,
'
I
I
cu
ii
~
....,e
I O?
,.,.,
I t:iJ
I iZ
L----1
I
c,
c ...
<
Ground control and improvement

Example of chemical grouting

The example concerns the support of the 3.7m cover of loose soil over a
lOOm long, 2.4m diameter tunnel bored in Brooklyn, NY. Prior to mining,
a microfine cement-sodium silicate grout was injected into the soil along the
tunnel route (Brand et al., 1988) using the 1.5 in diameter, tube-a-machete
or sleeve-port, grout pipes (Fig. 5.10). A compressive strength of 2t/ ft2 (214
kPa) was obtained by using a 1:2.8 ratio of MC.500 microfinecement to sodium
silicate. The grouting program satisfied the design requirements of increased
soil strength and decreased permeability.
Brand et al. (1988) also give a useful historical note on the development and
use of microfine cement grout which can penetrate sands where the pores are
too small for other grouts (see Fig. 5.11). Microfine grouts were developed in
Japan in the early 1970's. The Brooklyn application is the first large application
of these grouts in the U.S.A.

Example of compaction grouting

The example of compaction grouting (after Baker, ~t al., 1983) concerns

the control ground movement during excavation of the Bolton Hill tunnel near
Baltimore, MD. The 19 foot (6m) diameter railway tunnel lies 40-75 feet (12-
23m) below the surface in very dense sand and gravel overlying dense residual
soils. Contract specification called for minimum disturbance ( with monitoring)
of the surface that bears the buildings.
Compaction grout pipes were installed from the surface prior to tunnel ex-
cavation using an articulated tunnel shield with excavator arm. Grouting op-
eration were begun at each grout pipe after the taH of the shield had passed
below the end of the pipe (see Fig. 5.12). The soil-cement grout consisted of
well graded, sandy soil mixed with Portland cement. The results (Fig. 5.13) .
showed a successful control on the surface movement (total settlement less than
3/8 in (1 cm) with no damage to the buildings).

Examples of jet grouting

This example of improvement of a morainic deposit above the Lonato tun-

nel, near Verona, Italy, is included for illustrating the use of jet grouting. The
Lonato tunnel traverses heterogeneous, morainic deposits with inclusions of
 Ground control a.nd improvement

GROUT INJECTION

·/~

~ ':\:·.· ...
11~~:-t'-- • ~ .

-~-----
'
.
-: . -.......:,_.
Groul
lront •
.
· \
. t
.

' . ---....

Grout is injected port by port

Fig. 5.10. Sleeve-port grout pipe for injection into soil around a tunnel (after
Brand et al., 1988).

PERMEATION
Sand
Grouts

Hicrofine cement

Portland Type 1 ...._ -·-

Fracturing
Bentonite

2 o.s 0.25 0.075

Grein size 11111)

Fig. 5.11. Permeation range for various grouts (after Brand et al., 1988).
Ground control and improvement 143

INSTRUMENT SECTION YY

Co111111etion Grout being placed

(Grouting typically cerried out
·within 5ft behind tall of shield)

Gi 62 G3
3/&"0Vercutter

61"outed Tail skin Breaating Shelves

Annulus i 1/4"thiclt
Lining Tail Articulation
Joint '' Muck Pen
'

Side View

Fig. 5.12. Layout of compaction-grout "bulbs" over Bolton Hill tunnel (after
Baker et al., 1983).

Resultant Settle•ent vith Grouting

"'-..:::
' .........
' \@ -- :~/-@
'
@ Heave Effect

~tlement without
~\ I,,:,~ 2 Grouting
--<>
\~.....-@

Shield

Fig. 5.13. Effect of compaction grouting on ground movement above Bolton Hill
tunnel (after Baker et al., 1983).
 Ground control a.nd improvement

stones in uncemented sandy (Carrieri et al., 1990)," requiring some form of pre-
consolidation and reinforcement of the ground prior to excavation. When oper-
ating in poor ground from the subsurface only, it was necessary to pre-reinforce
the ground ahead of the face with umbrella arch ( discussed later in sec. 5.2.3.2).
This was followed by excavation of the heading; installation of steel ribs, hori-
zontal and radial micropiles; consolidation of the footing; and excavation of the
bench (Fig. 5.14).
With worsening of the ground conditions (concentration of sandy and/or
silty clay with water), it became necessary to couple the stabilization measures
with sub-horizontal jet grouted columns around the excavation perimeter and
the face (item B in Fig. 5.14).
In both portal areas, ground consolidation was achieved through jet grouting
of subvertical columns (Fig. 5.15). The tunnel is under construction with an
average progress to date of 2m/ day for each of the two faces.

5.2.3.2 Rock Pre-reinforcement

The material improvement resulting from grouting ( enhanced shear stren-
gth) was discussed in ti.e previous section. In what follows, we will discuss the
material improvement -iue to pre-reinforcement techniques such as forepoling
ahead of the face and ine .. alling anchors around a pilot bore prior to enlargement
of the opening. Some variants of these basic techniques to be discussed include
the umbrella arch and micropiles.
A simple illustration of strata reinforcement ahead of the excavation face is
the use of wooden dowels, resin grouted into subhorizontal holes in the roof and
horizontal holes in the face of coal mine (Fig. 5.16). This illustration is taken
from Peng (1986) who in tum takes it from Jones {1974:). However, the use
of wooden dowels for "pinning" or supporting the mine roof goes back to the
'50's as reported by Panek and McCormick {1973) when referring to Farmin
and Sparks (1953) and Lanier {1950).
In principle, the dowelis bonded to the rock mass through the injected (resin)
grout. Peng (1986) suggests that "this technique can be used to reinforce weak
strata far ahead of the face and prevent premature fracturing".
We may note that the dowel in the above example is a simple grouted
untensioned bolt with no nut or end plate attachment at the collar of the bore·
hole. In order for the dowel to perform its reinforcement function, it must
undergo axial deformation thereby picking up tension. This is precisely wha:
would normally happen as the face is advanced in step with the forepoling anc
pre-reinforcement, see Fig. 5.17.
The supporting and stabilizing influence of rock reinforcement ( essentiall-
through rock bolts installed in the roof of underground openings) has beer
]round control and improvement

:r: LL

Q
w L +
o

I
I

_,
~I
III I I
--@---~-++--
L.I I
0
31 I
E "iiiI

-,
:; I

~I
cl
a: I
I

se·~
 Ground control a.nd improvement

-1
o u, >I
ciil
aJ
:1
~I
a.,
-1 >
aJ ..le:I C)
..le:I -1 ~I EQ,)
~I
~I
,,,
"D
0
~I -5
0 • i ..,UJ
:-1 c:::
0 I
"' I c::
C)
EQ,)
I
!)
I i::
<d
I "'O
:>
<d
I ..c
..,
Q.)

I hO

I ·-~~
c: -
~
..c
I -
UJ
b(
11')

I i::~·-
0
c:: Q,)
l ..,:::, GJ It.
0 -0
.., c
I <d GJ
c:: bC
I .s .
.._ .!
I O O
c: i:::..
o-
·;:; .
I u ,-.
cu c
I .
v. 0,,:::,
rd ....
c::
~ :.a~
:::, ~
F -~ a;
gf-.:
== =f l O G,;
~-.:...
. ~
':a=~
- - ~ c...
e: lQ
~
=:~ ·- bO~
i:::... ._.~

~~
Ground. control and improvement

Wood 'boll' or dowel

Seam

Fig. 5.16. Forepoling in coal using wood dowels (after Peng, 1986).

I ·. I
eoa11
1 I Coal I
1 I I t
IShear'Shear
-- -~-~-...L.1-l_f\_..1
I I 2
__II

Dower Dowel
I ~ I I
Dowel Dowel
Sh ear
5 Shear Shear
4 3

1-2 tt -I
• •
'"-2 It ...I. 2 tt-'
• e1-•..i.
e 2 It

Fig. 5.17. Stra.ta rei·nforcement ahead of a longwall face ( after Peng, 1986).
 Ground control and improvement

recognized since the early 1940's. A summary of the historic development of rock
reinforcement is given by Lang and Bischoff (1984) who discuss the concepts of
beam building, confined- arch effect, and the reinforced arch as a compostic of
contiguous, reinforced rock units, each of which consists of an individual bolt
a.nd the surrounding rock. Either by direct tensioning of the anchored bolts or
though indirect tensioning resulting from deformation of the grouted rebars, the
reinforced rock receives a confining pressure which enhances its shear strength.
For actual design of the reinforcement pattern (e.g., Lang and Bischoff, 1984;
Stille, 1984), two approaches may be used. One approach is to achieve the
equilibrium condition by requiring the pattern of bolts to supply the balancing
confinement. The tension in ea.ch bolt can thus be calculated.
The second approach (e.g., Bischoff and Smart, 1975; Wullschlager and
Natau, 1987; Grasso et al., 1989) attempts to quantify the improvements in
the shear resistance of the rock mass resulting from the reinforcement.

Rock stabilization through effective cohesion

In the following we will discuss the reinforcement model described by Grasso

et al. (1989). The failure criterion of Coulomb is selected to express the limiting
equilibrium condition in the rock mass around the opening.
As mentioned in Sec. 5.2.2, the cohesion of the material in the disturbed
zone around the opening ( or ahead of the face) may be assumed to degrade
from an intact ( or peak) value at the elastic-plastic boundary to some low value
at the periphery {after Daemen and Fairhurst, 1970).
Conversely, the Coulomb envelope of the broken material may be raised
by improving its cohesion from c to c" by application of a radial, confining
pressure through the use of rock bolts or similar means (see Fig. 5.18). The
effective cohesion concept was noted by Muir Wood (1979) and actually applied
by Grasso et al. (1989) who used the following interpretation.
Suppose the Coulomb criterion for un-reinforced rock is given by the lower
envelope in the Mohr diagram of Fig. 5.18,

T = c+ crtan~ (5.23)

and, in terms of the principal stresses a r and er s, as

as= 2ctana + crrtan2 a (5.24)

where a = 45 + ¢/2, and ~ is the angle of friction.

Ground control and improvement

Fig. 5.18. Parallel Coulomb envelopes illustrating the effective cohesion resulting
from confinement due to bolting (after Grasso et al., 1989).

Suppose the stress state at a point on. the periphery of the excavation is
given by Ur = 0 and us = u8. The Mohr circle corresponding to this stress
a
state ( centered at R0) gives failure condition. As suggested by Dixon et al.
(1985)1 limitingequilibriumcan be achievedin one of three ways: (1) decrease es
( condition represented by the circle centered a.t Ri)1 (2) increase a r ( condition
given by the circle centered at R2), and (3) decrease u, and increase <7r1 in
various combinations.
Note that the Mohr circles corresponding to equilibrium conditions (1.) and
(2) a.hove can be conveniently constructed as shown in Fig. 5.18. Condition (2)
is of interest when reinforcing with bolts in advance of the excavation and is
further discussed below.
We will assume that the rock mass ahead of the face of a drift (Fig. 5.16) or
around the pilot bore of a tunnel (Fig. 5.19) is pre-reinforced with a pattern of
150 Ground control a.nd improTJement

grouted dowels, rebars, bolts, or cables, which, for the sake of simple argument,
are not pretensioned. With the advance of the face or enlargement of the pilot
bore, the deforming rock mass introduces tension in the bolts.
The net result is the provision of a confining pressure i::.CTr. _We may now include
this reinforced influence in eq.(5.24) and get:

(5.25)

CT9 = 2c•tan a+ a; tan2 a (5.26)

with the effective cohesion given by

• J::. CTr
c =c+--tana (5.27)
2
The effective envelope, tangent to the circle centered at Ro (Fig. 5.16), is given
by
r = c• + CT tan <p (5.28)
and the improvement or effective compressive strength, c;, is· given by

c; = 2c· tan a (5.29)

The effective cohesion c", through its component i::.CTr in eq.(5.27), is a func-
tion of the bolt deformation du, length of the bolt, f., bolt spacing, s, area of
cross section of the bolt, A, and modulus of the bolt, E, thus

l::.ur = (du/f).E.A.(f/s2) (5.30)

An example application of the concept of effective cohesion is given in a later

subsection. It is interesting to note that Korbin and Brekke (1976), based on a
model study of forepoling ahead of the face, conclude that "the influence of pre-
reinforcement can best be explained as distributed strength increase within the
reinforced region". They anticipate equations (5.29) and (5.30) in verbal terms
and state that pre-reinforcement "provides rock mass confinement, leading to
increased available strength".

Forepoling with grouted pipe-umbrellas

When tunneling through poor ground, especially in the portal regions, the
rock or soil mass may be reinforced ahead of the face by using a system of steel
Ground control and impro11ement 151

Fig. 5.19. A view of installed rebars in a. pilot adit {after Grasso et al., 1989).
 15! Ground $V.pport after e:i::cavation

pipes whicb form an umbrella-arch over the projected excavation boundary.

The technique is frequently used in Europe (e.g. Barisone et al., 1982; Palmieri,
1984; Reith and Philippe, 1986; Koenz and Garbe, 1986; Pelizza et al., 1989)
with minor variations from the above description.
The objective is to form a shell of grouted and reinforced rock around the
tunnel vault. A series of 15°± upward-inclined, 100-lSOmm diameter, 8 to
12m long, holes a.re drilled and perforated steel pipes are inserted in the holes.
A water-cement grout is injected in the pipes at 3-10 bars depending on the
overburden. Sequential umbrella arches provide a.n overlap of l-4m (Fig. 5.20).
Depending on the type of ground, two rows of pipes may be used. A view of
sequential umbrella arches, near a tunnel face, is shown in Fig. 5.21.

· · 5.2.4 Ground support after excavation

Installation of support, or lining, of some sort is an intrinsic element in
contruction of tunnels and caverns, regardless of whether the excavation is by
machines or conventional means. An example set of support recommendations
are provided in Table 5.3 (also see Fig. 2.12).
Depending on the condition of the ground, the excavation may be supported
in one step, by the final or secondary support, or in two steps: by installing
initial or primary support closeto the face followed by the final support at some
distance or after some time.
An example of sequential excavation a.ndsupport for a 27 m wide road tunnel
in poor ground is shown in Fig. 5.22. Except for the final concrete lining, all
other installations ( rock bolts, mesh,.and shotcrete) are, in this case, the initial
support.

5.2.4.1 Initial support

Excavation sequence and temporary or initial support procedures a.reconsid-
ered (by Cording a.nd Deere, 1972, a.nd others) to be the most critical aspect of
the design a.ndconstruction schemesfor large tunnels and caverns in fair-quality
rock at shallow depth.
Hansmire and Daly (1985) consider the installation of initial support to often
be.the most uncertain element of work in the design, and in contract-bidding for
construction, of a rock tunnel. They divide the generally-used initial support
components into four types:
• direct rock support,
• rock reinforcement
• rock surface reinforcement, a.nd
~round Jupport after exca11ation

Corona micro iles

Detail: configuration of the valves

SECTION A-A

.'ig. 5.20. Scheme of pre-reinforcement using umbrella-arch (a.fter Pelizza. et a.l

.989).

li'ig. 5.21. Sequential umbrella arches next to the fa.ce of a tunnel.

[ 5,1 Ground .fupport after e%ca.11a.tion

t7>.BLE 5.3
,upport reccmnendations for rock tunnels of diameter: 20 to 40 feet (6 to 12 m)
[after Wilb.lr, 1982, and Deere et al., 1969).
Rock TUnneling Method steel sets Rock Bolts S"notcrete
Quality & Rock Load
Excellent a. Boring machine None to None to • Noneto occasional
RQD>90 (0.0 to 0.2)B*. occasional occasional. • local awlicadcn.
light set.
b.Conventional None to None to Noneto occasional
(0. 0 to0.3)B. occasional occasional. local application
light set. 2-3 in. (5-7 .Son).
a.Boring occasional occasional INonetooc:casional
Good
75 < RQD
< 90
l machine
(0.0 to 0.4)B.
light sets to
pattern on 5-6 ft
Cl. 5-2 ml cent.
to pattern local application
on 1.5 -l.8ml2-3in.(5-7.5·onJ.
foot center
b.Conventional Light sets, Pattern, Occasional 1oca1
(0.3 to 0.6)B. 1. 5-2 mcenter. 1.5-1.8 m application ( 5- 7. S
foot center. an>.
Fair a.Boring Light to medium Pattern, (5-7 .5 cm).
50 <_RQD I machine sets,1.5-1.8 m 4 to 6 foot on crown.
< 75 (0.4 to 1.0)B. center. center.
b.Conventional Light to medium Pattern, 10 on or more on
(0.6 to 1.3)B. SE:!tS,1.2-1.5 m 1.2-1. 8 m and side.
centez:. center. 1crown
Poor a.Boring Mediumcircular Pattern, 10-15 cm on crown
25 <RQD machine sets onl-1.2 m 0.9-1.5 m and side. Cambirie
< 75 (1. 0 to 1.6)B. center. center. with bolts.
b.Conventional Mediumto heavy Pattern, 15 an or more on
{1.3 to 2.0)B. sets-on 0.6-1.2 m 0.9-1.5 m crown and sides. j
foot center. center. carhlnewithmediuml
sets.
Very poor a.Boring Mediumto _heavy Pattern, 15 on or more on
RQD<25 nachine circular sets on 0.6-1.2 m whole section.
(Excludin~ (1.6 to 2 .2)B. 0. 6 m center. center. Carbinewithmedium
sgeezing sets.
or b.Conventianal Heavy circular Pattern, 15 on or more on
swelling (2.0 to 2.8)B; sets on 0.6 m 0.9 m whole section.
ground) center. center. carbinewithmediurr.
to heavy sets.
Very poor a.Boring Very heavy Pattern, 15 en or more or.
(Squeezin~ machine circular 0.6-0.9 m whole section.
or up to 250 feet sets on 0.6 m center. Canbinewithheavy
swelling) (7Sm). center. sets.
b.C.Onventional Very heavy Pattern, 15 on or more or.
up to 250 feet circular 0.6-0.9 m whole section.
(7Sm). sets on 0.6 m center. Canbinewith heav:,
center. sets.
Ground 3upport after e:i:cav"tion 155

. \
\
\
\ . I

\\' \ .

0
...

(a)

(b)

Scheme 1

Fig. 5.22. Example of sequential excavation and support of 27m wide tunnel in
very poor rock. (a.) Initial sequences with ground improvement and pre-support.
(b) Final sequences with initial and final lining.
156 Ground 8Upport after e:i:cavation

• shotcrete.
In the following, we shall give a summary of the above four types of initial
support. This summary is largely a synthesis of a selected part of the vast
literature on the subject of tunnel support. References for details are given to
material covered in the previous chapters, the case histories in Chap. 7, and the
Ii terature.

Direct rock support: the load of the rock mass is transferred to steel ribs lagged
with timber bloclcs or with expandable bags inflated with some sort of grout or
cement slurry. The direct support system is relatively compressible a.nd allows
movement of rock blocks to occur, thus resulting in high loads on the ribs.
Rock loads and steel sets for supporting them may be estimated by using
the modified Terzaghi classi£cation ('Th.ble 2.5 and Fig. 2.11) or the alternative
classification systems (RSR, RMR, and Q) discussed in Chap. 2. Numerical
analyses of the tunnel problem w:ith input of statistically meaningful data can
be used to refine the estimates of the loads and the direct support.

Rock reinforcement: Rocle bolts, cables, and dowels installed in drillholes around
the opening constitute rock reinforcement.
Rock bolts and cables may be fully grouted and tensioned (active reinforce-
ment] or left untensioned (passive reinforcement) when they are called dowels.
Othc:ir passive reinforcement elements include friction stabilizers such as the
split set.
Support of occasionally occurring rock wedges may be effected by spot bolt-
ing or pattern bolting (Fig. 5.23). Pattern rock bolts are generally used with
wire mesh for increased efficiency in preventing local instability. ·
The critical blocks can be identified by using techniques such as the key block
theory of Shi and Goodman {1981). As mentioned in Sec. 3.3.1, the stability
of the rock wedges is discussed (among others) by Crawford and Bray (1983),
Belytschko et al. {1984), Elsworth (1986), and Sofi.anos(1986). The approaches
for the design of a general reinforcement pattern, were discussed in Sec. 5.2.3.2.

Rock surface reinforcement: The rock surface reinforcement is generally a mesh

of welded wire attached to the rock surface with short bolts. The mesh prevents
or controls spalling and deformation of the surface and is normally integrated
with shotcrete or concrete lining.
Ground .support after ezcavation 157.

Fig. 5.23. Support of rock wedge. (a.) "Spot" bolting. {b) Pattern bolting.

Shotcrete: The name shotcrete refers to a pneumatically applied layer of con-

crete (including reinforcement like steel fiber and microsilica) placed directly
on the surface of the rock. A good reference material for the use of "shotcrete
for underground structural support" is provided in a publication by (ASCE and
ACI, 1973). In this same publication, Heuer (1973) lists the followingimportant
functions of shotcrete:
A. Sealing of rock surface to inhibit slaking,
B.· Preserving inherent ground strength by providing a smooth a.nd continuous
support to the perimeter and minimizing loosening.
C. Providing support to individual blocks of rock, a.nd
D. Providing (in sufficient thickness) a structural arch or ring.
Steenson (1974) provides a good overviewof the equipment, procedure, and
advantages of shotcreting with a wet mix.
Based on laboratory model tests a.nd field observations, Cording et al. ( 1979)
describe the strength a.nd failure (modes) of shotcrete lining in loosening rock.
An informative historical review of the development and use of steel-fiber-
reinforced shotcrete is given by Rose (1985) who also gives a good description
of an alternative reinforcing element, microsilica. Another valuable source of
information on shotcrete technology is the series of draft reports prepared. by
158 Monitoring ground behavior

the International Tunnelling Association through its working group on shotcrete

use (e.g., see ITA, 1991).

5.2.4.2 Final support

A good description of the final or permanent lining of rock tunnels is given
by Wilbur (1982) and Whittaker and Frith (1990). In civil engineering appli-
cations, a final lining is generally required for long-term safety even though it
may largely perform as a passive support.
Permanent linings may be constructed using a combination of steel arches
and concrete. The concrete lining may be either cast in place or brought in as
segments. Reference may be made to Wilbur (1982) for discussion of the asso-
ciated features and procedures such as concrete emplacement, water proofing
and drainage, and grouting for controlling permeability.

5.2.5 Monitoring ground behavior and design modifica-

tion
Monitoring the behavior of the ground around a tunnel or cavern, and com-
paring it with the predicted behavior, permits a realistic evaluation of the suc-
cess of the design. The observational procedure recommended for safe design
and construction by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) is as follows:
"This procedure consists in making appropriate observations soon enough
during construction to detect any signs of departure of the real conditions from
those assumed by the designer and in modifying either the design or the method
of construction in accordance with the findings".
Monitoring can provide a warning in the case of under-design, thus effecting
a timely corrective action, In the case of an overdesign, monitoring can provide
the basis for modifying the assumptions for the analytical model and input data.

Objectives of monitoring: The major objectives of monitoring the behavior of

underground openings are summarized below (after Barla and Mahtab, 1983)
while the relative importance of the various objectives for various types of open-
ings is illustrated in Table 5.4.
Monitoring ground behavior 159

TABLE 5.4
Inportanceofmonitoringobjectivesrelativetoexcavationt:ype(afterBarla
and Mahtab, 1983).
Objectives
of Monitori[W}andTheir Relative Importance
(extreme, moderate. maraina.ll
of
'l'fpe !Safety & Le;Jal !);!sign ! Stability Environiren- Instnmension
.E:Kcavat
ion Requirements Verification' & SUpport ta1 In'pact Technolcgy
Verification
Transportatior.
Tunnels EXtreme EXtreme Extraoe Moderate Extreme

, Water & Sewage

Tunnels Moderate Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal

• Pc:werhaJse &
, crusher staticn Ext.rare attars ExtrElre Mllgiral El<ttare

: Energy Storage
caverns M:derate Mll'gira.J. M3Iginal M:derate M:dex:al:e

HlClear ~l3st
Rsp:)sitories Eld:rere M:derate Mxlerate Ext.rare ~

Shafts Extrare M:derate Mxlerate M:derate Ex:trerre

Pro:llcticn
Dcifts Ext rare Mllgiral M9.rgiral Mllgiral Extrare

1. Safety considerations and legal requirements ,

Safety of workers and the general public is always an important objective:
There are also legal requirements, such as limiting the damage to the envi-
ronment or neighboring structures, which have to be met. However, these
requirements can only be met through monitoring.
2. Verification of design and assumption for the design
Monitoring of the actual behavior of the rock mass, during and after con-
struction, provides a verification of the assumed geotechnical parameters,
including the in-situ state of stress, deform.abilityof the rock mass, and
support-rock interaction.
3. Indentification of short- and long-term stability problems for timely, correc-
tive action (and modification to the design)
160 Monitoring ground behavior

Performance monitoring over the life of an opening is expected to entail

several functions: ensure safety, indicate performance of artificial supports,
and allow changes in design to control instability.
4. Assessment of environmental impact ( e.g. subsidence, changes in ground
water regime, release of toxic subsidences)
5. Verification and further development of instrumentation systems.
It is necessary that the instrumentation developed for field monitoring be
tested, redesigned, and improved through application to real situations. It is
also important to documents the results of monitoring for use by others.
In a specific construction project, an instrumentation program may be de-
signed to answer a series of questions suggested by Cording and Deere (1972):
• How do the rock displacements develop due to the given excavation se-
quence? -
• Is the initial support effective in controlling these movements?
• What is the influence of major discontinuitieson the behavior ( displacement,
support) of the rock around the (pilot) heading?
• How are rock displacements related to loads on the lining due to subsequent
enlargement to full width?
• What is the effective stiffness of the blocking (and the rock walls) as the
lining deforms?
• Were the design loads assumed reasonably?
• If any shear zones exist, what is their influence on the distribution of thrust
and moment in the lining?

Monitored variables and monitoring techniques: The two important variables

which are generally monitored for performance of tunnels and cavities are the
rock deformation and the stress changes. Other measurements that may· be
required in site-specificsituations include measurement of pore-water pressure,
load or strain on artificial supports, temperature, migration of toxic substances,
and extent of the loosened zone.
• Measurement of pore pressure is done by use of piezometers of several types
(open standpipe, hydraulic, pneumatic) and the vibrating-wire strain gage.
• Rock stress changes can be monitored with vibrating wire stress meters, hy-
draulic pressure cells, borehole deformation gages (modified USBM gage),
and the C.S.I.R.O. cell. Support loads or strains may be measured by in-
stalling strain gages on steel ribs prior to emplacement of the ribs.
• Rock deformations are monitored mostly by using extensometers: rod ex-
tensometers in boreholes and tape extensometers for measuring changes of
opening dimensions ( convergence). In rod extensometers, various styles ex-
ist with several different anchor designs: groutable, hydraulic, expansion
Monitoring ground behavior 161

type, snap-ring. Rod extensometers are most popular; detachable rods are
a frequently used option with a built-in calibration feature. Sensing is done
ma.inlyby mechanical means. Where electronic readout is required, either a
sonic probe system or a linear potentiometer is used. Some of the available
potentiometers are inexpensive and permit easy installation along with a
capability of simultaneous mechanical readout. Several types of tape exten-
someter are commercially available.
• The extent of the loosened or plastic zone around an openings may be mon-
itored by borehole seismic measurements, extensometer measurements as
discussed above, and acoustic emission measurements (for example, as dis-
cussed by Aoki et al., 1991).
In general, it is desirable that the monitoring systems should be: rugged
and reliable, easily installed, easily read, and inexpensive. Few tunnel owners
or contractors are willing to invest large sums of money in expensive equip-
ment and highly-trained observers. Measurements must be made repetitively,
so the systems must be simple. Results must be unambiguous, otherwise the
monitoring will not be useful and may be discontinued. Cording and Deere
(1972) suggest that instrumentation in tunnels should be designed with special
regard for access and impact of the program on the work of the construction
contractor.

Use of monitoring in modification of modeling and design

An assessment of monitoring as a tool for improving modeling and designof

underground openings is provided by Barla and Mahtab (1983). The following
outline is based on their discussion.
Monitoring is a key element is all phases of design and construction. For
example, in modelling schemes to simulate the rock mass behavior as applied
to construction and to predict the consequent deformations. In design, rock
mass deformations are measured during in-situ tests and deformational limits
are sought as a design goal. During construction, deformationsor their absence,
are all-important indicators of the degree of stability. However,as mentioned
earlier, monitoring must provide the sought-after information without impeding
the construction progress.
Three major aspects of the application of monitoring as a tool: modeling,
design and construction are discussed below, together with the difficultiesin
interpretation and use of the results.
16! Monitoring ground behavior

Modeling: Modeling is an attempt to simulate the rock mass behavior, and mod-
els can be developed and modified so as to predict the deformations observed as
a function of time. If a model then works well, it can be utilized, w:ith caution,
to predict rock mass behavior for a new project. Inasmuch as rock masses are
inhomogeneous, predicted deformations w:ill often differ from those observed,
because the rock mass properties of the model a.re generalized. Several different
modeling and analytical techniques should be coupled with monitoring to de-
termine design requirements. The data obtained by extended monitoring after
construction can be very helpful, especially for developing better models and
for research purposes. In fact, some degree of approximation of the parameter
values, and several "reasonable" assumptions on the rock mass characteristics,
are usually needed, even in the best studies cases. Therefore, a good judgment
on the validity of the type and the amount of "guess work" done at the design
stage can be expressed only by carrying out a detailed analysis of data obtained
during a long period of observation after construction.

Design and Construction: Given the large variety of different conditions in

which underground openings are excavated, sufficient experimental data on
their behavior a.re seldom available at the design stage. In many instances,
construction of such cavities is still an "art" and, even with the use of the most
rigorous design procedures, many important parameters cannot be known in
advance in a completely satisfactory manner. Index tests can be helpful at this ,
stage if a good methodology is followed (for instance see the discussion and
literature review of Grasso et a.I., 1992b).
The amount of uncertainties still remaining at the start of the working op-
erations is often so large that, without a well-planned instrumentation program
to monitor the ma.in stability parameters such as stresses, deformations, and
hydraulic conditions in the surrounding rock mass, serious risks may be encoun-
tered during the actual construction operations.
It is, however, most important that the monitoring program should be well
designed in advance on the basis of what one really needs to know in order to be
able to take correct and prompt decisions on possible variation of the excavation
procedures. This is obviously possible only if the starting construction design
offers some degree of flexibility. One can, therefore, suggest that the larger the
a.mount of uncertainties, the more flexible should be the construction design,
and hence, the more useful will be the monitoring tool, if very carefully planned.
Monitoring is used to verify the design deformations and thereby the ade-
quacy of the design. Often a design will be in phases, so that, as in the ap-
proaches for convergence confinement and the new Austrian tunneling method,
minima.Isupport is initially provided and observed rock mass deformations indi-
cate supplemental support measures. Monitoring can help determine the depth
Chapter 6

SPECIAL PROBLEMS

In addition to the general geomechanical considerations in the design of

tunnels and caverns, special problems occur in many tunneling projects that
require specific solutions. The problems discussed here relate to the phenomena
of swelling, blast vibration, and water inflow and to the difficulties in excavation
of portals and shallow tunnels.

6.1 Swelling
This section provides an outline of the basic swelling mechanism, the various
tests and measurements that are made in the laboratory and the field, and the
general procedures used for analysis and design of the tunnel lining in swelling
rock.

6.1.1 The swelling mechanism

The paper by Duncan et al. (1968) is of historic interest for the basic
concepts about swelling rocks. They note that originally hard clay, clay-shales,
shales, marls, and mudstone may progressively swell in the presence of water ·
and become plastic ( causing problems of stability & support).
An interesting observation is that "on driving of a tunnel ... there is a pro-
gressive opening of the fractures within the mass ... the effect of this relaxation
upon the in-situ seismic wave velocity for (the) rock mass is significant and
demonstrable. The net result is that water is drawn toward the opening and
is then drawn into the rock material around the tunnel by capillarity". As
a· consequence, the pore pressures build up in the pores of the rock material,
resulting in volume increase or swelling in the mechanical sense. "The mechan-
ical concept of swelling, and the laws governing (it) ... are identical with those
governing the swelling by diffusion of minerals such as montmorillonite".
16./ Monitoring ground beha.vior

The details of back analysis approach, together with a substantial list of

references, a.re given by Gioda (1985) who defines two possible ways of back
analysis: the "inverse" a.nd the "direct" procedures for stress analysis of the
same problem.
In the inverse approach, the governing equations for the problem are in-
verted. The input parameters of stress analysis (or known quantities, such as
elastic constants) will appear in the group of unknowns. The unknowns of stress
analysis (displacements a.nd stresses) correspond to the measured quantities and
will appear in the set of input data.
The direct calibration approach is identical to the stress analysis approach. The
back analysis is performed through a minimization procedure. The trial values
of the input parameters are updated until the differencebetween the numerical
analysis results and the measured values is minimized.
When using back analysis to arrive at the properties of the ground, some
limitations of the approach must be recognized. These limitations, as pointed
out by Duddeck (1989), derive from the material nonlinearities a.nd errors in
measurements.
The problem of material nonlinearity is very complex. The input da.ta.for a
proposed constitutive model may be difficult to obtain even in the laboratory.
The fieldmeasurements, being integral values, may not provide the correct basis
for the back analysis. The probabilistic approach ( e.g., Asaoka and Matsno,
1979) promises to quantify and deal with the uncertainty in both the input
properties and the measured behavior.
Several shortcomings of the measurements have been enumerated by Dud-
deck (1989): validity of observations only for local time and place; delayed
installation of instruments; limited sampling and, therefore, random values;
and non-repeatability. The situation may be improved by following the advice
of Cording and Deere (1972), that is, "in addition to spotting instruments at
critical location, ...concentrate instrumentation in a few test sections....".
Chapter 6

SPECIAL PROBL·EMS

In addition to the general geomecha.niealconsiderations in the design of

tunnels and caverns, special problems occur in many tunneling projects that
require specific solutions. The problems discussed here relate to the phenomena
of swelling, blast vibration, a.ndwater inflowand to the difficultiesin excavation
of portals and shallow tunnels.

6.1 Swelling
This section provides an outline of the basic swellingmechanism.,the various
tests and measurements that a.re made in the laboratory and the field, and the
general procedures used for analysis and design of the tunnel lining in swelling
rock.

6.1.1 The swelling mechanism

The paper by Duncan et al. (1968) is of historic interest for the basic
concepts about swelling rocks. They note that originally hard clay, clay-shales,
shales, marls, and mudstone may progressively swell in the presence of water
and become plastic ( causing problems of stability & support).
An interesting observation is that "on driving of a tunnel ... there is a pro-
gressive opening of the fractures within the mass ... the effect of this relaxation
upon the in-situ seismic wave velocity for (the) rock mass is significant and
demonstrable. The net result is that water is drawn toward the opening and
isthen drawn into the rock material around the tunnel by capillarity". As
a consequence, the pore pressures build up in the pores of the rock material,
resulting in volume increase or swelling in the mechanical sense. "The mechan-
ical concept of swelling, and the laws governing (it) ... a.re identical with those
governing the swelling by diffusion of minerals such as montmorillonite".
166 Swelling

Duncan et al. (1968) suggest a simple apparatus for measuring the axial
strain, Ea. of a rock specimen,

change in (specimen) length resulting from saturation

Ea= original length (prior to saturation)

The saturation swelling pressure, a '" can be determined in the laboratory by

measuring the dynamic modulus E.,ei.smic, thus

In their important contribution to the state-of-the-art to 1975, Einstein and

Bischoff(1975) define swelling (in simple terms) as "a time-dependent volume
increase of the natural ground caused by stress changes, increase in water con-
tent, or by a combination of both". This "narrow" definition excludes the
volume increase due to creep, dilation of jointed rock due to joint movement,
and frost effects, etc.
Shales and marls containing the expansive clays (~ontmorillonite and illite)
are common subjects of swelling, together with anhydrite which forms Ca.S04•
2H20 with upto 60% expansion on hydration (Einstein and Bischoff, 1975).
"For anhydrite, the transformation occurs by means of an aqueous solution
from which gypsum is resedimented; however, in corrensite (a clay mineral in
claystone of Wagenburg tunnel sequence in Germany), water can be incorpo-
rated into the flaked structure of the crystal lattice and onto the cations in the
physical manner" (Wittke and Pierau, 1979). The claystone decays in unlined
tunnel floors where the vertical stress is zero and the horizontal stress is small.
A cycle of volume change, strength and modulus reduction, stress relief,· and
further swellingis set up in the area of the invert.
Based on the results of Ruder and Amberg (1970), a relationship between
the axial swelling strain, E:, and the axial applied pressure, a :, was proposed
by· Grob (1972):
E,: = K (1- loguz) (6.1)
log Uo

for O < a z ~ uo

whereu0 is the maximum axial swellingpressure within the submerged, confined

specimen (Ez = 0), and K is the strain for a , = 1 (thus, K depends on the stress
dimensions).
Einstein and Bischoff (1975) had discussed the role of the first invariant of
stress,
Ji = Ut + C12 + U3 = (1 :r: + (1 y + C1 z (6.2)
Swelling 167

?S an indicator of the magnitude of swelling.

Thus, swelling will be proportional to the extent by which the 11 primary
t;vith in situ stress) is larger than the 11 swell (with stresses around a tunnel).
' Wittke and Pierau (1979) substitute the strain invariant

and the stress invariant

v l+v
I1 = --(2CT
1-v
.:) + CT .z: = --CT=
1-v

l
in Grob's equation to obtain the three-dimensional relationship

log--
1- v ·I1,CT
~=K 1- l+v (6.3)
1-v
[ . log1 + v. I1,CT0

where 11, CTo is the stress invariant using CTo and the associated x and y stresses,
and v is the Poisson ratio.

6.1.2 Laboratory tests and in situ measurements of

swelling
The ISRM (1989) suggests laboratory tests for swelling in three configu-
rations: (1) maximum axial swelling stress, (2) axial and radial free swelling
strain, and (3) axial swelling stress as a function of axial swelling strain. At
least three undisturbed samples a.re required for each test. The specimens a.re
right circular disks of thickness= 20-30:m.m for diameter of 50-lOOmm.
(1) The maximum axial swelling stress test measures the axial stress, CT 4, neces-
sary to constrain an undisturbed radially confined rock specimen ( at constant
thickness) which is .immersed in water.
The apparatus for measuring CT 4 is shown in Fig. 6.1. Porous plates are put
on top and bottom of the specimen which is placed in a rigid (radial) ring. The
168 Swelling

Fig. 6.1. Apparatus for measuring the axial swellingstress: (1) stainless-steel ring;
(2) porous metal plates; (3) stainless-steel loading plate; (4) cell; (5) dial gages
[attached to bottom of cell (4), attachment is not shown]; (6) load measuring
device; (7) rigid frame; and (8) loading piston {after ISRM, 1989).

bottom porous ..plate is bigger than the ring and sits in a cell which is water-
fi.lled. A rigid loading plate. sits on the top porous plate. Dial gages are used
for measuring the axial displacement.
The apparatus is assembled with 25 kPa axial load and the cell is filled
with water. The axial force, N, and the axial displacement, u are measured in
time. Stepwise compensation of the axial strain is made by increasing a 4 to the
maximum asymptotic level (Fig. 6.2). The axial stress is given by

N
"4 = A

where A is the cross section of the specimen of initial diameter d (and length
h), whiie the compensated swellingstrain is:
S,u,elling 169

(2) The axial and radial free-swelling strain is measured using the apparatus
shown in Fig. 6.3. The rock disc is placed in & cell. A steel band is wrapped
around the disc and held in place by & rubber band. The specimen's (after
wetting) radial strain is obtained from the observed circumferential increase of
the steel band, ~C. The axial strain is obtained from the readings of a dial
gage mounted axially,
The axial swelling strain, Ea., is
u
Ea.=-
h
and the radial swelling strain, Er, is

~C/1r
Er=-d-

(3) The test for determining the axial swelling stress as a function of the axial
swelling strain (is based on the swell test of Huder and Amberg, 1970, and is
done by using the apparatus shown in Fig. 6.4. The objective of the test is to
measure the axial swelling strain, E4, necessary to reduce the axial swelling stress
a II of water-immersed, radially-confined rock specimen from its maximum value
to a value which is acceptable for application to a given situation or analogous
boundary conditions.
The specimen is loaded to a desired level of a4 ( usually equal to the over-
burden stress), the cell is filled with water, the normal load, N, is reduced in
consistent decrements ( usually 50% in each step) down to a load corresponding
to 25 kPa, and the swelling strain, Ae is measured for each step.
The axial stress decrement, ~<Ta. is plotted (see Fig. 6.5) against the total
axial strain increment,
AEtoto.1 = AEO' + AE
. .
A. plot of q11 versus swelling strain (see Fig. 6.6) is constructed and used to
estimate the potential swelling strains that are needed for the design.
ISRM (1981) cautions against assuming the swelling strain index obtained
in the laboratory "as the actual swelling strains that would develop in situ, even
under similar conditions of loading and of water content. n Gysel (1987) advises
"to check or correct the laboratory- based swelling parameters by means of de-
formations or pressure measurements" performed in situ. In situ measurements
of displacement of the tunnel periphery and tunnel convergence can be made
by extensometers and distance measuring devices, respectively (Einstein and
Bischoff, 1975; Kovari and Amstad, 1979a).
170 Swelling

a c•>
(a)
o•,.... ,
..L,____

i
.;

i
"'
Time

0 (I)

( b)
e" 1-..u1

i
;;
]i
>(

"'
0
I cxirrpensaled sv.eling SIIUlS

Fig. 6.2. Plots of axial stress (force) vs time (a.), and vs compensated swelling
strains (b), (after ISRM, 1989).

Fig. 6.3. Apparatus for measuring the swelling strain: (1) cell; (2) dial gage; (3)
glass plate; (4) stainless-steel band; and (5) spacimen (after ISRM, 1989).
ST11elling 111
. ..,

Fig. 6.4. Appa.ratus for measuring the axial stress as a. function of axial swelling
strain: (1) stainless-steel ring; (2) porous metal plates; (3) stainless-steel loading
plate; (4) cell; (5) dia.l gage [attached to bottom of cell (4), attachment is not
shown); (6) loading frame (after ISR.\.i, 1989).

6.1.3 Analysis and design of tunnels in swelling rock

Gysel (1987) suggests the following steps in a comprehensive procedure for
design of structures in swelling rock (especially for large tunnels):
1. Lab tests for swelling parameters and (possibly) other properties of rock as
well as in situ stress,
2. Tests in tunnel, or chamber, ( comparable in location and dimension to actual
structure) for analysis and performance prediction,
3. Comparison of predicted and observed performance ( displacements and, pos-
sibly, stresses) for modifying the original swelling parameters,
4. Analysis and design of the structure, and
5. Construction control measurements to:
- check displacements and stress,
- adoot new dimensioo.s, if necessary, and
- beck-calculate the actual swell parameters.
 Swelling

loading curve 2

J axial strain: (1) compression curve (without water

at the stress, era; (3) swelling at the stress, ua; (4)
· deformation strain .6.ia; and (7) swelling strain .tr.,

.1

swelling curve L,/:::.t

a
axial stress a,.
elling strai~ (after ISRM, 1989).
 173

An analytical solution was given by Gysel {1977) for the swelling pressure
· imoosed on the lining of a. circular tunnel under hydrostatic field stress. Gysel
or~vides simultaneous characteristic lines ( or charts) for simplifying the solu-
~ion. The procedure for calculating the _stresses and strains due to swelling
has been programmed for the finite element analysis by Wittke (1978) among
others.
In discussing four case histories, Einstein a.nd Bischoff (1975) suggest that
che design features that reduce swelling are: the invert arch, rock bolts anchored
below the swelling zone, invert slab, "~gible" back-packing, counterstress
slots, and drainage. They also suggest that the shape of the tunnel section vis-
a-vis the in- situ stress ratio has a critical influence on the location of maximum
.;welling(which is normally observed in the middle of the invert).
Kovari and Amstad (1979a. and 1979b) discuss the behavior and design of the
TS tunnel (between Biel and Sonceboz in the Swiss Jura) driven in a mudstone.
Measurements were made during construction of the tunnel to determine the
swelling capacity of the mudstone and to determine the optimum design of the
invert arch. Three alternative constructional measures were considered:
a. the prevention of heave by means of an invert arch
b. allowing the rock to expand completely
c. allowing substantial swelling before installing a. strong invert arch.
Alternative (c) was selected with a foam material placed between the concrete
bed (covering the rock) and the invert.

6.2 Blast vibrations

The ground vibrations produced by the use of explosives for construction of
a tunnel, or construction near the tunnel, could potentially damage the tunnel
or, more likely, the urban structures in the vicinity of the tunnel. The subject
of blast vibrations falls under the more general topic of "dynamic loads" which
would include earthquake loading. However, the displacement of (or damage
to) a tunnel ca.used by an earthquake would be of concern only if the tunnel
approaches or crosses a fault, especially in poor rock (Wilbur, 1982), when
special design provisions should be made. In the following, we shall review the
literature for a. description of the peak particle velocity as a measure of blast
vibrations, the damage criteria, and controlled blasting to reduce the potential
damage.
 174 Blast vibration.,

6.2.1 Peak particle velocity

In a homogeneous, infinite, rock mass, blasting will generate two types of
waves: the longitudinal, L, and the transverse, T, waves. The velocities of these
waves, a and P, respectively, depend on La.me's constants G and A (see eq. 3.3)
and density p of the rock. Thus,

a= [(A+ 2G)/ p]f (6.4)

G i
/3=[-J,
p
(6.5)

When the rock mass is not infinite, surface waves are also generated. The
type of surface wave that is important for blast monitoring is the Rayleigh wave
whose velocity, -y, depends on the elastic constants of the rock mass near the
free surface. As noted by Telford et al. (1976), -y < /3 < a.
We may now look at the nature of the motion of the medium (particle mo-
tion) corresponding to the three types of waves with the help of the illustration
provided by Telford et al,. (1976). Fig. 6. 7 shows the wave fronts of a spherical,
longitudinal wave. The arrows indicate the direction of motion of the medium.
Note the maximum compression of the medium at B and minimum compression
at D. For a large radius, the wavefront will be planar and the displacements
will be perpendicular to this plane. Such a displacement is longitudinal (hence,
the name of the wave).
An illustration of a plane transverse wave, traveling along the x-axis is given
in Fig. 6.8.· When the wave arrives at P, it rotates the medium close to P
around z' z" (an axis parallel to the z-axis) through a small (shearing) angle e.
The points P' and P" are displaced parallel to the y-axis to positions Q' and
Q". This displacement is transverse to the direction of propagation of the wave
(thus the name transverse wave). The rotation (and the shearing stress) varies
from point to point (or. as a function of time).
In practice, the transverse wave motion is usually resolved into components
parallel (horizontal) and perpendicular (vertical) to the ground surface. It is
the horizontal component that is of interest to us.
The Rayleigh wave involves a combination of longitudinal and transverse
motion and the amplitude of this wave motion decreases exponentially with
depth. The particle motion is confined to a vertical plane that passes through
the. direction of propagation of the wave (Fig. 6.9). The particle follows an
elliptical path (the major axis of the ellipse is vertical).
In order to define the motion of a particle as a result of blasting, its velocity
is determined in the three mutually perpendicular direction:
VL, the longitudinal (or radial) particle velocity,
Bla.Jt vibration., 175

Fig. 6.7. Displacements for a spherical longitudinal wave (after Telford et al.,
1976).

Direction of
propagation

Fig. 6.8. Motion during passage of _a transverse wave (after Telford et al., 1976).
 176 Blast. mbra.tion.,

Vr, the transverse (horizontal) particle velocity, and

VR, the Rayleigh (vertical) particle velocity.
Note that the 3 components of particle velocity 'Will vary in magnitude de-
pending on the blast vibration wave trains and that the peak component may
also vary with ea.ch blasting situation and with different times and frequencies
(Dowding, 1985). Therefore, it is appropriate to report the peak motion as the
peak of the vectorial sum of the 3 components; thus the magnitude of the peak
particle velocity, ppv, is given by:

ppv = (Vf + V:} + VJ)t (6.6a)

Crabb et al. (1991) suggest that vibration monitoring equipment should

be carefully-chosen with regard to frequency response, amplitude capacity, and
dynamic range. They also suggest recording and processing the complete time
history and calculating the ppv from triaxial transducer outputs.

6.2.2. Damage criteria

The peak particle velocity, ppv, resulting from a blast "has been found to
correlate best, statistically, with observed damage" (Siskind, 1973). However,
the ppv does not generate the damaging forces which derive from (a) differential
displacements that depend on wave propagation velocity and produce distortion
in the structure and (b) changes in the particle velocity vector that impose
inertial forces on the structure (New, 1986). The importance of considering the.
propagation velocity and frequency of the ground motions (in addition to the
ppv) in establishing damage criteria has been noted by La.ngeforsand Kihlstrom
(1978), Dowding (1985), and New (1986).
The ground motion (ppv) observed at a given point depends on the weight,
W, of the explosive detonated per delay; the distance, D, of the observation
point from the charge; and the transmission characteristics of the rock mass. In
the absence of a theoretical approach, an empirical scaling of the field measure-
ment is used for predicting ground motion and assessing the damage potential.
The general form of the regression equation for the ppv is

D )-6 (6.6b)
ppv=K ( W4

where K is a constant depending on the site, a in the scaling factor, and bis the
slope of the ppv versus the scaled distance in the plot using the log-log scales
(Siskind, 1973).
 y

p•
. /p'
z-:" '
'Q"
Fig. 6.9. Motion during passage of a. Rayleigh wave (after Telford et al., 19i6).
10 .
@.....:( :J- . I -c
t.-.11111al Cafttlne .. 11t IPl'.-SDUttlntl
I : I ; ':•:•

~-'
5
l
I,•
. (A''
-.
\
'-
' I
i •
•
•
I

' l I \.
j"'\.
• • •
1i
f\
I
!
I
I I 11111
I
i
11 l
I
I I
I
t
II
I
I
,,
1 !
4 ! \J ~-.0r1v1
Ill I i\l i ! iiii \ Ba11ncr, at EIDrle11e1 tty
......
I I
I

I N,itil )?'"\ I• :I Ii I

t
I
I I ii<II 1: I
....e 2
f I

.,...> I
i
I IM11 N} .. 111 I I. I I Ill
u
0 0.5
.
:
I
.... .
. .
..
I:, I 'f\.t ' ,, I
I

I I
I•.'
,
I
,
,
11
,
J

.
...... I I' i IJ'\. I I I j I! ' i I 11,
QJ I I I I I 11 \. I I I \ 111 I I I I I 11
> 0.4 i
i I i I ii \I ' 11' I I !I I
--
I I !
cu
u 0.2
I I i
I 111 \J.. I 1).jli l I I 1111
i I
.,
l\l I
I
t\ I
c..
tO 0.1
I I I
! I... I
. ,_ 11 i\ I I I I l II
Cl.
:,(.
. .
I I
...
I ti
I 'I
'
'I.
'
:t I '' . . ,
, , , 'r
I I

' I
0.06 '.\ ,

,~
tO I I I ''\ I I 1111
cu I I I
''
111
I
'
I I
'
I! I
Ii I I I I I
Cl. 0.04
I I 111 I I ' II I\ 11
1,
0.02
! I 11 I I I ' I
I I
0.01
I j Ii I
Ii 1, ! 1111
1 2 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 4006001000

S ca l e d A ange, 0/.,, l/Z. ft/lb112

Fig. 6.10. Peak particle velocity versus scaled range, according to square-root
scaling (after Hendron and Oriard, 1972).
178 Bla.3t vibration3

The two most common methods of scaling the distance, D, with respect
to the charge per delay, W, are the cube root scaling, D/W113, suggested by
Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) and the square root scaling D/W112, used by
various investigators, for example Devine and Duvall (1963), Devine (1966),
and Oriard (1971).
An example of the square-root scaling is shown in Fig. 6.10 where the various
best-fit lines signify the following:lines A and B represent the range of a typical
data obtained by Oriard (1971) from downhole blasting and line C represents
the effect of the unusual confinement as in pre-splitting.
As noted by New (1990), significant differencemay result between the meth-
ods of cube-root and square-root scaling if prediction ( of ppv) is required beyond
the range of charge weights or distances covered by the trial blasts. Hendron
and Oriand (1972) suggest that the response of the project site should be thor-
oughly explored and the choice of the scaling method should be influenced by
the number of tests available and the scatter in the results.
The potential damage to a structure that would result from blast vibrations
will be a function of the nature of the source, the ground, and the structure.
The dynamics involved are complex and any suggested criteria for damage must
not be regarded as hard and fast rules (New, 1990).
Hendron and Oriard (1972) give a review of the use of ppv in establishing a
threshold for damage to structure. Based on the analysis of 124 cases, Duvall
and Fogelson (1962) suggested a threshold ppv of 2 in. (50 mm) per second.
For the case of unlined tunnels, Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) suggested that
the ppv would need to exceed 12 in./s (300 mm/s) to produce fall of rock.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no international standards for lim-
iting ppv. New (1986) has reported the results of the attempts by various
countries in establishing safe levels of vibration. However, these levels tend to
be conservative. For instance, the German standard (DIN 4150, 1984) limits
the ppv in the lower frequency range ( <10 Hz) to 20 mm/s for avoiding damage
to office buildings. The Swiss Association Standard, (1978, Table 6.1) is also
cautious when it limits the ppv to 30 rnm/s in the frequency range of 10-60 Hz.
Siskind et al. (1980) provide a comprehensive account of structure response
and damage resulting from blast vibrations due to surface mining. Their results..
as interpreted by New (1986), are reproduced in Fig. 6.11 from which it may
be noted that the safe level of ppv beyond a frequency of 40 Hz is 50 rru:n/s;
however, this safe level is considerably reduced for lower frequencies (15 mm/s
at about 10 Hz).
Clover (1986) gives a summary of the documented effects of blast vibrations
and imposed limits (see Table 6.2). The lowest blast-induced ppv is 56 mm/s
and the lowest imposed limit on ppv is 30 mm/s.
Jla.Jt vibration., 119

100
80
Sate l•v•ls of blastlng vibration for hovsas
60
40

20 'Orywall' ,-.---- percept!bla

flnlsh'-'/ (tranllent)
111
...... 10
e
_g 8 'Plaster' ftntsn
6
........
>

- u
0
CIJ
4
•
Olsturblng or annoying
> 2

-........
u
CIJ

1
-II ------- Barely
p1rc1p:1bla
(transttntl
'-
111 0.8 Perceptible
a. 0.6
.x
111
CIJ 0.4
a.

0.2 Ieperceptlble
t
0.1
2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 6.11. Safe blasting and human-perception-vibration thresholds (after Siskind

et al., 1980, and New, 1990).

6.2.3 Controlled blasting

The blasting variables may be grouped into the non controllable and the
controllable variables ( after Siskind, 1973)
The non controllable variables a.re:
l. Legal limits
2. Ground characteristics
3. Distance and condition of subject structure from the blast
The controllable variables are:
80 Blast: vibratioru

rABLE 6.1
:Miss standards for vibration in buildings (after New, 1990).
Frequency Blasting induced Traffic or machine
'fype of structure bandwidth PPV nm/s induced PPV mn/s
Steel reinforced concrete 10-60 30
structures such as factories, 60-90 30-40
retainingwalls,hridges, steel 10-30 12
towers, open channels, 30-60 12-18
urrlergro.J:rd tunnels arrl ch!mters.

Build.u"gswith fa.mdaticnwalls 10-60 18

in concrete, walls in concrete 60-90 18-25
orl'l\3SOTlry, undergro.JI'd dlarrters 10-30 8
andtunnelswithnasarry l~. 30-~0 8-12

Buildings with masonry walls 10-60 12

and woodenceiling. 60-90 12-18
10-30 5
30-60 5-8

Objects of historic interest 10-60 8

or other sensitive structures. 60-90 8-12
10-30 3
30-60 3-5

Blast round size

Use of millisecond delays (25 m-sec delays are' common although vibration
pulses generated from intervals greater than 8 m-sec do not overlap (Siskind,
1973)).
As noted previously, the need for trial blasts before beginning production
lasting in a tunnel is clear. A sufficient number of trial blasts should be made to
rovide a reasonable sample for statistical analyses. As suggested by Dowding
l985), the ppv distribution at given scaled distances may be modeled using the
>gnormal distribution. The scaled distance '.'ersus ppv data plots can be tra-
ersed by lines representing confidence limits or bounds. For instance, Fig. 6.12
ives a plot of data from surface coal mining blasts analyzed by Dowding (1985),
ogether with three lines representing 50, 84, and 95% bounds, assuming log·
ormal distribution.
As an example of the use of Fig. 6.12, let us assume that the planned blast
ivolves 100 kg per delay at a distance of 1000 m from the measuring point.
Shallow tunnels 183

6.3.1 Stresses around a shallow tunnel

Referring to Fig. 6.13 and earlier discussion of Kirsch's (1898) solution,
eq. 3.26, for stresses around a circular hole in an infinite plate under the appli-
cation stress, Ph, we have, ·

Ur=-
Ph ( 1-- a 2) -- Ph ( 1+---
3a 4 4a2) cos28
2 r2 2 r4 r2

<TB = -Ph ( 1 + -ar22) +· -Ph ( 1 + -3a4) cos 29 (6.7)

2 2 r4

where (J is now measured clockwise from the vertical, z-axis.

The effect of the hole is of a localized nature. As the radius, r, increases, the
values of the radial stress, ar, and the tangential stress, '1a, rapidly approach
the value Ph.
As noted by Timoshenko and Goodier (1970), if the width of the plate is
equal to or greater than four diameters of the hole (i.e., z0 ~ 4a in Fig. 6.13),
the error in calculating <T lmu: ( at points m and n) does not exceed 6 percent.
[This observation should also apply to the U.S. Bureau of Mines overcoring
technique for in-situ stress measurements (Obert et al., 1962) where the 1.5 in
borehole containing the deformation gage is overcored by a 6.0 in. hole.)
A theoretical solution to the problem of a circular tunnel in a semi-infinite
medium was provided .by Mindlin (1940) and is summarized by Poulos and
Davis (1974). Mindlin considered 3 cases of the ratio of the horizontal stress
Ph and vertical stress Pz at depth z remote from the tunnel. We shall give a
summary of the results for the case where

Ph= Ps =-yz (6.8)

where 'Y is the unit-weight of the medium.

Mindlin used bipolar coordinates a and P which are related to the Cartesian
coordinates x and z through hyperbolic functions. A plot of the tangential
stress <TfJ a.t the highest point (m in Fig. 6.13) versus the ratio of depth to
radius (z0/a) is shown in Fig. 6.14. Note that up is normalized with respect to
1/ D (D = 2a), a1 is the value of a at the tunnel boundary, and /3 = ,r at the
point m.
An important conclusion that results from Fig. 6.14 is tha.t the disturbing
influence of the upper free boundary is only effective if

zo/a < 1.5

or when the pla.te width is less than three times the diameter of the hole.
182 Shallow tunnel.,

SCA.LED DISTANCE D/W 1/2 Im/kg 1/2 l

10 100

2.0

1.0 (al Surface coal mining

-,"'
Ill
'
c
e.s . ....- E
E

~ 0.2 >
Q.
a. 5 Q.

0.1 ·.
0.05

0.02---------------------......_
20 SO 1 DO
. . ._
200 SDD
·~
. . . .,. .;. . __ •
.....J.

1000
112(ft/lb
SCALED DISTANCE D/W 1/21

Fig. 6.12. Peak particle velocity vs scaled distance from coal mine blasts (after
Dowding, 1985).

The scaled distance. is then

D 1000 _ 1/2
-w-11-2 - (100)1/2 - lOOm/kg

The ppv at the 95% confidence level is 5 mm/s (that is, the ppvwill fall below
5 mm/s with a confidence of 95%).

6.3 Shallow Tunnels

Shallow tunnels are being planned more frequently because of the increasing
emphasis on environmental protection in urban areas. The excavation and
design of shallow tunnels presents special problems in estimating the support
loads as well as in pre-reinforcement of the ground. In the following we will
discuss the stresses a.round a shallow circular tunnel and the empirical estimates
of the load imposed in the periphery of a shallow tunnel. The reinforcement
and stabilization of the ground around a group of shallow tunnels is discussed
in Sec. 7.1.
Shtdlow tunnel., 185

We note that the above solution is for the problem involving a simple ge-
ometry and isotropic, linearly elastic material In actual practice, the problem
of shallow tunnels is complicated by the heterogeneity of the {often weak) ma-
terial, presence of water, and the interaction of the tunnel with neighboring
structures. The use of numerical approaches for analysis of stresses in the com-
plicated problems (Sec. 7.1), therefore, takes on a greater significance.

6.3.2 Estimates of load on a shallow tunnel

The various empirical approaches, or rock classifications schemes, for esti-
mating the load tunnels were discussed. in Sec. 2.7 and included the approaches
of Terzaghi (1946), Wickham et al. (1972), Bieniawski {1973) and Barton et
al. (1974).
The limiting equilibrium approach, including the use by some investigators
of the lower bound theorem of plasticity, has provided an evaluation of the
uniform support required for stabilizing shallow tunnels ( e.g., Terzaghi, 1946;
Caquot and Kerisel, 1956; Deere et al. 1969; Davis et al. 1980; Egger, 1983; and
Muhlhaus, 1985). The interested reader may benefit from examining the sum-
mary descriptions of the various approaches by Karaca (1991). In the following
;ve shall briefly discuss the formulation of Terzaghi (1946) and Egger (1983).
Terzaghi (1946) gave the following expression for the rock load P transferred
to the steel supports in a tunnel of width B (see Fig. 2.10):

P = '"{B-
>.. tan¢
c (i -e-z >..tan,/J/B)
0
(6.9)

where z0 is the tunnel depth, c and ,f> are cohesion and the angle of friction,
and >.. is an empirical coefficient. The rock load factor Ph B as a function of
the quality (or class) ofrock was shown in Fig. 2.11.
Egger (1983) evaluated the ground pressure acting on a tunnel of radius a
for three types of rock mass: isotropic, stratified, and cross-jointed. For the ·
isotropic problem, Egger considers tb.e limiting equilibrium of a parabolic arch
situated above the tunnel (Fig. 6.15). Assuming the Coulomb criteriu.m for
failure, the principal stresses are defined in the rock {Fig. 6.16) with the minor
principal stress, 0"1, given by

"1 -
1 [1 - sin if>~] (6.10)
'"{4 - tan ,f,(l + sin t/>)

and the vertical stress, O' :, given by

O'z = 0'2 - ccot</, (6.11)

 Shallow tunnels

Surface 1111
x

·cula.r tunnel of radius a and depth Z0 in a semi-infinite medium

.al in-situ stress, Ph,

r> r-;

'r - ~
~ ~
_v=O
l
( r---.:::::
r-- r---..... v=-
~r--...r - 4
J
~ v=-
~ ~ I'... r: -- 2
r-. ~ ~~
<, ~~
r-. <, ~
""
I'-.;.
i r-,
i

I
2 3 4
Values of Zo
a
sriation of the tangential stress, up, at the highest point (m of
be shallow tunnel vs the depth to radius ratio (Case 1 of Mindlin,
Portal construction 181

5
if, • 1.0·
4

0
0 0.5
Fig. 6.17. Curves of the minor principal stress for isotropic rock. (after Egger,
1983).

Fig. 6.17 shows the variation of a-2 as a function of the distance, { or x / a, from
the center of the tunnel for various assumed values of ~.

6.4 Portal Construction

In this section we shall briefly review the problems associated with the con-
struction of tunnel portals. A statement of the problem is followed by illus-
tration of some difficult site conditions and then by some notes on the oortal
construction methods. We have largely based this review on the material pre-
sented by Grasso et al. (1990b).
186 Sh.tLllow tu.nnela

, '.: - - ~ §,z- - - . . '

,az+
'-
--dz •dz , I
--,--

~--..---,~
o•a \
a

Fig. 6.15. Assumed failure mechanism for a shallow tunnel (after Egger, 1983).

Fig. 6.16. Stress conditions for isotropic rock (after Egger, 1983).
Portd con..stTuc:tion. 189

generally devoid of cohesion.. The jointed or weathered rocks a.s well as the
so-called "weak rocks" belong to the first category. In these cases, some in-
vestigators ( e.g. Haycocks and Rogers, 1988 and 1989) have applied the RMR
system (see See. 2.7.3), to facilitate portal design for either mining or civil ap-
plication. The second category (no cohesion) is represented by the rest of the
terrain, and in particular, by the detritic and mora.inic deposits. Such ground
is difficult to characterize through the available classification schemes.

Detritus
Nearly in all the mountains of the Alps and the Appennini, the slopes are
characterized by the presence of concentrations of detrital material. The mecha-
nism for deposition of the detritus is simple and derives from the "young" age of
the Alps and Appennini where the tectonic-movement phase and the breaking
action of the weathering a.gents are evident.
The first step in the break-up process is manifested in the separation of
medium-to-large volumes of rock from the cliffs and their accumulation along
the slope. This process is a discontinuous function of time. In addition, there
exists a possibility that the accumulated debris in some places may be partially
remobilized with subsequent formation of soil.
The final product is, however, an accumulation of stones and blocks of var-
ious dimensions, more or less immersed in a fine matrix ( of sand and silt),
generally lacking any cohesion but with presence of voids. This material re-
quires support with a suitable method of confinement. On the other hand, the
rock blocks make it very difficult to drill through this material, thus limiting
the technology that may be used for excavation.

Morainie Deposits
· During the Quaternary period, the marked variation in climate along the
Alpine series was responsible in lowering the snow line and advancing the
glaciers to the level of Pianura Padana. The detritic material was transported
through the glacier valleys and deposited along the embankments, or in front
of the glacier, thus originating the Alpine moraines.
These moraines are composed of weathered fragments, often large in size.
However, the intense abrasion in the contact zones between the glaciers and
bedrock has produced sand and silt. Sediments are also found in little glacial
lakes and in intermorainic environment. The distribution of the moraines along
the Alpine arc is quite variable.
The heterogeneous nature of these deposits is a logical co~equence of the
process which has generated them: elastic, heterogeneous matnces ranging from
188 portal eonsiruction.

6.4.1 Statement of the problem

The portal areas frequently represent some of the most problematic points
during the excavation of a tunnel. In fact, some problems are concentrated in
the portals, specially those derivingfrom the geologicnature of the ground, lack
of confinementin the immediate overburden, and rock mass discontinituies.
The increasingawarenessof the environmentalproblems during the past few
years has focussed attention on preserving Nature and, in the case of tunnels,
limiting the damage to the ground to a levelthat is essentialfor the underground
development.Also, in practical terms, the extent of excavationof a well-selected
work needs to be limited. In al.mostall cases, this limitation contributes to the
portal construction problems. In general, the followingfactors influence the
portal problems:
1. the morphologyof the site,
2. the geomechanicalcharacteristics of the terrain,
3. the condition of stability of the ground,
4. the presence of water,
5. the presence of external constraints (buildings, infrastructure), and
6. the direction of excavation (away from or toward the portal).
These factors influence the choiceof the type of project and technology and,
essentially indicate the impossibility of adopting a unique solution. From the
point of view of the project, the definition of the "portal" of a tunnel is some-
what arbitrary. In a general sense, one may say that the portal represents the
zone which separates the surface construction from the underground construc-
tion. However,this definition does not reflect the differencein the nature of the
problems that result when driving the tunnel inward from the portal and the
problems that occur while driving toward the portal from inside (which leads
to fewerproblems). Our discussionshall be restricted to portals from which the
excavation proceeds into the ground.

6.4.2 Some difficult site conditions: examples from Italy

From among the various factors which affect the portals of tunnels, it is
reasonable to assign a substantial weight to the geomechanicalcharacter of the
ground. Except in some special cases, for example, in contruction of tunnels
in urban areas (where the anthropologicalconditions may largely influence the
choice of the excavation method), it is possible to correlate the geotechnical
conditions in the site to the geomorphology.
The geotechnicalnature of the ground in the portal zones of the tunnels un-
der contraction in Italy {fromthe Alpine arc to the Appennini) can be grouped
into two categories: the ground with some degree of cohesion and the ground
 WattT inflow 191

A summary of the main characteristics of the 7 problematic portals discussed

by Grasso et al., (1990b) is· given in Table 6.3. A summ.ary of the principal
characteristics of one of these portals, the M. Bianco portal of Villaret TU11D.el
(first entry in Ta.ble 6.3) is given below for the purpose of illustration.
The Monte Bianco portals of the twin-bore Villaret tunnel are located in a.
steep slope at the extremity of the La Salle talus head. The terrain consists
of a moraioic deposit with heterogeneous size of sandy-silty material, including
boulders. Local inclusion of lenses of silty-clay material occasionally form a.
ba.se for small perches of water.
Construction Method: The construction procedure involved construction
of a diaphragm (for a length of 55 m) with sub-vertical jet-grouted columns
arranged in 3 rows (the two outside rows were reinforced with metallic tubes)
to realize a. structure which is normal to the a.xis of the tunnel and is curved at its
extremity (Fig. 6.18). Subhorizontaljet-grouted columns were also constructed.
These performed the dual function of providing support to the excavation and
acting a.s tie-backs for the diaphragms. Because of the high angle of the slope
containing the portals, it was necessary to load the toe of the slope prior to
positioning the machines for jet-grouting. The following measurements were
ma.de during construction: Inclinometer da.ta. from 4 cased boreholes, 2 in the
diaphragm and 2 along the slope. Topographic surveys were also made for
various markers on the slope and for the positions of the inclinometer ca.sings.
The measurements showed that the maximum deformation of the diaphragm
was less that 8 cm (i.e.; of the order of magnitude used·for the design).

6.5 Water Inflow

In his introduction to the subject of "Tunnels and water" a.t the 1983
Congress at Madrid, Jimenez underlined three aspects of groundwater effects:
(1) influence ~f water inflow on construction procedure and the need to predict
the location and quantity of flow,
(2) influence of the inflow on tunnel stability and lining stresses, and
(3) influence of the excavation on the environment.
The subject of water inflow is briefiy reviewed here because of its importance
in tunnel construction and for the sake of completeness. Interested readers may
obtain details from the referenced literature. An example of water inflow during
construction of a tunnel in Italy is provided in Fig. 6.19.
190 Portal construction.

fine-grainedsilt to blocks of large dimensions (tens to hundreds of cubic meters).

Depending on the lithologic nature of the morainic deposits, a certain degree of
cohesion may be present. This cohesion results from the cementation provided
by the carbonate solutions and determines the {sometimes steep) gradient of
the slopes in these deposits.
From the hydrogeologicpoint of view, the presence of pockets of fine material
(silt and clay) allows the development of local water tables with consequence
problems during excavation "of the portals.

6.4.3 Portal construction methods

The choice of a method for constructing the portals of a tunnel, is generally
limited by the need for a rapid advance to the actual subsurface construction
phase. As already noted, the requirement for minimizing the excavation, cou-
pled with the geomorphological conditions in the site, emphasizes the need to
focus on the visible part of the tunnel, that is, the portal. This considera-
tion suggests the need to minimize the operations of artificial support without
jeopardizing safety. .
To excavate the tunnel it is usually necessary to make a vertical cut {in the
slope) that is normal to the tunnel axis. Depending on the orientation of the
tunnel axis with the slope face, it may be necessary to excavate a trench. or
semi-trench for approaching the vertical cut.
The construction method can be categorized on the basis of whether or not
it is possible to excavate the portal without consolidation or reinforcement of
the ground. Significant consolidation or diaphragms are not required when the
portal is located in jointed or weak rock mass, or in ground which has sufficient
cohesion to allow the excavation of a steep {more than 45°) slope: Iµ such
cases it is possible to excavate to the elevation of the tunnel and, from there,
complete the portal structure with retaining walls in concrete and the precast
canopy which provides protection from rock falls.
If the ground is unstable, the excavation must be stabilized with due regard
for the environmental constraints. Several methods can be considered for this
case: large diameter piles, micropiles, diaphragms, and jet-grouted columns.
The adoption of one or another method strongly depends on the character of
the ground. The large (800-1200mm) diameter piles represent one of the more
traditional methods for achieving a retaining wall. They work well in granular as
well as cohesive terrain, increasing the inertia of the structure and minimizing
the need for anchors. Similar comments apply to concrete diaphragms. For
extremely heterogeneous terrain, containing from fine to very large size blocks,
diaphragms are difficult to construct. . In such .cases, it is. preferable to use
micropilesand/ or consolidation of the ground by techniques such as jet grouting.
Water inflow 193

"SS111
SECTION A-A

Fig. 6.18. Villaret tunnel, M. Bianco portal, showing cross-section of the twin-
bore and diaphrarn section.

6.5.1 Type and influence

The ingress of water in underground excavations may derive from diverse
geologic and man-made conditions. Loofbourow (1973) lists several types of
water occurrences (with examples) which include:
- Inrushes from bodies of water
- Inrushes from caverns in carbonate rocks
- Inrushes from fault conduits
- Flow from primary (inherent) and secondary (fracture) permeability
- Man-made conduits like subsidence fractures
As mentioned earlier, groundwater inflow influences the construction proce-
dure, tunnel stability, and the environment. The direct intl:.:ence includes the
cost of interrupted work while the indirect effects include the reduced efficiency
of the labor and equipment and partial drawdown of the wa:er table.
Some dramatic illustrations of the fallout of roof of the tunnel and fiow
of huge volumes of solids and water have been reported in me literature. For
example, Marulanda and Brekke (1981), discuss hazardous water inflows during
construction of 3 tunnels connected with power projects in Colombia. One of
the cases involved about 70, 000m3 of the slide material which had been changed
into mud from its in-situ state of laminated shale.
192 Water inflow

r>.BLE s .3
~les of portals (after Grasso et al. 1990 b).

'I\Jnnel I\lnnel Portal ri"YPe of

:>eetion Section !Ground
Stability
Coodition
construction
Method
General
Rarerks I
I

I
Aosta- I lOOrtt 600rtt ~raine High angle I
Unstable Diaphragms
I
M. Bianco slope of 3 rows of of slope
1'btarway jet-grouting required
Villaret tunnel columns loading the
M.Biancoportal toe for
operating

Aosta- lOOrtt 1soOm2 Detritus unstable 2 diaphragms High voltage

M. Bianco and slq:,e of 3 raws of t.ransmissim
Motorway moraine belcw jet-grouting line close to
Avise tunnel unstable colurms the portal
M. Bianco blocks
POrtal

J\osta- lOOnf 1soOm2 Detritus Unstable 2 steep slcpe

M. Bianco with big slq:,e bela..i perpendicular difficult
Motorway l::9ulders unstable diaphragms and access I
I

Avise tunnel blocks tie back

Aosta Portal
I
'Ibrino- 9Sm2 200rtt Weak Slope with Little creek
·.savona. rock unstable canopy with .teside the
Motorway (1Tarls) soil cover arches portal
Lasagne tunnel
Torino Portal

Torino- 9Sm2 200rtt !Debris Slope Road over

savona land partially Diaphragms of the portal
Motarway !Weak of debris micropiles
Giannoli tunnel rock fran road and tie-backs,
savona .Portal cx:nstructicr.and canopy

Torino- 9Sm2 soom2 ~tritus Old slope ! Unstable·

Frejus ""ith big failure Diaphragms of l:o.llders
Motorway boulders imicropiles and above the
P.anat tunnel tie-backs portal
Frejus portal

Torirxr 9Sm2 1ooom2 Detritus Unstable Hydraulic

Frejus • slope Diaphragms channel
Motorway of micropiles belo.r portal
eels tunnel
Frejus portal
Water infto1D 195

Geophysical methods can also be used to detect the saturation fluids at

depth, their success being somewhat linked to the availability of the basic ge-
ological and hydrogeological information. Casale a.t al. (1988) point out that
the resistivity methods are the most useful in detecting the aquifer, generally,
and the water table, specifically, providing the site is nearly flat.
Empirical approaches for prediction of groundwater in tunneling are useful
for providing a data base for planning and preliminary assessment. The result
of a comprehensive survey of the groundwater infiow conditions in underground
excavations in sedimentary rocks in North America is given by Raven et al.
(1989); their interpreted ranges of hydraulic conductivities £or the rocks are
given here in Fig. 6.20.
Liang and Sun (1989) discuss a computer-aided "consulting system" for esti-
mating the quantity of groundwater inflow. The results are given in Tables 6.5
to 6. 7 as an empirical classification of three sedimentary rocks for their potential
for water inflow while exercising expert judgment on geologic variables.
Close-form expressions are sometimes used to calculate the expected. inflow
rates into an opening. The basis £or nearly all such expressions is Darcy's law:

where
Q is the inflow rate .
K is the coefficient of permeability
A is the cross section of the opening
L is the length of the opening in the aquifer
h is the height of the aquifer above the opening
Estimates of water inflow into a cavem.are also made by using numerical
analyses with input of permeability values for the rock matrix and the joints.
Birch et al. (1991) used both finite difFerence and finite element models to
calculate inflow rates for the U.K. crossover portion 0£ the Channel Tunnel.
They used the simplifying assumptions of steady state, two dimensional porous
fl.ow through isotropic, homogeneous strata. The results of a parametric set
of analyses gave a. range of 150 to i50 litres/min whereas the measured inflow
amounted to only 50 litres/min.
 Wa.ter inflow

~- 6.19. Example of water inflow during construction of a tunnel in Italy.

5.2 Forecast
Despite the importance of avoiding water inflows into tunnels, relatively
.le information is available for forecasting the locations and quantities of wa-
inflows to be encountered during construction. Bauer (1985) recommends
th ·a preliminary field investigation and a program of subsurface.evaluation
the planning and design stage. The preliminary investigation would include
Iely-spacedborings and information from maps and previous boreholes. The
·estigationfor design may include boreholes drilled to below the floor of the
:ava.tionand spaced at 300-600m; water observation wells; and open bore-
les for permeability tests. Various types of permeability tests are discussed
Loofbourow (1973) who also gives the approximate ranges of permeability
various tYJ)es of ground; a shortened form of his table is given here as in
W4ter inflow 191

Table 6.5
pc....areability of joints and estimte:1 cp.JaDtit:y of gro..indwaterinflor.,.r i."l
t:umeling (after Liang ani Sm, 1988).
I
I water Content Rich Moderate Low Dry
I
Rock types Sandsc:one in a.xis SUtstaie inaxi.s MUdsc:one, Rocks filled
and geological of anticline. of anc:icline, shale, clay wic:h abun:lanc:
sc:ructures sandsc:one and sandsc:one, ro:ks, slate clay gouge
conglomerate in li.mesc:one and gypsum
a.xis of syncline conglomerate in
li.ml:ls of fold,
jointed igneous
t and metamorphic
i rocks
I
! Q (m3 tda.y .m) 200-500 100-250 <100 0

T Q: QUantity of grOJnd.later flew inco c:unnel per day and per i:rec:er (in the
direct icn Of tuMel axis)

Table 6.6
Perrre2bility of faults

inflow in tmuteli (af;;~ andl

and empirical estimates

S>m, ;;l.
of quantity of g::-ol..lrldl.rater

(m't!y.mJ
Normal faults high high 50-500
Strike-slip faults high-moderace moderate-poor 100-300
Reverse faults high-cno:lerace poor 0-500

Table 6.7
Perrreability of limestone and arpirical estimates of ~antity of
groundwater inflow in t:wmeling (after Liang and Sm, 1988}.

Geological structure Pemeability Q (m.3/day .m)

i
IAxis of anticline High-moderate 0-500
Axis of syncline high 100-2000
Vicinity of major fault very high 0-5000
Boundary of liJnest:.one and i.mper.nea.ble rock high 50-1000
196 Water inflow

TABLE 6.4
Approxllrlate ranges of permeability (after Loofbourow, 1973).
Permeability unit '*
Description of Ground Darcy cm per sec

Clay shale or dense rock with tight fractures,

considered inpe:rmeal:>le
. in most excavations 0.0001 9. 7 x 10 -a
Dense rock, few tight fractures,
approximate lower limit for oil production. 0.001 9.7 x 10-1

Dense rock, 0.005 in. (0.1 :mn)

fracture each sq ft. 0.5 4.8 x 10-4

Silt or clay, silt, fine sand.

Fewwater wells in less penneable ground. 1.0 9. 7 x 10-4

Dense rock with high fracture penneability. 2.0 19.4 x 10-4

Clean sand, mediumand coarse (0.25 and 1.0 nm). 500 0.48

Clean gravel (70% larger than 2. 0 nm). 1250. 1.2

Through a rock of 1 darcy, a fluid of 1 centipoise viscosity (water at
20° C) movesat the rate of 1 cm per sec under a pressure gradient of 1
atm per an.

l I I __________
I
Dolomites
I..... I

Sandstones
·----------·
Dolomitic Limestones
·---------...--
Crystalline Limestones
------------------·
Argillaceous Limestones
·-------------·
Shales. Claystones
·------------·
I
-14
I
-12
I
-iO
I
-B
I
-6
I
-4 -2
io 10 10 10 10 10 10
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY in m/s

Fig. 6.20. Interpreted hydraulic conductivities for sedim_enta.ryrocks surveyed by

Raven et al. (1989). -
Water inflow 199

GROUND SURFACE

GROVT JoiOl.ES

+,1,,1,1,1.w.::=:..1.1.1,,1~L::-_ - - ~
TO BE
EXCAVATED

a}- FAN GROUTING AHEAD OF EXCAVATION

GROUND SW ..lCE

WAT TABLE
TOP OF ROCK

b}- PREGROUT!NG TUNNEL FROM PILOT TUNNEL

GROUND SURFACE dl ,
. ,...,\
11 I
!U TER TABLE
, /II I
TOP OF ROCK ( .
/ } I
, I I I I
/ I I ~ROUT HOLES
/
/

cl- DRILLING & GROUTING FROM THE SURFACE

TO GROUT AHEAD OF TUNNEL EXCAVATION
Fig. 6.21. Tunnel pre-grouting for control of water inflow (after Driscoll, 1990).
1.98 Water inflow

6.5.3 Control
The ultimate inflow of groundwater into tunnels and caverns requires the
use of control measures before and during construction.
H the location and quantity of potentially large inflow are well-established
through investigations in the planning stage, the choice of a new location for
the tunnel or use of a parallel drainage tunnel may be appropriate. This is
especially true when the rock mass is likely to deteriorate under the influence
of the inflow.
Pre-grouting of the rock around a tunnel can be done from the tunnel in
advance of excavation and sometimes from the surface (Fig. 6.21); the objective
of the pre-grouting is to reduce water inflow during and after construction and
to consolidate the rock (Driscoll, 1990). The use of probe-holes, extending to at
least two diameters ahead of the face, coupled with a continuous and detailed
geologic mapping is strongly recommended by Ma.rulanda and Brekke (1981).
The techniques for eliminating seepage and dripping of water during and after
construction involve watertight concrete as well as skin seals (Haack, 1988).
Throughout the planning and use of the dewatering, or other procedures for
control of water inflow, consideration should he given to the potential conse-
quences such as surface subsidence, drying up of water supply for neighboring
communities, contamination of the groundwater, and other effects on the envi-
ronment.
Multiple openingJ at .skallow deptk 201

Junction= Widened section of HT-S to allow it to merge with AT-L.

Fig. 7.2 shows a typical cross-section AA (looking E) running nearly perpen-

dicularly ( for the purpose of subsequent analyses) to the various tunnels. The
extreme nearness of the various tunnels in Sec. AA derives from the proximity
of the excavations to Como Lake and the mountain side as well as from the
geometric constraints imposed by the pre-existing RT and HT (see Fig. 7.3).
Work on the project began in September 1985 and was completed in May
1986. The most difficult construction detail related to the area around the
junction of HT-S with AT-L.

7.1.2 Rock mass characterization

The host rock for the complex of the tunnels is a mineralogically homoge-
neous dolomitic-limestone of Triassic age. A detailed structural survey of the
hills in the site was made and analyzed to produce the geometric characteristics
of the principal joint sets (see Table 7.1 and Fig. 7.4).
The intersection of the discontinuity sets generates limited zones of pillar-
type small prisms. These prisms are more evident in the west area and are up to
decimetric in size. They can locally develop loosening loads on the supporting
structures.
The characterization of the rock mass was carried out with reference to
both Bieniawski (1973) and Barton et al. (1974) classification systems. The
basic parameters to be introduced in Bieniawski's classification were defined as
follows:
- unconfined compressive strength of dolomitic rock: 90-140Mpa.
- RQD: 60-80% in the East area and 45-75% in the West area according to
the structural survey.
- Discontinuity density: The global discontinuity density of the rock can be
rated at 15-20 joints/m3•
- Condition of discontinuity at tunnel level: very close and rough surfaces with
sound walls. Thin discontinuous clay lenses are only rarely located along the
bedding joints.
- Underground hydrological conditions; mainly dry rock with some localized
moisture patches.
- Discontinuity trend in relation to the excavation: basically unfavorable con-
ditions.
The RLvfR resulting from the above parameters, classifies the rock mass as
good (Class II) in the East area and as fair (Class III) in the West area.
Chapter 7

CASE HISTORIES

We have selected 2 case histories to illustrate the use of the various ge-
omechanics principles discussed in the previous chapters. The first example
involves stability considerations for multiple openings at shallow depth in a ho-
mogeneous, fairly competent rock (Cra.vero et al., 1986). The second example
involves the construction of a railway tunnel to through a complex formation
using convergence-confinement methodology coupled with pre-reinforcement of
the rock mass (Grasso et al., 1989).

7.1 Multiple openings at Shallow Depth

The merging or interchange of a secondary road with the existing state
highway near Como in N. Italy resulted in the complex geometry of and sta-
bility concerns for the various underground openings. In the following, we give
a summary of the various aspects of the construction project, including rock
characterization, analysis and design, and monitoring.

7.1.1 Introduction
The complex of the interchange between the state highway SS36 ( which
links the towns of Lecco and Colico) and the local road (which links Lecco and
Abbadia) is shown in Fig. 7.1 together with the plan view of an old railway
tunnel. For further reference to these tunnels, the following nomenclature is
adopted.
RT= railway tunnel
HT= SS36 highway tunnel with its N and S bores referred to as HT-N
and HT-S, respectively
AT= Abbadia (local) road tunnel with its upper and lower (elevation)
bores referred to as AT-U and AT-L
Multiple opening., cit .,h,a.llow depth. !03

I.
.. .I
.I
w A
~

I
I ~ I

I
I
i

Fig. 7.2. A typical cross section, A-A (looking E), of the multiple tunnels and
widened junction (after Cravero et al., 1986).

. ·, -·.
~1 ~t..
•.,.•.

-~ ·,, · · -~. · -
Fig. 7.3. View of the area around the Lecco portal of the railway tunnel RT,
looking W, and its relation to the alignment of the road tunnels AT-U a.nd HT-S
(for reference see the cross-section - looking E · in Fig. 7.2).
£0! .
Multiple openin.ga a t ah.allow depth

I ·',i
' : I
:. ·'
··1 I;
.,,
,
::'~ I

..
,'::·

0
l:
0
u

'-4

-, E
0
Multiple opening.s at .shallow depth 105

The shear strength cha.ra.cteristics of the rock mass resulting from the classi-
fication are: cohesion of 0.2-0.3 MPa. and friction angle of 40~-45° for Class II;
cohesion of 0.15-0.20 MPa. and friction angle of 35°-40° for Class IlI. The
modulus of defori:nation of the rock mass, given a 60000-80000 l\,!Pa. Young's
modulus for rock material, may be rated at 15000-20000MPa. for Class II and
10000-15000 MPa. for Class ill.
Additional parameters required by the Barton's classification were defined
as follows: ·
- Jn=15: 5 discontinuity sets are present in the rock volume plus additional
random discontinuities.
- Jr=l.5: planar-rough discontinuities.
- Ja=l: sound rockwall of discontinuities in close contact, generally lacking
filling.
- Jw= l: ma.inly dry rock with local moisture patches.
- SRF=5: a system of tunnels in proximity to the mountain side in a highly
jointed rock, risk of loosening after the excavation;
The quality ( Q) of the rock mass, according to the variability of basic pa-
rameters, was on the whole rated as fair-poor ( Q=2-6) in the West area and
fair-good (Q=S-10) in the East area.
The evaluation according to the Q system seems, therefore, to be more
cautious than the rating according to the RMR classification; this fact was
taken into consideration during the planning stage. In the (interference) area
between the various tunnels, therefore, the rock is certainly loose and fractured
(Barton et al., 1974, advised to treble the Jo value near the intersections). The
lateral restraint near the slope is low and it is necessary to take into account
other disturbance/risk factors such as, for example, construction methodology,
blast vibrations, and rate of effectiveness of consolidating operations.

7.1.3 Stability analyses

The stability analysis performed for this investigation used the finite ele-
ment modeling and calculation procedures. Other indications, however, were.
obtained, in a parallel and independent way, from other procedures for the
determination of rock loads such as: load conditions foreseeable through rock
mass classifications, the relationships obtained through numerical simulation of
discontinuous rock media, and the arch theory.
Although the stability analyses encompassed the complete development of
the interchanges, we shall only refer to the area where the underground inter-
change junction between HT-S and AT-L was to be built (see Fig. 7.2). This
was a particular excavation having the widest span (19m).
 Multiple openingJ at Jhallow depth

:'ABLE 7 .1
:eanetric characteristics of principal joint sets around the Lecco portals
>f the multiple tunnels.
I DIP
~- I
;ET SI'RlKE Dip Spacing Remarks
deg DIR m
1 N30W =O 0.1-1.0 Bedding joints, usually wel !-cemented
and closed, infrequently associated
with clay lenses or cataclast ic layers

2 NS .. 90 0.8-0.5 Long, cont mucus , 5 Il1ll aperture,

tight unerground

3 EW a90 0.1-1.0 Long, continuous joint parallel to I

valley r.. main cause of rock falls from s lope

4 NSOW =90 1.0 + Gennerally discontinuous,

widely spaced & random

5 N40E 40 tM 1.0 + Long,continuous, occasional

evidence of rrovernent

Fig. 7.4. View of the major structure in the cliff above the Lecco portal, looking
N.
 Multiple opening, At 1h4llo10 rlepth 101

I .
i
I
I
l

I
! [
! \
a)
I 111,- ..... _., \\ II
i I.
I
I
i
I

I I,
!

j f
'
bl

-••••• • •• • I

c)

Fig. 7.5. Magnitude of the principal stress and extent of the failure zone around
the multiple tunnels (after Cra.vero et al., 1986).

load from the masonary lining of the RT to stronger rock. The excavation of the
interchange also showed an increase in the extent of the loosened zone between
the interchange and the RT, further suggesting the use of rock reinforcement
prior to excavation.
£06 Multiple opening.s at Jhallow depth

A two-dimensionalfinite-element model was used for the stability analyses.

The geometry of the various tunnels and the boundaries of the problem were
discretized using 2458 elements and 2479 nodes. .
The in-situ stress was assumed to result form gravity loading only; this
assumption was derived from the presence of the various discontinuities with
measurable aperture, indicating the absence of a tectonic component of in situ
stress.
In reference to the cross-sectional areas of the various openings, the rock
mass was assumed to be homogeneous with respect to its deformability and
strength. The modulus of deformation for the rock mass was assumed equal to
15000 MPa (indicated earlier as the limit between classes II and III).
The Coulomb criterion of failure was assumed for the positive { compres-
sion) range of the principal stresses with an angle of friction of 40° and a peak
(residual) value of cohesion equal to 0.30 MPa (0.15 MPa).
Stress transfer was made using the no-tension procedure (Zienkiewiczet al.,
1970) for relieving the principal tensile stress, if any occurred) and, in the case
of failure according to Coulomb, by transferring the shear stress in excess of
the residual strength. The excavation of the various openings is modeled in 3
principal stages as shown in Fig. 7.5.
Stage 1 of the excavation involvesa one-step simulation of the railway tunnel
(RT) and the south bore of the highway tunnel (HT-S); the influence of the other
bore (HT-N), which is approximately 2 diameters away is assumed to not be
relevant. Stage 2 of the excavations adds the upper bore of the new, local road
tunnel (AT-U).
Stage 3 of the excavation involves an enlargement of (HT-S) at the inter-
change to include the lower bore of the local road tunnel ( AT-L). The magnitude
of the principal stress and the extent of the plastic zones obtained in the exca-
vation sequence are shown in Fig. 7.5. The following observations can be made
from an examination of the results of the finite element analysis.
The gravitational loading results in a stress-relieved zone developed near the
top of the free (or slope) side of the mountain. The stress-relief joints in this
4-5m deep zone correspond to the joints observed during the structural. survey.
The interaction between the local railway tunnel and the highway tunnel (RT
and HT-S, respectively, in Fig. 7.5(a)) resulted in a reduction in the tangential
stress at the RT wall facing the slope, a stress relief in the rock bridge between
the two tunnels, and an increase in the shear stress in the HT-S wall facing the
slope.
The analysis of the problem after excavation of the interchange (Fig. 7.5(c))
produced a redistribution of the stresses in the rock bridges among the various
openings, spreading to some distance beyond the roof of the railway tunnel RT.
This suggested the use of valved, grouted, steel pipes above the RT to improve
the rock strength, to reduce the extent of the loosening zone, and to transfer the
IJultiple open.in.g.s at .shallo10 depth 20~

?ig. 7.7. View of the reinforcement for beams of the portal-type lining. ( a) sketcl
>f the design. (b) Photograph of construction.
£08 Multiple opeainga at $hallow depth

7.1.4 Rock reinforcement and support

In addition to reinforcing the rock mass above the railway tunnel, RT, the
loosening rock mass between the RT and the intersection openings needed to
be both reinforced and supported.
Rock reinforcement was provided through systematic bolting and valved,
grouting pipes (see Fig. 7.6). Both of these operations were carried out from
the upper, local road tunnel, AT-U. The objective was to achieve an effective
cohesion of the loosened rock which would approximate the cohesion (0.3 MPa)
of the undisturbed rock mass.

Fig. 7.6. Cross sections with reinforcement at the boundaries of the tunnels a.nd
[in the Jower part) a portal-type lining in the widened area (after Cravero et aJ.,
1986).

The magnitude of the rock load to be supported by the lining of the 19m
wide intersection opening falls in the range of 0.25-0.35 MPa., depending on the
basis used for the estimate. ·
The finite-element analysis, though indicating a variable vertical stress, al-
lows an estimate of the height of the loosened, ,zone as 14m; giving a resulting
rock load of 0.34 MPa. Using Terzaghi's (1G46) rock load estimates (eq. 6.9)
based on t/>=40°, (residual) cohesion = 0.15 MPa, A = 0.25, together with the
Pre-reinforcemtnt for .stabilizing a. tunnel 211

I
I I
I c
I I
I I
0

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 0 I
I ...(J I 0
I
I I \
I \
I \
I \
\
u
I \
E
«J
I \ .s:::
I u
I \ CII
c
.2
....
...c:
.c
:d
I
I «J
I E:::
I .....:-
(D

I
I
cu
·-c:
I
e0

"
I
I Ill
I I c
cu ~
..........
)( a.,
a, u
a,
c...
0 :,
s: Cl!
cu
L.
0
I .a ~~
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
r,
I
I
I
•
I I
I
I ~ I
I I \
I I I
I
I \
I
210 Pre-reinforcement for .,tabilizing a tunnel

· correction suggested by Rose (1982) for fair rock mass (Table 2.4), the value of
rock load is 0.25 MPa.
The followingsupport was actually installed in the intersection zone.
First stage support (steel sets, wire mesh, shotcrete) in the upper and lower,
local road tunnels, AT-U and AT-L, respectively.
Monolithic, concrete lining in the AT sections where the two bores over-
lap and in proximity to the RT, and portal type, monolitic lining of the en-
larged intersection; the lining consists of cast-in-place, reinforced concrete
beams (Fig. 7.7).

7.1.5 Monitoring of displacement and load

A monitoring system for the underground intersection zone was developed
to measure the displacements, using borehole extensometers, and loads acting
on the support through use of the pressure cells.
Both the extensometers and the hydraulic pressure cells were located in the
junction (enlargement) opening (Fig. 7.8). All but one of the six rod exten-
someters were anchored into the two walls at two distances, 4.8m and 9. 7m, in
boreholes inclined upward at 5 to 13°. Five sets of pressure cells were located
(one cell at each foot of the lining) in the various sections and one set was
installed in the roof.
The initial set of readings of displacement and pressure was obtained in
October 1985 followedby three additional sets: on June 1986, March 1987, and
June 1988. The maximum differencein displacement between two consecutive
readings was 2.5mm while the maximum change in pressure was for the foot
cells 12.5 kg/cm2 (note that the change in pressure in 5 of the 6 locations·
was less than 2 kg/cm2). Therefore, for all practical purposes, the structure is
considered to be stable.

7.2 Pre-reinforcement of rock for stabilizing a tunnel

This example concerns the methodology used for pre-reinforcement or re-
qualification of the rock mass for stabilizing a portion of the 7km long railway
tunnel, Serena, in NW Italy. In the following, we shall introduce the project
and describe the geologic setting, the nature of the ground control problem, the
pre-reinforcement technique, and monitoring of the rock behavior for design
modification; for a detailed description, reference may be made to Grasso et al.
{1989,199.0a, 1991).
Pre-reinforcement for .sta.bilizing a. tunnel 119

The tunnel is being constructed for the Italian State Railway by a consortium
(called CntC) of four Companies: Cogefar, Italstrade, Recchi, and CMC. The
tunnel will house two tracks for passenger a.nd cargo trams that are expected to
operate at up to 170 km/hr speed. The 13 m wide tunnel with a cross-sectional
area of 110 m2 is excavated from the N and S portals as well as from an access
window at Caprigliola, about 2.4 km from the S portal.
The specific ground control problem that occurred in some portions of the
tunnel was· the excessive convergence due to the plastic behavior of the weak
rock. The solution to this problem involved.pre-reinforcing the rock for stabiliz-
ing the excavation before installing the contractually required concrete lining.

7.2.2 Geologic setting

A representative geologic section along the a.xis of the tunnel is given in
Fig. 7.10. The rock types in the site were classified according to the RMR
scheme of Bieniawski (1973) except that a further division of classes IV a.nd V
was made into subclasses IVa, IVb and Va, Vb for subsequent use in interpre-
tation of the rock mass behavior. The principal rock types encountered i!l the
section are from N to S:
(1) The Macigno formation: predominantly sand and siltstone with intercalation
of marl and shale; generally belonging to class IVa or !Vb, and occasionally
to class Va.
(2) Shale-limestone complex: largely shale and marl with irregular intercalation
of limestone and sandstone, often tectonically disturbed, generally classified
as Va and Vb.
(3) Flysch: an alternating sequence of limestone and marl, generally classified
as Va and occasionally as Vb.
For the purpose of this discussion we will focus our attention on a section of the
tunnel at the contact between the Macigno formation and the shale-limestone
complex.

7.2.3 Construction methodology

Except for the occasional need for blasting the rock, tunnel excavation is
performed by a hydraulic hammer. The contractual constraints, which are
of crucial importance, recognize only the final, concrete lining; the cost of a.
temporary support (including pre-reinforcement), jf provided by the contractor,
is not paid.
The two available construction alternatives for tunneling in weak rock are:
(1) thick, reinforced concrete lining and (2) reinforcing the rock or prelining
 Pre-reinforcement for $tabilizing a tunnel

7.2.1 Introduction
The Serena tunnel is one of the four tunnels along the railway route connect-
ing the important Ligurian harbor at La Spezia to the main line between Rome
and Milan at Parma (Fig. 7.9). Specifically, the Serena tunnel will connect
Santo Stefano di Magra in the South to Aulla in the North passing through the
Appennines under an overburden of 150 to 450 m.

km

0 25 50

SCORZA
OS SELLA

SERENA
La Spezia TERMO

Ligurian Sea
Viareggio

Fig. 7.9 Location map showing the La Spezia-Parma ra.ilwa.y link and the major
tunnels: Termo, Serena, Ossella, Scorza. ·
Pn-r-ein/orcement for dt1bilizing " tunnel !15

the tunnel pior to final lining (prelin.ing is not applicable here due to high
ground stresses). Several variations exist in the second alternative, such as the
new Austrian tmm.eling method, the pre-arch method ( discussed by Guilloux,
1986), and the rock pre-reinforcement technique used in this example.
As mentioned earlier, the contractual requirements for the construction spec-
ify the traditional, concrete lining. In fa.ct the tunnel construction was begun
with the traditional support. However, the behavior of the weak ground forced
the contractor to try the procedure of reinforcing the rock mass ( also called
rock requalifi.ca.tion).
The results of the initial attempts to reinforce the rock are presented in
Fig. 7.11. The tunnel section (full heading, tha.t is, the upper half of the tunnel)
behind the face was reinforced with a. pa.ttem of grouted bolts. A substantial
a.mount of convergence ha.d already occurred at this time. However, as seen from
the curves of the measured and predicted convergence, the ra.te of convergence
was significantly lower than would be otherwise expected.

7.2.4 Rock reinforcement for stabilization

Routine reinforcement is provided very dose to the face using a combination
of grouted bolts (8-10 m long) a.nd cables (up to 15 m long). The general proce-
dure for rock reinforcement began with the installation of 12 m deep umbrella-
arches of steel pipes. The tunnel was advanced for 8 m under the pipe umbrella
in lm increments, each being supported with a steel arch, and shotcrete. The
8 m section was then reinforced with grouted bolts and cables.
Convergence measurements were used together with parametric analyses to
select the optimum level and time of reinforcement of the rock mass. An example
of the use of this procedure is as follow.
The properties of the unreinforced rock are taken as:
Angle of friction of both elastic and plastic zones: 20°,
Cohesion (t/m2)=2 for the elastic and plastic zones,
Dilatancy: 2%, and
E: 50 :tv!Pa.
Three types of reinforcement patterns were examined, each considering
installation of grouted cables or rebars from the pilot adit, to obtain the effec-
tive cohesion discussed in Sec. 5.2.3.2 (see Fig. 5.18). The resulting confining
pressure tlrrr (eq. 5.30) and effective cohesion c" are listed in Table 7.2.
For the specific problem examined, the introduction of a minor reinforcement
(type D, c·=l3 t/m2), allows a plastic zone of thickness equal to only twice the
tunnel radius at a stabilization pressure/initial pressure ratio of 20%. An ex-
ample of a marked improvement in convergence as a result of pre-reinforcement
is shown in Fig. 7.12.
 1-·--·····- ....... -- .. ······-····· ··-·-· ... --

•
LE GEN

fl YS(I< lllHCS ro

Ci"] llHUTONI

i ----------··--·-··rt·_· ;,,,:;::::;)!j:::::::1.::::
--- J
ROCK ClASS
TYP[ c
I Vb
.• :: . .,. ,
:,:,:::·:::::::::,;:::::::(:'::::::,·:·:·:·::,:::::::;:;::·.,::::::·:·::::,:::::;,;::::·:·.:::::::-:::,:·~,·-·

v,
0
Ill
~

~
SHAU ·llHI S TON(

HA(ICiNOFOAHA fl
SllJSTOH(I
UNOSlONt:S Allli

IEO RD(~ CV,SS

-z-- JUNN(l
Vb Y•

FAC( Af !IU
B&!8 •Ol Ylilllfll( 911(

0 _........__.....,
..... 500 IOOOm

Fig. 7.10. Longitudinal section through Serena tunnel showing the major geologic
units.
Pre-reinjoTCem.ent for $tabilizing a tunnel 211

'V,BLE 7.2
T,tPeS of reinforcement pattern around Serena 'I\lnnel a..~ the resulting
effective cohesion.
I Reinf. &ar c* Pattern
I ttrrr t/?r' m xm lD

B 45 37 l.O x 1.5 8-10

c 22.s 21 1.0 x2.0 8-10
0 15 16 l.Sx2.0 8

w
CJ
z,
w
o
200

-E
c::·
w1
z>
o,
CJ
0
w
I--
CJ
L.a.J
a.
x
L.a.J

BIUBIEE!.6393 8425 8475 6530 6582 E630

6701 8730 8754 6901 6972 7050
6416 6452 6500 ISS59 6611 6673 6713 8741 8775 6942 7001
50
' O

m before reinforcement~=
Mesurement stations indicated by 7050 m
F.w:l "MACIGNO" formation
~ se.nd & alHstone
~ TECTONIC CONTACT
~ ZONE
Ian 7 +OSOjstations are not equally spaced
ofter reinforcement
~ FLYSCHOID $0Cluenoe
=a of nfaif and" stld
-../"' Ground surface

Fig. 7.12. Maximum expected convergence with progression of excavation of

Serena. tunnel with superimposed geology.
116 Pre-reinforcement for &tabilizing a tunnel

c:
al
E
.......
QI

-...
0

c:
cu

-"'
._

...c:
QI

QI
C'I
....
QI
>
c
...
0

"'O
a, ...,
QI

c:
Ill
"'O >
,:,
...
a,

0..
"II

0
,:, c:
c: ._
"'II
0

<] ~
0

,:,
....
QI

...
QJ

::,
0..

1,1'1

"'e
QJ

L ...,_
' '- ...
0 0( 0 o, t'O!
("'I ur J
-
0 ... o·ou 0·001 o·n , . ., ,·,z o_p
(W)I l)Ul6~hUOJ )tjOl
REFERENCES

Am.a.dei, B., 1984. Underground excavations in anisotropic rock masses. In:

E.T. Brown&. J. A. Hudson (Editors), Design and Performance of Under-
ground Excavations. ISRM Symp., British Geotechnical Soc., London, BGS,
Cambridge, U.K., pp. 27-36.
Amadei, B., 1988. Strength of a regularly jointed rock mass under biaxial and
axisymmetric loading conditions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr., Vol. 25, No. 1: 3-13.
Ambraseys, N. R., and Hendron, A. J., 1968. Dynamic behavior of rock masses.
In: K. G. Stagg and 0. C. Zienkiewicz (Editors), Rock Mechanics in Engi-
neering Practice. J. Wiley & Sons, London, pp. 203-227.
Aoki, K., Toida, M., and Koshizuh., K., 1991. Monitoring of loosened zone
around rock caverns by acoustic emission measurement. In: G. Sorum (Ed-
itor), Proc. 3rli Int: Symp. Field Measurements in Geomecha.nics, Oslo.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1: 395-402.
A..mold, K.J ., 1941. On Spherical Probability Distributions. Ph.D. Thesis,
M.I.T., 42 pp .
.Asaoka, A., and Matsuo,. M., 1979. Bayesian approach to inverse problem in
consolidation and its application to settlement prediction. In: W.Wittke
(Editor), Proc. 3rli Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Aachen. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1: 115-123.
ASCE and ACI, 1973. Use of Shotcrete for Underground Structural Support.
Proc. Engineering Foundation Conf., S. Berwick, Maine. American Soc.
Civil Engrs. (ASCE) and American Concrete Inst., ACI Pub. SP-45, 467
pp.
Baecher, G. B., 1982. Playing the odds in rock mechanics. In: Goodman
and Heuze (Editors), Issues in Rock Mechanics, Proc. 23rd U.S. Symp. on
Rocle Mechanics, Univ. of California., Berkeley. SME-AIME, New York, pp.
67-85.
!8 Pre-reinforcement for .Jta.bilizinga tunnel

.2.5 Conclusion
For weak rock represented by the lowest class based on the RMR classifies-
on, the stabilization pressures required for tunnels even at moderate depths
·e prohibitive. Consequently, the rock mass needs to be reinforced or "requali-
ed", One method that has succeeded in reducing the stabilization pressures is
re reinforcement of the rock through a pattern of grouted rebars. This method
based on the concept of effective cohesion introduced by the confining pres-
ire which is provided by the deforming rebars. The method ( as illustrated by
ig. 7.13) has improved the rate of advance in the example project described
sre and offersa good potential for application in tunneling through weak rocks.

g. 7.13. Overall view of the tunnel showing the various construction steps and
perimposed rock reinforcement.
 221

Belytschko, T., Plesha, M., a.nd Dowding, C. H., 1984. A computer method
for stability analysis of caverns in jointed rock. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. Vol. 8: 473-492.
Benussi, G., 1981. Considerazioni sul dimensionamento dei meazi di sostegno in
galleria nel nuovo metodo Austriaco. Le Strade, Anno LXXXIII, No. 1194,
Jan-Feb, pp. 13-24.
Bettess, P., 1977. Infinite elements. Int. J. Nu.m. Meth. Eog., in Vol.: 11:
53--64.
Bieniawski, Z. T ., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses.
Transactions, South African Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 15, No.
12: pp. 335-344.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In: Z.
T. Bieniawski (Editor), Exploration for Rock Engineering. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 1: 97..;.106.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1978. Determining rock mass deform.ability-experiencefrom
case histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 15:
pp. 237-247.
Bienia.wski, Z.T., 1979. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering.
Proc. 4ch ISR.i.\1 Congr., Montreux. Balkema., Rotterdam, Vol. 2: 41-48.
Bieniawski, Z. T ., 1984. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. A.
A. Balkema, Ch. 6, pp. 97-135.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 251 pp.
Bikerman, D. J., and Ma.hta.b, M. A., 1986. The use and abuse of RQD in
underground mine design. Proc. Mining Latin America Coof., Santiago,
. Chile. The Inst. of Mining and Met., London, pp. 51-56.
Bingham C., 1964. Distribution on the Sphere a.nd on the Projective Plane.
Ph. D. Thesis, Yale Univ., 93 p.
Birch, G. P., Rankin, W. J ., and Warren, S. T., 1991. The Channel Tunnel:
geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the United Kingdom
crossover. Tunnelling 91, IMM- Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 143-
159.
Bischoff, J. A., and Smart, J. D., 1975. A method of computing a rock re-
inforcement system which is structurally equivalent to an internal support
system. Proc. 15tll U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Minn. Am.
Soc. Civil Eng., New York, pp. 179-184.
Bolstad, D. D. Alldredge, J. R., and Ma.htab, M. A., 1973. Procedures Used for
Sampling Fracture Orienta.tions in an Underground Coal Mine. U.S. Bureau
of Mines RI 7763, 9 pp.
Borges, J. F., and Castanheta, M., 1971. Structural Safety. Laboratorio Na-
cional de Engenharia Civil, LNEC, Lisbon, 2nd edn., Course 101, 326 pp.
[3rd edn., 1983, 327 pp.)
 &ferencr:.J

Baecher, G. B., Lanney, N. A., and Einstein H. H., 1977. Statistical descrip-
tion of rock properties and sampling. Proc. 1st" U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Colorado School of Mines, Keystone, CO, pp. 5Cl-5C8.
Babat, D., 1988. Fractographic of joint length distribution in chalk. Rock
Mech. Rocle Enging., Vol. 21: 133-134.
Baker, W. H., Cording, E.J., and MacPherson, H.H., 1983. Compaction grout-
ing to control ground movements during tunneling. Underground Space,
Vol. 7: 205-212.
Banerjee, P. K., and Butterfield, R., 1981. Boundary Element Methods in
Engineering Science. McGraw-Hill, London.
Banerjee, P. K., and Dargush, G. F., 1988. Progress in BEM applications in
geomecha.nics via examples. In: Swoboda (Editor), Numerical methods in
geomecha.nics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 13-22. . ·
Bardsley, W. E., Major, T. J., and Selby M. J., 1990. Note on a Weibull prop-
erty for joint spacing analysis, Int. J. Rocle Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr., Vol. 27: 133-:-134.
Barisone, G., Pelizza, S., and Pigorini, B., 1982.. Umbrella arch method for
tunnelling in difficult conditions-analysis of Italian cases. Proc., 4th Cong.
Int. Assoc. Eng. Geology, Kew Delhi, Vol. IV: 15-27.
Barla, G., and Mahtab, M. A., 1983. Characterizing and Modeling Rocle Mass
for Design and Constructio:. of Underground Cavities. Final Report on the
Joint U.S.-Italy Workshop, Torino, Italy, Sept. 1982. Suppl: Bollettino
Assoc. Min. Subalpina, XJ'..., no. 3-4, 95 pp.
Barton, C.M., 1978. Analysis <i joint traces. Proc. 19th U.S. Symp. on Rock
Mechanics, Reno, NV, pp. 3a-41.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tu:.:3.el support. Rocle Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4:
pp. 183-236.
Barton, N., and Bandis, S., 199:. Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS
model in engineering practice, In: N. Barton and O. Stephansson (Edi-
tors ), Proc. Int. Symp. o::. P..ocle Joints, Loen, Norway. A. A. Balkema,
pp. 603-610.
Bathe, K. J., and Wilson, E. 2...... :976. Numerical Methods in Finite Element
Analysis. Prentice Hall, J\~ :ersey, 528 pp.
Bauer, G., 1985. How to cont..-:: groundwater in tunnelling projects. Tunnels
& Tunnelling, June, pp. 55-:7.
Beall, J. V., 1973. Mining's p:-:.:.-: and contribution. In: Cummins and Given
(Editors), SME Mining Enr~g Handbook. AIME, New York, Vol. 1:1-
2 to 1-13.
Beer, G., 1983. Infinite dome ~ents in finite element analysis of under-
ground excavations. Int. J.:: Rocle Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
Vol. 7: 1-7.
Reference3

of. water inflow: technical and contractual considerations. In: J. M. Ser-

rano (Editor), Proc. of the Int. Congress on Tunnels and Water, Madrid.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1: 63-68.
Clough, R. W., 1960. The finite element method after twenty-five years: a.
personal view. Computers&: Structures, Vol. 12: 361-370.
Clough, R. W., 1980. The finite element method in plane stress analysis. Proc.
2nd A.S.C.E. Coof. on Electronic Computation, Pittsburgh. PA.
Clover, A. W., 1986. Appraisal of particular reference to the Tai Lam Chung
water tunnel, Hong Kong. Proc. Rock Engineering and Excavation in an
Urban Environment, IMM, London, pp. 109-120.
Cording, E. J ., and Deere, D. U., 1972. Rock tunnel support and field measure-
ments. In: K. S. Lane and L. A. Garfield (Editors), Proc. North American
Rapid Excavations and Tunnelling Coooference, Chicago, Illinois. Soc. of
Mining Engineers of AIME, pp. 601-622.
Cording, E. J., Mahar, J. W., and Van Sint Jan, M. L., 1979. Thin shotcrete
linings in loosening rock. Proc. 1979 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Con-
ference, Atlanta. Soc. of Mining Eng. of AIME, 1: 790-813.
Coulomb, C. A., 1773. Sur une application des regles de maxim.is et roioirois
a quelques problemes de sta.tique rela.tifs a l'architecture. Aca.d. Roy. des
Sciences Memoires de Ma.th. et de Physique par Divers Sa.vans, 7: 343-82.
Cox, K. C., 1973. Rock tunneling with moles. In: A. B. Cummins and I. A.
Given (Editors), SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 1: 10-61 to 10-81.
Crabb, G. I., Hiller, D. M., and New, B. M., 1991. Ground vibrations caused
by the construction and operation of transport systems. In: G. Sorum (Ed-
itor), Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Oslo.
A.A. Balkema., Vol. 1: 443--454.
Cra.vero, M., Grasso, P., Iabichino, G., a.nd Pelizza., S., 1986. Methodology for
ca.lcula.tionand field checking adopted for a complex configuration of an un-
derground highway interchange (Como, Italy). In: K. H. 0. Saari (Editor),
Large Rock Caverns, Proc. of Int. Symp., Helsinki, Finland. Pergamon
· Press, Vol. 2: 1235-1246.
Cra.vero, M., Mehtab, M. A., and Grasso, P., 199la. Keyblock analysis with
statistical characterization of joints in tunnelling-a. case study. In: Proc.
Tunnelling 91, IMM, London, pp. 93-100.
Cra.vero, M., Ia.bichino, G., and Ma.htab, A., 199lb. A comparison of proce-
dures for defining orientation domains in jointed rock. Proc. 32nd U.S.
Symp. Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Oklaoma, Norman, pp. 1095-1103.
Cravero, M., and Ia.bichino, G., 1992. Personal communication.
Crawford, A. M., Bray, J. W., 1983. Influence of the in situ stress field and
joint stiffness on rock wedge stability in underground openings. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 20: 276--287.
 Referencu

Bougard, J. F., 1984. Different underground tunnelling methods. In: 'Tun-

nelling and Underground Works, Beijing Int. Colloquium. Pergamon Press,
pp. 289-315.
Brady, B. H. G., and Brown, E. T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Underground
Mining. Allen & Unwin, London, 527 pp.
Brady, B. H. G., 1987. Boundary element and linked methods for underground
excavation design. In: E.T.Brown (Editor), Analytical and Computational
Methods in Engineering Rock Mechanics. Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 164-
204.
Brand, A., Bla.kita, P., and Clarke, W., 1988. Grount supports brooklyn tun-
neling. Civil Engineering, Jaa., pp. 43--45.
Braun, W. M., 1980. Application of the NATM in deep tunnels and difficult
rock conditions. 'Tunnels & Tunnelling, March, pp. 17-20.
Bray, J. W., 1987. Some applications of elastic theory. In: E.T. Brown (Edi-
tor), Analytical and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Mechan-
ics. Allen & Unwin, pp. 32-94. .
Brebbia, C. A., 1978. The Boundary Element Method for Engineers. J.Wiley,
New York, 189 pp.
Bridges, M. C., ·1976. Presentation of fracture data for rock mechanics. Proc.
2nd Australia-New Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics, Brisbane, 1976, pp.
144-148.
Brierley, G. S., 1989. Tunneling methods - a commentary. In: S.R. Nelson
(Editor), American Underground Association News, Vol. 4, No.2, Summer.
Brown, E. T., 1981. Putting the NATM into perspective. Tunnels and 'Tun-
nelling, November, pp. 13-17.
Brown, E.T., Bray, J.W., Ladanyi, B., and Hoek, E., 1983. Ground response
curves for rock tunnels. J. of Geotech. Eng. - ASCE, Vol.109, No.1: 15-39.
Call, R. B., Savely J ., and Nicholas, D. E., 1976. Estimation of joint set char-
acteristics from surface mapping data Proc. 17th U.S. Symposium on Rocle
Mechanics, Un.iv. of Utah, pp. 2B2-1 to 9.
Camberfort, H., 1976. The principles and applications of grouting. Quart.lour.
of Eng. Geology, Vol. 10: 57-95.
Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J., 1956. Traite de Mecha.nique des Sols. Gauthier-
Villars Ed., Imp. Libraire, Paris, 3rd Edition, 558 pp.
Carrieri, G., De Donati, A., Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., and Pelizza, S., 1990.
Ground improvement for rapid advance of Lonato road tunnel near Verona,
Italy. Proc. 8th Canadian Tunnelling Conference, "Tunnelling in the 90's",
Vancouver , pp. 243-254.
Casale, R., Comin, C., and Focacci, C. !l., 1988. Tunnels excavation by enlarg-
ing exploratory boring-machine made tunnels, intersected by large amount
Re/erence.s

Dhatt, G., a.nd Touzot, G., 1984. The Finite Element Method. McGraw Hill,
New York, 509 pp.
DIN 4150, 1984. Vibrations in Buildings-Effects on Structures. Deutsch Norm
( original 1938, revised April 1984).
Dixon, J. D., Mahtab, M.A., and Smelser, T. W., 1985. Procedures for Deter-
mining Support of Drifts in Highly Yielding Ground. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
RI8990, 19 pp.
Dixon, S. D., 1992. Personal communication.
Dowding, C. H., 1985. Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control. Prentice Hall,
Englewood, NJ, 297 pp.
Duddeck, H., 1989. Application of numerical analysis for tunnelling. In: Swo-
boda (Editor), Proc. Con£. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Inns-
bruck. Balk:ema, Rotterdam, Vol. 4: 2217-2224.
Dufi'aut, P., 1981. Structural weakness in rocks and rock masses-tentative clas-
sification and behavior. Proc. Int. Symp. on Weak Rock, Tokyo, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol.: 1: 93-97.
Duncan, N ., Dunne, M.H., and Petty, S., 1968. Swelling characteristics of rocks.
Water Power, May, pp. 185-192.
Duvall, W. I., and Fogelson, D. E., 1962. Review of criteria. for estimating dam-
age to residences from blasting vibrations. U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 5968,
19 pp.
Egger, P., 1983. Roof stability of shallow tunnels in isotropic and jointed rock.
Proc. 5th ISR.rvt Congress, Melbourne, Vol. C: 295-301.
Einstein, H. H. 1979. Discussion in 4th ISRM Cong., Montreaux, Vol. 3: 226.
Einstein, H. H., and Bischoff, N., 1975. Design of tunnels in swelling rock.
Proc. 16th U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis, pp. 185-195.
Einstein, H. H., Steiner, W., and Baecher, G. B., 1979. Assessment of empirical
design methods for tunnels in rocks. Proc. 4th Rapid Excavation Tunneling
Conf., ATh1E, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 683-706.
Einstein, H. H., a.nd Beecher, G. B., 1982. Probabilistic and statistical met.hods
··in engineering geology, I. problem statement and introduction to solution.
Rock Mechanics, Suppl., 12: 47-61.
Elsworth, D., 1986. Wedge stability in the roof of a circular tunnel: plane strain
condition. Int. J. Rocle Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 23: 177-181.
Fairhurst, C., 1964. On the validity of the Brazilian test for brittle materials.
Int. J. Rock. Mech. Sei., vol. 1: 535-546.
Farmin, R., and Sparks, C.I., 1953. Use of wooden rock bolts in Day Mines.
Trans. AIME, Vol. 196: 922-924.
Fisher, R. A., 1953. Dispersion on a sphere. Proc. Roy. Soc., London, Sec. A,
Vol. 217: 295-305.
 Rejerences

Crotty, J. M., and Wardle, L. J., 1985. Boundary integral analysis of piece-
wise homogeneous media with structural discontinuities. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 22: 419-27.
Crouch, S. L., and Starfield, A. M., 1983. Boundary element methods in solid
mechanics. Allen & Unwin, London, 322 pp.
Cruden, D. M., 1977. Describing the size of discontinuities. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 14: 133-137.
Cundall, P. A., 1971. The Measurement and Analysis of Accelerations in Rock
Slopes. Ph. D. dissertation, Imperial College, London, 183 pp.
Cundall, P., 1976. Explicit finite-difference methods in geomechanics. In: C.
S. Desai (Editor), Numerical Methods in Geomechanics. ASCE, New York,
1:132-150.
Da Via, A., Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., and Pelizza, S., 1992. When do a pilot bore
plus enlargement equal a full-face bore? Proceedings of ITA '92 Congress,
Towards New World in Tunnelling, Acapulco, Mexico, May 16-20, Vol. 1:
pp. 125-132.
Daemen, J. J. K., and Fa.irhust, C., 1970. lnfl.uence of failed rock properties
on tunnels stability. Proc. 12th U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, Univ. of
Missouri. AIME, New York (1971), pp. 855-875. -
Davis, E: H., Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. S., and Senevirante, H. N., 1980. The
stability of shallow twmels and underground openings in cohesive material.
Geotechn.ique, Vol. 30, No. 4: 397-416. ·
Deere, D. U., 1964. Technieal description of rock cores for engineering purposes.
Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology, Vol. 1, No. 1: 17-22.
Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Monsees, J. E., and Schmidt, B., 1969. Design of
Tunnel Liners and Support Systems. Final Report Contract No. 3-01J~2
with U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Dept. of Civil Eng., Un.iv. of Illinois,
Urbana, 287 pp.
Dershowitz, W. S., 1984. Rock Joint Systems: Ph.D. Thesis. M.I.T., Cam-
bridge, Mass.
Desai, C. S., and Abel, J. F., 1972. Introduction to the Finite Element Method.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 477 pp. ·
Detournay, E., 1983. Two-Dimensional Elastoplastic Analysis of a Deep Cylin-
drical Tunnel Under Non-Hydrostatic Loading. Ph.D. Thesis Univ. of Minn.
Devine, J. R., 1966. Avoiding damage to residences from blasting vibrations.
· Highway Research Board, Nat. Res. Council, NAS, Washington.
Devine, J. R., and Duvall, W. L, 1963. Effect of charge weight on vibration
levels for millisecond delayed quarry blasts. Earthquake Notes, Eastern Sec-
tion, Bul. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 17.
Dhar, B. B., Geldart, L. P., and Udd, J.E., 1970. Stresses in depth around el-
liptical and ovaloidal openings in an infinite elastic medium. The Canadian
Mining & Metallurgical (CIM) Bulletin, April, pp. 485-492.
Re/erence3

Grasso, P., Xu, S., and Mahta.b, A., 1992b. Problems and promises oo. index
testing or rocks. Proc. 33rd U.S. Symp. Rocle Mechanics, Santa. Fe, NM,
June, pp. 879-888.
Griffith, A. A., 1924. Theory of rupture. Proc. 1 •t Int. Congr. Appl. Mech.,
Delft, pp. 5H3.
Grob, H., 1972. Schwelldrucle im Belchentunnel. In: H. Grob and K. Kovari
(Editors), Int. Symp. on Underground Openings, Lucerne, 11-14 Septem-
ber, pp: 9~119.
Grossman, N. F., 1985. The bivariate normal distribution on the tangent plane
a.t the mean attitude. A key note lecture. In: 0. Stephansson (Editor), Pro-
ceedings of Int. Symp. on Fundamentals of Rocle Joints, Centek Publishers,
pp. 3-11.
Guillowc, A., 1986. Les techniques recentes de construction des tunnels: de-
scription et coinportement compare a.we techniques traditionelles. Primo
ciclo di Confereo.ze di Meccanica. e lngegneria. delle rocce, Politecnico di
Torino-Italy, G.Barla. (ed.), Paper No. 15, 16 pp.
Gula.rte, F. B., 1989. Soil grouting for tunneling. In: Grouting Practice for
Shafts, Tunnels and Underground Excavations. Part of material distributed
during a short course oo. grouting at U a.iv. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, October
1989, 50 pp.
Gumbel, E. J., 1958. Statistics of Estrem.es. Columbia University Press, New
York, 375 pp.
Gysel, M., 1977. A Contribution to the design of a. tunnel lining ix: swelling
rock. Rocle Mechanics 10: 55-71.
Gysel, M., 1987. Design methods for structures in swelling rock. Proc. 6th
ISfu\1 Cong., Montreal, Vol. 1: 377-381.
Haack, A., 1988. Ba.sic methods and latest development of scaling techniques
in tunnelling in Germany. In: J.M. Serrano (Editor), Proc. of the Int.
Congress on Tunnels a.nd Water, Madrid, Balkema., Rotterdam, Vol. 1:
155-159.
Ha.nsmire, W. H., and Daly, W. F., 1985. Specifications for initial support in
rock tunnels. In: C. D. Mann a.nd M. N. Kelley (Editors), Proc. 1985 Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference, New York, Soc. of Mining Engineers
of AIME, I: 413-427.
Hasofer, A.M., a.nd Lind, N.C., 1974. Exact and invariant second moment code
format. ASCE Jour. of Eng. Mechanics Division, Vol. 100, no. E~U, pp.
111-121.
Haugen, E. B., 1968. Probabilistic Approaches to Design. J. Wiley, New York,
323 pp. .
Haycccks C., a.nd Rogers, G. K., 1988. Portal Stability in Rock. 7th. Interna-
tional Conference on Ground Control in Mining. West Virginia. University,
Morga.a.town.
 Reference$

Franklin, J. A., 1979. Use of tests and monitoring in the design and construc-
tion of rock structures. Proceedings 4th ISRM Congr., Montreaux. A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 3: 163-180.
Garrett, R., 1991. NATM by any other name. In: World .Tunnelling, May, pp.
173-183.
Geldart, L. P., 1962. Derivation of the equations for field stresses around el-
liptical openings. McGill University, Montreal, Unpublished Report (Later
published in Appendix A of Dhar et. al, 1970, cited above).
Gesta, P., et al., 1986. Tunnel support and lining. In: Tunnels et Ouvrages
Souterrains, No. 73, Jan-Feb .. (English translation of recommendations of
working Group no. 7 of AF TES: Association Francaise des Travaux en
Souterrain), 22 pp.
Gioda, G., 1985. Some remarks on back analysis and characterization prob-
lems in geomechanics. In: Kawamoto and Ichikawa (Editors), Proc. Fifth
Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 1: 47-61.
Goodman, R. E., and Shi, G. H., 1985. Block Theory and its Applications to
Rock Engineering. Prentice Hall, London, Englewood Cliff's,NJ, 338 pp.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T., 1968. A model for the mechan-
ics of jointed rock. J. of Soil Mech. & Fdn. Div, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 94,
No. 513.
Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., and Pelizza, S., 1989. Reinforcing a rock zone for sta-
bilizing a tunnel in complex formations. In: K. Y. Lo (Editor), Proc. of Int.
'Congresson Progress and Innovation in Tunnelling, Toronto, Canada, Vol.
2: 663-670.
Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., Pelizza, S., and Russo, G., 1990a. On the diverse
geotechnical and tunnel construction problems in the La Spezia-Parma rail
link in Italy. Proc. Int. Congress: Tunnel and Underground Works Today
and Future, Chengdu, China, Sept., pp. 41-48.
Grasso, P., Carrieri, G., Mahtab, A., and Pelizza, S., 1990b. Design and con-
struction of portals of tunnels under difficult conditions. Proc. Ill Cong.
Surarnericano de Mechanica de Rocas, Caracas, Venezuela, October, pp.
391-404.
Grasse. P., Russo, G., Mahtab, A., Pelizza, S., and Zanello, C., 1991. Una rius-
cita applicazione del criterio di rinforzo della roccia in galleria (Successful
application of rock reinforcement around a tunnel). In: Proc. SIG Conf. on
Soil and Rock Improvement in Underground Works, Milano, Italy, Vol. 1:
139-149. .
Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., Dixon, J., and Pelizza, S., 1992a. Prereinforcement of
rock in advance of underground excavation. In: Round Table Session, Min-
ing Technology in Civil Use, Proc. 15th World Mining Congress, Madrid.
May, Vol. 2: pp, 1353--1362. .
Rt./t.rence., 229

ITA, 1991. Shotcreting Technology. First Draft by the Intemesional Tunnelling

Association-Working Group on shotcrete use. BeFo Swedish Rocle Eng. Res.
Foundation.
Jacobs, J. D., 1973. Tunneling by conventional methods. l:c.: A.B. Cnrornios
and I.A. Given (Editors), SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Vol. l: io-
37 to 1~61.
Jaeger, J. C., and Cook, N. G. W., 1979. Fundamentals of Rocle Mechanics.
Chapman and Ha.11, London, third edn., 593 pp.
Jimenez, J. A., 1988. Introducing the discussion on water and tunnels-design.
In: J.M. Serrano (Editor), Proc. of the Int. Congress on Tunnels and Water,
Ma.cl.rid, Balkema.. Vol. 1: 3-5.
John, M., 1981. Application of the new Austrian tunneling method under var-
ious rock conditions. In: Proc. of R.ETC Conf.; San Francisco, Vol. l:
409-426.
Jones, C. R. L., 1974. Use of timber in mining. Timber Research&: Develop-
ment Association, England, 66 pp.
Ka.raca.,M. A., 1991. Stabilite des Tunnels a Faible Profondeur en Milieu Dis-
continu. D. Sc. Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique, Lausanne, Switzerland, 21i
pp.
Kececioglu, D., and Cormier, D., 1964. Designing a specified reliability into
a component. Third Annual Aerospace and Maintainability Conference,
Washington, D.C.
Kendorski, F. S., and Bindokas A., 1987. Fracture geometry cha.racteriza.tion
for use in rock mechanics design. Proc. 2se" U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics,
Univ. of Arizona., Tucson, pp. 8~97.
Khan, I. A., and Ma.htab, M. A., 1989. Stability of rock caverns a.s a function
of joint spacing. Proceedings Int. Congr. on Progress and Innovation in
Tunnelling, Toronto, Canada, Vol. l: 117-124.
Kiraly, L., 1969. Statistical analysis of fractures (orientation and density). In:
Geologische Rundechau, Vol. 59, No. 1: 125-151.
Kirsch, G., 1898. Die Theorie der Elastizitat und die Bedurfnisse der Festigkeit-
slehre. Veit. Ver. Deut. Ing., Vol. 42: 797-807.
Koenz, P., and Garbe, L., 1986. Railway tunnel construction under the old city
· of Zurich. Proc. Int. Cong. on Large Underground Openings, Florence,
Vol. 1, pp. 761-770.
Kogelmann, W. J., and Schenck, G. K., 1982. Recent North American advances
in boom-type tunnelling machines. In: Tunnelling '82, Th(M, pp. 205-215.
Kolosov, G. V., 1909. On an application of complex function theory to a plane
problem of the mathematical theory of elasticity. Dr. Diss, Dorpat.
Korbin, E., and Brekke, T. L., 1976. Model study of tunnel prereinforcement.
Jour. of Geotech. Eng, Div., ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT9: 595-908.
 Reference$

Haycocks C., and Rogers, G. K., 1989. Rock classification for portal design. In:
Rocle Mechanics as a Guide for Efficient Utilization of Natural Resources.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Hendron, A. J., and Aiyer, A. K., 1972. Stresses a.nd strains around a cylindri-
cal tunnel in a.n elastic-plastic material with dilatency. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Omaha District, NE, Tech. Rep. 10, 83 pp.
Hendron, A. J., a.nd Oriard, L. L., 1972. Specifications for controlled blast-
ing in civil engineering projects. In: Lane and Garfield (Editors), Proc.
Rapid Excavation and 'Tunneling Conference, Chicago. ASCE-AIME, Vol.
2: 1585-: 509.
Heuer, R. E., 1973. Selection/design of shotcrete for temporary support. Proc.
Eng. Found. Conf. on use of Shotcrete for Underground Structural Support.
Am. Soc. Civil Eng., and Am. Concrete Inst., Pub. SP-45, pp. 160-174;.
Hill, R., 1950. The Mathem.a.tical Theory of Plasticity. Claundon Press, Oxford.
Hoek, E., 1983. Strength of jointed rock masses - the 1983 Rankine Lecture.
Geotec:hn.ique,Vol. 33, No. 3: 187-223.
Hoek, E., 1990. Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and cohesion values from
Hoek-Brown failure criterion. In. J. Rock Mec.h. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr., Vol. 27, No. 3: 227-229.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. T., 1980a. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
J. Geotech. Engng. Div. ASCE, Vol. 106: 1013-1035.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T., 1980b. Underground Excavations in Rocle. IMM,
London, 527 pp.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E. T., 1988. The Hoek-Brown Criterion-a 1988 update.
Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mec.h. Symp., University of Toronto, pp. 31-38.
Hoerger, S. F., and Young, D. S., 1990. Probabilistic analysis of key block
failure. In: Proc. International Conference on Mechanics of Jointed and
Faulted Rock, Vienna, Austria, pp.
Hofmann, R., 1981. STEALTH, A Lagrangian Finite-Difference Code for Solids,
Structural, and Thermohydraulic Analyses. Introduction and Guide, EPRI
NP~2028 SY. Prepared by Science Applications, Inc., Saa Leandro, CA.
Huder, J., and Amberg, G., 1970. Quellung in Margel, Opalinuston und Anhy-
drit. Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 88, No. 43, pp. 975-980.
Hudson, J. A., and Priest, S. D., 1979. Discontinuities and rock mass geometry.
Int. J. of Rocle Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomec.h. Abstr., Vol. 16: 339-362.
ISRM, 1981. Rocle characterization, testing and monitoring, ISRM Suggested
Methods. E.T. Brown (Editor), Pergamon Press, 211 pp.
ISRM, 1989. Suggested methods for laboratory testing of argillaceous swelling
rocks. Int. J. Rocle Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomec.h. Abstr., Vol. 26, N. 5,
419--426.
Reference.s

Loofbourow, R. L., 1973. Ground water and ground-water control. In: A. B.

Cummins and I. A. Given (Editors), SME Mining Engineering Handbook.
SME-AIME, New York, Vol. 2, Ch. 26..
Maht,;1.b, M. A., 1965. · A Study of Field Stress Distribution Around an El-
liptic Hole Under Different Loading Conditions. M. Eng. Thesis, McGill
University, Montreal. .
Mahtab, M. A., and Goodman, R. E., 1970. Three dimensional finite element
analysis of jointed rock slopes. Proc. Second Congr. of ISR.i.\il, Belgrade,
Vol. 3, No. 7-12.
Mahtab, M. A., Bolstad, D. D., Alldredge, J. R., and Shanley, R.. J., 1972.
Analysis of Fracture Orientations for Input to Structural Models of Discon-
tinuous Rock. USBM RI 7679, 76 p.
Mahtab, M. A., and Yegulalp, T . .M., 1982. A rejection criterion for defini-
tion of clusters in orientation data, Proceedings 23"' U.S. Symp. on Rock
Mecha.nics, Univ. of California. AIME, New York, pp. 16&-123.
Mahtab, M. A., and Yegulalp, T. M., 1984. A similarity test for grouping orien-
tation data in rock mechanics. Proceedings 25th Symp. on Rock Mechanics,
Northwestern University, Evanston. AIME, New York, pp.: 495-502. ·
Mahtab, A., Xu, S., Grasso, P., and Kendorski, F. S., 1992. Use of alternative
distributions for characterizing joint extent and spacing. In: Proc. Frac-
tured and Jointed Rocle Masses, Lake Tahoe, CA, June 3-5, Preprints vol.
1: 205-210.
Marula.nda, A., and Brekke, T. L., 1981. Hezardaous water inflows in some tun-
nels in sedimentary rocks, In: R.L. Bullock & H.J. Jacoby (Editors), Proc.
Rapid Excavation & Tunneling Conference, San Francisco. SME-AIME, Vol.
1: 741-752.
McClintock, F. A., and Walsh, J. B., 1962. Friction on Griffith cracks un-
der pressure. Proc. Fourth U.S. Nat. Congr. of Applied Mechanics, pp.
1015-1021.
McCusker, T. G., 1982. Soft ground tunneling. In: J. 0. Bickel and T. R.
. Kuesel (Editors), Tunnel Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
pp. 70-92.
McMahon, B., 1971. A statical method for the design of rock slopes. Proc. 1 ~i
Australia-New Zealand Conf. on Geomecbaocs, pp. 314-321.
Mindlin, R. D., 1940. Stress distribution around a tunnel. Trans. Am. Soc. of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 105: 1117-1153.
Mohr, 0., 1900. Welcbe Umstande bedingen die Elastizita.tsgrenze und den
. Bruch eines Materials. S. Ver. dt. Ing., Vol. 44: 1524-30, 1572-77.
Muhlhaus, H.B., 1985. Lower bound solutions for circular tunnels in two and
three dimensions. Rocle Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 18, no. 1:
37-52.
!SO Reference3

Kovari, K., and Amstad, C., 1979a.. Field instrumentation as a practical design
aid. Proc. 4th ISRM Congr., Montreaux, Vol. 2: 311-318.
Kovari, K.; and Amstad, Ch., 1979b. Decision making and field measurements
in tunnelling. Lecture presented at the 25th OYO Anniversary Lecture Meet-
ing, Tokyo, October, 26-33.
Krumbein, W. C., and Graybill, A., 1965. An Introduction to statistical models
in Geology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 475 pp.
Kulatilake, P., Finley, R., and Ghosh, A., 1985. Effect of variability of joint.
orientation and strength on factor of safety of wedge stability. Proceeding of
the International Symposium on Fundamentals of Rock Joints, Bjorkliden,
Sweden, pp. 25-33.
Ladanyi, B., 1974. Use of the long-term strength concept in the determination
of ground pressure on tunnel lining. Proc. 3rd ISRM Congr., Denver. NAS,
Washington, D.C., Vol. 2B: 1150-1156.
Landanyi, B., 1967. Expansion of cavities in brittle media. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 4: 301-328.
Landa.nyi, B., and Gill, D.E., 1984. Tunnel lining design in creeping rock: In:
Brown & Hudson (Editors), Design and Performance of Underground Exca-
vations. ISRM Symp., British Geotechn.ical Soc., London, pp. 19-36.
Lang, T. A., and Bischoff, J. A., 1984. Stability of reinforced structures. In:
Brown & Hudson (Editors), Design and Performance of Underground Exca-
vations. ISRM Symp., British Geotechnical Soc., London, pp. 11-18. ·
Langefors, U., and Kihlstrom, B., 1978. The Modern Technique of Rock Blast-
ing. J. Wiley, New York, 3rd Edn, 438 pp.
Lanier, S. S., 1950. Pinning roof with wood. Coal Age, June, pp. 78-80.
Laubscher, D. H., and Taylor, H. W., 1976. The importance of geomechanics
classification of jointed rock masses in mining operations. In: Z. T. Bieni-
awski (Editor), Exploration for Rock Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Vol. l: 119-128.
Lauffer, H., 1958. Gebirgsklassifizierung fiir den Stollenbau. Geologie und
Bauwesen, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 46-51.
Lemos, J. V., Hart, R. D., and Cundall, P. A., 1985. A generalized distinct
element program for modeling jointed rock mass. Proc. Int. Symp. on Fun-
damentals of Rock Joints, BjorkHden. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 335-343.
Lekhn.itskii, S. G., 1963. Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Elastic Body,
P. Fern (Translator), Holden-day, San Francisco.
Li, J. C.R., 1964. Statistical Inferences. Edward Bros., Ann Arbor, Mich., Vol
1: 658 pp.
Liang, J., and Sun, G., 1988. Empirical.approach to prediction of groundwater
in tunneling. In: J. M. Serrano (Editor), Proc. of the Int. Congress on
Tunnels and Water, Madrid. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 1: 193-197.
Reference, 239

Panek, L. A., 1984. Interpreta.tion of frac:tures in drill cores. Proc. 25rA U.S.
Symposium on Rocle Mechanics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois,
pp. 503-510.
Panek, L. A., and McCormick, J. A., 1973. Roof/rock bolting. In: Cumins
& Given (Editors). SME Mining Engineering Handbook. SME-AIME, New
York, pp. 13-125 to 13-134.
Pa.tton, F. D., 1966. Multiple modes of shear fa.ilure in rock. Proc. l 8' !SR.\!
Congr., Lisbon, Vol. 1: 509-513.
Pa.ul, B., 1961. Modification of the Coulomb-Mohr theory of fracture. J. Appl.
Mech., Vol. 28: 259-268.
Pelizza., S., Barisone, G., Campo, G., and Corona., G., 1989. Rapid umbrella-
arch exca.vation of a. tunnel in cohesionless material under an archeologic
site. Proc. Int. Cong. on Progress and Innovation in Tunnelling. Toronto,
Vol. 2: 885-891.
Peng, S.S., 1986. Coal Mine Ground Control. 2"111 Ed. John Wiley, New York.
Philip, J. R., 1991. Soils, na.tural science, and models. Soil science, Vol. 151,
No. 1: 91-98.
Pincus, H. J ., 1953. The analysis of aggregates of orientation data in the earth
sciences. J. Geol., Vol. 61, pp. 482-509.
Pitt, J. M., and Rohde, 1984. Rapid Assessment of shear strength a.nd its
variability, Proc. 25'" U.S. Symposium Rock Mechanics, Northwestern Uni-
versity, Evanston, pp. 428-436.
Poulos, H. G., and Da.vis, E. H., 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock
Mechanics. J. Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 232-235.
Priest, S. D., and Hudson, J. A., 1976. Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 16: 339-362. .
Priest, S. D., and Hudson, J. A., 1981. Estimation of discontinuity spacing
and trace length using scanline surveys. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min, Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 21: 20~212.
Priest, S. D., and Brown, E.T., 1983. Probabilistic stability analysis of variable
rock slopes. Trans. Instn. Min. Metall. (Sec. A. Min. Industry), London,
92: Al-12.
Protodiakonov, M. N., 1964. Methods for evaluation of cracks and strength. of
rock systems in depth depth. Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. Strata. Control, H.
K. School of Mines, Columbia Univ., New York, Addendum.
Rabcewicz, L. V., 1964-1965. The new Austrian tunnelling method. Water
Power, Part I, Nov. 1964, pp. 453--457; Part II, Dec. 1964, pp. 511-515;
Part III, Jan. 1965, pp. 19-24.
Rabcewicz, L. V., 1969. Stability of tunnels under rock load. Water Power,
Part I, June, pp. 225-229; Part II, July, pp. 266-273; Part Ill, August, pp.
297-302.
 Refe.re.nce.s

Muir Wood, A. M., 1979. Ground behaviour and support for mining and tun-
nelling. Proc. Tunnelling '79. IMM, London, pp. xi-xxii.
Muller, L., 1933. Untersuchungen iiber Statistische Kluftmessung (Investiga-
tions of the statistical measurement of fractures). Geologie und Bauwesen,
Vol. 5, no. 4, p. 232.
Neuber, H., 1946. Theory of Notch Stresses. Translation by J."W. Edwards,
Ann Arbor Mich.
New, B. M., 1986. Ground vibration caused by civil engineering works. Trans-
port and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne, U.K., Res. R.ept.
54. 19 pp.
New, B. M., 1990. Ground Vibration Caused by Construction Vvorks. Tun-
nelling a.nd Underground Space Technology, Vol. 5, No. 3: 179-190. _
Obert, L., and Duvall, W. I., 1967. Rocle Mechanics and the Design of Struc-
tures in Rock. J. Wiley, New York, 650 pp.
Obert, L., Merril, R.H., and Morgan, T.A., 1962. Borehole Deformation Gage
for Determining the Stress in Rocle. U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI5978.
Olivier, H. J., 1976. Importance of rock durability in the engineering classi-
fication of Karoo rock masses for tunneling. In: Z.T. Bieniawski (Editor),
Exploration for Rock Engineering. A.A. -Balkema, Rotterdam, VoL 1: 137-
144.
Oriard, L. L., 1971. Blasting effects and their control in open pit mining. Sym-
posium and Specialty Seminar on Stability in Open Pit Mines, Univ, of
British Columbia, Canada.
Owen, D. R. J ., and Hinton, E., 1980. Finite Elements in Plasticity-Theory and
Practice. Pineridge Press Ltd., UK.
Paeher, F., 1964. Deformationsmessuagen im Versuchsstollen als Mitter! fur Er-
forschung des Gebirgverhaltens und zu Bemessung des Ausbaues. Feldsme-
chanic und Ingeniergeologie. Suppl. 1, pp. 149-161.
Pacher, F., Rabcewicz, L., and Golser, J., 1974. Zu.m derzeitigen tand der
Gebirgsklassifizierung im Stollen-und Tunnelbau (State-of-the-Art of ground
classification in tunneling), (in German). Proceedings 22nd Salzburg Geome-
chanics Conference, Bundesministerium fiir Bauten und Teknik, Strassen
forschung, Vol. 18: 51-58.
Palmieri, A., 1984. A case history about the application of prereinforcement
in the excavation of tunnel portals in weathered rock. In: Brown a.nd Hud-
son (Editors), Design and Performance of Underground Excavations. ISRM
Symp., British Geotechnical Society, London, pp. 367-374.
Pan, X. D., and Reed, M. B., 1991. A coupled distinct element-finite element
method for large deformation analysis of rock masses. Int. J. of Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech.. Abstr., Vol. 28, No. 1: 93-99.
Pan.de, G. N., Bear, G., and Williams, J. R., 1990. Numerical Methods in Rock
Mechanics. J.Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K., 327 pp.
ReJennee., 235

Shanley, R. J., and Mahtab, M.A., 1975. FRACTAN: A Computer Code for
Analysis of Clusters Defined on the Unit Hemisphere. U.S. Bureau of Mines
IC 8671, 49 pp.
Shanley, R. J ., and Mahta.b, M. A., 1976. Delineation a.nd analysis of clusters
in orientation data. Ma.th. Geology, Vol. 5, No. 1: 9-23.
Shi, G. H., a.nd Goodman, R. E. 1981. A new concept for support of under-
ground and surface excavations in discontinuous rocks based on a keystone
principle. Proc. 22R" Symposium on Rocle Mechanics, MIT, Boston, pp.
29~296.
Siskind, D. E., 19i3. Ground and air vibrations from blasting. In: A.B. Cum-
mins and I.A. Given (Editors), SME ~lining Engineering Handbook. SME-
AIME, New York, Vol. 1: 11-99 to 11-111.
Siskind, D. E., Stagg, M. S., Kopp, J. W., and Doweling, C. H.,"1980. Struc-
ture Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibrations from Surface
Blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 8507, 74 pp.
Smith, M., 1988. Hammer tunnelling comes of age. World Tunnelling, March,
pp. 32-36.
Sofia.nos, A. I., 1986. Stability of rock wedges in tunnel roofs. Int. J. Rocle
Mech. Min. Sci. &: Geomech. Abstr., 23: 119-130.
Sokolnikoff, I. S., 1956. Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. McGraw-Hill, New
York, second edition, 476 pp.
St. John, C. M., Detournay, E., and Fairhurst, C., 1984. Design charts for a
deep circular tunnel under non-hydrostatic loading. 25111 U.S. Symposium on
Rocle Mechanics, Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois, pp. 849-857.
Stauffer, M. R., 1966. An empirical statistical study of three-dimensional fabric
diagrams as used in strucutural analysis. Can. J. Earth Sci., Vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 473-498.
Steenson, N., 1974. High production shotaeting with wet mix and accelerator.
Proc. 1974 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, San Francisco.
Soc. of Mining Eng. of AIME, Vol.2: 995-1012.
Stille, H., 1984. Theoretical aspects on the difference between prestressed an-
chor bolt and grouted bolt in squeezing rock. In: 0. Stephansson (Editor),
Proc. Int. Symp. on Rocle Bolting. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 65-73.
Sulem, J., Paaet, M., and Guenot, A., 1987a. Closure analysis in deep tunnels.
Int. J. Rocle Mech. Min. Sci. &: Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 24, No. 3: 1~154.
Sulem, J., Panet, M., and Guenot, A., 1987b. AIJ. analytical solution for time-
dependent displacements in a circular tunnel. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min.
Sci. &: Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 24, No. 3: 155-164.
Swiss Association of Standardization, 1978. Effects of Vibrations on Construc-
tion. Seefeldstrasse 9, CH 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976. Applied
Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, 860 pp.
 Reference.,

Rabcewicz, L. V., and Golser, J., 1973. Principles of dimensioning the sup-
porting system for the "New Austrian tunnelling method". Water Power,
March, pp. 88-93.
Ramacha.odran, K., and Hosking, I. A., 1985. Reliability approach to stabil-
ity analysis of soil/rock slopes. In: Kawamoto & Ichikawa (Editors), Fifth
International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya
Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2: 1019-1028.
Raven, K. G., Sweezey, R. A., and Heystee, R J., 1989. Hydrogeologic condi-
tions of undergrounc openings in sedimentary rocks. Proc. Int. Congress
on Progress and Innovation in Tunnelling, Toronto, Vol. l: 567-574.
Reddy, J. N., 1984. An Introduction to the Finite Element Method. McGraw-
Hill, New York, 495 pp.
Reith, J. L., and Philippe, J., 1986. Le tunnel long du realignment du Congo--
Ocean (The "long" tunnel on the railway route to the atlantic along the
Congo River). Proc.Int.Cong. on Large Underground Openings, Florence,
Vol. 1: 278-287.
Robertson, A., 1970. The interpretation of geologic factors for use in slope the-
ory. Proc. Symp. on the Theoretical Background to the Planning of Open
Pit Mines, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 55--71.
Rose, D., 1982. Revising Terzaghl's tunnel rock load coefficients. Proc. 23,·d
U.S. Symposium on· Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, CA. AIME, New York, pp.
953-960. .
Rose, D., 1985. Steel-fiber-reinforced shotcrete for tunnel linings: the state of
the art. In: C.D. Mann and M.N. Kelley (Editors), Proc. 1985 Rapid Exca-
vation and Tunneling Conference. Soc. of Mining Engineers of AIME, New
York, Vol. 1: 392-412. · ·
Rouleau, A., and Gale, J. E., 1985. Statistical characterization of the fracture
system in the Stripa granite, Sweden. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.·, Sci. &
Geomecb. Abstr., Vol. 22, No. 6: 353-357.
Russo, G., 1992. Personal communication,
Segall, P., and Pollard, D. D., 1983. Joint formation in granitic rock of Sierra
Nevada. Geoloogical Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 94: 563-575.
Sen, Z., and Kazi, E. A., 1984. Discontinuity spacing and RQD estimates from
finite length scanlines. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
Vol. 21: 203-212.
Sen, Z., and Eissa, E. A., 1992. Rock quality charts for lognormally distributed
block sizes. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 29:
1-12.
Serafin, J. L., and Pereira, J. P., 1983_. Considerations of the geomecha.nics
classification of Bieniawski. Proc. Int. Symp. Eng. Geol. Underground
Constr. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1: II.33-II.42.
 £37

Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R., and Skinner, E. H., 1972. Support deter-
mination based on geologic predictions. Proceedings Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference. AIME, New York, pp. 43-64.
Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R., and Skinner, E. H., 1974. Ground sup-
port prediction model RSR concept. Proc. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference. AIME, New York, Vol. 1: 691-i07.
Wilbur, L. D., 1982. Rock tunnels. In: J. 0. Bickel and T. R. Kuesel (Ed-
itors}, Tunnel Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
pp. 123-207.
Wishart, D., 1968. Mode analysis: A generalization of nearest neighbor which
reduces chaining effects. Numerical Taxonomy. Academic Press, London
and New York, p. 282-309.
Wittke, N., 1978. Fundamentals for the design a.nd construction of tunnels lo-
cated in swelling rock and their use during construction of the Turning Loop
of the Subway Stuttgart. Inst. of Fdn. Eng., S. Mech., R. Mech. and Water
Ways Constr., RWTH (Univ.), Aachen, English edn. of Vol. 6, 131 pp.
"Wittke, N., and Pierau, B., 1979. Fundamentals for the design and construc-
tion of tunnels in swelling rock. Proc. 4tA Int. ISfu\,I Congr., .Montreaux.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2: 719-729.
Wullschlager, D., and Na.tau, 0., 1987. The bolted rock mass as an anisotropic
continuum - material behavior and design suggestion for rock cavities. Proc.
6t1' ISRM Congr., Montreal, Vol. 2: 1321-1324.
Yegulalp, T. M., and Wane, M. T., 1968. Application of extreme value statis-
tics to test data. Trans. Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, Vol. 241:
373-376.
Yegulalp, T. M., and Mahtab, M. A., 1983. A proposed model for statisti-
cal representation of mechanical properties of rock. Proc. 24th U.S. Symp.
Rock Mechanics. Assoc. of Eng. Geologists, pp. 61-69.
Xu, S., 1991. Personal communication, Internal GEODATA Memorandum of 6
June, 2pp.
Zienkiewicz, 0. C., 1967. The Finite Element Method in Structural and Con-
tinuum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London.
Zien.kiewicz, O.C., 1977. The Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill, London,
third edn., 787 pp.
Zien.klewiez, 0. C., Valliappan, S., Dulla.ge, C., a.nd Stagg, K. G., 1970. Anal-
ysis of nocl.inear problems in rock mechanics with particular reference to
jointed rock systems. Proc. 2nd IS&"vt Congr., Belgrade.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L., 1989; The Finite Element Method, fourth
edn., Vol. 1: Basic formulation and linear problems. McGra.w-Hill, London,
648 pp.
£96 Reference.5

Terzaghi, K., 1946. Rocle defects and loads in tunnel support. In: R. V. Proctor
and T. White {Editors), Rocle Tunneling With Steel Supports. Commercial
Shearing Co., Youngstown, Ohio, pp. 15-99.
Terzaghi, K., and Richart Jr., F. E., 1952. Stresses in rock about cavities.
Geotechniques, Vol. 3, pp. 57-90.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice
(2nd Ed.). John Wiley, New York.
Thon, G. J., 1982. Tunnel-boring machines. In: J. 0. Bicleel and T. R. Knesel
{Editors), Tunnel Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, Ch. 10,
pp. 235-278.
Thorpe, R., 1979. Characterization of discontinuities in the Stripa granite time-
scale heater experiment. Univ. of California, Berkeley, Report LBL-7083,
107 pp.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Ooodier, J. N., 1951. Theory of Elasticity. McGraw-
Hill, New York. ·
Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N., 1970. Theory of Elasticity. McGraw-
Hill, New York, third edn., 567 pp.
'Turner, M. J., Clough, R. W., Martin, H. C., and Topp, L. J., 1956. Analysis
of complex structures. Journal of Aeronautical Science, 23: 805-823.
Unal, E., 1983. Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine
Roofs. Ph.D. Thesis, Penn. State Univ., University Park, 355 pp.
USNC, 1981. Rocle-Mechanics Research Requirements for Resource Recovery,
Construction and Earthquake Hazard Reduction. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 222 pp.
USNC, 1990. Annual Review of U.S. Progress in Rock Mechanics - Rocle Mass
Modification. Committee for Rock Mechanics, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 62 pp. .
Von Rosenberg, D. U., 1977. Methods for the Numerical Solution of Partial
Differential Equations. G.L.Farrar & Assoc., Inc., 'Tulsa, OK, 128 pp.
Wallis, P. F., and King M. S., 1980. Discontinuity spacings in a crystalline rock:
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 17: 63-66.
Watson, G. S., and Irving E., 1957. Statistical methods in rock magnetism.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro. Soc., Geophys. Supp., Vol. 7, no. 6:
289-300.
Weibull, W., 1939. A statistical theory of the strength of materials. lngeniors
Vetenskaps Akademien, Handlingar No. 151, Stockholm.
Westergaard, H. M., 1940. Plastic state of stress around a deep well. J. Boston
Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 27, No. 1, 27 pp.
Whittaker, B. N., and Frith, R. C., 1990; Tunnelling: Design, Stability and
Construction. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 460 pp.
APPENDIX:
APPROACHES FOR ANALYZING
NON-CIRCULARLY· DISTRIBUTED
ORIENTATIONS

It was noted in Sec. 2.5.4 tha.t the circular normal distribution of Amold
(1941) is not a.pplicable in ma.ny instances. In some of these cases, Bingham's
(1964) distribution that allows elliptical symmetry is applicable. Bingham dis-
tribution was applied to analysis of clusters in joints by Shanley and Mahtab
(1975, 1976) through a. program called FRACTAN.
Some objective approaches for defining clusters in orientation data were also
given by Shanley and Mahtab (1976) and Mahtab and Yegulap (1982). Recog-
nizing a continuing interest in the application of these procedures (Kendorski
and Bindokas, 1987), it is considered appropriate to give below a coherent sum-
mary of these approaches.

A.l Clustering of orientations using an objective function

In the clustering approach discussed below, several. partitions of a sample of
orientations are defined using an adaptation of Wishart's (1968) one-level mode
analysis. An objective function is evaluated at each partition. The clusters be-
longing to partitions near the point at which the function assumes its minimum
are analyzed for their statistics.
In what follows, a partition P of a set of orientation A = {(81, 'Pi),
( 82, 1P2), ••• , ( 8 "' ;")} will be a collection {A;} of distinct nonempty subsets
of A such that each observation in A is contained in some {A;}. The elements
{A;} of partition P will be referred to as clusters.
To apply the one-level algorithm to a set of orientations A, two numbers must
be chosen: r, a positive real number, and k, a positive integer. In addition, a
"similarity" function p(Xi,X;) must be defined on the set of all pairs (X; =
£38 Reference$

Zienlciewicz,0. C., and Taylor, R. L., 1991. The Finite Element Method,
fourth edn., Vol. 2: Solid and fluid mechanics,. dynamics and nonlinearity.
McGraw-Hill, London, 807 pp.
Appendix

two (possibly collinear) axes intersecting at the origin. \Ve define the distance
between these axes to be

where a is the acute angle of intersection of the two axes. Thus p measures the
"similarity" of any two axes ta.ken from A.
In general, two paritions defined by the clustering technique will be different
if the corresponding values of r a.re sufficiently different. In the event that more
information than is provided by the analysis is desired by the user, an "objective
function n may be defined on the collection of partitions for the purpose of
determining the partition for which the function exhibits the desired behavior.
This usually consists of minimizing or maximizing some variable associated with
the data, such a.s variance. The objective function which has performed well is:

M N; M-1 M
F(P) = LLd2(Xj,X;)+ L L d2(Xi,Xj) (A.I)
j=l i=l i=l j=i+l

where M is the number of clusters in partition P, N; is the number of points

in cluster j of partition P, Xj is the element of cluster j, d (Xi,X;} is the
Euclidean distance between Xi and X], and Xi is the center of gravity of
cluster i, assuming each data point has a unit ma.ss (see eq. 2.3).

A.2 Analysis of clusters using Bingham distribution

Bingham's (1964) distribution has the form

where (1, (2, (3 are dispersion parameters a.nd, using Kiraly's (1969) terminology
for µ3, µ1 and µ2, µ3 is the best axis, µ1 is the axis of best zone, and µ2 is the
axis of a zone containing µ1 a.nd µ3. Also,

(1 0
z= 0
[0
(2
0 J,]
and 1 F1 ( 1 /2; 3 /2; Z) is a. hypergeometric function of matrix argument. Bingham
imposes the constraint (3 = 0 to render the maximum likelihood estimate of Z
unique.
 Appendix

(Bi, 'Pi),X; = (8;, ¢;) of orientations, to measure the similarity of any two axes.
Spheres of radius r are then constructed about every datum. The centers of
those spheres that contain k or more observations are called dense points.
The remainder of the one-level algorithm consists of two steps: (1) parti-
tioning of the dense points, and (2) defining a partition of all of A using the
nondense elements of A and the partition defined on the dense points.
Step 1 starts with the partition P1 ( on the set of dense points) in which every
cluster contains a single point. P1 is then modified, to obtain a new partition
P2, by combining groups of dusters of P1 into single clusters.
The rule for determining whether two dense points, v and w say, will belong
to the same cluster in P2 is as follows:
.if there are dense points X0( = v ), X1, ... , Xm( = w ), such that
p(X;,Xi+1) :Sr, i = 0, 1, 2, ... , m - 1, then
v and w will be in the same cluster of P2.
Step 2 consists of modifying P2, thereby obtaining a partition P3 defined on
A, and not on the set of dense points alone. This is done by adding non-dense
points to the clusters in P2 until every point in A belongs to some cluster.
In the original program FR.ACTAN,a nondense point was assigned to the
cluster containing the nearest dense point. This criterion is not the only crite-
rion that could be used (Wishart, 1968, p. 298) and, in fact, the program was
revised to incorporate a criterion ( discussed later) for the acceptance or rejec-
tion of the unassigned points. The one-levelalgorithm stops when P3 has been
defined. No dense point may be removed from its original partition element,
and the number of partition elements may not change.
The strong point of the algorithm is the absence of restriction on size or
shape of clusters, a restriction present, for example, in hierarchical clustering
algorithms employing minimum variance as the objective function.
A drawback of the one-level algorithm, recognized by Wishart (1968), is
the element of external control involved in allowing user selection of both t
and k. Furthermore, some clusters might not contain data modes, depending
on the sample and choice of r and k, These difficulties are due chiefly to the
arbitrariness of the selection of r and k. For this reason the algorithm was
modified to allow the selection of r to remain arbitrary (subject only to r 2'.: 0)
and select.k by means of the Poisson randomness test equation 2.1 (substituting
k for x ). This modification not only mitigates the objectionable external control
in user selection of both r and k, but also increases the likelihood that clusters
defined by the algorithm will correspond to data modes.
It remains to define the similarity measure p. Let X1 = (81, ¢1), X2 =
(82,<h) be points in A. The coordinates (81,¢1),(82,<P2) give the attitudes of
 Appendi:J:

If ( 8, ,p) will denote the spherical coordinates of a unit vector computed with
respect to µ31 the number of points expected in the spherical quadrilateral

is

[n/4,r1F1 {1/2; 3/2; Z)J J, '21~1 .

it ~2
ezp[((1 cos2 8 + (2 sin2 8) sin2 tpJ sin efJdefJd8
(A.3)
According to Bingham (1964, p.43), this is the most natural method of
setting up class intervals if the data are concentrated strongly about µ.3• Class
intervals are constructed in a manner that is similar to what was described
earlier for Arnold distribution.
. The expected value for each class interval is computed by using quadrature
. formulas to evaluate expression (A.3). The x2 value thus obtained is then
compared with tables of the x2 distribution .

. A.3 Numerical example

The technique of delineation and analysis of clusters in orientation data
described above was applied to fracture orientations measured in a porphyry
copper deposit (San Manuel mine, Arizona).
For the data of this example, the objective function F(P)1 as seen in eq. (A.l),
_·assumed the value 180.61 at the partition corresponding tor= 0.0874 (5"}; this
was the smallest value that F(P) assumed over the range 0.0195 :5 r :5 0.187.
A plot of F(P) versus r is shown in Fig. A.l.
The polar equal area plots of the clusters resulting from the partition defined
for r = 0.0874 are shown in Fig. A.2 with the demarcation of the boundaries of
the three clusters sketched by hand. The maximum likelihood parameters for
the three clusters are given in Table A.l.
 Appendu

· lithe data are concentrated about a preferred orientation, both (1 and (2

will be negative. H (1 =/: (2, then (1 < (2 and the contours of the distribution
will be elliptical in shape. In this example, the axis µ1, would be parallel to the
"minor axis" of the "ellipse", and the a.xis µ2 would be parallel to the "major
axis" of the "ellipse". The a.xis µ31 that is, the best a.xis or the mean of the
distribution, would be perpendicular to both µ1 and µ2.
Estimation of parameters ( ( i, µ,, = 1, 2, 3) is discussed by Bingham but will
be briefly touched on here. Given a set of orientation data

define Xi, by its direction cosines (as in equation 2.2):

The coordinates of the vector Xi are the rectangular coordinates of a point on

the unit spherewhose spherical coordinates are (1, 8i, ,Pi) (see Fig. 2.1).
Further, define a 3 x n matrix X by

X = [x1,x2, ... ,xn]

and let w1, w2, and wa be the eigenvectors of the matrix

where w1 < w2 < w3• Then the corresponding eigenvectors are the maximum
likelihood estimates, µ.i, µ2 and µ.3 of µ1, µ2 and µ3. Estimates of (1 and (2
are obtained by interpolating in tables given by Bingham (1964), who has also
provided the information necessary for extending these tables.
According to Bingham (1964, p.49), "oti is the variance of the rotation of M
(considered as a set of three axes in space) about the axis µk, where i =/: k =/: j ."
Here, M = [µ.i, µ21 Pa] and

u;i = 1/2(u, - Uj)(w; -w;)

A computer code can be developed to compute (1,(2,P.1,fe2,fi.3,u21,CT31 and CT32

and to perform the x2 test described below.
~.3LE A.1
Maximum likelihood estiiretes of parameters associated with Bingham•s •
distribution for data of Fig. A.2 (after Shanlev and Mahtab, 1976).
,......!
g\
ii-= ~ ~ l,13 ~l ~2 411 Clli l;L
!: 612 (12l <131 032 l;z
~i ai 92 93 ~ 0.00
...... ,
e-:

I·....: 0.223 0.92S 0.307 16.3 81.2 103.5 12.22 -5.99

''
i
0.170 0.347 0.922 17.07 15.10 i.rs i.u -4.50
0.960 O.lSJ -0.235 37.4 159.5 71.5 97.71 0.00
'
- ;
-0.217
-0.251
0.183 0.959 19.4
0.939 -0.235
73.0 80.9 7.10
9.63 17 .94 l.47 i. iO
-8.57
-6.64
;
0.943 0.292 0.157 229.2 79.0 346.2 95.27 0.00
!
_,
i.;i
I !
0.190
-0.947
0.971 0.156 74.6
0.214 -0.239
84.0 163.4 a.ss
4.64 I o.oo o.oo 0.00
-9.65
-5.97
I
I I
0.265 0.105 -0.958 290.7 12.4 303.2 39.78 0.00
'
A.4 Criterion for acceptance ( or rejection) of unassigned
points ·
The clustering scheme described previously assigns all non-dense points to
the clusters of dense points on the basis of distance or the "nearest neighbor"
principle. Thus all points are assigned to clusters. The result is not entirely
satisfactory. In some cases ( see Kendorski and Bindokas, 1987) the data that
may trail off into a girdle will still be assigned to one cluster. In any case,
the clustering procedure does not use a rejection criterion involving a Poisson
cut-off (eq. 2.'i) as in the case of program PATCH.
The following scheme for treating the unassigned points was developed by
1Ia.htab and Yegulalp (1982) based on Gumbel's (1958) description of Chau-
vener's criterion .. The acceptance (rejection) test is carried out through an
iterative process, with each iteration involving the following procedure:
Suppose j is a cluster containing n; da.ta points. We now compute a limiting
angle tp i with reference to the mean µ3; of cluster j such that the expected
number of points beyond ,Pj is 2, tha.t is,

n;[l -
i:
lo O
/i(9,¢,)d¢,d9J = 2

where /;( 9, tp) is Bingham distribution with its parameters estimated by using
data in cluster j.
Next we examine the closeness of an unassigned point i(9i, 'Pi) to each cluster.
\Ve choose the angle /3i; between i and µ3; as. the measure for closeness. The
point i can be accepted in cluster j if Pi; < ¢, i· If this condition is satisfied
 Appendiz

190

~ 188
LI.

z
........u
0
186
z
:::::,
LI.
j.8,4
w
........
>
u
u.J
-:, 182
CD
0

180
0 0.02 0.0"1 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0 .1-4
COUNTING RADIUS. r(radian), USED FOR DEFINING PARTITION P
Fig. A.I. Plot of the objective function against the radius of the counting sphere
for partitioning the example data {after Shanley and Mabtab, 1976).

N
~04~~0
M++1-_ j°:mti-. "
t .· •.

o +:W- ~+ti. + :+:t:

,Ho
a+ +
-t:
'-t/-o

+ +/\
i o+
+o
r ... :.

' + + + /\ =F+h
+o:~t + ~ + / \ & ~
O+ +':-d- _..,Y+ , + :p
+ ++ ~ / :t \ +
0 +
++ + +,+_J_ \-J.4
+ \
+~
3 :j:
* + \\ +
+tr
0
W +*
+
+ ~
'1' . •\
n..
+' t+
.t+
+ \ +
'
-OE
n.=* ++ +~ \ + ++'-4+++ + \ "o
:lit.+ t++
lr1=i+ + ++4+
+'
*lt
++ +
++++ ..,--...... \
\ t+o
?1- +
'.zi._\ ++++ + + +'
. I
~
++ / + ~
./ '-''0
CY + 1 --+ ++ 0
ct++ +/+ & + -H-ib+
O I+ + 0
of o \)+o+D
s
Fig. A.2. Polar equal-area projection of the partitioned example data; digits 1,
2, and 3 denote the cluster numbers (aiter Shanley and Mahtab, 1976).
Appendu

.p ~ft.O+j +~,+--IQ
o"t++*•+ ·~. ~ l+ t .. o
• .... ++:t"°' t: r- ... • .i
~ + ,,-..'!:-..: + + I \t_ -0
+ ~ '~ I_-';/ ,+....
~ r CLUSTER ".jJ . ~ +O
o+-.4~-+.) + CLUSTER 1 i;+ -o
...
+ + ++ ... t + "\' t +
d--.........
+
+· ++++++
+ ,
(P
~
+,t, + +FIEjeCTED PO[NTS + + + , +i·
wo+.W-. *'+ ++ + ++- .P+ + + + '~ :+ ..OE
..... \+ +• +- ... + '
1~ +

~..t..··~.
0 '\ + - + + \-t ......
+ii ,CLUSTER 1 + +++ + ,.++ + t" '-'

.:i: +· \ +
+
+
+
+ +.,
+
+"ro..
~ +$."-?i
+., •+
r-. + "t +
+ + ..
0
Cl'~'- + + .. 0
' + CLUSTER 2 + ..-::,..,;t
dt':, ·• +
+
... ....--:.. ~ .
/'\ +
O' + /+"--~ ++-' d .
o o; ~+a o
s
Fig. A.3. Results of application of the rejection criterion to 286 observations from
Sa.n Manuel mine, with cluster boundaries and rejected da.ta. points (after Mahta.b
and Yegulap, 1982).
':'able A.2
Carparison of result of analysis of exarrpledata using :AACT.~'J with and
·...ichait tre :cejeccia,. criterion (afte: ?-~ltab and '!SJl!.i",.l:p, 1982).
aESULTS I WITH REJECTION wrraoor REJECTION

Total no. of clai:a points

: Camting radius, a, (deg)
286
15
' 286
17
?oisson cutoff, K 16 19
No. of iterations required 6 l
No. of clusters defined 2 3

No. of rejected points 104 0

CWS'l'Elt P~..RAMF:I'ERS
Cluster number 1 I 2 l I 2 3
No. of data points 80 I 102 !27 112 47
Mem azimuth of dip, (deg) 69 I 347 252 346 123
~..ean dip, (deg)
I 86 I
I
78 i5 81 73
x
TheOretical 2 at 951 I
18.3 I 23. 7 28.9, 23.7 5.9
Actual 12 10.0
I 16.5 27.71 17 .i 4.9 I
 Appendix

for one cluster only, i is assigned to that cluster. However, if /3i; < 4>; is true
for more than one clusters, the point i is assigned to the cluster j for which the
probability P;; is maximum; where

P;; = 1 - f2" f P;; f;(B, </>)d</>d8

le==O Jt>=O
At the end of each iteration, new values of cluster parameters µ3;, </, ;, are
estimated using new n; and Bingham distribution. The iterative process con-
tinues until no additional points can be accepted into any existing clusters, The
remaining points of A, if any, cannot be assigned and are rejected as extremal
d~L . ·,
The results of application of the rejection criterion to the numerical example
(of 286 observations of fracture orientation from San Manuel mine, Arizona)
are compared (in Fig. A.3.and Table A.2) with the results obtained previously
without the use of the rejection criterion. '
A significant number (104) of the 286 data points was rejected. One of the
three previously defined clusters, cluster number 3, is absent after the applica-
tion of the criterion. There is also a significant change in the statistics of cluster
number 1, the new cluster is smaller (80 versus 127 points) but its mean dip is
off by 10° from the mean dip of the old cluster (86° versus 76°, note the 180°
change in the azimuth of dip).
A conclusion that can be drawn fonn the above discussion is that some
care is necessary before deciding on lumping together two or more groups of
statistically distinct orientation data. It is suspected that such a grouping had
occured in the case of the data from San Manuel. ·
An example on the other extreme (when no data can be=-?!£'~'~;,::
of near-uniformity of density of data points on the hemis~~~,,s ..~«;,;.;.a,~(',
of 846 fracture orientations from the Stripa granite in Swed~,:Ji~.r Q._..;.l~·~~,:, .:
Thorpe (1979) are listed by Mahtab and Yegulalp (1982). . .
A strong case can be made for the need for ( statistically) stratifying or
dividing the engineering site into homogeneous domains prior to analyzing the
orientation data for input to design. This subject was discussed in Sec. 2.5.3
in reference to an application of the cone of confidence concept in devising a
similarity test for grouping orientation data. Note that a measure of similarity
can be selected regardless of the distribution that is potentially suitable for
fitting the data. The use of a similarity test coupled with a sequential sampling
(mapping) scheme is most desirable when permitted by the available time and
funds. A comparison of five similarity testing schemes was made by Cravero et
al. (1991b) who concluded that the most appropriate scheme would derive from .
the requirements of selectivity, the dispersion of the data, and the complexity
of the site geology.
Index !./9

friction NATM 124

angle of 88 normal strains and stresses 52
instantaneous angle of 94 nonlinear
ground failure envelope 128
control 124: inelastic 63
improvement 124 numerical methods
grouting boundary element 87
compaction 138 differential & integral 76
jet 138 distinct element 86
permeation 136 finite difference 86
heading 215 ' finite element 77
hydraulic conductivity 134 octahedral
hydrostatic stress 70 normal & and shear stress 65
in£nite X plane 65
.element 82 peak particle velocity 174
.plate 61 pilot bore 121
invert 166 presupport 123
isotropic compression 68 probability
: homogeneous, elastic 66 approach 103
in situ density function 103
. modulus of deformation 38 of failure 111
stress 67, 183 plasticity, theory of 64
Jacobian plastic zone 68
joint(s) quantification of
element 12 joint orientations 14
. , extent and spacing 27 random variable 107
. geometric characteristics 13 rebars 150
mean orientation of sets 14 reinforcement
mechanical properties 12 active 156
normal 14 passive 156
jumbo 121 rock 208
key block 12 return period 110
linear rib
elasticity 52 ratio 37
. isotropic material 53 steel 32
Lame, constants of 54 rondheader 120
mieropile 190 rock
millisecond delays 180 durability classification 45
Mohr circle 88 improvement 134
Monte Carlo simulation 104 pre-reinforcement 144
morraine 189 rock mass
multiple openings 201 disturbed 97
INDEX
normal 106
Airy's function 59 Poisson 15
analytical approach 66 spherical normal 20
anhydrite 166 Weibull 106 .
associated :Bow rule 130 damage criterii i"76
back analysis 163 Darcy's law 195.
blast vibrations 1 73 decompression 1.23
bolts 148 design modification .158
boundary integral 83 detritus 189
broken zone 126, 131 discretization 78
characteristic line 125 discontinuum 87· :'.
close form solution 66 displacement ·
cohesion 88 approach in FEM 78
effective 148 dowels 144
compatibility relations 56 drifter 120
confidence drilling and blasting 119
cone of 21 elastic constants 54, 174
degree of 9 equilibrium
interval 21 conditions 59.
controlled blasting 1 79 equations ~6 -
conventional method limit 75
of excavation 119 equivalent material 66
convergence =confirrement 125 extensometer 210
distribution failure criterion.
Arnold 18 Coulomb 88
exponential 27 Griffith 91
extreme 106 Hoek-Brown 94
Gamma27 Mohr 90
hemispherical normal 18 failure zone 68
lognormal 27 · free surface 120, 174
Ind.ex

friction NATM 124

angle of 88 normal strains and stresses 52
instantaneous angle of 94 nonlinear
ground failure envelope 128
control 124 inelastic 63
' · improvement 124 numerical methods
grouting boundary element 87
coi::npaction 138 differential & integral 76
jet 138 distinct element 86
permeation 136 finite difference 86
heading 215 finite element 77
hydraulic conductivity 134 octahedral
hydrostatic stress 70 normal & and shear stress 65
infinite X plane 65
element 82 peak particle velocity 174
plate 61 pilot bore 121
invert 166 presupport 123
isotropic compression 68 probability
homogeneous, elastic 66 approach 103
in situ density function 103
modulus of deformaticn 38 of failure 111
stress 67, 183 plasticity, theory of 64
Jacobian plastic zone 68
joint(s) quantification of
· element 12 joint orientations 14
extent and spacing 27 random variable 107
geometric characteristics 13 rebars 150
mean orientation of sets 14 reinforcement
mechanical properties 12 active 156
normalLd passive 156
jumbo 121 rock 208
key block 12 return period 110
linear rib
elasticity 52 ratio 37
isotropic material 53 steel 32
Lame, constants of 54 rondheader 120
micropile 190 rock
millisecond delays 180 durability classification 45
Mohr circle 88 improvement 134
Monte Carlo simulation 104 pre-reinforcement 144
morraine 189 rock mass
multiple openings 201 disturbed 97
250 Index

modification 134 weak rock 46

undisturbed 97 significant characteristics 48
rock mass classification yield criterion 64
Bieniawski (RMR) 38
Laubsher & Taylor 49
Q-system 42
RSR32
Terzaghi (rock loa.d) 32
rock support interaction 126
safety factor 101
sampling 8, 13
shape functions 78
shallow .
depth 260
tunnels-182
shear strains & stresses 52
significant properties 7
standup time 38
subsidence 198
support
final 158
initial 152
load 38
swelling
coefficient 45
ratio 49
stress 45,16!} ·
TBM 120
tests
field design 10
field quality control 10
Kolmogorov-Smirnov 29
x2 25
index 10, 11
Poisson's randomness 26
transient 86
umbrella arch 123, 144
variance, variation 113
wave
longitudinal 174
Rayleigh 174
transverse 174