TJ_1012_024_029.
qxd:Feature 20/10/12 16:39 Page 24
JUNCTION DESIGN
Junction Design
in Rock – A State of
the Art Review
Seth Pollak, Senior Engineer, Arup and Hannes
Lagger, Associate Director, Arup review the
challenges involved in designing and
constructing complex intersections in rock
AS SPACE CONSTRAINTS on land drive
more facilities underground, the idea of the
linear tunnel has been replaced by one of
complex geometries and intersections as
engineers struggle to create excavations
that fulfill the requirements. This is never
truer than in urban areas where new
projects must be threaded around existing
utilities, foundations, and other tunnels. The
resulting stress distributions and ground
deformations can be difficult to predict,
even with the aid of a full 3D model. The
application of current analytical design tools
to the temporary support of junctions is
mainly limited to homogeneous and
isotropic materials – such as soils or
massive, elastic rock. Few design tools are
currently available in the industry to deal
with discontinuous or weak rock masses,
where stress distributions result in shearing
and dilation in the rock mass around the
excavation. This article aims to address
where the industry is in terms of a rational
approach for temporary support design for
junctions in discontinuous rock masses, and
highlights some recent projects where
junctions have been successfully designed
and build, with data collected to verify the
performance in various types of rock.
Current Junction Design Methodologies
in Rock
The most common approach to junction
design in rock tunnels is through application
of the empirical Q system (Barton, 1974).
Where an adjustment needs to be made for
a tunnel intersection, the joint number
value (Jn) is multiplied by 3, effectively
reducing the final Q value by 1/3. Intuitively,
the method makes sense as the creation of
additional free faces increases the likelihood
of a removable block. However, several
important unknowns exist. One unknown is
24 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
how far to extend the range of increased
support due to stress changes and increase
in removable block size on either side of the
junction. Typically, a value of one adit
diameter is applied as a rule of thumb,
based on the fact that the majority of stress
distribution occurs within this zone. The
prudent engineer would then verify the
empirical recommendation using a
kinematic block analysis such as a 3D
wedge visualization program in order to
translate joint orientations into wedge
volumes and shapes which could be
encountered in the junction area. Aside
from the size of the zone of influence, the
drawbacks of the empirical approach are
that no guidance is provided on rock
reinforcement size or type, no estimate of
deformation is made, and no extent of
yielding zone is established - all factors
which are vital for the stability, construction
and successful delivery of a tunnel junction.
The question of rock reinforcement type is
of interest in terms of performance in
design and construction. For example, in an
age where time is money, preference has
been given by many contractors to the use
of friction bolts wherever possible. The
question of friction bolt performance to
that of a fully grouted dowel around a
junction cannot be answered by application
of the simplified empirical method
presented by the Q-chart. Although the
junction zone may represent an overall small
portion of the project, using dowels or
other reinforcement types still require the
contractor to have the appropriate
equipment on site and requires a change in
the usual mining cycle.
The ideal solution for the designer is to be
able to carry out a more rational design,
one where analytical and numerical
methods may be applied and more site
Figure 1: Relationship between the
additional roof settlement and the
intersection angle of tunnels for the
main tunnel (after Hsiao, 2008)
a 80
Main tunnel - Roof settlement
Intersection angle = 90
Intersection angle = 60
60 Intersection angle = 30
Δδm/δm0 (%)
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
σcm/P0
specific factors (such as in situ stress, angle
of intersection, etc.) can be accounted for
without sacrificing time.
A step in the right direction has recently
been provided by Hsiao et al. (2008) who
have presented estimates of crown
deformation for both the adit and main
tunnel (given as Δδ/δo, where Δδ is the
additional deformation measured after
junction formation and δo is the
deformation outside the influence of the
junction) for various junction situations. The
results presented are based on 75 different
numerical model runs, carried out in
FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group) for
different combinations of depths, rock mass
quality, lateral stress ratios, and intersection
angle.
The Δδ/δo ratio is given as a function of
two key factors: the in situ rock mass
strength to stress ratio (σcm/Po) and the
intersection angle (30°, 60°, and 90°). The
former parameter addresses the probable
yield zone size while the latter considers
different geometrical effects, both
highlighted as shortcomings of the
empirical design method. Results are
tabulated and can be applied in the same
TJ_1012_024_029.qxd:Feature 20/10/12
Figure 2: Relationship between additional roof settlement at main tunnel and
distance from intersection center (Hsiao et al., 2008)
Main tunnel - Roof settlement
0
-Y Y
Area requires
additional D for the bulk of the support design based on
re-inforcement
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0
-Y/D
amount of time it takes to carry out the
empirical method.
As stated previously, the ratio of σcm/Po
has a large influence on the degree of
yielding and ground deformation strain
around a tunnel (Hoek, 1998). Based on
approximate ranges of ground behavior for
different strength to stress ratios, three
levels of warning were established from the
relationship between tunnel crown strain
and rock mass strength. Further
categorization can be made regarding the
σcm/Po ratio into conditions of slightly or
non-squeezing rock (σcm/Po≥0.5),
moderately squeezing rock (0.25≤
σcm/Po≤0.5), and severely squeezing rock
(σcm/Po<0.25).
The range over which additional support
is required is primarily a function of the
yield zone size and the intersection angle.
Some guidance is given by Hsiao et al. in
the form of Figure 2. It would be left to the
designer to determine how much
additional strain their temporary support
system could absorb without overstress,
and for that matter how “overstress” is
defined; i.e. maintaining all elements in
their elastic range, or allowing some
cracking of fiber reinforced shotcrete, or
utilizing higher tensile capacity for
rockbolts such as 80% 0f Ultimate
compared to the typical 60%, given the
high quality control measures called for in
most project specifications.
The methods described above are most
applicable to the conceptual or scheme
design stages, where feasibility and
parametric studies are often investigated.
Detailed design usually requires the use of
numerical analysis to justify the scheme,
especially for shallow urban junctions
subject to strict ground deformation
limitations.
16:39 Page 25
JUNCTION DESIGN
smaller bypass tunnels, thereby removing
the massive 23m x 20m x 20m high
intersection, large enough to house a
60
Boeing 737 aircraft, off critical path.
Initial rock mass characterization of the
90º 50º 30º
Acute side fractured granite was undertaken based on
B Δδm/δm0 (%) 50
Obtuse side borings drilled through the junction area
from ground surface, located 270m above.
40
It was decided to undertake 2D modeling
the unprecedented size and complex
30 construction sequence, with a final 3D
model used to verify the 2D work. Based on
the estimated block size and tunnel spans
20
involved (Stille, 2008), it was decided that a
discontinuum approach using UDEC (Itasca
10 Consulting Group) would most accurately
model the key failure mechanisms expected;
Obtuse angle side Acute angle side namely excessive shear displacement caused
0
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 by stress re-distribution accompanied by
local block yielding.
Y/D
Two sections were modeled in UDEC, one
across the 23m span (including the two
bypass tunnels), and another across the
Application of Numerical Modeling to 20m twin track running tunnel span. The
Detailed Junction Design primary goal of 2D modeling was to obtain
In the battle between 2D and 3D modeling, an estimate of required temporary support,
a balance must be struck between the time and the best construction sequence to
taken for 3D, and the additional control overstress and yielding.
information that can be obtained from such At the conclusion of the 2D modeling
a model compared to a 2D version. program, the temporary support of the
Several recent projects where both 2D spans junction was specified to include 6m
Figure 3: Complex intersection geometry for ventilation adit and bypass
tunnels on Hong Kong’s Express Rail Link Contract 821
CL Sump pit
bypass
CL Hammer Head
CL North bypass Adit
Extent of T-junction design package
Down track
Up track
Kwai Chung Adit
23m
Kwai Chung Adit
junctions area
20m
Unexcavated
Excavation full face CL S
outh bypas
s Adit
Excavation heading
Excavation bench
300m thick sprayed collar (Type S1)
Excavation complete
0 10
Metres
and 3D modeling was carried out for long x 32mm diameter fully grouted rock
junction design in rock was for Express Rail dowels on a 1.25m grid with 100mm of
Link Contract 821 in Hong Kong, 7 Line fiber reinforced shotcrete. The construction
Extension in New York and Brisbane Airport sequence was agreed in principle with the
Link in Australia. In Hong Kong, the contractor and involved some 19 different
contractor opted for rearrangement of a stages to break out the junction top
critical junction area during value heading and bench to full size.
engineering exercises to allow for quick It was decided to model the entire
access down to the running tunnels via two construction sequence and geometry in 3D
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 25
TJ_1012_024_029.qxd:Feature 20/10/12 16:39 Page 26

JUNCTION DESIGN

observed, which provided confidence to the

Figure 4: Comparison of results between 2D and 3D numerical modeling carried
design team that the adopted construction
out for the XRL 821 junction design sequence was acceptable. The largest
difference between the two methods was in
the shotcrete bending moment. Not
surprising, the 2D model which utilizes
beam elements showed higher load
compared to the 3D model, which utilizes
plate elements. As the plate is more efficient
in distributing moment compared to a
beam, the result passes the sense check. The
support remained unchanged from that
predicted by the UDEC model, aside from
localized increases in shotcrete thickness to
200mm. The substitution of macrosynthetic
polypropylene for steel fibers was also
allowed based on the design results.
Deformations obtained from the 3D model
were used in defining trigger levels (set at
80%, 100%, and 120% of the design
convergence) to monitor the behavior of the
rock mass as excavation progressed. Explicit
trigger levels could be defined for almost any
point in the junction area, a large advantage
over 2D modeling.
One extremely beneficial piece of data that
the design team had was results of a series
of hydrofracture in situ stress tests carried
out in a borehole drilled right through the
area. Accurate determination of the 3D state
of stress in the ground was fundamental in
developing a reliable 3D model. Without this
data, there would most certainly be some
doubt associated with the results. It is
strongly recommended that the 3D in situ
stress state be measured prior to design of
any large junction or cavern.
The junction was excavated and supported
without incident with no trigger levels
exceeded. Clearly any sort of empirical
approach would not be valid here based on
little to no past precedent and the complexity
of the geometry. The adopted design was
considered valid down to a mapped Q value
of 1, with the lowest mapped value being
Max. Average Unfactored Unfactored Tangential approximately equal to this value.
Model
crown rock dowel axial lining maximum stress at In terms of numerical modeling of
type
displacement load load bending moment crown, σ1 junctions, it is important that the junction
need not be designed in 3D, In fact, it would
UDEC not be a wise use of time to do so. The 3D
19mm 98kN 951kN 43kN-m 10MPa
[2D] model is most useful in validating 2D work,
after most of the design and sequence has
Midas 876kN (for 85% 6.6kN-m (for been worked out and agreed upon.
GTS 19mm 80kN of points); 98% of points) 11MPa
[3D] Max. = 3MN Maximum = 36kN-m Moving Towards a Rational Design
Approach
The use of 3D modeling as discussed in the
as part of the final verification exercise. continuum model could be used for final preceding section would generally be limited
There are of course elements of the design verification and that this would provide to only the most complex and stringent
that cannot be addressed in 2D; most relatable results to the 2D UDEC, which applications. How about design of “typical”
importantly the intermediate stages of assumes joints dip directly perpendicular to intersections, like that of a cross passage or
construction and associated stress the tunnel axis, albeit at an apparent angle. escalator adit into a station cavern?
distributions coupled with varying shotcrete The software package Midas GTS was used The authors refer back to the work of
stiffness in different areas. and the results compared against the UDEC Hsiao et al. (which interested readers are
As 2D distinct element modeling had models for similar sections. Results for one encouraged to consult) as a starting point.
been undertaken extensively for the section are shown in Figure 4. One project where this work was validated
junction, it was decided that a 3D Similar values for key parameters were was on the 7 Line Extension Subway Project

26 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_1012_024_029.qxd:Feature 20/10/12 16:39 Page 27

JUNCTION DESIGN

Figure 5: Total displacements obtained from Midas GTS model of the XRL 821
junction area

in New York City, where Arup was

responsible for the temporary support of a Run 2D numerical model of View of completed XRL 821 junction
large station cavern and associated adit main cavern with standard support looking down the ventilation adit.
and note crown displacement
penetrations. The 34th Street Station Cavern
had an excavated span of 21m and height of
16m. Rock cover was typically 16m, above Figure 6: Arrangement of MPBX
Reduce stiffness of intact rock mass
which foundations rested supporting the (depending on model type) instruments above 34th Street
busy 11th Avenue viaduct structure. until 15% increase in crown
Station Cavern in New York City
displacement is produced
The cavern and junctions were constructed
in a mica schist rock mass with pegmatite
intrusions. Block size analyses and mapping Check capacity of standard support
Cavern
of adjacent outcrops determined that
behavior would most accurately be modeled Overstressed OK
by a discontinuum approach, such as UDEC.
In design of the cavern support, numerous
12.6m

Adit
sections were analysed in 2D. As the
approach by Hsiao et al. is based on the ratio Increase thickness
of shotcrete 0.5D
of additional crown settlement after junction Install heavier
around adit for
support in cavern 4.5m
formation to the typical deformation away and re-run
potential wedge
confinement
from the junction, it was determined that the and adopt
2D work undertaken previously could be
utilized to provide the “δo” input, and that
the same models could effectively be re-run
with reduced rock strength/stiffness Monitoring of ground displacements several feet above the excavation design
properties in order to induce the additional during construction in the cavern and line. Real time continuous monitoring
deformation, Δδ, estimated by the method around the junction penetrations was provided results which could be correlated
(Pollak et al., 2010). The proposed analysis effectively measured using multiple point against each blast carried out as the
requires some degree of trial and error to borehole extensometers (MPBX) installed junctions were developed. A typical layout
match the crown displacements, but once from surface in arrays across the cavern of the MPBX above the penetration location
this is done the temporary support can be section. The lowest anchor points were only is shown in Figure 6.
assessed for overstress due to the extra
strain. Based on Figure 2, it was expected
Table 1: Summary of junction behavior in the 34th Street Station Cavern, 7 Line
that the perpendicular junction formations
Ext. Project, New York.
would result in an additional 15-20% crown
displacement in the cavern. Localized
thickening of the shotcrete was required, but
axial and shear forces in the grouted 32mm
diameter rock reinforcement was considered
acceptable. The process is presented in the
following flowchart:

TUNNELLING JOURNAL 27
TJ_1012_024_029.qxd:Feature 20/10/12
JUNCTION DESIGN
Adits E1 and E2 providing access to the 34th Street Station
Cavern, New York City
Three such intersections were monitored.
All three were of the same size and located
in rock masses having similar quality. Of the
three instrumented junctions, good results
were obtained from two, the third MPBX
being damaged due to overbreak. The
Adit T3 and the interlocking chamber at north end of the 34th
Street Station Cavern, New York City
28 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
16:39 Page 28
results are shown in Table 1.
From Table 1, it can be seen that the
measured ratio of Δδm/δmo, where δmo
was obtained from the MPBX above the
main cavern crown prior to junction
formation, agrees well with the 15-20%
range predicted by the Hsiao et al. method
in non-squeezing rock.
Additionally, the extent of influence
around the junction could be measured
based on the measurements obtained by the
MPBXs. As shown by the central orange
shaded box area on Figure 6, neither the
extensometer opposite the intersection nor
the extensometer offset 4.5m from the adit
edge registered any additional displacement
due to junction formation. The area of
influence was only within the area shaded
by the box. Therefore, argument could be
made that only localized increase of support
is necessary within 0.5D around the junction
for cases where the rock mass falls into the
category of “non-squeezing”. The measured
results validate the work of Hsiao et al., as
well as the proposed refinements to include
more detailed 2D numerical methods into
the approach.
Conclusion
It is now possible to carry out temporary
support design of rock tunnel junctions by
applying greater analytical and numerical
tools than ever before, without sacrificing
time and resources, or relying on empirical
simplifications. The state of the art methods
presented here provide a good starting
point to incorporate fundamental, site
specific rock mass parameters which are
omitted in the traditional empirical
approaches. From that point forward, a
rational, tailored support design can be
developed to suit each junction geometry
and characteristics.
REFERENCES
1. Barton, N.R., Lien, R., and Lunde, J.
(1974). “Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support”.
Rock Mech. 6(4). pp. 189-239.
2. Hoek, E. (1998). “Tunnel support in weak
rock” Keynote address in Symposium of
sedimentary rock engineering. Taipei,
Taiwan.
3. Hsiao, F.Y., Wang, C.L., and Chern, J.C.
(2009). “Numerical simulation of rock
deformation for support design in tunnel
intersection area” Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology. 24. pp. 14-
21.
4. Pollak, S.E., Snee, C.P.M., and George, C.
(2010). “Observations made during
construction of a shallow rock cavern in New
York – a case study of the 7 Line Extension
project. Proceedings of the ITA-AITES World
Tunnel Congress and 36th General
Assembly. Vancouver, Can.
5. Stille, H. and Palmstrom, A. (2008).
“Ground behaviour and rock mass
composition in underground excavations”.
Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology. 23. pp. 46-64.