The 2013 ISRM Franklin lecture

Rock Mechanics for Resources, Energy and Environment – Kwaśniewski & Łydżba (eds)
© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00080-3

Engineering aspects of geotechnical tunnel design

A. Goricki
3G Gruppe Geotechnik Graz ZT GmbH, Graz, Austria

ABSTRACT: The geotechnical design of underground structures deals with the interaction between the ground
and the structure. The key element of this behavior is the potential failure mode of the ground, which mainly
depends on the ground conditions including ground parameter, water and primary stress condition as well as
the excavation geometry. Typical ground behaviors for underground structures are discussed and engineering
design methods are presented. To deal with the uncertainties of the ground and the complexity of the subsurface
buildings a behavior based design methodology is discussed in combination with the risk management process
as described in ISO 31000. The integration of the processes leads to a sound design process, which allows the
application of individual and problem-oriented engineering design tools as well as the adaptation of the design
during the construction phase to minimize the geological and geotechnical risks if required.

1 INTRODUCTION – Numerical analyses; and

– Combinations of the methods mentioned above.
The “geotechnical design of underground structures”
Independent of the applied method, the most impor-
can be described as the design dealing with the inter-
tant aspect of the geotechnical design of underground
action between the ground and the structure. With
structures is the interaction between the ground and the
focus on an economic construction according to its
structure. This “behavior” can be described as the reac-
pre-defined specifications the geotechnical design
tion of the ground to any change of the natural in situ
mainly covers the design of the excavation and the
conditions due to construction works such as excava-
primary support but also additional measures such as
tion, support installation or ground improvement. It is
lowering of the ground water level or injections to
obvious that this behavior is dominated by the ground
change the ground properties. Generally the geotech-
conditions such as rock mass parameters, ground water
nical design includes all aspects, which deal with the
or primary stress condition as well as by the exca-
ground interactions.
vation process, the type of support measures and the
Underground structures are often complex struc-
applied installation process. It is the result of the com-
tures with geometrically different elements such as
plex interaction within the system ground, excavation
shafts, tunnels or caverns. These structures are exca-
and support and consequently a key element of any
vated in various ground conditions concerning geo-
geotechnical design.
logical units, overburden, primary stresses or ground
In the following a systematic structure for the
water with different levels of uncertainties of the
geotechnical design of underground structures is
predictions. Due to this the geotechnical design of
presented, including general design principles, rock
underground structures is often very complex and
mechanical aspects concerning failure mechanisms
requires comprehensive understanding of the geo-
and ground behavior as well as aspects of risk man-
logical, geotechnical and structural designs and its
agement. Additionally focus is set on the applicability
interactions.
of the geotechnical design during all design stages
At the moment a comprehensive method for the
including the construction phase of the underground
geotechnical design of underground structures, espe-
structure.
cially in rock mass, is neither defined in standards nor
internationally accepted as state of the art. Various dif-
ferent approaches are applied based on regional expe-
2 GROUND BEHAVIOR – BASIS FOR
rience or specifications of local clients and authorities.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
The typical methods applied for geotechnical design
are discussed by various authors (e.g. Hudson 2001,
The failure mechanism, or more general, the behavior
Palmstrom & Stille 2007 or Feng & Hudson 2011) and
is often the key element in engineering design pro-
can be summarized as
cedures. In structural engineering, for example, it is
– Empirical methods based on experience from typical that different design approaches are applied
comparable projects; for different loading conditions, which lead to dif-
– Closed form solutions; ferent modes of failure. In the design of reinforced

3
concrete structures (CEN 2011) it is a matter of
course that different design processes and analyses
are used depending on the loading, which causes dif-
ferent failure mechanisms of the structural element.
Consequently the design analyses are different for ten-
sion, pressure or torsion due to the different modes of
failure.
Also in soil and rock mechanics the potential
failure mechanisms as well as the behavior of the
ground are used as the key factors for the develop-
ment of geotechnical designs. In rock slope design,
for example, it is state of the art to use different
design approaches depending on the expected slope
failure mode such as plane failure, wedge failure,
circular failure or toppling. The applied models and
analyses are adapted to the expected slope behav-
ior and different and independent design approaches
are used.
Also for the design of underground structures the
logical engineering design approach is to predict the
potential behavior without support and then develop
measures to change or modify it to the required
behavior of the compound system ground-excavation-
support.
The behavior of the ground varies significantly
depending on the ground properties such as rock,
discontinuity or rock mass parameters but also pri-
mary stress condition and ground water condition.
It is important to recognize that different combina-
tions of the parameters can lead to absolutely different
behavior of the rock mass. For example, with the
increase of primary stresses the behavior of hard mas-
sive rock could change from stable to spalling or rock
burst. Fractured rock mass might show progressive
gravitational failure in case of very low stresses and
change its behavior with increasing stresses to limited
gravitational failure (due to increasing confinement
pressure), local shear failure and a kind of “plastic”
behavior in case of very high stresses compared to
the rock mass strength. Additionally ground water
may change the behavior depending on pressure and
quantity of inflow.
Besides ground properties also the geometry of
the underground structure has a significant impact
onto the behavior. The span of a tunnel or cav-
ern or the geometry of the excavation has a major
influence on the development of failure modes. A rect-
angular excavation, for example, shows more stress
induced failure than an excavation with a round pro-
file and gravitational block failure is more probable
and has larger volume if the excavation becomes
bigger.
Such simple examples show that the behavior of an
underground excavation can change due to variations
of the ground and boundary conditions. This under-
lines the importance of the geological and geotechni-
cal investigation and prediction as another important
aspect of the geotechnical design by defining the
precision of the relevant design parameters. For the
construction of a second tunnel tube of an infrastruc-
ture tunnel for example, very detailed information is
4
available from the investigation and especially from
the construction of the first tunnel. Besides the detailed
geological data from tunnel documentation also obser-
vations of the actual behavior and the effectiveness of
support concepts are existing (for example Metsovo
Tunnel see Goricki & Rachaniotis 2011). On the other
hand only very limited data with high uncertainties
might be available in case of a deep tunnel in remote
mountainous area, where field mapping or drilling is
not possible due to topographical reasons (for example
Rohtang tunnel see Reichenspurner 2013). This might
lead to basic differences in the structure and method-
ology of a geotechnical design only due to the quality
and precision of the available input data.
For the sound development of a geotechnical design
it is necessary to separate the underground structure
into sections with homogeneous or comparable geo-
metrical and geotechnical conditions. Due to this split
into smaller tasks it becomes possible to develop the
ground behavior of any underground structure, inde-
pendent of its geometrical complexity or extension and
independent of the heterogeneity of the ground. Based
on the ground behavior, developed for each section
with comparable conditions, the geotechnical design
can be developed and excavation and support mea-
sures can be designed. Considering the big variety
of possible parameter combinations and conditions
for underground structures in general, it is obvious
that different design approaches in terms of models
and analyses must be used to capture all the differ-
ent possible behaviors and modes of failure. Therefore
a geotechnical design procedure based on ground
behavior is required to prepare a framework for all
different tasks, which have to be performed during
a geotechnical design of an underground structure in
general.
3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE –
BASED ON GROUND BEHAVIOR
In the past various design procedures for underground
structures were developed (e.g. Hoek & Brown 1980,
ITA 1988 or Bieniawski 1992), more detailed discus-
sion and further developments of these methods are
given for example in Goricki (2003) or Palmstrom &
Stille (2007). In the following the “Guideline for the
geotechnical design of underground structures with
conventional excavation” published by Austrian Soci-
ety for Geomechanics (2010) is introduced briefly. It
consists of two consistent design procedures, one for
the design phase and another for the adaptation of the
design during the construction phase.
3.1 Geotechnical design during design phase
The design procedure consists of mainly 5 steps
starting with the description of the basic geologic
architecture and proceeds by defining geotechnical
relevant key parameters for each ground type. The
key parameter values and distributions are deter-
mined from available information and/or estimated
with engineering and geological judgment. The values
are constantly updated as pertinent information is
obtained. Ground Types are then defined according
to their key parameters.
The second step involves the evaluation of the
potential ground behaviors considering each Ground
Type and local influencing factors, including the rel-
ative orientation of relevant discontinuities to the
excavation, ground water conditions, stress situation,
etc. This process results in the definition of project spe-
cific Ground Behavior Types. The ground behavior has
to be evaluated for the full cross sectional area without
considering any modifications including the excava-
tion method or sequence and support or other auxiliary
measures. Eleven general categories are listed in the
guideline.
– Stable;
– Potential of discontinuity controlled block fall;
– Shallow failure;
– Voluminous stress induced failure;
– Rock burst;
– Buckling;
– Crown failure;
– Raveling ground;
– Flowing ground;
– Swelling ground; and
– Ground with frequently changing deformation
characteristics.
In case more than one Ground Behavior Type is
identified in one of the general categories, sub types
can be assigned. The Ground Behavior Types form
the basis for determining the excavation and support
methods as well as assist in evaluating monitoring data
during the excavation.
In the third to fifth step, different excavation and
support measures are evaluated and acceptable meth-
ods are determined based on the Ground Behavior
Types. The System Behavior is a result of the inter-
action between the ground behavior and the selected
excavation and support schemes. The evaluated Sys-
tem Behavior has to be compared to the defined
requirements. If the System Behavior does not comply
with the requirements, the excavation and/or sup-
port scheme has to be modified until compliance is
obtained. It is emphasized, that different boundary
conditions or different requirements may lead to dif-
ferent support and excavation methods for the same
Ground Behavior Type even within one project.
In the sixth step, based on steps 1 through 5
the alignment is divided into “homogeneous” regions
with similar excavation and support requirements. A
framework plan indicates the excavation and support
methods available for each region, and contains lim-
its and criteria for possible variations or modifications
on site.
In the final step of the design process the geotech-
nical design must be transformed into a cost and time
estimate for the tender process.
5
3.2 Geotechnical design adaptation during
construction phase
Due to the fact that in many cases the ground condi-
tions cannot be defined with the required accuracy
prior to construction, a continuous updating of the
geotechnical model and an adjustment of excavation
and support to the actual ground conditions during
construction is required. The final determination of
excavation methods, as well as support type and quan-
tity is often only possible on site. In order to guarantee
the required safety, a safety management plan needs
to be followed.
Step 1: To be able to determine the encountered
Ground Type, the geological documentation dur-
ing construction has to be targeted to collect and
record the relevant parameters that have the greatest
influence on the ground behavior. The geologi-
cal and geotechnical data collected and evaluated
on site are the basis for the extrapolation and
prediction of the ground conditions into a rep-
resentative ground volume, which determines the
behavior.
Step 2: Based on the predicted ground conditions the
system behavior in the section ahead has to be
assessed and compared with the framework plan.
Particular attention has to be paid on potential
failure modes.
Step 3: To determine the appropriate excavation and
support the criteria laid out in the framework
plan have to be followed. Consequently, the actual
ground conditions continuously have to be com-
pared to the prediction for compliance. Based on
the additional data obtained during construction
the excavation and support methods are deter-
mined to achieve economic and safe tunnel con-
struction. The System Behavior is predicted for
the next excavation sections, considering ground
conditions and the chosen construction measures.
Both, excavation and support, to a major extent,
have to be determined prior to the excavation.
After the initial excavation only minor modifica-
tions, like additional bolts, are possible. This fact
stresses the importance of a continuous short-term
prediction.
Step 4: By monitoring the system behavior the
compliance with the requirements and criteria
defined in the geotechnical safety management
plan is checked. In case of differences between
the observed and predicted behavior occur, the
parameters and criteria have to be reviewed. When
the displacements or support utilization are higher
than predicted, a detailed investigation into the
reasons for the different System Behavior has to
be conducted, and if required improvement mea-
sures (like increase of support) ordered. In case the
System Behavior is more favorable than expected,
the reasons have to be analyzed as well, and
the findings shall be used to modify the design
accordingly.

Figure 1. Interaction between risk, measures and costs.
4 GEOTECHNCIAL DESIGN AND RISK
MANAGEMENT
4.1 General
The main goal of a geotechnical design is the defi-
nition of measures to construct a safe and economic
underground structure. Due to the uncertainties of the
ground, the risks related to construction methods and
the usual demand for cost reduction also the results of
the geotechnical design are affected by uncertainties
and risks. To deal with these risks it is proposed to
apply the principles of risk management and combine
it with the typical procedures of geotechnical design as
presented above (Goricki et al. 2002, Schubert 2011).
For such approach it is important to clearly differen-
tiate between basic condition, measures and effect of
measures.
In the design of underground structures the behav-
ior of the ground is evaluated and, if the predicted
ground behavior is not acceptable, e.g. in case of pre-
dicted ground instabilities, measures such as bolting or
shotcreting are designed to achieve an acceptable and
stable behavior. In terms of risk management, a not
acceptable risk was reduced due to measures to fulfill
the risk criteria and became acceptable. Additionally
a pre-defined factor of safety is usually considered
in engineering designs, which also influences the risk
level.
The interaction between risk, measures and costs is
shown quantitatively in Figure 1. Without any mea-
sures the probability for occurrence of damages is
highest and might lead to catastrophic conditions. If
intensive measures are implemented, the risk decreases
to a minimum but the costs for the measures will
increase significantly and might lead to unreasonable
high costs. With a decrease of the risk due to mea-
sures the costs for possible damages decrease, while
the costs for measures develop opposite to the costs of
risk. At a certain point the total costs, calculated as the
sum of costs from possible damages and costs for mit-
igation measures, show a minimum. Independent to
these minimum total costs an “acceptable mitigation
threshold” is introduced, which defines the balance
6
between acceptable residual risk (1) and the necessary
costs (2) to align this residual risk. In a technical design
this threshold can also be described as the minimum
design criteria. Additionally any kind of uncertainties
or a factor of safety can be considered by moving
the threshold, which influences the risk as well as the
measures and their costs. Besides this defined min-
imum safety or maximum risk level also definitions
concerning the costs can set the boundary conditions.
By applying the principles of risk management
to geotechnical designs it can easily be seen that
the design of excavation and support to control the
ground behavior follows these correlations in general.
If a ground, for example, has a potential for gravi-
tational discontinuity controlled over break of rock
blocks, the design of an underground structure can be
developed with various options. Without any rock sup-
port progressive failure with systematic voluminous
over break will occur, which requires intensive and
costly repair works (unacceptable risk without costs
for measures). In case of forepoling with spiles the
applied support measures are generally cheap and only
minor over break occurs, which leads to a well bal-
ance between risk reduction and costs for measures
(acceptable risk with some costs for measures).
In a third scenario the excavation is supported
with heavy pipe umbrella forepoling with high costs
and slow progress, which results in cero potential
for overbreak (acceptable risk with high costs). This
simple example shows that the application of risk man-
agement to geotechnical design does fully comply
with the design approach based on ground behav-
ior and additionally supports the engineering design
decisions.
4.2 Risk management according to ISO 31000
The ISO 31000 (International Organization for Stan-
dardization 2009) provides a generic approach in terms
of principles and guidelines for managing any form of
risk in a systematic and logical process. Risk is defined
as the uncertainty on objects, which is often expressed
in term of a combination of consequences of an event
and the associated likelihood of occurrence. Risk man-
agement is defined as coordinated activities to direct
and control something with regard to risk. The pro-
cess of risk management as an integrative part of the
management consists mainly of systematic applica-
tion of management policies, procedures and practices
to activities of communicating, consulting, establish-
ing the context, and identifying, analyzing, evaluating,
treating, monitoring and reviewing risk.
Figure 2 shows the process risk management with
its main elements and their interaction. In the begin-
ning the overall context including objective, internal
and external influencing parameters, boundary condi-
tions, strategies and risk criteria shall be defined. Then
the risks are assessed by using tools of risk identifi-
cation, risk analysis and risk evaluation. Based on this
understanding the risk treatment is developed, which
involves the selecting and implementing of one or
Figure 2. General risk management process; from ISO
31000.
more option for modifying the risks. The risk treat-
ment is a cyclic process of developing a treatment,
assessing a treatment, deciding about acceptable resid-
ual risk levels and checking the effectiveness of that
treatment by comparing with risk level. The risk treat-
ment options can include avoiding a risk, taking or
increasing a risk, removing a risk source, changing
the likelihood, changing the consequences, sharing a
risk or retaining a risk. A risk treatment plan describes
the implementation of the chosen treatment options.
Finally, both monitoring and review should be
planned as part of the risk management process and
shall ensure
– control in design and operation;
– obtain further information to improve risk assess-
ment;
– analyzing and learning lessons from events,
changes, trends, successes and failures;
– detection of changes in the context including risk
criteria or risk itself; and
– identifying emerging risks.
4.3 Geotechnical design as risk management
procedure
By comparing the geotechnical design procedure as
described in chapter 3 with the risk management
procedure from ISO 31000 it can be seen, that the
geotechnical design procedure does generally contain
all relevant elements of a risk management process.
Figure 3 shows the procedure of geotechnical
design in the center and the main elements of risk
management at the sides in dark beams. In the design
stage the description of the ground conditions and the
evaluation of the ground behavior covers the elements
of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation
which can be summarized as risk assessment. Based
on the results of this risk assessment the construction
concept, the excavation and the support is designed in
a way that the behavior fulfills the previously defined
requirement.
7
Figure 3. Integration of the geotechnical design procedure
(as defined in chapter 3) in the risk management process as
defined in ISO 31000.
These requirements are risk criteria and the pro-
cess of design and check of the modified behavior
equals the process of risk treatment. During construc-
tion many input data but also the behavior of the
ground with measures can be observed and interactive
process of monitoring and reviewing must be executed.
4.4 Monitoring and review
A key element in the geotechnical design as well
as in the risk management is the monitoring and
review process. It allows to verify the success of
the applied measures and if necessary to modify the
measures to gain the expected result. In geotechnical
design there are two main sources for uncertainties, the
characterization of the ground and the geotechnical
design models for behavior without and with mea-
sures. The monitoring of the ground conditions during
construction (geological and geotechnical documen-
tation) allows the observation of the actual condition
and usually leads to an increase of the ground data
in quantity and quality. Due to this a verification of
the predicted ground conditions can be done. Addi-
tionally the behavior of the ground influenced by the
applied measures can be observed and compared with
the predicted behavior of the system ground with
measures.
The difficulties to characterize ground materials
and the complexity of modeling underground exca-
vations and support measures might lead to an actual
behavior deviating from the predicted. In such a case
it is essential to modify the measures once defined
according to the actual ground conditions, behavior
and construction specific conditions. This must be
done on site and requires a clear structure and full
implementation of a design representative on site as
described in general in the risk management process.
The step of monitoring and review is not limited
to the construction phase. Also during the different
design phases the design decisions have to be reviewed
in case of additional data or more detailed information
is available for example from additional investigation.
During monitoring and reviewing it is again essen-
tial to focus on the basic failure modes, the behavior
of the ground. If the variations in ground conditions
change the behavior of the underground excavation,
for example due to higher primary stresses or due to
water inflows, the measures have to be adapted to the
new potential failure modes. By, for example chang-
ing the bolting according to the stress orientation or
by locally lowering the water pressure, stable condi-
tions can be developed more successful than by simply
adding unspecific support.
The elementary demand for a geotechnical design
is to adapt the relevant measures to the actual ground
condition and behavior and hence control the ground
related risks continuously during all project phases.
Consequently the geotechnical design is the contin-
uous evaluation of ground behavior (check of risks),
the design of a proper excavation and support system
(definition of measures and check of risk reduction)
and the comparison with design criteria and boundary
conditions to reach a balance between required safety
level and costs.
5 TYPICAL GROUND BEHAVIOR AND
ENGINEERING METHODS
5.1 General
In the chapters above the importance of the ground
behavior as basis for the geotechnical design of under-
ground structures is pointed out. In the following the
most important types of ground behavior are described
and engineering methods for evaluation, analysis and
design of measures are discussed briefly.As the ground
behavior is highly depending on the project spe-
cific ground and boundary conditions, the descriptions
below shall be used as a general guidance for a design
engineer.
The classification into different behavior types must
be done project specific depending on the detailing of
the design due to the heterogeneity of and the knowl-
edge about the underground conditions as well as due
to the project phase, the importance of the project and
the costs of the underground structure. Most impor-
tant for the grouping into ground behavior types is the
consideration of the potential soil or rock mechani-
cal failure mechanisms. Consequently, basic behavior
types can be defined, which create the basis for the
project specific work. In the past various authors have
developed grouping or classification of behavior types
for underground structures (e.g. Hoek et al. 1995,
Goricki 2003, Palmstrom & Stille 2007).
In the following a classification of the main behav-
ior types by considering the potential failure modes
8
due to gravity, stress, water and swelling is given. Each
type of ground behavior is discussed briefly including
the basic mode of failure, the important parameters and
the typical methods for design and analysis with and
without measures. The excavation and support mea-
sures itself are not discussed in this context. Due to this
it is important to understand that the modes of failures
are theoretical and will be avoided by the design and
installation of the proper excavation and support sys-
tem. Consequently the theoretical modes of failure –
the plain ground behavior – cannot be observed during
construction.
The models used for analyses, evaluation of the
behavior and design of measures are not limited to
any method but must be applicable for the problem,
the behavior and the mode of failure respectively.
Therefore also empirical methods can be used if the
experience is comparable with the geometrical, ground
and boundary conditions. Additionally it is required
that the data are collected from technically successful
and economically traceable projects during the design
and construction phases.
5.2 Gravity induced behavior – discontinuity
controlled blocks
Mechanism: gravity induced falling, sliding or rotat-
ing of blocks into the excavation, along discontinuities
with potential for local shear failure. The kinematic
freedom and the exceeding of the tension and shear
strength along the discontinuities are the basic prereq-
uisite for this behavior (Goodman & Shi 1985, Pötsch
2011). The blocks can fail locally or systematically
with various depths and volumes.
Important parameters: number, orientation and dis-
tance of discontinuities or degree of fracturing; wavi-
ness, roughness persistence, aperture and fillings of
discontinuities or tension and shear strength in gen-
eral; strength and deformability of the rock material,
water pressure, primary stress conditions. Addition-
ally the excavation geometry and the secondary stress
condition around the excavation do also have signif-
icant importance especially for the estimation of the
over break volume.
Methods for design and analysis: for the evaluation
of this behavior kinematic and mechanical models are
used. Depending on the project specific problem only
kinematic models, kinematic models in combination
with mechanical methods, or 2D and 3D numerical
distinct element methods are used. Depending on the
available ground data and the geometry of the under-
ground structure a systematic (e.g. for a tunnel) or
a discrete (e.g. for a cavern) excavation and support
system can be developed.
Comment: the behavior of gravity induced block
failure is generally very sensitive to the discontinu-
ity properties and the stress condition. Due to this the
knowledge about the ground conditions has a signifi-
cant impact onto the predictability of the behavior. In
case of shallow underground structures it might be pos-
sible to use a distinct model while for deep tunnels only

Figure 4. Gravity induced, discontinuity controlled block
failure in a tunnel; photo by W. Schubert.
Figure 5. Raveling of highly fractured rock mass
(Peridotite/Serpentinite) in the beginning stage of a pro-
gressive failure after local instabilities during works at the
bench/side wall; photo by Goricki.
a random prediction of this behavior might be used and
final support decisions depend on the observations of
the ground conditions during construction.
5.3 Gravity induced behavior – raveling ground
Mechanism: gravity induced raveling and falling of
generally dry soil material or highly fractured and
poorly interlocked rock mass (e.g. fault material) into
the excavation; the ground has no or low cohesion and
the failure occurs usually progressively.
Important parameters: degree of fracturing, inter-
locking, grain size distribution, discontinuity fillings,
9
cohesion or tension and shear strength in general;
primary stress condition.
Methods for design and analysis: the mechanism
mainly depends on the tension between the particles
and consequently on the parameter cohesion, in case
of applying Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Espe-
cially in soil mechanics many analytical models have
been developed, from simple comparison of cohesion
with free span or height of excavation surfaces to
sophisticated numerical DEM models.
Comment: The exact prediction of the limit state
of raveling (detaching of a particle) is generally dif-
ficult but tendencies and scenarios can be developed
from the models as well as from observations during
site investigation such as collapse of drill holes or col-
lapse of exploratory pit side walls. In case of fractured
rock mass the limit between the behaviors of grav-
ity induced falling of discontinuity controlled blocks
and gravity induced raveling of particles is difficult to
define. The main difference could be described by the
influence of bolting, if distinct bolting concepts can
avoid failure or not.
5.4 Stress induced behavior
Mechanism: the loading of the rock mass due to sec-
ondary stresses around the underground excavation
exceeds the rock mass strength. This leads to the devel-
opment of fractures along discontinuities and through
intact rock. Depending on the stress condition and the
rock mass properties the stress induced failures can
occur differently from plastic to brittle.
Important parameters: deformation and strength
parameters of intact rock, discontinuities and rock
mass; the significance of the parameters highly
depends on the detailed mode of stress induced failure.
Methods for design and analysis: closed form
solutions and numerical models, which describe the
strain/stress condition, the utilization of the ground
surrounding the excavation or more detailed fracture
propagation are the typical methods for modeling.
Therefore it is important that the relevant ground
parameters are considered and that the applied model
can reproduce or represent the potential failure mech-
anism. Anisotropic ground properties for example or
distinct zones of weakness must be considered in the
applied model if the behavior of the ground is triggered
by these influences (Goricki et al. 2005).
As mentioned above, different modes of stress
induced failure may propagate due to different com-
binations of ground parameters, stress conditions and
excavation geometry. In the following typical types of
stress induced failure are discussed briefly.
5.4.1 Stress induced behavior – shear failure in low
stress environment
Even with generally low stress magnitudes the load-
ing of the rock mass exceeds the rock mass strength.
Especially due to low confinement stresses (e.g. in
case of shallow overburden) progressive shear failures
lead to voluminous over break in the crown area and

Figure 6. Day-lighting shear failure of a tunnel in rock mass
(weathered gneiss) with shallow overburden, upper photo
from surface, lower photo from tunnel; photos by Goricki.
chimney like roof failures. Figure 6 shows the result of
a progressive shear failure, which developed up to the
ground surface. The failure occurred during the bench
excavation in weathered gneiss material with an over-
burden of approx. 5 m plus a 1.5 m thick upper soil
layer.
This mode of failure can usually be observed in soil
material with shallow overburden but can also prop-
agate in highly fracture or weathered rock mass or in
rock mass with steeply dipping discontinuities and low
shear strength.
5.4.2 Stress induced behavior – shear failure in
high stress environment
The loading of the rock mass exceeds the rock mass
strength and the rock mass is significantly utilized.
Due to the high stress level and the triaxial loading con-
dition around the excavation shear failures develop.
Figure 7 shows the development of a discrete shear
failure at the side wall of a tunnel top heading. With
increasing confinement pressure the shear fractures
become more distributed in the rock mass, which leads
to “plastic behavior” (Jaeger et al. 2007) in combi-
nation with large and uniform displacements of the
excavation surfaces. The anisotropic properties of the
rock mass have a significant influence on the develop-
ment of the behavior and must be considered properly
in the model.
Modeling of this type of behavior was published by
various authors in the past (e.g. Schubert 1996, Goricki
et al. 2006, Anagnostou & Cantanieni 2007, Radoncic
et al. 2009, Hoek & Marinos 2009, Barla et al. 2010).
10
Figure 7. Shear failure at the right top heading side wall,
temporary stabilization with tree trunks; photo by G. Feder.
Figure 8. Rock burst in deep tunnel in massive rock mass;
from (Ortlepp 2000).
5.4.3 Stress induced behavior – brittle failure in
high stress environment
The loading of hard, massive and brittle rock mass
exceeds the high rock or rock mass strength. The brit-
tle failure develops close to the excavation surface
due to the generally uniaxial loading condition in this
area. The failure, which mainly depends on the rock
mass properties, the stress level and the orientation
of the primary stresses can propagate within a wide
variety from local spalling to violent rock burst. The
fractures develop parallel to the principle stress and
create thin rock plates. Figure 8 shows the result of
a rock burst of a small tunnel in massive rock mass.
The modeling of this behavior can either be done by
evaluation of relevant rock mass parameter (such as
uniaxial compression strength, post failure behavior
or elastic parameters) in combination with the primary
and secondary stress condition or by applying numer-
ical models with appropriate failure criteria. Different
models and approaches are published concerning a
proper and realistic analysis of this type of behavior
(e.g. Hoek et al. 1995, Kaiser et al. 1996, Martin &
Christiansson 2009, Kaiser 2010).

Figure 9. shows a typical failure of a tunnel floor due to
swelling.
5.5 Swelling ground
Mechanism: Swelling is the volumetric increase of
rock or rock mass due to chemical processes in com-
bination with water. Swelling pressure can develop
if the volumetric strains are kinematically limited.
The behavior is time dependent and dominated by
the interaction between water, rock mass mineralogy
and the stress environment. Considering equilibrium
the swelling process can start by adding water and/or
reducing the stress level.
Important parameters: mineralogy of the rock and
rock mass, water, permeability, primary and secondary
stress condition.
Methods for design and analysis: One method is to
determine the swelling pressure based on ground con-
dition, mineralogical condition and specific laboratory
tests (ISRM 1999) in combination with the potential
infiltration of water. These loads can then be used for
typical design methods such as closed form solutions
or numerical analysis. Another method is the direct
implementation of the swelling behavior in the anal-
ysis by using specifically developed constitutive laws
for example in combination with numerical models.
The mechanism and models are discussed in litera-
ture such as Einstein (1996), Wittke-Gattermann &
Wittke (2004), Rauh (2009), Anagnostou et al. (2010)
or Steiner et al. (2010).
Comment: Swelling, especially anhydrite swelling
can lead to large deformations of the ground in com-
bination with high stresses on underground structures.
The timely development can continue through years
and even small variations of the environment can
again change the behavior. To handle such behav-
ior two basically different design approaches, stiff
and ductile, were developed. The decisions about
the support system as well as the applied design
models must be done project specific based on
engineering understanding of the potential swelling
behavior, especially considering the significant impact
of measures onto the development of the behavior
itself.
11
Figure 10. Flowing ground in a tunnel due to intensive water
inflow; reference unknown.
5.6 Flowing ground
Mechanism: flowing of intensively fractured rock
mass or soil material into the excavation due to high
water content. The initial water pressure is higher than
the interlocking, cohesion or bonding strength of the
soil and rock mass particles. The failure occurs usually
progressively.
Important parameters: water pressure and quan-
tity, permeability, degree of fracturing, interlocking,
grain size distribution, cohesion or tension and shear
strength.
Methods for design and analysis: A simple method
is to compare the tensile strength or cohesion of the
rock mass with the predicted ground water condi-
tions. Such simple evaluation is often sufficient in
rock tunneling to decide about measures to reduce the
ground water inflow or pressure or to increase the rock
mass strength. More detailed models are developed in
soil mechanics especially in combination with shallow
urban tunneling.
Comment: In hard and fractured rock mass water
inflows, independent to quantities and quantities do
often only affect the construction progress but not
create significant ground failure. Such water inflows
without influence on the excavation stability are not
discussed in this context as the ground can be classified
as stable with mainly contractual impact.
6 IMPLEMENTATION OF BEHAVIOR BASED
DESIGN IN CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
In the following it is assumed that an underground
structure in natural ground is under excavation at any
random position within the project.
In the design phase construction measures includ-
ing construction method, process and materials were
defined. Additionally a prediction of the behavior of
the structure and the surrounding environment was
prepared. This includes the stability as well as the ser-
viceability and covers for example loading, utilization
and strain of structural elements as well as under-
ground and surface displacement, maximum water
inflows and more. Additionally the monitoring system
was defined in the design and expected as well as alert
and maximum allowable values were quantified.
Before the excavation of the next cycle, a decision
about the final layout of excavation and support sys-
tem need to be done. Therefore some fundamental
works concerning the update of the design to the site
conditions are necessary.
In a first step a geological and geotechnical progno-
sis for the next few excavation meters needs to be done.
This prognosis is an update of the existing design due
to the information gained from the already preformed
excavation and/or from additional investigations e.g.
ahead of the tunnel face. It has to include geologi-
cal conditions, ground parameters, stress and water
conditions as well as a prediction of the theoretical
ground behavior due to excavation without any support
(potential failure mechanism). This short term progno-
sis can be similar, slightly or significantly different to
the descriptions in the original design.
In a second step the applicability of the design for
the ground as described in the short term prediction
must be verified. Therefore the basic design assump-
tions including ground conditions, tunnel geometry
and boundary conditions such as maximum surface
displacements or lowering of ground water table must
be checked.
In a third step observations of the ground behavior
from already constructed tunnel section in comparable
conditions are evaluated, if available. The data from the
observations can be used to re-evaluate the potential
failure modes of the ground and the predicted behav-
ior as the effects of the interaction between ground,
excavation and support.
In the fourth step, the data as described in the previ-
ous steps, the updated short term prediction, the design
assumptions for this particular section and the expe-
rience gained from previous observations, are used to
evaluate the original design. In case of deviations the
geotechnical design for the next excavation must be
adapted, modified or maybe entirely re-designed.
Any change of the geotechnical design must fulfill
the same criteria as applied during the design phase
including analysis in case of significant changes.Addi-
tionally a detailed description of the expected behavior
due to the changes must be given. The design changes
must be done by qualified engineers who are aware of
the design as well as in the construction. Small adap-
tations and modifications must be part of the routine
work on site while sever design changes might be done
by an additional design team ideally supervised by an
onsite design engineer.
The above described decision making process must
be fully integrated part of the project risk manage-
ment process. This guarantees that the design and its
adaptation to the actual ground conditions is always
integrative part of the on-site decisions and that the
basic focus of the design always remains the mitiga-
tion of unacceptable risks to acceptable conditions by
application of measures.
During excavation the actual ground conditions
are compared with the prediction and, in case of
12
deviations, modifications can immediately be devel-
oped by following the procedure as described above
starting with step 1 for the actual excavation round.
After construction the observation and evaluation
of the behavior of the ground and the structural ele-
ments continues. The experience shall be used for the
optimization of future construction works as described
in step three. In case of deviations from the predicted
behavior an evaluation must be done and, if required
measures must be developed based on the principles
of project risk management.
7 CONCLUSIONS
The geotechnical design of underground structures
mainly deals with the interaction between the ground
and the structure in the different construction stages. It
often has to deal with difficult and complex conditions
due to differences and uncertainties within the ground,
the structures and the boundary conditions. In order to
develop an economic and safe underground structure
it is essential to develop a sound geotechnical design
during all project phases.
The behavior of the ground is the key element
for the development of the geotechnical design. With
the understanding of the interaction between ground
and construction works including mechanisms and
potential failure modes, a proper design and modeling
techniques can be applied. Depending on the specific
conditions any engineering method representing the
state of the art in soil and rock mechanics as well
as in structural mechanics can be used to investigate
the mechanisms and develop the required geotechnical
measures concerning excavation and support.
For a systematic development of the geotechnical
design during all project phases, including construc-
tion, it is necessary to follow a general procedure,
which allows systematic adaptation of the design to
the different levels of information. It is proposed to
use the process of risk management as described in
ISO 31000, which provides a comprehensive frame-
work for the development of the geotechnical design.
By considering the potential modes of ground failure
as risks and the designed ground support as mitigation
measures, the actual risks of underground structure can
be evaluated and controlled in any project phase. Espe-
cially the adaptation of the geotechnical design during
the construction phase due to possible changes of
the ground conditions, collection of additional ground
data and the observation of the actual behavior can
be developed very well within the risk management
process.
The proposed methodology provides a consistent
design approach for the development, adaptation and
application of the geotechnical design in any project
phase. Based on the predicted ground behavior the
proper engineering design method and tool can be
selected and within the framework of the risk manage-
ment process the geotechnical design can be developed
independent of the difficulty of the ground conditions
or the complexity of the underground structure. The
design modifications, due to additionally gained infor-
mation, become an integrative part of the decision
making process on-site independent to the design and
construction method.
REFERENCES
Anagnostou, G., Cantieni, L. 2007. Design and analysis of
yielding support in squeezing ground. In: The second half
century of rock mechanics, 11th ISRM Congress Lisbon,
Vol. 2: 829–832.
Anagnostou, G., Pimentel, E., Serafeimidis, K. 2010.
Swelling of sulphatic claystone – some fundamental ques-
tions and their practical relevance. Geomechanics and
Tunnelling 3 (2010), No. 5: 567–572.
Austrian Society for Geomechanics. 2010. Guideline for
the geotechnical design of underground structures with
conventional excavation. Salzburg.
Barla, G., Bonini, M., Debernardi, D. 2010. Time Dependent
Deformations in Squeezing Tunnels. International Journal
of Geoengineering Case Histories. Vol. 2, Issue 1: 40–65.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1992. Design methodology in rock engineer-
ing: theory, education and practice. Balkema, Rotterdam
CEN European Committee for Standardisation. 2011.
EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures —
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
Einstein, H.H. 1996. Tunnelling in Difficult Ground –
Swelling Behavior and Identification of Swelling Rocks.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 29 (3): 113–124.
Feng, X.T. & Hudon, J.A. 2011. Rock Engineering Design,
CRC Press.
Fröhlich, B. & Dauwe, L. 2006. Part renovation of the Weins-
berg Tunnel in swelling gypsum Keuper rock. Mitteilung
für Ingenieurgeologie und Geomechanik, Vienna Univer-
sity of Technology, Vol. 7 (2006): 3rd Colloquium “Rock
Mechanics – theory and practice”: 177–190.
Goodman, R.E., Shi, G-H. 1985. Block Theory and its
Application to Rock Engineering. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.
Goricki, A., Schick, K.J., Steidl, A. 2002. Quantification of
the Geotechnical and Economic Risk in Tunneling. Prob-
abilistics in Geotechnics: Technical and Economic Risk
Estimation, Graz, Austria, Sept. 2002: 483–489.
Goricki., A. 2003. Classification of Rock Mass Behaviour
based on a Hierarchical Rock Mass Characterization for
the Design of Underground Structures. Doctoral thesis,
Graz University of Technology, Austria.
Goricki, A., Button, E., Schubert, W., Poetsch, M., Leitner, R.
2005. The Influence of Discontinuity Orientation on the
Behaviour of Tunnels. Felsbau 23 (5), 12–18.
Goricki, A., Rachaniotis, N., Hoek, E., Marios, P., Tsotsos, S.,
Schubert, W. 2006. Support Decision Criteria for Tunnels
in Fault Zones. Felsbau, 24 (2006) Nr 5: 51–57.
Goricki, A. & Rachaniotis, N. 2011. NATM Designs for
Challenging Tunnel Projects in Northern Greece. In:
Kolic, D. (ed.). Using underground space, 1st Interna-
tional Congress on Tunnels and Underground Structures
in South-East Europe, Dubrovnik, Croatia: 56–57.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground Excavation in
Rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of Under-
ground Excavations in Hard Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P.G. 2009. Tunnelling in overstressed
rock. In: Vrkljan, I. (ed). Rock Engineering in Difficult
13
Ground Conditions – Soft Rocks and Karst. Taylor and
Francis Group, London: 49–60.
Hudson, J.A. 2001. Rock engineering case histories: key
factors, mechanisms and problems. Keynote lecture.
In: P. Särkkä, P. Eloranta (eds.), Rock Mechanics a
Challenge for Society, ISRM Reg. Symp. Eurock 2001,
Espoo, Finland: 13–20.
ISRM. 1999. Suggested methods for laboratory testing of
swelling rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Vol 36 (1999): 291–306.
International Organization for Standardization. 2009. ISO
31000:2009(E) Risk management – Principles and guide-
lines. Switzerland.
ITA Working Group on General Approaches to the Design
of Tunnels. 1988. Guideline for the Design of Tun-
nels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 3:
237–248
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., Zimmerman, R.W. 2007. Fun-
damentals of Rock Mechanics, Fourth Edition. Blackwell
Publishing.
Kaiser, P.K., McCreath, D.R., Tannant, D.D. 1996. Cana-
dian Rockburst Support Handbook. Mininig Research
Directorate, Sudbury.
Kaiser, P.K., Diederichs, M.S., Martin, C.D., Sharp, J.,
Steiner, W. 2000. Underground Works in Hard Rock Tun-
nelling and Mining. In: Ervin, M.C. (ed.), GeoEng 2000;
Proc. intern. symp., Melbourne: CD.
Kaiser, P.K., with contributions by Amann, F. & Steiner, W.
2010. How highly stressed brittle rock failure impacts
tunnel design. EUROCK 2010, Lausanne: 27–38.
Martin, C.D. & Christiansson, R. 2009. Estimating the poten-
tial for spalling around a deep nuclear waste repository in
crystalline rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 36 (2009):
219–228.
Ortlepp, D. 2000. Rock Fracture and Rockbursts, An Intro-
spective Review. ISRM News Journal Vol.6 (2): 23–27.
Palmstrom, A. & Stille, H. 2007. Ground behaviour and
rock engineering tools for underground excavations, Tun-
nelling and Underground Space Technology 22 (2007):
363–376.
Poetsch, M. 2011. The analysis of rotational and sliding
modes of failure for slopes, foundations and underground
structures in blocky, hard rock mass, Doctoral thesis, Graz
University of Technology, Austria.
Radoncic, N., Schubert, W., Moritz, B. 2009. Ductile
support design. Geomechanics and Tunnelling 2 (2009),
No. 5: 561–577.
Rauh, F. 2009. Untersuchungen zum Quellverhalten von
Anhydrit und Tongesteinen im Tunnelbau. Münch-
ner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. Verlag Dr.
Friedrich Pfeil, München.
Reichenspurner, P. 2013. Rohtang Praying for Rock. Tunnels,
January 2013: 22–26.
Schubert, W. 1996. Dealing with Squeezing Conditions in
Alpine Tunnels. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
Vol. 29, No. 3: 145–153.
Schubert, W. 2011. Risk oriented design and construction
of tunnels. In: Qian, Q. & Zhou, Y. (eds.), Harmonising
Rock Engineering and the Environment, 12th ISRM Inter-
national Congress on Rock Mechanics, 2011, Beijing,
China: 127–139.
Steiner, W., Kaiser, P.K., Spaun, G. 2010. Role of brittle frac-
ture on swelling behavior of weak rock tunnels: hypothesis
and qualitative evidence. Geomechanics and Tunnelling
3 (2010), No.5: 583–596.
Wittke-Gattermann, P., Wittke, M. 2004. Computation of
strain and pressure for tunnels in swelling rocks. ITA-
AITES congress: E14 1–8.