Behaviour and Engineering

1
Published in: Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 22 (2007), pp. 363–376
GROUND BEHAVIOUR AND ROCK ENGINEERING TOOLS FOR

UNDERGROUND EXCAVATIONS
Arild Palmstrom1), Ph.D., Adviser rock engineering, Norconsult AS, Norway
Håkan Stille2) Ph.D., Prof., Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
SUMMARY
Various design tools and methods can be applied to the engineering, planning and construction of underground projects
in rock. A huge variety of rock masses and ground conditions may exist and, for excavations like tunnels, caverns, or
shafts, it is important to apply relevant tools that cover the actual rock mass and ground conditions encountered. The
aim of this paper is to clarify the limits of these tools and indicate the ground conditions for which they work best.
Definitions are presented for the main types of behaviour of the ground. The triggering effects are grouped into: gravity
driven, stress induced and water influenced. The last group includes the special case of minerals susceptible to water.
The main types of rock engineering tools are briefly described, indicating their limits. A matrix is presented showing
their applicability to various types of ground behaviour. It is recommended that engineering judgement should always
be applied to the output from the relevant design tool, especially for weakness zones such as faults, where most of the
available tools have limited suitability.
The importance of experience and knowledge of both the structure of these tools and the conditions where they work
best is pointed out. It is shown that empirical methods based on classification systems work best in blocky ground. For
these, the quality of the input parameters and an understanding of their limitations are regarded as a pre-requisite for
good workmanship.
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 2
2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 3
3 GROUND BEHAVIOUR ......................................................................................................................................... 4
4 CURRENT ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS FOR UNDERGROUND DESIGN ................... 7
4.1 EMPIRICAL METHODS (ROCK ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS) ............................................................. 7
4.1.1 The Q System ............................................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.2 The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System ......................................................................................................... 10
4.1.3 The RMi Rock Support Method ................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.4 The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)........................................................................................... 10
4.1.5 The Geological Strength Index (GSI) .......................................................................................................... 10
4.1.6 General Comments on Empirical Methods ................................................................................................. 11
4.2 CALCULATED SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2.1 Numerical Modelling ................................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.2 Analytical Calculations ............................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 JUDGEMENTAL SOLUTIONS............................................................................................................................... 12
4.3.1 Observational Methods ............................................................................................................................... 12
4.3.2 Engineering Judgement ............................................................................................................................... 12
5 SUITABILITY OF THE ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS ..................................................... 13
5.1 ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 FITNESS OF THE TOOLS ..................................................................................................................................... 13
6 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
7 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
GROUND BEHAVIOUR AND ROCK ENGINEERING TOOLS FOR UNDERGROUND EXCAVATIONS 2
1 INTRODUCTION
The design of underground openings in rock has been discussed in many papers and textbooks all around the
world, like those by Hoek and Brown (1980) and Bieniawski (1984, 1989). As for all other engineering
structures, and as stated in modern building codes such as the European code (EN 1990), the design goals in
rock must include structural resistance, durability and serviceability. These require consideration at all stages
of the design.
For the purposes of rock engineering design, different types of design tool or design system can be applied to
the available information on the ground conditions, such as numerical modelling, analytical calculation,
empirical (classification) systems or observational methods. Modern design codes emanate from a
probabilistic approach, for which either the probability of failure can be used, or some kind of related
measure like a safety index or a partial factor. The uncertainty involved in the design must be established
independently. When prediction of the ground behaviour is difficult, the code (EN) states that it can be
appropriate to apply “the observational method”.
In this context, ground behaviour is the way the ground acts in response to the rock mass conditions, the
forces acting and the project related features. Figure 1 shows the main geological and topographical features
influencing on ground behaviour and the application of rock engineering tools used for design. The choice of
suitable tools for the design is essentially an outcome of the actual ground behaviour, such as an acceptable
standard or some other requirement.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS CHARACTERIZATION APPLICATION ROCK ENGINEERING
engineering experience
judgement
geological
engineering judgement
OR MEASUREMENTS OF INFORMATION and DESIGN
rock mass
INTACT ROCK
CHARACTERISTICS
GIVING VALUES TO THE
TOPOGRAPHY AT SITE
JOINT
CHARACTERISTICS VARIOUS ROCK MASS
GEOLOGY AND
FEATURES
DENSITY AND
PATTERN OF JOINTS CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
STABILITY ANALYSES
ROCK STRESSES NUMERICAL
or MODELLING ROCK SUPPORT ESTIMATES
STRESS LEVEL
ANALYTICAL EXCAVATION PROCEDURES
GROUND WATER POSSIBLE BEHAVIOUR CALCULATIONS
OF THE GROUND TBM EVALUATIONS
ground OBSERVATIONAL
METHODS GROUTING EVALUATIONS
PROJECT RELATED FEATURES
LOCATION AND LAYOUT
ENGINEERING OF THE PLANT
JUDGEMENT
Figure 1. The principle relationships between ground behaviour and rock engineering and design (Stille and Palmstrom
2003)
The material(s) surrounding an underground opening forms a complex structure. For example, it is seldom
possible to make an accurate measurement of either the mechanical properties of the rock masses or the
forces acting on it. Bieniawski (1984) wrote that "Provision of reliable input data for engineering design of
structures in rock is one of the most difficult tasks facing engineering geologists and design engineers."
In this situation, frequently, the design of tunnels and caverns is based on observations, experience and
personal judgement, where rock engineering classification systems (or, better expressed, empirical design
methods) play an important role. In an earlier paper (Stille and Palmstrom, 2003), the authors discussed the
requirements of true classification systems and the rock engineering procedures required when such systems
are used.
An important requirement for classification systems, and for all other design tools as well, is that the rock
engineering design method adequately covers the behaviour of the ground around the opening. This paper,
therefore, aims at discussing the merits of different systems and methods to be applied in design. The
discussion is based on the comprehensive literature in this field, which mainly has its focus on details more
than a holistic view of the design process. Further, the long experience of the authors in design of
underground openings is added to the discussion. The objective of this paper is to give a guideline for
choosing suitable design tools based on actual ground behaviour and design issue.
2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

The stability of an underground opening depends on the behaviour of the ground surrounding it. The various
types of behaviour require different assessments or calculation methods (rock engineering tools) for a proper
design that can be relied on to cover the actual case. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the actual type
of behaviour, as a pre-requisite for rock support and other evaluations.
Schubert et al. (2001) have summarised experience in the design of tunnels and use it to present an
engineering approach, from the pre-construction phase through to tunnel construction (Figure 2). Developed
from considerable experience, it is applicable to all rock mass conditions, and is used in Austria in
"Guidelines for geomechanical planning of underground works" (ref. Austrian Code, 2001), which may be
summarized as follows:
• The first step in characterizing the rock mass is to define type(s) of rock mass as defined by lithology,
laboratory tests and field observation data. From this, a parameter range is assigned for each rock mass
type.
• The second step is to determine the type of behaviour expected for the ground surrounding the tunnel or
cavern. This is done by combining the previously defined rock mass type with project related factors,
such as stress conditions, orientation of discontinuities related to the tunnel axis, and the influence of
groundwater, as well as the shape and size of the planned opening. Next, potential failure modes are
identified, such as gravity controlled sliding blocks, or shear failures in the rock mass, and from this the
magnitude of resultant displacement is estimated. A careful investigation of possible types of behaviour
is essential in this phase, in order to arrive at efficient methods for support assessments.
• During construction, monitoring and observation are utilized to collect more information on the ground
conditions encountered and to verify the assumptions made during planning. In this phase, the system
behaviour (SB) is determined based on analysis of the rock mass / rock support interaction. The
determined SB is compared to the required project goals.
In its two first steps, the procedure suggested by Schubert and Goricki (2004) is identical to the principles
presented in Figure 1 and described in this paper. The final step, which requires the verification of the design
during construction, can be done in different ways. The classical approach is to base the design either on the
subjective experiences called engineering judgement, or some existing empirical design rule (classification
system), or some kind of calculation, or all three. For many rock mechanical applications, however, an
observational approach is preferable. This is allowed for in the new design codes. The background to this is
the realization that, before the actual behaviour can be observed, the uncertainties involved in pre-
calculations are so great that a design based on calculations may give a conservative design, or at least an
unacceptably uncertain design. The complexity of the different issues related to the design process is widely
recognised in the design codes and there is a consensus that an observational approach is preferable.
These main tools in rock engineering design are illustrated in Figure 3. It is obvious that most of the issues
related to serviceability and durability cannot be dealt with by calculations. Instead, the design has to be
based on experience and observations of the rock mass and its behaviour in the tunnel.
In view of this background, the various tools available in rock engineering are presented in the following
sections.
Geomechanically relevant parameters
Determine
ROCK MASS TYPES
Figure 2. Flow chart of the basic procedure for design of

Groundwater Orientation Primary stress underground structures (from Schubert and Goricki,
conditions joint sets - tunnel conditions 2004)
Determination of excavation and support

Size, shape, and location of the tunnel
Determine
BEHAVIOUR TYPES
Identification of boundary conditions
Definition of requirements (RQ) empirical

and
classification
methods
Determine
EXCAVATION and SUPPORT
System behaviour (SB)

geology numerical
and ground analyses rock engineering
characterization and other and design
calculations
SB
equals
RQ
Detemine observational
methods
EXCAVATION CLASSES
Distribution of excavation classes Figure 3. Main tools in the process of rock design (from
Stille and Palmstrom, 2003)
3 GROUND BEHAVIOUR
“Failure” (the state of not functioning) is often a result of “instability”. Both these terms are used rather
inconsistently in the literature, as they often overlap. Also “behaviour types” and “failure modes” are used
differently in the literature. In the opinion of the authors, behaviour is the general expression, while failure is
one group within the general expression. The authors will in this paper use the same terminology as Schubert
and Goricki (2004).
In such a complex building material as a rock mass, several different types of failure or failure modes may
occur. These depend on several factors, such as the rock mass composition, the effects of stress and
groundwater pressure, as well as the size of the underground excavation.
The new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM) has given rise to a description of ground behaviour, called
“Behaviour Type” by Schubert and Goricki (2004), which summarizes the many types of instability in
underground openings, as presented in Table 1.
Furthermore, Martin et al. (1999) based on Hoek et al, (1995) have worked on the behaviour of underground
excavations with respect to failure modes. Their work is illustrated in Figure 4. In his characterization system
of ground conditions, Terzaghi (1946) used similar concepts to describe behaviour types. All these items,
together with the experience of the authors, have been combined in a summary characterization of behaviour
types, as shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Behaviour type, based on Austrian guidelines for geomechanical planning (Schubert and Goricki, 2004)
Basic behaviour type Description of potential failure modes/mechanics during excavation of the tunnel
1 Stable Stable rock mass with the potential of small local gravity induced falling or sliding of blocks
Stable with the potential of Deep reaching, discontinuity controlled, gravity induced falling and sliding of blocks,
2
discontinuity controlled block fall occasional local shear failure
Shallow stress induced shear failures in combination with discontinuity and gravity
3 Shallow shear failure
controlled failure of the rock mass
4 Deep seated shear failure Deep seated stress induced shear failures and large deformation
Sudden and violent failure of the rock mass, caused by highly stressed, brittle rocks and
5 Rock burst
the rapid release of accumulated strain energy
Buckling of rocks with a narrowly spaced discontinuity set, frequently associated with shear
6 Buckling failure
failure
Shear failure under low Potential for excessive overbreak and progressive shear failure with the development of
7
confining pressure chimney type failure, caused mainly by a deficiency of side pressure
8 Ravelling ground Flow of cohesionless dry or moist, intensely fractured rocks or soil
9 Flowing ground Flow of intensely fractured rocks or soil with high water content
Time dependent volume increase of the rock mass caused by physio-chemical reaction of
10 Swelling rock and water in combination with stress relief, leading to inward movement of the tunnel
perimeter
Rapid variation of stresses and deformations, caused by heterogeneous rock mass
11 Frequently changing behaviour
conditions or block-in-matrix rock situation of a tectonic melange (brittle fault zone)
STABLE BLOCK FALL(S) CAVE-IN BUCKLING RUPTURING
Elastic response of the rocks Falling or sliding of blocks Localized brittle failure of Loosening of rock fragments Localized brittle failure of
around the opening and wedges intact rock and unravelling along foliation or layering intact rock and movement
along discontinuities of blocks
PLASTIC SQUEEZING or
SLABBING ROCK BURST BEHAVIOUR SWELLING GROUND SWELLING CLAY
failu re z on e
cracking
Brittle failure adjacent to Brittle failure around the Initial squeezing or swelling Squeezing rocks and swelling
excavation Swelling of clay seams in
excavation boundary of rocks. rocks rocks. Elastic/plastic blocky rocks
continuum
Figure 4. Some types of behaviour types in underground openings (partly from Martin et al., 1999 and Hoek et al.,
1995)
Table 2. Behaviour types in underground excavations (based partly on Terzaghi, 1946, and on Schubert et al., 2001)
BEHAVIOUR TYPE DEFINITION COMMENTS
The surrounding ground will stand
a. Stable Massive, durable rocks at low and moderate depths.
unsupported for several days or longer.
Type 1 Gravity driven
of single
Stable with potential fall of individual blocks
b. Block blocks
Discontinuity controlled failure.
fall(s) of several Stable with potential fall of several blocks
blocks (slide volume < 10m3).
Inward, quick movement of larger volumes
c. Cave-in Encountered in highly jointed or crushed rock.
(> 10 m3 ) of rock fragments or pieces.
A particulate material quickly invades the
Examples are clean medium to coarse sands and
d. Running ground tunnel until a stable slope is formed at the
gravels above groundwater level.
face. Stand-up time is zero or nearly zero.
Occurs in anisotropic, hard, brittle rock under
e. Buckling Breaking out of fragments in tunnel surface. sufficiently high load due to deflection of the
rock structure.
brittle behaviour
f. Rupturing from Gradually breaking up into pieces, flakes, or The time dependent effect of slabbing or rock
stresses fragments in the tunnel surface. burst from redistribution of stresses.
Type 2 Stress induced
Sudden, violent detachment of thin rock slabs Moderate to high overstressing of massive hard,
g. Slabbing
from sides or roof. brittle rock. Includes popping or spalling.1)
Much more violent than slabbing and involves
Very high overstressing of massive hard, brittle
h. Rock burst considerably larger volumes (Heavy rock
rock.
bursting often registers as a seismic event).
Initial deformations caused by shear failures
i. Plastic behaviour Takes place in plastic (deformable) rock from
plastic behaviour
in combination with discontinuity and gravity
(initial) overstressing. Often the start of squeezing.
controlled failure of the rock mass.
Time dependent deformation, essentially
Overstressed plastic, massive rocks and
associated with creep caused by
materials with a high percentage of micaceous
j. Squeezing overstressing. Deformations may terminate
minerals or of clay minerals with a low swelling
during construction or continue over a long
capacity.
period
hydrati-
zation
Disintegration (slaking) of some moderately
Ground breaks gradually up into pieces,
k. Ravelling from slaking coherent and friable materials. Examples:
flakes, or fragments.
mudstones and stiff, fissured clays.
Type 3 Water influenced
Advance of surrounding ground into the Occurs in swelling of rocks, in which anhydrite,
swelling minerals
of certain tunnel due to expansion caused by water halite (rock salt) and swelling clay minerals,
rocks adsorption. The process may sometimes be such as smectite (montmorillonite) constitute a
l. mistaken for squeezing. significant portion.
Swelling
of certain Swelling of clay seams caused by adsorption The swelling takes place in seams having fillings
clay seams of water. This leads to loosening of blocks of swelling clay minerals (smectite,
or fillings and reduced shear strength of clay. montmorillonite)
A mixture of water and solids quickly invades May occur in tunnels below groundwater table in
m. Flowing ground
the tunnel from all sides, including the invert. particulate materials with little or no coherence.
Pressurized water invades the excavation May occur in porous and soluble rocks, or along
n. Water ingress through channels or openings in rocks significant openings or channels in fractures or joints.
1)
This term was often used by Terzaghi (1946) as synonymous with the falling out of individual blocks, primarily as a result of damage
during excavation.
In Table 2, basically, the authors have followed suggestions from Hoek and Brown (1980) and from Hudson
(1989) who divided failure modes (instability) into two main groups. A third group has been added, to cover
the influence of groundwater. The groups may be summarized as follows:
Group 1. Gravity driven, mostly discontinuity controlled failures (block falls), where pre-existing fragments
or blocks in the roof and sidewalls become free to move once the excavation is made.
Group 2. Stress induced, gravity assisted failures caused by overstressing, i.e. the stresses developed in the
ground exceeding the local strength of the material. These failures may occur in two main forms,
namely:
− as buckling, spalling, or rock burst in materials with brittle properties, ie. massive brittle rocks;
− as plastic deformation, creep, or squeezing in materials having ductile or deformable
properties, i.e. massive, soft/ductile rocks or particulate materials (soils and heavy jointed
rocks).
Group 3. Water pressure; an important load to consider in design especially at heterogeneous rock
conditions. Groundwater initiated failures may cause flowing ground in particulate materials
exposed to large quantities of water, and trigger unstable conditions (e.g. swelling, slaking etc.) in
some rocks containing special minerals. Water may also dissolve minerals like calcite in limestone.
(Water may also influence block falls in type 1, as it may lower the shear strength of unfavourable
joint surfaces, especially those with a soft filling or coating.)
Two of the terms used in Table 2 may need further explanation:

Slaking is the breaking-up or disintegration of a rock or soil when exposed to moisture, saturated, or
immersed in water.
Ravelling is a collective term for the breaking up and/or loosening of rock pieces. Here, it is used for the
disintegration of rock from slaking or hydration. (In this paper, rupturing is suggested as the term for
ravelling or breaking-up due to stress)
For any particular rock mass or weakness zone, some of the failure types in Table 2 are mutually exclusive.
In other cases, the same rock mass and tunnel layout may allow two or more possible failure modes.
Combinations of failure types may often occur, especially block falls in combination with, for example,
swelling, rupturing, and plastic behaviour. This is often the case in weakness zones and faults.
4 CURRENT ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS FOR UNDERGROUND

DESIGN
4.1 EMPIRICAL METHODS (ROCK ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS)

The widespread use of classification systems can be attributed to the easy use of simple measurements and
observations to provide a quantitative index of rock mass quality. Rock engineering classification systems
have been in use for more than 30 years. Some of the developed systems are directed to characterize the rock
mass in general or to give an input to the definition of the rock mass properties. Some other systems have
been developed for use in design.
Table 3. Some rock engineering systems, largely based on characterization and classification (revised from Palmstrom,
1995)
Name Form *) Main applications Reference
General systems or methods
Lauffer's Stand-up Time Descriptive For input in tunnelling design Lauffer, 1958
Rock Classification Numerical For input in rock mechanics Patching and Coates, 1968
The Rock Quality Designation For characterization of jointing from drill

Numerical Deere and Miller, 1966
(RQD) cores; input to some classification systems
The Hoek Brown Failure Criterion Used in rock mechanics and rock
Numerical Hoek and Brown, 1980
for rock masses engineering
The Geological Strength Index Indicates the strength of rock mass; input
Descriptive Hoek, 1994
(GSI) to engineering applications
A general characterization; input to rock
The Rock Mass Index (RMi) Numerical Palmstrom, 1995
engineering applications
Systems or methods for design
The Terzaghi rock load Descriptive and
For design of steel support in tunnels Terzaghi, 1946
classification system behaviouristic
The New Austrian Tunnelling Descriptive and For excavation and design in incompetent
Rabcewicz, 1964/65
Method (NATM) behaviouristic (overstressed) ground
Based on rock strength and block
The size-strength classification Numerical Franklin, 1975
diameter; used mainly in mining
The Rock Structure Rating (RSR)
Numerical For design of (steel) support in tunnels Wickham et al., 1972
classification
The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) For use in tunnel, mine and foundation
Numerical Bieniawski, 1973
classification design
For design of support in underground
The Q Classification System Numerical Barton et al., 1974
excavations
For design of rock support in underground
The RMi Rock Support Method Numerical Palmstrom, 1995, 2000
excavations
*)
Descriptive: the input to the system is mainly based on descriptions from observations
Numerical: the input parameters are given values or numerical ratings according to their character
Behaviouristic: the input is based on the behaviour of the rock mass in a tunnel
A list of some classifications and classification systems over the last 50 years is presented in Table 3. Hoek
(2004) has given an overview of some design methods in rock engineering.
As discussed by Stille and Palmstrom (2003), none of the best known classification systems can be regarded
as a true classification, and they can, therefore, be characterized more accurately as empirical rock design
tools. All of the existing systems for design are based on experience from older projects and no distinction is
made between structural resistance, durability, and serviceability. This is a serious shortcoming, especially
when related to the requirements of modern design codes.
In all the best known systems, simplifications have been introduced in order to arrive at both a manageable
and a simple procedure. It is obvious that none of the systems in use today consider all the project related
requirements, especially not serviceability or durability of the rock construction. The available systems are
most appropriate only for the design of structural resistance.
In general, the aims of rock mass classification systems are as given by Milne et al. (1998):
a) to identify zones of material of similar geomechanical characteristics;
b) to provide an indication of predicted stability for excavations of a given size;
c) to aid in the selection of an appropriate support strategy,
d) to provide an indication of in situ rock mass strength, modulus of deformability etc.
All of these aims are applicable to the design process, for which a) and b) are the most relevant, whilst aim d)
is connected to finding parameters for calculations.
However, as pointed out by Milne and Hadjigeorgiou (2000), there has been a tendency to use the results of
rock mass classification systems for a greater variety of purposes than originally intended, amongst others for
estimating strength properties. How suitable the systems are for this extended application is an ongoing
discussion. Refer to the paper by Palmstrom and Broch (2006)
The most commonly used empirical design systems are the RMR and the Q systems. In the opinion of
Riedmüller and Schubert (1999), these two quantitative systems have the advantages of excellent coverage
by publications as well as simple, practical applications. This has led to a wide international acceptance. The
assessment of their input parameters using a rating system is uncomplicated and the support design appears
rather simple. A support method is determined from a design chart. No reference to project specific
requirements or to boundary conditions is incorporated in these systems (Schubert et al., 2001).
Conversely, Riedmüller & Schubert (1999) also state that these two classification systems have severe
shortcomings. One of the main deficiencies is that the classification parameters are universally applied to all
rock mass types. In heterogeneous and poor ground conditions, these classification methods may provide
misleading results, whilst their other shortcomings include the lack of consideration for different rock mass
failure modes and for the ground-support interaction.
Table 4 shows the input parameters applied in the Q, RMR and RMi systems. In discussions on the ability of
the classification process to characterize the ground conditions, the importance of including as many
parameters as possible has been argued for. However, in most cases, the way they are characterized and used
in the system is more important for a good result.
It is also important to keep in mind that most empirical methods in rock engineering give averaged values,
and that there may be significant variation between the lowest and highest value (Figure 5). This is not only a
feature of the Q system. All empirical systems based on experience have similar, inherent inaccuracies. Their
support selection tables are based on cases where, often, the installed support was determined by the tunnel
workers, and/or where varying contractual conditions may have caused the amount of installed support to
vary significantly. Most users forget the large variation/inaccuracy when using classification systems for
support design.
Table 4. Compilation of the input parameters applied in the Q system, the RMR system and the RMi rock support
system (Norwegian Rock Mechanics Group, 2000)
APPLICATION
PARAMETER
in the Q system in the RMi support method in the RMR system
Rock
uniaxial compressive or
Rock strength - - σc uniaxial compressive strength
point load strength
RQD
Degree of jointing RQD rock quality designation Vb block volume
joint spacing
Joint sets (pattern) Jn joint set number Nj joint set factor -
joint smoothness and waviness
Joint character Jr joint roughness number jR joint roughness
Jointing
factor
joint coating, filling and joint infilling, gouge
Joint coating or infilling Ja joint alteration number jA
weathering factor joint weathering
Joint size - - jL joint length and continuity factor joint length, persistence
Joint aperture - (partly in Ja) - (partly in jA) joint separation
Joint orientation - - Co joint orientation factor orientation of joints
Stress Water
joint water reduction

Groundwater Jw - (not included as a general input) water inflow condition
factor
indirectly included up to
Rock stresses SRF stress reduction factor SL stress level factor
25MPa
Dt span Dt span or diameter
Tunnel
Wt wall height Wt wall height

Tunnel dimensions applies to 10m span
Excavation support
ESR - -
ratio
the bolt spacing applied in the Q-diagram
5.00
Bolt Spacing in Unsprayed Areas
4.00
3.00
2.00
Figure 5. The data

1.00 basis used in the Q
system for rock bolt
spacing where
0.00
shotcrete is not
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
installed (Palmstrom
Rock Mass Quality, Q
and Broch, 2006).
It is important that the user is aware of these inaccuracies/deficiencies in the systems he or she applies. They
will be carried over into any estimates made. Bearing this in mind, the following sections outline some of
the features of the most well known systems in Table 3 (Palmstrom and Broch, 2006).
All systems require training, experience and understanding of ground composition and behaviour for proper
use.
4.1.1 The Q System

Q considers all the aspects of behaviour incorporated into one number, the Q value, which is used to estimate
rock support from a support chart (Barton et al. 1974; Grimstad and Barton, 1993). According to the
experience of the authors, the Q system works best in ground conditions where block falls are likely. It also
includes input parameters for slabbing, for which adequate rock support may be estimated. For weakness
zones for which squeezing and/or swelling are likely, the system is not reliable.
Other notable comments are, as pointed out by several authors:

− The application of the stress reduction factor, SRF, is unclear for buckling, rock burst, and/or
squeezing conditions, or for weakness zones;
− RQD has several limitations in characterizing the degree of jointing;
− The influence of water on stability and therefore on rock support requirements is unclear.
4.1.2 The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System

RMR is restricted to support design to counter block fall instability, as stresses are not specifically included,
although it is stated by Bieniawski (1973) to be limited to stresses < 25MPa. Similarly, although it applies
an input of joint spacing, more information is needed on how to measure this. The second input for block
size, RQD, has limitations in its characterization of jointing (Palmstrom, 2005; Milne et al., 1998).
As for the Q system, the influence of water on stability and therefore on rock support requirements is
unclear. The recommendations for excavation and rock support are given for 10m wide tunnels only. These
are somewhat out of date for modern tunnelling.
4.1.3 The RMi Rock Support Method

The RMi (rock mass index) support method applies the basic RMi value (approximately expressing the mass
compressive strength) adjusted by in situ stresses and ground water to characterize the ground conditions
(Palmstrom, 1995, 2000). In addition, it considers the ratio between block size and tunnel size, adjusted for
joint orientation and the number of joint sets.
The system applies different approaches to rock support estimation in continuous and discontinuous ground.
Thus, it covers block falls as well as overstressed ground. For squeezing conditions, it makes an incomplete
estimation, partly because of the relatively few case histories available, but also because tangential stresses in
particulate ground are difficult to measure or calculate. This, of course, is the general case for all types of
rock engineering tools. In addition, weakness zones are crudely included in the estimates.
The method applies more parameters in the ground than any of the systems mentioned above (Table 4).
However, it is more complicated to use than the RMR or the Q system, but the use of computer spreadsheet
may simplify the calculations.
4.1.4 The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)

Predominantly, the NATM covers squeezing ground conditions (Rabcewicz, 1964/1965). In the NATM, the
ground behaviour is the main item considered in the design and selection of rock reinforcement/support. The
qualitative ground descriptions used are associated with excavation techniques, together with the principles
of standard rock support requirements. Monitoring the behaviour (displacements) of the tunnel during and
after excavation plays a fundamental role in this method. Being essentially a descriptive system, the
documentation of the ground conditions is unclear, as it is based largely on subjective observations. It is,
therefore, difficult to correlate NATM results with the other empirical methods. An important aspect of the
NATM is the application of the observational method during and after excavation.
4.1.5 The Geological Strength Index (GSI)

The GSI described by Hoek (1994) and Hoek et al. (1998) provides a system for estimating a value for rock
mass strength from descriptions based on field observations. There are methods for finding the GSI value
from Q or RMR values, but these are mainly for linking GSI to these systems. The rock mass
characterization and/or description considers the rock structure in terms of blockiness and the surface
condition of the discontinuities, as indicated by joint roughness and alteration. Note that there is no input for
the strength of the rock material in the GSI (except when it is found indirectly from the RMR). As the GSI is
used for estimating input parameters (strength) to other tools, its fitness as a tool for engineering is not
evaluated here.
4.1.6 General Comments on Empirical Methods

As already discussed, different types of analysis are appropriate for an intact rock mass, a blocky rock mass,
or a crushed and heavily broken rock mass, as the behaviour of an excavation in each will be fundamentally
different. Neither the Q system nor the RMR system gives any information on how the rock mass behaviour
was considered in making their rock support recommendations.
The classification systems available today were developed to cover the issue of structural resistance, which is
only one of the design issues to be accounted for in the design. It is obvious that they do not take into
consideration all the project related issues being required by the most modern building codes, and they may
not be able to address serviceability or durability adequately. Furthermore, they do not allow the user to
quantify the degree of safety achieved by the design.
4.2 CALCULATED SOLUTIONS

4.2.1 Numerical Modelling
The term “numerical modelling” is used for all types of calculations that are based on numerical solutions of
the complex differential equations encountered in rock mechanics. Most of them apply discretization of the
rock mass into a large number of individual elements and achieve an iterative solution by repetitive
calculation in a computer. This technique is used mainly for the analysis of rock stresses and deformations.
The basic pre-requisites for numerical analysis are the idealisation of the actual excavation within the rock
mass and the division of the rock mass into different sectors, based on the results of geological
investigations. Material property models are established for each of the sectors, and also for the anticipated
rock supports.
It is important to be aware of the restrictions and uncertainties that are inherent in such modelling, of which
the most important arise from the difficulty of obtaining reliable input parameters, especially for:
− The magnitudes and directions of the in situ stresses.
− The material model and properties of the in situ rock mass.
− The location and extent of the various geological sectors within the rock mass.
The reliability of the analysis will never be better than the reliability of the input parameters and applied
models.
Every numerical model is a simplification (idealisation) of reality. Even very sophisticated 3-D programs are
based on this type of underlying simplification. Simplification will be inherent in the material property
models, both for the general condition and any special ground features, in the models for rock - structure
interaction, and in the boundary conditions. For a given set of input data, each numerical analysis carried out
with currently available software will only give one solution to the problem being studied, such as the
calculated behaviour. The calculation will not directly give an answer to the design issues stipulated in the
latest building codes such as the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit state. This problem is also
more pronounced for the rock - structure interaction type of problem, which dominates rock mechanics. A
numerical calculation will not give a discrete estimate of the safety level, and a numerical calculation based
on design values will normally give a result on the very conservative side and is therefore not recommended.
It is also important to realise that several of the load cases that have to be considered for the design are not
calculable, for example, weathering, frost action and wearing. Like empirical methods, numerical analyses
have been formulated primarily to investigate structural resistance.
Both continuum models and discrete block models are available. In many cases, and especially for highly
fractured and massive ground, continuum models with appropriate material properties will be suitable. For
blocky or jointed ground, where the rock mass is dominated by few dominate joints, discrete block models
may be more appropriate.
Our conclusion is that numerical analysis is one tool that can be used in the design process and, generally, is
more applicable to parameter studies than to exact calculations to provide definite answers.
4.2.2 Analytical Calculations

The advantage of analytical solutions is that they allow a much better description of the rock-structure
interaction, especially in relation to the evaluation of the safety level, both for serviceability limit state design
and ultimate limit state design. However, they have the disadvantage that they exist only for simplified
situations. For example, the behaviour of a circular tunnel in an isotropic stress field can be ascertained
directly. For such models, advanced analytical solutions allow both elastic-plastic and creep material models,
and also allow the incorporation of grouted dowels and shotcrete linings. Analyses of block stability can also
be carried out with analytical solutions. As before, however, analytical solutions are related only to structural
resistance, and cannot address the non-calculable load cases that modern codes require for the design, like
weathering, frost and wearing.
4.3 JUDGEMENTAL SOLUTIONS

4.3.1 Observational Methods
There has been considerable discussion of what the observational method should include. At its simplest, it
has been characterized as Terzaghi’s “learn-as you-go” method, rather than as “sound engineering” based on
an independent method. The “learn-as you-go” approach is not recommended, as used in many types of
contracts it often leads to time delays and claims related to unspecified and unforeseeable conditions. To
avoid this, a strict approach is recommended.
Such approach relies on the review of the design during construction. Before excavation starts, an initial
design is made, based on predictions of the rock mass behaviour, and including plans for a monitoring
system and contingency plans for incremental support works. If, during construction, the monitoring records
exceed the predicted behaviour, then the pre-defined contingency plans will be triggered.
Where prediction of the ground behaviour is difficult, the code (EN) states that it may be appropriate to
apply “the observational method” but that, in order to be allowed to use such a system, several requirements
shall be met before construction. These include assessing the range of possible behaviour and showing that
there is an acceptable probability that the actual behaviour will be within acceptable limits. It is not directly
stated what "an acceptable probability" is, but it is obvious that it is asked for a probabilistic approach.
4.3.2 Engineering Judgement

Engineering judgement should always be applied in all types of engineering, as a check or verification. For
example, it can include either the judgement of an experienced designer, or that of an expert review board for
particularly difficult issues or projects.
Many situations arise where a decision has to be taken at the tunnel working face, or conditions arise, which
are not readily calculable, so that engineering judgement must be applied. For example, rock bolting to
support locally unstable blocks belongs to this category.
In practice, judgement may be used rather inconsistently in the various phases of planning or during
construction. However, properly used, it is an important tool in quality assurance work (Stille et al., 1998 and
Nilsen et al. 1999). Einstein (1991) has the following comment on this: "Judgement is required to set up the
right lines of scientific investigation, to select the appropriate parameters for calculations, and to verify the
reasonableness of the results. What we can calculate, enhances our judgement, allows us to make better
judgements, permits us to arrive at better engineering solutions." Ralph B. Peck (1980) has written: "Judgement
is thus the intelligent use of experience or, more cautiously expressed, it is the recognition of the limitations
of the methods one uses, and of the limitations and uncertainties of the materials one works with; and this
brings us back to geology."
5 SUITABILITY OF THE ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS
5.1 ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

The objective of the rock engineering process is to build and complete the project. The design is a part of the
rock engineering process and, as such, is a means of reaching a goal and not the goal itself. It is essential to
understand that, as the design is an ongoing process, decisions based on the design have to be taken stepwise
and in parallel with the progress of the project. A top-down philosophy is recommended, starting from the
decision to be taken. Such a philosophy involves four steps (Sturk, 1998):
1. The first requirement is that all engineering geological data and project related information must be
updated and relevant for the current stage of the project and the current decision.
2. Secondly, any uncertainties related to the information should be quantified.
3. The third requirement is that explicit information must be comprehensive enough to flow properly
through the project organisation, and yet be understandable. It must be unambiguous and adapted to
the receiver. Finally the information must be quality assured.
4. With regard to any uncertainty in the parameters from which the design has been built, the intention of
the designer must be transferred to the construction documents and drawings, properly understood, and
carried out at site.
Every project is unique. A general recommendation on the suitability of the different design tools can only be
indicative, especially as various combinations of the available tools are appropriate for many projects. In a
project with very high consequences of delay or failure, all the tools are often used to get an acceptable safe
design whilst, for minor projects in good rock, an empirical approach based on empirical design methods or
engineering judgement may be appropriate.
5.2 FITNESS OF THE TOOLS

Table 5 is intended to help in identifying the fitness of some of the rock engineering tools that are applicable
to design studies. The assessment in Table 5 is based on the behaviour of underground excavations in various
ground conditions. In addition, use of the Table should lead to:
 a better use of classification systems, and the avoidance of misuse;
 an increase in the quality of engineering assessments and design parameters;
 a better communication.
The ratings given for the fitness of the various engineering tools in Table 5 are open to discussion. They
indicate the opinion of the authors, who have over 35 years of experience of involvement in underground
constructions. For any specific case, the rating given may be too high in one situation, or too low in another.
However, the main purpose has been to indicate where the tools work best. It is suggested always to use
more than one tool in the engineering design where individual tools have a fitness rating higher than 2.
Figure 6 presents a crude draft of the engineering approach to design, based on the behaviour (instability) of
rock excavations. It is a simplification and a summary of this paper, and is intended for use in the early
phases of planning and design.
Many of the situations where the rock engineering tools are poorly suited or not applicable relate to
weakness zones or faults. As stated by Bieniawski (1984), such features should be treated individually as
”regions of their own”, by considering the local conditions. These may be difficult to include in any general
or simplified system or calculation method.
For all types of rock mass behaviour, the assessments or calculations used in the design should be backed by
engineering judgement. This requires experience, skill and understanding by those involved in the works.
Table 5. The fitness of various engineering design tools
ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS
TRIGGERING FACTOR
Numerical modelling
(for continuous ground)
Classification systems
Observational
GROUND BEHAVIOUR
Engineering
calculations
judgement
Analytical
methods
support
NATM
RMR
RMi
Q
a Stable 2 2 1-2 1 1 2 1 1
GRAVITY
DRIVEN
b Fall of block(s) or fragment(s) 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 2 2 2 1
c Cave-in 3 2-3 2 3 3 2 3 2
d Running ground 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2
e Buckling 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
STRESS INDUCED
f Rupturing from stresses 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 2
g Slabbing, spalling 4 2 2 2-3 2 2 2 2
h Rock burst 4 3-4 2 3 2 2 1-2 2
i Plastic behaviour (initial) 4 3-4 3 2-3 2 2 3 2
j Squeezing ground 4 3 3 1-2 2 2 2 3
INFLUENCED
k Ravelling from slaking or friability 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 2
WATER
l Swelling ground 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
m Flowing ground 4 4 4 3-4 4 4 3 3
n Water ingress 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 3
Fitness rating of the various tools: 1 Suitable; 2 Fair; 3 Poor; 4 Not applicable
Defining the condition or problem using results from the information collected
Instability due to Instability and/or excavation problems due to adverse geology with:
Instability due to low
strength to stress ratio discontinuities weathering, slaking zones with alteration excessive groundwater
in competent rock and/or swelling rock pressure and/or flow
and/or crushing
Can stress induced Evaluate the use of trial Can stability be improved by Can relocation or
instability be minimised by Check whether stability can relocation and/or reorientation reorientation of excavation
excavation to test
change of excavation layout? be improved by reorientation of excavations? minimise the problem?
effectiveness of proposed
of excavations
NO YES remedial measures NO YES NO YES
Can adequate Can adequate

support be support be Can drainage
provided for provided for and/or grouting
long-term long-term reduce flow into
stability? stability? excavation?
NO YES NO YES NO YES
Analytical / empirical Empirical /(analytical) method Analytical method Analytical method Observational method
method + with ‘tailored’ support + + +
observational method construction measures construction measures construction measures
Design with provision

Reject this site
Design with monitoring

Reject this site
Reject this site
of controlled blasting, Design excavation Design with permanent

Design support to of problems during
rapid support instal- sequence to allow system for monitoring
prevent gravity induced excavation and use of
lation and monitoring protection of and control of sub-
block falls appropriate excavation
of support performance exposed faces surface water
and support when and
and excavation
where necessary
behaviour
Design method
Analytical = numerica modelling, physical modelling, failure criteria Construction measure = probing, pregrouting, special excavation procedure
Empirical = classification system, experience ‘Tailored’ support = support adapted to the local conditions encountered
Observational = in-situ monitoring, special geological observations
Figure 6. Simplified diagram for selection of design methodology (modified from Hoek, 1999)
6 CONCLUSIONS
The design should always be related to the current stage of the project and the current decision. Skill and
engineering judgement are essential parts in the design process. To this category comes an understanding of
geological uncertainties as a key to a successful result.
The design of underground openings can be carried out with different design tools, including classification
systems, numerical modelling, analytical calculations, observational methods and engineering judgement. It
is important to point out that the design of underground openings requires much more than to fulfil the
requirements of structural resistance. Both serviceability and durability may be of conclusive importance for
the design work.
The design tools of today are more developed for structural resistance design than for the other two issues.
Engineering judgement is therefore the most important tool to deal with serviceability and durability.
The merits of different systems and methods (tools) for design depend on the actual situation and conditions
for the individual project. In rock design and engineering it is important with proper knowledge of the rock
mass composition and behaviour. It should be stressed that without adequate knowledge of the geology and
ground conditions, as well as the relevant project related features, the ground behaviour cannot be defined
and, hence, appropriate design work cannot be carried out. This paper has outlined the main types of
behaviour and linked this with the main tools for design to help using appropriate methods in the design
work.
It is the authors’ experience and opinion that, in many situations, a combination of the available design tools
should be used. This is of special importance in difficult ground behaviour with high consequence at failure.
Running, flowing, squeezing and swelling ground are examples of such difficult ground behaviour. Large
public underground openings are examples of high consequences.
It is necessary to understand that the design cannot be regarded as complete until the excavation of the
underground opening is finished, independently of ground behaviour. Unexpected circumstances may always
occur that have to be addressed during the construction work. Depending on the situation, the observational
method will, therefore, always be a mandatory tool for design, being a supplement to the other methods.
For all types of rock mass behaviour, numerical modelling or calculations used in the design should be
backed by engineering judgement. This requires experience, skill and understanding by those involved in the
works. Numerical modelling is a powerful tool. Knowledge of limitation of the modelling method used is,
however, very essential for a sound interpretation of the results. Numerical modelling with design values
(characteristic value divided with partial factor) is not recommended especially for rock- structure interaction
problems that may give erroneous results.
It has been shown that the empirical method, i.e. the use of rock mass classification systems, work best in
jointed rock where the behaviour is dominated by block falls. For other types of behaviour, they should be
used with care and, preferably assisted by other tools.
In a coming paper, a procedure to evaluate the ground behaviour from rock mass characterization and
potential failure modes will be presented.
A closing remark sums up the conclusions above

"A good engineering design is a balanced design in which all the factors which interact, even those which
cannot be quantified, are taken into account. Therefore, the responsibility of the design engineer is not to
compute accurately but to judge soundly." Evert Hoek and Pierre Londe (1974)
Acknowledgement
The authors are most thankful to Dr. Don Moy for valuable comments and text suggestions.
7 REFERENCES
Austrian Code, 2001: Guidelines for the geomechanical planning of underground works with cyclic progress
(in Germain). Issued by the Österreichische Gesellschaft für Geomechanik at the 50. Geomechanik
Kolloquium, 68 p.
Barton N., Lien R. and Lunde J., 1974: Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mechanics 6(4): 189-236.
Bieniawski Z.T., 1973: Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans. S. African Instn. Civ.
Engrs., Vol 15, No 12, Dec. 1973, pp. 335 - 344.
Bieniawski Z.T., 1984: Rock mechanics design in mining and tunneling. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 272 pp.
Bieniawski Z.T., 1989: Engineering rock mass classifications. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 251 p.
Deere D. and Miller R.D., 1966: Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock. Univ. of
Illinois, Tech. Rept. No. AFWL-TR-65-116, 1966.
Einstein H.H., 1991: Observation, quantification and judgement: Terzaghi and engineering geology. J.
Geotech. Engn., Vol. 117, No. 11, pp. 1772-1778.
EN 1990, 2002: Euro code-basis for structural design and supplement 7 EN 1997-1:2004 Geotechnical
design-part 1- general rules.
Franklin J.A., 1975: Safety and economy of tunneling. Proc. Tenth Canadian Rock Mech. Symp., Kingstone,
pp. 27-53.
Grimstad E. and Barton N., 1993: Updating the Q-system for NMT. Proc. Int. Symp. on Sprayed Concrete,
Fagernes, Norway, 1993. Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo, 20 pp.
Hoek E. and Brown E.T., 1980: Underground excavations in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
London 1980, 527 p.
Hoek E., 1994: Strength of rock masses. News Journal of ISRM, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 4-16.
Hoek E., Kaiser P.K. and Bawden W.F., 1995: Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Hoek E., Marinos, P. and Benissi M., 1998: Applicability of the geological strength index (GSI)
classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens schist formation. Bull. Eng.
Geol. Env. No 57, pp. 151 - 160.
Hoek E., 1999: Selection of rock mass properties for tunnel design. Design manual for Egnatia odos, Greece,
Hoek E., 2004: Rock mass classification. Hoek's Corner, www. rocscience.com; accessed December 2004.
Lauffer H., 1958: Classification for tunnel construction (in German). Geologie und Bauwesen, Vol. 24, No.
1, pp. 46-51.
Martin C.D., Tannant D.D., Yazici S. and Kaiser P.K., 1999: Stress path and instability around mine
openings. In Proc. 9th, ISRM Congress on Rock Mechanics, Paris (Ed. G. Vouille and P. Berest), vol. 1, pp.
311–315. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Milne D., Hadjigeorgiou J. and Pakalnis R., 1998: Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock
mines. Tunnelling and underground space technology, Vol. 13, No .4, pp. 383 - 391.
Milne D. and Hadjigeorgiou J., 2000: Practical considerations in the use of rock mass classification in
mining. Int. conf. GeoEng2000, 6 p.
Nilsen B., Palmström A. and Stille H., 1999: Quality control of a sub-sea tunnel project in complex ground
conditions. Proc. World Tunnel Congress’99. Oslo. A.A. Balkema, 9 p.
Norwegian Rock Mechanics Group, 2000: Engineering geology and rock engineering. Handbook. Editors:
Palmstrom A. and Nilsen B. Norwegian Rock and Soil Engineering Association, 250 p.
Palmström A., 1995: RMi - a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes. Ph.D. thesis
Univ. of Oslo, 400 p. (also on web site www.rockmass.net)
Palmström A., 2000: Recent developments in rock support estimates by the RMi. Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Tunnelling Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1 May 2000, pp. 1 – 19. (also on web site www.rockmass.net)
Palmstrom A. and Broch E., 2006: Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular
reference to the Q-system. To be published in Tunnels and underground space technology.
Palmstrom A., 2005: Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality designation
(RQD). Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 362 – 377.
Patching T.H. and Coates D.F., 1968: A recommended rock classification for rock mechanics purposes. CIM
Bull., Oct. 1968, pp 1195-1197.
Peck R. B., 1980: Where has all the judgement gone? Laurits Bjerrum memorial lesson no 5, Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway
Rabcewicz L.v., 1964/65: The new Austrian tunnelling method. Water Power, part 1, November 1964 pp.
511-515, Part 2, January 1965 pp. 19 – 24.
Riedmüller G., Schubert, W., 1999: Critical comments on quantitative rock mass classifications. Felsbau
17(3): 164 - 167.
Schubert W., Goricki A., Button E.A., Riedmüller G., Pölsler P., Steindorfer A. and Vanek R., 2001:
Excavation and support determination for the design and construction of tunnels.
In P. Särkkä, P. Eloranta (ed.): Proc. Eurock 2001, pp. 383 – 388. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Schubert W. and Goricki A., 2004: Probabilistic assessment of rock mass behaviour as basis for stability
analyses of tunnels. Proc. Rock Mechanics Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, March 2004, (published by
SvBeFo, Swedish rock engineering research), pp. 1 – 20.
Stille H., Sturk R., Olsson L., 1998: Quality systems and risk analysis- New philosophies in underground
construction industry. Int congress “Underground Construction in modern Infrastructure” Ed. T. Franzén and
S-G Bergdahl and A. Nordmark. Balkema
Stille H. and Palmstrom A., 2003: Rock mass classification as a tool in rock engineering. Tunnelling and
underground space technology, Vol. 18, 2003, pp. 331 – 345
Sturk R., 1998: Engineering geological information-its value and impact on tunnelling. Ph.D. thesis, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Terzaghi K., 1946: Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. In Rock tunneling with steel supports, (eds R.
V. Proctor and T. L. White) 1, 17-99. Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company. pp.
5 - 153.
Wickham G.E., Tiedemann H.R. and Skinner E.H., 1972: Support determination based on geologic
predictions. In Proc. North American rapid excav. tunneling conf., Chicago, (eds K.S. Lane and L.A.
Garfield), pp. 43-64. New York: Soc. Min. Engrs, Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Petrolm. Engrs.

Behaviour and Engineering

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Behaviour and Engineering

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

GROUND BEHAVIOUR AND ROCK ENGINEERING TOOLS FOR

FIELD OBSERVATIONS CHARACTERIZATION APPLICATION ROCK ENGINEERING

OR MEASUREMENTS OF INFORMATION and DESIGN

2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

Geomechanically relevant parameters

Figure 2. Flow chart of the basic procedure for design of

Determination of excavation and support

Identification of boundary conditions

Definition of requirements (RQ) empirical

System behaviour (SB)

STABLE BLOCK FALL(S) CAVE-IN BUCKLING RUPTURING

Two of the terms used in Table 2 may need further explanation:

4 CURRENT ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS FOR UNDERGROUND

4.1 EMPIRICAL METHODS (ROCK ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS)

The Rock Quality Designation For characterization of jointing from drill

joint water reduction

Wt wall height Wt wall height

the bolt spacing applied in the Q-diagram

Figure 5. The data

4.1.1 The Q System

Other notable comments are, as pointed out by several authors:

4.1.2 The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System

4.1.3 The RMi Rock Support Method

4.1.4 The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)

4.1.5 The Geological Strength Index (GSI)

4.1.6 General Comments on Empirical Methods

4.2 CALCULATED SOLUTIONS

4.2.2 Analytical Calculations

4.3 JUDGEMENTAL SOLUTIONS

4.3.2 Engineering Judgement

5 SUITABILITY OF THE ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS

5.1 ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

5.2 FITNESS OF THE TOOLS

Table 5. The fitness of various engineering design tools

ROCK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TOOLS

Can adequate Can adequate

Design with provision

Design with monitoring

Reject this site

of controlled blasting, Design excavation Design with permanent

A closing remark sums up the conclusions above

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen