Tunnel Design by Rock Mass Class by ZT Bieniawski
Tunnel Design by Rock Mass Class by ZT Bieniawski
Tunnel Design by Rock Mass Class by ZT Bieniawski
DTIC
ELECTE
3 MAR28 19W
-
' January 1990
Update of Technical Report GL-79-19
Approved For Public Re;tas,, Distribution Unlimited
IV
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Ib RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release; distribution
2b DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
(If applicable) USAEWES
See reverse Geotechnical Laboratory
8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION (If applicable) DACW39-78-M-3314
US Army Corps of Engineers DACW39-84-M-1462
8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.
Washington, DC 20314-1000
I I TITLE (Include Security Classification)
17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse ifnecessary and identify
by block number)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Classifications' Engineering geology;-.Rock masses, Tunnels
Construction Park River project Rock mechanics, :
Design Rock classification Rocks
19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
This report discusses tunnel design procedures based on various rock mass classification
systems. A comparison is made between the tunnel support design based on the classical
Ter-aghi rcak load method and the support selection based on the RSR Concept, the Geomechanic
Classification. and the Q-System. These classification systems are described 4-n detail' and
guidelines are given for step-by-step app]ication of the three methods. Using an actual
tunnel case history, an evaluation is made of the current design practice by comparing it
with the design approaches involving the three rock mass classification systems. It is
concluded that the current design practice may lead to overdesign of support, and recommenda-
tions are made for improved procedures that would ensure the construction of safe and more
economical rock tunnels. Finally, a few areas are identified where more research would
benefit the current tunnel design practice,
In order to accomplish the main purpose of this report, namely to evaluate tunnel design
C(onni n, d
20 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
(2 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT 0 DTIC USERS Unclassified
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
practices with respect to rock mass classification systems, the following scope of work
was defined:
The above scope of work was accomplished during this study, and the procedures,
results, and discussions are presented in this report originally published in 1979. The
report was reprinted in FY 89 during which time a Bibliography covering the appropriate
literture through 1986as well as a discussion of recent dvelopmeats, given in Appendix D,
were added.
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
PREFACE
This report was updated in FY 84 with the main text revised, where
appropriate, and an appendix added relating to the recent developments in the
use of rock mass classifications for tunnel design (covering the period 1979 -
was COL Larry B. Fulton, EN. Technical Director was Dr. Robert W. Whalin.
Acoession For
NTIS GRAMI
DTIC TAB
Unannounced 0
Justifiaation
By
Distribution/
Availablt_ Codes
Avail and/or
Dist Special
1/
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE................................................................... 1
PART I: INTRODUCTION.................................................... 5
Conclusions........................................................ 64
Recommendations.................................................... 64
REFERENCES............................................................... 66
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................. 70
TABLES 1-23
2
Page
TABLES Cl-C2
FIGURES Cl-C7
3
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Multiply By To Obtain
4
TUNNEL DESIGN BY ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
PART I: INTRODUCTION
parameters or processes and for comparing alternative design schemes; they are
the methods of the future not as yet acceptable as the practical engineering
5
requires special contractual provisions: these may be suitable for the
European practice for which they were evolved c-er many years of trial and
error, but are not easily adaptable to the established U.S. contracting
procedures.
3. The empirical approach relates the experience encountered at
previous projects to the conditions anticipated at a proposed site. If an
empirical design is backed by a systematic approach to ground classification,
it can effectively utilize the valuable practical experience gained at many
projects, which is so helpful to exercising one's engineering judgment. This
is particularly important since, to quote a recent paper:' "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; the responsibility
of the design engineers is not to compute accurately but to judge soundly."
4. Rock mass classifications, which thus form the backbone of the
empirical design approach, are widely employed in rock tunneling and most of
the tunnels constructed at present in the United States make use of some
classification system. The most extensively used and the best known of these
2
is the Terzaghi classification which was introduced over 40 years ago.
5. In fact, rock mass classifications have been successfully applied
throughout the world: in the United States, 2 - Canada, 7 8 Western
Europe, 9 - 12 South Africa, 13- 1 6 Australia, 17 New Zealand, 18 Japan,'9 USSR,20 and in
some East European countries. 21- 22 Some classification systems were applied
not only to tunneling but also to rock foundations, 23-24 rock slopes, 25 and
16
even mining problems.
6. The purpose of this report is to evaluate tunnel design practices
with respect to rock mass classification systems and particularly those which
have been introduced in the recent years, have been tried out on a large
number of tunneling projects, and have offered a practical and acceptable
alternative to the classical Terzaghi classification of 1946.
6
PART II: CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN ROCK ENGINEERING
7
f. Functional by providing quantitative data for the design of
tunnel support.
General enough so that the same rock mass will possess the same
basic classification regardless whether it is being used for a
tunnel, a slope, or a foundation.
10. To date, many rock mass classification systems have been proposed,
the better known of these being the classification by Terzaghi (1946),2
Lauffer (1958),g Deere (1964), 3 Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972), 5
Bieniawski (1973),' 3 and Barton, Lien, and Lunde (1974).1? These
classification systems will be discussed in detail while other classification;
can be found in the references.
11. The six classificat-ons named above were selected for detailed
discussion because of their specil features and contributions to the subject
matter. Thus, the classical rock load classification of Terzaghi,2 the first
practical classification system introduced, has been dominant in the United
States for over 35 years and has proved very successful in tunneling with
steel supports. Lauffer's classification 9 based on work of Stini 26 was a
considerable step forward in the art of tunneling since it introduced the
concept of the stand-up time of the active span in a tunnel that is most
relevant for determination of the type and the amount of tunnel support.
Deere's classification 3 introduced the rock quality designation (RQD) index,
which is a simple and practical method of describing the quality of rock core
from borings. The concept of rock structure rating (RSR), developed in the
United States by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner,5,6 was the first system
assigning classification ratings for weighing the relative importance of
classification parameters. The Geomechanics Classification proposed by
13
Bieniawski and the Q-System proposed by Barton, Lien, ard Lunde 12 were
developed independently (in 1973 and 1974, respectively), and both these
classifications provide quantitative data enabling the selection of modern
tunnel reinforcement measures such as rockbolts and shotcrete. The Q-System
has been developed specifically for tunnels, while the Geomechanics
Classification, although also initially developed for tunnels, has been
applied to rock slopes and foundations, ground rippability assessment, as well
23
as to mining problems.
8
12. Some comparisons have been made between the various classification
systems. 17
,18,23,27,28,29 One detailed comparison was made by the author 23 during
the construction of a railroad tunnel,30 which was 18 ft* wide and 2.4 miles
long. This tunnel was characterized by highly varia 1._. rock conditions --
from very poor to very good. In addition, a one-year tunnel-monitoring
program featuring 16 me tsuring stations enabled correlation between the
classification ratings of rock conditions with the amount jf rock movement,
the rate of face advance, and the support used. This project thus afforded an
ideal opportunity for comparison of the various classification systems. The
resu.ts of this comparison are given in Table 1.
13. It is widely believed that the "esign of underground excavations
is, to a large extent, the design of underground support systems. 28 This
means that since rock mass classifications are used as tunnel design methods,
they must be evaluated with respect to the guidelines that they provide for
the selection of tunnel support. In this connection, however, it must be
remembered that tunnel support may be regarded as the primary support
(otherwise known as the temporary support) or the permanent support (usually
concrete lining). Primary support (e.g., rockbolts, shotcrete, or steel ribs)
is invariably installed close to the tunnel face shortly after the excavation
is compl~ted. Its purpose is to ensure tunnel stability until the concrete
lining is installed.
14. It should not be overlooked that the primary support may probably
be able to carry all the load ever acting on the tunnel. After all, modern
supports do not deteriorate easily and the traditional concept of the
temporary and permanent support is losing its meaning. In some European
countries, for example: Austria, Germany, Sweden, and Norway, only one kind of
support is understood, generally a combination of rockbolts and shotcrete, and
concrete linings are considered unnecessary if tunnel monitoring shows
stabili.ation of roc': movements. This is the case for highway and railroad
tunnels, while water tunnels may feature concrete linings, not for strtctural
stability reasons but to reduce surface friction and to prevent water leakage
into the rock.
9
15. Consequently, the use of the concept of the primary and the
permanent supports may well lead to overdesign cf tunnels since the so-called
primary support may be all that is necessary and the concrete lining only
serves as an expensive cosmetic feature acting psychologically to bolster
public confidence in the safety r' the tunnel. The only justification for
placing concrete lining may be that since the current knowledge of rock tunnel
engineering is still incomplete, a radical departure from the customary
methods of design may not be advisable. However, the possibility of tunnel
overdesign should not be overlooked, and methods of minimizing this
possibility, without jeopardizing tunnel safety, should be constantly sought.
16. Since the purpose of this report is to evaluate other than the
Terzaghi classification system and since his classification is fully treated
both in Proctor and White's book 2 and in EM 1110-2-2901, 3' it will not be
repeated here. However, for the sake of completeness and because of its
historical importance, main features of Terzaghi's rock load classification
are given in Appendix A.
17. Terzaghi's contribution lies in formulating, over 40 years ago, the
first rational method of evaluating rock loads appropriate to the design of
steel sets. This was an important development, because support by steel sets
has been the most commonily used system for containing rock tunnel deformations
during the past 50 years. It must be emphasized, however, that while this
classification is appropriate for the purpose for which it was evolved, i.e.,
for estimating rock loads for steel-arch supported tunnels, it is not so
suitable for modern tunneling methods using shotcrete and rockbolts. After
32
detailed studies, Cecil concluded that Terzaghi's classification was too
general to permit an objective evaluation of rock quality and that it provided
no quantitative information on the properties of rock masses.
10
Lauffer's Classification
11
z
0.1
I MIN 1O MIN 1 HR I DAY I WK I MO I YR 10 YR 100 YR
STAND-U P TIME
.P
K,, 0
TIME 0 .7 a TIME
TIME TIME
12
Deere's Rock Quality Designation
23. Cording, Hendron, and Deere33 attempted to relate the RQD index to
Terzaghi's rock load factor. They found a reasonable correlation for steel-
supported tunnels but not for openings supported by rockbolts, as is evident
from Figure 3. This supports the opinion that Terzaghi's rock load concept
34
should be limited to tunnels supported by steel sets.
24. Merritt35 found that the RQD could be of much value in estimating
support requirements for rock tunnels as demonstrated in Figure 4. He pointed
out a limitation of the RQD index in areas where the joints contain thin clay
fillings or weathered material. The influence of clay seams and fault gouge
on tunnel stability was discussed by Brekke and Howard.3
25. Although the RQD is a quick and inexpensive index, it has
limitations by disregarding joint orientation, tightness, and gouge material.
Consequently, while it is a practical parameter for core quality estimation,
it is not sufficient on its own to provide an adequate description of a rock
mass.
13
VERY GOOD-
POOR POOR FAIR EXCELL.
3.0
2.5
1,- 1.5
LI.
1.0
U
0
cr ROCKBOLTS (SMALL
DISPLA CEMENTS,
LARGE EXCAVATIONS)
0.5
ol0.25
0.10
Q1W
0 25 50 75 100
RQD, PERCENT
14
L
100 a
EXCELLENT 41111
QUALITY ROCK
HARD - FEW O LOT
JOINTS SOLOAN,
.[ Go a: PATTERN
- FT CENTERS)
BOLTING
LEGEND
z 60 - r I I
w (A NO SUPPORT
ItO 0 OCCASIONAL BOLTS
0. 0 PATTERN BOLTING
20 -"_ _A- STEEL RIBS
POOR QUALITY
ROCK - CLOSELY A
JOINTED &/OR 0
WEATHERED
0 t0 20 30 40 s0 60
TUNNEL WIDTH. FT
(AFTER MERRITT)
0
PATTERN BOLTING OR
4-6 CM 9OTCRErE
CO
0 10 20 30 40 so 60
TUNNEL WIDTH. FT
LEGEND
NONE TO OCCASIONAL BOLTING NOTE:
NONE TO OCCASIONAL RIBS, 5-6 FT CENTERS SUPPORT DATA FROM IGNEOUS
AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS
PATTERN BOLTING 5-6 FT CENTERS WHERE REAL ROCK PRESSURES
LIGHT SETS 5-6 FT CENTERS OR SWELLING/SQUEEZING
GROUND DID Nor EXIST.
~ PATTERN BOLTING 3-5 FT CENTERS
LIGHT TO MEDIUM SETS 4-5 FT CENTERS
15
RSR Concept
class, which will then give an output in terms of the stand-up time and span.
28. The main contribution of the RSR Concept was that it introduced a
rating system for rock masses. This was the sum of weighted values of the
be assessed. This rating system was determined on the basis of case histories
as well as reviews of various books and technical papers dealing with
different aspects of ground support in tunneling.
29. The RSR Concept considered two general categories of factors
construction parameters. The geologic parameters were: (a) rock type, (b)
joint pattern (average spacing of joints), (c) joint orientations (dip and
strike), (d) type of discontinuities, (e) major faults, shears, and folds, (f)
16
30. All the above factors were grouped by Wickham, Tiedemann, and
5
Skinner into three basic parameters, A, B, and C (Tables 2, 3, and 4,
respectively), which in themselves were evaluations as to the relative effect
on the support requirements of various geological factors. These three
parameters were as follows:
(3) Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per foot of the
tunnel).
31. The RSR value of any tunnel section is obtained by summarizing the
weighted numerical values determined for each parameter. This reflects the
quality of the rock mass with respect to its need for support regardless of
the size of the tunnel. The relation between RSR values and tunnel size is
taken into consideration in the determination of respective rib ratios (RR),
as discussed below. Since a lesser amount of support was expected for
machine-bored tunnels than when excavated by drill and blast methods, it was
suggested that RSR values be adjusted for machine-bored tunnels in the manner
given in Figure 5.
17
1o
II.
W 20
W
J
W 30
Z
Z
D
40 r I
1.00 1.05 I.io 1.15 1.20
RSR ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Figure 5. RSR concept-adjustment for
machine tunneling
32. It should be noted that Tables 2,3 and 4 are reproduced not from
5
the original reference but from a paper6 published two years later, because
the RSR ratings were changed in 1974 and the latter paper represents the
sand below the water table (datum condition). Using the tables provided in
2
I n Steel
Rock Tunneling with I Supports, the theoretical spacing required for the
same size rib as used in a given case study tunnel section was determined for
the datum condition. The RR value is obtained by dividing this theoretical
spacing by the actual spacing and multiplying the answer by 100. Thus,
RR - 46 would mean that the section required only 46 percent of the support
used for the datum condition. However, different size tunnels, although
having the same RR would require different weight or size of ribs for
equivalent support. The RR for an unsupported tunnel would be zero and would
be 100 for a tunnel requiring the same support as the datum condition.
18
34. A total of 53 projects were evaluated, but since each tunnel was
divided into typical geological sections, a total of 190 tunnel sections were
analyzed. The RSR and RR values were determined for each section, and actual
support installations were obtained from as-built drawings. The support was
distributed as follows:
It was concluded 6 that rock structures with RSR values less than 19 would
require heavy support while those with ratings of 80 and over would be
unsupported.
36. Since the RR basically defined an anticipated rock load by
considering the load-carrying capacity of different sizes of steel ribs, the
RSR values were also expressed in terms of unit rock loads for various sized
tunnels as given in Table 5.
37. The RSR prediction model was developed primarily with respect to
steel rib support.6 Insufficient data were available to correlate rock
structures and rockbolt or shotcrete support. However, an appraisal of
rockbolt requirements was made by considering rock loads with respect to the
tensile strength of the bolt. The authors pointed out5 that this was a very
general approach: it assumed that anchorage was adequate and that all bolts
acted in tension only; it did not allow either for interaction between
adjacent blocks or for an assumption of a compression arch formed by the
19
bolts. In addition, the rock loads were developed for steel supported
tunnels. Nevertheless, the following relation was given for 1-in.-diam
rockbolts with a working load of 24,000 lb:
W D
t = 1 + __ or t= __D (65 - RSR)
1.25 150
where
t - shotcrete thickness, in.
W = rock load
D = tunnel diameter, ft
39. Support requirement charts have been prepared that provide a means
of determining typical ground support systems based on a RSR prediction as to
the quality of rock structure through which the tunnel is to be driven.
Charts for 10-, 20-, and 24-ft-diam tunnels are shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8,
respectively. Similar charts could be used for other tunnel sizes. The three
steel rib curves reflect typical sizes used for the particular tunnel size.
The curves for rockbolts and shotcrete are dashed to emphasize that they are
based on assumptions and were not derived from case histories. The charts are
applicable to either circular or horseshoe-shaped tunnels of comparable
widths.
40. The author believes that the RSR Concept is a very useful method
for selecting steel rib support for rock tunnels. As with any empirical
approaches, one should not apply a concept beyond the range of sufficient and
reliable data used for developing the concept. For this reason, the RSR
Concept is not recommended for selection of rockbolt and shotcrete support.
However, because of its usefulness for steel rib support determination, the
author prepared an input data sheet for this classification system (see
20
Appendix B). It should be noted that although the definitions of the
classification parameters were not explicitly stated by the proposers, 5 most
of the input data needed will be normally included in a standard joint survey;
however, the lack of definitions (e.g., slightly faulted or folded rock) may
lead to some confusion.
41. A practical example using the RSR Concept is as follows:
I" DIAM
SHOTCRETE ROCKBOLTS
70 1.25 5, DIAM
S~~ V-f24 T'/'
ROCKBOLTS-.,~.-
604"
-0.5
DIAM
'~-
z 50 o
- 40 1.
U 0
U~ 2.0 U
'
(RIB RATIO =100)
4.0
100 . I I I I I
2 3 4 S 6 7 a
RIB SPACING. FT 2
BOLT SPACING. FT
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS. IN.
21
I" D'AM
SHOTCRETE
ROCKBOLTS-,,
70 0. =I~r
Z1.5
2.0 oW3
500
n3.0
-5.0 (
u 30 -6.0 -ATU
10-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
R B SPACING, FT2
2
BOLT SPACING, FT
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS, '..
I" DIAM
SHOTCRETE I
:14:
ROCI(BOLTS
t= + =. -2
- -.
z
0
w -3.0 J
U 2:
o 30- 0
0
200
10 -I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a
RIB SPACING, FT
BOLT SPACING . FT 2
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS, IN.
22
The Geomechanics Classifi-ation (RMR System)
the following six parameters, all of which not only are measurable in the
field but can also be obtained from borings:
c. Spacing of discontinuities.
d. Orientation of discontinuities.
e. Condition of discontinuities.
f. Groundwater conditions.
rock mass conditions. These ratings were determined from 49 case histories
investigated by the author 23 while the ir.tial ratings were based on the
5
stud'-s by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner.
44. To apply the Geomechanics Classification, the rock mass along the
The above six classification parameters are determined for each structural
region from measurements in the field and entered onto the standard input data
sheet, as shown in Appendix B.
23
having three sets of discontinuities. Thus, whcn only two sets of disconti-
nuities are present, a conservative assessment is obtained. Once the
importance ratings of the classification parameters are established, the
ratings for the five parameters listed in Section A of Table 6 are summed to
yield the basic overall rock mass rating for the structural region under
consideration.
46. At this stage, the influence of the strike and dip of disconti-
nuities is included by adjusting the basic rock mass rating according to
stress .23
47. After the adjustment for discontinuity orientations, the rock mass
is classified according to Section C of Table 6, which groups the final
(adjusted) rock mass ratings (RMR) into five rock mass classes. Note that the
rock mass classes are in groups of twenty ratings each.
48. Next, Section D of Table 6 gives the practical meaning of each rock
mass class by relating it to specific engineering problems. In the case of
tunnels and chambers, the output from the Geomechanics Classification is the
stand-up time of an unsupported rock span for a given rock mass rating
(Figure 9).
24
C
44
(N Ulaw
044
0
LI z 41
a-I 2
0o 0 )::
0600
Z .4
4J
Li.
CD m C" u) C
>. Qi0dfS -rdS P.J~
<2
P - 100-RMR
100
where
P is the support load, 7 is the density of the rock, B is the tunnel
width and RMR is the rock mass rating.
taken together can they describe satisfactorily a rock mass. Each of the six
After all, if the discontinuities are widely spaced and the rock material is
weak, the rock material properties will influence the behavior of the rock
mass. Under the same confining pressure, the strength of the rock material
constitutes the highest strength limit of the rock mass. The rock material
model of the rock mass since they have both been subjected to the same
geological processes. It is believed that the engineering classification of
rock core retrieved from borings and the core does not require any special
26
preparation. Using simple portable equipment, a piece of drill core is
compressed between two points. The core fails as a result of fracture across
its diameter. The point-load strength index is calculated as the ratio of the
applied load to the square of the core diameter. A close correlation exists
(to within -20 percent) 38 between the uniaxial compressive strength (c) and
the point-load strength index I. such that for standard NX core (2.16-in.
diameter), a,, = 24 I.
54. In rock engineering, the information on the rock material strength
is preferable to that on rock hardness. The redson is that rock hardness,
which is defined as the resistance to indentation or scratching, is not a
quantitative parameter and is subjective to a geologist's personal opinion.
It has been employed in the past before the advent of the point-load strength
index which car now assess the rock strength in the field. For the sake of
completeress, the following hardness classification was used in the past:
a. Very soft rock. Material crumbles under firm blow with a sharp
end of a geological pick and can be peeled off with a knife.
It can be seen from the above that for the lower ranges up to medium hard
rock, hardness can be assessed from visual inspection and by scratching with a
knife and striking with a hammer. However, for rock having the uniaxial
compressive strength of more than 3,500 psi, hardness classification ceases to
be meaningful due to the difficulty of distinguishing by the "scratchability
test" the various degrees of hardness. In any case, hardness is only
indirectly related to rock strength, the relationship between the uniaxial
27
compressive strength and the product of hardness and density being expressed
39
in the following formula:
where
Spacing of discontinuities
56. The term discontinuity means all geological discontinuities present
in the rock mass that may be technically joints, bedding planes, minor faults,
or other surfaces of weakness. The behavior of discontinuities governs the
behavior of a rock mass as a whole. The presence of discontinuities reduces
the strength of a rock mass, and their spacing governs the degree of such
reduction. For example, a rock material with a high strength, but intensely
jointed, will yield a weak rock mass. Spacing of discontinuities is a
separate parameter, because the RQD index does not lend itself for assessing
the spacing of discontinuities from a single set of cores. A classification
of discontinuity spacings proposed by the International Society of Rock
Mechanics (ISRM) has been incorporated into the Geomechanics Classification
(Table 10).
Orientation of discontinuities
57. Studies by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner 5 have emphasized the
effect of discontinuity orientations on tunnel stability. In accordance with
Table 7, a qualitative assessment of favorability is preferred to more
elaborate systems for joint orientation and inclination effects.
28
Condition of uiscontinuities
58. This parameter includes roughness of the discontinuity surfaces,
their continuity, their opening or separation (distance between the surfaces),
the infilling (gouge) material, and weathering of the wall rock.
59. Roughness or the ratire of the asperities in the discontinuity
surfaces is an important parameter characterizing the condition of disconti-
nuities. Asperities that occur on joint surfaces interlock, if the surfaces
are clean and closed, and inhibit shear movement along the discontinuity
surface. Roughness asperities usually have a base length and amplitude
measured in terms of tenths of an inch and are readily apparent on a core-
sized exposure of a discontinuity. The applicable descriptive terms are
defined below (it should be stated if surfaces are stepped, undulating, or
planar):
29
the rock wall tend to become more interlocked, and both the filling and the
rock material contribute to the shear strength of joints. The shear strength
along a discontinuity is, therefore, dependent on the degree of separation,
presence or absence of filling materials, roughness of the surface walls, and
the nature of the filling material. The description of the separation of the
discontinuity surfaces is given in millimeter as follows:
Note that where the separation is more than 25 mm., the discontinuity should
be described as a major discontinuity.
62. The infilling (gouge) has a two-fold influence:
30
d. Highly weathered rock. Discoloration extends throughout the
rock, and the rock material is partly friable. The original
texture of the rock has mainly been preserved, but separation
of the grains has occurred.
It should be noted that the boundary between rock and soil is defined in terms
of the uniaxial compressive strength and not in terms of weathering. A
material with the strength equal to or above 150 psi is considered as rock.
Groundwater conditions
64. In the case of tunnels, the rate of inflow of groundwater in
gallons per minute per 1,000 ft of the tunnel should be determined,5 or a
general condition can be described as completely dry, damp, wet, dripping, and
flowing. If actual water pressure data are available, these should be stated
and expressed in terms of the ratio of the water pressure to the major princi-
pal stress. The latter can be either measured or determined from the depth
below surface, i.e., the vertical stress increases with depth at 1.1 psi per
foot of the depth below surface.
Applications
65. The rock mass along the tunnel route is divided into a number of
structural regions, and the above classification parameters are determined for
each structural region and entered onto the standard input data sheet, as
enclosed in Appendix B.
66. The advantage of the Geomechanics Classification is that it is not
24
only applicable to rock tunnels but also to rock foundations and slopes. 25
This is a very useful feature that can assist with the design of slopes near
the tunnel portals as well as allow estimates of the deformability of
foundations for such structures as bridges. For example, for a highway or
railroad route involving tunnels and bridges, the output from the Geomechanics
Classification for slopes and foundations will be very useful.
67. In the case of rock foundations, the rock mass rating RMR from the
Geomechanics Classification has been related 24 to the in situ modulus of
deformation in the manner shown in Figure 10.
31
0
2W
U 2w
MW ,I 0
wz
w Q 0(
wu
00~
co c
00
0 (n<
o
2
o 4
00
W
W 4-
0 a)
0 ,n-4 U
0 4 41
0 0 C
00
0 r (r N0 0n
2 0n
a, 0 0 d 0
N Sd 0 fllOS l.SN 44O.V~dl0~
N c2
68. In the case of rock slopes, the output is given in Section D of
Table 6 as the cohesion and friction of the rock mass. These output values
41
were based on the data compiled by Hoek and Bray. The validity of the
output from the Geomechanics Classification to the rock slopes was tested by
Steffen 25 who analyzed 35 slopes of which 20 had failed. He used the Geo-
mechanics Classification to obtain the average values of cohesion and friction
and then calculated the safety factor based on slope design charts by Hoek and
Bray. 4 1 The results given in Figure 11 show definite statistical trends.
69. In spite of its versatility, the Geomechanics Classification is not
considered sufficient to deal with all tunnel stability problems. 13 Like with
other empirical methods, it should be backed by a monitoring program during
the tunnel construction. The purpose of such a program would be to check on
the rock conditions predicted by the classification and to evaluate the
behavior of the adopted support measures.
70. A practical example using the Geomechanics Classification is as
follows:
Consider a slightly weathered quartzite in which a
20-ft-span tunnel is to be driven. The following classi-
fication parameters were determined:
Output: From Figure 9, for RMR = 63 and unsupported span = 20 ft, the
stand-up time will be about I month. From Table 8, recommended tunnel
support is rockbolts in crown 10 ft long, spaced at 8 ft with shotcrete
2 in. thick and wire mesh. From Figure 10, the rock mass modulus is
estimated as 3.7 x 106 psi.
33
0 STABLE SLOPES
FAILED SLOPES
5 /
4
Z
033
I'.
U.
2 2
FACTOR OF SAFETY
0-System
34
Institute. 12 Its development represented a major contribution to the subject
of rock mass classifications for a number of reasons: the system was proposed
on the basis of an analysis by some 200 tunnel case histories from
Scandinavia, 42 it is a quantitative classification system, and it is an
engineering system enabling the design of tunnel supports.
74. The Q-System is based on a numerical assessment of the rock mass
quality using six different parameters: (a) RQD, (b) number of joint sets,
(c) roughness of the most unfavorable joint or discontinuity, (d) degree of
alteration or filling along the weakest joint, (e) water inflow, and
(f) stress condition.
75. The above six parameters are grouped into three quotients to give
the overall rock mass quality Q as follows:
J J
Q = ROD x r x w
in Ja SRF
where
RQD = rock quality designation
Jn= joint set number
76. In Tables 11-13, the numerical values of each of the above para-
meters are interpreted as follows. The first two parameters represent the
overall structure of the rock mass, and their quotient is said to be a measure
of the relative block size. The quotient of the third and the fourth
parameters is said to be related to the interblock shear strength (of the
joints). The fifth parameter is a measure of water pressure, while the sixth
parameter is a measure of: (a) loosening load in the case of shear zones and
clay bearing rock, (b) rock stress in competent rock, and (c) squeezing and
swelling loads in plastic incompetent rock. This sixth parameter is regarded
as the "total stress" parameter. The quotient of the fifth and the sixth
parameters is regarded as describing the "active stress."
35
77. The proposers 12 of the Q-System believed that the parameters, J,
Jr, and Ja, played a more important role than joint orientation, and if joint
orientation had been included, the classification would have been less
general. However, the orientation is implicit in the parameters Jr and Ja,
a function of both the size and the purpose of the excavation, is obtained by
dividing the span, diameter, or the wall height of the excavation by a quan-
tity called the excavation support ratio (ESR.
Thus,
Equivalent dimension = Excavation span, diameter, or height, meter
ESR
79. The ESR is related to the use for which the excavation is intended
B. Vertical shafts:
36
80. The relationship between the index Q and the equivalent dimension
is illustrated in Figure 12 in which 38 support categories are shown by box
numbering. Support measures that are appropriate to each category are listed
in Tables 14-18. Since it was decided that bolting and shotcrete support
deserves most attention, case histories featuring steel rib support, concrete
arch roofs, and piecast linings have been ignored.
81. The length of bolts L is determined from the equation:
L = 2 + ,1.15 B/ESR
where B is the excavation width.
82. The 38 support categories listed in Tables 14-17 have been
specified to give estimates of permanent roof support since they were based on
roof support methods quoted in the case histories. For temporary support
determination, either Q is increased to 5Q or ESR is increased to 1.5 ESR.
83. The maximum limit for permanent unsupported spans can be obtained
as follows (see also Figure 13):
Q0.4
Maximum span (unsupported) = 2(ESR)
84. Figure 14 shows the relationship between the rock mass quality Q
and the stand-up time. In Figure 15, th. relationship between Q and permanent
support pressure Proof is plotted from the following equation:
If the number of joint sets is less than three, the equation is expressed as
/3
Proof =2 Jnl/2 Jr- I Q1
3
85. The proposers of the Q-System emphasized12 that while the support
recommendations for the large-scale excavations would generally incorporate
thicker shotcrete and longer bolts, the bolt spacing and the theoretical
support pressure would remain roughly the same. This is supported by
Figure 16 in which roof support pressures range from 5 to 20 psi independent
of the span.
86. When core is unavailable, the RQD is estimated 12 from the number of
joints per unit volume, in which the number of joints per meter for each joint
37
0
U 0
00
uj 0
00
D 02
00
0 W2
0 -0
0 02
0~~ 00L
0-
0
NO N
so 0-
NZ
\ 00 r~jUj
0r Z c
0000>
N 0.7
0 G
0 0 : cj -04 4
o~~ ~0 U
2 MNk~I Om
ZN1AfO
IN.Hw
0 3 0 3bNVI 0 U (
X 038
0
0
0
~0 -4-
*0 DZ LuH
-0 -L -
0- (DL LL
Co 0 0 LL
C LL I1 - XL
oLIi Ir 0 C<L4
0
0
V N R~ I N-
<
_jLo
-< )::
U- I"
y
IzC tDLJ0
o
xa IiiN :,
L Ljr~r W U11-
F- < wc0
4
- - 0 J00 4-)
oo*
>00
1.
0 -
0 0 0 0 c
u0mN
0~~ 0
- o-
0 Ir39
0
0
U0 x
0 41i
0 4 o
0 Eo
o0
00
0 -
.. 0
w W-
__< 0 (r
(i0 0 I
w < EL
U n
z
504 0
() X.
w~ UO 0) l)
F- tn
0 wzwmo 0
Ix W0
C.) I WI~ 0z
0 w
X, 3
O U 0 a.~ < .
Ir 0: 1- I L a-
< <( < z wi - D 0 0
W wi w 0W 4 0 W 1Z-
)*~ ~~ >0 >Z a >-
0 0 - -~DbO
3V411 dn-aNV.LS W- W
>01In
ZWI-<
wtrzw
0
LLJ W Ti
-
0
z
40
0 0
000
u ITo
0 o
0 S41
M 02
w 02
ot
a
Er 44
LL)
'-4
00
0(00
MfS~ .J <ddfl
41(r
40
i BLT
TENDON Prf roof
a.
0 40 B
EXCAVATION SPAN, FT
42
Thus: J, - 15 + 5 - 20 and RQD - 115 - 3.3 J, - 50 percent
1J -4
Q - 50 x 1 1 3.1 (poor)
4 4 1
43
PART III. GUIDE TO CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
89. The main rock mass classification systems currently in use in the
design of rock tunnels were fully described in Part II. Apart from Terzaghi's
classification, three other rock mass classification systems were shown to be
most promising: the RSR Concept, the Geomechanics Classification, and the
Q-System. Accordingly, the step-by-step design procedures will be summarized
in this section for these three classification systems. For Terzaghi's
90. The RSR Concept, a ground support prediction model developed in the
United States in 1973 by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner, 5 ,6 is particularly
suitable for selection of steel support for rock tunnels. It requires
determination of the three parameters A, B and C listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
44
SteR 6. Estimate the rock load from Table 5 and the theoretical
RR from the formula:
45
Ste 8. If the rock slopes near the tunnel portals are to be
designed, select from Section D of Table 6 the cohesion
and friction data (see paragraph 68).
92. The rock mass quality Q-System, which was developed in Norway in
1974 by Barton, Lien, and Lunde,12 enables the design of rock support in
tunnels and large underground chambers.
Step 5. From Figure 12, determine the support category for the
Q value and the tunnel span/ESR ratio.
Step 9. For record purposes, from Figures 13 and 14, estimate the
possible maximum unsupported span and the stand-up time.
46
Comparison of Procedures
of the three classification systems are given in paragraphs 41, 70, and 88. A
94. A correlation has been attempted between the Geomechanics RMR and
the Q-value. 23 A total of 111 case histories were analyzed involving 68
Scandinavian cases, 28 South African cases, and 21 other documented case
histories from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. The results
are plotted in Figure 17 from which it will be seen that the following
relationship is applicable:
RMR - 9 ln Q + 44
8
Rutledge recently determined in New Zealand the following correlations
between the three classification systems:
but should conduct a sensitivity analysis and cross-check the findings of one
classification with another. This could enable a better "feel" for the rock
mass.
47
000 AW3A GOOD WIA ood Wood AW3A
Uc
xO0
00
xO
00
- --
>0 -+
or 0
w0
0 0 0 U
X 04 .0 - - - -
a CY
o 0 0
0b 0
0 -
0 (fl
0 0 0r
0
00 0
>. 0
)) 0
-J 0 d.
4
W v) V0
cnt 0
W W 4 .M
0 1
z0W~ 0
w r4
0 0 0 0 o 0 02 0 c
48
PART IV: CASE HISTORY OF THE PARK RIVER TUNNEL
49
support patterns (for 88 percent of the tunnel) specified 1-1/8-in.-diam rock
anchors (rockbolts fully resin bonded but not tensioned), 11 ft long, spaced
4-1/2 ft with shotcrete 1 in. thick without wire mesh. In poor ground
condition, the bolt spacing would be between 2 and 4 ft with shotcrete 2 in.
thick. In two fault zones, expected to be approximately 300 ft long,
structural W8 steel ring beams at 3 ft were considered.
102. The anticipated bid prices (1978 dollars) for the tunnel were
$23.25 million for machine boring with precast liners (or $1,880 per foot) and
up to $33.37 million for conventional drill and blast construction.
Tunnel Geology
c. Two fault zones, one near sta 57 + 50 and the other between
sta 89 + 50 and 95 + 50.
105. Bedding and jointing are generally north to south which is perpen-
dicular to the tunnel axis (tunnel will run west to east). The bedding is
generally dipping between 10 and 20 deg while the joints are steeply dipping
between 70 and 90 deg. Joints in the shale have rough surfaces, and many are
very thin and healed with calcite.
106. Groundwater levels measured prior to studies indicated that the
piezometric level in the bedrock was normally 142 to 175 ft above the invert
of the tunnel.
50
3NI-7 Hal V#V
LLu
~ ~7'~A~K~ CID
~~'4AQ77Z'
TX ' 0
2,--
000
LU
ccn
6iz
cc 0
Q-
.,j
8 0
4
CC 0
Z--
-4
-4
Ct 2
0-
ISN 13 'N0UVA313
51
3N/7 N~ilvkv
I-
LUC
7 ,-,~-to
77 z
0n
lu8
00
z C1
k~so I
--4
cco
.- <4
3N1 7 Ho N
52
3N17 H3IOI V
LO~
t -4
0
0n
+1
ujI U
0 0
1SV~I o
53o
Ii.A
-4
I 0
V bN
404
0% '
/IS
Id'O.V31
544
Geological Investigations
112. Input data to enable rock mass classification by the RSR Concept,
the Geomechanics Classification, and the Q-System are listed in Figures C2
through C7, Appendix C. The data are presented for each structural region
anticipated along the tunnel route. Station limits for each region are shown
in Figure 18.
113. It should be noted that all the data entered on the classification
input sheets have been derived from the borings, including information on
55
discontinuity orientation and spacing. This was possible because borehole
photography was employed for borehole logging in addition to the usual core
logging procedures. However, considerable effort was required in extracting
the data from the geological report for the classification purposes since
engineering geological information was not systematically summarized in the
48
form of classification input work sheets.
56
C. Steel support in fault zones (300 ft): sta 93 + 50 to 95 + 50
and 56 + 00 to 57 + 00. Broken rock is assumed due to
faulting, dipping between 20 and 60 deg, and a low RQD of
30 percent. Pressure tests showed water inflows of 15-20 gpm
per foot of tunnel.
117. The above rock conditions are summarized in Table 19. The
designers believed (Reference 43, p. 21) that the actual conditions would
exceed the best average conditions in most of the tunnel. For machine
excavation, the rock load factors were expected to be reduced by as much as
50 percent in the major portion of the tunnel.
118. Geologic conditions at tunnel grade were considered suitable for
machine boring accompanied by precast tunnel lining. Because of the immediate
installation of the lining, the tunnel would drain less water under the city
than a drill and blast tunnel would. A drill and blast tunnel would stand up
to one year before a permanent lining was installed. Machine excavation would
also cause less vibrations.
119. The envisaged tunnel designs for each of the three ground
conditions are shown in Figure 19. The details of the recommended primary
(temporary) support and the final lining for drill and blast construction are
presented in Figure 19a. The basic design was based on the Terzaghi Method.
For machine tunneling, liner details are given in Figure 19b.
120. As the tunnel will be completely full with water when in
operation, the design of the tunnel liner assumed a pressure of 15 psi for
contact grouting, which would ensure that the liner remains in compression
under net internal load conditions. Grouting was required for the full ring.
For purposes of analyzing stresses in the concrete liners, a coefficient of
subgrade reaction of 1,000 kci (580 pcf) for the rock was assumed.
121. Tunnel instrumentation was planned to provide for design verifi-
cation, future design applications, and monitoring of construction effects.
Ten test sections at locations based on differing geologic or design
conditions were installed throughout the length of the tunnel. These test
sections consisted of 10 extensometers (MPBX's) installed from the surface,
pore pressure transducers, rockbolt load cells, convergence points, and
surface and embedded strain gages installed within the tunnel. The test
sections have been arranged to provide the greatest amount of data based on
57
C4
k, u4 -AI
00
0 z a
A..A
I-4
/ 4
4J
A7 4
58
8eckpcA~~q pe.~rd
7*0e
SVIp1
darn ,~,re
L1 ~ ~
- -~
~ ~ ____ ' e
Le'n of precoit jeoflen0.3 ba.d, 7a
compressive .sfrenpA of SO~poemmO oAr
wqaechat Zedgj
Ib~ge Ar/bt' 2.5rthe- procedure w~ill iave Ad
care fully m'amitored duvr g tAe conojtruet,0a
joho-se to Injure oflfOFMl preSSdCIJ iMrea.46t
,'/e crojs sgcot, 0 n.
SECTION C-C
TRANSVERSE JOINT DETAIL
SCALE 3%1'0
b,.
PRECAST LINER
59
the planned construction schedule of a TBM with precast lining. Since the
precast segments were designed for the worst ground conditions but were used
throughout the tunnel, they were in effect overdesigned for the major portion
of the tunnel. If the instrumentation program indicated that higher strength
units were needed for a particular section of the tunnel, the design could
have been modified by increasing the steel reinforcement, and keeping the same
external shape. The purpose of the instrumentation program was to validate
design assumptions, and to refine the procedures for future designs.
Construction
122. The tunnel was advanced upgrade from the outlet shaft. Upon
completion of the outlet shaft, approximately the first 235 ft of the tunnel
was advanced using drill-and-blast excavation to form a U-shaped chamber about
25 ft by 25 ft in cross section. After completion of the drill-and-blast
section, a tunnel boring machine (TBM) was assembled in the excavated chamber
and the tunnel advance using the TBM began. The machine was a Dobbins fully-
shielded rotary hard-rock TBM which cut a 24-ft diam bore. The lining
consisted of four-segment precast concrete liner rings which were erected in
the tail shield of the TBM. The segments were 9 in. thick.
60
rock mechanics, i.e., the use of monitoring to
assess rock mass stability. Since the
Terzaghi Method uses such qualitative rock
mass descriptions as "blocky and seamy," this
does not utilize fully all the quantitative
information that is often available from a
site exploration program.
b. The RSR Concept was not sensitive enough for the rock
conditions encountered; its application is limited to
temporary steel support design.
61
PART V: RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
124. The present study has revealed a number of aspects in the present
and more economical rock tunnels, would result in the following areas:
62
h. If more carefully documented tunnel case histories are
compiled featuring comparisons between support designs
based on different methods, better understanding of design
concepts will be achieved.
63
PART VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
130. For the design of rock tunnels, the latest rock mass
classification system, such as the RSR Concept, the Geomechanics
Classification, and the Q-System, offer a realistic and economical alternative
to the tunnel-design procedures based on the Terzaghi (steel support) Method.
Recommendations
64
e. Research should be initiated into three areas:
65
REFERENCES
I. Hoek, E., and Londe, P., "The Design of Rock Slopes and Foundations,"
Proceedings, Third International Congress Rock Mechanics, International
Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver, Colo., 1974, Vol 1A, pp 613-752.
2. Terzaghi, K., "Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Support," Rock Tunneling
with Steel Supports, eds. R. V. Proctor and T. White, Commercial Shearing
Co., Youngstown, Ohio, 1946, pp 15-99.
10. Pacher, F., Rabcewicz, L., and Gosler, J., "Zum Derseitigen Stand der
Gebirgsklassifizierung in Stollen-und Tunnelbau," Proceedings, XXII
Ceomechanics Colloquium, Salzburg, 1974, pp 51-58.
12. Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., "Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support," Rock Mechanics, Vol 6, No. 4,
1974. pp 183-2j6.
66
14. Bieniawski, Z. T., "Geomechanics Classification of Rock Masses and its
Application in Tunneling," Proceedings, Third International Congress Rock
Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver, Colo., 1974,
Vol IIA, pp 27-32.
17. Barton, C. M., "A Geotechnical Analysis of Rock Structure and Fabric in
the C.S.A. Mine," Geomechanics Paper No. 24, CSIRO, Australia, 1977,
pp 1-30.
21. Kidibinski, A., Gwiazda, J., and Hladysz, Z., "Mechanical Properties of
Rocks and Rock Masses Stability Determining by Means of a Hydraulic
Borehole Penetrometer," Central Mining Institute Poland, Prace: Seria
Dodtkowa, 1978, pp 1-41.
22. Strasimirov, A., and Christov, S., "A Uniform Classification of Rock in
Road Tunnel Construction," (in Bulgarian), Patista, Vol 13, No. 10, 1974,
pp 13-15.
25. Steffen, 0. K. H., "Research and Development Needs in Data Collection for
Rock Engineering," Exploration for Rock Engineering, ed. Z. T.
Bieniawski, A. A. Balkema Press, Rotterdam, 1976, Vol 2, pp 93-104.
67
26. Stini, I., "Tunnelbaugeologie," Springer-Verlaa, Vienna, 1950, p 336.
29. Houghton, D. A., "The Assessment of Rock Masses and the Role of Rock
Quality Indices in Engineering Geology with Reference to Tunneling in
Hard Rock," M. S. Thesis, Imperial College, London, 1975, p 122.
33. Cor-ling, E. J., Hendron, A. J., and Deere, D. U., "Rock Engineering for
Underground Caverns," Proceedings, Symposium on Underground Rock
Chambers, American Society of Civil Engineers, Phoenix, Ariz., 1972,
pp 567-600.
34. Cording, E. J., and Deere, D. U., "Rock Tunnel Supports and Field
Measurements," Proceedings. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference,
American Institution of Mining Engineers, New York, 1972, pp 601-622.
36. Brekke, T. L., and Howard, T., "Stability Problems Caused by Seams and
Faults," Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American
Institution of Mining Engineers, New York, 1972, pp 25-41.
37. Deere, D. U., and Miller, R. P., "Engineering Classification and Index
Properties of Intact Rock," Technical Report No. AFNL-TR-65-116, Air
Force Weapons Laboratory, New Mexico, 1966.
68
40. ASCE Task Committee for Foundation Design Manual, "Subsurface
Investigation for Design and Construction: Part II," Journal Soil
Mechanics Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol 98, SM6, Jun 1972, pp 557-578.
41. Hoek, E., and Bray, J. W., "Rock Slope Engineering," revised second
edition, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 1977, pp 113-115
and 150-192.
42. Selmer-Olsen, R., and Broch, E., "General Design Procedure for
Underground Openings in Norway," Proceedings. First International
Conference on Storage in Excavated Rock Caverns, Stockholm, 1977,
pp 219-226.
43. Department of the Army, New England Division, CE, "Park River Local
Protection, Connecticut River Basin, Hartford, Connecticut Auxiliary
Conduit Tunnel - Site Geology, Foundations, Concrete Materials and
Detailed Design of Structures," Design Memorandum No. 9, Dec 1976,
Waltham, Mass.
44. Nataraja, M., "In Situ Stress Measurements, Park River Project, Hartford,
Connecticut," Miscellaneous Paper S-77-22, Nov 1977, U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
46. Bieniawski, Z. T., Banks, D. C., and Nicholson, G. A., "Discussion of the
Park River Tunnel," Journal of the Construction Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 106, 1980, pp 616-618.
47. Lane, K. S., "Field Test Sections Save Cost in Tunnel Support,"
Underground Construction Research Council, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, 1975, pp 53.
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abad, J., Celada, B., Chacon, E., Gutierrez, V., and Hildago, E., 1983,
Application of Geomechanics Classification to Predict the Convergence of Coal
Mine Galleries and to Design their Supports, Proceedings, 5th International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melbourne, Australia, Vol. 2, pp. E15-E19.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., 1974, "Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support," Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp. 189-236.
Brook, N., and Dharmaratne, P. G. R., 1985, "Simplified Rock Mass Rating
System for Mine Tunnel Support," Traasactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, Section A, Vol. 94, July, pp. A148-A154.
70
Einstein, H. H., Thomson, D. E., Azzouz, A. D., O'Reilly, K. P.,
Schultz, M. S., and Ordun, S., 1983, "Comparison of Five Empirical Tunnel
Classification Methods - Accuracy, Effect of Subjectivity and Available
Information," Proceedings, 5th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM,
Melbourne, Vol. 1, pp. C303-C313.
Fairhurst, C., and Lin, D., 1985, "Fuzzy Methodology in Tunnel Support
Design," Proceedings, 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 269-278.
Fowell, R. J., and Johnson, S. T., 1982, "Rock Classifications for Rapid
Excavation Systems," Proceedings. Symposium on Strata Mechanics, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 241-244.
Gonzalez DeVallejo, L. I., 1983, "A New Rock Classification System for
Underground Assessment Using Surface Data," Proceedings, International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon,
Portugal, Vol. 1, pp. 11.85-11.94.
Graituger, G. S., 1986, "Rock Mass Characteristics of the Rocky Mountain Pumped
Storage Project Hydroelectric Tunnel and Shaft," Proceedings, 27th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, AIME, New York, pp. 961-967.
Jethwa, J. L., Dube, A. K., Singh, B., and Mithal, R. S., 1982, "Evaluation of
Methods for Tunnel Support Design in Squeezing Rock Conditions," Proceedings.
4th International Congress, International Association of Engineering Geology,
LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 5, pp. 125-134.
Kaiser, P. K., and Gale, A., 1985, "Evaluation of Two Rock Mass Classification
Systems," Rock Mechanics in Excavations for Mining and Civil Works, ISRM,
Mexico City, pp. 339-345.
Kaiser, P. K., MacKay, C., and Gale, A. D., 1986, "Evaluation of Rock
Classifications at B. C. Rail Tumbler Ridge Tunnels," Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 205-234.
Kane, W. F., and Karmis, M., 1986, "Geologic and Geotechnical Controls on the
Stability of Coal Mine Entries," Proceedings. International Symposium on
Application of Rock Characterization Techniques in Mine Design, AIME,
New York, pp. 124-132.
Kendorski, F., Cummings, R., Bieniawski, Z. T., and Skinner, E., 1983, "Rock
Mass Classification for Block Caving Mine Drift Support," Proceedings, 5th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melboiirnp, pp. B51-B63.
71
King, R. L., 1986, "Expert Reasoning Models Applied to Mine Geologic Data,"
Proceedings, 3rd Conference on the Use of Computers in the Coal Industry,"
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 65-70.
Lokin, P., Nijajilovic, R., and Vasic, M., 1983, "An Approach to Rock Mass
Classification for Underground Works," Proceedings, 5th International Congress
on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melbourne, Vol. 1, pp. B87-B92.
Nakao, N., and lihoshi, S., and Koyma, S., 1983, "Statistical Reconsideration
on the Parameters for Geomechanics Classification," Proceedings. 5th
International Congress of Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melbourne, Vol. 1,
pp. B13-B16.
Newman, D. A., 1985, "The Design of Coal Mine Roof Support and Yielding
Pillars for Longwall Mining in the Appalachian Coalfield", Ph.D. Thesis, The
Pennsylvania State University, 392 p.
Newman, D. A., and Bieniawski, Z. T., 1985, "A Modified Version of the
Geomechanics Classification for Entry Design in Underground Coal Mines," AIME
Preprint No. 85-313, 10 p.
Nguyen, V. U., and Ashworth, E., 1985, "Rock Mass Classification by Fuzzy
Sets," Proceedings, 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Vol. 2, pp. 937-946.
72
Nicholson, G. A., and Bieniawski, Z. T., 1986, "An Empirical Constitutive
Relationship for Rock Mass," Proceedings. 27th U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, AIME, New York, pp. 760-766.
Oliveira, R., Costa, C., and Davis, J., 1983, "Engineering Geological Studies
and Design of Castelo Do Bode Tunnel," Proceedings. International Symposium on
Geology and Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. I,
pp. 11.69-11.84.
Sandback, 1985, "Road Header Drift Excavation and Geomechanics Rock Classifi-
cation," Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, AIME,
New York, Vol. 2, pp. 902-916.
Singh, R. N., Elmherig, A. M., and Sunu, M. Z., 1986, "Application of Rock
Mass Characterization to the Stability Assessment and Blast Design in Hard
Rock Surface Mining Excavations," Proceedings, 27th U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, AIME, New York, pp. 471-478.
Stewart, D. R., 1986, "A Review of Techniques for Predicting the Natural
Fragmcntation Characteristics of Block Caving Orebodies," Proceedings,
International Symposium on Application of Rock Characterization in Mine
Design, AIME, New York, pp. 181-189.
Udd, J. E., and Wang, H., 1985, "A Comparison of Some Approaches to the
Classification of Rock Masses for Geotechnical Purposes," Proceedings, 26th
U.S. Syposium on Rock Mechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 69-78.
Unal, E., 1983, Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards for Coal L'ine
Roofs, Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 355 p.
73
Unrug, K., and Szwilski, T. B., 1982, "Methods of Roof Cavability Prediction,"
Proceedings. State-of-the-Art of Ground Control in Longwall Mining and Mining
Subsidence, AIME, New York, pp. 13-30.
Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R., and Skinner, E., 1974, "Ground Control
Prediction Model - RSR Concept," Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference, AIME, New York, pp. 691-707.
Zadeh, L. A., 1965, "Fuzzy Sets," Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3,
June, pp. 338-353.
Zhen-Yu, T., and Zu-Zeng, P., 1983, "Classification System of Fuzzy Sets for
Rock Engineering," Proceedings. International Symposium on Engineering Geology
and Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, pp. II.-l -
11.-9.
74
5 A 4- 0 A0
to to
4 to '
4)5
ov~~~
L0 '.
~ * o0t~ ~~ * .
t'
* .
S
.
C
4)4
S
0)
50
s:4 G3
4)J
0C'
.3
4
~ 4). -4
0) is 0 a ' 3. 4 4) 4j
Ad ~
s. cl 315 Ci.
0J.
-- .: .3 43 14j
0 3
41-2
3+ 033
W
41.l 41 4 4)
4)03)0-4)) Z-4 0+3 4)4
+3a +0
0~~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .. 3o
,,-
.
04 0v~.
-4...
I4) 4) o )L
N) ov e
-4 w-4 m1
'A 0 . 0 A m . a)00 U'. 1. ' ) .
-l r 1
'.j + U'
0. 1 0 43
-4) Q 1. 1 - u d1 02 9 0 'Ac
0 02 02 02 a2 V%
to cc m 2 02
En
m+ u) L)44 U) (Wu
.0~
.00
1
4)
U) ~1 4
o .-
44-
1.
W ))'
01-- r.
0 0T v4 .4+ P.. m 5+1.
v14 r ..- 4 to - 0
t--3 4) .0 4J 4) .54j 0k '060-.0-
0
-4,- 0+ w. 4) () o54).-a
a, 043 4
+3 4)
C0.10.
r.
-44r
0
01-4
4
v
to
0
4)
14
v)44
4))0
6
~d )
06.3
1.
..
0 1 L\
-' 0 e -t- U\0 w 4)0C00I
02 1'33
31I ) - u.
4 '0- 3 u) a))0 0 I .
04 0 *0-- t.-4 ) t- 0 00 v
'.1 0i 0 00
(74)03 c
'-44)&C m
4) v) .. . 0 . -40-43Cr- 0 -4.
r; a)14 -4 .
-443. A0 a )0 50 .. *4) -63+4)4
4): c : :1 ...-
0 4) 3' 1)4 5 4) aU 0.. 04
41 E 0 04) 4) 0 * 0. 0 . o-0
54) 4 4) 0 0 4) . 0
43 + .43 6 r4 -44
44)5 C'4 u) v.0 u _T0
-4'- t -4
ho
-4 W3 V - 43+3r_ C 0 td 0 3.. 004 Q~ . I0s 05+>
+ a 0 (d.~ 4) 0) )5 04)0 -04 CL. 4 .04
w.3 .'. . 4) r.44)
+ 031' '.' 0 I 4.4 0 CU4 - 4d0
4- 0 ) 0 04 )00
0 + . 97 0 Q 0 r-.
4 4) 4
434 4)
02 02 02 02 0 02 0 0 .
'-4 *- U0cj d - v'
43 0- .4) d '
-Q 4. rM .:t 41
.4) .0 4J I v'0 )
.0 4)\ 00 aD
03aQ1'1 0 j0 030U) 04 V4~ 0I ,0
'004.4 0 ,
() 0)4 01 110 1 4 01 -4.0 41. 4."02Cil 4)1. -L\ -0
0
0
0-4
~ EO
~ to
~
.-4 >
3-.
a~4 '-
W.
dc4
m)
).
-4.
3 - 02
A-3)-+
-) 0
)
04
44)
(a 02 0 02q
it a3 0k 4)0
4)0 1. .1.43+
4-. 10' a)31 4).04)
0 O o of.4 -L. Ofl. 4)3 '-4 .4
U. W .0 oil3
00+3 3'04 -40 p4)4
4) . 00 .0 ) ) 4 4) -4 13' 44 w
0 .4) 4. +3 4)d .0 4)0 N 5 0 0'. j. ;3 ca
0n a\ -. 45) 4)) c .0 0.0 +3-4 34)
+3, +3 '.0 033.
N3 00c1. &'3,-
u3 v
;0.
Q- -.41 - 4) u cU'. to a\ u - 4+3 C -
00A+3
4 41 4
+3
43
4)
43
W3II
4)
+3
4(. V
0+30
~.0 433+
-'
00
0+
4
a,
4)
ID v) . 00.
-4o0 4
41
4)10
&15
v' 4'
3)
)4
3 :3 I..
02 02 v l'
to I4) .1v 0)
.. 01 u 404 .
1. .4) .4) .4 1. 3 0 u1.\jc
0
34u
-o1
'0
V34 4-31
u4
>1.
4)
v-. r4I I
o ~ 0~1
411A
'03
0, Go 04
ON42t~
0
8.1
4)
~ o . x 0.1
1 04N)
V 3 .L 4)
02 0 0 % 20
Table 2
Rock Structure Rating - Parameter A
Max, Value 30
Basic Rock Type Geological Structure
Hard Med. Soft Decomp.
Igneous 1 2 3 4 Slightly Moderately Intensely
1 2 3 4 Massive Faulted Faulted Faulted
Metamorphic
or or or
Sedimentary 2 3 4 4 Folded Folded Folded
Type 1 30 22 15 9
Type 2 27 20 13 8
Type 3 24 18 12 7
4 6
Type 19 15 10
Table 3
Rock Structure Rating - Parameter B
56-
Rock Structure Rating
Parameter "B"
U40- Joint Pattern
32 -Direction of'Drive
0
z
24 4 Ma.Vle4
U, I
1 'Strike ______________________Mx
_L to Axis au
Strike 4Lto Axis
8-1 Direction of Drive Direction of Drive
j2 both With Dip Against Dip Both
0 8 16 24 32 404 5 Dip of Prominent Joints* Dip of Prominent Joints*
THICKNESS IN INCHES Fiat Dipping Vertical Dipping Vertical Flat Dipping Vertical
f - dw;
JF di i~ -~ 2' to, 50r dp; and vert ical - 517 to 90 dew.
Table 4
Rock Structure Rating - Parameter C
Max. Value 25
Anticipated Sum of Parameters A + B
Water 13 - 44 45 - 75
Inflow Joint Condition*
(gpm/1000') Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor
None 22 18 12 25 22 18
Slight
(<200 gpm) 19 15 9 23 19 11
Moderate
(200-1000 gpm) 15 11 7 21 16 12
Heavy
(>1000 gpm) 10 8 6 18 14 10
Ntl- O7\ H-
H- H- CMj
o - t- ON\ N :
co x ~\10 H
00
H1
C
N
CMj
(N
_z
CQ
(n)
0
9 -0t-- w- 0 U 4 '0
H 4P
cr -P-
mO
ccC) LIN '0 O C
ifN co HD fn \0 co 0 C
H\ZM M C CM C; C
~
C! ~ a _:
.4 co 0 (n UN' co t--
IV -'
~ L0
L\'00 MN (I;
Cfl : H L(N
0 s-_: aj t- NN N. NN m- m mI" m
o
xZ C) C CO CM '. O CM LtN t- ON H ;
C) H H1 CMj CMj CMj m' (Y) __- --
4-) C) (D
Q) 0 aH)
cd *H m'd H- 0
C; . t- 0 CM - '0 O O
E-4 +' C) > CMj CMj m~ (Y -Y'
_z -T
z -4
w 0
HOi 0 CO H - O C;I. CM
_-r LCT UN\ UN\ UN\ UN\ \0 \D0 \10
:T Ll
UN U-\ \. 0 \.0 \.0 0 '0 '0
Rating 15 12 7 42 0
Drill core quality ROO 90%- 100% 75%.90% 50%-75% 25%-50% 25%
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
2Rating 20 13 1085
Not rougt Suttace Slighty rough urteces.Slickensided0 surtaces Sf og>5mtil
Very rough srae.OR Sf og m hL
Coofo
fdsotniis Ntcontinuous SlgtyGouge < 5 mm thick OR
Codt~
tdsotnts No separation Separation < 1 mm Sapertwof ' 1 mm OR-5ti Seaton>5m
4 ~~~~~Unweathered
wall rock Slightly weatrhered velt Highly weathered wells separation 1-5m eaain>m
______________
_____________ _____________ ____________ I Continuous Continous
Rating 30 25 20 10
inlw1e01 Nn 10-25 25- 125 > 125
10 m
tnnel legt Nnlrel min litresImin litres/mn
Rating 15 10 7 4 0 __
[Class Rating
No
Description
100--S1
. good rock
Vrv
I
80-61
Good roc:
'i"'
e60-41
Fair rock
a.-a21
PC-ock
20
Very poforrck
mo w0."
w 0,
oto-
14 U
C4- -4
0
u n0,
D, a) 0
J-j>
0 rq
43
0 0~ 4
06
CCt
4, m-
x oc
4,go
00
*00
~~4,
00
(n ti) w
\,O a.O V -4
4-', U 44 -
0) z4- a)- Hc )
-40 0 0) d1) .0\ ( 1
a) 0) 0 + , D
0D 0 1 4-) 'd W 0 $4-'
4-J 4) 4 0) c-.i.
4U)
4-4H
0 c
0V
h
cu ) 0 0
'C4- 0)) O4d Od 0
0~ 0)H .H Z .,OU)r ~ r
V)a co -1 -4 cc
0
P O 0 r.
0) ul
o, t-' 4-' 00
75 c -0 '0 O
- H 0 0.0 100 '0 *
o 4 ~ )0 00) 00 04 0
0"4*Hl -C.d-
r.)C(U
0-0 a) 4- 0)C U,
S.. 0 U) - A) 4-) W
O 4-
0d 0 0 >, 'i V>1 0,
C) L) 4- ,4 0 00'0 - r0
HO U) 00 1-. 4 -0 0) 4
0z *tH Hn
00\C> -: u p000u Dc
d O
odI 5
0 0
Cc
ci
~ +'O.U-\14-4-4o .H w
- c
d
0
E O0 r 4-' N 0( 0- -14 U Hto0 H- r+.
O. 0 - 0'OH00 +) .0 4- 4- 4-C4-
0
u' 5.0 HOa)(\ U) co 00)
> OH H
C,1~ d ~~~ -0)II 0
W d r-U 0 0 rd w 0 0 mU
)0 Cd--
,iU 0 4-)4- C. 4.) 0 Z 4-' H-0H
0 0
H C..
H 4-'lU .O..O4-; , 0 O 4-3
41 U)) 000 E-. 0~ H
4-) 0 . cc'r4
C ) OH >,d- C0 u) .d CdW A U
-,A H4. E0H0 - r. r H
Hq 4-' 10 ) rddH
0)>)' 00)
0 d- Z-4-Cd5- 4 +'d0-I 4-'0O04 0
0n 4- 0 UH U)0 U H 41 U 4J04
COA :3 >) OP
0) U\ X4 0 d4Jn~CC0-
1',U 0
0 0. u\ 0.Cd)r-' . a 0'U
0 0+00 d - H0
a'C-..- E+H04.-+. 0+
0)~S 4-H d .-
C0 0
-40 00) Ino
0)>U -4
CCE 0 0U0> 4)00
0 AO UbO-O
0 40
Table 9
3 7
Classification of Intact Rock Strength
Uniaxial Compressive
Strength
Description lbf/in 2 MPa Examples of Rock Types
Table 10
3
Classification for Discontinuity Spacing
Note:
(i) Values of (O)r are intended as an approximate
guide to the mineralogical properties of the
alteration products, if present.
Table 13
Q-ystem: Description and Ratings - SRF and Jw12
2
Support Conditional Factors SP kg/ca SPAN/ Type of Note
CategIn
rr o ESP () (pro. ESP Support (Tab.e .8)
1. 1000-LOO .. 0.O1 20-40 sb (utg) --
2- 1000-400 ...... o 0.01 30-60 sb (utg) --
3: 000-00 ...... '0.01 46-80 at (uts) --
4 10OO-100 ,001
'0... 65-1oo ob (utg) --
5. 400-100 ...... 0.05 12-30 ab (utg) --
6- 400-100 ...... 0.05 19-45 Sb (utg) --
7- 400-00 0 ...... 0.05 30-65 sb (utg) --
8. 400-100 ...... 0.05 48-88 sb (utg) --
9 100-0 *0 .... 0.25 8.5-19 ab (.tg) --
'00 .... B (uJg) 2.5-3. --
S100-40 >3C .... 0.25 14-30 B (utg) 2-3 a --
'30 .... B (utg) 1.5-2 m --
<--
.... B (t) 1.5-2 m I, 00, IV
'S (r) 5-10ca
1610-10 15 .... 0.5 30-65 B (tg) 1.5-2 I I, V, VI
See cla
note XII B5 .... B (tg) 1.5-2 I. V, VI
.S (a) 10-15 c.
Auth-r,' estiatee of support. Insufficient case records available for reliable estimtior of support requirements. The type of support
tO be i-el in categories I to e will depend on the blasting technique. S.oth vall blasting ard thorough barring-doan my reaove the need
or upport, tgh-wll blasting my result in the need for single applications of ehetcrete. especially where tte exvatior height is
'! - F .ure case records should differentiate categories I to e. Key to Support Tsbles IL-17 Bb - spot bolting; B - systematic bolt-
1nG. -*g - otensoned, grouted, (tg; - tensioned, (expsnding shell type for competent rocx masses, grouted post-tensioned in very poor
Iua !.y rok I el see not. ; S - ahotcrete, (r) - mesh reinforced. cla - chair link mesh,CCA - east concrete arch, (sr) ate-
relnfor.eu Bolt spacings a- given in metres (m,. Shotcrete, or cost concrete arch thIckmnet Is given in rentlaetres (Cot.
Table 15
Q-System: Support Measures for Rock Masses of "Fair" and "Poor" Quality
(Q Range: 10-1)12
P
2
Support Conditional Factors SPAN/ Kg/cm SPAN/ Type of Note
Category j " Jr' ESR (approx.) ESR (m) Support (Table 18)
.... ..............
.... ' -r.cae r --,rdi a a t- ! rr.,t.e e''v-ta r ,f >a;;tr" ru:renments.
Table 16
Q-System: Support M~easures for Rock Mdasses of "Very Poor" Quality (Q Range: .-. )1
Conditional P
Support Factors - SPAN/ kg/cm2 SPAN! Type of Note
Category Q* RQ0!/J,, JxIJa ESR (mn) (approx.) ESE (m) Support (Table 18)
25 1.0-0.4 '10 '0.5 -- 2.25 1.5-4.2 B (utg) 1 m + m- or cin I
1O -0.5 -- B (utg) 1 m + S (m-) 5 cm I
-- 0.5 B- (tg) 1 m * S (m-) 5 cm I
26 2.0-0-L -- - -- 2.25 3.2-7.5 B (tg) .1m Vill, X, xi
+S (m-) 5-7.5 cm
-- - -B (utg) 1 m + S 2.5-5 cm, I, IX
27 1.0-0... -- - 12 a 2.25 6-18 B (tg) I m I, Ix
4-S (mr) 7.5-10 cm
-- - 12 m B (utg) Im I, ix
aS (m-) 5-7.5 cm
-- - 12 m CCA 20-4.0cm ViII, X. xi
4-B (tg) 1 m
- <-
12 m S (m-) 10-20 cm ViIl, X. XI
4-B (tg) 1m
28' 1.0-0.4 -- - 30 m 2.25 15-38 B (tg( 1 m 1, IV, V, Ix
See 4-S (m-) 30-40 cm
note XII -- - >20, '30 B (tg( 1 m I, ii, IV, Ix
4-S (m-) 20-30 cm
- -- '20 m B (tg(1Im I,ii, ix
4-S (m-) 15-20 cm
- - -CCA (ax-)30-100 cm IV, ViII, X, XI
4-B (tg) 1 m
29- 0.4-0.1 >5 '0.25 -- 3.0 1.0-3.1 B (utg( 1 m + S 2-3 cm -
'5
0.25 -- B (utg) 1 m + S (m-) 5 cm -
-- 0.25 -- B (tg( 1 m +- S (m-) 5 cm -
i.j&hors' estimats of supprrt. Irnztfficiert caae records aveL.able for reliable estimation of support requirements.
-X H H
PH HX
4- Q) H-
0,
0tj u 0
LI\ C LfLE
C\
0 0 u- 0
r-
~-
C uLi I
C.0
E-
uCI
00Cc
m'-mC'-
CiL
%-4-' L-C \ -f I'DC:J U,
L\ Lf I 0E~
0 $. 1 L\ I 0 1 0 o
00. 00 - 00 00o
0 C'J 0 1I r -I C\J0-
v)0 - ~0 00 -1 C\J p.j0 \10 \00 0 0-CC\,- N ,
2) a -4L- Lr\ IPC ~= 9--7
1 II -- I -
0x U o0 m U P 0) ) tii- ) )E Cq
4* 0-
'p. 000 0
CDI C ~ .
U 0 9 w0 CD
a) 0
0 -
C- 0C
0 -14
a 41 Id I I I I I
x
CO ~ OC-
C CLI I 1 0
All
002
Ally
V
1 1 1 1 1I 1 1 1 I C
') -- 0 C
Z 44
U) ')
4' 4'
0 0) 0
00 0 0 C
00 0 0
0 5 0
000
0
-r 4) 0 i-- *
U)zU) CU
Table 18
12
Q-System: Supplementary Notes for Support Tables
4. or0 *0
.c
a 0 ~ .
0
Iu u
II 0 u.
4.4.40 ~ rC
00
cz
0 (a
0
e L
04 0
o co
*0 0
040
>4 v C I -
> .* x. H. 0 0 1
s/ OC 0 0 O
0
t-3 z \04-'
0 0.. m C
., HH C\j
oc
00 -
4-) -'s-
a) H) \D. 0
s-I 0 dt-4-
Q) Q)C m U) 'd CMj
4-' -0
Q)
U) 4-
(d
3
~ -j _z
3
r. U) Cf) C c00
5-4 0 s-
4
ci 0 0
Q)
0 I-q C: CM
NM 0 4-) NM a)
V) I C)
t
0
C) 0
a) m0oc
rn C) Co W 4
CC)- 0 I_ - C ) CQ -: -j
0 0 0H'. -
4-'0 0)CJ~
aD~H)4-' CM -~ L' 0
4-)
C)
4-'
V) +
0~C r)*-4 -
-4 Y)C +~
x90 4-)9 r- 4) 09 H
4) ~ 04-)
(1) 0 Q) 10 a), He.4 >,
5-t II Id -)
Id 0lE40
Table 21
Rock Mass Classifications for the Park River Tunnel in
Accordance with the Geomechanics Classification
Intact rock 7 7 7
strength
RQD 20 20 13 4
Discontinuity 20 20 10 5
spacing
Discontinuity 20 22 10 6
condition
Groundwater 8 10 7 4
In situ 75 79 47 26
rating
RMR Good rock Good rock Poor rock Very poor rock
70 74 37 16
H C
o 4-) rd
0) Lf\ H )00
S0 C- Q
LofU\ 0 Lr\ Lr\ "H CJ ) Q)
En2 CjJ C ~S.0 +1
4
4-,)
-i0
0 0204
+30 02r-0 -
00* 4-
0)0H~+ 0
00- C C)
> 4-) 03 00"
0) 0 \0 0 $ 0~U
4-4 to 4-
0 )
0)
>1
~ ~ 0
+0
H- H- C\J 4- \ HCJ'
m 44
cc 4-3 \10 0 a, H-
C\J 0 U' D \4: -
W~ )
0) *H $2C/+0 ( ) m+3c (
H U2
- Q) m 0 H -) r I 4- 4-)
>
0- 0 d C Ii
C~j 0 0 EQF -
U3 4- M C
C)
0 d :3:
02) ' C\
E- *H U L\ 30
0~ 0 0 0 Cdl UN C 0 0 0 $-CM
L +-)LtN0)
uH -) 0 ON~ Hi *- O H 4-)*
0d H 0 a) 0 C C
rl0-
zxrI 43 C 4-
02 0P 00
>, Pc
0) S.) OH
U) 0
+3 H Hc Hd Ho L0 0d' 0 2a
0) 0 0 z z P
a)ri4-4 0+3
+3
0+Nw3, 0
0 00 0.f
5-4 r4 r4 r 4 4a
0 00 02
0 +03 0
(1) 0);
C) +
0 0) )
E O CL 0 0 1.. O
CL
0 C 0
.OC .3 u
0G C "00O 0 .r3 oV
0.0
r - 1. .10
F, 0 - w .4
C-1 0 4 0
(n 0
.000Z0
06
<0 0 cc0
C -I C C
N CC
0 m
U 0 0i
OD SIV
I I 'D + a
40 cO.. >0SA
C i- nr~ I- CAgo
APPENDIX A: TERZAGHI S
ROCK LOAD TABLES
Table Al
2
Terzaghi's Rock Load Classification for Steel Arch-Supported Tunnels
(Rock Load Hp in Feet of Rock on Roof of Support in Tunnel With
Than 1.5(B + H ))
* The roof of the tunnel is assumed to be located below the water table. If it is located
permanently above the water table, the values given for types 4 to 6 can be reduced by
fifty percent.
* Some of the most common rock formations contain layers of shale. In an unweathered state,
real shales are no worse than other stratified rocks. However, the term shale is often
applied to firmly compacted clay sediments which have not yet acquired the properties of rock.
cucn so-called shale may behave in a tunnel like squeezing or even swelling rock.
If a rock formation consists of a sequence of horizontal layers of sandstone or limestone and
of immature shale, the excavation of the tunnel is commonly associated with a gradual com-
pression of the rock on both sides of the tunnel, involving a downward movement of the roof.
Furthermore, the relatively low resistance against slippage at the boundaries between the so-
called shale and the rock is likely to reduce very considerably the capacity of the rock
located above the roof to bridge. Hence, in such formations, the roof pressure may be as
heavy as in very blocky and seamy rock.
A3
Table A2
Rock Loads and Classification4
Rock Load, H
P
4)Initial Final Remarks
A4
Table A3
Support Recommendations for Tunnels in Rock (20- to iO-ft
Diameter) Based on D
25 RQD 50 A. Boring Machine Medium circular sets Pattern, 3-ft to I In. to 6 in. on
on 3-ft to i-ft 5-ft ctr. crown and sides.
ctr. Rodk load Combine with
(I.O-1.6)B. bolts.
B. Conventional Medium to heavy sets Pattern, 2-ft to 6 in. or more on
on 2-ft to i-ft I-ft ctr. crown and sides.
ctr. Rock load Combine with
3
(1.3-2.0)B. bolts.
VERY POOR )
, 25 A. Boring Machine Medium to heavy Pattern, 2-ft to 6 in. or more on
(Excluding circular sets on i-ft rtr. whole section.
squeezong or 2-ft ctr. Rock Combine with
swelling load (1.6 to medium sets.
ground.) 2.2)B.
B. Conventional Heavy circular sets Pattern, 3-ft 6 in. or more on
on 2-ft ctr. center, whole section.
Rock load (2.0 to Combine witt
2.0)B. medium to heavy
sets.
VERY POOR'
(Squeezing A. Boring Machine Very heavy circular Pattern, 2-ft to 6 in. or more on
or swelling.) sets on 2-ft ctr. 3-ft ctr. whole section.
Rock load up to Combine with
250-ft. heavy sets.
B. Conventional Very heavy circular Pattern. 2-ft to 6 in. or more on
sets on 2-ft ctr. 3-ft ctr. whole section.
Rock load up to Combine with
250-ft. heavy sets.
Notes I In good "d excellent quality rock, the support requirement will be, in general, minimal but will be dependent upor
Joint geometry, tunnel diameter, and relative orientations of jcints and tunnel.
2) Lagging requirements will usually be zero in excellent rock and w.1l range frum u to 2 g__1 rock to 100$ i%
g.
very poor rock.
Mesh
e requirements u.su y will be zerc in excellent rock and will range fr,.rocasional mesh (or straps) in good rock
t 100$ mesh in very poor rock.
I, B * tunnel width.
A5
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES
FOR ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
1. The procedures for rock mass classifications are summarized here for
the convenience of the engineering geologists responsible for the collection
of geological data.
B3
. . .. .. . . ..
t ,Z:".::. . : :
i
E
Jo . .. .. .
a
,. ::: ,..
! ii ! :, i i . . N
. ..-
.OR, 0
.4 0)l'4
| C
B4
rock classification, the use of the well-known, point-load strength index is
r~commended. The reason is that the index can be determined in the field on
rock core retrieved from borings and the core does not require any specimen
preparation. Using simple portable equipment, a piece of drill core is
compressed between two points. The core fails as a result of fracture across
its diameter. The point-load strength index is calculated as the ratio of the
applied load to the square of core diameter. A close correlation exists (to
within -20 percent) between the uniaxial compressive strength and the
point-load strength index I. such that for standard NX core (2.16-in.
diam), a, - 24 Is.
Rock quality designation (ROD)
6. This quantitative index is based on a modified core recovery pro-
cedure, which incorporates only those pieces of core that are 4 in. or greater
in length. Shorter lengths of core are ignored as they are considered to be
due to close shearing, jointing, or weathering in the rock mass. It should be
noted that the RQD disregards the influence of discontinuity tightness, orien-
tation, continuity, and gouge material. Consequently, while it is an
essential parameter for core description, it is not the sufficient parameter
for the full description of a rock mass.
7. For RQD determination, the International Society for Rock Mechanics
recommends double-tube, N-size core barrels (core diameter of 2.16 in.). The
accepted division of RQD values are as follows:
ROD, percent Core Quality
90-100 Excellent
75-90 Good
50-75 Fair
25-50 Poor
< 25 Very poor
Spacing and orientation of discontinuities
8. The spacing of discontinuities is the mean distance between the
planes of weakness in the rock mass in the direction perpendicular to the
discontinuity planes. The strike of discontinuities is generally recorded
with reference to magnetic north. The dip angle is the angle between the
horizontal and the joint plane taken in a direction in which the plane dips.
B5
Condition of discontinuities
9. This parameter includes roughness of the discontinuity surfaces,
used:
a. Unweathered. No visible signs are noted of weathering; rock
fresh; crystals bright.
It should be noted that the boundary between rock and soil is defined in terms
of the uniaxial compressive strength and not in terms of weathering. A
material with the strength equal to or above 150 psi is considered as rock.
For the sake of completeness, the following hardness classification was used
in the past:
B6
a. Very soft rock. Material crumbles under firm blow w__h a sharp
end of a geological pick and can be peeled off with a knife.
B7
and cannot be reliably measured in core.
12. Roughness asperities usually have a base length and amplitude
measured in terms of tenths of an inch and are readily apparent on a core-
sized exposure of a discontinuity. The applicable descriptive terms are
defined below (state also if surfaces are stepped, undulating or planar):
Note that where the separation is more than 25 mm, the discontinuity should be
described as a major discontinuity.
B8
14. The infilling (gouge) has a two-fold influence:
a. Depending on the thickness, the filling prevents the
interlocking of the fracture asperities.
17. The RSR Concept, developed in the United States in 1972 by Wickham,
Tiedemann, and Skinner, 5'6 is based on the following three parameters:
a. Parameter A. General appraisal of rock structure is based on:
B9
(2) Joint orientation (strike and dip).
Although the definitions of the above parameters were not explicitly stated by
the proposers, most of the data needed are normally included in a standard
joint survey. However, it is recognized that the lack of the definitions may
lead to some confusion. An input data worksheet for the RSR Concept is shown
in Figure B2.
BIO
E4)
N. Az -, Q
r
I
NO* . 14 N A
-C -4 (D)
4) c b 0 c
:4~~~~~U 04 10 r ) . 1 . z c t to t
1- U) 4) Z +3i-0 -I
0 -
0) )( 41 ) -4 ~ 41 VlI 10-
-4 r- - 4 4) OC 0 4) C d 04 C
M 3 .. ) 0 4-1
0co
:s 1)
CL
U
0.
) 0
4)
>
V,
4)
)
40
>\
C
.,04
-'
01
)
42
g
*I
4
0l
0
0 0
U%
L4) -4
.
40
-40
4-04 -4 0td.-
bd 0f 42 C I
(dS. dc03
4.>
J -1
U, ) 4)s- 0
0
0 -
. to)4
4 0
C
0
S4
+)' 4J +3s
P. ~ 0 k)0
-
a
w co U) M) fn Co > uS x x m M4 ~ ca m) 4 C
00
a) H iriI4
04~
f+4l -4i
I. S. 0
0. 04))
0 0 0
C4-) a)..- 5.
* u J '0
:3 (1) -4 43 4) c I..
Cl 4 -4 d 0z) 1-
0) '00) 4)4)
0
004)
5. 0 c > ( 4'
5-u 01
Bll
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WORKSHEET
Q-SYSTEM
GENERAL
Tensile: p si
Compressive: psi
B12
APPENDIX C: CASE HISTORY DATA:
PARK RIVER TUNNEL
Table Cl
Description of Rock Typcs
Basalts: Basalt flows near the intake shaft are oriented consistent
with the local stratigraphy although structural modifications are
apparent. They are usually gray and olive gray (locally black),
slightly vesicular and nonvesicular, calcareous, hard, and contain
headed hairline fractures throughout. Localized broken and weathered
zones occur.
C3
0 LA%
o . (,nt
4) En Cuj I I'D Cuj I U-\ (\ I __ I
CO4 \ 0 . I
L\ Cul \0 H- LA\ 0\
Cl) C\J
UN 0
+) \"D Lf'\ C)
.4-) C) Cu '
H- z ',* 'D
m C)\ 0 Nu
Cuj a
-\]
03_-r t- -Z H i \0
Cfa H- I H I -i I ;
cu co Cuj Cuj H 00 0
"0 * - H 00
LA\
En Cu\
(1) V\L
-,4
00
4) Ui 4 1 1 \-0 I *Cuj
H_ 0 VU2 H Cuj C\ OD~C
* C
0 r-4
CCu
CC',
a) rn) 0\ 4) C, ) U) 4
to) to q o Q
444.) 4-
*D cn*
+ O - 4) b
4) 04 ul 4) 0 0 C 4 3 o L (d 0 U 4) C
0 C 4 4) to 1- 4) bH 4U) W
z.*H 4 z (
) W'"*4b
U4-) 4 C) )O ' )~
$4 r4U 4 )C 0
C4
I BORING NO.
NAME LOCATION
Park River Tunnel Hartford, Connecticut
DATE PHOTOGRAPHED IRIS SETTING CONDITION OF BORING
Nov 27-38, 1975 5.6 and 4.0 Good
DEPTH PHOTOGRAPHED WATER DEPTH WATER CONDITION
35.0 to 220.0' Flowing at Surface Clear
FFET CASING (In Photo) FEET CONCRETE (In Photo) FEET ROCK (In Photo)
35.0-39.0' None 39.0-220.0'
45.5-46.2 Jt., Str. N 45 E, dip 80 ONW, 1/8" at top to 1/32" at bottom, healed
with wnhte material (smooth), planar, terminates at bedding Jt. at
bottom
46.2 Bedding Jt., Str. N-S, dip 15 OE, 1/16" partly open, rough, planar
46.3-160.O Dark gray rock containing numerous small irregular white inclusions
At 51 feet rock gradually changes to dark blue-gray color
0
53.6 Jt. Str. N 70 OE, dip 20 SE, 1/32-1/16" partly open, stained, rough,
planar
0
53.9-54.1 Jt., Str. N 20 W, dip 30 ONE, 1/32-1/16" partly open, stained,
rough, planar
56.2-56.3 Jt., Str. about N-S, dip 45 'W, 1/32", healed with white material,
rough, irregular, discontinuous
59.1 Jt., Str. N-S, dip 10 E, 1/16" healed with white material, rough,
irregular
59.0-59.5 Jt., Str. N 10 E, dip 75 oW, 1/16" healed with white material,
rough, planar, discontinuous
C5
43
. .+ +00
-4 0
4-
4 044
ai 4)
4).
R
. -~ . 14-4
40 0
All U) 4'- ~ '
.0 .4)4U
N00.- a) -
3 0 =
bci)
0.~ C4I
~.4+ r. w0 q
0 . r-7
00
1!1
$...4+
(. a 0~
C>
4-,
+1r. z+
0.0
0 0 a
41- ', O C
4,. 0
0 .. \O. 4 4.)
14 -4 - 4.
1O 00444
0 -
C\J~~~- \0 '4 Cca*-*~0
04-J--1 -4
r. .. 4)
0 ,- 4143u >410
4. +4,1 r 0 -H -4 8
ho V '. 4,-I al 4J 4) 0 41 1 41
o 0U\ 0i 4-1 0 0p '4 '.0
0, 0 0 0 3 0 0 > 41
o i o4 'C '- - 0 0 + 4 , 1 0 00L\O\ -
co la 0 0 +) '.4 - r- l 0 0 4- 0
m -1 4 -) 1 . 0 -4 CVJ LA\ -4 +) 0
o) 4, 4 4 S.. ~.-H
0 G2 4 4,
to@441 0
M.A2
-H
.4
.5
-A 0 41 41
0 ..- 4 En
4-)4 4J 4,
S -4
0
4. 0
4)1-4
10
0
~0 -4
0 FA 4
0
S4
4-
. $41..
'.42-4%
4)
0 143
4-4 4
00
0 41
.-. t 0
-4 0~
0 TO 0 -4 4J4
>~ 0
.4 0C % 4 5.1 r.. 0. *
.0 '-,414 0 0 410
+) 0- 4 - 0 4,.
4 0 10.10
If 4 r- 4) W r- + 4141
@2* 4 4...4 4. 4..
..>.
,e
411
+ I- '-4-- L 4,
1 H 4,
16
4
0
-
0
44
0
- 4
0.
0 0 '.4) 4 4
0O ti 41 %. * 0
410 4 2i-.2r. 0 0-V 4J.~
4' v 4, S. 20 @2 1 '. 4 '- 44 0 '.0 .-4 -4
00 4-410 >, @ 4,4
4 04 Id I 0
ho 4- 0 2 '. ,: , .
41
En. U 1 4 24 V) 4x 0H 2 I)
:w *. 0
C7
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WORKSHEFT
Q-SYSTEK
Sta. 98+10-95+20
Sta. JOINT SETS
Sta. Massive rock, no or few joints
Sta. No. of joint sets present
Additional random joints exist (es
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION Rock heavily fractured
Average RQD = Crushed rock
Range = 20-90 %
WATER CONDITIONS
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS 3ry or minor inflow
ough or irregular
mooth
T edium inflow
large inflow, unfilled Aoints
lickensided ,arge inflow, filling washed out
Undulatni xceptional transient inflow
lanar .xceptional continuous inflow
o n iuos [Approx. water pressure: 40 lb/sq in.
Nall rock contact
o wall contact STRESC CONDITIONS
Low stress, near surface
FILLING AND WALL ALTERATION 4ed. stress: a/01 = 10-200 /
Tightly healed joints igh stress: a /a, = 5-10
Unaltered, staining only 7-1
altered
Slightly _________________________ 7 leakness zones with clay
- hear zones
eezinro
Silty or sandy coatings
Clay coatings Squeezing rock
Sand or crushed rock filling Swelling rock
tiff clay < >5m Stress values if determined:
Voft clay <5mm >mm 450 +
Swelling clay <mm >5mm avert. N/A %orz. 132 ps
GENERAL
Tensile: N/A si
Compressive:_80p si
Figure CZ (Sheet 3 of 3)
C8
0
4- 0
ccL\00 04
NCC a + ..
(1) aj 4)0) 4
0 4-f U) cd E
C~ W.' 0 > )~
+
r a 44
. .. . 5 \o
a. '~0
0)A +) - l 4-
-U . fn). 02
(dn
'n n , r U
a1 0 00 U
.- 4"A-
10
a, 10' ;3 .
&Cd
+1
l Cd
cr
...
0..
n
31 1 %4 .01
-~r 0o
.9
0 0
0 W --.
I- 4-
F:C: ~ a CUu
*E.4 0
.~f .4.2
+ + +(-9
4)
.0
4 U) U))4)
'A4
-4 .40.4. 4..
.0
00
0 U0
00
,K 1 0 0
PL. V 2 4)
0 'A ) V 4.4. Sj V
C) 0 '-j4)V ) 0 v 4)
4 0 V 0 'A4 4
co 0-J IA 400
0 v
02 a V~~4)4) 4.* .
4)) 14 4- V ND a) 4 4)
as - 4) 4) 4)
V )
>1 0
+)~.. . d :R 0) 'A 'A
4)~~. . 4 0-
(j 1U .. 0 0 010 0 . 0 4I 4) .4 4.
1- ) V v) -4 V) .4 V1 0 ' 0 W~ V) 4) * 0 .0 to04)
04 C4 + rn2 r 0 V 0 02 V4 4) 41 '4 >.
0~~:
w4 ) 4) '43
1 3 d 04)
~~~C
U) )U()0- :
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WORKSHEET
Q-SYSTEM
Dip direction SE
Figure C3 (Sheet 3 of 3)
CII
Q
i
* .. 0 0 oo
4) R00
-l$ $.+) 544
.14. 0.. r.
N s
d) co 414
(6 4 0
8- O v) . u0 C
qH k ;
00 d) 0 ) 0 .
C. .3
A +
04.. Zs k 4.Z
r-I
-'400r. 05.
u 4
0. 0.4 s 4 0
-A
o d) w W ,
.04W N +) 02
,Q 4-)
U .'
p222 0. 0..C
R. 04 + 1. V CD
0.0.:
- PC 0.
:~ ~ : .
r-.0 C)s
u 0N
I~ 8AN
41,
1-4
C12
I I-
A43 : : I
00
w 04
-4 a - U 4-
0 4-)
0 0 I-~I~
0 44 -44
_3 I w .- o+
4'i A 0H 43 - 10 -.-.
0 2
4
4
H
izr )
4'4a4344
41 0 +3
0) -4 H -4 0 a 3 00 ) Id 0 0 0
to. 4
0 0 0 10
0 H >b 4' 43 4 01 u V
4+ 34 43 0 43 H O OH 43 0' H3+)
ca4 to4
tot*HQ a t en --
ag. 43j: +3
41C cO 0 4'
r.* 0O 4i -4 H ' .
r.
0 U) 00 ' 033
N. 0a -P* %a 5 0 05
.34 54) 2 0.. 05
) 4- 'd: +3v 1 0 0 .
24 -' - t-3 0 . 4 43
o3 4 3 ~ o 46 0 -4
0 P, 0'O .0 S. d
4'N4'5 'a 4 0. 0
430 C 00 4 0. 4.
0 .- .0 -50 54 * 4' 0 54
43 -4)3
4 0 O ~ 4 43 43 *O : 4J V 0
4 ' 0 4J 04
5 40 4 4' 4 -4 0..
+) 1 ~~~ $43
0 0 C1
0 )k
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WORKSHEET
Q-SYSTEM
j
nidulting
Planar 7 Eceptional continuous inflow
pprox. water pressure: 50 lb/sq in.
lot continuous
all rock contact
No wall contact , STRESS CONDITIONS
ow stress, near surface
FILLING AND WALL ALTERATION led. stress: a / =10-200
Tightly healed Joints figh stress: a /0, = 5-10
staining on).
Unaterdstani~ony
Unaltered, _ eakness zones c1
with clay
Slightly altered - hear zones
Silty or sandy coatings 3Quezing rock
Clay coatings
Sand or crushed rock filling Swelling rock
clay
tiffifcly <5m
<5mm >m
>5mml I Stress values
5 if determined:
oft clay <mm >m USO+
GENERAL
Figure C4 (Sheet 3 of 3)
C14
.43
0 a 8
1-4
C
to.f-..
0 .d
. nOl
U)4 04
0 0~
00
.0 -14 4
0 ~ A * ,4
4) 0J
U. V.a 3
541
+ I 0 .~
(\i I S I N .1
001 CC 1.ZI
+. +A
I!
C15
4).
00
IC u 4.) 4
43 '
4, 0
43- 0. 44)
+33 4
0 I 0~ 0 I-l. t
V-I CUJ\+A >2 o T z CVx (
o , + 40 to w b
o+ 4m Aa 4)C ) - 0 1
0 I~ 13 0 t 0 -3
44 ( 4 ) 0 +3 4W
(H - ) 4) 0 >.~ 3.0H4)\C
o %a 0) 0 41 V -S. : 0W W
0'
0 4 44 0 4 4, 4.1
Ja
4, 0) >4) l i 4, 0 . 4 -H +3 w..Q
C4+ $4 02 'd W r - $ .$
4. J434
. -4 0 0 .4 43 04 -)34 04
U)4
U)
m V)4 > U~( U
'-4)
00
0 H 44
14 4-6 r - 0)00
> 0 0 fV
-4)1 4-4 $ 4 0 40
S. 4, 0 . .
0) H 4
N , . ~~~~9 0.
024)4 V HV 4,) 4,
cd~ ~ .0.001
4 ,.. 4'... 0 4) 4 -4 ~u 44 4
4, 0, q..
, H-
43 0 4) v2~.@ ti +2 4, to 0 0 0.>
4 u).
1. @0 . 02110 0- .044 k , 0 - O., H)
4) , 0q 00r-
0, 4)o U 04)
q
4) H
ru 3.4
k 8
0- o t-4 4) @0
a0, 4, 4-4)
1. 0H
to .+3
-4 4)
.
04) @
-4
d
0 0 v- (I W4 . 0, -4 4)
u PQ
02 UV) 0. 0. 0 0
4 00 H 3 +@ . .- to
40 4 (n,
C16
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WORKSHEET
Q-SYSTEM
GENERAL
Compressive:10,000+ psi
Figure C5 (Sheet 3 of 3)
C17
ee . S
* A. . -6 0
005-
.1 c.4
$I 4I A
+0,
U. .~ . .5-.. 1i
0
A dA SS CJ -
N .. +a
B -- 0
+ 8f8 4U -*~.
I-
4.))
0 J.
:r cj4 . . .
0~+ -1
... - : cr4J
820 6- Au3
4) * -. 4.
. : ~ j
C1
4 3 4
44-.
<71 -4 -4 4- . 4- 4. 0 43 :t c
.,q 'a-cr - H i
V4 -8 H- M4A 3 9 + 0 v 0 vI
Ir0
) -~ 'd
x) C\: C\ +) 4 ) 0 4J30
+~I .2 0
r- 0 1 . - 0 4) c
4) c t u 4) .H 4- d) $ 3 0)
- 4 'd
N )4 a 4)
m ,C
430,0
-4 1co(I2--
03
0)
$ 4 0 . 0- 4D a.4
94U)
~ '4 > 4-) 4 4v 0l - ~4) j UN4 0,
4-
-Q+ -4
4)
0 W
J
>
4
3
4) 41
s
m b -
&.
0
0 0 0
4 ~ 0 4)
C). ~41-
cO 0 (D 0 _ 4-H _4 0
41
4. 4-) 4) -4 00 0 co4 W -4 4)
4-)43)3m343)0c4)> 0 0
X -
co x 04 M.)U)
4 4 1-d
43cJ
4) 4 p
0
1-4
0 ~
0 3
4) 1
4)
I-- 0
1- H4 3 'Cid V 0 4)4
CO4-. 4) H- 'Ci 4) .
4)o0 I 0 H1 4 3 4)
CO Hf 4. 0 4-4 +;
0 '-.1
0. k. 00 .
ad Q0 0
U).: 43 vC 4)4)
434 C) 3
+d 4) k. 5.
4) V 4).. ti)C) ) 4)343
) 43 +; cis * 4 (D-4 43.d
40 0. -4 4 ) 4
Id
4) En u-I 4 Id
) 1 4
q >b -
? 4 8:
034...+..(4 k(4.1) 0 1
*H 0 ) 1? 4 '-4 U 0
4) 1 *. 0b ca 01 -4 .0 1.. a. S. 431 4- . 5.
It
0 -Il (4 W 10 443
H 4) 4) .0 t43 v
0C4)4 0 10 4
0
.-4
U
4)
4)
d
ri d
k4)q k u 0 3 .)
4 0.
. COO 04 as
~ w
4
HCO as
)
0
4
d) (d
O a
O
r Q r.4
~as * 0
04
'4 H 4
>
CO4 Wl
C19
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WORKSHEET
Q-SYSTD4
GENERAL
Tensile: NIA si
Compressive: 8.4-10K psi
Figure C6 (Sheet 3 of 3)
C20
Ad 4 ,-
-4 i
. 4, 4
\00
-4 5.
4
-. .H )t
00. r. 4) 0
1~4
v p)4
4.
+* .
4J
-b o
1.13 104 -.
0. In4
4)
'0~~r . . . l
~''0 0)M
.0
IOU
I- ~ U
.04 4
4,1
r.0
) 0 o-e
> '..
$4S.
0,
C2 1
4J i
) 4)
- 1-0 .o - 0 -
".- c z
uloo0 *M -0wi +) 0. -f-J"4n 0
0 + z , r cI4 0 4'
1-4 0 l(4-8 4 cc00.
0 ' ,0+ 4 -) Lr aV-H- 4
cc. 46c ) q. 0.4 K Ij j C *
a ) ' )0 >4. r. 4 -I---l)I
l o 4 0 ) (
0 4 > 4) +~ ) OC 4)j C' - *,41
41 1 4) >1 0 C $4 4 W
C.)
1 4)
)0
H ()
(4
02
00
0 4
-
.
- 4 )
)
0
-4
4)
'
4)
0
4
4J -44 0 0.- 4)
0) cc 0) 4)
4i 4rJ
(> ( ) H 0H- C
id i I C) C.
0 .4 0 4 )) C C - - 4 0 0 0 '
E--
zQ
0 1
0 -. 4I..--..
40
'00 02-~4
"0 Cd
0 $0 H 0 )
v: > 0. n .- C
C: -1 0 '0 u) :t.
C.0 0 '0 H -0 '0 '0
C 4 1 (n 0 4) '0 0 '0 4) )
4)
:3 (1) ti4 >) as C. 4 . C
>>
4
~ ' 40 14 'n
V)
H 4) 4
W C 4)
5(
o 4) 4
0 C4) (4 C 4) C. C)40 0 4
C. 4 ' ) )( S
C22
CLASSIFICATION INPUT DATA WOPKSHEET
Q-SYSTEM4
Range = 20-100%
WATER CONDITIONS
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS ry or minor inflow
oh or irgar
ough irregular edium
edu i-flow
i'fw
rr inflow,
are unfilled ,oints
r e inflow, filling washed out
lickensided . xceptional transient inflow
'ndulating _____________________
GENERAL
Figure C7 (Sheet 3 of 3)
C23
APPENDIX D: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE USE OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR TUNNEL DESIGN (1979-1984)
"Imagination is more important
than knowledge."
Albert Einstein
Introduction
D3
4. Two rock mass classifications systems have emerged as dominant in
recent years, namely the Geomechanics Classification (RMR System) and the
Q-System. Many papers have been written comparing these classifications and
applying them to various areas of rock engineering8 . Accordingly, much of the
present review will be devoted to updating the developments concerning these
two classification systems.
5. A logical approach to discussing the developments concerning rock
mass classifications is to consider the following headings: (1) input data,
(2) rock support requirements, (3) influence of stress field, (4) rock mass
deformability, (5) strength of rock masses, and (6) emerging new applications.
D4
9. Figure Dl shows the results of a recent study by Cameron-Clarke and
8
Budavari featuring a comparison of the RMR values obtained from borehole core
and from in situ mapping. It was concluded that borehole data tend to
underestimate somewhat the in situ values. In fact, using the RMR system or
the Q-System there was an 82 percent probability of a borehole classification
of a rock mass being correct.
10. In a recent paper, De Vallejo 9 presented an approach to tunnel site
characterization based on the RMR for determining rock mass rating values
based on geological explorations from the surface. This research aimed to
establish applicability of surface data to tunnel depths. Modifications to
some RMR parameters have been introduced and applied to civil and mining
underground excavations in Spain. The approach was recommended for
preliminary investigations and some findings are depicted in Figure D2.
Support Guidelines
D5
to0 -
s-RMR(BC)-RMR(INS)
19 -
80
U so - o
X70 -
6:0 0
30
-8 ~
2~0 A SOS/
4'+ Del
30 / u
20 20 30 40 50607 O8e00
0~
-~ 0 Out
COSRMR seeS
BudavariD8
TUNNELING QUALITY INDEX 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 4 10 40 I00 400 1000
0 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
STRUCTURALLY
0.1 CONTROLLED - 0.1
-~ FAILURE
W F9R GENERALLY
0
04 LIGHT
#A.3o.- UPPORT -0.3
W1 MEDIUM
0.4- SUPPORT 0.4
0.5NARHEA 0.
ow SUPPORT
00 .6 MAU NOT -0.6
> -- TO MAINTAIN
.7 [ STABLE OPENINGS 0.7
O 0.6 0.8
i.
U4<
DZ 0.9
to.
4X
STRESS
INDUCED
FAILURE 0.9
LI LO
0 10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 60 90 100
gVERY POOR IPOOR J FAIR 0000 VERY 0000
rock mass classification procedure based on RMR values has been developed"
which enables the planner or the mine operator to arrive at rock mass quality
and support recommendations for production drifts in block caving mines. The
D7
Strength of Blasting damage
intact rock adjustment A8
Adjusted RMR
Groundwater
condition RMRXAaXAsXS
I
Support recommendations
D8
procedure involves adjusting RMR values for mining purposes and then esti-
mating support requirements for development and production drifts. The proce-
dure ic diagrammatically depicted in Figure D5. This system, knorn as the
Modified Basic RMR system or MBR in short, is based on experience gained in an
in-depth field study at several block caving mines in the United States.
16. Rock mass classifications recently became useful for estimating the
in situ strength of rock masses. Hoek and Brown 12 proposed an empirical
failure criterion for the strength of rock masses as opposed to the strength
of rock materials. Their criterion is as follows:
a: ( 3 +(2m 3 ) 1/2
Orc a c a.
D9
-ff
w
z
ag
ZWw -
gt!a. ol
0 V)
z
LT 2 z0
0 0z0v1.-
2z cr
m a.. Z w
wz
Q:iu .7 wa:. - -C > -H
, u
z 41 cc
-9 am=
i ca .bo-A
u H
awa 40
M
CL
crMu
X(Lx 3
moz
CC (L
-14 0
$,-1.
wo
CC cn U. u cz
0
M 41
LU 0 r-
CC
-,4 '4
OM U)
2 t3v) I r cz 4
= r- 0 4-1 0
5: ci -H CZ
ca (1)
C) Q) 4
-H J-j
1-4 cz $4
U)
0. H a)
wz 0
z
0.10
M 0) 44
0
=2 0-: 4a Z
W 1.4W
zom 0 (1)
w 4-4 4J
W mu.0 r_; 0
- -j 4-1
LL'ir mmw
0
00> 1-i
utew 0
c. 0 w 0
20 4-4
I=
wu) a-0
0
2WZO W <
0.
uw< 0.2
MW 3 -
t;
S 0 w cu 4,
m
am
0
ul
0z
WCC
M=WWI
0
043W
wee
Z -
X - z
w m
L - ---- J 0.40 im L Wq
max
a IL %J
00 0 a (n
4 -
W W CC
Ow a 0
Z15 09L 0 co gn
1..-.9 ca CL
Ulm< 1 0
49< 0 a: U) co ca 0
-Ja ci 0
WI-0
G:Cxm 4m
L --- J m 0 04
w m 1: co
0 WO: 00 0
24 2 4c w -A
CD at w 0 LW 0
0 tj 4-j
U . (D
w
w
Ln H c
CL w to ca
cc
w M
ou
z 5z z
X0
-Iz in Z2 0 2
Xj r 4
Of.. IL i: t: 0
Zo z ra
w
cr
u I
0 0ZOZ W.0 Oz 0 ME 0
13 uj a UO 0
D10
5 '
jC
U LA
L L
06
0 4-
f1-0.5 0 1 2 3
Effectilve normal stress a
- - - -Uniaxial compressive strength ac
-. 5 0I2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dll
in estimating the peak strengths of disturbed rock masses such as these on the
boundaries of slopes and underground excavations that have been loosened by
Door blasting practice and those in embankments or waste dumps. Brown and
14
Hoek15 suggest a slight modification to Priest and Brown's recommendations
and, for disturbed rock mass, suggested the following expressions:
M_ exp RR1-00 \
s =exp
6>
(RMRl00)
6
Hoek and Brown has compiled a list of approximwIe m and s values for
both disturbed and undisturbed rock masses as reproduced in Table Dl. The
upper m and s values for each rock mass category refers to disturbed rock
mass while the lower refers to undisturbed rock mass.
Shear Strength of Discontinuities
20. Serafim and Pereira 17 utilized the Geomechanics Classification to
estimate from RMR values both the shear strength of a rock material and the
shear strength of discontinuities in rock. For this purpose, they used the
ratings for point load strength and/or uniaxial compressive strength to
estimate c and 4 of the intact rock and utilized the "condition of disconti-
nuities" together with the "groundwater" term to estimate the angle of
friction of the discontinuities in rock masses. The roughest, unweathered
joints in the dry state were given a 0 value of 45 . Flowing water caused an
effective reduction of 8 on 4 and gouge-filled discontinuities had values of
4 - 100. In general, this approach was considered as realistic by Barton and
as a useful addition to the RMR-System.
D12
21. Estimates of the shear strength of rock material and of disconti-
nuities, as presented by Serafim and Pereira17 , are reproduced in Tables D2
and D3.
22. An alternative approach was also provided by Barton 3 who mentioned
that after the Q-System was developed, it was discovered by chance that the
arctangent of (Jr/Ja) gave a surprisingly realistic estimate of the shear
strength, namely:
It was suggested 3 that one can base the design on peak shear strength in the
case of unfilled rough joints but only on residual strength in the case of
clay-filled discontinuities.
23. New research has been conducted into estimating rock mass deforma-
bility by means of rock mass classifications. Previous work 4 featured a
correlation between the modulus of deformation and the rock mass rating RMR
from the Geomechanics Classification. The data presented included better
quality rock masses, namely, having RMR > 50. Recently, Serafim and Pereira1 7
provided correlations between RMR and poorer quality rock masses having RMR
< 50. The complete correlation is given in Figure D7. Serafim and Pereira
also proposed a new correlation as follows:
RMR-100
E. - 10 40
D13
90
%a.
0
8D I
60
250 AS4- ITOIS
C1/+ IIINASG17
04 SER/ I
0 0- 09PRER,18
o0 10 2 0 4 0 60 7 o 9 0
0 10 20 3 40 60 7 +0 0 9 0
950-HAIC ROC MASRTN RR
:-~ 40 01
t +A
D~20 -+
w~0 0
10 0 +
_j
00
0 0
CASE HISTORIES:
E 2 -+ 8IENIAWSKI, 1978
SERAFIM
8 PEREIRA, 1983
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 s0 90 100
GEOMECKANICS ROCK MASS RATING (RMRj
D14
Eean - 25 log Q
Em n = 10 log Q
Emax = 40 log Q
General Remarks
27. One of the useful developments in the past five years was the
selection of the ratings for the various classification parameters from
graphs"l giving the relationship between this parameter and its value as shown
in Figure D1I. Problems previously arose as to what rating should be selected
if a given parameter value was on the borderline between two ranges of data.
28. It also became apparent that while the parameter RQD and the
parameter discontinuity spacing were justified to appear separately in a
classification system, there existed a correlation between the two. A number
D15
E 50-
40-
- RMR g70
-2
T,days RMR
150 100 50 040 __50 __60_ 70
DEPTH 0
AND%0
SUPPORT
CONSTANT
V
D16
11 10
- 0
0 -
- -0
o0 cc
- ~ 4 0
-Ile
o -d
ID - 0
44
.4. I
1
0 N 0 0- W i o) n 4I - 0n o 0 In 0 E 4
Ni -Y In E - *
6NVdS JOOU NOt1Vkftd.OaCI
1A 4J
-0 U1
00
D17 r
14
13 ~-
10
9 ... ...
INTCTROCKATRNGTH
2C,
IS
202
10-
08
00
4-4
22
Figure Dll. Ratings for intact rock strength and discontinuity density.
The stippled area allows latitude in assigning ratings where
biased test results from point-load testing are suspected
11
(after Kendorski et al. )
D18
of studies were conducted, notably by Priest and Hudson20 , in which a rela-
tionship between RQD and discontinuity spacing was derived. Based on this
development, ratings were allocated for RQD and discontinuity spacing for use
with the Geomechanics Classification as shown in Figure D12. This figure is
particularly useful when one of the two parameters is not available and an
estimate is needed of the corresponding parameter. There are situations when
core is not available from boreholes yet discontinuity spacing is available
from tunnel mapping. On the other hand, RQD values may be available from
surface drilling and can be used to estimate discontinuity spacing at tunnel
depth.
20. Finally, it became apparent that no matter which classification
system is used, the very process of rock mass classification enables the
designer to gain a better understanding of the influence of the various
geologic parameters in the overall rock mass behavior and, hence, gain a
better appreciation of all the factors involved in the engineering problem.
This leads to better engineering judgment. Consequently, it does not really
matter that there is no general agreement on which rock classification system
is best; it is better to try two or more systems and, through a parametric
study, obtain a better "feel" for the rock mass. It has emerged that the most
popular rock mass classification systems are the RMR System (Geomechanics
Classification) and the Q-System. These two systems should, as a minimum, be
used on tunneling projects for comparison purposes.
Conclusions
D19
ow
00
0 0
0___.__H
-E U)
z NmE 24
00
C: 0
0
0~V
L % 4~
D20
systems are always selected for comparative purposes and that careful record
is kept of their application during the construction of a tunnel.
31. Rock mass classifications should always be applied judiciously as
an aid in design but not as a replacement for engineering design. The main
value is in quantifying engineering geological descriptions of rock masses and
estimating support requirements in the planning stage. Rock mass classifi-
cations are also useful for estimating the in situ strength of rock masses,
modulus of rock mass deformation as well as cohesion and friction of rock
masses. The emerging applications include development of relationships
between tunnel convergence and time as functions of rock mass class.
32. A measure of the interest in rock mass classification is the fact
that special sessions on rock mass classifications were organized in 1983 at
two major international conferences, namely, the International Symposium on
Engineering Geology and Underground Construction held in Lisbon, Portugal, and
the Fifth International Congress on Rock Mechanics held in Melbourne,
Australia. Eleven papers on the subject were presented at the Lisbon
Symposium while 15 papers were delivered at the Melbourne Congress. These and
other recent papers on rock mass classifications are given in the list of
references.
D21
REFERENCES
D22
12. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 106, NO. GT9, September 1980, pp. 1013-1035.
16. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. A 1988 Update of the Hoek and Brown Failure
Criterion. 1988 Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, In Publication.
19. Unal, E. Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine
Roofs. Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1983, 355 p.
D23
Table Dl
LuJ
uJ Un 0,, U-
sw 0 Cz 0 $ -d1 -0
IGOOOD
to 3mQUALITY ROCK MASS m
Several
setsof moderately s 0002 0 00 3 s ,00009 s = 00029
weahe red
joints spced at 03 s 000
3
toIm M= 0947 m = 35 3 = 2030 m 2.301 m 3l 3
4 1
RMR = 44 inO3001
Q =1 m =028
s =00019 ,smi-n=01
= 0001 m
s = 00Th
00190 s =0001 s= 00.00102
m=
D24