Tunnel Report v. 1.1

CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF Z-MORH TUNNEL INCLUDING APPROACHES ON

NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 1 (SRINAGAR SONMARG
GUMRI ROAD) IN THE STATE OF J&K ON DESIGN,
BUILD, FINANCE, OPERATE AND TRANSFER
(DBFOT) ANNUITY BASIS.
DESIGN CONSULTANCY
FINAL DESIGN
TUNNEL REPORT
V. 1.1
July 2016
TUNNEL REPORT
FINAL DESIGN OF Z MORH TUNNEL SECTION
OF NH-1 IN THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
FINAL DESIGN
TUNNEL REPORT V 1.1
July 2016 V. 1.1

TUNNEL REPORT
TUNNEL REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................
................................ ...................................... 1
2. GEOMETRIC DEFINITION ................................................................

................................................... 2
2.1. Main Tunnel ................................................................................................
................................ ............................................ 3
2.2. Escape Tunnel, Enlarged Communication Gallery. ................................................
................................ 6
2.3. Communication
cation gallery ................................................................
........................................................... 8
2.4. Lay-bys ................................................................................................
................................ .................................................... 9
2.5. Ventilation Cavern ................................................................................................
................................ 11
2.6. Ventilation tunnel ................................................................................................
.................................. 12
2.7. Portals ................................................................................................
................................ .................................................... 14
3. DEFINITION OF SUPPORTS ................................................................

............................................... 15
3.1. Supports for the main tunnel in straight section ....................................................
................................ 15
3.1.1. Support S-I ................................................................................................
................................ ....................................... 15
3.1.2. Support S-II ................................................................................................
................................ ..................................... 18
3.1.3. Support S-II
II Bis ...............................................................................................
............................... 20
3.1.4. Support S-III ................................................................................................
................................ ................................... 22
3.1.5. Support S-IV ................................................................................................
................................ ................................... 24
3.1.6. Support S-V ................................................................................................
................................ ...................................... 26
3.1.7. Support S-VI ................................................................................................
................................ .................................... 28
3.1.8. Support S-I´ ................................................................................................
................................ ...................................... 30
3.1.9. Support S-III´................................................................................................
................................ ................................... 32
3.1.10. Support S-IV´ ................................................................................................
.................................. 34
3.1.11. Support S-V´ ................................................................................................
.................................. 36
3.1.12. Support S-VI´ ................................................................................................
.................................. 38
3.2. Lay by supports ................................................................................................
................................ ..................................... 41
3.2.1. Support SG-I ................................................................................................
................................ .................................... 41
3.2.2. Support SG-II ................................................................................................
.................................. 43
3.3. Supports for escape tunnel and enlarged communication galleries ...................... 45
3.3.1. Support SGE-II ................................................................................................
................................. 45
3.3.2. Support SGE-II II ................................................................................................
................................ 47
3.3.3. Support SGE-IIIIII ..............................................................................................
.............................. 48
3.4. Support for pedestrian cross passages ................................................................
................................... 50
3.5. Ventilation Tunnel ................................................................................................
................................. 51
3.5.1. Suport SVT-I ................................................................................................
................................ .................................... 51
July 2016 V. 1.1

TUNNEL REPORT
3.5.2. Suport SVT-II ................................................................................................

.................................. 52
3.5.3. Suport SVT-III
III................................................................................................
................................. 53
4. SUPPORTS ALLOCATION ................................................................
.................................................. 55
4.1. Supports allocation criteria................................................................
.................................................... 55
4.1.1. Geological Model .............................................................................................
............................. 93
4.2. Special Hazards ................................................................................................
................................ ..................................... 94
4.2.1. Introduction to special hazards ................................................................
..................................... 94
4.2.2. Squeezing, rockbursting,
rockburs buckling and flooding .........................................
................................ 97
4.3. Assignment criteria definition ................................................................
............................................. 118
4.4. Verification criteria .............................................................................................
............................. 122
4.4.1. Criterion of Goricki, Shubert, Hoek, Marinos et al. .................................
................................ 123
4.4.2. Russo Criterion ..............................................................................................
.............................. 126
4.4.3. Application of test criteria ................................................................
............................................ 130
4.5. Assigning supports in the layout ................................................................
......................................... 131
4.5.1. Main Tunnel ................................................................................................
................................ ................................... 134
4.5.2. Escape Tunnel ................................................................................................
................................ 144
4.5.3. Ventilation Tunnel .........................................................................................
......................... 150
5. GROUND PARAMETERS AND SUPPORT
SUPPOR ELEMENTS .............................. 154
5.1. Massif Modelling ................................................................................................
................................ 154
5.2. Modelling of Support and Reinforcing Elements.................................
Elements................................................ 168
5.3. Maximum Sectional Forces in Support ...............................................................
............................... 176
6. SECTION CLOSURE ...........................................................................................

........................... 186
6.1. Introduction ................................................................................................
................................ ......................................... 186
6.2. Ground types and parameters ................................................................
.............................................. 187
6.3. Main Tunnel Cases ..............................................................................................
.............................. 189
6.3.1. No degraded ground types ................................................................
............................................ 189
6.3.2. Degradeg ground types ................................................................
................................................. 200
7. MAIN TUNNEL SUPPORT VERIFICATION ..................................................
................................ 210
7.1. Introduction ................................................................................................
................................ ......................................... 210
7.2. Studied cases ................................................................................................
................................ ....................................... 219
7.3. Section I................................................................................................
................................ ............................................... 221
7.3.1. Massive Metabasites 150 m Overburden Ch 6+400 ...................................
................................ 222
7.3.2. Massive Metabasites 1080 m Overburden Ch 9+400 .................................
................................ 229
7.3.3. Fractured Metabasites 150 m Overburden Ch 5+900................................ 236
July 2016 V. 1.1

TUNNEL REPORT
7.3.4. Fractured Metabasites 180 m Overburden Ch 6+150................................ 243

7.4. Section S-II ................................................................................................
................................ .......................................... 250
7.4.1. Intense fractured Metabasites 380 m Overburden Ch 7+600 ................... 252
7.4.2. Intense fractured
fractured Metabasites 550 m Overburden Ch 8+050 ................... 259
7.4.3. Calcareous-Schist
Schist 80 m Overburden Ch 4+960 ..........................................
................................ 266
Schist 40 m Overburden Ch 11+000 (Low Overburden) ...... 273
7.5. Section S-II Bis ................................................................................................
................................ ................................... 280
7.5.1. Intense fractured Metabasites 380 m Overburden Ch 5+000 5+000 ................... 282
Schist 80 m Overburden Ch 5+800 ..........................................
................................ 289
7.6. Section S-III ................................................................................................
................................ ........................................ 296
7.6.1. Fractured Metabasites shear zone 150 m Overburden Ch 6+360 ............ 298
7.6.2. Intense Fractured Metabasites 380 m Overburden Ch 8+600 .................. 305
7.7. Section S-IV ................................................................................................
................................ ........................................ 312
7.7.1. Slates and Mechaschists (fractured) 190 m Overburden Ch 5+900 ......... 314
7.7.2. Slates and Michaschists (fractured) 770 m Overburden Ch 9+750 .......... 323
7.8. Section S-V................................
................................................................................................
.......................................... 333
7.8.1. Portals in Slates and Michaschists
Michasch (Zozila) Ch 10+950 ............................. 334
7.9. Section S-VI ................................................................................................
................................ ........................................ 343
7.9.1. Crossing a great fault in Zozila Formation Slates and Michaschists
overburden
burden 700 m. Ch 9+800................................................................
....................................... 344
8. ESCAPE TUNNEL ................................................................................................
................................ 355
8.1. Support SGE-I ................................................................................................
................................ ..................................... 356
8.2. Support SGE-II ................................................................................................
................................ .................................... 368
8.3. Support SGE-III ................................................................................................
................................ .................................. 380
9. VENTILATION TUNNEL................................................................
.................................................... 398
9.1. Section SVT-I ................................................................................................
................................ ...................................... 398
9.4. Section SVT-II ................................................................................................
................................ .................................... 407
9.5. Section SVT-III ................................................................................................
................................ ................................... 414
10. LAY BYS AND VENTILATION CAVERN .......................................................

................................ 423
10.1. Support SG-II Ch 5+290 ................................................................
....................................................... 423
10.2. Support SG-II
II Ch 5+890 ................................................................
..................................................... 437
11. SPECIAL SECTIONS ...........................................................................................

........................... 459
11.1. Groundwater Position ..........................................................................................
.......................... 459
July 2016 V. 1.1

TUNNEL REPORT
11.2. Section Ch 8+488 (Support S-I)

S ................................................................
.......................................... 462
11.3. Section Ch 5+290 (Support S-II)
S ................................................................
........................................ 476
11.4. Section Ch 4+890 (Support S-III)
S ................................................................
....................................... 489
11.5. Section Ch 5+890 (Support S-IV)
S ................................................................
....................................... 502
12. SQUEEZING AND ROCK BURSTING .............................................................

............................. 524
12.1. Areas with risk of squeezing ................................................................
............................................... 524
12.2. Areas with risk of Rock-
Rock bursting ................................................................
....................................... 529
13. WEDGE FALL RISK INSIDE THE TUNNEL ..................................................

................................ 532
13.1. Method................................
................................................................................................
................................................. 532
13.2. Discontinuities in the rock mass. ................................................................
......................................... 533
13.3. Wedges modelling ...............................................................................................
............................... 538
13.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................
................................ ......................................... 552
14. REINFORCING ELEMENTS................................................................

.............................................. 553
15. WATERPROOF AND DRAINAGE ................................................................

.................................... 554
16. FINAL LINING................................................................................................

................................ ...................................... 560
17. PORTALS ................................................................................................

................................ ............................................... 561
APPENDIX 1 HIDROLOGIC SURVEY
APPENDIX 2 DRAWINGS
RAWINGS
July 2016 V. 1.1

TUNNEL REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
Responding to the invitation made by IL&FS, Transportation Networks Ltd., Grusamar

Ingeniería y Consulting in association with Grusamar India Limited,, submitted an offer for
the execution of the Detailed Design Consultancy
Consultancy and Construction Supervision of the Z
Mohr Tunnel Section of NH-1
NH in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
The project area of the approximately 6.5 km long Z-Morh

Z Morh Tunnel and the approaches to
the portals is located north-east
north of the city of Srinagar along the NH-1(Srinagar-Leh
NH
section) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The tunnel shall be constructed between the
villages Rezan (Km 69) and Shetkari (Km 82), approximately 2 km west of the village
Sonamarg.
The Project Highway aims at construction of 6.5 km long two lane bidirectional single
tube tunnel with parallel 6.5 km long Egress tunnel on new alignment between Rezan &
Sonamarg along the existing NH-1
NH in the State of J&K.
No. Description Lenght (m) Lane Configuration
Two Lane bidirectional

onal single
1 Main Tunnel 6413
tube
2 Egress Tunnel 6413 Parallel Egress Tunnel
Ventilation
3 586.719
Tunnel
Table 1.1.- Tunnel
July 2016 V. 1.1 1

TUNNEL REPORT
2. GEOMETRIC DEFINITION
The main characteristics of the tunnel are shown in Table 2.1.
Road Srinagar to Leh
Tunnel name Z Morh
Chainage (km) 4+636 to 11+049
Length 6413 m (mined tunnel)
Type Single tube, two lane, bi-directional

directional
traffic with parallel escape tunnel,
cross passages (pedestrian and
vehicular) every 250 m.
Clearance traffic envelope H=5.5 m, W=8.0 m, lateral sidewalk

W=1.0 m and H=2.3 m.
Cross-sectional
sectional shape Three circular centres
Inner Radius R1=R3=6.87 m and R2=4.6 m
Lay-bys Every 750 m.
Pedestrian emergence exit Every 250 m.
Safety and fire niches on Every 125 m.

both sides
Ventilation Transverse with air ducts above the

road level
Drainage Extrados longitudinal drain and slot

drain
Maximum overburden Approx. 1080 m
Excavation method Drill and blasting (NATM)
Intermediate tunnel length 586.719 m
Table 2.1.-
2.1. Main characteristics of the tunnel
The diagram of the main

ain and escape tunnels is shown in Figure 2.1. and includes the lay
bys, the communication galleries for vehicles (at lay bys) and pedestrians (the intermediate
July 2016 V. 1.1 2

TUNNEL REPORT
ones).
Figure 2.1.-
2.1. General tunnel diagram
2.1. MAIN TUNNEL
The geometric characteristics of

of the tunnel match with the constraints listed, either in the
inclination planned for the elevation level or the width of the roadway and clearance
profile of the road.
The tunnel is constituted by a single gallery for bidirectional circulation, which in its
i
section bears the clearance profile of 8m width and 5.5m height and, on each side, a
sidewalk of 1.00 wide (minimum) (Figure 2.2).
July 2016 V. 1.1 3

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.2.-
2.2. Cross section. Main tunnel without invert.
The pavement displays a variable superelevation between 2.5 and 2.8% for one side on
curves and constant 2.5% to both sides in straight sections. The sidewalks display a
constant inclination of 2% directed towards the roadway platform. Each sidewalk features
a constant height of 0.15 m above the pavement. Under the sidewalks
sidewalks it will be established
the technical gutters for duct systems of power and telecommunications cables, as well as
the network conduits of water and fire, and finally the safety systems cables in the
operation.
The cross section contour of the tunnel

tunnel is formed by a guideline in a three centres arch,
allowing the clearance profile to the vertical axis of the tunnel to have greater height,
satisfying the needs of ventilation with the ventilation ducts installation (Figure 2.2.).
Foreseeing the existencee of water in the enclosing rock mass, the tunnel is equipped with
its own drainage system of the extrados through longitudinal drains, and collector drains
installed on the threshold to receive the rock mass infiltrated water in the foundation. The
waterproofing
roofing is conferred by the installation of a complex waterproofing agent consisting
July 2016 V. 1.1 4

TUNNEL REPORT
of a PVC sheet plus geotextile for mechanical protection and drainage in contact with the
rock mass. This system is completed with the installation of one longitudinal collectors,
col
located under the road platform and which will collect the water from the drains and
foundation and lead it to the outside of the tunnel.
The tunnel will also have an independent system for collecting the wash water from the
rolling platform, consisting
isting of a slot collector under the sidewalk on the side of the
platform with the lowest elevation. This collector will also have the function of collecting
the spillage of flammable products on the platform. They are connected to a longitudinal
collector situated on the foundation through a siphoned connection to avoid detonation
risk.
Given to the geological and geotechnical conditions, in the lower quality sections, the
horizontal bracing of support is necessary, so, an inverted arch attaching both sides
sid of the
final lining basement has been designed (Figure 2.3.). This invert arch is less curved and
has an easier implementation than the one outlined in the Inception Report phase.
Figure 2.3.-
2.3. Cross section. Main tunnel with invert
July 2016 V. 1.1 5

TUNNEL REPORT
The ventilation duct

uct of the ventilation system is materialized by dividing the tunnel
horizontal cross section, through the execution of a horizontal reinforced concrete slab at
the upper limit of the clearance profile.
The whole section of the tunnel is made in cast-in-place concrete,, with a constant thickness
equal to 0.30 m for all geotechnical zones.
2.2. ESCAPE TUNNEL,, ENLARGED COMMUNICATION

COMMUNICATION GALLERY.
GALLERY
The international safety recommendations advise that additional security measures, such as
the implementation of an Escape
E Tunnel (Figure 2.4), parallel to the alignment of the main
tunnel, must be provided. Such gallery has been defined at a distance around 30m (pending
to calculate and justify) from the main tunnel, measured between axes, while maintaining
equidistance between side walls of each tunnel of about 22m.
The enlarged communication galleries are the ones that communicate the main tunnel and
the parallel escape tunnel, every 750 m, for vehicles and pedestrians.
The intermediate access tunnel is a transverse tunnel

t of 586.719 m length.
The parallel escape tunnel and the enlarged communication galleries have the same
geometrical section, as below indicated.
This gallery will bear a clearance profile of 5.0m in width and 4.0m in height to allow the
circulation of an emergency vehicle. The road platform will have an inclination of 2%
constant to one side of the gallery. It features sidewalks located on each side of the road
platform with minimum width of 1.0m,
1 with about 0.15 m height. Under the sidewalks
technical gutters are installed for cables and ducts.
July 2016 V. 1.1 6

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.4.-
2.4. Cross section. Escape tunnel without invert
Similarly to the main tunnel and due to water existence in the enclosing rock mass, this
gallery will have its own extrados drainage and pavement system,
system, with the installation of
longitudinal drains in side walls and collectors installed on the threshold, prepared to
receive infiltrated water from the rock mass at the foundation. The waterproofing of the
extrados will also be conferred by the installation
installation of a complex waterproofing agent
consisting of a membrane in PVC and geotextile. This system is also completed with the
installation of two longitudinal collectors, located under the highway platform. They have
to collect water from the side walls drains
drain and foundation and lead it outside.
outside
This gallery will be made in cast-in-place

cast concrete, with constant thickness equal to
0.30m.
As in the main tunnel, in the lower quality sections, an inverted arch attaching both sides
of the final lining basement has been designed (Figure 2.5.). This gallery will also be made
in cast-in-place concrete, with constant thickness equal to 0.30m.
July 2016 V. 1.1 7

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.5.-
2.5. Cross section. Escape tunnel with invert
2.3. COMMUNICATION GALLERY

GALLER
The link between the emergency galleries and

a the main tunnel will also be held through
pedestrian crossing galleries without possibility of road traffic. This section will have a
circular contour with a radius of 2.05m,
m, which circumscribes a reduced clearance profile of
2.5m height and 2.5m width (Figure 2.6). This section is made in cast-in-place
cast concrete
with the constant thickness of 0.25m.
July 2016 V. 1.1 8

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.6.- Cross section. Communication gallery without invert
2.4. LAY-BYS
The tunnel section when there are lay-bys

lay is constituted by a single gallery
galle for
bidirectional circulation, which is widening to bears the clearance profile of 13.62m width
and 5.5m height (Figure 2.7.
7.) for emergency situations.
Lay-bys
bys are situated opposite each other, on either side of the main tunnel. Although that
layout requires
uires a wider excavation than if lay-bys
lay bys are alternatively placed, the advantage is
that every lay-by
by is just opposite a vehicular emergency exit.
If lay-bys
bys were placed alternatively, lay-bys
lay bys at one side would be opposite a pedestrian
emergency exit, but not a vehicular one.
July 2016 V. 1.1 9

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.7.-
2.7. Cross section. Lay by without invert
As in the main tunnel, in the lower quality sections, an inverted arch attaching both sides
of the final lining basement has been designed (Figure 2.8.).
2.
July 2016 V. 1.1 10

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.8.-
2.8. Cross section. Lay by with invert
2.5. VENTILATION CAVERN
It will be defined in an additional specific report.

report
July 2016 V. 1.1 11

TUNNEL REPORT
2.6. VENTILATION
ENTILATION TUNNEL
The ventilation tunnel is the intermediate access that is almost in the middle of the tunnel.
This tunnel is between the ventilation

vent portal and the ventilation cavern.
As it has been used also as intermediate access, during the construction, the tunnel
dimensions are the necessary for the work traffic.
Figure 2.9 shows the final distribution of the ventilation section, with three
th different
passages:
- In one side, a passage for the exhaust air.
- In the other side, the motorable passage.
- In the crown, the passage for the fresh air.
Figure 2.9.- Cross section. Ventilation Tunnel without invert
July 2016 V. 1.1 12

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 2.10.-
2.10. Cross section. Ventilation
ntilation Tunnel with invert
July 2016 V. 1.1 13

TUNNEL REPORT
2.7. PORTALS
Portals are currently being defined parallely

parallel and will be added to this report once
approved.
July 2016 V. 1.1 14

TUNNEL REPORT
3. DEFINITION OF SUPPORTS
SUPPOR
This paragraph includes the definition of the geometry and the reinforcing elements for
every
very type of support designed for the main tunnel in straight section, lay bys, egress
gallery, communication galleries and intermediate access tunnel.
In all the types of primary linings, in the fact of the top-heading

top heading and bench, underpinning
bar micropiles
les with the same longitudinal spacement than the others bolts, to avoid the
failure of the shotcrete when the floor is degraded.
The length of these micropiles may be:
- In sections S-I, S-I',

I', S-II,
S S-II bis, S-III, S-IV, S-III', S-IV' 4-88 m in top heading
headi
and 6-8 m bench.
- In section S-V, S-V'.

V'. S-VI
S and S-VI',
VI', pipe micropiles and bar micropiles 8-15
8 m
long.
3.1. SUPPORTS FOR THE MAIN

MAI TUNNEL IN STRAIGHT SECTION
3.1.1. Support S-I
It is the light support and therefore it will be performed in high quality

qualit massive
metabasites.
The support section can be seen in Figure 3.1.
July 2016 V. 1.1 15

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 3.1-
3.1 Support S-I section
It consists of the following elements:
- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete seal layer, at least 5 cm thick,

in vault and sidewalls, covering the excavated surface.
- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete layer, at least 5 cm thick, in

vault and sidewalls, covering the excavated surface.
- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a mesh of 2.14

2. (T) x
2.0m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a mesh of 2.0 (T) x 2.0
m (L).
- Placement of 6 m length SN type bolts at the base of sidewalls,

sidewalls every 2 m.
In addition, next procedure has to be followed:
- Excavation and support must be performed in full section.
July 2016 V. 1.1 16

TUNNEL REPORT
- Roundd length is 2 to 4m in advance, and in case of performing bench it has

double length.
Criteria for applying this support are the following:
- There aren't any squeezing risks (treatments for squeezing stretches force to a
wider excavation in order to avoid affecting the final lining section.)
section.
- It can be used in case of rock-bursting

rock risk.
- Barton Q index must be > 10 or alternatively, depending on the face mapping

method, RMR>60.
July 2016 V. 1.1 17

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.2. Support S-II
It is an intermediate support applicable in medium rock quality

quality massifs, such as fractured
Metabasites and less altered Quatz-schists
Quatz and Calc-schists.
Figure 3.2.- Support S-II section
- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete

rete seal layer, at least 5 cm thick,


1. (T) x
1.50 m (L).
July 2016 V. 1.1 18

TUNNEL REPORT
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a mesh 1.50 (T) x 1.50
m (L).
- Placement of 6 m length
length SN type bolts at the base of sidewalls, every 1.50 m.
- Round length is 3m.
- Barton Q index must be included between 2 and 100 or alternatively, depending

on the face mapping method, 45<RMR<60.
45<R
- There aren't any squeezing risks (although rock-bursting

rock bursting could be possible).
July 2016 V. 1.1 19

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.3. Support S-II Bis
It is an intermediate support applicable in medium rock quality massifs, such as fractured

Metabasites and less altered Quatz-schists
Quatz and Calc-schists.

3.
Figure 3.3.-
3. Support S-II Bis section

in vault and sidewalls, covering the excavated
excavat surface.

- Lattice girder spaced 1.50 m.
July 2016 V. 1.1 20

TUNNEL REPORT
- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a mesh of 2.10 (T) x

1.50 m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a mesh 1.50 (T) x 1.50
m (L).

sidewalls every 1.50 m.
- Excavation and support must be performed

perform in full section.
- Barton Q index must be included between 1 and 4 or alternatively, depending

on the face mapping method, 35<RMR<45.
- There aren't any squeezing risks (although rock-bursting

roc bursting could be possible).
July 2016 V. 1.1 21

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.4. Support S-III

III
The support section

ection can be seen in Figure 3.4.
3.4
Figure 3.4.- Support S-III section

thick


1. (T) x
1.5 m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a mesh of 1.0 (T) x 1.5
m (L).
July 2016 V. 1.1 22

TUNNEL REPORT

sidewalls every 1.5 m.
- Barton Q index must be included between 0.4 and 2.0 or alternatively,

depending on the face mapping method, 35<RMR<45.
- There aren't any squeezing risks: excavation section is not oversized so doesn't
allow closure; moreover, bolts are only 4 m length and in case of squeezing
they would stay inside the plasticized zone.
- Rock-bursting
bursting is acceptable because it needs a treatment which doesn't affect
thee excavation gauge.
July 2016 V. 1.1 23

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.5. Support S-IV

3.
Figure 3.5.- Support S-IV section



2. (T) x 1.0
m (L).
- Placement of 6 m length SN type bolts at the base of sidewalls, every 1 m, both

top-heading
heading and bench.
July 2016 V. 1.1 24

TUNNEL REPORT
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a mesh 2.0 (T) x 1.0 m
(L).
- Lattice girders 16 cm depth with two rods φ20

20 and one rod φ25, 1 m spacing
and collocated between bolts crowns.
- Excavation and support must be performed in top heading and bench.
- Round length is 2m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
Criteria for applying thiss support are the following:

- There aren't any squeezing risks.
- Rock-bursting
bursting risk is trascurable within this index range.
July 2016 V. 1.1 25

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.6. Support S-V

3.
Figure 3.6- Support S-V section
It is a rigid support and consists of the following elements:
- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete seal layer, at least 5 cm thick, in

vault and sidewalls, covering
c the excavated surface.
- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete layer, at least 25 cm thick, in vault

and sidewalls, covering the excavated surface.
- Placement of 12 m length grouted pipes with 88.9 mm diameter in sidewalls, every

1.0 m (L).
- Steel ribs ISHB-150

150 type every 1.0 m (L).
July 2016 V. 1.1 26

TUNNEL REPORT
This support shall be applied under

unde the following conditions:
- Barton Q index must be <0.1 or alternatively, depending on the face mapping

method, RMR<25.
- There aren't any squeezing risks.
Unless self-drilling
drilling bolts are used, not using bolts with this support is justified only if it is
difficult
ficult to guarantee adherence with Swellex or Grouted Bolts due to very low rock
quality.
July 2016 V. 1.1 27

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.7. Support S-VI
This support is applied specifically to fault breccias and very crushed rocks in shear zones.
The support section

3.7
Figure 3.7.- Support S-VI section
In this section minor squeezing is considered unavoidable, i.e. a closure of <3% is

foreseen.
In this conditions plasticized zone thickness is around half diameter and 9 m length bolts
are enough to guarantee stability.
- 5cm of FRS-M30
M30 shotcrete seal layer.
- Micropiles umbrella with pipes spacing of 35 cm and distribution

distribut according to
an angle of 5º.
July 2016 V. 1.1 28

TUNNEL REPORT
- Ten self-drilling
drilling bolts 9.0 m length and 280kN nominall load, with spacing of
1.0-2.0m along
ong with convergence evolution (possible collocation in two
phases).
- 150 profile props every 2.0

ISHB-150 .0 m in the top heading bottom.
- ISHB-150
150 steel ribs every 1.0
1. m
- 12 m length injected pipes with 101

10 mm diameter and 1.0-2.0
1.0 m spacing
sustaining the top heading
head foot.
- 25 cm of structural shotcrete, collocated in 1 layers:
- Provisional invert arch made of shotcrete and steel rib been ISHB-150
ISHB spaced
2.0 m in the bench bottom.
This support will be performed in top heading and bench with 1.0 m round length and in
bench with 2.0 m round length.
July 2016 V. 1.1 29

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.8. Support S-I´
This is a support for special hazard of rock-bursting.

rock
This support is used specifically for good quality and very hard rock massifs but subject to
high stress due to high overburden.
The support section

3.8
Figure 3.8.- Support S-I´ section
- 5cm of FRS-M30
- 5cm of structural shotcrete.
July 2016 V. 1.1 30

TUNNEL REPORT
- φ25,
25, 6 m length prestressed bolts with mechanic anchorage in 1.07
1.0 x 1.0 m
pattern.
- 2 Self-drilling
drilling bolts 6 m long at the feet of the support every 1.0 m.
Prestressed bolts could be also applied to S-I,

S though rock-bursting
bursting tends to happen
immediately after the excavation, even before sealing.
This support shall be applied under the

t following conditions:
- Barton Q index must be >10 or alternatively, depending on the face mapping

method, RMR>60.
- Massif UCS >60 MPa (Russo criterion).
- High overburden.
July 2016 V. 1.1 31

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.9. Support S-III´
This is a support for special hazard of squeezing.
This support
port shall be applied to medium rock quality massifs in which the geostatic load is
higher than massif UCS and there are verified possibilities of squeezing.

3.
Figure 3.9.- Support S-III´ section
It consists
ts of the following elements:
July 2016 V. 1.1 32

TUNNEL REPORT
- 5cm of FRS-M30
- 8 m length self-drilling
self bolts with 280 kN nominal load, in 3.41
3. x 1,50m
pattern.
- drilling bolts 8 m long at the feet of the support every 1.0 m.

2 Self-drilling
- Longitudinal deformable bands made of

of expanded polystyrene.
- 15cm of structural shotcrete, collocated in a second phase, once stabilization

tendency is confirmed.
This support shall be applied under the following conditions:
- Barton Q index must be included between 0.4 and 10 or alternatively,

alternatively
35<RMR<
- Confirmed risk of squeezing, even if it is <3%.
July 2016 V. 1.1 33

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.10. Support S-IV´
This support shall be applied to low quality rock massif in tunnel stretches with
wit confirmed
squeezing risk.
The support section

Figure 3.10.-
3.10. Support S-IV´ section
- 5cm of FRS-M30
drilling bolts with 280 kN nominal load, in 1.0 x 3.05 m pattern.
July 2016 V. 1.1 34

TUNNEL REPORT
- 4 longitudinal deformable bands made of expanded polystyrene.
- 2 Self-drilling
drilling bolts 8 m long at the feet of the support every 1.0 m.
- Lattice girders 16 cm depth with three rods φ20-25,

25, collocated with 1 m
spacing.
- 25 cm of structural shotcrete,
shotcrete, collocated in a second phase in 2 or 4 layers,
along with stabilization tendency.
ISHB spaced

- Confirmed risk of squeezing.
July 2016 V. 1.1 35

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.11. Support S-V´
It is a rigid support that shall

shall be applied to very low quality rock massifs, which are not
boltable with reliability and in which squeezing risk is foreseen.
The support section

on can be seen in Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11.- Support S-V´ section
- 5cm of FRS-M30
- ISHB-150
150 steel ribs every 1.0 m
- 2 or 4, 12 m length grouted pipes sustaining the top heading foot.
- 9 m and 12 m long self-drilling bolts with 2800 kN nominal load, every 1 or 2

steel ribs, both top heading and bench.
July 2016 V. 1.1 36

TUNNEL REPORT
- ISHB-150
50 profile props every 2.0 m and shotcrete layer (temporary support) in
the top heading bottom.
o a layer of 25 cm in the second to last round;
o a layer of 10 cm once convergences are stabilized, in order to cover

shotcrete cracks during the bench excavation phase.
o Provisional invert arch made of shotcrete and steel rib been ISHB-150
ISHB
spaced 2.0 m in the bench bottom.
- Barton Q index must be included

included < 0.1 or alternatively, RMR<25 in very
crushed rock which is boltable with difficulty.
- Confirmed risk of squeezing.
July 2016 V. 1.1 37

TUNNEL REPORT
3.1.12. Support S-VI´
This support shall be applied in stretches with breccias or

or very crushed rocks, and with
enough overburden to foresee severe squeezing risk.
These materials have a soil behaviour and might follow a strain-softening

strain softening failure criterion
i.e. with high stress increments for small deformations. Therefore, in this case,
case a heavy, a
rigid and active support has to be applied.
Considering that in case of severe squeezing with section closure percentages of 3-5%
3 the
plasticized crown depth can reach 1 diameter, bolts length has to be increased in order to
place their bulb behind this crown.
The support section

ction can be seen in Figure 3.12
July 2016 V. 1.1 38

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 3.12.-
3.1 Support S-VI´ section
- 5cm of FRS-M30
- Micropiles umbrella with pipes spacing of 35 cm and distribution

distribut according to
an angle of 5º.
- Ten self-drilling
drilling bolts 15m length and 280kN
2 nominall load, with spacing of
0.5-1.0m
m along with convergence evolution (possible collocation in two
phases).
- ISHB-150
150 profile props every 1.0 m in the top heading bottom.
- ISHB-150
150 steel ribs
rib every 0.50 m
- 15 m length injected pipes with 101

10 mm diameter and 1.0 m spacing sustaining
the top heading foot.
July 2016 V. 1.1 39

TUNNEL REPORT
o a layer of 30 cm in the third and second to last rounds;
o a layer of 10 cm once convergences

convergences are stabilized, in order to cover
shotcrete cracks.
ISHB spaced
This support will be performed in top heading with 1.0 m round length and in bench with
2.0 m round length.
- In rocks in which it’s not possible to obtain a classification index.
- Confirmed risk of severe squeezing with percentages up to 5%.
July 2016 V. 1.1 40

TUNNEL REPORT
3.2. LAY BY SUPPORTS
Two sections have been defined for the lay bys of the Z-Morh
Z tunnel.
The main tunnel stretch considered between lay bys and between connection
connection galleries is
about 750; in practice, their position will be modified within certain margins, avoiding
fault and broken shear zones.
The
he real rock that will be crossed by the main tunnel and so the final position of the
lay bys, can be practically defined if the escape tunnel is performed 100 m in advance
respect to the main tunnel.
In this sections, no risk of squeezing or

o rock-bursting has been considered.
considered
3.2.1. Support SG-I

3.1
Figure 3.13.- Support SG-I section
July 2016 V. 1.1 41

TUNNEL REPORT
This support is the lightest; it shall be performed in full section with 3.0 m round length
and consists of the following elements:
el
- 6.0 m length Swellex bolts with 1,50 x 1,50 m pattern in top heading.
heading
- 6.0 m length φ32

32 SN bolts with 1,88
1, x 1,50 m pattern in sidewalls.
- 8.0 m length φ32

32 SN bolts in sidewall feet every 1.50 m.
- 5 + 10 cm of FRS-M30 synthetic fiber reinforced shotcrete

otcrete which shall be
applied in two phases; the second one once convergences tendency to
stabilization is confirmed.
This support shall be applied to double lay bys (both ways), in rock with Q-index
Q > 2 or
equivalent RMR > 45.
July 2016 V. 1.1 42

TUNNEL REPORT
3.2.2. Support SG-II
This support
pport is the heaviest for lay bys and shall be performend in top heading and bench.

3.1
Figure 3.14.-
3.14. Support SG-II section
- 6.0 m length 2000 kN Swellex bolts with 2.0 x 1.0 m pattern in top heading
- 6.0 m length φ25

25 SN bolts with 2.07
2.0 x 1.0 m pattern in sidewalls both top
heading and bench.
- 8.0 m length φ25

25 SN bolts in sidewall feet both top heading and bench, every
1.0 m.
- ISHB steel ribs with 1.0 m spacing.
- 5 + 20 cm
m of FRS-M30 synthetic fiber reinforced shotcrete which shall be
applied in two phases.
July 2016 V. 1.1 43

TUNNEL REPORT
The round length shall be of 1-2.0

1 2.0 m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
This support shall be applied to double lay bys (both ways), in rock with Q-index
Q > 0.1 or
equivalent RMR > 35.
Locating lay byss in lower rock quality tunnel stretchs is not taken into account
because lay byss position can be changed in case of shear zones or faults.
July 2016 V. 1.1 44

TUNNEL REPORT
3.3. SUPPORTS FOR ESCAPE

E TUNNEL AND ENLARGED COMMUNICATION
GALLERIES
Three support sections have been

been defined for the escape tunnel and communication
galeries.
3.3.1. Support SGE-I

3.1
Figure 3.15.-
3.15 Support SGE-I section
July 2016 V. 1.1 45

TUNNEL REPORT
and consists of the following elements:
- 3.0 m length Swellex bolts with 1,50 x 1,50 m pattern in top heading
- 3.0 m length φ32

32 SN bolts with 1,50 x 1,50 m pattern in sidewalls.
- 6.0 m length φ32

32 SN bolts at sidewall feet every 1.50 m.
- 5 + 10 cm of FRS-M30
FRS shotcrete which shall be applied in two phases.
This support shall be applied in rock with Q-index

Q > 1 or equivalent RMR > 40.
July 2016 V. 1.1 46

TUNNEL REPORT
3.3.2. Support SGE-II
The support section

ction can be seen in Figure 3.16.
Fi
Figure 3.16.- Support SGE-II section
It shall be performed in top heading and bench with 3.0 m round length,, and consists of the
following elements:
- 3.0
.0 m length Swellex bolts with 2,00
2 0 x 1,50 m pattern in top heading
- 3.0 m length φ32

32 SN bolts with 2,00 x 1,50 m patternn in sidewalls.
- 6.0 m length φ32

32 SN bolts in sidewalls feet every 1.50 m.
- 5 + 15 cm of FRS-M30
- Lattice girders made of 3 rods φ25-20 with 1.50 m spacing.

Q between 0.2 to 1 or equivalent RMR
between 30 and 40.
July 2016 V. 1.1 47

TUNNEL REPORT
3.3.3. Support SGE-III
This support shall be applied in lower rock quality stretches of the gallery.

3.1
Figure 3.17.-
3.1 Support SGE-III section
It consistss of the following elements:
- 5 + 20 cm of FRS-M30
- Excavation and support must be performed in top heading

heading and bench.
July 2016 V. 1.1 48

TUNNEL REPORT
- Barton Q index must be less than 0.2 or alternatively, depending on the face
mapping method, RMR < 30.
- In stretches where squeezing risk is foreseen. The second layer of shotcrete

shall be applied once convergence stability tendency is confirmed.
July 2016 V. 1.1 49

TUNNEL REPORT
3.4. SUPPORT FOR PEDESTRIAN

PEDESTRI CROSS PASSAGES

3.1
Figure 3.18.- Support section
Given
ven its dimensions, in stretches with lower rock quality, the application of seven 3 m
length bolts every 1.50 m and a 5+10 cm shotcrete layer will be enough to guarantee
stability.
July 2016 V. 1.1 50

TUNNEL REPORT
3.5. VENTILATION TUNNEL
The supports are defined for the intermediate access and ventilation tunnel.
3.5.1. Suport SVT-I
The support section

Figure 3.19.-
3.1 Support SVT-I section
and consists of the following
llowing elements:
- 3.0 m length φ32

July 2016 V. 1.1 51

TUNNEL REPORT
- 6.0 m length φ32

- 5 + 10 cm of FRS-M30

Q index > 1 or equivalent RMR > 40.
3.5.2. Suport SVT-II
The support section

Figure 3.20.-
3. Support SVT-II section
This support is the lightest; it shall be

b performed in top heading and bench with 2.0 m
round length and consists of the following elements:
July 2016 V. 1.1 52

TUNNEL REPORT
- 3.0 m length φ32

- 6.0 m length φ32

- 5 + 15 cm of FRS-M30
- Lattice girders made of 3 rods φ25-20 with 1.50 spacing.
- Barton Q index must be between 0.1 < 1,, depending on the face mapping
method, 25 < RMR < 40.
3.5.3. Suport SVT-III
This support shall be applied in lower rock quality stretches of the gallery.

3.
July 2016 V. 1.1 53

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 3.21.-
3.21. Support SVT-III section
It consists
ists of the following elements:
- 5 + 20 cm of FRS-M30
- Barton Q index must be less than 0.1 or alternatively,, depending on the face
mapping method, RMR< 25.
July 2016 V. 1.1 54

TUNNEL REPORT
4. SUPPORTS ALLOCATION
LLOCATION
4.1. SUPPORTS ALLOCATION CRITERIA
Tunnel supports assignment is generally performed based on 3 criteria:
1. Historical and intuitive criteria,

criteria with supports being reinforced in several steps. Under
this approach two allocation methods could be distinguished:
dist
• Historical method, still used in some countries, usually in soil, which is based on
historical tunnelling procedures and mining galleries as it can be seen in the
example of Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1.- Timbering section with historical methods of tunnel support
A method of this type would be the traditional or Belgian modified method used in
Madrid Metro, the German method, etc.
In general, it is characteristic of these methods, timbering and definitive concrete

support dimensioning is only based on historical experience and, apart from slight
modifications, wood timbering is still used as initial support.
An outline of the implementation process of the traditional method or Madrid

method can be seen in Figure 4.2; Picture
icture 4.1 shows a view of a subway
su tunnel
performed following this procedure.
July 2016 V. 1.1 55

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 4.1.- View of a Madrid Metro Tunnel run by traditional method
July 2016 V. 1.1 56

TUNNEL REPORT
Construction stages of Belgium

method or traditional Madrid
method
Figure 4.2.- Tunnel construction process following Madrid method
• Methods based on terrain behaviour forecast.
All support defining processes based solely on N.A.T.M. fulfil all the conditions of
this method; in the support allocation process next procedure shall be followed:
July 2016 V. 1.1 57

TUNNEL REPORT
- Definition of rock mass geotechnical groups (massif = rock matrix + joints)

and of geometric conditions (depth, vertical and horizontal geostatic stresses
and asymmetry) and hydrological conditions (presence of water and flow into
the massif.
- Definition of the different type of behaviour for each lithologic group, with
geometric and hydrological conditions recognized
recognized within 11 types defined in
the N.A.T.M., included in the following table.
General categories of Ground Behaviour (N.A.T.M.)
July 2016 V. 1.1 58

TUNNEL REPORT
• "Intuitive" definition, that is based on experience,

experience by anticipating the behaviour of
any type of support for each lithologic group, with different geometric and hydro-
hydro
geological conditions.
conditions Supports will be reinforced based on tunnel auscultation
results.
The main advantage of this N.A.T.M.

N method is to allow the setting of the
minimum support required to terrain being traversed,
traversed, based on the actual behaviour
taken inside the tunnel, which is safe if the following three conditions are met:
- Percentage of section closure at which a higher load leads to higher

deformations (softening zone in the law of creep or rupture) is not exceeded.
excee
- Minimum support collocation (without further reinforcement) must guarantee

that there is no risk of wedges or blocks falling, according to the scheme in
Figure 4.3.
Figure
gure 4.3.-
4.3 Scheme of wedges or blocks falling
- Mechanisms are not allowed to form in the support structure, compensating the
effect of the crack with new crowning (bolts on each side of the crack) as
shown in Figure 4.4.
July 2016 V. 1.1 59

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.4.-
4.4 Scheme of mechanisms risk repair
epair
Proper application of this method by highly specialized staff in both

b project phase
and execution may allow tunnel performance
perform without major incidents and with less
density and therefore costs
cost for the support than other methods.
The main problems of this method are:
- Requires highly specialized staff in both project developing

deve and work
monitoring for behavioural analysis and reinforcements definition.
- Solution such as reinforcements in the concrete elements can have a behaviour

much less effective than that of a layer of concrete placed in a stage set, since in
the reinforcement
rcement is difficult to ensure adherence between layers according to
the scheme of Figure
igure 4.5.
July 2016 V. 1.1 60

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.5.-
4.5 Stress in single section or layers
- Reinforcements performing in time and density without a specific criterion,

may lead to inadequate dimensioning and reinforcement types,
types and much higher
densities, including the risk that the deformed section invade tunnel final lining
space.
- Local deformations of a ground portion on the edge of the excavation with

primary support, according to the behaviour showed in the scheme of Figure
4.6.
July 2016 V. 1.1 61

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.6.- Scheme of tunnel section partial collapse due to peak stress value
overcoming
- Deformations exceeding
xceeding the allowable one against the risk of collapse in partial
regions of the contour might not be detected within the results of convergence
measurements,, but they are normally predictable by highly specialized
technical staff.
July 2016 V. 1.1 62

TUNNEL REPORT
2. Empirical criteria based on rock mass geomechanical classifications that allow support
assignation.
Initially, geomechanical classifications

classifications were specifically developed for the allocation
of tunnel supports without special behaviours, and were basically:
Lauffer classification
Bieniawski classification
Barton classification
Palmstrom classification
a) Lauffer classification
It considers the types of behaviours previously highlighted on commenting

N.A.T.M., and it was taken from the differentiation of this author, conducted in
1985.
Depending on the types of behaviour shown in the table from A to G, round lengths
and stand-up
up time were defined for the excavated and not supported areas, which
aree represented in Figure 4.6a.
4.6a
TYPE ROUND LENGTH STAND-UP TIME ROCK TYPE DESCRIPTION

(m)
A 4 20 years Very good rock - Intact rock. Stable
B 4 6 months Moderately Jointed
C 3 1 week Jointed
D 1,5 5 hours Friable
E 0,8 20 minutes Heavily friable
F 0,4 2 minutes Pressure Exerting
Very poor rock. Heavily Pressure

G 0,15 10 seconds
Exerting
Figure 4.6a.- Lauffer classification
July 2016 V. 1.1 63

TUNNEL REPORT
The recommendations about the kind of support based on this classification are
shown in Figure 4.6b.
day day mth mth year years years
Active Span “S” (m)

Unnecessary
)
(cm
ss
kne
t hic
te
c re
ot
Sh
ri bs
el
h ste STAND-UP TIME (Hours)
wit
Figure 4.6b.-Timbering
Timbering requirements according to Lauffer and Linder (1958)
A. Unsupported
B. 2-33 cm shotcrete, or systematic bolting 1,5 – 2 m with wire mesh, eventually in crown only.
C. 3-55 cm shotcrete, or systematic bolting 1,0 – 1,5 m with wire mesh, eventually in crown
only.
D. 5-77 cm shotcrete with wire mesh, or systematic bolting 0,7 – 1,0 m with wire mesh and 3
cm shotcrete.
E. 7-15
15 cm shotcrete with wire mesh, sometimes systematic bolting 0,5 – 1,2 m and 3-5 cm
shotcrete, alternatively
ternatively steel ribs and armour plate.
F. 15-20
20 cm shotcrete with steel ribs and wire mesh, or steel ribs and armour plate with final
shotcrete layer.
G. Shotcrete, reinforced steel ribs and armour plate.
July 2016 V. 1.1 64

TUNNEL REPORT
b) Bieniawski RMR classification
It establishes
stablishes qualification
qualif of massif being crossed by the tunnel,
tunnel based on the
following:
o Compression strength of the rock matrix
o Fracture density and fracturing seals conditions basic RMR
o Presence of water
o Discontinuity orientation favourability modified RMR
Figure 4.7 includes the evaluation

evaluation ranges for each of the parameters considered in
Bieniawski classification (1989).
July 2016 V. 1.1 65

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.7.-
4.7. Evaluation parameters of Bieniawski
eniawski classification
For support allocation,

allocation based on Modified RMR index, can be followed
follow two tables
of values:
July 2016 V. 1.1 66

TUNNEL REPORT
- The Bieniawski
eniawski table (1989) for an
a excavation width not exceeding 10 meters,
as shown in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8.-
4.8 Supports allocation (Bieniawski,
eniawski, 1989)
- The Romana table, for spans up to 15 meters, shown in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9.- Supports allocation table (Romana

Romana, 2000)
July 2016 V. 1.1 67

TUNNEL REPORT
The main questioned aspects of this criterion were:
• Regarding the qualification of the massif.
- Excessive water condition evaluation range (range of 15 points).

points)
- Excessive and questionable joints orientation assessment.

assessment.
The major negative consideration of verticalized longitudinal joints effect is

due to the experiences of Cording and Mathar (1974) in Chicago and New
York subways construction, and so was collected by Lauffer in his
classification
classification.
- It doesn´t consider
cons the nature of the joints infill.
• For the supports allocation:
- It doesn’t consider high overburden.
- Its validity is questionable in very hard soils or soft rock.
- It doesn’t consider low overburden, in which the shape of the failure

changes into chimney type.
- It doesn’t consider the size of the excavation, but only the maximum size
that can be applied to.
to
Considering the above points,

points used to modify the criteria for support allocation,
criteria based on Bieniawski
B eniawski RMR index are the most common used and valid
under the following conditions:
- In tunnels with overburden value between 1.5 diameters and 300 meters,
as final support.
- In tunnels with high overburden, as initial support; it might need to go

reinforcing as the
t closure of the section occur, as will be discussed in the
next chapter.
July 2016 V. 1.1 68

TUNNEL REPORT
c) Barton Q classification
While taking the name of its principal specialist, we can say that this is the
classification developed by a public body with recognized technical competence,
competence as
NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) and it has been improved over the past 30
years.
Regardless of the massif valuation criteria,, it should be noted that it is a

specific assessment for tunnels which considers not only the rock properties
but also the geometrical and hydro-geological
hydro conditions.
The Barton Q index takes the value of:
The three main factors describe the stability in underground openings:
- RQD / Jn: Degree of joint (or block size)
- Jr / Ja: joint friction (inter-block

(inter shear strength)
- Jw / SRF: Active Stress
Where:
• Q = Barton and Grimstad Index, according to the latest changes.
• RQD = In case of boreholes or fronts scan-lines,

scan lines, the length of every core
sample exceeding 10 cm size in each meter (between natural joints).
joints)
Figure 4.10.–
4. RQD-values
values and volumetric jointing (NGI, 2013)
July 2016 V. 1.1 69

TUNNEL REPORT
It can also be obtained according to Palmstrom

Pal expression being Jv the
expression,
volumetric index of fractures or their number in every m3 of the massif.
massif
- RQD = 113 to 3.3 x Jv for tabular or prismatic blocks.
- RQD = 110 - 2.5 x Jv for polyhedral, rhombohedral

dral and equidimensional
blocks.
Figure 4.11 shows some typical blocks formed by joints. A great variety in
sizes and shapes of rock blocks complicates the measurement of this parameter.
Also the block shape is often important in the behaviour of rock masses.
mas
Figure 4.11.- Examples of some shapes of defined blocks (modified from

Dearman, 1991)
RQD can also be estimated based on fracture frequency (in

( a specific
direction),
), according to expression of Hudson and Priest, 1979:
RQD = 100 e-0,1λ (1 + 0.1 λ),
Being λ the total joint frequency (joint number / meter).
July 2016 V. 1.1 70

TUNNEL REPORT
• Jn: joint set number
Figure 4.12.- Joint set number Jn (NGI, 2013)

20
• Jr : joints roughness factor.

factor
Figure 4.13.- Jr index (NGI, 2013)
July 2016 V. 1.1 71

TUNNEL REPORT
• Ja: Joint alteration number.

number
Figure 4.14.-
4.1 Ja index assessment chart (NGI, 2013)
July 2016 V. 1.1 72

TUNNEL REPORT
• Jw: Joint water reduction factor.
Figure 4.15.-
4.1 Jw index assessment chart (NGI, 2013)
July 2016 V. 1.1 73

TUNNEL REPORT
• SRF = Factor which depends on the stress state, in which depth of the tunnel
and general nature of the massif are considered.
Figure 4.16.- SRF Assessment (NGI, 2013

13)
July 2016 V. 1.1 74

TUNNEL REPORT
As shown in figure 4.16, the risk of rock bursting and squeezing is taken into
account by significantly increasing the SRF rate. This indicates that,
that as
explained in the following chapter, the proposed design criterion to
t approach
these phenomena is the active method, i.e. increasing and stiffening
reinforcements without allowing relaxation by deformation or cavity
closure.
The risk that special behaviour phenomena occur, can be seen in the table of
figure 4.17,, also due to Barton and which takes into account the squeezing
prediction of Singh et al.
al (1992) and Singh (1993).
ROCK Q-VALUE
VALUE H (m) q (MPa) PROBABLE BEHAVIOUR
CLASS
A 40 – 1000 1196 – 3492 62 – 182 Rock Burst
B 10 – 40 754 – 1196 39 – 62 Slabbing &Spelling
C 4 – 10 555 – 754 29 – 39 Block Creep
D 1–4 350 – 555 18 – 29 Block Creep
E 0,1 – 1 162 – 350 8,4 – 18 Breaking, crushing and creep
F 0,01 – 0,1 76 – 162 3,9 – 8,4 Flow, plastic deformation
G 0,001 – 0,01 35 – 76 1,8 – 3,9 Flow, plastic deformation
q = 7 · γ · Q ; (γ
1/3 3
( = 2,6 tn/m )
Figure 4.17.- Special behaviours risk

isk
After obtaining the Q index,

index support needs can be obtained depending on the
maximum size of the excavated and not sustained area,
area corrected with ESR
value according
ding to the graph in Figure 4.18
4
July 2016 V. 1.1 75

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.18.- Graph from Barton and Grimstad
The ESR value can be taken from the table of figure 4.19.
4.1
Figure 4.19.- ESR values table
July 2016 V. 1.1 76

TUNNEL REPORT
Support elements can be taken among the following:
- RRS: TH type flexible steel ribs or lattice girders.
- CCA: ISHB-150
IS 150 type rigid ribs with at least 30 cm of fiber
reinforced shotcrete.
- Shotcrete
hotcrete reinforced arcs (RRS) like those shown in Figure
4.20,which
20,which are not used in Spain and many other countries.
Figure 4.20.- Shotcrete reinforced arcs

rcs (RSS)
July 2016 V. 1.1 77

TUNNEL REPORT
Another advantage
tage presented by the Q Barton index is that is mapped to the
seismic velocity of the compression waves P, according to the following
empirical formula:
10 for porous rocks
The variation of the Q index thus obtained can be corrected according to tunnel
depth or rock porosity, as shown in the graph in Figure 4.21,
21, from Sjøgren et
al. (1979).
Figure 4.21.- Trends of Vp – Q, correction with depth and porosity of the

massif
July 2016 V. 1.1 78

TUNNEL REPORT
d) Palmstrom RMi classification:

classification
It is a classification of rock
ro quality which is mostly based on joints distribution,
roughness and alteration;
alteration it also makes an allocation of supports.
It has had virtually no use as classification, although it is being used

us within the new
block measurement (estimating size and distribution
ibution of blocks between joints of a
rock mass) and joint conditions criteria, in which RMi is based.
July 2016 V. 1.1 79

TUNNEL REPORT
3. Rational criteria
Rational criteria correspond to the obtaining of support necessity based on the

performance of a roughly strict estimation, and with materials parameters involved in
the process derived from:
• Bibliography
• Designer justified experience
• Field or laboratory surveys
The possibility of extensive use of rational methods, was due to the widespread use of
sophisticated calculation tools, even three-dimensional,
dimensional, but the difficulty of
characterizing the stress-strain
stress strain process around a tunnel, does that still is not the
problem solved,, except in the case of characterizable materials with laboratory testing
(little fractured rock or soil) and for reduced
duced overburden height in which geostatic
entire load is transmitted to the tunnel support and the horizontal earth pressure
coefficient is between 0.50 and 0.80.
Accordingly, the implementation of a rational dimensioning of tunnel support forces

to solve four problems:
- Determination of the stress-strain parameters of the massif.
- Determination of the initial earth pressure coefficient.
- Determination of the rate or percentage of geostatic pressure being not transmitted

to the support.
This problem is difficult

diffic to resolve, also in the case that, according to N.A.T.M.
N
criteria, the support is placed in several phases according to the convergences
obtained.
- Once the calculation is made, checking the validity of the support,

support taking into
account that cracks
crack in shotcrete arc are allowed, but only if not forming
mechanisms.
Even so, at the moment it’s impossible,

impossible from rational methods calculations,
calculations to reliably
predict (and in which range) that special behavioural phenomena such as squeezing,
rock-bursting,
bursting, flooding, etc., are not going to be produced.
July 2016 V. 1.1 80

TUNNEL REPORT
Each
ach of the above processes is analyzed as follows.
a) Determining stress--strains parameters
With the improvement and extension of more powerful computing tools, all
geomechanical classifications empirically established laws
laws that allowed obtaining
stress-strain parameters massif from:
• Intact rock parameters that can be obtained in laboratory tests.
• Index Value classification.
However, as more generalized approach to obtain the stress-strain

strain parameters of the
rock, spread to practically be the only one used the GSI index Hoek and Brown,
which has the following characteristics:
- Consider the criterion of Hoek and Brown, which for a massif,

massif corresponds to
the following formula:
Being σc the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock.
- The parameters m, s, and are obtained according to a new index GSI

G Hoek,
Hoek and Marinos, etc.
Initially, the GSI was obtained this way:
* For RMRcorrected > 23: GSI = RMRbasic waterless - 5
Being RMRbasic obtained considering the dry massif and without correction
for discontinuities orientation.
* For RMRcorrected < 23: GSI = 9 x logQ - 44
However, subsequently Hoek himself discarded these correlations, suggesting

GSI estimation based on the structure of the rock and the condition of the
joints, as show on the graph in Figure 4.22.
July 2016 V. 1.1 81

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.22.- Hoek Chart
In this chart though GSI ranges for each type of massif structure and joint quality,
quality
are still very large in a range of almost 20 units, which makes significantly
significant
subjective the use of
o this graph, which is never advisable.
On the other hand, the value of GSI would be the same with the same structure
regardless of the size of massif blocks, which is not in accord with the actual
experience or block calculation programs.
In view of this, Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) proposed a quantification of the input
parameters of the previous graph, depending on the Jv index already described and
a review of the discontinuities similar to those used in the classification of
Bieniawski.
eniawski. This graph is shown
show in Figure 4.23.
July 2016 V. 1.1 82

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.23.- Graph for GSI quantification according to Sonmez and Ulusay
(1999)
Similarly Cai et al. (2004) proposed a massif structure quantification in the Hoek
abacus based on the block volume, as it is defined by Palmstrom,
strom, and as seen in
Figure 4.24.
July 2016 V. 1.1 83

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.24.- Graph for GSI quantification according to Cai et al (2004)
Finally,
ly, Russo proposed a new graph for obtaining GSI, in which rock mass
structure would not intervene as in the initial Hoek’s,
Hoek , but the block volume and the
joint conditions factor,
factor being the latter jC, proposed by Palmstrom
strom for obtaining
RMi. In Figure 4.255 this graph is depicted.
July 2016 V. 1.1 84

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.25.-
4.2 Chart for obtaining GSI (Russo, 2009)
According to Hoek and Brown when they established their failure criterion, this is
not applicable to the surfaces of foliation, so that the graphs above would not be
applicable to foliated rock masses, unless foliation represent the major percentage
of failure surfaces.
For this reason, in flysch type materials,

materials Hoek and Marinos established
establish specific
criteria whose graphs for obtaining GSI and rock matrix resistance to be adopted
are shown in Figures 4.26
4.2 and 4.27.
July 2016 V. 1.1 85

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.26.-
4.2 GSI index in Flysch
h materials
Figure 4.27.-
4.2 Rock mass resistance in Flysch materials
aterials
With the GSI

SI index and the strength parameters of the rock matrix, there are
correlations for obtaining the massif parameters, which can be done directly with
the Rocscience RocLab program.
July 2016 V. 1.1 86

TUNNEL REPORT
In case of foliated materials,

materials it is better to define at least the weak planes
plan resistance
independently, which would follow the Mohr-Coulomb
Coulomb criterion.
b) Determination of horizontal earth pressure coefficient
As already mentioned, to determine the horizontal earth pressure coefficient in case

of tectonized or metamorphic rocks empirical
rical methods can be used.
used
Common methods are:
• SRF Index of González

Gonz de Vallejo.
! "# #
T: age of last folding in years
E: Rock mass deformation modulus (GPa)
H: Overburden in depth (m)
NC: seism-tectonic
tectonic coefficient (≥0,25)
NC x SC < 0,25
SC: very steep topography effect (≥0,25)
$%&'(,*+
Hercynian orogeny
'*,,(
Taken K = σh / σv =
$%&'+,-.
Alpine orogeny
'*,+.
• Sheorey Method
K = 0,25 + 7 x Eh x (0,001+ (1/z))
Eh: Horizontal elasticity modulus (GPa)
Z: Depth
July 2016 V. 1.1 87

TUNNEL REPORT
Test methods for determining the horizontal earth pressure coefficient, would be
hydro-fracturationn tests,
tests i.e. in situ stress measurement tests performed using three-
dimensional gaugess.
c) Deconfinement ratio
The initial geostatic stress partially relax prior to support placement and even
beyond the tunnel face
ace according to the scheme of figure 4.28.
Figure 4.28.- Scheme

Schem of deformation in a rock mass surrounding a tunnel
excavation
For two-dimensional
dimensional calculations,
calculations, which are still usually performed for the design
of tunnels, the method used to model this behaviour is to consider a fictitious radial
pressure with a maximum value in the face
f and which vanishes at sufficient
distance from it (11 to 3 diameters).
Figure 4.29 shows the radial

radia displacement (ur) curves in function of the distance
from the face,, according to different authors.
July 2016 V. 1.1 88

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.29.- Radial displacement curves in function of the distance from the
face, according to different authors
Accordingly, following the method of Panet and Guenot, 1982,

1982, a fictitious tunnel
contour radial pressure value is assumed:
σr = (1 - λ) X σ0
Being σ0 the initial geostatic stress, and λ an increasing function from the face to
the value of 1.
λ=1
=1 is adopted at a sufficient length from the face in order to no longer consider its
effect.
Value λ is taken as
λ = λ0 + (1 - λ0) m
July 2016 V. 1.1 89

TUNNEL REPORT
Being λ0 a parameter that varies with the degree of plasticization of the massif, and
"m" a parameter which depends on the distance from the tunnel face and on
plasticization radius.
Both radiuss and degree of plasticization

plasticiz can be estimated based on the number of
stability:
N = 2 σ0 / σc
Being σ0 the geostatic stress, and σc the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock
mass.
Depending on the value of N we have:
- N = 1: Tunnel in elastic state
- N = 2.75: Tunnel plasticizing starts
- N = 4: Tunnel face with problems
- N = 6: Unstable tunnel face
Accordingly, in the elastic case,

case with N = 1, it is obtained:
−x
λ0 = 0.265 m=1- e 0.7 xr
Where r is the radius

adius or half-width
half excavation and x the distance from the face.
In the elastoplastic
plastic case, with N = 3
−2
 x 
λ0 = 0.58 m = 1 - 1 + 
 0.84 xr 
 p 
Where rp is the radius of plasticizing, which can also be estimated based on the
number of stability, according to the following table:
table
N 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
rp / r 1 1,125 1.45 1.75 2.15
Regarding the effect of reducing stress acting on the support due to the decrease of
the load prior to placement, the following points should be considered:
July 2016 V. 1.1 90

TUNNEL REPORT
• In general, for shallow tunnels (below 100 m depths)

depths) relaxation coefficients
between 0.30 and 0.40 (i.e.,
(i only 70 to 60% of the geostatic load would be
applied to the support)
support can be considered.
• Obviously, if the support placement in respect to the face is delayed, the stress
could be further reduced, butt this procedure is delicate by the following aspects:
- A brittle fracture collapse in softenable rock could occur..
- Parameters in the short term of the rock next to the face may be better than
the long-term
term ones,, leading to underestimate pressures on support, and
dimensioning it not on the safe side.
For the calculation of the deconfinement ratio in a position from 10 to 12

meters from the face (with
( less elaborate methods but with results that differ
little from the previous criteria), the graph included in Figure 4.30
4. can be used;
it is taken from the publication of Celada (Ingeotúneles, Vol.7 2004).
Figure 4.30.- Variation of the decrease at vault depending on the distance from
the face
July 2016 V. 1.1 91

TUNNEL REPORT
d) Calculation of requirements support and reinforcement
The calculation
ion of the reinforcement and support needs can be done using two
completely different methods:
• DCA discontinuous methods, in which the rock mass is analyzed in its

interaction with the surrounding massifs through the joints.
Figure 4.31 shows the graphs obtained

tained for different block sizes
size using a DCA
calculation performed with the UDEC program.
Figure 4.31.- Variation of the shear zones by reducing the block size
• ECA continuous methods,

me in which the rock is considered ass a continuum, with
geomechanical properties
properties based on geomechanical classifications, planes of
weaknesss with lower shear strength, etc.
Regardless of the method or calculation program, the procedure will be:
To establish the lithologic and hydrologic conditions to be taken into account

for the design of supports,
support a geomechanical model of the terrain traversed
should be initially performed.
performed
The geomechanical model is made based on the geological model, but

differentiating and grouping different materials depending not only on its
lithology, but
ut also on its massif quality. Inn the geomechanical model,
model faults,
July 2016 V. 1.1 92

TUNNEL REPORT
discontinuities or every element that affects the massif quality parameters are
also included and introduced as single elements.
4.1.1. Geological
eological Model
According to the above, for the realization

realization of the geomechanical model you must start
from a geological model of the terrain traversed by the tunnel, such as the one in Figure
4.32.
Figure 4.32
As shown in the scheme of the previous figure, in addition to considering the most
predictable lithological situation, the risk of karstifications existence,
existence the presence of
water, etc. are to be included within the same zoning according to the degree of fracturing.
fracturing
Therefore, the required minimum features that should

should be solved in the geological structure
are:
• Distribution of lithologies along the tunnel.
• Geological structure
tructure dip relative to the tunnel axis.
• Geological structure
tructure direction relative to the tunnel axis.
July 2016 V. 1.1 93

TUNNEL REPORT
• Tectonics:
- Existence and location of folds
- Existence
tence and location of faults and milonite
milonit thickness, thus
indicating the their frequency and width.
- Fracturing, with the description of fracture characteristics

(frequency, roughness, etc.)
• Presence of water or water pressure at tunnel level, with areas of potential

inflows.
4.2. SPECIAL HAZARDS
4.2.1. Introduction to special hazards
The definition of the tunnel behaviour and the need of a tunnel support, obtained for
example from the geomechanical classifications, analyzes the excavated section partial or
total
otal collapse risk (cave) according to the fracture degree, as it can be seen in Figure 4.33.
Figure 4.33.-
4.33. Collapse cavity according to fracturing
July 2016 V. 1.1 94

TUNNEL REPORT
The considered breaking for which the support is dimensioned would therefore be:
- Due to shear stress

- According
cording to the joint surfaces
- Water would soften the joint contacts and cause pressure increasing and blocks
collapse.
These criteria would be useful for tunnels in rock, where the geostatic load is lower than
the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass and well below the compressive
strength of the intact rock.
However, in case of deeper tunnels or in very weak rock, gravity stress can overcome the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass or intact rock, causing different phenomena as
outlined by Terzaghi, which would be:
- Squeezing or high closing of an overstressed section contour. An example of

squeezing is shown in picture 4.2,
4. , corresponding to a high speed railway tunnel in
Galicia (Spain).
Picture 4.2.- Cracks in the support due to squeezing

squeezing along a fault crossing
(Maximal closure of 8%)
July 2016 V. 1.1 95

TUNNEL REPORT
- Rock-bursting,, crash in the lining, presenting a brittle behaviour (strain softening)

and being overstressed. Picture 4.3, from Hoek, shows a mine gallery affected by
Rock-Bursting.
Picture 4.3.– Breakage

reakage in mining gallery affected by Rock-bursting
Rock
- Ravelling,, which is a ground crushing due to the lack of cohesion, causing rock
falling into the cavity. In general, it only requires a decrease in the round length
or, in the worst case, a micropile umbrella.
umbrella. An example of Ravelling
phenomenon, taken from the last publication of Hoek, can be seen in Picture
4.4.
July 2016 V. 1.1 96

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 4.4.-
4.4. Example of a tunnel affected by Ravelling
- Flooding, in which the impact would be more severe. It consists in a flow of mud or
debris
bris irrupting into the tunnel from the face, due to the presence of water pressure
and to a low mass strength.
- Swelling,, which has to be considered especially in the design of the invert, is due to
the potential volume increasing of clay minerals, anhydrite
anhydrite or pyrite included in the
massif. It is an easily predictable risk by performing tests on rock expansiveness, with
or without prior mineralogical studies to detect clays.
4.2.2. Squeezing, rockbursting, buckling and flooding
When geostatic stresses aree higher than the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass,
depending on the stress – deformation curve, squeezing or rock-bursting
rock bursting occurs.
The justification of this phenomenon is easily understood, even by resorting to the concept
of Mohr's circle for
or its didactic nature.
According to the elastic solution for the performance of a circular cavity affected by plane
strain on a two-dimensional
dimensional elastic body, the distribution of the values of the maximum
principal stress would be as shown in Figure 4.34.
July 2016 V. 1.1 97

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.34.- Maximum stress distributions in the surroundings of a circular cavity
Therefore, for a hydrostatic distribution of loads, the stresses development in the contour
would be as in the scheme, shown in Figure 4.35.
Figure 4.35.-
4.35. Stress distribution
ibution in the tunnel outline
July 2016 V. 1.1 98

TUNNEL REPORT
If the Mohr circle reaches the failure criterion surface contour, two types of behaviour may
occur:
- If the material is ductile, plastic strain in the contour reaches the failure surface; this
makes the plasticized zone to penetrate
penetrate outwards, and gradually increases the speed
and the convergence value.
This is the phenomenon of squeezing, which is the most usual, because most of
the rock masses have a ductile behaviour, especially if they are broken by joints.
- In fragile materials,
als, with a strain-softening
strain softening failure criterion, peak strength is reached
and violent rupture occurs when the rock strength drastically decreases to the residual
value. In this phase, part of the elastic energy becomes kinetic energy and rock blocks
are thrown
own towards the excavated area.
This would be the rock-bursting

rock bursting hazard for the perimeter of the excavation.
Likewise, ISMR describes the degree of squeezing and its relationship with the ratio
between uniaxial compressive strength and initial geostatic stress,
stress, according to the
following table (Barla, 1995).
Squeezing Degree σθ / qcmass qcmass / (γH)
(ISMR) (Barla 1995)
No risk squeezing < 1.0 > 1.0
Mild squeezing 1.0 - 2.0 0.4 to 1.0
Moderate squeezing 2.0 - 4.0 0.2 to 0.4
High squeezing > 4.0 < 0.2
Where σθ is the maximum normal stress in the tangent direction to the surface of the
excavated tunnel (maximum principal stress) and which can reach 1.2 to 2.5 times the
value of the initial gravity stress, according to the geometry of the excavation
exca (Palmstrom,
1995).
July 2016 V. 1.1 99

TUNNEL REPORT
Where these hazards occur first, with the maximum principal stress exceeding the break
strength, is in the face of excavation, so this phenomenon produces systematic instability
in the face, that can influence the placement and type
ty of supports.
To determine the boundary between the risk of tunnel instability by either squeezing or
bursting, it may be better the definition of the critical strain of rock mass εcr, starting
rock-bursting,
from which rupture or plasticizing is produced.
Criticall strain is defined as the ratio between the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock
mass (qcmass) and the modulus of elasticity, and, according to Sakurai (1997), it would be
nearly independent of joints, temperature and hydrostatic load.
Singh and Chaudhan

dhan obtained the following correlation starting from 30 cases of tunnels in
the Himalayas.
5,84 91*,:: 100 91

012 3%5 =
*,;+ *,-,
< <
100 ?@
012 = 0>
A
Where a = radius of tunnel and µaa = observed deflection of crown in downward direction.
Sakurai (1997) classified the hazard warning

warning into three stages in relation to the uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock mass and the ratio between the radius of tunnel and the
observed deflection of crown in downward direction, as shown in Figure 4.36.
This approach has been verified by Swarup,

Swarup, Goel and Prasad (2000) in 19 tunnels in weak
rocks (slates, phyllites and schists) in the Himalayan range.
July 2016 V. 1.1 100

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.36.– Hazard warning levels for assessing the stability of tunnels
When crown deflection is below the level I, there has been no risk of instability, while near
level III stability problems have always appeared in the tunnel.
1.- Squeezing hazards
According to the definition of squeezing of the ISMR "The squeezing of the rock is the
large time-dependent
dependent deformation that occurs around the tunnel and is essentially
associated with creep caused by exceeding the shear strength limit. Deformation during
construction can terminate or continue for a long period".
To determine the boundary between the squeezing and rock bursting here are several
criteria
riteria normally reflected in the definition of risk hazards graphs.
Kumar (2002), as seen in Figure 4.37, classified the failure modes according to the values:
Jr: joint roughness number
Ja: joint alteration number
July 2016 V. 1.1 101

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.37.- Boundary between Squeezing

Squeezing and Rock bursting
As it can be seen in the graph above, the risk of rock bursting would start from Jr / Ja >
0.50, provided that other conditions of brittleness (breaking softenable rock) and stiffness
(high deformation modulus
us of the matrix rock) are met.
This could be justified on the basis that, for rock mass behaviour at failure to be "strain
softening", the material must have negative dilatancy (without increase in volume in
rupture); the value and sign of dilatancy of the rock mass are related to the combination Jr /
Ja.
Squeezing of rock masses may appear in these cases:
- Squeezing of the intact rock.
- Squeezing of filled joints.
- Squeezing of the foliation.
- Squeezing of shear zones and faults.
According to the above it should be noted:
• Squeezing is the creep deformation because of an overstress of the rock mass, and
therefore of its plasticization with fluence. Modules obtained from elastic deformation
of the rock mass are therefore not applicable.
July 2016 V. 1.1 102

TUNNEL REPORT
• Post-rupture
rupture behaviour can be viscous, with progression
progression over time of the extension of
the plasticized rock mass, and therefore with no tendency to the stabilization of
movements, especially in two cases:
o When support reinforcements against squeezing are insufficient and allow a

growing progression of extension
extension of the overstressed rock mass (in post-rupture),
post
even reaching the collapse of the cavity when the retaining elements are
progressively ruptured.
o When the reinforcing elements, intuitively defined, are used for reinforcement, and
due to this reinforcement,
reinforcement, the signs of the stresses acting on the overstressed solid
are modified, which leads to a subsequent rupture that may become brittle.
Therefore, the first recommendation, in case of an increase of the displacements

compatible with squeezing, is asking
asking for the assistance of a specialist in tunnels
and contention structures, and avoiding intuitive and not justified placing of the
reinforcement elements, which could lead to the creation of hard spots where
support reactions are concentrated.
As for the criteria for assessing the risk of squeezing, we would have:
a) Barla Criteria
It is the most simple and intuitive approach for application. If squeezing is due to
unconfined overstress of the rock mass in the surroundings of the excavation, this
overstress will
ill depend on the relationship:
σ1B@C
DE
where:
- σcmas: Compressive strength of the rock mass, that can be obtained from any of
the classifications (for example by using the program Roc-Lab)
Lab)
- γ:: Means density of the overburden.
- Z: Tunnel overburden.
overburde
July 2016 V. 1.1 103

TUNNEL REPORT
According to the value of this ratio, the degree of squeezing is forecasted according
to the table in Figure 4.38.
Degree of squeezing RATIO (qcmass/γH)

H)
No squeezing >1.0
Mild squeezing 0.4 – 1.0
Moderate squeezing 0.2 – 0.4
High squeezing <0.2
Fig
Figure 4.38.- Degree of squeezing (Barla, 1995)
b) Hoek Criteria (2000)
Figure 4.39
.39 shows the classic Hoek graph (2000) for risk prediction and squeezing
assessment.
Figure 4.39.-- Classification of deformation behaviour by squeezing

(Hoek - 2000)
July 2016 V. 1.1 104

TUNNEL REPORT
For
or each squeezing risk type, the support problems and needs are indicated in the
table in Figure 4.40.
Figure 4.40.- Hoek and Marinos table for evaluation of squeezing degree
The main problem for the application of this approach is that, for the closure
closur of the section,
we should consider a value of the module of secant deformation, including post-failure,
post
whose value and obtaining method is not defined.
Obtaining of the closure percentage of the section is defined according to the ratio between
ressive strength of the rock mass or σcmas and the initial geostatic stress p0 = γz,
the compressive
which is the following, according to the above authors:
σcmas =(0.0034 mi0, 8) xσc x [1.029 + 0.025 exp (-0.1 x mi)] GSI
σ1B@C
HFJH ε 3%5 0.20 3 5'+
M*
# FGHI HFJH
July 2016 V. 1.1 105

TUNNEL REPORT
c) Criterion of Singh, Jethwa, Dube and Singh (1992)
This criterion is fully based on the experiences of hydroelectric chambers and

tunnels with high overburden in the lower Himalaya (Regions
(Regions of Himachal Pradesh
and Uttaranchal), therefore its reliability for use in rock masses made of similar
materials (schists, phyllites and volcanic intrusions of metabasite type) in the
Himalayan mountains is very high.
According to these criteria, the depth

depth limit "H" to produce squeezing in a rock mass
with quality defined by the index Q of Barton, with SRF = 2.5, will be:
- Risk of squeezing H (m) ≥ 350 x Q1 / 3
- No risk of squeezing H (m) < 350 x Q1 / 3
d) Goel’s Criterion (1994)

This criterion is also mainly based on the experiences of deep tunnels conveying
water in the Lower Himalayas, but it also incorporates the experiences
experienc of deep
tunnels made in Sweden and UK.
The criterion of appearance and assessment of squeezing is obtained according to

two parameters:
- The Q index for Barton, considering SRF = 1,, called N (Goel, Jethwa and
Paithankar, 1995), but still called QSRF = 1 in this document.
- “B” excavation width.
"H" will be the maximum depth allowed so that the risk of squeezing is not
reached.
Figure 4.41 shows the position of tunnel sections analyzed in a graph N (QSRF =
1) and H x B0, 1
July 2016 V. 1.1 106

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.41.-
4.41. Relationship between
een risk of squeezing, QSRF = 1 and the
product HxB0, 1
According to the limits shown in the figure above, the following criteria would be
obtained, represented in the table in Figure 4.42, where the denomination of the
intensity of squeezing could be associated
associated to the following percentages of closure
of the section.
o Mild or minor squeezing Closure of 1-3%

3% of the tunnel diameter
o Moderate to severe squeezing Closure of 3-5%
5% of the tunnel diameter
o High to very severe squeezing Closure > 5% of the tunnel diameter
July 2016 V. 1.1 107

TUNNEL REPORT
Case No. Tunnel behaviour Correlation for behaviour prediction
*,::
H (m) < 23,4 x B-0,1
0,1
x N;
1 Self
Self-supporting
and 1000 x B-0,1 and B (m) < 2 Q0,4
*,:: *,,,
2 Non - squeezing 23.4xB-0,1x N; ≤H 275xB-0,1x
(m)<275xB N;
*,,, *,,,
275xB-0,1x N; ≤H 450xB-0,1x
(m)<450xB N;
3 Mild squeezing
and Jr/Ja < 0.50
*,,, *,,,
450xB-0,1x N; ≤H 630xB-0,1x
(m)<630xB N;
4 Moderate squeezing
and Jr/Ja < 0.50
*,,,
H (m) ≥ 630 x B-0,1 x N;
5 High
gh squeezing
and Jr/Ja < 0.25
H x B0,1> 1000 m
6 Mild rock burst
and Jr/Ja > 0.50 and QSRF = 1>1.0
Figure 4.42.-
4.42. Squeezing prediction in deep tunnels
Another limitation to produce squeezing

squee must be Jr / Ja < 0.50, included in the
paper of Singh and Goel (2002), and which is contrasted by the study of Kumar
(2002) already mentioned, to distinguish the boundary between squeezing and rock
bursting.
e) Bhasin and Grimstad Criteria (1996)
Based on the further development of the application of Barton’s Q index with SRF
= 2.5, the developed risk criteria for incidents in deep tunnels is shown in Figure
4.43.
July 2016 V. 1.1 108

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.43.- Prediction of tunnel stability (Bhasin and Grimstad, 1996)
f) Theoretical criteria
Theoretical analysis of the plane strain of a circular cavity on a hydrostatic pressure

field (Ko = 1), is obtained in the contour of the tunnel:
- Maximum Principal stress σ1 = σθ

- Intermediate Principal stress: σ2 = p0
- Minimum Principal stress: σ3 = 0
To produce squeezing, the following conditions must be met:
σθ > qcmas + A x p0 / 2 = q'cmass
July 2016 V. 1.1 109

TUNNEL REPORT
Palmstrom et. al (1995) found that, to produce squeezing, σθ / qcmass should be

between 1.5 and 3 and the constant “A” must be below 1.5.
On the other hand,

hand, in eleven tunnels built in the Himalayan, the following
conditions producing squeezing were observed:
- Peak friction angle < 30 º

- Jr / Ja < 0.50
;/,
- Overburden above 350 x N+,O
2.- Rock-bursting
bursting hazards
Although this phenomenon has been observed

observed in mining since the eighteenth century, its
nature was not completely understood until the nineteen-sixties.
nineteen
This type of mass behaviour can be defined as a violent and sudden fracturing of the rock
mass (burst), when the rock mass accumulates elastic energy in excess during the post-
post
rupture (Linkov, 1996).
A rock mass can have this behaviour only if the following features exist simultaneously:
- The rock is able to accumulate enough deformational energy, which generally

implies particular mechanical properties
properties and a reachable high stress level.
- The rock mass is not very jointed, since joints dissipate stresses and reduce the
accumulation of energy.
In addition to more specific criteria set out hereafter, situations with risk of rock-bursting
rock
have already been studied in terms and graphics:
- Behaviour prediction according to Kumar (2002)

- Chart Goel, Jethwa and Paithankar (1995)
- Chart Bhasin and Grimstad (1996)
Other criteria useful to assess the risk of outbreak of rocks are the Polish criterion, the
shear stress
tress criterion and the degree of fracturing one, described as follows.
July 2016 V. 1.1 110

TUNNEL REPORT
a) Elastic strain energy criterion (1994)
This criterion was established by Kwasniewski and colleagues in Poland (1994).

These authors tabulated the risk of rock burst based on the potential
potential energy of elastic
deformation, which they briefly called PES, whose value is:
RS+

2 . C
Q
Where:
- PES: Potential Elastic Strain energy of the rock.

- σc: Uniaxial rock compressive strength obtained in the laboratory.
- Es: Rock deformation Modulus obtained in the laboratory.
Since the degree of fracturing is not taken

taken into account, the risk would occur in the
stretches with sparsely fractured massif (e.g. with RMRCOR>60
60 or Q index >10).
Depending on the value of PES, the risk of rock burst is indicated in the chart shown
in Figure 4.44.
Potential Elastic Strain energy

ene (PES)
Assessing the risk of outbreak
(KJ/m3)
PES ≥ 50 Very low risk
PES ≥ 100>50 Low risk
PES ≥ 150>100 Moderate risk
PES ≥ 200>150 High risk
PES ≥ 200 Very high risk
Figure 4.44.- Risk of bursting. Potential Elastic Strain energy.
July 2016 V. 1.1 111

TUNNEL REPORT
This criterion, also called Polish Criterion, does not consider the ground stress state
in its geological location, but the ability or capacity of the rock to store enough
deformational energy that produces outbreak, regardless of the stress state finally
reached.
b) Shear stress criterion (1998)
This Criterion, established

shed by Wang (1998) considers both the stress state of the rock
mass and the mechanical properties of intact rock, and it is an evolution of the Hoek
1980 criterion. This author calculated the Ts value, expressed as:
R>

C
R1
Where:
- σθ = Shear stress in the rock located in the periphery of the excavation

- σc = Uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass rock.
To obtain the value of σθ it can be considered that this stress is caused by the weight
of the lithostatic column, as Hoek indicated in the first formulation of his criterion
(1980). Thus, the value of shear stress in the rock would be:
σθ = γ . z
Where:
- γ = Density of rock
- Z = Overburden
According to Wang, the risk of outbreak of unfractured rock is quantified based on the
parameter Ts, according to the table in Figure 4.45.
4.45
July 2016 V. 1.1 112

TUNNEL REPORT
Intervals Ts Assessing the risk of outbreak
< 0.3 There is no risk
0.3 - 0.5 Risk of weak burst
0.5--0.7 Risk of strong burst
>0.7
0.7 Risk of violent outburst
Figure 4.45.-
4.45. Risk of bursting according to Wang
The limit Ts < 0.3 is originally proposed by Hoek (1980), as boundary of rock burst
phenomena.
c) Influence
nce of fracturing on rock burst
Experimental observation in the mining field has shown that, in general, both the
stress
ss level and the deformational energy are lower in jointed rock masses, in
consequence the intensity of fracture is inversely proportional to rock burst hazard.
On the other hand, as it is well known, the RQD is a very simple and convenient way
to assess the
he degree of fracturing of the rock mass, so that high values of this
parameter imply massive rock mass, while RQD low values imply more fractured rock
mass. According to these criteria, we can say that the rock burst risk increases with the
RQD of the rockk mass, i.e. are directly proportional. This risk is quantified in the table
in Figure 4.46.
July 2016 V. 1.1 113

TUNNEL REPORT
Fracturing Index RQD (%) Assessing the risk of outbreak
RQD
RQD<25 There is no risk
25<RQD
RQD<50 Low risk
50<RQD
RQD<75 Moderate risk
RQD
RQD>75 High risk
Figure 4.46.-
4.46. Risk
sk of bursting by the degree of fracturing
As indicated in the introduction to this section, it is important to note that this chart is
not in itself a criterion for risk prediction and assessment of rock burst. However, it is
very useful to confirm or exclude
exclude the risk of bursting in lithologies or rock mass, in
case other criteria which are based on the elastic energy of the intact rock or stress
state indicated
ted the excavation as hazardous.
3.- Influence of fracturing on rock burst:

burst buckling
In these materials,
erials, with a foliation so marked and verticalized, rock-bursting
rock is
favoured by the buckling of the layers, which drastically reduces the yield strength of
the rock mass around the cavity.
July 2016 V. 1.1 114

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.47.-- Buckling in foliated areas of high overburden.
Therefore, in this case, we have the risk of buckling or rock-bursting,

rock but
because of layer buckling according to foliation, when its direction coincides
slightly with the tunnel alignment.
4.- Flooding hazards
If a crushed material, permeable and with a high water load, is passed through, it may
cause the sudden invasion of mud or debris that reaches the front and the tunnel
already excavated, according to the typical scheme in Figure 4.48.
July 2016 V. 1.1 115

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.48.- Flooding scheme in fault area
This situation causes,

auses, in many cases, the abandoning of the tunnel, or it may force to
include machinery for a different execution method (jet-grouting
(jet grouting or pipe injection),
which is associated with significant increases in costs.
In deep tunnels, the high depth, even in the

the crossings of the valley bottom, makes
impossible any treatment from the surface.
Any treatment from the tunnel front would force to stop it during the execution
process. In some cases, the emergency gallery has been started before, and the
treatment in the ground to be crossed by the main tunnel has begun from this gallery,
as seen in Figure 4.49, which prevents any machinery stops, but always increases
significantly the time and execution costs.
July 2016 V. 1.1 116

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.49.- Land treatment, main tunnel from auxiliary

auxiliary gallery
For mechanized excavation or Full Face, the reasonable flooding risk is not
compatible with the use of open TBM tunnelling machines, forcing the use of
EPB (Earth Pressure Balance) TBM.
July 2016 V. 1.1 117

TUNNEL REPORT
4.3. ASSIGNMENT
SSIGNMENT CRITERIA DEFINITION
Regardless of the supports checking,

checking which is provided by rational criteria, the results of
systematic observational method of the tunnel faces in which the NATM is based, make it
necessary to systematize the results of this observation, so a geomechanic classification is
to be used.
Classifications that can be applied to the tunnel face are:
- Bieniawski
eniawski RMR classification.
- Joint condition factor of Palmstrom with the parameters Vb and / or Jv and jC,
jC
but getting from these the quantified objective estimation of Hoek’s
Hoek GSI.
- GSI rating of Barton and Grimstad.
By the experience in implementing the Barton Q system in hydraulic tunnels in Lower

Himalaya (Singh et al), the literature and the correlations for formations of phyllites and
slates (similar to Zozila formation)
formation and metabasites (Panjal Trap), seems more advisable to
continue with the application of this classification.
In addition, the experiences of the previous works have allowed finding the best settings
for range and special squeezing behaviours risk and rock-bursting risk prediction as it has
been reflected in the previous section.
Therefore, the observational method of the tunnel face will be performed obtaining
the Q index with SRF = 2.5, allowing:
- Getting the support needed if there is no risk of squeezing.

- Getting the Flexible Initial support (with SRF = 1);
1) in case of squeezing,
once the rock mass is relaxed, will be completed and repaired
ed.
July 2016 V. 1.1 118

TUNNEL REPORT
In order to obtain the support by the graph of Barton and Grimstad it should be noted that
in India there is no experience
experience in placing shotcrete arches, such as those included in the
Norwegian method (MNT), which are shown in Figure 4.50.
4.
Figure 4.50.-
4. Reinforced
einforced shotcrete arches of MNT
Moreover, it is not usual to carry concrete to the face (CA support of the classic graph) but
rigid steel ribs with shotcrete thicknesses of about 30 cm.
On this basis, Barton graph has been adapted to supports types usually used in India, which
(apart of injected besides bolts, hydraulic
hydraulic expanding bolts and Shotcrete M-30) shall also
be composed of.
July 2016 V. 1.1 119

TUNNEL REPORT
- Lattice Girder composed of 3 or 4 steel rods (RRSI and RRSII, respectively)

- Steel ribs ISHB (RRS3)
Figure 4.51 shows the Barton & Grimstad graph,, adapted to the experience of the used
supports in India.
4.51.- Graph Barton and Grimstad experience

experience tailored to India
The squeezing estimation criterion will be the Goel criterion, based mainly on deep tunnels
in India, and that is the most developed and facilitates a greater understanding of the
predictable range of closure of the section.
Since it has been already reflected, a severe increase of squeezing can cause the
reduction of the rock mass quality,, increasing pressures (material behaviour
softenable or strain-softening),
softening), according to Singh, closure will be limited at the
maximum expected value of 5%.
July 2016 V. 1.1 120

TUNNEL REPORT
As already mentioned in the Annexure of Geotechnics, estimating the Q index from

boreholes,, has the disadvantage that the RQD with sub-vertical
sub vertical foliation in slates usually is
virtually "0" in vertical boreholes.
Therefore, the RQD index was obtained mainly in scan-lines

lines in outcrops or the Q index
was obtained directly with SRF = 2.5, based on correlations with seismic velocities.
In case of squeezing and rock-bursting,

rock bursting, the final support is obtained by modifying the
value of the SRF based on:
- Rock bursting intensity

ntensity
- Percentage of squeezing
July 2016 V. 1.1 121

TUNNEL REPORT
4.4. VERIFICATION CRITERIA

CRITERI
As reflected in the previous subsections, as a general rule, especially mandatory in case

of deep tunnels,, forecasting the behaviour of the massif, the support needs and the
construction
ruction process adjustment,
adjustment must be performed using two independent methods.
- A method based on the geomechanical classifications, that except for active

support allocation and Barton classification, would disregard the geostatic load.
- Checking the relationship

relationship between the geostatic load or major principal stress in
the contour of the tunnel,
tunnel with respect to the uniaxial compressive strength of
the rock mass.
The relationship between stress in the contour and compression strength of the
rock mass, can be obtained
obt according to different indexes,
indexes being “σcm” the
uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass:
TUV
* Jethwa (1984):
(1984) "J WX
TUV TY
I
WX TUV
* Barla (1995)
TY
TUV
Which would be equivalent to for an arc-shaped tunnel if we consider the
simplified formula Palmstrom

Pal depending on the geometry of the excavation (Figure
4.52).
R> I 3Z [ \ 15 Q]
R> ^ 3_ [5 Q]
Qa
`
QG
Figure 4.52.
4. – Geometry of excavation
July 2016 V. 1.1 122

TUNNEL REPORT
This similarity in the use of design criteria has favoured attempts to make unified
verification methods for supports, considering
consi both conditions.
- Collapse of the cavity by shear failure favoured by fracturing, which would be

equivalent to the use of traditional geomechanical classifications.
- Deformation or breakage of the cavity due to overstressed

stressed contours produced
by high geostatic
atic loads in deep tunnels.
It should be noted that the supports verification with any of these new methods, currently
in testing, is based on the required active support and therefore are not applicable to the
traditional process of NATM,
NATM in which thee support would be placed allowing sufficient
relaxation according to the passive method.
4.4.1. Criterion of Goricki, Shubert, Hoek, Marinos et al.

al
This method was used in the Egnatia Odos motorway, which is located in the suture
between the Eurasian - Cimmerian plate and the Apulian plate originated by the Neothetys
Ocean closure,, as shown in Figure 4.53.
4.
July 2016 V. 1.1 123

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.53.-
4. Tectonic evolution of the suture
The parameters taken into account in order to establish or verify the validity of a support
are:
- Compressive
mpressive strength of the rock mass,, which in turn is obtained from GSI and
compressive strength of the intact rock.
- Orientation of the major joints (foliation) in respect of the axis of the tunnel (it should
be noted that this procedure was obtained for the
t forecast of the behaviour of a
material as layered as the Pindos flysch).
- Existence of water and affection to the rock (also to consider taking into account the
risk of shear strength reduction for foliated materials)
- Tunnel overburden.
July 2016 V. 1.1 124

TUNNEL REPORT
The four window graph path is in the direction of clockwise, and in principle according to
the following chart (Figure 4.54.).
4.
Figure 4.54.-
4. Flowchart for support choice
In Figure 4.55, it can be seen an example of this four windows method applied to Turkey
Metsouo tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 125

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.55.-
4. Graph of Goricki, Hoek, Marinos et Al
4.4.2. Russo Criterion
It consists of a multiple graph with four windows for the preliminary estimation
estimat of the
behaviour of the rock mass excavation, and therefore the potential risks in tunnel
excavation. It was published in "Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrans" in May-June
May 2008.
It supports simplification of circular tunnel in homogeneous and isotropic solid.
It considers that in order to assess and / or verify the support following parameters should
shou
be considered:
July 2016 V. 1.1 126

TUNNEL REPORT
- Main characteristics of the rock mass according to the GSI and RMR (latter to take
into account for the presence of water and the disposal of the structure relative to the
axis of the tunnel).
The GSI index must objectively obtained directly,

directly, so the more consistent approach
would be to consider the Russo’s
Russo graph depending on the volume of the block and the
conditions of the joints (lower right quadrant).
- The rock mass strength, which would be obtained from the massif main characteristics
and the intact rock compressive strength (lower left quadrant).
Facing the risk of rock bursting or spalling,

spalling it can be defined in the index of fragility:

Tc
b
Td
; if it is greater than 8, would favour the risk of brittle fracture
Accordingly, the risk criterion of rock bursting is less developed than other criteria, as
it is simply fixed for GSI> 60 and σc (MPa)> 60, range in which almost all
al the
competent rock massif
if would enter.
- The capacity of the rock mass in function of the compressive strength

gth of the rock mass
R1B
and the index bJ eR>
Value of σθ can be taken for circular tunnel and k = 1, σθ = 2γH
The value of IC = 1 separates

sepa the elastic domain from the plastic one for volumetric
stress determination,, and accordingly, this index could be related to some kinds of
behaviours defined in NATM.
This graph would be located in the upper left window.
- Finally, the behaviour of the excavation would be obtained based on the capacity of
the rock mass obtained above and freestanding capacity range that would be defined
by the RMR index.
This graph occupies the upper right window and differs within the same areas defining
the behaviour of the excavation, depending on the behaviour GD modified as Russo
and Grasso (2007).
In Figure 4.56,it can be seen the modified classification scheme GD.
July 2016 V. 1.1 127

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.56.-
4. Excavation behaviour modified GD Rating
unnels excavations risks follow logical criteria that are shown in a conceptual
Tunnels
scheme in Figure 4.57..
Figure 4.57.- Excavation behaviour
July 2016 V. 1.1 128

TUNNEL REPORT
In conclusion about the use of this procedure, may be made the following comments:
- It doesn’t define or assign supports.
- It only
nly defines behaviour risks
risk in some respects coarsely as in the rock-bursting.
rock
- It allows forecasting the rock mass behaviour according to the classification of

Grasso depending on σc, overburden, GSI and RMR.
GD Russo and Grasso, RMR
Figure 4.58 shows this chart:
Figure 4.58.-
4. Russo’s graph for rock mass behaviour
ehaviour forecast
July 2016 V. 1.1 129

TUNNEL REPORT
4.4.3. Application of test criteria
According to the previous sections, the definitive characteristics of the above criteria
would be summarized in the following points:
- These criteria seek to jointly consider the risk of instabilities in excavations, both
because of breakage of the massif under tensile or shear stresses depending on
fracturing and failures under compression.
compression
- Based on the application of these criteria only the type of predictable behaviour is
defined either by the BT classification of NATM or GD classification of Russo and
Grasso.
- The criteria for assessing the risk of rock-bursting,

rock bursting, buckling or spalling, are seemingly
less developed than other criteria such as non-integrated
non integrated Singh, Goel, Jethwa, etc..
- The criteria for evaluating squeezing in percentage and measurement are much less
substantiated and the result is less accurate than other non-integrated
non integrated approaches, such
su
as Singh, Goel, Jethwa, etc.
- However, these integrated approaches mark a logical scheme of

o valuation of all
actions involved in the stability and behaviour of an underground excavation, so
although not yet confirmed the validity of its use, they are recommended to be used as
a check in both the Project and execution.
July 2016 V. 1.1 130

TUNNEL REPORT
4.5. ASSIGNING SUPPORTS IN THE LAYOUT
To assign supports, the criterion Q Barton has been used, because of the reasons already
reflected in the previous section which is summarized in the following points:
- More experience in application in deep tunnels in Lower Himalaya.
- More detailed
ailed studies, more informed correlations of the squeezing risk, based
on the Q index or other parameters inferred from this index.
However, as for the face mapping or the application of more integrated criteria, as the
criteria of Goricki and Russo,
Russo it would
uld be recommendable to obtain also the RMR of
Bieniawski and the GSI of Hoek.
The classic correlation recommended by Bieniawski

B eniawski between RMR and Q index would be:
RMR = 9 x lnQ + 44
Also, there are a large number of other correlations, inferred from massifs
massif of individual
cases.
Since the RMR does not consider the geometry of the tunnel location, and therefore, nor its
stress state, it seems clear that the validity of this correlation is higher if the index Q with
SFR= -1 is applied,, that is, for "normal state
sta of tension” conditions.
As, on the other hand, the Q index of Barton does not assess the strength to compression of
the rock matrix, nor the orientation of the joints, a better correlation could be obtained
without assessing in the RMR the above factors.
This has been verified by Goel and Jethwa Paithankar (1995), based on the behaviour of
tunnels in the Himalayas, UK, Scandinavia and USA, obtaining the correlation of Figure
4.59.
July 2016 V. 1.1 131

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.59.-
4. RCR Correlation with N
Where N = QSRF=1
RCR = RMRbasic - σci
(σci = strength to compression of intact rock)
And the correlation:
RMRbasic = 8 x lnQSRF=1 + 30 + σci
RMR = RMRbasic + correction of discontinuities orientation
And the evaluation in the RMR of the rock matrix strength σci would be:
- In metabasites: +12
- In fractured metabasites:
metabasites +10
- In calc-schist
schist and banded quartzites: +8
- In slates and phyllites: +4
July 2016 V. 1.1 132

TUNNEL REPORT
Since according to the recommendations

recommendati of Singh, Goel, Jethwa, etc.., the squeezing of
support needs by fracturing degree must be analysed independently,
independently the latest
modifications of Barton and Grimstad to the SRF do not apply.
What must be applied is the value adopted in the estimation of SRF for the Q index
adopted from the face mapping,
mapping which would be for a calculation in the failure:
failure
Fracture zones without clay isolated in

Class F SRF = 2.5
competent rock and depth > 50 m
Small tensions close to the surface, open

Class H SRF = 2.5
joints
July 2016 V. 1.1 133

TUNNEL REPORT
4.5.1. Main Tunnel
a) Section Type S-I
It consists of the following elements of support:
- 5 + 5 cm sealing and structural shotcrete.
- Bolts of 4 meter length in 2x2 m grid.
With this support, as shown in Figure 4.60, at least a Q-value

value = 4 would be
necessary.
Figure 4.60.-
4. Application of Support Type I
July 2016 V. 1.1 134

TUNNEL REPORT
The index QSRF=1 = 4 x 2.5 = 10, and the assessment of the strength to compression
of the intact rock in metabasites will be +12. The RMR correction by orientation of
discontinuities will be -10.
Thus:
RMR = 8 lnQ + 30 + 12 – 10 = 60 and then RMR > 60.
Due to the
he characteristics of the materials, this support would
would be applicable to
massive metabasites without rock bursting problems (obviously,
(obviously there will not be
squeezing problems).
problems
b) Section Type S-II
It consists of the following elements of support:
- Bolts of 4 m in 1.50 x 1.50 m grid.
- Depending on considering the shotcrete thickness or the bolts pattern, the value
of Q index should be greater than 0.4 to 2.
- In the side of the security, it has been adopted the value of Q = 2, as minimum
value.
- For S.R.F. = 1 Q = 3.2
- And RMR value obtained by correlation:
- f 8 F g 30 g 10 \ 5 45
- This section may be used with RMR greater than 45.
- According to this, the following application criteria can be inferred from Figure
4.61:
July 2016 V. 1.1 135

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.61.- Application support S-II
c) Section Type S-II Bis
This section includes the following support elements:

- 5+20 sealing and structural shotcrete.
- Bolts 4-66 m long in 1.50 x 1.50 m pattern (average spacing 1.50 m).
- Lattice girders spaced 1.5 m.
This section must be mainly applied when the rock mass thickness above the crown
may be less than 50 m or three times the excavation width or when it can be supposed
risk of chimney failure. In the case of low overburden the Q index decreases up to the
half, and then without considering this point.
July 2016 V. 1.1 136

TUNNEL REPORT
Figu 4.62 – Application of support S-II Bis

Figure
Then, the Q value without considering low overburden must be greater than 0.1 to 0.8
(with SRF = 2.5).
So, this section will be applied to rock mass with Q between 1 to 4, and with chimney
failure risk (including the low overburden strechts).
Equally the RMR index obtained from the face geological mapping, would be:
N; 4 0,8 3,,2
f 8 F g 30 g 5 \ 10 34 RMR > 35
July 2016 V. 1.1 137

TUNNEL REPORT
Considering a value of +5 for the assessment of the intact rock strength, and –5 for the
joints orientation.
d) Section Type S-III
It consists of the following support:
- Bolts of 4 meters length in 1.0 x 1.5 m pattern (average spacing of 1.25 m).
According to this and according to Figure 4.63,

4. the
he following Q index of 0.10 would
be obtained for the application of this section, as it does not include steel ribs.
July 2016 V. 1.1 138

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.63.- Application of support S-III

III
Q ≥ 0.20 – 0.40 (with SRF = 2.5)
The Q index must be greater than 0.40 to apply this section:
N; 4 0,40 1
1,60
And then:
f 8 F g 30 g 5 \ 5 33,7 RMR ≥ 35
July 2016 V. 1.1 139

TUNNEL REPORT
e) Section Type S-IV
This section of support would consist of the following elements:
o 5 + 20 cm sealing and structural shotcrete.
o Bolts of 4 m length and 1 x 2 m grid (average spacing

pacing of 1.40
1. meters)
o Lattice girders,
girders separated 1 meter.
Entering with this support in Barton and Grimstad graph, the results are, as shown in
Figure 4.64:
Figure 4.64.- Application support S-IV
July 2016 V. 1.1 140

TUNNEL REPORT
According to the shotcrete thickness and the bolts pattern:

patt
Q ≥ 0.02 to 0.2 Q ≅ 0.1
Q index must be greater than 0.1.
Q = 0.1 (with SRF = 2.5)
Q = 0.40 with SRF = 1 and therefore:
f 8 F g 30 g 6 \ 5 23,7 RMR > 25
f) Section Type S-V
Section for portals, passage of faults, in compressible soils or materials,

materials which cannot
be bolted using hydraulic expansion.
This support consists of the following elements:
o 5 + 20 cm sealing and
an structural shotcrete.
o Steel ribs ISHB-150,

ISHB every meter.
o 2 to 4 micropiles φ100 per meter of tunnel, 12 meters long and inclined 45 º

to the vertical.
As it has been already mentioned,

mentioned the ISHB steel rib with 25 cm of shotcrete
correspond to the CA support,
suppor which as shown in Figure
gure 4.65, would apply for
Q=0.004 but on a safer side shall be applied in case of Q < 0.1.
0.1
July 2016 V. 1.1 141

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.65.- Application of S-V

V support
with SRF = 2.5)

Q = 0.004 (with 2.5
QSRF=1 = 0.016
The correlation with RMR index (soil) would be of no use.
In the parts where this section is applied, the face stability should be checked, and if
necessary the implementation of the treatments defined in the project:
project
o Central Buttress
o Forepoling umbrella
July 2016 V. 1.1 142

TUNNEL REPORT
g) Section Type S-VI
It is the heaviest section for crossing

crossing the degraded and fractured fault zones.
The primary lining is:
o 5+25 cm sealing and structural shotcrete.
o Self-boring
boring bolts 280 kN load, 9 m long, in pattern.
2.00 (in section) x 1 to 2 m (out of section).
o Temporary support in top heading floor and temporary

orary invert.
o 2 micropiles 12,00 m long every 2 m, in feet of top-heading

top heading support to work as
underprinning micropiles.
o ISHB – 150 Ribs spacing 1,00 m.
With this support, as can be seen in figure 4.66, the Q index should be between 0,001
to 0,03, and equally
ly the RMR index must be less than 25.
July 2016 V. 1.1 143

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.66.- Application of S-VI support
4.5.2. Escape Tunnel
a) Support SGE-I
This support is the lightest; it shall be performed in full section with 3.0 m round
length and consists of the following elements:
o 3.00 m length Swellex bolts with 1,50 x 1,50 m pattern in top heading
o 3.0 m length φ32

.0 m length φ32 SN bolts at sidewall feet every 1.50 m.

o 6.0
July 2016 V. 1.1 144

TUNNEL REPORT
o 5 + 10 cm of FRS-M30 shotcrete which shall be applied in two phases.

phas
As can be seen in figure 4.67,

4. , the value of Q index must be equal or greater than
Q≅1,
1, what would be the same that RMR > 40.
Figure 4.67.-
4. Application of SGE-I support

Q > 1 or equivalent RMR > 40.
July 2016 V. 1.1 145

TUNNEL REPORT
b) Support SGE-II
Itt shall be performed in full section with 3.0 m round length and consists of the
following elements:
o 3.0
.0 m length Swellex bolts with 2,00
2 0 x 1,50 m pattern in top heading
o 3.0 m length φ32 SN bolts with 2,000 x 1,50 m pattern in sidewalls.
.0 m length φ32 SN bolts in sidewalls feet every 1.50 m.

o 6.0
o Lattice girders made of 3 rods φ25-20 with 1.500 m spacing.

4. , the value of Q index must be 0.08 and 0.20, and then,
it would be equivalent to 30 < RMR < 40.
July 2016 V. 1.1 146

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.68.-
4. Application of SGE-II support

Q between 0.08
08 to 1 or equivalent
RMR between 30 and 40.
40
July 2016 V. 1.1 147

TUNNEL REPORT
c) Support SGE-III
This support shall be applied

applied in lower rock quality stretches of the escape tunnel.
o Lattice girders made of 3 rods φ25-20

20 with 1.0 m spacing.
o Excavation and support must be performed in top heading and bench.
o Round length is 2m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
o Barton Q index must be 0.02-0.08

0. or alternatively,, depending on the
face mapping method, 15 < RMR < 30.
o In stretches where squeezing risk is foreseen. The second layer of

shotcrete shall be applied once convergence stability tendency is
confirmed.
July 2016 V. 1.1 148

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.69.-
4. Application of SGE-III support
July 2016 V. 1.1 149

TUNNEL REPORT
4.5.3. Ventilation Tunnel
a) Section SVT-I
It consists of the following support elements:

o Bolts 3 m long in pattern 1,50 x 1,50 m.
The width of the section is between 9,00 and 10,00 m.

4. this section is valid, with Q index greater than 1, or
alternatively RMR greater than 40.
Figure 4.70.-
4. Application of SVT-I support
July 2016 V. 1.1 150

TUNNEL REPORT
b) Section SVT-II
The primary lining of this section, consists in the following support elements:
o 5+15 cm sealing and structural

structu shotcrete.
o Bolts 2 m long in pattern 1,50 x 2,00 m (middle value of 1,70 m).
o Lattice girder spacing of 1,50 m.
As it is shown in figure 4.71,

4. the Q value must be between 0,1 and 1,
1 and the RMR
index should be between 25 and 40.
July 2016 V. 1.1 151

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 4.71.-
4. Application of SVT-II support
c) Section SVT-III
The primary lining os this section, includes the following support elements:
o Lattice girder
g spaced 1.00 m.
With this support, the Q value according to the Barton and Grimstood
G Chart is
(figure 4.72),
), would be between 0.01 and 0.04.
July 2016 V. 1.1 152

TUNNEL REPORT
Then this support section is valid for Q < 0.1 and alternatively RMR < 25.
Figure 4.72.-
4. Application of SVT-III support
July 2016 V. 1.1 153

TUNNEL REPORT
5. GROUND PARAMETERS AND

AN SUPPORT ELEMENTS
The checking of the supports

pports defined in the previous chapter has been done using the
rational method performed with modelling criteria such ECA (Equivalent Continuous
Analysis method).
In addition, foliated massif has been included in modelling taking into account position,
existence
stence and dip of the foliation surfaces such as planes of weakness and along which the
failure criterion would not be Hoek and Brown’s, but Mohr-Coulomb’s.
Mohr Coulomb’s.
Depending on the high overburden that occurs in most of the track, two types of design for
the defined
ned supports where squeezing phenomena may occur have also been performed,
and they are:
- Checking with the initial phase of support and Q Barton index obtained by taking
SRF = 2.5, which would be equivalent to the allocation of support to ensure
stability regardless of the strain increasing at constant stress, when the latter is very
close to the failure one.
- Checking with the final phase of support, which would be placed once the
stipulated percentage of convergence have been reached, and whose total support
suppo
would be completed following Singh, Goel, etc criteria, and whose theoretical
development is included in section 4.2.
5.1. MASSIF MODELLING
For rational calculation method according to the ECA, the commercial finite element
program Zsoil V.9.19, with 2D
2D and 3D calculations has been used; it includes the
following failure criteria for the massif:
- Hoek and Brown parameters are linearized to Mohr Coulomb parameters using
RocLab program without considering failure in foliation planes in the massif.
- In failure
re surfaces following foliation, the Mohr Coulomb criterion.
The strength parameters of the joints are obtained based on the criterion of Barton
and Choubey.
July 2016 V. 1.1 154

TUNNEL REPORT
- As justified in the Geotechnical Annexure, the tunnel passes through the following
geotechnical groups
oups and their corresponding stress-strain
stress strain design parameters, listed
according to their location along the tunnel track.
* Slates and Phyllites of Zozila formation
This formation can be found from the west portal to chainage 5+135.
A photograph of this formation

rmation can be seen in picture 5.1.
Picture 5.1.-
5.1 Slate and phyllite outcrop
July 2016 V. 1.1 155

TUNNEL REPORT
A detail of the foliation can be seen in picture 5.2.
Picture 5.2.-
5.2. Detail of foliation in phyllites and slates
Once continuity and reduced separation of the foliation surfaces

surfaces has been checked, it has
been considered that it must be included in the modelling as weakness plane.
The geotechnical parameters of this formation have been taken according to DPR
recommendations, boreholes, geophysics surveys and geomechanical observation
ob points
results included in the Geotechnical Annexure:
July 2016 V. 1.1 156

TUNNEL REPORT
Unit weight: γ = 27 kN/m3
Young Modulus intact rock E = 15000 MPa
Unconfined compression strength intact rock. UCS = 30 MPa
Poisson coefficient υ = 0.20
mi = 10
GSI = 45 – 60
*Calc-schists
schists of Zozila formation
They are
re associated with an outcrop that emerges from gentler slope morphology in Zozila
formation.
In photo 5.3, the aspect of this geotechnical group can be seen in a stretch of the initial
third of the tunnel.
Picture 5.3.-
5.3 Calc-schists
schists outcrop in Zozila formation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 157

TUNNEL REPORT
According to the above data, and to new survey conducted, as included in the Geotechnical
Annexure, design parameters for this geotechnical group would be the following:
Unit weight: γ = 27.5

27 kN/m3
Young
ung Modulus intact rock E = 30000 MPa
mi = 15
GSI = 60
* Calc-schists and banded quartzite of Zozila formation
This geotechnical group presents the sharpest morphology

morphology in Zozila formation, as seen in
the picture 5.4.
July 2016 V. 1.1 158

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 5.4.- View of Calc-schists

Calc schists and banded quartzites of Zozila formation
In picture 5.5 it can be seen a detail of the bands on Zozila quartzite.
July 2016 V. 1.1 159

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 5.5.– Detail of banded quartzites off Zozila formation
Their stress-strain
strain design parameters are the following:

27 kN/m3
mi = 15
GSI = 60
*Fractured metabasites of Panjal Trap formation.
As can be seen, especially from the valley of the Indus River, the volcanic intrusion of
massive metabasites constituting high morphological outcrops is surrounded by a halo of
contact in which the geotechnical
otechnical group presents the following peculiarities:
o Less steep morphology with subhorizontal ledges.
July 2016 V. 1.1 160

TUNNEL REPORT
o Increased fracture density and number of families.
o Inclusion of bands and / or tectonic flakes of schists and phyllites, which could
even be mylonites (from
( the petrological point of view).
o Increased presence of altered levels and fill in the joints.
Picture 5.6 shows the morphology of this area which presents clear differences with
massive metabasites that appear in the background in the photo. It can also
a be seen the
subhorizontal joints family dipping towards the river which allowed the formation of
ledges and smoothing morphology.
Picture 5.6.- View of the contact zone in fractured Metabasites
In the feasibility study, this geotechnical group now differentiated was included in the
group as "Metabasites interbedded with schists and phyllites."
With the new surveys, for this geotechnical group can be considered the following
parameters:
July 2016 V. 1.1 161

TUNNEL REPORT

27 kN/m3
mi = 15
GSI = 45 – 60
* Massive Metabasites of Panjal Trap formation.
They are Metabasites or even Andesites because the foliation is much less marked
marke and
even indistinguishable in the massive rock outcrops.
Therefore, they exhibit little fracturing and high compressive strength of the rock matrix.
In photo 5.7, an overview of the steep crests of this geotechnical group, which are
representative of the entire Himalaya, can be seen.
Picture 5.7.-
5.7 Steep crests of Massive Metabasites
July 2016 V. 1.1 162

TUNNEL REPORT
Its stress-strain
strain parameters would be:

M
mi = 25
GSI = 80
*Calcschists and phyllites geotechnical group
In the final third of the track Zozila formation is crossed again, in a new geotechnical
group differentiated by alternations of decimetric to metric packages
packages of calc-schists
calc and
phyllites.
In presence of interbedded phyllites, the morphology of the outcrops is much less marked
and abrupt, as seen in the picture 5.8.
Picture 5.8.- View of Calc-schists

Calc schists and phyllite outcrops in the last part of the track
July 2016 V. 1.1 163

TUNNEL REPORT
Similarly,
milarly, this group characterizes the natural slopes of the hillsides in this area which are
much smoother than the Zozila formation one crossed in the first stretch of the tunnel.
Due to the marked foliation of this group, and the low shear strength of foliation
fo planes
especially in phyllites, these surfaces are considered as planes of weakness with lower
shear resistance than the massif.
Its stress-strain
Unconfined
fined compression strength intact rock. UCS = 30 MPa
Poisson coefficient υ = 0.20 – 0.25
mi = 10
GSI = 45
* Breccias and fault mylonites geotechnical group
As already mentioned, two very marked fault stretches with important thicknesses of fault
mylonites
ites and breccias have been morphologically differentiated:
• The first fault would coincide with a sudden change of River Indus
direction, and would affect the initial stretch of the tunnel through the
Zozila formation.
• The existence of fault mylonite or fault

fault breccias is further proved by the
greater expanse and smaller slope of the base of the piedmont spill.
Picture 5.9 shows the expanse of piedmont spill in the alluvial fan of faults ravines.
July 2016 V. 1.1 164

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 5.9.- Expanse of fault piedmont spill in the first stretch of Zozila formation
Picture 5.10 shows morphology of Indus River redirection matching with the depressed
area of the fault in the mountains of Zozila formation.
Picture 5.10.- View of the fault zone from the bed of the river Indus in Zozila
formation
July 2016 V. 1.1 165

TUNNEL REPORT
The second fault is located at the edge of a steep ridge in the Panjal Trap formation and
corresponding to the crushed zone of its contact with the Zozila formation, as shown in
photo 5.11.
Picture 5.11.- View of the fault in the contact with Panjal

Panjal Trap formation
In the intense fractured and degraded fault material, it can be considered the following
intrinsic parameters with the suppose a rock like behaviour.
July 2016 V. 1.1 166

TUNNEL REPORT
Elastic Modulus intact rock E = 10000 MPa
Unconfined
ed compression strength intact rock. UCS = 20 MPa
mi = 5
GSI = 35
Also, the
he fault gouge is gullied at a height of 10-15
10 15 meters by a ravine, with side slopes
around 35-45°,
45°, i.e. it has to be a granular matrix gouge with rock
rock fragments. The photo
5.12 shows the marked gully of the ravine in the brecciated fill of the fault.
Picture 5.12.-
5.12 View of the fault gouge
In principle, the geometry of gullies and alluvial fans mud flows of the fault ravines can be
considered the same
me in both types of materials.
July 2016 V. 1.1 167

TUNNEL REPORT
The parameters of these breccia deposits can be taken from the estimated range in the
feasibility study and with corrections justified on natural slopes of gullies.
Its stress-strain
Young Modulus E = 453.6 MPa
Friction angle φ = 23.30º
Cohesion c = 687 kPa
5.2. MODELLING OF SUPPORT

S AND REINFORCING ELEMENTS.
LEMENTS.
- In bolts, pure elastoplastic behaviour called "Anchor" type, i.e. once they reach
reac
their elastic limit, deformations may continue indefinitely keeping the same stress
value, according to the scheme in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1.- Stress-strain law for bolts
To meet a stress-strain
strain law, it must be ensured that the plastic deformation always
al
occurs by overcome the adhesion between bolt with its injection (if any) and
ground, which ensures a law similar to the previous scheme and by no means a
brittle failure.
July 2016 V. 1.1 168

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 5.2 shows the behaviour of various types of bolts, with their initial stiffness
sti
and strength capacity in the plastic region according to the well known Stillborg
graph.
Figure 5.2.-
5.2 Stress-strain
strain behaviour of various types of bolts
- In polypropylene fiber shotcrete, in accordance with elastic absorption tests, the

bearing capacity
pacity is maintained in a square plate with 60 cm side supported in the
edge, to at least an elastic yielding of 25mm in its centre.
July 2016 V. 1.1 169

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 5.3.-
5.3 SNCF plate failure in an elastic absorption test
- Steel ribs and metal profiles.
Facing the displacement absorption

absorption capacity of metal arches and ribs it can be
considered:
* Lattice girders.
Although they don’t include any element for the absorption of displacements, they
can easily, for a high level of load, buckle rods into sections without shotcrete,
allowingg the reduction of the development length of the arc according to the
scheme of Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4.-
5.4 Lattice girders yielding behaviour
July 2016 V. 1.1 170

TUNNEL REPORT
This type of spatial reticulated rib composed of rods, which was initially used at the
beginning of NATM application,
application, according to the criteria established by Rabcevik.
* TH type steel ribs.
They are profiles specially designed for mining galleries and later also used in
public works tunnels, characterized by the system of flexible joint between sections
by clips that
hat press the end of a profile against another, so that when the adhesion is
exceeded, the arc can close at these points.
In Figure 5.5 it can be seen a detail of two sections of steel ribs with their staple
connection allowing length shortening but without
without forming hinges.
Figure 5.5.-
5.5 Scheme of staple connection in flexible steel ribs
This kind of steel rib is widely used in tunnel sections in which significant
convergences caused by squeezing have to be absorbed. In Picture 5.13 it can be
seen a supported
rted stretch of Gotthard high-speed
high speed rail tunnel in Switzerland, in which
this flexible design was used, allowing slipping through the abundant staple, and
absorbing closures up to 70 cm.
July 2016 V. 1.1 171

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 5.13.- Flexible support in Gotthard tunnel
It should be noted,
oted, as it can be seen in the picture, that the initial stage of the tunnel
support is only composed of the following reinforcing elements:
- Sealing shotcrete, which may include rods mesh.
- A shield made of TH-29

TH 29 steel ribs with less than or equal to 1.0 meter
me
separations, divided into as many sections as required for assembly, so that
facilitating the sliding of the staples for closing the rib when axial forces
increase.
- ISHB bolts
They are metal profiles that are traditionally used in metal structures, but
bu to be used
in tunnels they have to be bent in the necessary direction as defined in the support
design.
Joints between sections are made by bolted plates as shown in picture 5.14,
5.1 and as
shown in Figure 5.66.
July 2016 V. 1.1 172

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 5.14.-
5.14 Detail of a steel rib with plates
lates in its final section
Figure 5.66.- Scheme of bolted joint in steel rib sections ISHB
With its joining system, this steel rib is rigid,, and therefore, the only way to
absorb the convergence and the subsequent horizontal closure due to bending, is
the
he nailing of the ends of its legs.
Its use in stretches through massifs with risk of squeezing is questionable for its
stiffness and for its major difficulty to adapt to the need to allow a percentage of
section closure.
July 2016 V. 1.1 173

TUNNEL REPORT
In case of using active method supports

supports in areas of squeezing, this type of rigid
trusses could be used with depths from 160 to 240 mm.
This kind of stiff support was tested in the Gotthard tunnel in zones with
wit squeezing.
The support had to bear the whole geostatic load without permitting convergences
and consequent load decrease. As it can be seen in Picture 5.15,
5.1 very serious
damages occurred in several points of the support.
Picture 5.15.- Damaged section of a rigid support in the Gotthard tunnel
On the contrary, this type of rigid ribs

ribs is very suitable for the passage of fault or
very fractured massif stretches without risk of squeezing, in which initially a heavy
support with high bearing capacity and reduced deformability should be placed.
* Pipe umbrella or micropiles forepoling
It is an element composed of threaded

t metal tube sections and later injected, at
least inside the tube. Tubes are made of steel S355 (nominal load of 3550 kgf/cm2)
or TM80 (nominal load of 5600 kgf/cm2).
With the forepoling a shield is performed, which avoids

avoids tunnel face failures.
July 2016 V. 1.1 174

TUNNEL REPORT
The major advance that can be performed in forepoling is about 15 m length with
drilling diameters of 100 mm, dug with the Jumbo itself, using a selfdrilling crown
head thrown out by water air and cement grout.
* Deformable bands
In order to absorb section closures due to squeezing following the passive method,
closable longitudinal stripes should be left in the support sections.
In these bands, shotcrete is replaced by a non-resilient

non resilient deformable element placed
by spits before shotcreting.
tcreting.
Expanded polystyrene
Foam
Shotcrete support sections, made independent by deformable bands, and only

connected by the passage of the flexible ribs (TH ribs with sliding clamps or lattice
girders whose rods would bend in the deformable bands), may
may therefore close while
maintaining the relative integrity of the support and avoiding the risk of blocks,
fragments or wedges fall.
July 2016 V. 1.1 175

TUNNEL REPORT
5.3. MAXIMUM SECTIONAL FORCES

F IN SUPPORT
In the shotcrete, it is going to be considered according to Eurocode 2:
kJ` 30 fQA
kJ` 30
kJl 20,0
0 fQA
1,50 1,50
For these shells, the ultimate tension stress is:
kJm, n 1,60 0,30 kJ`

kJ` +/, 4,53 fQA
kJm, nl 4,53/1,5 3.02 fQA
Anyway, we must realize that in the practice is usual to consider the tension strength of the
fiber reinforced shotcrete equal to 0,40 x fc, with "fc" the calculation compression strength
of the shotcrete.
a) Sinthetic fiber reinforced concrete (no lattice girders)
The maximum value of bending moment taking into

in account the axial force,
and for any thickness of the shotcrete shell, will be as can be seen in the
scheme of figure 5.7.
July 2016 V. 1.1 176

TUNNEL REPORT
H 1 2
3020 H
2 2 3
f*
With: e = 10 cm M0=3020 x 0.05 x 0.5 x 0.667 x 0.10 = 5.03 KN x m
e = 15 cm M0=3020 x 0.075 x 0.5 x 0.667 x 0.15 = 11.33 KN x m
e = 20 cm M0=3020 x 0.10 x 0.50 x 0.667 x 0.20 = 20.14 KN x m
e = 25 cm M0=3020
3020 x 0.125 x 0.5 x 0.667 x 0.25 = 31.47 KN x m
e = 30 cm M0=3020
3020 x 0.15 x 0.50 x 0.667 x 0.30 = 45.32 KN x m
+**** q
" 3o 30000o p,r
+
q
f " p+ \ or
July 2016 V. 1.1 177

TUNNEL REPORT
o e = 0,10 m
Y (m) 0 0.008 0.0165 0.0247 0.033 - - - -
N (KN) 0 240 495 741 990 1250 1500 1800 2000
M (KN x m) 0 10.08 16.58 18.75 16.83 12.5 8.30 3.3 0
Mo (KN x m) 5.03 5.03 5.03 5.03 0 - - - -
M (KN x m) 5.03 15.11 21.61 23.78 16.83 12.5 8.3 3.3 0
o e = 0,15 m
Y (m) 0 0.0125 0.0250 0.0375 0.05 - - - - -
N (KN) 0 375 750 1125 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
M (KN x m) 0 23.4 37.5 42.2 37.5 30.0 22.5 15.0 7.5 0
Mo (KN x m) 11.33 11.33 11.33 11.33 0 - - - - -
M (KN x m) 11.33 34.73 48.83 53.53 37.5 30.0 22.5 15.0 7.5 0
o e = 0,20 m
Y (m) 0 0.015 0.030 0.045 0.06 - - - - -
N (KN) 0 450 900 1350 1800 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
M (KN x m) 0 38.25 63.0 74.25 72.0 53.3 40.0 26.6 13.3 0
Mo (KN x m) 20.14 20.14 20.14 20.14 - - - - - -
M (KN x m) 20.14 58.39 83.14 94.39 72.0 53.3 40.0 26.6 13.3 0
July 2016 V. 1.1 178

TUNNEL REPORT
Section S-II
II Bis.
Axial
Load 0 333 666 999 1332 1666 1999 2332 2666 2999
(KN)
Bending
Moment 40 64 84 99 106 98 88 71 48 25
(KN x m)
Section S-IV.
Axial
Load 0 416 833 1249 1666 2082 2499 2915 3332 3748
(KN)
Bending
Moment 70 107 140 163 169 158 142 116 80 35
(KN x m)
Section S-IV'.
Axial
Load 0 500 1000 1499 1999 2499 2999 3499 3998 4498
(KN)
Bending
Moment 90 146 191 223 236 228 198 161 108 56
(KN x m)
July 2016 V. 1.1 179

TUNNEL REPORT
b) Support with lattice girders
Section II Bis e = 5+20 cm h 16 cm/1φ25

25 +2φ20
+2 c/1.50 m
Section IV e = 5+25 cm h 16 cm/1φ25

25 +2φ20
+2 c/1.00 m
Section IV' e = 5+30 cm h 16 cm/1φ25

25 +2φ20
+2 c/1.00 m
The lattice girders works as reinforcement of the concrete.
In outer side of the shotcrete shell:
A1 = 217,7 KN/bar φ25 = 217,7 KN/lattice girder
A2 = 2 x 139,3 KN/2 bar φ20 = 278,6 KN/lattice girder
It may be considered:
U1 = U2 = 220 KN/lattice girder both sides
On a safer side, 25 MPa has been taken for shotcrete fck.
o Section II Bis.
25
1,0 0,20 0,20 n+ kJl 16,66 fQA
fQA
1.5
ZJ
ZJ kJl 3332 ["
; ((*/;,;O
s ;,O* 0,073 with 1 m distance between lattice girders.
,,,+
girder
July 2016 V. 1.1 180

TUNNEL REPORT
o Section IV.
ZJ 1,0 0,25 0,25 n+ ZJ 4165 ["
440/1
1,15
s 0,092
4165
o Section IV'.
ZJ 1,0 0,30 0,30 n+ ZJ 4998 ["
440/1
1,15
s 0,0765
4998
As can be seen in the table:
V M
ν µ µ
S-II bis S-IV S-IV' S-II bis S-IV
IV S-IV'
0,00 0 0 0 0,033 22 42 49 0,040
0,10 333 416 500 0,07 46 79 105 0,076
0,20 666 833 1000 0,10 66 112 150 0,108
0,30 999 1249 1499 0,122 81 135 182 0,13
0,40 1332 1666 1999 0,130 87 141 195 0,135
0,50 1666 2082 2499 0,120 80 130 187 0,125
0,60 1999 2499 2999 0,105 70 114 157 0,110
0,70 2332 2915 3499 0,080 53 88 120 0,085
0,80 2666 3332 3998 0,045 30 52 67 0,05
0,90 2999 3748 4498 0,010 7 17 15 0,016
0,95 - - - - - - - 0
July 2016 V. 1.1 181

TUNNEL REPORT
c) Fiber reinforced concrete with steel ribs (ISHB profiles)
- Contribution of the profile

Contribution of steel profiles can be taken into account considering perfect
adherence between ribs with bracings and shotcrete,, based on the following:
i. Although steel ribs have a smooth surface in outline, there are the
projections of the connecting parts of the sections.
ii. φ25
25 rod bracings welded to ribs or connected with staples welded to
ribs, work as load-distribution
load ion reinforcement and ensure joint
performance of shotcrete and steel ribs.
Admitted these assumptions, the support made of shotcrete and steel ribs
can be calculated as a reinforced concrete structure.
Figure 5.8 shows the table of dimensions of the lightest

htest ISHB-150
ISHB steel rib,
according to Indian Standars.
Figure 5.8.- Characterístics of ISHB-150
July 2016 V. 1.1 182

TUNNEL REPORT
The areas of flanges and web are the following:

Flange S= 15 x 0,9 = 13,5cm2
Web S= (15-2 x 0,9) x 0,54 = 7,2cm2
Depth H= 15cm
Based
ased on the scheme of Figure
Fi 5.9.
150
Figure 5.9.- Support with steel rib ISHB-150
The geometric ratios are the following:
13,5
fAuF IHuk IJHnHFm 5,4‰
100 2525
4,91
HJ FlAIo IHuFk IJHnHFm 1,3‰
150 25
25
HJ FlAIo
Permissible values.
Considering the abacus of dimensionless interaction and a steel strength of

240N/mm2, on the safe side it would be:
d´= 0,15 x h, y
July 2016 V. 1.1 183

TUNNEL REPORT
0,15
0,15 g 2 x 0,15h a 0,21m
1 \ 0,30
h
Thus:
Ac= 1 x 0,21 =0,21m2
2 13,5 2400/1,15
^ 0,134
100 21 300/1,50
Using the abacus of dimensionless interaction of Figure 5.10

10, it is:
Figure 5.10.- Abacus of dimensionless interaction
With N= 0 kPa µ=
= 0,05 x 1 x 0,21 x 2000 x0,21 = 4,41 t·m
For optimal axial force N= 0,38 x 0,21 x1 x2000= 159,6 t

µ= 0,16
,16 x 1 x 0,21 x 2000 x 0,21 = 14,1 t·m
July 2016 V. 1.1 184

TUNNEL REPORT
For double optimal axial force N=319,2 t

µ=
= 0,085 x1 x0,21 x 2000 x0,21 = 7,5 t·m
And the shear strength considering only the contribution of the web of the rib:
2400 m
7,2 8,68 86,8 `"//n
1,15 √3 n
- Contribution of the fibre reinforcement of the shotcrete.
Based on the compressive strength and flexural strength, ultimate bending

moment can be obtained in case of large deformations,, such as those
thos referred to
EFNARC test.
As a simplification,
simplification tensile strength of fibre-reinforced
reinforced shotcrete, in case of
large deformations, can be taken of 0.40 times its compressive strength.
strength
Therefore, for simple bending:
0,40 0,25+ 3000/1,50

f 8,32 mm † n
6
f‚ƒ„2qC
And the shear strength of shotcrete:
300 `M
value ≅0,5 … 7,1 710 `QA
1,5 Jn+
Maximum value
And for a thickness of 0,25 m
Tmax = 177 kN/m
This value can be added to ribs contribution.
July 2016 V. 1.1 185

TUNNEL REPORT
6. SECTION CLOSURE
6.1. INTRODUCTION
In report chapter, it is going to be foreseen the closure of the sections in main tunnel and
scape tunnel. This value of the closure must be considered in the control works during the
tunnel excavation with the measure of the horizontal convergence in the low part of the top
heading.
For this purpose, the calculation method based in the ground reaction curves of the tunnel
and lining support reaction curve with a longitudinal deformation profile is better and more
realistic than the use of finite element
eleme method.
The program Rocsupport of Rocscience has been used to make the calculations, according
to the following criteria:
- Carranza-Torres
Torres Solution (2004) that use the Hoek-Brown
Hoek Brown failure criterium to
define the plastificacion radio.
- Generalized Hoek criterium

criterium to make the estimation of the deformation modulus.
In all the cases, it has been considered:
- Circular tunnel with a 13.2 m diameter for main tunnel and 6402 m for escape
tunnel.
The ventilation tunnel crossing through metabasites hasn’t been considered,

co as it
behaviour is going to be very similar to escape tunnel.
- Reinforcement elements.
o Bolts, of two types:
Swellex or 32 mm diameter bar bolts.
July 2016 V. 1.1 186

TUNNEL REPORT
Self--boring bolts with 280 kN ultimate load.
o Shotcrete with fiber with strength of 30 MPa (after 28 days) and 5 MPa
(after 1 day).
o Lattice girders.
o Steel Ribs.
6.2. GROUND TYPES AND PARAMETERS

PAR
According to the geotechnical Annexe we may consider the following ground types and
parameters:
Panjal Trap Formation of Massive Metabasites.
γ = 28 kN/m3
UCS = 120 MPa Ei = 100.000 MPa Ei/UCS = 833,3
mi = 25 GSI = 80
Degraded: UCS = 80 MPa Ei = 66.664 MPa
Panjal Trap Formation of Fractured Metabasites.
γ = 27,5 kN/m3
UCS = 75 MPa Ei = 35.000 MPa MR = Ei/UCS = 466,6
mi = 15 GSI = 60
July 2016 V. 1.1 187

TUNNEL REPORT
Zozila Formation of Quartz-schist

Quartz and Calc-schist.
γ = 27,5 kN/m3
UCS = 75 MPa Ei = 30.000 MPa MR = 400
mi = 15 GSI = 60
Zozila Formation of Slate & Micha-schist

Micha (phyllite).
γ = 27 kN/m3
UCS = 30 MPa Ei = 15.000 MPa MR = 500
mi = 10 GSI = 45
Fractured Zone.
γ = 26 kN/m3
UCS = 20 MPa Ei = 10.000 MPa MR = 500
mi = 5 GSI = 35
Degraded: UCS = 13,33 MPa Ei = 6.666,66 MPa
Besides,
sides, the behaviour of the surrounding ground will depend also:
- The lining in the tunnel.
- The Tunnel depth.
July 2016 V. 1.1 188

TUNNEL REPORT
6.3. MAIN TUNNEL CASES
6.3.1. No degraded ground types
Figure 6.3.1 – Section I Fractured Metabasites 5+900 to 6+400.

6+
- Radius of plastic zone: 7.18m, 7.2m (unsupported).
- Tunnel Convergence: 0.09%, 0.1% (unsupported).
July 2016 V. 1.1 189

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.2 – Section I Massive Metabasites 6+400

00 to 7+220.
7+
- Tunnel Convergence: 0.01%, 0.01%

0. (unsupported).
July 2016 V. 1.1 190

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.3 – Section I Fracture Metabasites 7+900 to 9+650.

9
July 2016 V. 1.1 191

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.4 – Section I Massive Metabasites 8+000 to 9+650

9
July 2016 V. 1.1 192

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.5 – Section III bis Schists 9+700 to 10+900.

00.
July 2016 V. 1.1 193

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.6 – Section II Calc-Schists 10+500

500 to 11+020.
11+0
July 2016 V. 1.1 194

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.7 – Section II 4+500-5+800.
- Tunnel Convergence: 0.22%,

0. 0.22% (unsupported).
July 2016 V. 1.1 195

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.8 – Fault 5+800 to 5+900.
July 2016 V. 1.1 196

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.9 – Fault 9+700 to 10+500.

(u
July 2016 V. 1.1 197

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.10 – Slates and Schists 4+650 to 5+030 S-II.

II.
July 2016 V. 1.1 198

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.11
.3.11 – Slates and Schists 4+650 to 5+030 S-II
II bis.
July 2016 V. 1.1 199

TUNNEL REPORT
6.3.2. Degradeg ground types
Figure 6.3.12 – Section I Fractured Metabasites 5+900 to 6+400

00 Degraded.
- Radius of plastic
astic zone: 7.62m, 7.67m (unsupported).
July 2016 V. 1.1 200

TUNNEL REPORT

6+ to 7+220
20 Degraded.

(unsupp
July 2016 V. 1.1 201

TUNNEL REPORT

7 to 7+900
00 Degraded.
July 2016 V. 1.1 202

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.15 – Section II 4+500 to 5+800 Zozila-Quartz -Calc-Schist

Schist degraded.
d
July 2016 V. 1.1 203

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.16 – Slates and Schist 4+650 to 5+030 S-II degraded.

0 0.61% (unsupported).
July 2016 V. 1.1 204

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.17 – Section III

II bis Calc-Schist 9+700 to 10+900 degraded.
July 2016 V. 1.1 205

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.18 – Section II Calc-Schist 10+500 to 11+020 degraded.

0. 0.18% (unsupported).
July 2016 V. 1.1 206

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure
igure 6.3.19 – Fault 5+800 to 5+900 degraded.
July 2016 V. 1.1 207

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 6.3.20 – Slates and Schists 4+650 to 5+030 S-II bis degraded.
July 2016 V. 1.1 208

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure
igure 6.3.21 – Fault 9+700 to 10+500 degraded.
July 2016 V. 1.1 209

TUNNEL REPORT
7. MAIN TUNNEL SUPPORT VERIFICATION
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Calculations by F.E.M. have been performed for each defined support along the tunnel, in
its most geotechnically
otechnically unfavourable and with higher overburden section. Results are
included as follows.
Facing the interpretation of the results of the calculations,

calculations, especially of the stress resulting
in the vault, which follows a combined compressive and bending behaviour,
behaviour, there can be
reached to situations:
- Combined compressive and bending stress don’t reach shotcrete tensile strength.
In this case, the support acts as active element and for such stresses cracks in
shotcrete will not appear; on the other hand, for
for cracks > 30 cm depths is
mandatory to drill the shotcrete in order to avoid water deposit in the outside.
- In the opposite situation, stresses are higher than shotcrete strength in some points
of the support. This is a normal and acceptable behaviour in the primary
support of a tunnel, in which cracks have to be allowed in shotcrete: they
transform the structure in a mechanism with multiple hinges,
hinges although it has
to be confirmed that none of these situation is produced:
o Unstable mechanisms due to multiple

le hinges formation. In this case the
solution would be nailing shotcrete with long selfdrilling bolts in both sides
of the crack.
o Compressive stress on hinges is higher than shotcrete compression strength:

bending moment disappears when the hinge is formed,
formed, but compressive
stress is still active and with the same value.
July 2016 V. 1.1 210

TUNNEL REPORT
Moreover, it has to be checked that the shear force can be absorbed by the friction
inside the hinge (very low value), or which is common, by the steel ribs or lattice
girders of the support.
ort.
It is evident that, once hinges are formed, tunnel bending decreases, and therefore
the variation of curvature which is proportional to the shear stress. Checking the
support with shear forces calculated before hinges formations, although in
some points
nts with bending stress higher than acceptable, stands on the safe
side. Therefore it is not necessary to recalculate placing hinges in those points
where bending stress is overcome.
It has been done the analysis and verification of the primary lining support
support considering:
- The ground type.
- The depth of the tunnel.
- The support elements.
As a rule, for all the verifications it has been adopted for the calculations:
a) Horizontal pressure factor Ko = 1, except in two cases:

o Low overburden (less than eighty meters or three times the diameter).
diameter
o Fractured and Techtonized Fault Material.
b) No groundwater pressure acting on the tunnel lining.
c) The failure criterium adopted has been the Hoek and Brown one, but for the use in the
calculation program, it has been got the Mohr-Coulomb
Coulomb failure parameters using
Roclab program and taking in account the depth of the tunnel.
o As it is shown later, the Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr Coulomb failure parameters are only valid
for every depth and must be determined in every case of section geometry.
July 2016 V. 1.1 211

TUNNEL REPORT
d) The perturbation parameter "D" of the Hoek & Brown criterium has been adopted:
o D = 0.70, in all cases of excavation by blasting.
o D = 0.00, in mechanical excavation of poor quality rock.
e) Initial loads on support
Depending on the support type, the ground type and he depth the way of putting the
support elements, the pressure acting may be /without taking in account squeezing risk
that would need additional reinforcement).
i. Light support with no great overburden.

It may be considered.
Light support with the following

fol elements:
- 5 – 15 cm shotcrete.
- Bolts in pattern 1 x 1 m up to 2 x 2 m.
- No lattice girder nor
n steel ribs.
The process regarding support placement could be the following:

o Last round (next to face). Sealing shotcrete
Drilling and bolting
o Round before last. Shotcrete
o Two rounds before last. Finishing structural shotcrete
If we name "l" the round length, the distance "L" from gravity center from the
placed support to the face would be:
l = 3 – 4 m, for ground type with light section
‡ 1 n g 0,5 3 g 5 2 g 1 n 7 \ 9 n
9
July 2016 V. 1.1 212

TUNNEL REPORT
The variation of the desconfinement ratio can be taken in account the distance of
the gravity center from the face, as is shown in figure 1 developed by Celada et al
for a tunnel width between 8 to 12 m.
Figure 7.1.1 – Load acting on support
Then, the load acting on support is going to vary between 0,05 x po to 0,00 x po,
with po the geostatic pressure.
ii. Medium support.

Medium support with the following elements:
- 5 to 255 cm shotcrete.
- Bolts in pattern 1 x 1 m up to 2 x 2 m.
- No lattice girder or steel ribs.
The placement process of the support would be:

o Last round. Sealing shotcrete
Lattice girders or steel ribs
Bolts
o Round before last. Structural shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 213

TUNNEL REPORT
In medium support, the round length is going to between 1,5m x 2,5m, what means
l = 1,5 – 2,5m.
Then, it may be adopted:
‡ 1 g g 0,5 2 2 g1 4 \ 6 n
Then, according to the figure 7.2.2,

2, the initial load acting on support will be about:
Figure 7.1.2
p = 0,06 – 0,09 x po with Geocontrol criterium
p = 0,10 – 0,18 x po with Panet criterium
p = 0,06 – 0,24 x po with Bulychev and Fotieva criterium
So, it has been adopted:

o Low to medium overburden (< 500 m) p = 0,14 x po
o High overburden (> 500 m) 0,0 x po

p = 0,08
July 2016 V. 1.1 214

TUNNEL REPORT
iii. Heavy support.

Heavy support with the following elements:
- 25 – 355 cm shotcrete.
- Steel ribs.
The lengths of rounds is between 0,5 – 1,0 m.
The support placement process will be:

o Last round. First the steel rib by the face
Sealing shotcrete
Bolting
ng (in are bolts in the section)
o Round before last. Structural shotcrete
Self-boring
boring bolts (in are in the section
type)
Then:
‡ 0,50 n g 0,50 3 g 5 1,50 1,50

50 n
With the round length of 1 m.
According to figure 7.1.3.
July 2016 V. 1.1 215

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.1.3 – Pressure acting on a heavy support
The pressure acting on the support would be:

o 0,40 to 0,48 x po, according to Panet and Bulycher and Gotieva.
o 0,20 to 0,25 x po, according to Geocontrol criterium.
Then,, it might be reasonable:

o With low and medium overburden. p = 0,48 x po
o With great overburden. p = 0,25 x po
f) Horizontal pressure
The tunnel is below the hillsides of a scarped valley, as can be seen in picture 7.1.1.
July 2016 V. 1.1 216

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 7.1.1
7.1. – Sight of the hillsides above Z-Mohr–Tunnel
Tunnel
A scheme, with the typical placement of the tunnel in the valley, is show in figure
7.1.4.
Figure 7.1.4 – Scheme placement tunnel in valley section
Then, the tunnel isn’t far from the foot of the hillside.
July 2016 V. 1.1 217

TUNNEL REPORT
With this morphology,

ogy, the initial horizontal pressure is not going to be greater than the
geostatic one, because the tectonic pressure must have dissipated.
According to that, the horizontal pressure in the tunnel with medium to high
overburden is going to be equal to the vertical one.
RX `ˆ R‰ `ˆ 1,00
With low overburden, the horizontal pressure in soils and perturbed or degraded rock
mass is about ko = 0,50, as can be got with the Jacky formula.
For the Mohr-Coulomb

Coulomb criterium
criterium the confinement pressure must be taken equal
to ` R‰ , what means R, 0,50 γ a,, with "h" of overburden thickness.
The failure with low overburden is with geometry in chimney or cave, as can
c be seen
in scheme of figure 7.1.5.
7.1.5
Figure 7.1.5 – Scheme failures with low overburden
For these types of failure surface, considering ko = 0,50 is most unfavourable.
July 2016 V. 1.1 218

TUNNEL REPORT
This type of failure (low overburden) can happen:

o If the rock mass thickness in the vertical axis over the crown is less than
3xD.
o If the rock mass thickness from the tunnel surface up to the soil base is less
than 1,5 x D.
7.2. STUDIED CASES
For every primary lining and ground type, and with the greatest and lowest depth of the
tunnel, it has been analysed the behaviour of the surrounding ground and the primary
lining.
As a rule, it has been considered:
- Horizontal pressure factor K=1, except in two cases:
o Low overburden.
o Fractured ground material.
Ground Type 5 GT 5
And according to I.E. Kn ≠ 1 en
DPR Fractured and Techtonized
nized Fault Material
- Section Type S-I.
o Panjal Trap Formation of Massive Metabasites.
o Panjal Trap Formation of Fractured Metabasites.
July 2016 V. 1.1 219

TUNNEL REPORT
- Section Type S-II.
o Panjal Trap Formation of Fractured Metabasites.
o Zozila Formation of Quarzitic-schist.

Quarzi
o Zozila Formation of Calcareous-schist.
- Section Type S-II'.
o Zozila Formation of Calcareous-schist.
o Zozila Formation of Slate

S & Micha-schist.
- Section Type S-III.
Failure areas
reas or contact formations:
o Panjal Intense Fractured with Panjal Massive.
o Failure in Panjal Massive.

Massive
- Section Type S-IV.
o Michaschists and intense fractured Zozila Formation.

Formation
o Fractured zone.
zone
- Section Type S-V.
o Portals.
- Section Type S-VI.
o Great Fault crossing.

crossing
July 2016 V. 1.1 220

TUNNEL REPORT
7.3. SECTION I
The support section can be seen in Figure 7.3.1.
Figure 7.3.1.- Support S-I section

- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete

ncrete layer, at least 5 cm thick, in
- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of 2.0 (T) x 2.0

m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a patternh

pattern of 2.0 (T) x
2.0 m (L).
July 2016 V. 1.1 221

TUNNEL REPORT
- Round length is 2 to 4m in advance, and in case of performing bench it has

double length.
Squeezing risk is not considered based on the

t following points:
o Although massive metabasites are found in stretches with the highest

overburden, the compressive strength of this massif is very high.
o All joints are undulating or rough planar and unaltered, thereby Jr /

Ja>>0.5,
0.5, and therefore, according
according to Goel there is no risk of squeezing.
Regarding rock-bursting,
bursting, it could only occur in more jointed areas in which massif
strength is lower.
In case of rock-bursting,
bursting, favoured by full section excavation, either in face or sidewalls,
there will be performed
formed one of the treatments that are given in Chapter 11.
11
7.3.1. Massive Metabasites 150 m Overburden Ch 6+400
This point will be in the KP 6+400

6+ 00 as can be seen in the longitudinal profile.
The scheme of the discretization is shown in figure 7.3.2.a.
July 2016 V. 1.1 222

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.2.a
7.3. – Scheme of discretization
According to the overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 1596 KPa.
The intrinsic parameters of the massive metabasites of this tunnel stretch are:
- Density γ = 28 kN/m3
- UCS = 120 MPa Ei = 100.000 MPa MR (E/UCS) = 833,3
- GSI = 80 mi = 25
In the figure 7.3.2.b bis from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure
criteria for this stretch, getting:
E = 47722 MPa φ = 61,40º c = 3,338 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 223

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.2.b – Hoek & Brown and Mohr Coulomb failure criteria
In the figure 7.3.3, it can be seen the discretization mesh and in the figure 7.3.4 a mesh
detail around the tunnel, with all the support elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 224

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.3 – Discretization mesh
Figure 7.3.4 – Discretization mesh detail
With the following parameters, for every type of ground and reinforcement:
July 2016 V. 1.1 225

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
N Material γ (kN/m3) ν
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
1 Massive metabasites 28 0.15 47722 3338 61.49
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
3 Swellex bolts - - 210000
4 Injected bolts - - 210000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
For this ground type and depth of the tunnel, the value of Ko = 1.
The initial load acting on support is 0,08 x po, with po the geostatic load, because the round
length will be not less than 4 m.
In the figure 7.3.5, it can be seen the displacements map after the excavation and primary
lining reinforcement of the tunnel.
Figure 7.3.5 – Displacement map
In the figure 7.3.6, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 226

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.6 – Detail around the tunnel of displacement map
Next figures 7.3.7, 7.3.8 and 7.3.9 show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
bending moments and shear forces) in the primary lining elements.
Figure 7.3.7 – Bolts loads and axial forces in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 227

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.8 – Bending moments in shotcrete
Figure 7.3.9 – Shear forces in shotcrete
With the following greatest values:
- Bolts loads. Tmax = 15 KN
- Axial force. Nmax = 13.7 KN
July 2016 V. 1.1 228

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 71 KN x m (with N = 3,1 KN)
- Shear force. Qmax = 1.7 KN
Making a stability process, the security factor of the tunnel with

with the primary lining is
S.F.=10.0,, with the deformed mesh shown in figure 7.3.10.
Figure 7.3.10 – Deformed mesh in failure with S.F. = 10.0
7.3.2. Massive
ve Metabasites 1080 m Overburden Ch 9+400
This point will be in the Ch. 9+400

00 as can be seen in the longitudinal profile.
The scheme of the discretization is shown in figure 7.3.11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 229

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.11 – Scheme of discretization
According to the overburden,

overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 27636 MPa.
As it has been said before, the Mohr-Coulomb

Mohr Coulomb failure parameters must be obtained from
intrinsic parameters of the ground type and taking in account:
- Depth of the tunnel.
- Perturbation factor "D" that depends of the excavation quality.
According to Hoek, it has been adopted for "D" the following values:
- Excavation by blasting. D = 0,70
July 2016 V. 1.1 230

TUNNEL REPORT
- UCS = 120 MPa Ei = 100000 MPa MR (E/UCS) = 833..3
- GSI = 80 mi = 25
In the figure 7.3.12 from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure
E = 47722 MPa φ = 49,73º c = 7,,001 MPa
Figure 7.3.12 – Hoek & Brown

Brown and Mohr Coulomb failure criteria
The initial load acting on support is 0,08 x po, with po the geostatic load, because the round
July 2016 V. 1.1 231

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 232

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
1 Massive metabasites 28 0.15 47222 7001 49.73
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
For this ground type and depth of the tunnel, the value
va of Ko = 1.
July 2016 V. 1.1 233

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.3.17 – Boltss loads and axial forces in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 234

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bolts loads. Tmax = 114.9 KN
- Axial force. Nmax = 94.0 KN
July 2016 V. 1.1 235

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 7.2 KN x m (with N = 41 KN)

7.3.3. Fractured Metabasites 150 m Overburden Ch 5+900
This point will be in the Ch 5+900

July 2016 V. 1.1 236

TUNNEL REPORT
According
rding to the overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 1567,5 KPa.

- Density γ = 27.5 kN/m3
July 2016 V. 1.1 237

TUNNEL REPORT
- UCS = 75 MPa Ei = 35000 MPa MR (E/UCS) = 466,7
- GSI = 60 mi = 15
E = 7023,85 MPa φ = 48,52º c = 980 KPa

K
Figure 7.3.22 – Hoek & Brown and Mohr Coulomb failure criteria
July 2016 V. 1.1 238

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure
gure 7.3.24 – Discretization mesh detail
July 2016 V. 1.1 239

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
1 Fractured metabasites 27.5 0.15 7023 980 48.52
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
The initial load acting on support is 0,08 x po, with po the geostatic load, because the
th round
In the figure 7.3.26, it can be seen the displacement

displacement map detail around the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 240

TUNNEL REPORT
elemen
July 2016 V. 1.1 241

TUNNEL REPORT
- Axial force. Nmax = 90 KN
July 2016 V. 1.1 242

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 5,6 KN x m
- Shear force. Qmax = 8,9 KN

7.3.4. Fractured Metabasites 180 m Overburden Ch 6+150

July 2016 V. 1.1 243

TUNNEL REPORT
According
ccording to the overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 2392,5 KPa.

- Depth of the tunnel..
July 2016 V. 1.1 244

TUNNEL REPORT
- GSI = 60 mi = 15
E = 7023,8 MPa φ = 47,20º c = 1,,074 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 245

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 246

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
1 Fractured metabasites 27.5 0.15 7023.8 1074 47.20
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
July 2016 V. 1.1 247

TUNNEL REPORT
.3.38 and 7.3.39 show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
Next figures 7.3.37, 7.3.38
July 2016 V. 1.1 248

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 249

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 8,9 KN x m (with N = 71 KN)
- Shear force. Qmax = 13,8 KN
Making a stability process, the security factor

factor of the tunnel with the primary lining
lini is
7.4. SECTION S-II
July 2016 V. 1.1 250

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.1.- Support S-II section


- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of 1.50 (T) x

1.50 m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern 1.50 (T) x 1.50
m (L).
In addition,
ion, next procedure has to be followed:
July 2016 V. 1.1 251

TUNNEL REPORT
- Squeezing risk is not considered based on the following points:
o Although fractured metabasites are found in stretches with high

overburden, the compressive strength of the massif is high; this
overburden,
approach wouldn’t meet Singh’s.

Ja>>0.5,
0.5, and therefore, according to Goel there is no risk of squeezing.
- Regarding rock--bursting, itt could only occur in more jointed areas in which
massif strength is lesser.
In case of rock--bursting,
bursting, favoured by full section excavation, either in face or
wall sides, there will be performed one of the treatments that are given in
Chapter 6.

ractured Metabasites 380 m Overburden Ch 7+600
00


7.4.
Figure 7.4.2.a
July 2016 V. 1.1 252

TUNNEL REPORT
According to thee overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 9625 KPa.

- Density γ = 28 kN/m
/m3
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
In the figure 7.4.2.b from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure
E = 2739,0 MPa φ = 34,65º c = 1,,113 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 253

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 254

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 255

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
1 Intense fractured metabasites 27.5 0.15 2739 1113 34.65
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
lining
ning reinforcement of the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 256

TUNNEL REPORT
Next figures 7.4.7, 7.4.8 and 7.4.9 show

show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
July 2016 V. 1.1 257

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 258

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 254 KN x m (with N = 4250 KN)
- Shear force. Qmax = 399 KN


ractured Metabasites 550 m Overburden Ch 8+050
50
This point will be in the Ch 8+050 as can be seen

een in the longitudinal profile.
July 2016 V. 1.1 259

TUNNEL REPORT
As it has been said before, the

th Mohr-Coulomb
Coulomb failure parameters must be obtained from
According to Hoek, it has been adopted for "D" the

th following values:
The intrinsic parameters of the intense fractured metabasites of this tunnel stretch are:
July 2016 V. 1.1 260

TUNNEL REPORT
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
In the figure 7.4.12

12 from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure
E = 2739,0 MPa φ = 31,77º c = 1,3

,399 MPa
Taking in account the round length, the

the initial load acting on the support will be
p=0.14 x po, with po the geostatic pressure.
July 2016 V. 1.1 261

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.13
7. – Discretization mesh
July 2016 V. 1.1 262

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
In the figure 7.4.15, it can be seen the displacements

displacements map after the excavation and primary
July 2016 V. 1.1 263

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.16 – Detail around the tunnel of displacement

cement map
July 2016 V. 1.1 264

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 265

TUNNEL REPORT
Making a stability process, the security factor of the tunnel with the primary lining is
Schist 80 m Overburden Ch 4+960

The scheme of the discretization is shown

show in figure 7.4.21.
July 2016 V. 1.1 266

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.21
7.4.2 – Scheme of discretization
According to the overburden, the vertical surface

sur load in the top limit iss 825 KPa.

ng to Hoek, it has been adopted for "D" the following value:

According
The intrinsic parameters of the calcareous-schists of this tunnel stretch are:
- UCS = 75 MPa Ei = 30000 MPa MR (E/UCS) = 400
July 2016 V. 1.1 267

TUNNEL REPORT
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
E = 2347,75 MPa φ = 53,58º c = 0,,258 MPa
Taking in account the round length, the initial load acting on the support will be
In the figure 7.4.23,

3, it can be seen the discretization mesh and in the figure 7.4.44 a mesh
July 2016 V. 1.1 268

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.23
7.4. – Discretization mesh
Figure 7.4.24
7.4. – Discretization mesh detail
July 2016 V. 1.1 269

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
1 Zojila F. Slates – Calc Schists 27 0.2 2347 258 53.58
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000

5, it can be seen the displacements map after the excavation and primary

6, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 270

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.266 – Detaill around the tunnel of displacement map
Next figures 7.4.27, 7.4.288 and 7.4.29

7.4. 9 show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
Figure 7.4.27
7.4. – Bolts loads and axial forces in shotcrete
rete
July 2016 V. 1.1 271

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.28
7.4.2 – Bending moments in shotcrete
Figure 7.4.29
7.4.2 – Shear forces in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 272

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 55.6 KN (with N = 487 KN)
7.4.
Figure 7.4.30
7.4.3 – Deformed mesh in failure with S.F. = 3.40
00 (Low Overburden)

The scheme of the discretization

ization is shown in figure 7.4.31.
7.4.3
July 2016 V. 1.1 273

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.31
As it has been said before, the

t Mohr-Coulomb
Coulomb failure parameters must be obtained from
According to Hoek, it has been adopted for "D" the

t following values:
The intrinsic parameters of the calcareous-schists of this tunnel stretch are:
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
July 2016 V. 1.1 274

TUNNEL REPORT
E = 2347,75 MPa φ = 56,11º c = 0,,216 MPa
Taking in account the round length, the initial

initial load acting on the support will be

3, it can be seen the discretization mesh and in the figure 7.4.34
7.4. a mesh
July 2016 V. 1.1 275

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.33
7.4. – Discretization mesh
Figure 7.4.34
7.4.3 – Discretization mesh detail
July 2016 V. 1.1 276

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
Zojila F. Slates and
8 27.5 0.2 2347 216 56.11
Calc-Schists
Schists.
For this ground type and depth of the tunnel, the value of Ko = 0,50 because it is low
overburden.
In the figure 7.4.35,, it can be seen the displacements map after the excavation and primary

6, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 277

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.366 – Detail around

round the tunnel of displacement map
Next figures 7.4.37, 7.4.388 and 7.4.39

7.4. 9 show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
Figure 7.4.37
7.4.3 – Bolts loads and axial forces in shotcrete
shotcret
July 2016 V. 1.1 278

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.4.38
7.4.3 – Bending moments in shotcrete
Figure 7.4.39
7.4. – Shear forces in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 279

TUNNEL REPORT
7.4.
Figure 7.4.41
41 – Deformed mesh in failure with S.F. = 3.90
7.5. SECTION S-II BIS
The support
pport section can be seen in Figure 7.5.1.
July 2016 V. 1.1 280

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.5.1.- Support S-II Bis section

su
- FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete layer, at least 20

2 cm thick, in
- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of 1.50 (T) x

1.50m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex

Swel type bolts in vault, in a pattern 1.50 (T) x 1.50
m (L).
- Lattice girders 16 cm depth with two rods φ20 and one rod φ25,
φ 1.50 m spacing
July 2016 V. 1.1 281

TUNNEL REPORT
- Excavation and support must be performed in all the section.
- Round length is 1.50 m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
o Overburden is limited in the stretches where this support is applied.
o All joints are undulating

undulating or rough planar and unaltered, thereby Jr /
Ja>>0.5,
- Regarding rock--bursting, it couldn’t occur because the geostatic loads aren’t

great.

ractured Metabasites 380 m Overburden
Overbur Ch 5+000
00


7.5.
Figure 7.5.2.a
July 2016 V. 1.1 282

TUNNEL REPORT

- Perturbation factor "D" that depends of the excavation

excavatio quality.
The intrinsic parameters of intense fractured metabasites in this tunnel stretch are:
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
E = 2739 MPa φ = 34,65º c = 1,113 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 283

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.5.2.b – Hoek & Brown and Mohr Coulomb failure

failure criteria
July 2016 V. 1.1 284

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 285

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
8 Intense fractured metabasites 28 0.20 2739 1113 34.65
July 2016 V. 1.1 286

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 287

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 288

TUNNEL REPORT



7.5.11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 289

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.5.11.a

- Perturbation factor "D" that

tha depends of the excavation quality.
The intrinsic parameters of the calcareous schists of this tunnel stretch are:
- UCS = 75 MPa E = 30000 MPa MR (E/UCS) = 400
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
July 2016 V. 1.1 290

TUNNEL REPORT
In the figure 7.3.2 from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure criteria
for this stretch, getting:
E = 2347 MPa φ = 46,72º c = 0,433 MPa
Figure 7.5.12 – Hoek & Brown and Mohr

Mohr Coulomb failure criteria
mes
July 2016 V. 1.1 291

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 292

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
Zojila F. Slates - Mica-Schists
Mica
8 27.5 0.2 2347 433 46.72
and Calc-Schists
Schists.
In the figure 7.5.16, it can be seen the displacement

displacement map detail around the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 293

TUNNEL REPORT
eleme
July 2016 V. 1.1 294

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 295

TUNNEL REPORT
7.6. SECTION S-III
July 2016 V. 1.1 296

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.6.1.- Support S-III section


- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern

ttern of 1.0 (T) x 1.5
m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern of 1.0 (T) x 1.5
m (L).
July 2016 V. 1.1 297

TUNNEL REPORT
o Limited overburden in the stretches where this support is applied.

Ja>>0.5,
sq
- Regarding rock--bursting,
bursting, it could only occur in more jointed areas in which
massif strength is lower.
sidewalls, there will be performed one of the treatments that are
ar given in
detailed drawings.
7.6.1. Fractured Metabasites shear zone 150 m Overburden Ch 6+360

6+


ization is shown in figure 7.6.2.a.
7.6.2.a
Figure 7.6.2.a – Scheme of discretization
According to the overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 3115 MPa.
July 2016 V. 1.1 298

TUNNEL REPORT

a
The intrinsic parameters of very intense fractured metabasites in this tunnel stretch are:
- GSI = 40 mi = 25
E = 2038 MPa φ = 43,72º c = 0,647 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 299

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 300

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 301

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
3 Swellex
wellex bolts - - 210000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000

displacements map after the excavation and primary
July 2016 V. 1.1 302

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.6.6 – Detail around the tunnel of displacement

nt map
July 2016 V. 1.1 303

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 304

TUNNEL REPORT
ity process, the security factor of the tunnel with the primary lining is
Making a stability
7.6.2. Intense Fractured Metabasites 380 m Overburden Ch 8+600

00

July 2016 V. 1.1 305

TUNNEL REPORT
According to the overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit
limit is 18425 MPa.

According
ccording to Hoek, it has been adopted for "D" the following values:
The intrinsic parameters of the intense fractured metabasites of this tunnel stretch are:
- GSI = 40 mi = 15
July 2016 V. 1.1 306

TUNNEL REPORT
E = 2038 MPa φ = 31,68º c = 1741 KPa

Pa
criter
It has been considered, taking in account the greater deformability, an

a initial load acting on
support of p = 0.04 x po, with po the geostatic pressure.
detail
il around the tunnel, with all the support elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 307

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 308

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
For this ground type and depth of the tunnel, the

th value of Ko = 1.
July 2016 V. 1.1 309

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 310

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 311

TUNNEL REPORT
- Bending moment. Mmax = 287 KN x m (with M = 2776 KN)

2
7.7. SECTION S-IV
July 2016 V. 1.1 312

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.7.1.- Support S-IV section

in vault and sidewalls,
ewalls, covering the excavated surface.

- Placement of 4 m length SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of 2.0 (T) x 1.0

m (L).
- Placement of 4 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern 2.0 (T) x 1.0 m
(L).
- Lattice girders 16 cm depth with two rods φ20

20 and one rod φ25, 1 m spacing
July 2016 V. 1.1 313

TUNNEL REPORT
- Excavation
vation and support must be performed in top heading and bench.
o Overburden is limited in the stretches where this support is applied.

app

Ja>>0.5,
bursting, it could only occur in more jointed areas in which
massif strength is lesser.
wall sides, there will be performed one of the treatments that are given in the
drawings.
7.7.1. Slates and Mechaschists (fractured) 190 m Overburden Ch 5+900

The scheme of the discretization is shown

s in figure 7.7.2.a.
July 2016 V. 1.1 314

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.7.2.a – Scheme of discretization
Ass it has been said before, the Mohr-Coulomb

According to Hoek, itt has been adopted for "D" the following values:
- Mechanical excavation. D = 0,00
The intrinsic parameters of the micha-schists in this tunnel stretch are:
- UCS = 30 MPa Ei = 15000 MR (E/UCS) = 500
July 2016 V. 1.1 315

TUNNEL REPORT
- GSI = 35 mi = 10
E = 1701,11 MPa ν = 0,20 φ = 35,58º c = 0,532 MPa
Taking in account the round length, the initial load acting on the support would be
p=0.19 x p, with p the geostatic pressure.
July 2016 V. 1.1 316

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 317

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
7 Zojila Micha schists 26 0.20 1701 532 35.58

displacements map after the top heading excavation
and primary lining reinforcement of the tunnel.
Figure 7.7.5 – Displacement map after the top heading
In the figure 7.7.6, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the top heading
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 318

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.7.6 – Detail around the top heading of displacement map
In the figure 7.7.7, it can be seen the displacements map after the bench excavation and
primary lining reinforcement of the tunnel.
Figure 7.7.7 – Displacement map after tunnel excavation
In the figure 7.7.8, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the from heading
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 319

TUNNEL REPORT
7.7.8 – Displacement maps after tunnel excavation
bending moments
nts and shear forces) in the primary lining elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 320

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 321

TUNNEL REPORT
S.F.=2.60,, with the deformed mesh shown
s in figure 7.7.12 and 7.7.13.
Figure 7.7.12 – Deformed mesh after top heading in failure with S.F. = 2.60
July 2016 V. 1.1 322

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.7.13 – Deformed mesh after tunnel excavation in failure with S.F. = 2.20
7.7.2. Slates and Michaschists (fractured) 770 m Overburden Ch 9+750

July 2016 V. 1.1 323

TUNNEL REPORT

- Mechanical Excavation.
Excavation D = 0,0
- GSI = 35 mi = 10
E = 1701 MPa φ = 25,14º c = 1,262 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 324

TUNNEL REPORT
Taking in account the round length, the initial load acting on the support would be
p=0.19 x p, with p the geostatic pressure.
July 2016 V. 1.1 325

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 326

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
7 Zojila Micha Schists 26 0.2 1701 1262 25.14
In the figure 7.7.18,, it can be seen the displacements map after the top heading excavation
In the figure 7.7.19, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the top
t heading
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 327

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.7.20 – Displacement

nt map after tunnel excavation
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 328

TUNNEL REPORT
Next figures 7.7.22, 7.7.23 and 7.7.24 show the bolts loads and section
section forces (axial loads,
July 2016 V. 1.1 329

TUNNEL REPORT
With the following

ollowing greatest values:
July 2016 V. 1.1 330

TUNNEL REPORT

S.F.=1.10-130,, with the deformed mesh shown in figure 7.7.25 and 7.7.26.
July 2016 V. 1.1 331

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 332

TUNNEL REPORT
7.8. SECTION S-V
The
he support section can be seen in Figure 7.8.1.
Figure 7.8.1.- Support S-V section
• FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete seal layer, at least 5 cm thick, in

• FRS-M30 polyfibre reinforced sprayed concrete layer, at least 25 cm thick, in vault

and sidewalls, covering the excavated surface.
• Placement of 12 m length injected pipes with 88.9 mm diameter in sidewalls, every

1.0 m (L).
In addition, next procedure

cedure has to be followed:
July 2016 V. 1.1 333

TUNNEL REPORT
Squeezing risk is not considered based on the following points:
o Overburden is limited in the stretches

str where S-V
V is applied and the load
can be absorbed by this rigid support.

Ja>>0.5,
bursting, it cannot
Regarding rock-bursting, cann happen.
7.8.1. Portals in Slates and Michaschists (Zozila) Ch 10+950


7.8.2.a
Figure 7.8.2.a
According to the overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 0 MPa in portals.

July 2016 V. 1.1 334

TUNNEL REPORT
- Mechanical Excavation in portal. D = 0,50
The intrinsic parameters of the slates and michaschists are:
- GSI = 30 mi = 10 D = 0,50
E = 660,14 MPa φ = 48,76º c = 0,,059 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 335

TUNNEL REPORT
In this section, the initial load acting on the support is p = 0,30 x po, with po equal to the
geostatic pressure.
In the figure 7.8.3, it can be seen the discretization mesh and

and in the figure 7.8.4 a mesh
July 2016 V. 1.1 336

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 337

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
8 Zojila F. Slates - Mica-Schists
Mica 26 0.22 660 59 48.76
12 Shotcrete 2 25 0.22 25000
For this ground type and low overburden of the tunnel, the value of Ko = 0,50.
In the figure 7.8.5, it can be seen the displacements map after the top heading excavation
Figure 7.8.5 – Displacement

cement map after the top heading
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 338

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.8.7 – Displacement map after tunnel excavation
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 339

TUNNEL REPORT
7.8.8 – Displacement
Displacement maps after tunnel excavation
July 2016 V. 1.1 340

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 341

TUNNEL REPORT
Making a stability process, the security factor of the tunnel with the primary lining
l is
S.F.=2.70-2.40,, with the deformed mesh shown in figure 7.8.12 and 7.8.13.
July 2016 V. 1.1 342

TUNNEL REPORT
7.9. SECTION S-VI
This support is applied specifically to fault breccias and very crushed rocks in shear zones.
ection can be seen in Figure 7.9.1.

The support section 7
July 2016 V. 1.1 343

TUNNEL REPORT
Figu 7.9.1.- Support S-VI section

Figure
In this section minor squeezing is considered unavoidable, i.e. a closure of <3% is

foreseen.
In this conditions plasticized zone thickness is around half diameter and 9 m length bolts
are enough to guarantee stability.
In addition,
ddition, next procedure has to be followed:
- Round length is 2 m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
7.9.1. Crossing a great fault in Zozila Formation Slates and Michaschists

overburden
burden 700 m. Ch 9+800


The scheme of the discretization 7.9.2
July 2016 V. 1.1 344

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.9.2.a
According to the overburden, the vertical surface

surface load in the top limit considered is
7540KPa.

- Perturbation factor "D" that depends

depe of the excavation quality.
- Mechanical Excavation. D = 0,00
The intrinsic parameters of the Zojila Formation Slates and Michaschists of this tunnel
stretch are:
- Density γ = 26 kN/m
/m3
July 2016 V. 1.1 345

TUNNEL REPORT
- GSI = 30 mi = 10
criteria for these formations,
formations getting:
E = 1220,75 MPa φ = 24,39º c = 1,,076 MPa
And for the fractured zone:
γ = 26 KN/m3 UCS = 20 MPa Ei = 10000 MPa

mi = 5 GSI = 25 (Effective overburden 350 m)
July 2016 V. 1.1 346

TUNNEL REPORT
Getting as can be seen in figure 7.9.2.c:
E = 599 MPa φ = 19,63º c = 0,406 MPa
Figure 7.9.2.c – Hoek & Brown failure criteria
July 2016 V. 1.1 347

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 348

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
6 Fractured zone 26 0.22 599 406 19.63
8 Zozila Slates – Michaschists 26 0.20 1221 1076 24.39
12 Shotcrete 2 25 0.22 25000
In the figure 7.9.5, itt can be seen the displacements map after the top heading excavation
he
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 349

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 7.9.7 – Displacement map after

fter tunnel excavation
July 2016 V. 1.1 350

TUNNEL REPORT
excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 351

TUNNEL REPORT
With the following greatest

atest values:
July 2016 V. 1.1 352

TUNNEL REPORT
All the values of the bolt loads, sectional forces and bending moments are for 1 m of
tunnel following the axis.

S.F.=1.50,, with the deformed mesh shown in figure 7.9.12 and 7.9.13.
July 2016 V. 1.1 353

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 354

TUNNEL REPORT
8. ESCAPE TUNNEL
Two support sections have been defined for the egress and the intermediate access tunnels.
Following criteria have been followed for support choice and verification:
- Support SGE-I
Massif characteristics and geometry of transversal section at km 5+290 which

corresponds to Zojila Slates calc-schists
calc schists geotechnical and quartzc-schists
quartzc
geotechnical group,
group has been taken for verification.
The support checking

checking in this cross section ensures its viability in massifs of
better quality as fractured or healthy metabasites of the Panjab formation.
- Support SGE-II
Massif characteristics and geometry of transversal section at km 5+290 which

corresponds to Zojila Slates with slates, mica-sc hists and calc-schists
calc
geotechnical and quartzc-schists
quartzc geotechnical group,, has been taken for
verification.
The support checking in this cross section ensures its viability in massifs of
better quality as fractured or healthy metabasites of the Panjab formation.
- Support SGE-IIII
Transversal section at km 5+890,, which corresponds to a fractured zone (fault

breccia) between Zojila and Panjal Trap formations, has been taken for
verification.
July 2016 V. 1.1 355

TUNNEL REPORT
These caracterist of the massif crossed

cross would be the foreseeing worst of Z-
Morh tunnel.
8.1. SUPPORT SGE-I
Figure 8.1
.1 shows the support section.
Figure 8.1- Support section SGE-I
It is the lighter support, performed in full face and it consists of the following elements:
*Placement
Placement of 3 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern 1.50 (T) x
1.50 m (L).
* Placement of 3 m length φ32 SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of

1.50(T)
(T) x 1.50 m (L).
July 2016 V. 1.1 356

TUNNEL REPORT

1.50(T) x 1.50 m (L).
*5+10 cm synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete in 30 MPa to be applied in two

stages.
- Excavation and support must be performed in full face.
- Squeezing risk is not considered

considered for this support, based on the following points:
o Although massive Metabasites are found in stretches with high

overburden, their compressive strength, including well Metabasites, is
very high.
o All joints are undulating or rough planar and unaltered, thereby

th Jr /
Ja>>0.5,
0.5, and therefore, according to Goel et al. there is no risk of
squeezing.
bursting, it couldn´t occur by the small size of the section.
The transversal section taken for verification is the one at km 5+790, which is
represented
ented in figure 8.2.
July 2016 V. 1.1 357

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.2.-- Transversal section at km 5+290 for SGE-I

SGE verification
This cross section was obtained from Google Earth photo altimetry, therefore it
can be slightly different from the latest mapping of the project, but its
influence on calculation results will be negligible.
The overburden thickness of this section is 280 – 350 m.
Coulomb parameters adopted for this section considering the intrinsic ground
The Mohr-Coulomb
type parameters and the depth and perturbation factor (D= 0,70), has
has been the following
ones (figure 8.3):
Figure 8.3 – Failure parameters calcareous and quarzitic schists
- Quarzitic schists.
γ = 27.5 KN/m3 E = 6020 MPa ν = 0.15 φ = 43.9º c = 1360 KPa
- Calcareous schists.
Same
me values than latest.
July 2016 V. 1.1 358

TUNNEL REPORT
The value of the horizontal pressure factor has been adopted k0 = 1, as was shown
previous.
The initial load acting on the support is:
p =0.14 x po
With po the geostatic pressure.
This value of 0,14 is obtained considering the length round.
Figure 8.4 shows the overall discretization, considering the different geotechnical areas.
Figure 8.4.- Overall FEM discretization. Chainage km 5+290

5+
A detail of the tunnel and the surrounding ground is represented in Figure 8.5.
July 2016 V. 1.1 359

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.5.- Discretization detail
In the next table, the geotechnical parameters of the different materials in the model are
included.
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ (º)
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 125000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
8 Zojila F. Slates - Calc-Schists.
Calc 27.5 0.15 6020 1360 43.9
9 Zojila F. Quartz-Schists
Schists 27.5 0.15 6020 1360 43.9
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
11 aluvial 19 0.3 30 2 30
12 Shotcrete 2 25 0.22 25000
With the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 5+790, once excavation and support
have been performed, total displacements distribution is obtained from FEM calculation,
figure 8.6.
July 2016 V. 1.1 360

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.6.-
8.6. Distribution of total displacements.
The distribution of vertical displacements

displacements is shown in the detail represented in Figure 8.7.
Figure 8.7.- Distribution of vertical displacements around the tunnel.
The distribution of horizontal displacements around the excavation is represented in Figure

8.8.
July 2016 V. 1.1 361

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.8.- Distribution

bution of horizontal displacements around the tunnel.
tunnel
Therefore, the value of maximum displacement at sidewalls will be:

C= 5,8 + 8,2=14 mm
And the decline at vault:

V= 7,38 mm
Distributions of vertical and horizontal stress have been represented respectively

respec in figure
8.9 and 8.10.
July 2016 V. 1.1 362

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.9.-
8.9. Distribution of vertical stress
Figure 8.10.-
8.10. Distribution of horizontal stress
Distributions of major and minor principal stresses are shown respectively in Figures 8.11
and 8.12.
July 2016 V. 1.1 363

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.11.-
8.11. Distribution
ution of the major principal stress
Figure 8.12.-
8.12. Distribution of the minor principal stress
Regarding loads and forces acting on the support, loads acting on bolts are shown in
Figure 8.13.
July 2016 V. 1.1 364

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.13.- Acting loads on bolts
With a maximum value of 45,2 kN, for Swellex bolts, well below 200kN of nominal load,
and a maximum value of 107 kN, for SN bolts, lower than 400kN of their nominal load.
Distributions of axial forces, bending moments and shear forces in shotcrete are
represented in Figures 8.14,
.14, 8.15 and 8.16.
Figure 8.14.-
8.14. Axial forces distribution in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 365

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.15.-- Distribution of bending moments in shotcrete
Figure 8.16.-
8.16. Distribution of shear forces in shotcrete
With the following maximum values:
Nmax = 1418 KN Nmin = 655 KN

Mmax = 173 KN x m (with N = 960 KN)
July 2016 V. 1.1 366

TUNNEL REPORT
Qmax = 199 KN
The safety factor of the supported section without final lining is SF = 3.50, with the
distribution of total displacements of figure 8.17.
Figure 8.17.- Distribution of total displacement at failure

f with F.S.=3.50
July 2016 V. 1.1 367

TUNNEL REPORT
8.2. SUPPORT SGE-II
Figure 8.18 shows the support section.
Figure 8.18-
8. Support section SGE-II
It is the lighter support, performed in full face and it consists of the following elements:
*Placement
Placement of 3 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern 2.00 (T) x
1.50 m (L).

2.00(T)
(T) x 1.50 m (L).
* Placement of 6 m length φ32 SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of 2.00

(T) x 1.50 m (L).
*5+15 cm
m synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete in 30 MPa to be applied in two
stages.
July 2016 V. 1.1 368

TUNNEL REPORT
Lattice girders made of 3 rods φ25-20 with 1.50 m spacing.

*Lattice
- Round lengthh is 3m.
- Squeezing risk is not considered for this support, based on the following points:

overburden, their compressive strength, including well Metabasites, is
very high.
o All joints are undulating
undulating or rough planar and unaltered, thereby Jr /
Ja>>0.5,
squeezing.
bursting, it couldn´t occur by the small size of the section.
The transversal section taken for verification is the same that last case, at km
5+290, which is represented in figure 8.19.
Figure 8.19.-- Transversal section at km 5+290

90 for SGE-II
SGE verification
July 2016 V. 1.1 369

TUNNEL REPORT
This cross section was obtained from Google Earth photo altimetry, therefore it
can be slightly different
different from the latest mapping of the project, but its
influence on calculation results will be negligible.
The value of the horizontal pressure factor has been adopted k0 = 1, as was shown
previous.
The initial load acting on the support is p = 0.14 x po, with po the geostatic pressure.
This value of 0.14 is obtained considering the length round.
Figure 8.20.-
8.2 Overall FEM discretization. Chainage km 5+290
A detail
ail of the tunnel and the surrounding ground is represented in Figure 8.21.
July 2016 V. 1.1 370

TUNNEL REPORT
included.
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
Zojila F. Slates - Mica-Schists
Mica
8 27 0.20 1173.8 248 37.24
and Calc-Schists
Schists.
9 Zojila F. Quartz-Schists
Schists 27.5 0.15 6020 1360 43.90
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
11 Aluvial 19 0.3 30 2 30
12 Shotcrete 2 25 0.22 12500
The ground types parameters have been adopting considering the values depicted in
Geotechnical Annexe.
July 2016 V. 1.1 371

TUNNEL REPORT
With the applied loads and the geometry

geomet in chainage 5+790, once excavation and support
figure 8.23.
Figure 8.23.- Distribution of total displacements.
The distribution of vertical displacements is shown in the detail represented in Figure 8.24.
8.2
July 2016 V. 1.1 372

TUNNEL REPORT

8.25.
Figure 8.25.- Distribution of horizontal

horizontal displacements around the tunnel.
tunnel

C= 11,64 + 3,48=15,12 mm

V= 17,76 mm
Distributions of vertical and horizontal stresses

stress have been represented respectively in
figure 8.26 and 8.27.
July 2016 V. 1.1 373

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.26.-
8 Distribution of vertical stress
Figure 8.27.- Distribution of horizontal stress
and 8.29.
July 2016 V. 1.1 374

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.28
28.- Distribution of the major principal stress
Figure 8.29
29.- Distribution of the minor principal stress
Figure 8.30.
July 2016 V. 1.1 375

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.30.- Acting loads on bolts

With a maximum value of 178 kN, for Swellex bolts, well below 200kN of nominal load,
and a maximum value of 178 kN, also for SN bolts, lower than 400kN of their nominal
load.
represented in Figures 8.311, 8.32 and 8.33.
Figure 8.31.-
8.3 Axial forces distribution in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 376

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.33.-
8.3 Distribution of shear forces in shotcrete
- Axial force. Nmax = 2496 KN Nmin = 931 KN

- Shear force. Qmax = 201 KN Qmin = 0
July 2016 V. 1.1 377

TUNNEL REPORT
The safety factor of the supported section without final lining is SF

S = 1.8, with the
Figure 8.344.- Distribution of total displacement at failure
This value is totally permissible also long-term.

long
After the final lining collocation, Figure 8.35, the safety factor without taking into
account earthquake phenomena reaches the value of SF = 2.4, with a distribution of
displacements at failure, represented in Figure 8.36.
Figure 8.35.- Detail of final lining
July 2016 V. 1.1 378

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.36.- Total displacements distribution at failure with SF= 2.4

2.
Therefore, support is valid also when final lining is placed, without

wi considering
earthquake.
July 2016 V. 1.1 379

TUNNEL REPORT
8.3. SUPPORT SGE-III
Figure 8.37- Support section SG-III
It is the heaviest support for escape tunnel, to be performed in top-heading

heading and bench and
it consists of the following elements:
e
*5+20 cm synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete (30 MPa) to be applied in two

stages.
*Lattice Girders with three rods φ20-25,

25, collocated with 1 m spacing.
spacing

- Round length is of 1-2
1 2 m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
July 2016 V. 1.1 380

TUNNEL REPORT
- Squeezing risk is not considered for this support.
The most unfavorable section, in which the support SGE-III

III has been applied,
is the km 5+890
90 and it is shown in Figure 8.38.
Figure 8.38.-- Transversal section at km 5+890

90 for SGE-III
SGE verification
This cross section was obtained from Google Earth photo altimetry, therefore it can be
slightly different from the latest mapping of the project, but its influence
influenc on calculation
results will be negligible.
Ground types parameters have been adopted according to the values depicted at the
Geotechnical Annexe.
July 2016 V. 1.1 381

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.41.- Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 5+890

90
by and the surrounding ground is represented in Figure 8.42.

A detail of the Lay-by
ar
included.
July 2016 V. 1.1 382

TUNNEL REPORT
Massif strength
γ E
Nº Material ν C
(KN/m3) (MPa) φ
(KPa)
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Revestimiento
evestimiento 25 0.22 25000
6 Fractured zone 25 0.28 1134 645 20
20.08
F.Panjal
7 27.5 0.15 7020 1074 47
47.20
metab.fractured
10 colluvial
olluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
The criteria for estimation of actions on the tunnel are:
- Earth pressure coefficient

Following the same criteria used in the feasibility study, earth pressure
coefficient in fractured metabasites has been taken with the value of K0 = 1.
In fractured
ctured faulted zone with a behaviour like a soil, it has been adopted
K0=0.50.
- Deconfinement Ratio
The initial load acting on support has been adopted p = 0.19 x po, according with the round
length and being po the geostatic pressure.
a) Top heading
With
ith the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 5+890,
90, once excavation and support
figure 8.44.
July 2016 V. 1.1 383

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.44.-
8.44. Distribution of total displacements
The distributionn of vertical displacements is shown in the detail represented in Figure 8.45.
Figure 8.45.- Distribution of vertical displacements around the tunnel

8.46.
July 2016 V. 1.1 384

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.46.- Distribution of horizontal displacements around the tunnel.

C= 1,0 + 1,0= 2,0 mm

V= 7,0 mm
Distributions of vertical and horizontal stress have been

been represented respectively in figure
8.47 and 8.48.
July 2016 V. 1.1 385

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.47.-
Figure 8.48.-
and 8.50.
July 2016 V. 1.1 386

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.49.-
8.49. Distribution of the major principal stress
Figure 8.50.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 387

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.51.-
8. Axial forces distribution in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 388

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.53.-

- Bending moment.
ment. Mmax = 69.8 KN x m (with N=1065KN)
The safety factor of the supported section without final lining is SF = 3.1,
3 with the
8.5
July 2016 V. 1.1 389

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.544.- Distribution of total displacement

ent at failure
As can be seen, this value is higher than required.
b) Bench
Once bench excavation and support have been performed, total displacements distribution
is obtained from FEM calculation, figure 8.55.
8.5
July 2016 V. 1.1 390

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.55.-
8.5 Distribution of total displacements.
8.5
The distribution of horizontal displacements around the excavation is represented

re in Figure
8.57.
July 2016 V. 1.1 391

TUNNEL REPORT

C= 0,7 + 0,3= 1,0 cm

V= 7,4 mm
Distributions of vertical and horizontal stress have been represented respectively in figure
8.58 and 8.59.
July 2016 V. 1.1 392

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.58.-
8. Distribution of vertical stress
Figure 8.59.-
8. Distribution of horizontal stress
Distributions of major and minor principal stresses are shown respectively

respectivel in Figures 8.60
and 8.61.
July 2016 V. 1.1 393

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.60.-
8.6 Distribution of the major principal stress
Figure 8.61.-
8.6 Distribution of the minor principal stress
July 2016 V. 1.1 394

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.62.-
8.6 Axial forces distribution in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 395

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.64.-
With the following sectional forces:

forces
- Axial forces. Nmax = 1407 KN Nmin = 125 KN

- Bending moment. Mmax = 105 KN x m (with N=923 KN)
The safety factor of the supported section without final lining is SF = 2.9,
2. with the
8.6
July 2016 V. 1.1 396

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 8.65.- Distribution of total displacement at failure with F.S.=2.9
July 2016 V. 1.1 397

TUNNEL REPORT
9. VENTILATION TUNNEL
9.1. SECTION SVT-I
In the figure 9.1, it has been shown the support designed for the section SVT-I.
SVT
Figure 9.1 – Support SVT-I
The scheme of the discretization is

i shown in figure 9.2.a.
July 2016 V. 1.1 398

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.2.a
9. – Scheme of discretization
According to the 460 m overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 11900 KN.

The intrinsic
nsic parameters of the fractured metabasites of this tunnel stretch are:
- UCS = 75 MPa Ei = 30000 MPa MR (E/UCS) =400

=
- GSI = 60 mi = 15
July 2016 V. 1.1 399

TUNNEL REPORT
In the figure 9.2.b from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure criteria
for this stretch, getting:
E = 6020,45 MPa φ = 40,06º c = 1,8

,804 MPa
Figure 9.2.b – Hoek & Brown and Mohr Coulomb failure criteria
In the figure 9.3, it can be seen the discretization mesh and in the figure 9.4 a mesh detail
around the tunnel, withh all the support elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 400

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.3 – Discretization mesh
Figure 9.4 – Discretization mesh detail
July 2016 V. 1.1 401

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
The initial load is p = 0.14 x po, being po the geostatic pressure, and the value of 0.14 the
secure side considering the round length.
In the figure 9.5, it can be seen the displacements map after the excavation and primary
Figure 9.5 – Displacement map
In the figure 9.6, it can be seen the displacement map detail around the tunnel.
July 2016 V. 1.1 402

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.6 – Detail around the tunnel of displacement map
With the following displacements:
- In sidewalls. Horizontal convergence c = 18,7 + 18,7 = 37,2

3 mm
Decline crown V = 17,6 mm
Next figures 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9 show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads, bending
moments and shear forces) in the primary lining elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 403

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.7 – Bolts loads and axial forces in shotcrete
Figure 9.8
9. – Bending moments in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 404

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.9 – Shear forces in shotcrete
- Bending moment. Mmax = 426 KN x m (with N=1847 KN)

S.F.=2.60,, with the deformed mesh shown in figure 9.10.
July 2016 V. 1.1 405

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.10 – Deformed mesh in failure with S.F. = 2.60
July 2016 V. 1.1 406

TUNNEL REPORT
9.4. SECTION SVT-II
This supportt section is shown in figure 9.11.

9.1
Figure 9.11 – Support SVT-II
The scheme of the discretization is shown in figure 9.12.a.

9.1
July 2016 V. 1.1 407

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.12.a
9.1 – Scheme of discretization
According to the 170 m overburden, the vertical surface load in the top limit is 3780 KPa.
The ground type crosses with this section will be intense fractured metabasites.


nel.
- UCS = 75 MPa mi = 35000 MPa MR (E/UCS) = 466,6
July 2016 V. 1.1 408

TUNNEL REPORT
- GSI = 45 mi = 15
In the figure 9.12.b from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure
criteria for this section,, getting:
E = 2739 MPa φ = 41,44º c = 0,653 MPa

MP
In the figure 9.13, it can be seen the discretization mesh and in the figure 9.14 a mesh
July 2016 V. 1.1 409

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure
igure 9.14 – Discretization mesh detail
July 2016 V. 1.1 410

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
4 Injected bolts
lts - - 210000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
prim
July 2016 V. 1.1 411

TUNNEL REPORT
Next figures 9.17, 9.18 and 9.19 show

show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
July 2016 V. 1.1 412

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.18 – Bending moments in shotcrete
Figure 9.19 – Shear forces in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 413

TUNNEL REPORT

w the primary lining is
S.F.=2.60, with the displacement mesh shown in figure 9.20.
Figure 9.20 – Displacement mesh at failure with S.F. = 2.60
9.5. SECTION SVT-III
This support is shown in figure 9.21.
July 2016 V. 1.1 414

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.21 – Support SVT-III
This point will be in the first stretch of the tunnel, as can be seen in the longitudinal
profile.
The scheme of the discretization is shown in figure 9.22.a.

9.2
Figure 9.22.a
9.2 – Scheme of discretization
July 2016 V. 1.1 415

TUNNEL REPORT
According to the low overburden in portals, the vertical surface load in the top limit is
0MPa.
According to Hoek, it has been adopted for "D" the value of D = 0,70.
- GSI = 80 mi = 25
In the figure 9.22.b from the output of the roclab program has been show the failure
E = 47722 MPa φ = 67,27º c = 2,,793 MPa
July 2016 V. 1.1 416

TUNNEL REPORT
In the figure
ure 9.23, it can be seen the discretization mesh and in the figure 9.24 a mesh
July 2016 V. 1.1 417

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.24 – Discretization mesh detail
With the following parameters, for every

every type of ground and reinforcement:
July 2016 V. 1.1 418

TUNNEL REPORT
E Massif strength
(MPa) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 25000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
For this ground type and considering the low depth of the tunnel,
unnel, the value of Ko = 0.50,
and the initial pressure is also equal to p = 0.14 x po (po the geostatic pressure).
pressure)
July 2016 V. 1.1 419

TUNNEL REPORT
gures 9.27, 9.28 and 9.29 show the bolts loads and section forces (axial loads,
Next figures
July 2016 V. 1.1 420

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 9.28 – Bending moments in shotcrete
Figure
igure 9.29 – Shear forces in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 421

TUNNEL REPORT
Making a stability process, the security factor of the tunnel with the
the primary lining is
S.F.=6.80, with the displacement mesh at failure shown in figure 9.30.
Figure 9.30 – Deformed mesh in failure with S.F. = 6.80
July 2016 V. 1.1 422

TUNNEL REPORT
10. LAY BYS

S AND VENTILATION CAVERN
CA
Two support sections have been defined for main tunnel lay-bys
lay of Z-Morh
Morh tunnel.
Following criteria have been followed for support choice and verification:
- Support SG-I.
Massif characteristics and geometry of transversal section at km 5+290,

5+ which
corresponds to Zojila Slates and Calc-schists,
Calc schists, has been taken for verification.
verif
Clearly, once checked the support for the passage through these materials, it
will be valid also for Metabasites of Panjal Trap, which is a massif with better
geotechnical quality.
- Support SG-II
Transversal section at km 5+890, which correspondss to a fractured zone (fault

breccia) between Zojila and Panjal Trap formations, has been taken for
verification.
10.1. SUPPORT SG-I CH 5+290
July 2016 V. 1.1 423

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.1- Support section SG-I
It is the lighter support, performed

perf in full face and it consists of the following elements:
*Placement of 6 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern 1.50 (T) x 1.50 m (L).
Placement of 6 m length φ32 SN type bolts in sidewalls, in a pattern of

*Placement o 1.50 (T) x
1.50m (L).
*5+10 cm synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete to be applied in two stages, the second
one once the tendency of convergence stabilization has begun.
- Round length
ngth is 3m.
July 2016 V. 1.1 424

TUNNEL REPORT
- Squeezing risk is not considered for this support, based on the following points:

overburden, their compressive strength, including fractured Metabasites,
is very high for their coverage.
cov

Ja>>0.5,
squeezing.
bursting, it could only occur in more jointed areas with higher
overburden in which massif strength is lower.
In case of rock-bursting,
rock bursting, favoured by full face excavation, either in face or
sidewalls, one of the treatments that are given in Chapter 6 will be performed.
- In order to obtain a hinge effect at support feet, the last element of the shotcrete
layer has been considered with shorter depth but bigger width, keeping the
same area.
The transversal section taken for verification is the one at km 5+290,

5+ 90, which is represented
in figure 10.2.
Figure 10.2.- Transversal section at km 5+290 for SG-II verification
July 2016 V. 1.1 425

TUNNEL REPORT
slightly different from the latest mapping of the project, but its influence on calculation
results will be negligible. So, the overburden thickness is going to be about 320 m.
Figure 10.3.-
10.3. Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 5+290
5+
July 2016 V. 1.1 426

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.4.-
10.4. Discretization detail
Massif strength
N Material γ (kN/m ) 3
ν E (MPa)
c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
Zojila F. Slates -
8 Mica-Schists
Schists and 27 0.2 1173.88 248 37.24
Calc-Schists.
Zojila F. Quartz-
9 27.5 0.15 6020 1360 43.90
Schists
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
July 2016 V. 1.1 427

TUNNEL REPORT
- Earth pressure coefficient.

coefficient K0 = 1.
- Initial load. p = 0.14 x po, with po equal to geostatic pressure.
With the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 5+790, once excavation and support
figure 10.6.
Figure 10.6.-
10 Distribution of total displacements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 428

TUNNEL REPORT
The distribution of horizontal displacements

displacements around the excavation is represented in Figure
10.8.

tunnel
July 2016 V. 1.1 429

TUNNEL REPORT
C= 3,6 x 2,0=7,2 mm
V= 5,7 mm
10.9 and 10.10.
Figure 10.9.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 430

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.10.-
and 10.12.
Figure 10.11.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 431

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.12.-
Figure 10.13.
Figure 10.13.-
10.13. Acting loads on bolts
With a maximum value of 38,5 kN for Swellex bolts, well below 200kN of nominal load,
and a maximum value of 104,5 kN for SN bolts, lower than 400kN of their nominal load.
July 2016 V. 1.1 432

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.14.-
Figure 10.15.-
10.15. Distribution of bending moments in shotcrete
July 2016 V. 1.1 433

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.16.-
10.16. Distribution
ution of shear forces in shotcrete
- Nmax = 3889 KN
- Mmax = 376 KN x m (with N = 3474 KN)
- Qmax = 234 KN
distribution of total displacements
displacem of figure 10.17.
July 2016 V. 1.1 434

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.17.-
10.17. Distribution of total displacement at failure
This value is totally permissible also long-term.

long
account earthquake phenomena reaches
eaches the value of SF = 2.6, with a distribution of
July 2016 V. 1.1 435

TUNNEL REPORT
Therefore, support is valid also

als when final lining is placed, without considering
earthquake.
July 2016 V. 1.1 436

TUNNEL REPORT
10.2. SUPPORT SG-II CH 5+890
Figure 10.20-
10.20 Support section SG-II
It is the heaviest support for Lay-bies,

Lay to be performed in top-heading
heading and bench and it
consists of the following elements:
*Placement of 6 m length Swellex type bolts in vault, in a pattern 2,00 (T) x

1,00 m (L).
Placement of 6 m length φ32 SN type bolts in top heading base and bench
*Placement
sidewalls, in a pattern of 2,00 (T) x 1,00 m (L).
(L
*ISHB steel ribs with spacing of 1,00 m.
*5+20 cm synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete (30 MPa) to be applied in two
stages.
July 2016 V. 1.1 437

TUNNEL REPORT
*Placement
Placement of 9 m length, 280kN MBL (Minimum Breaking Load) self-drilling
self
bolts in a mesh of 2,00 (T) x 4,00 m (L).
In addition,, next procedure has to be followed:
- Round length is of 1-2

1 2 m in top heading and double or triple in bench.
- Risk of squeezing is considered in the next chapter.
- Regarding rock--bursting, it could only occur in more resistant zones and with
rough joints, that is negligible in the massif in which this support is to be
placed.
As mentioned before, the most unfavorable section, in which the support SG-II
has been applied,
applied is the km 5+890 and it is shown in Figure 10.21.
10.21
Figure 10.21.-- Transversal section at km 5+890 for SG-II

II verification
July 2016 V. 1.1 438

TUNNEL REPORT
slightly different from the latest mapping of the project, but its influence
fluence on calculation
results will be negligible.
Figure 10.22.-
10.22. Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 5+890
5
A detail of the Lay-by

by and the surrounding ground is represented in Figure 10.23.
July 2016 V. 1.1 439

TUNNEL REPORT
included.
Massif strength
N Material γ (kN/m ) 3
ν E (MPa)
c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
6 Fractured zone 26 0.28 1134 645 20.08
Panjal Trap F.
7 27.5 0.15 7024 1074 47.20
massive metab.
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
July 2016 V. 1.1 440

TUNNEL REPORT
The values of the failure criterium can be seen in Geotechnical Annexe.
- Earth pressure coefficient.

coefficient K0 = 1.
- Deconfinement Ratio.
Ratio p = 0.19 x po (po geostatic pressure)
a) Top heading
With the applied loads and the

th geometry in chainage 5+890,
figure 10.28.
Figure 10.28.-
The distribution of vertical displacements

displacements is shown in the detail represented in Figure
10.29.
July 2016 V. 1.1 441

TUNNEL REPORT

10.30.
Figure 10.30.- Distribution

Distribution of horizontal displacements around the tunnel.
tunnel
July 2016 V. 1.1 442

TUNNEL REPORT
C= 1,23 mm
V= 4,5 mm
10.31 and 10.32.
Figure 10.31.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 443

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.32.-
and 10.34.
Figure 10.33.-
10.33. Distribution
ion of the major principal stress
July 2016 V. 1.1 444

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.34.-
Figure 10.35.
Figure 10.35.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 445

TUNNEL REPORT
With a maximum value of 45 kN for Swellex bolts, lower than 200kN of nominal load,
and a maximum value of 54 kN for SN bolts, well below 400kN of their nominal load.
represented in Figures 10.36,
10.36 10.37 and 10.38.
Figure 10.36.-
Figure 10.37.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 446

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.38.-
- Nmax = 2541 KN
- Qmax = 93.8 KN
July 2016 V. 1.1 447

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.39.-
10.39. Distribution of total displacement at failure
b) Bench
Once bench excavation and support have been performed, total displacements distribution
is obtained from FEM calculation, figure 10.40.
July 2016 V. 1.1 448

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.40.-
The distribution
stribution of vertical displacements is shown in the detail represented in Figure
10.41.
July 2016 V. 1.1 449

TUNNEL REPORT

Figur
10.42.
C= 1,40 cm
V= 4,84 cm
10.43 and 10.44.
July 2016 V. 1.1 450

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.43.-
Figure 10.44.-
and 10.46.
July 2016 V. 1.1 451

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.45.-
Figure 10.46.-
Figure 10.47.
July 2016 V. 1.1 452

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.47.-
With a maximum value of 110,5 kN for Swellex bolts, lower than 200kN of nominal load,
and a maximum value of 170,0 kN for SN bolts, lower than 400kN of their nominal load.
Distributions of axial forces, bending moments and shear forces in shotcrete

s are
July 2016 V. 1.1 453

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.48.-
Figure 10.49.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 454

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.50.-
With the following

wing maximum values:
- Nmax = 3482 KN
- Qmax = 419 KN
July 2016 V. 1.1 455

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 10.51.-
10.51. Distribution
on of total displacement at failure
account earthquake phenomena reaches the value of SF = 5.5, with a distribution
distributio of
July 2016 V. 1.1 456

TUNNEL REPORT
July 2016 V. 1.1 457

TUNNEL REPORT
Therefore, final safety factor is higher than the required long-term

long one.
July 2016 V. 1.1 458

TUNNEL REPORT
11. SPECIAL SECTIONS
In this chapter, it is going to be done the study of singular and representative sections
along the tunnel and considering also the underground water.
11.1. GROUNDWATER POSITION
As can be seen, taking in account the groundwater and the filtration mesh, the type of
failure in different in some cases, chimney till the land surface instead of tunnel collapse.
As a rule, in the formations crossed by the highway the colluvial, elluvial and alluvial soil
are going to be very permeable.
On the other way, the rock mass is going to be moderately impermeable, with water flow,
by the opened joints. Then, the rain water would be held by the rock mass joints, and later
it will go up by springs in the hill sides.
In the figure 11.1.a, it can be seen

se the position of different springs.
Figure 11.1.a.-
11.1.a. Plans with springs positions
July 2016 V. 1.1 459

TUNNEL REPORT
OTHER UWP
CONCEPT N E ESTIMATED FLOW
UWP1 3795472 520037 1 l/s
UWP2 3795423 520137 2 l/s
UWP3 3795422
795422 520160 1 l/s
UWP4 3795376 520261 1,5 l/s
UWP5 3795356 520282 1 l/s
UWP6 3795328 520296 2 l/s
UWP7 3795292 520307 1 l/s
The alluvial, colluvial and elluvial permeability must be very high, and it can be adopted in
a reasonable values.
The rock mass permeability may be supposed taking in account the Lugeon tests done
do in
the boreholes, and the experience in ground types like these.
To consider the pressures of the filtration mesh in the support, it has been done with the Z-
Z
Soil finites elements program some calculations taking in account the depth of the
groundwater according to the bore holes.
In the following table, it is show the depth of the water level in the bore holes.
BORE HOLES PROJECT Z MORH TUNNEL

BORE ALTITUDE TOTAL ALTITUDE DEPTH ALTITUDE LENGTH
HOLE CHAINAGE GROUND DEPTH DEPTH WATER LEVEL WATER
BORE HOLE
(NUMBER) (km) (m) (m) (m) LEVEL (m) WATER (m) (m)
BH-1 05+100 2,486.962 30.00 2,456.962 18.70 2,468.262 11.30
BH-2 05+500 2,563.418 67.00 2,496.418 45.00 2,518.418 22.00
BH-3 06+637 2,703.803 210.00 2,493.803 DRY
BH-4 07+450 2,750.229 168.00 2,582.229 100.00 2,650.229 68.00
BH-5 11+246 2,843.231 200.00 2,643.231 103.70 2,739.531 96.30
BH-6 11+444 2,700.754 70.00 2,630.754 56.00 2,644.754 14.00
Table 1.1.-
1.1. Bore holes project Z Mohr tunnel.
So, the depth of the ground water in the special sections

sections could be the show line in the
drawings of these transverse sections.
July 2016 V. 1.1 460

TUNNEL REPORT
The water inflow into the tunnel can't be predicted with enough reability.
The flow per tunnel meter in homogeneus ground at depth "h", is:
2Š ` a

2a
ln p r
With:
k: middle value of permeability.
h: depth of the circular tunnel center.
R: tunnel radious.
According the Luegon tests that were made in the boreholes.
k = 10-4 to 10-5 m/s
And then:
3 m 10005
2 Š ` 380 m n,
0,015 m 0,180 /Ž ^uma `
` 10'( n/Ž
10005
2 380 m 1000 n
ln Œ •
6
Q = 0.0015 to 0.018 m3/m/s with k = 10-5 m/s.
As a rule, the rock mass permeability is going to be about k = 10-5 m/s, and the effective
00 m, and the middle inflow can be supposed about Q = 0.003 m3/m/s, or
depth about 200
what is the same, 3 litres/m/s.
litres/m/
July 2016 V. 1.1 461

TUNNEL REPORT
11.2. SECTION CH 8+488

88 (SUPPORT S-I)
S
It is the light support and therefore it will be performed in high quality massive
metabasites.
The most unfavourable section in which the S-I

S I support is being applied is shown in Figure
11.1.b and corresponds to chainage 8+488.
8+
Figure 11.1.b.- Cross section at 8 +488 S--I
This cross section was obtained from Google Earth photo altimetry, therefore it presents
differences with the latest mapping project, but their influence on calculation results will
be negligible.
July 2016 V. 1.1 462

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.2.-
11. Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 8 +488
+
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 463

TUNNEL REPORT
In the next table, the geotechnical

echnical parameters of the different materials in the model are
included.
Massif strength
N Material γ (kN/m3) ν E (MPa)
c (kPa) φ
Panjal F.
1 28 0.15 114445 8199 47.19
massive metab.
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
3 Swellex bolts - - 210000 Tmax =200KN

=
4 Injected bolts - - 210000 Tmax =410KN
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
6 Fractured area 25 0.28 1134 687 23.26
July 2016 V. 1.1 464

TUNNEL REPORT
Criteria for the estimation of the actions over the tunnel are:
Following the same criteria used in the feasibility

feasibility study, earth pressure
coefficient has been taken with the value of K0 = 1.
For a round length about 4 m, the initial load acting on support will be:
p = 0,08 x po
And the deconfinement ratio is (1–0,08) = 0,92.
The pore pressure

ressure distribution in the mesh, has been shown in figure 11.4.
11.
Figure 11.4 -
July 2016 V. 1.1 465

TUNNEL REPORT
With the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 8 +488,

+ 88, once excavation and support
have been performed, total displacements distribution is obtained from the FEM
calculation, figure 11.5.
Figure 11.5.-
11. Distribution of total displacements
The distribution of vertical displacements is shown in the detail around the tunnel
represented in Figure 11.6.
July 2016 V. 1.1 466

TUNNEL REPORT

tu

11.7.
July 2016 V. 1.1 467

TUNNEL REPORT
Therefore, the value of maximum convergence between walls will be:
C = 0.13
13 + 0.03 mm = 0.16 mm
And the decline in vault:
V = 0.3 mm
11.8 and 11.9.
July 2016 V. 1.1 468

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.8.-
Figure 11.9.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 469

TUNNEL REPORT
11.
and 11.11.
Figure 11.10.-
11.1 Distribution of the major principal stress
Figure 11.11.-
11.1 Distribution of the minor principal stress
July 2016 V. 1.1 470

TUNNEL REPORT
Regarding loads andd forces acting on the support, loads acting on bolts are shown in
Figure 11.12.
Figure 11.12.-
11.1 Acting loads on bolts
With a maximum value of 19.12 kN, well below Swellex nominal load of 200 kN, and SN
bolts nominal load of 410 kN.
Distributions of axial
ial forces, bending moments and shear forces in shotcrete are
represented in Figure 11.13
13, 11.14 and 11.15.
July 2016 V. 1.1 471

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.13.-
11. Axial forces distribution in shotcrete.
Figure 11.14..- Distribution of bending moments in shotcrete.
July 2016 V. 1.1 472

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.15.-
11. Distribution
n of shear forces in shotcrete
- Axial force. Tmax = 1003 KN
- Bending moment. Mmax = 22 KN (with N = 540 KN)
- Shear force. Q = 20,6 KN
t
11.
Therefore, the formation of shotcrete hinges is not expected in this section.
July 2016 V. 1.1 473

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.16
16.- Distribution of total displacement at failure
After the final lining collocation, figure 11.17,

11. the safety
fety factor without taking into account
earthquake phenomena reaches the value of SF = 6.2, with a distribution of displacements
at failure represented in Figure 11.18.
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 474

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.17.-
11. Final lining introduction
Figure 11.18
18.- Total displacements distribution
bution at failure
July 2016 V. 1.1 475

TUNNEL REPORT

90 (SUPPORT S-II)
S
Support S-II
II in Chainage 5 +290
+ (Zojila Formation)
One of the most unfavourable sections in which the S-II

S II support is being applied, would be
in chainage 5+290
90 and is depicted in Figure 11.19.
11.
Figure 11.19.- Cross section at 5+290. S-II

II
be negligible.
Figure 11.20 shows

hows the overall discretization, considering the different geotechnical areas.
July 2016 V. 1.1 476

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.20
20.- Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 5+290
5+
11.
Figure 11.21.-
11. Discretization detail around tunnel
July 2016 V. 1.1 477

TUNNEL REPORT
included.
Massif strength
γ
N Material ν E (MPa)
(kN/m3) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
4 Injected Bolts - - 210000
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
Zojila slates,
slate
8 27 0.15 6020 2311 36.75
calcareous schist
Zojila quarzitic
9 27 0.15 6020 2311 36.75
schists
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
11 Alluvial 19 0.3 30 2 30
Following the same criteria used in the feasibility study, earth pressure
- Deconfinement Ratio.
Ratio
The round length is 3 m.
July 2016 V. 1.1 478

TUNNEL REPORT
The initial load acting

actin on support will be:
p = 0.14 x po, with po the geostatic pressure.
With a deconfinement ratio of η = 0,86.
In figure 11.22,, it has been shown the pore pressure distribution in the mesh.
Figure 11.22
11. – Pore pressure distribution
With the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 5+290,

5+ 90, once excavation and support
Figure 11.23.-
11. Distribution of total displacements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 479

TUNNEL REPORT
The distribution of vertical displacements is shown in the detail represented in Figure

11.24.

11.25.
July 2016 V. 1.1 480

TUNNEL REPORT
Therefore, the value of maximum convergence between sidewalls will be:
C=11,9+11,1=23,0 mm
V= 12,5 mm
Distributions of vertical and horizontal stress have been represented

represented respectively in figure
11.26 and 11.27.
July 2016 V. 1.1 481

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.26.-
Figure 11.27.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 482

TUNNEL REPORT
11.
and 11.29.
Figure 11.28
Figure 11.29
July 2016 V. 1.1 483

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.30.
Figure 11.30.-
11.3 Acting loads on bolts
With a maximum value of 98.4 kN, well below Swellex nominal load of 200 kN and
therefore, and 203 KN in SN bolts also bellow nominal load.
represented in Figure 11.311, 11.32 and 11.33.
July 2016 V. 1.1 484

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.31.-
11.3 Axial forces distribution in shotcrete.
July 2016 V. 1.1 485

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.33.-
11. Distribution of shear forces in shotcrete
- Axial force. N = 687 KN
- Bending moment. M = 57 KN (with N = 687 KN)
- Shear force. Q = 173 KN
All obtained results are allowable, and so that the formation of hinges in the shotcrete
initial lining is not expected.
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 486

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.34
After the final lining collocation, figure 11.35,

11. , the safety factor without taking into account
earthquake phenomenaa reaches the value of SF = 3.2,, with a distribution of displacements
at failure represented in Figure 11.36.
July 2016 V. 1.1 487

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.35.-
Figure 11.36
36.- Total displacements distribution at failure
July 2016 V. 1.1 488

TUNNEL REPORT

90 (SUPPORT S-III)
S
One of the most unfavourable stretches in which the S-III

S III support is being applied is
shown in Figure 11.37 and corresponds to chainage 4+890. The crossed trough formations
are the shales and michaschists of Zozila Formation.
Figure 11.37.-
11. Cross section at 4+890. S-III
be negligible.
Figure 11.38 shows the overall discretization,

discretization, considering the different geotechnical areas.
July 2016 V. 1.1 489

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.38.-
11. Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 4+890
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 490

TUNNEL REPORT
In the next table,

e, the geotechnical parameters of the different materials in the model are
included.
Massif strength
N Material γ (kN/m )3
ν E (MPa)
c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
3 Swellex bolts - - 210000 Tmax =200KN
4 Injected bolts - - 210000 Tmax =410KN

=410
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
Zojila F., slates,

8 calc-schists,
schists, 27 0.15 6020 919 29.04
micha-schists
schists
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
Following the same criteria

criteria used in the feasibility study, earth pressure
The round length is about 3 m.
The initial load acting on support surface could be:
p = 0,86 x po
wil be equal to η = 0,14

Then, the deconfinement ratio will
July 2016 V. 1.1 491

TUNNEL REPORT
In figure 11.40,, it has been shown the pore pressure distribution in the finite elements
mesh, according to the calculations by the program.
Figure 11.40 -
With the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 5+390, once excavation
excavat and support
July 2016 V. 1.1 492

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.41.-
The distribution of vertical displacements is shown in the detail represented in

i Figure
11.42.

11.43.
July 2016 V. 1.1 493

TUNNEL REPORT
Therefore, the value of maximum convergence between sidewalls will be:
C= 1,1 + 1,9= 3,0 mm
V= 4,6 mm
11.44 and 11.45.
July 2016 V. 1.1 494

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.44.-
Figure 11.45.-
11.
and 11.47.
July 2016 V. 1.1 495

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.46
Figure 11.47
Figure 11.48.
July 2016 V. 1.1 496

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.48.-
11. Acting loads on bolts
With a maximum value of 30 kN for SN bolts and Swellex, values below the nominal load
for both types of bolts.
49, 11.50 and 11.51.
July 2016 V. 1.1 497

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.49.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 498

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.51.-
- Bending moment. Mmax = 5.9 KN (with N = 150 KN)
- Shear force. Q = 8,6 KN
As can be seen, the stress values in this section due to bending are below the permissible
threshold and therefore neither shotcrete cracking nor the formation of hinges may occur.
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 499

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.52
After the final lining collocation, Figure 11.53,

11. , the safety factor without taking into
account earthquake phenomena reaches the value of SF = 3.4,, with a distribution of
displacements at break represented in Figure 11.54.
11.
Figure 11.53.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 500

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.54
54.- Total displacements distribution at failure
July 2016 V. 1.1 501

TUNNEL REPORT

90 (SUPPORT S-IV)
S
One of the most

ost unfavourable stretches, due its proximity to a shear zone, in which S-IV
S
has been applied corresponds to chainage 5+890,
90, as shown in Figure 11.55.
11.
As can be seen, the tunnel crosses the group of Fractured Metabasites at the Panjal Trap
Formation.
Figure
igure 11.55.-
11. Cross section at 5+890. S-IV
be negligible.
hows the overall discretization, considering the different geotechnical areas.

Figure 11.56 shows
July 2016 V. 1.1 502

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.56.
6.- Overall FEM discretization. Chainage 5+890
5
July 2016 V. 1.1 503

TUNNEL REPORT
included.
Massif strength
γ
N Material ν E (MPa)
(kN/m3) c (kPa) φ
2 Shotcrete 25 0.22 12500
3 Swellex bolts - - 210000 Tmax = 200KPa
4 Injected Bolts - - 210000 Tmax = 410KPa
5 Final lining 25 0.22 25000
6 Fractured area 25 0.28 1134 687 23.26
Panjal Trap F.
7 Fractured 27.5 0.15 36400 1633 36.99
Metabasites
10 Colluvial 19 0.32 80 15 38
Criteria for the estimation of the actions over the

th tunnel are:
This value is justified by a compensation between possible high horizontal

stresses of recent tectonic activity and decompression due to the abrupt
morphology formation of the valley.
The round length is going to be about 2 m.
July 2016 V. 1.1 504

TUNNEL REPORT
With this round length, the initial loads acting on the support will be:
p = 0,81 x po
And the deconfinement ratio:
η = 0,19
Figure 11.588 shows the pore pressure distribution before the tunnel excavation.
Figure 11.588 – Pore pressure distribution before excavation
Figure 11.599 shows the pore pressure distribution once done the top heading excavation
and figure 11.60 with the total tunnel excavation.
July 2016 V. 1.1 505

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.59 – Pore pressure distribution after top-heading

top heading excavation
excavat
Figure 11.660 - Pore pressure distribution after benching
July 2016 V. 1.1 506

TUNNEL REPORT
a) Top heading excavation
With the applied loads and the geometry in chainage 5+890,

in top heading have been performed, total displacements distribution is obtained
obtai from the
FEM calculation, figure 11.61.
11.
Figure 11.61.-

11.62.
July 2016 V. 1.1 507

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.62.- Distribution of vertical displacements around

around the tunnel.

11.63.
July 2016 V. 1.1 508

TUNNEL REPORT
Therefore, the value of maximum convergence between sidewalls will

will be:
C= 3,8 + 22,3 = 36,1 mm
V= 26,2 mm
11.64 and 11.65.
Figure 11.64.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 509

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.65.-
11.
and 11.67.
Figure 11.66
July 2016 V. 1.1 510

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.67
Regarding
garding loads and forces acting on the support, loads acting on bolts are shown in
Figure 11.68.
Figure 11.68.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 511

TUNNEL REPORT
With a maximum value of 74,0 kN for bolts.
Distributions of axial forces, bending moments and shear forces in shotcrete

shotcre are
69, 11.70 and 11.71.
Figure 11.69.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 512

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.71.-
With the following maximum

imum values:
- Bending moment. Mmax = 217 KN (with M = 100 KN)
All obtained results are allowable.
The safety factor of the supported but section without final lining is SF = 5.0, with the
distributionn of total displacements of figure 11.72.
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 513

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.72
The obtained value is much higher than necessary.
b) Bench
It has been considered hinges in the feet of the lining.
Once excavation and support of

of the bench have been performed, the distribution of total
displacement of figure 11.73
73 is obtained.
July 2016 V. 1.1 514

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.73.-

11.74.
July 2016 V. 1.1 515

TUNNEL REPORT

11.75.
Therefore,
fore, the value of maximum convergence between walls will be:
C= 8,4 +32,3= 40,7 mm
V= 21,9 mm
11.76 and 11.77.
July 2016 V. 1.1 516

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.76.-
Figure 11.77.-
11.
and 11.79.
July 2016 V. 1.1 517

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.78
Figure 11.79
Figure 11.80.
July 2016 V. 1.1 518

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.80.-
With a maximum value of 367 kN for SN bolts, and 91 kN for Swellex, lower than the
nominal load of both types of bolts.
81, 11.82 and 11.83.
July 2016 V. 1.1 519

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.81.-
July 2016 V. 1.1 520

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.83.-
- Bending moment. Mmax = 237 KN (with N = 908 KN)
The safety
ty factor of the supported section without final lining is SF = 5.0, with the
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 521

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.84
The obtained value is higher than necessary.
After the finall lining collocation, figure 11.85,

11. , the safety factor without taking into account
earthquake phenomena reaches the value of SF = 10.0,
1 , with a distribution of displacements
at break represented in Figure 11.86.
11.
July 2016 V. 1.1 522

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 11.85.- Final lining introduction
Figure 11.86.-
11.8 Total displacements distribution at failure
July 2016 V. 1.1 523

TUNNEL REPORT
12. SQUEEZING AND ROCK BURSTING

B
As already mentioned in paragraph 4.2, in all tunnels with high overburden must be
checked the risk of squeezing and rock bursting.
Although possibly in Europe,

Europe, the more valued method for considering the risk of
squeezing is the Hoek and Marinos’ method, this approach has the following singularities:
- It is an approach focused in the necessary reinforcement types when the closure
of the section is being produced by squeezing during tunnel construction.
- Correlations to obtain the stress-strain
stress strain parameters of the rock mass crossed by
the tunnel proposed below are not sufficiently tested.
As it's justified in the previous section, the most appropriate and well justified
justif method with
data from similar formations in the Himalayas, would be:
- risk of squeezing discard using the Singh’s expression
H < 350 x Q1/3SRF = 2,5 not squeezing
where H is the depth.
- On sections with risk, assessing the intensity of squeezing, and estimating
e the
treatments using the Goel et al. criteria.
12.1. AREAS WITH RISK OF SQUEEZING

S
Within the assessment shear and fault zones are not included. In these cases it will be
inevitable that squeezing occur, although in a reduced length, and a protocol
proto with sections
and treatments defined in the drawings shall be followed. Furthermore, in these materials,
with a clearly strain-softening
softening failure criterion, the method of supporting against squeezing
shall be active, i.e. heavy and rigid support.
According to the Q-values

values deduced from the correlation with seismic surveys, block
volume Vb determination results, and joint conditions observed in the outcrops, the next
values have been obtained based on the dimensions of the main tunnel:
July 2016 V. 1.1 524

TUNNEL REPORT
Section Depth (m) QSRF=1 Hmex Jr/Ja Squeezing

0+051 - 0+600 65 0,50 277 - NO
0+600 - 1+400 170 1,40- 2,10 310-450 - NO
1+400 - 1+900 170 0,90 340 - NO
1+900 - 3+800 540 2,50 555 - NO
3+800 - 5+150 1080 10 754 >0,50 POSSIBLE
5+150 - 6+050 760 8 700 < 0,50 PROBABLE
6+050 - 6+480 280 20 950 < 0,50 NO
Then, there would have two stretches with squeezing risk:

- In sound metabasites, with depths greater than 750 m, (km 4+200 to km
5+150), according to the Singh criterion.
QSRF = 1 ≅ 40
On the safe side it has been adopted a value of 4.
Minimum H x B0,10 = 750 x 120,10 = 961
Maximum H x B0,10 = 1080 x 120,10 = 1384
In Figure 12.1,
.1, representing the Goel graph, the situation in the main tunnel section in
massive metabasites can be foreseen.
July 2016 V. 1.1 525

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 12.1.- Risk of squeezing and

a / or rock-bursting
bursting in massive metabasites.
Therefore, the risk of squeezing can be highlighted in the section that crosses the Panjal-
Panjal
Trap formation with greater overburden, but without risk of rock-bursting,
rock bursting, which has to be
checked later.
- In quartz-schists
hists of Zojila formation, between km 10+150 to 11+050, with
260 – 760 m depth and QSRF=1 = 4 x 3 = 32, we obtain (Figure 6.2):
On the safe side it has been adopted a value of 4.
Minimum H x B0,10 = 260 x 120,10 = 333

Maximum H x B0,10 = 760 x 120,10 = 974
July 2016 V. 1.1 526

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 12.2.- Risk of squeezing in calc-schists

calc and quartz-schists
schists in Zojila formation,
km 10+150 to 11+050.
It leads to the following conclusions:

- The risk of squeezing will be below 5%, so that no risk of tunnel collapse is
foreseen.
- According to Singh, and
and to the graph shown in Figure 12.3,
12 the increasing
thrust towards the tunnel support, when the rock is affected by softening,
passing the peak strength of failure criterion, occurs for closing percentages
from 5%.
July 2016 V. 1.1 527

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 12.3.- Typical curves

curves with Squeezing in foliated formations of the Himalayas.
(Singh et al, 1992)
- The lower squeezing occurs between km 10+600 to 11+050, where overburden

is less than 450 m.
- The stretch with risk of severe squeezing and closures from 3% to 5%, it would
occur only for this rock formation between km 10+150 to 10+600.
Obviously, in all the previous sections, squeezing would occur locally through fault
breccia and shear-zones,
zones, which should be subject to a different treatment.
In quartz-schist
schist the roughness of foliation
foliation planes can be highly variable, and therefore:
Jr = 1 to 3
While the alteration index:

Ja = 0,75 to 3
Jr/Ja = 0,33 to 4
July 2016 V. 1.1 528

TUNNEL REPORT
Thus, for the joints conditions, squeezing will be reduced to the more schistose rocks, with
planar foliation and hard sandy clay
c fill.
12.2. AREAS WITH RISK OF ROCK-

R BURSTING
For the joints frequency due to foliation, it is ruled out that rock-bursting
rock bursting occurs on
sections of this tunnel that passes through the Zojila formation with maximum overburden.
Regarding the sections with

th higher overburden in the Panjal-Trap
Panjal Trap massive formation, from
the performed tests is deducted:
qc ≥ 180 MPa GSI ≥ 70 H=1080 m

••
Ei = 1500 MPa MR=83 pf r
‘U
Whereby, using the Rocscience RocLab software, the parameters of rock mass would be
represented in Figure 12.4.
July 2016 V. 1.1 529

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 12.4.- Parameters of metabasites in maximum overburden
And therefore
σcmas = 18,43 MPa
σv = 27 x 1080 = 291600 KPa = 29,16 MPa
R‰ 29,16
1,,58 ≫ 0,7
C
R1 B@C 18,4
According to the Wang criterion, the risk of violent rock-bursting

rock bursting is high.
Similarly for the rock mass:
σ+S 180+ 10-

Q 1080 ≫ 200
2 Ž 2 15000 10,
July 2016 V. 1.1 530

TUNNEL REPORT
Then the ability of the rock mass to store elastic energy is very high, and the risk of brittle
fracture and burst is virtually certain.
As the RQD obtained in borehole cores in sound Panjal-Trap

Panjal Trap formation is over 80, cannot
be regarded that the elastic energy produced by the rock-bursting
rock bursting dissipates through
fractures.
Therefore, the risk of rock--bursting

bursting is quite likely in the section that traverses the Panjal-
Panjal
Trap formation in its maximum overburden.
July 2016 V. 1.1 531

TUNNEL REPORT
13. WEDGE FALL RISK INSIDE

INSI THE TUNNEL
The
he calculation of potential unstable wedges in the underground excavation in rock has
been done using the software UNWEDGE v 3.0. This software from the Canadian
company Rocscience has been developed by the Rock Engineering Group of the
University of Toronto
to under the direction of Professor Hoek.
The calculation criterion used is the block limit equilibrium method based on E. Hoek
researches and published by Rock Slope Engineering (1981).
The software shows 3D models with potentially unstable wedges in rock

roc underground
excavations, and calculates safety factors and supports needed to stabilize these wedges.
13.1. METHOD
The stability analysis is performed as follows:
- Data collection in field
- Representation of the data by the software Dips v 3.0, including

includi details of the
discontinuities planes. By means of a stereographic projection, a diagram of
poles is made, where the different joint families and predominantly bedding /
foliation are defined. Finally the media centers of each case are chosen in order
too reduce each group to a single representative point.
- Analysis of wedges inside the tunnel, determining the block weight and the
safety factor. Then, applying the appropriate support elements, block stability is
checked, accepting at least SF=1.50.
At first,
rst, the maximum wedge may ever be formed is always considered taking
into account the dimension of the excavation in both cross and longitudinal
sections. This criterion is on the safety side.
July 2016 V. 1.1 532

TUNNEL REPORT
The process to follow includes a first analysis, without any support and the
maximum development of the joints. At that stage, the weight of the wedges
and its safety factor is determined.
13.2. DISCONTINUITIES IN THE

T ROCK MASS.
In geomechanical observation points done with data collected during the field visits,
different joint families are shown in stereographic projection, as observed lithologies.
- From km. 4+500

00 to 5+900:
Figure 13.1.- Foliation and fracturation of Slates, Zojila Fm.
July 2016 V. 1.1 533

TUNNEL REPORT
- From km. 4+500

00 to 6+000:
Figure 13.2.- Foliation and fracturation of

o Q-Schist,
Schist, Zojila Fm.
As shown in the stereographic representations, all slate orientations measured have been
grouped in five main families, observing two families with fracturing orientations (dip
direction/dip) of 091/60, 196/54 and two foliation families
families where the orientation measure
is 037 /38 and less frequently, 026 /14, Table 13.1.
schist, all measurements made have been grouped in three sets, two orientations
In quartz-schist,
of fracturing, 152/66 and 221/28 and foliation orientation, 030/64, Table 13.1.
July 2016 V. 1.1 534

TUNNEL REPORT
ZOJILA FORMATION
P.K. 4+500 - 6+000
ORIENTATION
TYPE ROCKS
DIP DIRECCTION DIP
91º 60º J JOINT
37º 38º S MAIN FOLIATION
196º 54º J JOINT SLATES
26º 14º S MINOR FOLIATION
359º 33º J JOINT
152º 66º J JOINT
221º 28º J JOINT Q-SCHIST
Table 13.1.
.1.- Fracturing sets and foliation, Zojila Fm.
- From km. 5+900

00 to 9+700:
Figure 13.3.- Fracturation of Metabasites in Panjal Trap Fm.
Measurements made in this second section of the alignment, corresponding to the Panjal
Trap formation and composed of metabasites, have been grouped according to three sets of
fracturing; the guidelines, as seen in Figure 13.4 are: 308/21, 089/40 and 187/69, Table
13.2.
July 2016 V. 1.1 535

TUNNEL REPORT
PANJAL TRAP FORMATION

P.K. 6+000 - 9+750
ORIENTATION
TYPE ROCKS
DIP DIRECTION DIP
308º 21º J JOINT
40º 89º J JOINT METABASITES
187º 69º J JOINT
Table 13.2.-
13 Fracturing Sets in Panjal Trap Fm.
- From km. 10+0000 to 11+100:
Figure 13.4.- Foliation and fracturation of Slates, Zojila Fm.
As shown in Figure 13.5,, slates of Zojila formation have been grouped the orientations
measured in four main families. Notice one family with fracturing
fracturing orientation of 282/76
and three foliation families where the orientation is 223/68 and less frequently, 007/44 and
050/88, Table 13.3.
July 2016 V. 1.1 536

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 13.5.- Foliation and fracturation of Calc-Schist,

Calc Schist, Zojila Fm.
In calc-schist,
schist, all measurements made have been grouped in six sets, three fracturing
orientations, 062/25, 122/70 and 282/61; and three foliation orientations, 049/64, 221/65
and 026/73, Table 13.3.
ZOJILA FORMATION
P.K. 9+750 - 11+000
ORIENTATION
TYPE ROCKS
DIP DIRECTION DIP
223º 68º S FOLIATION
282º 76º J JOINT
*SLATES
CALC-SCHIST
62º 25º J JOINT
122º 70º J JOINT
282º 61º J JOINT
Table 13.3.
3.- Sets of fracturing and foliation in Zojila Fm.
Table 13.4 showss the properties of the joints, as well as areas into which the tunnel has
been divided for calculation. Sections are defined from the lithology and changes in the
orientation of the tunnel axis.
July 2016 V. 1.1 537

TUNNEL REPORT
SECTION ORIENTATION FORMATION PARAMETERS JOINTS TYPE ROCKS

K. P. Trend Plunge C (kPa) Φ (deg) DIP DIRECTION DIP
91º 60º J JOINT
196º 54º J JOINT SLATES
4+500 6+400 226º 88º Zojila Fm. 5 32º
359º 33º J JOINT
152º 66º J JOINT
221º 28º J JOINT Q-SCHIST
5+900 6+300 232º 88º Pajnal Trap Fm. 5 34º
6+300 6+700 252º 88º Pajnal Trap Fm. 5 34º 308º 21º J JOINT
METABASITES
282º 76º J JOINT
*SLATES
9+700 11+100 255º 88º Zojila Fm. 5 32º
CALC-SCHIST
62º 25º J JOINT
122º 70º J JOINT
282º 61º J JOINT
Table 13.4.- Joint characteristics and sections for calculation.
13.3. WEDGES MODELLING
From fracturing data shown above, the potential wedges have been modeled in every
section of the tunnel, defined according the joint characteristics and the tunnel axis
orientation.
It should be notedd that it has been considered that the joints have cohesion; given that in
deep levels, joints tend to be more closed and, even, they could be welded, thus equivalent
to certain cohesion.
The graphic outputs below show the modelling of the worst wedge calculated
cal for every
section according to tunnel axis orientation and fractures and/or foliation. In every block
the safety factor against the fall hazard is calculated with both considerations, with and
without support elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 538

TUNNEL REPORT
In every case the support section

se S-II has been considered, thus, 10 cm of concrete (5 cm of
sealing concrete + 5 cm structural concrete) and bolts (L= 4m) in pattern 2x2 m.
After applying the designed support to the different wedges, the unstable ones are analyzed
and corrected basedd on the persistence of the joints seen in field.
The results for each section are shown in their respective table below, which reflects the
safety factor both with and without support elements, the wedge volume, weight and
length, thereof according to the
th direction of the excavation.
The graphic outputs below

elow and the tables with the calculation results are shown for every
section:
- Section 1: from km. 4+500 to 5+900:
Figure 13.6.- Wedge model. Section 4+500 - 5+900.

00. Without support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 539

TUNNEL REPORT

00. With support.
SECTION FROM0+000
SECTOR FROM 4+500TO
TO1+400
5+900
FACTOR WEDGE WEDGE WEDGE
WEDGE SAFETY VOLUM WEIGHT LENGHT
m3 Tn m
2 2,10 0,05 0,12 0,31
WITHOUT 3 1,74 3,67 8,80 2,08
SUPPORT 4 1,43 0,87 2,08 1,46
6 1,82 14,93 35,82 3,50
2 535,95 0,05 0,12 0,31
WITH 3 38,07 3,67 8,80 2,08
SUPPORT 4 64,05 0,87 2,08 1,46
by S-I 6 25,06 14,93 35,82 3,50
Table 13.5.- Characteristics of the modeled wedge, with and without S-I
S support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 540

TUNNEL REPORT


00. With support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 541

TUNNEL REPORT
SECTOR FROM 5+900 TO 6+300

m3 Tn m
2 6,45 0,17 0,47 1,68
WITHOUT 4 1,83 463,62 1251,77 13,63
SUPPORT 5 1,56 654,85 1768,10 26,18
6 67,20 0,00 0,00 0,00
2 265,66 0,17 0,47 1,68
WITH 4 2,72 463,62 1251,77 13,63
SUPPORT 5 2,64 654,85 1768,10 26,18
by S-I 6 923,67 0,00 0,00 0,00
S support.
- Section 3: from km. 6+300

6+ to 6+700:
Figure 13.10.- Wedge model. Section 6+300 - 6+700. Without support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 542

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 13.11.- Wedge model. Section 6+300 - 6+700.. With support.

m3 Tn m
2 6,40 0,00 0,49 1,49
WITHOUT 5 1,58 531,65 1435,47 24,44
SUPPORT 6 213,48 0,00 0,00 0,00
WITH 2 282,44 0,00 0,49 1,49
SUPPORT 5 2,82 531,65 1435,47 24,44
by S-I 6 2770,26 0,00 0,00 0,00
S support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 543

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 13.12.- Wedge

Wed model. Section 6+700 - 7+000.
Figure 13.13.- Wedge model. Section 6+700 - 7+000.. With support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 544

TUNNEL REPORT

m3 Tn m
WITHOUT 2 5,47 0,36 0,36 2,10
SUPPORT 5 1,60 943,02 349,27 21,65
6 97,45 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 2,76 0,09 0,23 0,31
WITH 2 229,87 0,36 0,36 2,10
SUPPORT 5 3,22 943,02 349,27 21,65
by S-I 6 822,19 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 168,95 0,09 0,23 0,31
S support.

7+ to 8+300:
Figure 13.14.- Wedge model. Section 7+000

7+ - 8+300.
July 2016 V. 1.1 545

TUNNEL REPORT

7+ - 8+300.
00. With support.

m3 Tn m
2 3,18 4,02 10,86 3,95
WITHOUT 5 1,61 342,49 924,72 22,18
SUPPORT 6 461,12 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 0,64 3,97 10,71 4,71
2 44,68 4,02 10,86 3,95
WITH 5 3,23 342,49 924,72 22,18
SUPPORT 6 3879,71 0,00 0,00 0,00
by S-I 7 15,42 3,97 10,71 4,71
S support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 546

TUNNEL REPORT

8+ to 9+500:

8+ - 9+500.

8+ - 9+500.
00. With support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 547

TUNNEL REPORT

m3 Tn m
2 5,69 0,31 0,84 2,12
WITHOUT 5 1,60 352,53 951,82 22,03
SUPPORT 6 87,19 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 3,66 0,05 0,12 0,53
2 234,80 0,31 0,84 2,12
WITH 5 3,24 352,53 951,82 22,03
SUPPORT 6 962,36 0,00 0,00 0,00
by S-I 7 268,88 0,05 0,12 0,53
Table 13.10.- Characteristics of the modeled wedge,

wedge, with and without S-I
S support.

July 2016 V. 1.1 548

TUNNEL REPORT

00. With support.

m3 Tn m
2 6,46 0,19 0,52 1,76
WITHOUT 5 1,60 398,09 1074,84 22,49
SUPPORT 6 116,65 0,00 0,00 0,00
WITH 2 239,85 0,19 0,52 1,76
SUPPORT 5 3,14 398,09 1074,84 22,49
by S-I 6 1925,33 0,00 0,00 0,00
Table 13.11.- Characteristics

teristics of the modeled wedge, with and without S-I
S support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 549

TUNNEL REPORT

Figure 13.21.- Wedge model. Section 9+700 – 11+100.

00. With support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 550

TUNNEL REPORT

m3 Tn m
3 Stable 0,55 1,49 2,10
WITHOUT 4 0,52 17,02 45,94 6,84
SUPPORT 5 1,05 28,79 77,74 8,05
7 1,09 1,26 3,40 2,76
3 Stable 0,55 1,49 2,10
WITH 4 4,47 17,02 45,94 6,84
SUPPORT 5 11,88 28,79 77,74 8,05
by S-I 7 32,08 1,26 3,40 2,76
S support.
July 2016 V. 1.1 551

TUNNEL REPORT
13.4. CONCLUSIONS
The results and the characteristics of every modelled wedge are summarized in table 13.13.
When safety factor is below 1,5 without support
support system, the result has been enlightened in
red colour. That happens in sections with Zojilla formation, whereas in sections with
Panjal Trap formation, the safety factors are above 1,5, excluding the stretch between km.
7+000 and 8+300
00 where there are wedges
wedges of 4.41m length in the axis direction and the
safety factor is 0.64 without support elements.
From the results obtained according to collected field data, it can be concluded that there is
no risk of unstable falling wedges in Panjal Trap sections, except
except for few cases as
discussed above.
Remarkably, both in the initial and in the end part of the trace, namely in Zojilla formation,
there may be some unstable wedges with safety factors lower than 1.5, in conditions
without any support system, so this should be assessed and taken into account for
calculating the payment line.
TUNEL AXIS
SECTION SAFETY FACTOR SAFETY FACTOR WEDGE WEDGE WEDGE
ORIENTATION FORMATION WEDGE
NO SUPPORT WITH SUPPORT VOLUME WEIGHT LENGTH
CHAINAGE Trend Plunge
2 2,10 535,95 0,05 0,12 0,31
3 1,74 38,07 3,67 8,80 2,08
4+500 5+900 226º 88º Zojila Fm.
4 1,43 64,05 0,87 2,08 1,46
6 1,82 25,06 14,93 35,82 3,50
2 6,45 265,66 0,17 0,47 1,68
4 1,83 2,72 463,62 1251,77 13,63
5+900 6+300 232º 88º Panjal Trap Fm.
5 1,56 2,64 654,85 1768,10 26,18
6 67,20 923,67 0,00 0,00 0,00
2 6,40 282,44 0,00 0,49 1,49
6+300 6+700 252º 88º Panjal Trap Fm. 5 1,58 2,82 531,65 1435,47 24,44
6 213,48 2770,26 0,00 0,00 0,00
2 5,47 229,87 0,36 0,36 2,10
5 1,60 3,22 943,02 349,27 21,65
6+700 7+000 271º 88º Panjal Trap Fm.
6 97,45 822,19 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 2,76 168,95 0,09 0,23 0,31
2 3,18 44,68 4,02 10,86 3,95
5 1,61 3,23 342,49 924,72 22,18
7+000 8+300 287º 88º Panjal Trap Fm.
6 461,12 3879,71 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 0,64 15,42 3,97 10,71 4,71
2 5,69 234,80 0,31 0,84 2,12
5 1,60 3,24 352,53 951,82 22,03
8+300 9+500 090º 88º Panjal Trap Fm.
6 87,19 962,36 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 3,66 268,88 0,05 0,12 0,53
2 6,46 239,85 0,19 0,52 1,76
9+500 9+700 264º 88º Panjal Trap Fm. 5 1,60 3,14 398,09 1074,84 22,49
6 116,65 1925,33 0,00 0,00 0,00
3 Stable Stable 0,55 1,49 2,10
4 0,52 4,47 17,02 45,94 6,84
9+700 11+100 255º 88º Zojila Fm.
5 1,05 11,88 28,79 77,74 8,05
7 1,09 32,08 1,26 3,40 2,76
Table 13.13.- Characteristics of every modelled wedge, with and without S-I
S support
July 2016 V. 1.1 552

TUNNEL REPORT
14. REINFORCING ELEMENTS
In sheets from 14 to 24 of the Drawing 9, there

there have been included the different kinds of
treatment to be used when required as reinforcement for the support allocated in
agreement with face mapping.
The different types of reinforcement considered are the following:
- Micropile forepoling with pipes φ101.

- Double micropile forepoling with pipes φ101.
drilling bolts for “minor squeezing”.
drilling bolts for “severe squeezing”.
- Double injected forepoling in top heading, with 9 m length self-drilling
self drilling bolts and
bench water pumping in lateral trenches for passing through “fault gouges with
watercharge”
- Face treatment with fiberglass bolts and a shotcrete layer.
- Top heading buttress.
- Treatment procedure for chimneys.
Allocation criteria for these treatments in function of face

face stability, shotcrete cracking,
convergences, etc., have been developed in the “Specifications” document.
July 2016 V. 1.1 553

TUNNEL REPORT
15. WATERPROOF AND DRAINAGE

DRAIN
Foreseeing the presence of water in the enclosing rock mass, the main tunnel as well as the
escape gallery and the intermediate
termediate gallery are equipped with their own drainage system of
the extrados and then conducted outside.
According the DPR, the drainage system is designed separating the water collected from
the enclosing rock mass and the wash water from the road surface.
surfa
Figure 15.11 shows the cross in the main tunnel including the drainage elements.
Figure 15.1.- Cross section. Main tunnel.
Figure 15.22 shows a general outline of the drainage elements.
July 2016 V. 1.1 554

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 15.2.- Outline of drainage elements
The main features of these elements are:
a) Primary waterproofing or oberhasli
It is a set of elements connected to the excavated soil to evacuate the odd water inflow
from the excavated perimeter. The system can be applied even if the event is
generalized. Figure 15.3
15. shows an oberhasli section and Picture 15.1 displays such
drainage system installed on a tunnel walls, in that case pattern in herringbone
configuration.
July 2016 V. 1.1 555

TUNNEL REPORT
Figure 15.3.- Section of oberhasli system
Picture 15.1.- Overview of oberhasli pattern in herringbone configuration
Besides PVC tubes cut in longitudinal section, flexible corrugated pipes can
also be used to capture the inflows. These pipes are fastened to the rock, are
carried to the base of the bench excavation, flowing into the trench placed in the
base
se of the top heading excavation, as shown in Picture 15.2.
2.
July 2016 V. 1.1 556

TUNNEL REPORT
Picture 15.2.- Flexible tubes in primary drainage
Picture 15.3.- Primary drainage flowing into the trench
July 2016 V. 1.1 557

TUNNEL REPORT
For flow rates below 10 l/secxm, the primary drainage can be solved with PVC
strips fixed and sewn from the top to the base of the tunnel walls, as shown in
Picture 15.4.
Picture 15.4.- Overview of oberhasli when flow rates below10 l/secxm
The primary waterproofing should be placed after sealing or supporting every phase of
excavationn in order to avoid water falling into the tunnel. The cost, therefore, must be
included in the price of excavation as auxiliary means.
b) Secondary waterproofing
As shown in Figure 13.4,

13.4, the secondary sealing is constructed of two layers; the outer
one is an anti-polluting
polluting geotextile or GEODREN with the required grammage for
evacuation of drips. The interior one is a waterproof PVC sheet that prevents stains on
concrete lining.
July 2016 V. 1.1 558

TUNNEL REPORT
These two layers wrap the backfill PVC drain which every 20-30
20 30 meters is connected
connec
to the tunnel drainage.
The evacuation tube is a perforated pipe wrapped with anti-polluting

anti polluting geotextile, and
embedded in gravel, so that it allows both collect water from backfill drains, gutters of
the road, as well as water that may leak from the carriage
ca platform.
Every 40 to 50 meters, there is a self-siphon

self siphon box culvert in case any liquid is spilled on
the roadway (see Figure 15.5).
Figure 15.11.- Scheme of self-siphon

siphon box culvert
The purpose of this self-siphoning

self box culvert is that if any fuel
uel is spilled on the
carriage, there is not mixture of inflammable liquid and gazes along the whole
drainage pipe.
July 2016 V. 1.1 559

TUNNEL REPORT
16. FINAL LINING
The tunnel final lining is a concrete structure, usually in mass concrete, performed
pumping concrete between the formwork
formw and the waterproofing sheet.
The purposes of the final lining are:

- Regularization of the tunnel finish, improving ventilation.
- Improve the look of the interior of the tunnel.
- The possibility to count on the help of an additional resistant element, which
whi is the mass
concrete ring, that guarantees higher safety than the one provided by the support during
the construction phases, useful in case of anomalous and exceptional situations such as:
o Loss of strength capacity in support elements e.g. bolts, normally
norma caused by
oxidation, salt formation in shotcrete cracks, etc.
o Increased thrust due to rock creep phenomena that sometimes can occur in
situations of severe squeezing.
o Stresses due to seismic activity.
As the necessary time to excavate the whole length of the tunnel is goingo to be greater
than 2 – 3 years, and the final lining would be done later, all last load increases will have
to be supported also by the primary lining.
Besides, as is usual in tunnels in places with gelid weather as Norway, the outer
ou line of the
final lining mustn’t be jointed with the primary lining, but there must be enough space for
ice during cold weather, with these trouble, may be more adequate even not to put concrete
final lining in escape tunnels, conexion tunnels, etc, in which the temperature can be very
low during winter.
Anyway in the Special Sections chapter, the increase of the security factor with the final
lining is included in all the section calculations.
July 2016 V. 1.1 560

TUNNEL REPORT
17. PORTALS
Portals are currently being defined parallely

parall and will be added to this report once
approved.
July 2016 V. 1.1 561

TUNNEL REPORT
APPENDIX 1
HYDROLOGIC SURVEY
July 2016 V. 1.1 1

TUNNEL REPORT
PLANS WITH SPRING POSITIONS
WÁTER SPRING
July 2016 V. 1.1 1

TUNNEL REPORT
ZONE TOWARD EAST PORTAL
TRANSVERSE SECTIONS:
Ch. 4+890
July 2016 V. 1.1 2

TUNNEL REPORT
Ch. 5+290
Ch. 5+890
July 2016 V. 1.1 3

TUNNEL REPORT
P.K. 8+488
P.K. 10+096
July 2016 V. 1.1 4

TUNNEL REPORT
P.K. 10+696
P.K. 10+965
July 2016 V. 1.1 5

TUNNEL REPORT
DRAWINGS
July 2016 V. 1.1

BH-01'
BH-03 BH-04 BH-05 BH-06 BH-08 (Z=2510.389)
(Z=2750.229)
BH-01 (Z=2703.803) (Z=2843.231) (Z=2700.754) (Z=2686.807) RECOVERY RQD
(L=30.00m.)
(Z=2486.962) (L=210.00m.) (L=200.00m.) (L=200.00m.) (L=70.00m.) (L=165.00m.)
FM PLT Lu
RECOVERY RQD RECOVERY RQD 0
(L=30.00m.)
RECOVERY RQD FM FM qu ME Lu RECOVERY RQD RECOVERY RQD RECOVERY RQD
FM qu PLT ME Lu 0 0 FM qu PLT ME Lu FM qu PLT ME Lu FM qu PLT ME Lu
0 0 0 0 5
175.07
5 5 106.13 287.52 10.55
192.48
5 5 5 5 10
283.59
10 10
DRY
10 10 10 10 15
166.35 286.8 20.71 383.22
23.09 7.88
15 15 305.12
227.47 42.59 71.04 15 20
15 15 15 221.82 18.02
Water 39.12 20 20
39.84 0.88
20 20 20 103.92 20 25 414.72 2.29
37.44 149.04 184.85 75.36 17.78
0.70 25 25 340.98
25 25 25 25 30
191.99 25.15
30.00 m
0.30 30 30
46.32 30 30 30
30
30.00 m 124.04 BH-01''
35 35 Water (Z=2529.819)
35 35 58.83 21.18 35 (L=35.50m.)
BH-02 40
RECOVERY RQD
40 FM PLT
(Z=2563.418) 254.88 40
40 40 102.49 202.8 18.62 0
(L=67.00m.) 36.24
RECOVERY RQD 45 45
FM qu PLT ME Lu 45 45 45 5 340.98
0 114.77 47.01
50 50
82.64 50 50 9.07 50 10
5 131.94 89.28 25.72 388.06
55 55 49.70 128.64 46.32 7.29
DRY
31.13 55 Water 55 30.26 47.24 55 15
10 18.73 22.8 13.11 8.88
60 60
179.54 85.83 60 60 8.15 60
64.02 26.26 20
15
65 65 8.27
245.32
167.56 65 65 5.93 65 223.13 164.88 15.14 25
20 132.63 26.47
70 70 40.48 27.36 10.34 5.08
70 32.16 70 70 420.64
30
25 70.00 m
75 75 30.50 m
75 75
30
80
80
80
12.53 8.42
80
BH-06'
161.51 56.32 68.95 38.88 20.30 (Z=2644.599)
35
85 85 BH-07 (L=30.00m.)
85 (Z=2579.161) 85 RECOVERY RQD
40 (L=50.00m.) FM PLT Lu
90 90 0
90 45.36 90
DRY
Water RECOVERY RQD

45
95 189.45
95 12.01 34.08 9.99 FM qu PLT ME Lu 5
95 0 95 93.78 90.0 25.07
50 232.17 219.36 22.41 Water
DRY
100 100 10
91.68 8.95 100 5 100
55
6.79 105 105 Water
15
105 10 105
60 8.51
112.03 452.78 8.81
110 110 129.09 11.94 20 270.60
7.88 15 110
110 1.05
65 10.08 174.55 14.48
115 478.20 -
115 25
115 20 115 1.12
67.00 m 575.50
137.8 44.28 98.64 15.41 1.04
120 120 382.36
23.80 78.96 9.54 30
120 25 120
FORMATION 30.00 m
DRY
125 125 208.87 17.71 77.07 90.24 52.23
QUATERNARY 125 30
133.81 15.47 6.67
125
130 130 4.36

BH-06''
- COLLUVIAL. 73.24 (Z=2639.679)
130 35 130
4.65 (L=40.00m.)
135 135 83.03 20.80 RECOVERY RQD
PERMIAN - CARBONIFEROUS 135 40 3.91 135 146.85 225.84 14.16 FM PLT
0
140 140 1.19
- ZOJILA FM. MEDIUM WEATHERED SLATE 140 45 70.85 10.53 140
3.59
AND MICHA SCHIST. 5
145 145 184.33 34.56 108.16 20.02 3.79
- ZOJILA FM. SLATE AND MICHA SCHIST. 145 50 145
60.58 15.69 50.00 m 40.37 59.04 16.25 10
150 150 9.18 54.24 1.64
DRY
150 150
- ZOJILA FM. CALCAREOUS - SCHIST. 5.58 15
155 155
155 155 4.03
- ZOJILA FM. CALCAREOUS - SCHIST. 6.09 20
160 160 67.43 29.28 41.96
MEDIUM WEATHERED AND WITH OPEN JOINTS. 160 160 4.81
100.16 16.81 25
165 165 2.12
- ZOJILA FM. QUARZITIC - SCHIST . 165 165
22.57 82.32 3.35
67.93
165.00 m 30
170 170
- PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FRACTURED. 170
35 858.62
175 175 39.01 18.43
- PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FEW FRACTURED. 175 2.21 753.48
40 530.18
180 180 1.50
40.00 m
- PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES MASSIVE. 0.61 180 9.05 36.72 1.16
185 185 2.29 BH-07'
53.24 43.75 1.90 (Z=2569.540)
185
1.38 (L=40.00m.)
SYMBOLS 190 190 114.3
RECOVERY RQD
0.61 190 4.31 FM PLT
RECOVERY RQD 110.67 0
195 1.40
FM qu PLT ME Lu 195
0 195
4.99 5
129.09 75.36 11.94 3.79 48.71 30.25
200 200
200.00 m 200
10
FM - LITHOLOGY
200.00 m
205
DRY
RECOVERY - PERCENT CORE RECOVERY (%) 15
210
RQD - ROCK QUALITY INDEX (%) 210.00 m 20
Water
- DEPTH OF WATER LEVEL (m) GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION 2013 INVESTIGATION 2015 25
qu - UNI-AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. (MPa)

30
- BORE HOLE BH-06'
PLT - COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FROM PLT. (MPa) - BORE HOLE BH-01 (L=30.00m.)
(L=30.00m.) 35
ME - MODULUS OF ELASTICITY. E (GPa) 1043.46
1379.21
40 1394.98
Lu - mm/s OR LUGEON 40.00 m
CLIENT : PROJECT : INDEPENDENT ENGINEER: HIGHWAY DESIGN CONSULTANT: TITLE :

Transportation 25-07-16 Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of GEOLOGICAL LOG DRILL HOLE
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National
TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY Highway No. 1 (Srinagar Sonmarg Gumri Road) in CONCESSIONAIRE: DESIGN CONSULTANT: DRG. NO. :
the State of J&K on Design, Build, Finance, Operate
Srinagar Sonamarg Tunnelway DNDA/ADV/1029-Z MORH/2016/ 6_1
and Transfer (DBFOT) Annuity Basis
Limited
1/500 REVISION : V 1.1
GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND
QUATERNARY PERMIAN - CARBONIFEROUS CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013
- ZOJILA FM. SLATE AND MICA SCHIST. - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES MASSIVE. - DEDUCED LITHOLOGIC CONTACT. PS-2/L2 L=360m.
- COLLUVIAL. - SYSTEMATIC JOINTS. - BOREHOLE BH-01
- DEDUCED MECHANICAL CONTACT. (L=30.00m.) - SEISMIC PROFILE PS-10/T4 L=225m.
- ZOJILA FM. CALCAREOUS - SCHIST. - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FRACTURED.
- FAULTS. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2015
- ALLUVIAL FAN.
- ZOJILA FM. QUARZITIC - SCHIST . - SHEAR ZONE.
- WATER LEVEL. - BORE HOLE BH
3800
3700
3600
3500
3400
PS-2/L2 L=360m. PS-3/L3 L=380m.

3300 PS-1/L1 L=570m. PS-4/L4 L=520m.
3200
PS-7/T1 L=225m. PS-8/T2 L=225m. BH-04

3100 BH-03
(L=210.00m.) (L=200.00m.)
BH-01´´ PS-10/T4 L=225m.
(Z=2529.819)
PS-11/T5 L=225m. PS-12/T6 L=225m.
(L=30.50m.) PS-9/T3 L=225m.
3000
BH-01´
(Z=2510.389)
BH-02
2900 (L=30.00m.) (10.514 MD)
(Z=2563.418)
BH-01 (L=67.00m.)
(8.632 MD)
2800 (Z=2486.962)
(L=30.00m.)
2700
2600
2500
2400
2300
4+500 4+700 4+900 5+100 5+300 5+500 5+700 5+900 6+100 6+300 6+500 6+700 6+900 7+100 7+300 7+500 7+700 7+900
CHAINAGE 4+635 4+665 5+050 5+100 5+170 5+545 5+590 5+760 5+930 6+400 6+430 7+220 7+255 7+900
30.0
30.0
35.0
PARTIAL DISTANCE 385.0m. 50.0 70.0m. 375.0m. 45.0 170.0m. 170.0m. 470.0m. 790.0m. 745.0m.
OVERBURDEN 20.0 80.0 70.0 90.0 130.0 210.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 170.0 150.0 180.0 150.0 160.0 160.0 210.0 220.0 430.0
GROUND SLATE AND MICA SQUISTOS SCHIST (QUARZITE AND CALCAREOUS) FAULT FILLING METABASITES AND ANDESITES
WATER DRY WET DRY WET DAMP DRIPPING DRY DAMP DRY DRY
RMR - BIENIAWSKI 35.0 45.0 30.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 25.0 60.0 60.0 35.0 60.0
Q - BARTON (SRF=2.5) 0.50 1.40 0.20 2.10 0.20 2.10 0.10 10 0.40 10 0.40 10
(%) SQUEEZING 10.6% 0.22% 1.85% 0.1% 0.1%
S-III
S-III
S-V
EXCAVATION METHOD S-II bis S-II S-IV S-II S-IV S-II S-IV (FAULT) S-I 90% S-I + 10% S-II S-I
TREATMENT (*) FRONT DRAIN
ROCK CLASS B2 L A2 L A2 L A2 B2 A1 B2 A1
OBSERVATIONS
(*) - UMBRELLA. - SQUEEZING HAZARD.

Construction, Operation and Maintenance of GEOTECHNICAL LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
Limited H=1/5.000
V=1/5.000 REVISION : V 1.1
GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND
QUATERNARY PERMIAN - CARBONIFEROUS CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013
- ZOJILA FM. SLATE AND MICA SCHIST. - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES MASSIVE. - DEDUCED LITHOLOGIC CONTACT. PS-2/L2 L=360m.
- COLLUVIAL. - SYSTEMATIC JOINTS. - BOREHOLE BH-01
- DEDUCED MECHANICAL CONTACT. (L=30.00m.) - SEISMIC PROFILE PS-10/T4 L=225m.
- ZOJILA FM. CALCAREOUS - SCHIST. - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FRACTURED.
- FAULTS. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2015
- ALLUVIAL FAN.
- ZOJILA FM. QUARZITIC - SCHIST . - SHEAR ZONE.
- WATER LEVEL. - BORE HOLE BH
3800
CH:08+600 AT ELEVATION:2562,002m
3700
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TUNNEL

INTERMEDIATE VENTILATION &
3600
3500
PS-5/L5 L=340m. PS-6/L6 L=350m.
3400
BH-08
3300 (407.856 MD)
(Z=2686.807)
(L=165.00m.) BH-07
(543.109 MD) PS-13/T7 L=225m.
3200 (Z=2579.161) PS-15/T9 L=225m.
(L=50.00m.) BH-05
(28.271 MI)
(Z=2843.231)
3100 (L=200.00m.)
BH-06'
PS-14/T8 L=225m. (Z=2644.599)
(L=30.00m.)
3000
BH-06
(3.355 MD)
(Z=2700.754) BH-06''
(L=70.00m.) (Z=2639.679)
2900 (L=40.00m.)
2800
2700
2600
2500
2400
2300
8+000 8+300 8+500 8+700 8+900 9+100 9+300 9+500 9+700 9+900 10+100 10+300 10+500 10+700 10+900 11+100 11+300 11+500
CHAINAGE 8+036 8+586 8+636 9+676 9+770 9+925 10+050 10+340 10+450 10+550 11+007 11+037
36.0
30.0
PARTIAL DISTANCE 550.0m. 50.0 1040.0m. 94.0m. 155.0m. 125.0m. 290.0m. 110.0m. 100.0m. 457.0m.
OVERBURDEN 380.0 510.0 710.0 940.0 1080.0 800.0 750.0 640.0 580.0 380.0 310.0 270.0. 230.0 280.0 180.0 50.0
SCHIST
GROUND METABASITES OR ANDESITES SLATE AND MICA SCHIST (QUARZITE AND CALCAREOUS)
SLATE AND MICA SCHIST
WATER DRY WET MEDIUM LARGE MEDIUM DAMP MEDIUM LARGE DRY DRIPPING
INFLOW INFLOW INFLOW INFLOW INFLOW
RMR - BIENIAWSKI 35.0 60.0 35.0 60.0 30.0 20 30.0 50.0 30.0 <15 50.0 50.0
Q - BARTON (SRF=2.5) 0.40 10.0 0.40 10.0 0.20 0.08 0.20 2.10 0.20 0.01 2.10 10.0
(%) SQUEEZING 0.07% - 1.22% 0.07% - 1.22% 21.2% 0.5% 21.2% 0.18%
S-III
S-V
EXCAVATION METHOD 90% S-I + 10% S-II S-III 50% S-I + 40% S-I' + 10% S-III' S-IV' S-V' S-IV' S-II S-IV' S-VI' S-II
TREATMENT (****) (*) - (****) (****) (*) (**) - (*) (*)
ROCK CLASS B2 A1 B2 C1 C2 L C2 B2 L A2
OBSERVATIONS ROCK BURSTING KARSTIFICATION ?
(**) - FIBREGLASS BOLTS (****) - CENTRAL BUTTRESS AND

- SQUEEZING HAZARD. (*) - UMBRELLA. (***) - UMBRELLA WITH WATER FRONT DRAINAGE

Limited H=1/5.000
V=1/5.000 REVISION : V 1.1
BH-08
(Z=2686.807)
RECOVERY RQD
(L=165.00m.)
FM qu PLT ME Lu
BH-07' 0
3200 (Z=2569.540) 106.13 287.52 10.55 FORMATION
(L=40.00m.) 5 QUATERNARY
CH:08+600 AT ELEVATION:2562,002m
RECOVERY RQD
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TUNNEL

0
FM PLT 10 - COLLUVIAL.
INTERMEDIATE VENTILATION &

15 221.82 18.02 PERMIAN - CARBONIFEROUS
5
20 184.85 75.36 17.78

10 - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FRACTURED.
25
3100 15 - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FEW FRACTURED.
191.99 25.15
DRY
30
20
- PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES MASSIVE.
Water
35
25
40
SYMBOLS
30
36.24 RECOVERY RQD
20º
45 FM qu PLT ME Lu
35 0
1043.46 129.09 75.36 11.94 3.79
1379.21 50
40 1394.98
3000 131.94 89.28 25.72
40.00 m FM - LITHOLOGY
55
RECOVERY - PERCENT CORE RECOVERY (%)

60
RQD - ROCK QUALITY INDEX (%)
Water
BH-07 65 223.13 164.88 15.14 - DEPTH OF WATER LEVEL (m)
BH-08 (Z=2579.161)
(28.34 MI) (L=50.00m.)
(Z=2686.807) RECOVERY RQD
70 qu - UNI-AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. (MPa)
(L=165.00m.) FM qu PLT ME Lu
0 75
2900 PLT - COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FROM PLT. (MPa)
5 80 68.95 38.88 20.30
ME - MODULUS OF ELASTICITY. E (GPa)
Lu - mm/s OR LUGEON
10 85
129.09 11.94
15 90
174.55 14.48
20 95 93.78 90.0 25.07

98.64 15.41
25 100
2800
DRY
208.87 17.71
30 105
133.81 15.47 6.67
BH-07 4.36
(66.321 MD) 35 110
(Z=2579.161) 4.65
(L=50.00m.) 83.03 20.80
40 3.91 115
1.19
45 70.85 10.53 120
3.59
108.16 20.02 3.79 77.07 90.24 52.23

50 125
2700 BH-07' 50.00 m
(101.504 MD)
(Z=2569.540) 130
(L=40.00m.)
135 146.85 225.84 14.16
140
145
40.37 59.04 16.25
150
2600 5.58
4.03
GEOLOGICAL LOG DRILL HOLE
155
2562.002 6.09
SCALE = 1/500 (A1)
67.43 29.28 41.96
160 4.81
100.16 16.81
2.12
165
165.00 m
GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND
2500 QUATERNARY PERMIAN - CARBONIFEROUS
-0+025 0+000 0+050 0+100 0+150 0+200 0+250 0+300 0+350 0+400 0+450 0+500 0+550 0+600 0+650
- ZOJILA FM. SLATE AND MICA SCHIST. - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FRACTURED.
CHAINAGE 0+000 0+044 0+134 0+586.719 - COLLUVIAL.
PARTIAL DISTANCE 44.0m. 90.0m. 452.719m. - ZOJILA FM. CALCAREOUS - SCHIST. - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FEW FRACTURED.
- ALLUVIAL FAN.
OVERBURDEN 60.0 183.0 320.0 466.0 - ZOJILA FM. QUARZITIC - SCHIST . - PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES MASSIVE.
GROUND (1) METABASIT.
MASSIVE
METABASITES
PANJAL TRAP FM. METABASITES FEW FRACTURED
FRACTURED
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
WATER NO NO 20º
- DEDUCED LITHOLOGIC CONTACT. - DIP & DIP DIRECTION OF THE FOLIATION.
RMR - BIENIAWSKI 30 - 40 >40
- DEDUCED MECHANICAL CONTACT.
Q - BARTON (SRF=2.5) 0.1 - 1 >1 - SYSTEMATIC JOINTS.
- FAULTS.
(%) SQUEEZING - - - SHEAR ZONE.
- WATER LEVEL.
EXCAVATION METHOD STV-III STV-II STV-I
TREATMENT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2013 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2015
(*)
PS-2/L2 L=360m.
ROCK CLASS A1 A1 - BOREHOLE BH-01 - BORE HOLE BH
(L=30.00m.) - SEISMIC PROFILE PS-10/T4 L=225m.
OBSERVATIONS
(*) - FOREPOLE UMBRELLA L=15.00m. (1) - COLLUVIAL.

Z MORH TUNNEL
Transportation 25-07-16
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National VENTILATION TUNNEL
Limited H=1/2.000
V=1/2.000 REVISION : V 1.1
SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 4m
IN PATTERN 2.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.00m (IN-PLANE)
CROSS SECTION S-I
RMR (Bieniawski) >60 NOTE 1:
-PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES

Q (Barton) >10 THE TECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL OVERBREAK.
-FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
5+5cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
-INDICATED WATERPROOFING LAYER INCLUDES TOLERANCE
A´ FOR SMOOTHENING.
NOTE 2:
-FULL-FACE SECTION OF EXCAVATION.

+9.40
A -MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 4.00m.
-THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING

THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM
.76
00
R5.40
NOTE 3:
2.
R5
6
5.8
.
-SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL
INT
.R
GROUTED ROD BARS, PROVIDED THAT DESIGN STRENGTH
T
EX
+6.18 AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
.0 1
R6
E
L IN
T
EN
YM
PA 0.30m FINAL LINING
2.00
2.00
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN
2.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.14m (IN-PLANE) Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN
2.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.14m (IN-PLANE)
I FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION

2.14
2.14
PAYMENT LINE (15cm)
C C´
SHOTCRETE LINING
2.14
2.14
2%
2% 0.00
I
1.00
1.00
45°
45°
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN

6.
00 00 UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN
6. 2.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.14m (IN-PLANE)
CROSS SECTION S-I
SCALE=1/50 EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-I
SECTION A-A SECTION C-C

SWELLEX TYPE BOLT 0.10
SCALE=1/5
PLATE DETAIL SECTION B-B´ SHOTCRETE GRADE M30 WITH
SCALE=1/5 TABLE OF MATERIALS
(dimensions in mm) 0.05 0.05 CONTROL
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) SN BOLTS Ø32 L = 4m ELEMENT TYPE
(dimensions in mm) SEALING LAYER LEVEL
B´ SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
B
CEMENT GROUT SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
FRICTIONAL BOLT
( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN)
10
BOLTS USUAL
150
0.05 0.05
2 SN BOLTS Ø32
0.10
43-52
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL
10°
CAST IN PLACE
CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL
150
FOOTING AND WALLS

M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
STRUCTURAL LAYER EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD 200 kN SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 4m SEALING LAYER
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10% IN PATTERN 2.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.00m (IN-PLANE)

POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of TYPICAL SECTIONS EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-I
Limited
INDICATED REVISION : V 1.1
CROSS SECTION S-I'
Ø25mm PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS L = 6m
RMR (Bieniawski) >60 ci > 60 MPa q
Q (Barton) >10
ROCK BURSTING
A´
+9.40 Ø25mm PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS L = 6m

A IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.07m (IN-PLANE)
7
1 .0
I
.76
R5.40
R5
6
5.8
.
INT
.R
T
EX
+6.18 THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE
.0 1
R6
E
L IN
T
EN
YM 5+5cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
PA FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-I'

0.30m FINAL LINING
PAYMENT LINE (15cm)

1.07
1.07
SHOTCRETE LINING
SECTION A-A
2% SCALE=1/5
1.07
1.07
2% 0.00
EXPANSION-SHELL
1.00
1.00
45°
45°
UNDERPINNING Ø25mm PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS

UNDERPINNING Ø25mm PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.07m (IN-PLANE)
L = 6m IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.07m (IN-PLANE)
CEMENT GROUT
0 6.
0 00
6. CROSS SECTION S-I'
SCALE=1/50 POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
SEALING LAYER
NOTE 1:
TABLE OF MATERIALS
qci UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK
0.05 0.05
- CONTROL
0.10
ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
SHOTCRETE GRADE M30 USUAL
THE TECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL OVERBREAK.
Ø25mm PRESTRESSED
FOR SMOOTHENING. BOLTS USUAL WELDED WIRE MESH 6/150/150mm
ROCK BOLTS
-FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
OF m³ OF FINAL LINING. POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL STRUCTURAL LAYER
NOTE 2: Ø25mm PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS L = 6m
CAST IN PLACE IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x1.07m (IN-PLANE)
-FULL-FACE SECTION OF EXCAVATION. CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL
FOOTING AND WALLS
-MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 4.00m.
FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
-THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-I'
Limited
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) CROSS SECTION S-II
45 < RMR (Bieniawski) < 60
2 < Q (Barton) < 10
NOTE 1:

5+10cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
A´ FOR SMOOTHENING.
OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
NOTE 2:
+9.40
A -FULL-FACE SECTION OF EXCAVATION.
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE
0 -MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 3.00m.
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM 1.5
R5.40
6
5.7
1
.R
5.9
NOTE 3:
INT
R
T.
+6.18
EX
AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
6
6.0
ER
LIN
T
EN
YM
PA
0.30m FINAL LINING
1.50
1.50
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN PAYMENT LINE (15cm)
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.82m (IN-PLANE)
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN I FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION
C C´
1.82
1.82
SHOTCRETE LINING
1.82
1.82
2%
2% 0.00 I
1.00
1.00
45°
45°
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN

1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.82m (IN-PLANE) 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.82m (IN-PLANE)
CROSS SECTION S-II 6.

00 00
6. SCALE=1/50
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-II
0.15
SECTION C-C
TABLE OF MATERIALS
SECTION A-A SCALE=1/5 CONTROL
ELEMENT TYPE
SCALE=1/5 0.10 0.05
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m
LEVEL
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.82m (IN-PLANE) SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT SECTION B-B´ SEALING LAYER SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
PLATE DETAIL (dimensions in mm) B B´ CEMENT GROUT FRICTION BOLT
(dimensions in mm) BOLTS ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN)
USUAL
SN BOLTS Ø32
10

0.05
150
10°
2 CAST IN PLACE
0.15

43-52
0.10
FOOTING AND WALLS

150
EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.

M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) SEALING LAYER
STRUCTURAL LAYER
STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 4m
MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD 200 kN IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10% POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-II
Limited
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) CROSS SECTION S-II bis I FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION

1 < Q (Barton) < 4
LOW MASSIF OVERBUNDEN (< 50m.)
5+20cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE NOTE 1: I
A´ -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES
FOR SMOOTHENING.
+9.40 -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
A PAYMENT LINE (15cm) OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
II
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE NOTE 2:
0
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM 1.5
-MAX. TOP-HEADING EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 3.00m.
R5.40
6
5.7
1
-MAX. BENCH EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: TWICE TO THREE
.0
.R
R6
TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
INT
T.
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-II bis
EX
+6.18 LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50 m
6 TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
6.1
I NER
L SHOTCRETE LINING NOTE 3:
E NT
YM -SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL
PA LATTICE GIRDER DETAIL
AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED. (dimensions in mm)
0.30m FINAL LINING
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TECHNICAL DATA
TABLE OF MATERIALS D1 D2 d B H G e
mm mm mm mm mm kg/m cm
CONTROL
1.00
1.00
ELEMENT TYPE
45°
45°
LEVEL 20 25 12 200 160 11.86 8.97

TOP HEADING
SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN BENCH UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.10m (IN-PLANE) IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
2.10m (IN-PLANE) FRICTION BOLT
D2
BOLTS ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN)
USUAL
d
H
0 6.
C C´ 00 SN BOLTS Ø32
3.00
0
6.
e
2.10
D1
0 4.
0 00 CAST IN PLACE
4. 2% CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL B
2% 0.00 FOOTING AND WALLS

1.00
1.00
45°
45°
0.25
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.10m (IN-PLANE) 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.10m (IN-PLANE) 0.20
SECTION C-C
0.05
00 SCALE=1/5
6.
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN CROSS SECTION S-II bis 6.
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.10m (IN-PLANE) 00 SEALING LAYER
SCALE=1/50
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.10m (IN-PLANE) STRUCTURAL LAYER

SECTION A-A 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.10m (IN-PLANE)
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH SCALE=1/5 SWELLEX TYPE BOLT SECTION B-B´
SEALING LAYER
PLATE DETAIL (dimensions in mm)
(dimensions in mm)
B B´ SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 4m
CEMENT GROUT
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE)
10
150
0.05
2
43-52
45°
0.25
150
0.20
STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR

MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD 200 kN
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10% LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50 m
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50 m
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-II bis
Limited
CROSS SECTION S-III
35 < RMR (Bieniawski) < 45 IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.00m (IN-PLANE)
0.4 < Q (Barton) < 2 FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION

I

A´
0.30
+9.40
A
I
0
1.0
R5.40
6
5.7
6
.R
5.9
.R
INT
T
+6.18
EX
.11
R6
E
T L IN
EN
YM
PA
0.30m FINAL LINING

EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-III
1.00
1.00
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.327m (IN-PLANE) PAYMENT LINE (15cm)
1.327
1.327
NOTE 1:
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.327m (IN-PLANE) -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES
1.327
1.327
FOR SMOOTHENING.
C -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
C´ OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
1.327
1.327
2%
NOTE 2:
SHOTCRETE LINING
2% 0.00

1.00
1.00
45°
45°

1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.327m (IN-PLANE) 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.327m (IN-PLANE) NOTE 3:
CROSS SECTION S-III -SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL

6. GROUTED ROD BARS, PROVIDED THAT DESIGN STRENGTH
00 SCALE=1/50 00
6. AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
TABLE OF MATERIALS
0.20
SECTION C-C
CONTROL
SECTION A-A SCALE=1/5 ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
SCALE=1/5 0.15 0.05
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT SECTION B-B´ POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.327m (IN-PLANE)
SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
(dimensions in mm) SEALING LAYER FRICTION BOLT
PLATE DETAIL CEMENT GROUT ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN)
(dimensions in mm) B B´ BOLTS USUAL
SN BOLTS Ø32
10

150
0.05
2 CAST IN PLACE
10°
43-52
FOOTING AND WALLS

0.20
0.15

150

STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR SEALING LAYER
MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD 200 kN SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 4m
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10% IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.00m (IN-PLANE)
STRUCTURAL LAYER POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-III
Limited
CROSS SECTION S-IV
TOP HEADING II BENCH
25 < RMR (Bieniawski) < 35 I
NOTE 1:
0.1 < Q (Barton) < 0.4 -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES

FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) FOR SMOOTHENING.
NOTE 2:
A´ I

+9.40 TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m

A -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
II
NOTE 3:
00
R5.40
2.
.76
R5
6
6.0
.R
INT
T
EX
+6.18
0.30m FINAL LINING
.21 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM R6
E
LIN EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-IV
NT
Y ME
PA
TABLE OF MATERIALS
CONTROL
ELEMENT TYPE
SHOTCRETE LINING LEVEL LATTICE GIRDER DETAIL
SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL (dimensions in mm)
1.00
SWELLEX OR SIMILAR TECHNICAL DATA
45°
45°
TOP HEADING FRICTION BOLT

( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN) D1 D2 d B H G e
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m BOLTS
2.30
USUAL
2.30
mm mm mm mm kg/m cm
IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x BENCH IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x
mm
2.30m (IN-PLANE) 2.30m (IN-PLANE) SN BOLTS Ø32 20 25 12 200 160 11.86 8.97
PAYMENT LINE IN TOP HEADING
AND BENCH (15cm)
6.
00 00
3.00
6. BEAM RIBS LATTICE GIRDER USUAL
D2
C C´ d
H
CAST IN PLACE
4. CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL
2.30
2.30
e
00 00
4. 2% FOOTING AND WALLS
2% 0.00
D1
EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST. B
1.00
1.00
45°
45°
0.30
1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.30m (IN-PLANE) 0.25
SECTION C-C
0.05
SCALE=1/5
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS
00
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS CROSS SECTION S-IV L = 6m IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x
6.
00
SEALING LAYER
6. L = 6m IN PATTERN
SCALE=1/50 2.30m (IN-PLANE)
1.00m (OUT-PLANE)x 2.30m (IN-PLANE) M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
STRUCTURAL LAYER
SECTION A-A
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH SCALE=1/5
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 4m IN PATTERN
SEALING LAYER 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.30m (IN-PLANE)
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT SECTION B-B´
PLATE DETAIL (dimensions in mm)
(dimensions in mm) CEMENT GROUT
0.05
10
150 2
0.30
43-52
0.25
45°
150

M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD 200 kN
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) 150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 20% LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-IV
Limited
CROSS SECTION S-V
RMR (Bieniawski) < 25 5+20cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
Q (Barton) <0.1 A´
FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) NOTE 1:

PAYMENT LINE IN TOP HEADING +9.40 FOR SMOOTHENING.
AND BENCH (15cm) -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
A
NOTE 2:
R5.40
6
5.7
6
6.0
.R
.R
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 1.00 m -MAX. BENCH EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: TWICE TO THREE
INT
T
EX
+6.18 TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
.21
R6 -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
E TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
LIN
T
EN
SHOTCRETE LINING YM
PA
0.30m FINAL LINING

TOP HEADING
BENCH
1 PIPE EVERY STEEL RIB 1 PIPE EVERY STEEL RIB

Pipe length: 12.0m. Pipe length: 12.0m.
3.00
angle: of 45°. angle: of 45°.
-Steel N-80. -Steel N-80.
-Slotted tube for injection -Slotted tube for injection
with single shutter and up to with single shutter and up to
8 atmospheres. 8 atmospheres.
-Pipe Ø ext. = 88.9mm 2% -Pipe Ø ext. = 88.9mm
2% 0.00
Ø int. = 72.9mm Ø int. = 72.9mm
Ø perf. = 101.0mm Ø perf. = 101.0mm
0 12
.0 .0
12 0
CROSS SECTION S-V

SCALE=1/50
I TOP HEADING II BENCH
SECTION A-A
TABLE OF MATERIALS
SCALE=1/5
CONTROL
ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) 150
SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH STRUCTURAL LAYER
9.0
SELF DRILLING BOLTS SEALING LAYER
BOLTS USUAL
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL I

0.05
94º
CAST IN PLACE 36.15 36.15
150
FOOTING AND WALLS
5.4
0.30
ISHB-150
BEAM RIBS USUAL
0.25
R=
S-275-JR
8.
0
.0
4
Ø ext = 88,9 mm;
R=
II
FOREPOLE UMBRELLA Øint=72.9mm; Øperf=101 mm; USUAL
N-80
ISHB 150 SECTION
(dimensions in mm)
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 1.00 m
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-V

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-V
Limited
CROSS SECTION S-III'
0.4 < Q (SRF=1, Barton) < 10
SQUEEZING HAZARD
SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 8m SECTION A-A
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x3.41m (IN-PLANE) SCALE=1/5
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE 5+15cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE

A´ 400x100mm. FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE A
400x100mm +9.40
FIRST PHASE
.86
0.
40
R5
R5.40
40
0.
E
.76
NC
41
. R5
RA
3.
LE
INT
DEFORMATION TOLERANCE CEMENT GROUT
TO
+6.18 e = 10cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
N
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM 1 POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
IO
6 6.2
ER
AT
SEALING LAYER
6.0 IN
.R
RM
L
T NT FIRST PHASE
EX
FO
E
YM
PA
DE
FIRST PHASE
0.05
0.30m FINAL LINING
0.08
0.20
0.15
SECOND PHASE
PAYMENT LINE (15cm)
0.10
SHOTCRETE LINING

SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 8m
0.40
0.40

STRUCTURAL LAYER
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE 2% EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE
400x100mm. 2% 0.00 400x100mm.
DEFORMATION TOLERANCE
1.00
1.00
45°
45°
8.
00 00
8.
UNDERPINNING SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 8m UNDERPINNING SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 8m
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x3.41m (IN-PLANE) IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x3.41m (IN-PLANE)
CROSS SECTION S-III'

GREAT OVERBURDEN
SCALE=1/50
NOTE 1:

TABLE OF MATERIALS THE TECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL OVERBREAK.
I
CONTROL -INDICATED WATERPROOFING LAYER INCLUDES TOLERANCE
ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL FOR SMOOTHENING.
SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
SELF DRILLING
BOLTS BOLTS (IBO) USUAL NOTE 2:
CAST IN PLACE
CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
FOOTING AND WALLS TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.

EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-III'

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-III'. SQUEEZING HAZARD
Limited
0.35
CROSS SECTION S-IV' 0.30 0.05
DETAILS OF POLYSTYRENE STRIPE
SCALE=1/5
IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x3.05m (IN-PLANE) 25 < RMR (Bieniawski) < 35
0.1 < Q (SRF=1, Barton) < 0.4
EXPANDED
SQUEEZING HAZARD POLYSTYRENE STRIPE
400x100mm
A´
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE
0.10
400x100mm 400x100mm
A 5+30cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
0.40
+9.40 FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
e = 10cm
0.30m FINAL LINING
.86
0.
40
6
R5.40
40
5.7
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m
0.
R5
0.10
.R
E
NC
INT
RA
LE
1
+6.18 6.2
TO
3 .0
T .R
N
EX
IO
AT
.36
M
R6
R
EXPANDED
I NE
FO
T L POLYSTYRENE STRIPE
DE
EN
YM 400x100mm LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m
PA
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM PAYMENT LINE (15cm) LATTICE GIRDER DETAIL

(dimensions in mm)
TECHNICAL DATA
D2
D1 D2 d B H G e
d mm mm mm mm mm kg/m cm
H
20 25 12 200 160 11.86 8.97
e
SHOTCRETE LINING
D1
B
0.10 0.10
0.40
0.40
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE 2% EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE

400x100mm 2% 0.00 400x100mm SECTION A-A
SCALE=1/5
45°
45°
1.50
1.50
UNDERPINNING SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 8m
8.
00 FIRST PHASE
00
8.
INVERT STRUTS
0.50
1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE INVERT

SPACED 2.00m
CROSS SECTION S-IV' M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
UNDERPINNING SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 8m GREAT OVERBURDEN SEALING LAYER CEMENT GROUT
IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x3.05m (IN-PLANE) SCALE=1/50 I FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x3.05m (IN-PLANE)
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) FIRST PHASE
STRUCTURAL LAYER
TABLE OF MATERIALS
CONTROL
NOTE 1: ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
FIRST PHASE
0.05
-PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
SELF DRILLING I
-INDICATED WATERPROOFING LAYER INCLUDES TOLERANCE BOLTS BOLTS (IBO) USUAL
FOR SMOOTHENING. ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥280kN)
0.20
0.35
0.30
NOTE 2: BEAM RIBS LATTICE GIRDER USUAL
-FULL-FACE SECTION OF EXCAVATION. CAST IN PLACE

CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL SECOND PHASE
-MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 2.00m. FOOTING AND WALLS
-THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING INVERT STRUTS

ISHB-150 USUAL
TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING. STEEL RIB BEAM
0.10
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-IV' DEFORMATION TOLERANCE LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-IV'. SQUEEZING HAZARD
Limited
CROSS SECTION S-V'
A´
RMR (Bieniawski) < 25 150
Q (Barton) <0.1
9.0
AND BENCH (15cm)
+9.40
A
SQUEEZING HAZARD
FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) 94º
36.15 36.15
150
.86
R5.40
5.4
R5
5.7
E
NC
.R
R=
RA
INT
6
8.
.2
.0
LE
+6.18 R6
4
T.
TO
R=
E X
N
IO
e = 10cm
AT
RM
41 ISHB 150 SECTION
R6.
FO
SHOTCRETE LINING INE
TL (dimensions in mm)
DE
EN
YM
PA
0.30m FINAL LINING
TOP HEADING SHOTCRETE CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE
TEMPORARY SUPPORT
0.10
TOP HEADING
0.150
0.07
BENCH
1 PIPE EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS FIRST PHASE BIS

Pipe length: 12.0m. 1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 SPACED 2.00m 1 PIPE EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS
angle: of 45°.
3.00
Pipe length: 12.0m. TABLE OF MATERIALS
-Steel N-80.
angle: of 45°. CONTROL
-Slotted tube for injection ELEMENT TYPE
-Steel N-80.
with single shutter and up to LEVEL
-Slotted tube for injection
8 atmospheres. SHOTCRETE USUAL
with single shutter and up to M30 GRADE
-Pipe Ø ext. = 88.9mm 2% 8 atmospheres.
Ø int. = 72.9mm 2% 0.00 SELF DRILLING BOLTS
-Pipe Ø ext. = 88.9mm BOLTS USUAL
Ø perf. = 101.0mm
Ø int. = 72.9mm ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN)
Ø perf. = 101.0mm
12
00 .0 CAST IN PLACE
1 2. 0
45°
45°
FIRST PHASE FOOTING AND WALLS

L= FIRST PHASE ISHB-150
9m 9m BEAM RIBS S-275-JR
USUAL
L= INVERT STRUTS
0.50
INVERT STRUTS
ISHB-150 USUAL
1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE INVERT STEEL RIB BEAM
SPACED 2.00m.
Ø ext = 88,9 mm;
CROSS SECTION S-V' FOREPOLE UMBRELLA Øint=72.9mm; Øperf=101 mm; USUAL
SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m GREAT OVERBURDEN SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m N-80
MBL 280 kN. EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS MBL 280 kN. EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS
SCALE=1/50
SECTION A-A
I TOP HEADING II BENCH SCALE=1/5
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH STRUCTURAL LAYER
SEALING LAYER FIRST PHASE NOTE 1:

FIRST PHASE
0.05

FOR SMOOTHENING.
I
0.20
NOTE 2:
0.40
0.35
-MAX. BENCH EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH .TWICE TO THREE

II SECOND PHASE TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 1.00 m -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
0.10
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION S-V'


Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-V'. SQUEEZING HAZARD
Limited
TABLE OF MATERIALS ISHB-150 STEEL RIB
CONTROL
150 ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
9.0
SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL SUPPORT PLATE
CROSS SECTION S-VI SELF DRILLING BOLTS
300 x 460 x 30mm
WELDED TO
BOLTS USUAL
( Minimum Breaking Load ≥280kN) THE BEAM
94º
36.15 36.15 (UNDER FAULT GOUGE) POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL
CAST IN PLACE
150
5.4 CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL

FOOTING AND WALLS
R=
ISHB-150
8.
BEAM RIBS USUAL

0
.0
S-275-JR
4
R=
INVERT STRUTS
ISHB-150 USUAL
STEEL RIB BEAM
ISHB 150 SECTION Ø ext = 88,9 mm;
(dimensions in mm) FOREPOLE UMBRELLA Øint=72.9mm; Øperf=101 mm; USUAL
N-80
TOP HEADING FOREPOLE UMBRELLA 6 SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m
-Half conical angle: 5º MBL 280 kN. EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS
-Initial pipes spacing (face): 0.35m. FIRST PHASE
-Pipes length: 12.0m.
-Longitudinal overlap: 6.0m.
-Steel N-80. SKETCH OF SUPPORTING PROFILE
-Slotted tube for injection OUT OF SCALE
with single shutter and up to
8 atmospheres.
-Pipes Ø ext. = 88.9mm
Ø int. = 72.9mm
PIPE CROSS SECTION
Ø perf. = 101mm SCALE=1/5
e = 10cm
0.10
FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) STEEL PIPE N-80
+9.40 THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE Ø ext. = 88.9mm
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Drilling Ø = 101mm
DRILL Ø 101mm
.00
0
R6
AND BENCH (15cm) GROUT SINGLE INJECTION
5.9
CE
ACHIEVING 8 atm
R5.40
.R
N
INT
RA
.30
LE
R6
TO
.45
T.
EX
+6.18 R6
N
NE
IO
LI
T
T
MA
EN SECTION A-A
OR
YM
PA
F
SCALE=1/5
DE
SHOTCRETE LINING 0
R 6.8
150°
LLA
RE 0.50m FINAL LINING
U MB
TOP HEADING SHOTCRETE

TEMPORARY SUPPORT FIRST PHASE
1 PIPE EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS
0.10
Pipes length: 12.0m. 1 PIPE EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS

angle: 45 °. TOP HEADING Pipes length: 12.0m.
0.150
-Steel N-80. angle: 45 °.

-Slotted tube for injection -Steel N-80.
0.07
CEMENT GROUT
with single shutter and up to BENCH -Slotted tube for injection
8 atmospheres. with single shutter and up to
-Pipes Ø ext. = 88.9mm 8 atmospheres. M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
FIRST PHASE BIS
Ø int. = 72.9mm -Pipes Ø ext. = 88.9mm POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
Ø perf. = 101mm 1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 SPACED 2.00m. Ø int. = 72.9mm SEALING LAYER
3.00
Ø perf. = 101mm SELF DRILLING BOLT (IBO) L = 9.00m

MBL 280 kN. EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS
2% FIRST PHASE STRUCTURAL LAYER
FIRST PHASE
2% 0.00 L=
FIRST PHASE 9m 9m
L=
FIRST PHASE
0.05
12
00 .0
1 2. 0
0.30
0.20
L=
0.25
9m 9m
L=
0.50
INVERT STRUTS
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE INVERT

1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 SPACED 2.00m.
SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m

0.10
CROSS SECTION S-VI
(UNDER FAULT GOUGE) ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 1.00 m
SECOND PHASE
SCALE=1/50 DEFORMATION TOLERANCE

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-VI. SQUEEZING HAZARD
Limited
TABLE OF MATERIALS ISHB-150 STEEL RIB
CONTROL
150 ELEMENT TYPE
CROSS SECTION S-VI' LEVEL
9.0
SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL SUPPORT PLATE
300 x 460 x 30mm
(UNDER FAULT GOUGE) BOLTS
SELF DRILLING BOLTS
USUAL
WELDED TO
THE BEAM
94º
36.15 36.15 SQUEEZING HAZARD POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL
CAST IN PLACE
150
5.4 CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL

FOOTING AND WALLS
R=
ISHB-150
8.
BEAM RIBS USUAL

0
.0
S-275-JR
4
R=
INVERT STRUTS
ISHB-150 USUAL
STEEL RIB BEAM
ISHB 150 SECTION Ø ext = 88,9 mm;
(dimensions in mm) FOREPOLE UMBRELLA Øint=72.9mm; Øperf=101 mm; USUAL
N-80

TOP HEADING FOREPOLE UMBRELLA FIRST PHASE EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
-Half conical angle: 5º
-Initial pipes spacing (face): 0.35m. 6 SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 15.00m
-Pipes length: 12.0m. MBL 280 kN. EVERY 1 OR 2 STEEL RIBS SKETCH OF SUPPORTING PROFILE
-Steel N-80. OUT OF SCALE
with single shutter and up to PIPE CROSS SECTION
8 atmospheres.
-Pipes Ø ext. = 88.9mm SCALE=1/5
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Ø perf. = 101mm
DEFORMATION TOLERANCE STEEL PIPE N-80
0.50
5+40cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE e = 10cm Ø ext. = 88.9mm
FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) Ø int. = 72.9mm
+9.40 THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE Drilling Ø = 101mm
DRILL Ø 101mm
PAYMENT LINE IN TOP HEADING GROUT SINGLE INJECTION

ACHIEVING 8 atm
AND BENCH (15cm)
.90
.00
R6
R5
R5.40
E
.
NC
INT
RA
LE
.45 SECTION A-A
TO
+6.18 R6
T.
N
0
6.6
IO
X SCALE=1/5
E ER
AT
I N
TL
RM
EN
O
YM
F
A 5
DE
SHOTCRETE LINING P R6.9
LA
150°
B RE L FIRST PHASE
UM
0.50m FINAL LINING
TOP HEADING SHOTCRETE
TEMPORARY SUPPORT
0.10
TOP HEADING CEMENT GROUT

0.150

0.07
BENCH POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)

SEALING LAYER
FIRST PHASE BIS
1 PIPE EVERY 2 STEEL RIBS 1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 SPACED 1.00m 1 PIPE EVERY 2 STEEL RIBS MBL 280 kN. BETWEEN 2 STEEL RIBS
Pipes length: 15.0m. Pipes length: 15.0m. M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
3.00
angle: 45 °. angle: 45 °. POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)

-Steel N-80. -Steel N-80. STRUCTURAL LAYER FIRST PHASE
-Slotted tube for injection -Slotted tube for injection
with single shutter and up to with single shutter and up to
8 atmospheres. 8 atmospheres.
2%
-Pipes Ø ext. = 88.9mm 0.00 L= -Pipes Ø ext. = 88.9mm
5m 2% 15
0.05
Ø int. = 72.9mm Ø int. = 72.9mm
Ø perf. = 101mm L =1 m
Ø perf. = 101mm
0 15
.0 .0
15 0
FIRST PHASE FIRST
PHASE
L=
m
0.30
15 FIRST PHASE
15 m
0.40
L=
0.45
0.50
INVERT STRUTS
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE INVERT
1 STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 SPACED 1.00m.
SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 15.00m SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 15.00m SECOND
MBL 280 kN. BETWEEN 2 STEEL RIBS MBL 280 kN. BETWEEN 2 STEEL RIBS PHASE
CROSS SECTION S-VI' ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 0.50 m
(UNDER FAULT GOUGE)
0.10
GREAT OVERBURDEN
SCALE=1/50

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION S-VI'. SQUEEZING HAZARD
Limited
e - SHOTCRETE THEORETICAL THICKNESS ACCORDING TO DRAWINGS.
b - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT LINE OF INNER LINING.
EXCAVATION LINE WIDER THAN THEORETICAL

EXCAVATION DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
CROSS SECTION
S-I S-I' S-II S-II bis S-III S-IV S-V S-III' S-IV' S-V' S-VI S-VI'
THEORETICAL 69.93 74.21

TOP HEADING 111.24 111.24 112.68 68.89 114.14 69.93 117.07 138.52 75.08 78.38
EXCAVATION
(m 3 /m) SHOTCRETE INITIAL LINING BY TYPE
BENCH - - - 46.71 - 58.72 58.72 - - 65.86 66.42 67.81
OF SUPPORT DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
EXCAVATION TOP HEADING 28.83 28.83 28.98 20.89 29.14 21.05 21.05 29.46 30.73 21.67 21.80 22.27
PERIMETER
(m 2 /m) BENCH - - - 8.42 - 9.22 9.22 - - 9.22 9.22 9.22
SEALING 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
LAYER
THICKNESS (cm)
SUPPORT 1ª LAYER 5.0 5.0 10.0 20 15.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 30.0 35.0 25.0 40.0
LINING
SHOTCRETE INVERTS (m /m)
3
- - - - - - - - 5.79 9.64 9.79 9.79 e
E
PAYMENT - - - 15.0 - 15.0 15.0 - 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 E SS SUR
INNER CONCRETE LINING
KN LO
2.88 2.88 4.35 11.73 5.83 13.62 13.62 5.89 21.16 23.75 28.69 IC +C
T H NT
3
TOTAL m /linear m 26.63
+
b Y ME
SWELLEX
SWELLEX
SWELLEX
SWELLEX
SWELLEX
SELF DRILLING SELF DRILLING SELF DRILLING SELF DRILLING SELF DRILLING P A
PRESTRESSED
OF
TYPE SN SN SN SN SN -
TMT- 50 BOLTS (IBO) BOLTS (IBO) BOLTS (IBO) BOLTS (IBO) BOLTS (IBO)
TYPE OF SUPPORT WITHOUT STEEL RIB

4.00m 4.00m 4.00m 4.00m 4.00m
LENGTH / PATTERN 4.00m 2.0 x 2.14m 6.00m 4.00m 1.5x1.82m 4.00m 1.5x2.10m
4.00m
1.5x1.327m 4.00m 1.00 x 2.30m 8.00m 8.00m. NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
BOLTS 2.0x2.0m 1.00x1.07m 1.5x1.5m - 9.0m. 9.0m. 15.0m.
(m) 1.5x1.5m 1.5x1.0m 1.0x2.0m 1.50x3.41m 1.00x3.05m
6.00m 6.00m 6.00m 6.00m 6.00m
2 / 2.00m 2 / 1.50m 4 / 1.50m 2 / 1.50m 4 / 1.00m
DENSITY 2 (4m.) 1.33 (4m.) 1.33 (4m.) 4 (4m.) 2 (4m.) -

e - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT LINE OF SHOTCRETE.
4 26 8 8 12 8 6 10 2 6.67 10.0
( BOLTS/linear m) 1 (6m.) 2.67 (6m.) 2.67 (6m.) 1.33 (6m.) 4 (6m.)
b - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT OF INNER LINING.
LATTICE LATTICE ISHB-150 LG / 1.00m ISHB-150 / 1.00 m ISHB-150 / 1.00 m ISHB-150 / 0.50 m
DIVISION - - - GIRDER - GIRDER -
(m) / 1.00m INVERT INVERT INVERTS INVERTS
/ 1.50m / 1.00m ISHB-150 / 2.00m ISHB-150 / 2.00m ISHB-150 / 2.00m ISHB-150 / 1.00m
30.73 EXCAVATION DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
LENGTH
30.57 30.86 31.33
STEEL RIBS - - - 29.14 - 30.10 30.10 - 12.21
12.07 12.30 25.25
SECTION BY TYPE OF SUPPORT
BRACINGS - - - 20Ø25 - 20Ø25 20Ø25 - 28Ø25 28Ø25 36Ø25 36Ø25
SELF-BORING SELF-BORING SELF-BORING SELF-BORING

TYPE - - - - - - - -
Ø101mm. Ø101mm. Ø101mm. Ø101mm.
PIPES NUMBER / m - - - - - - 2.0 - - 1.33 1.33 2.0

SHOTCRETE INITIAL LINING BY TYPE
LENGTH - - - - - - 12.0 - - 12.0 12.0 15.0 OF SUPPORT DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
ARCH 11.31
3 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 15.17 15.17
(m /m)
PAYMENT 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44 - - 4.44 - - - -

3
(m /m)
INNER
CONCRETE CLOSURE - - - - - - - 3.02 3.02 4.25 4.25
3 2.95
(m /m)
LINING
FOOTING
e OF
2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 3.90 3.90 2.36 3.90 3.90 3.42 3.42
+ P
3
(m /m)
T H AY
INVERT
IC M
RE
SLAB* - - - - - 3.02 3.02 - 3.02 3.02 3.34 3.34
KN EN
3
(m /m) INNER CONCRETE LINING
U
ES T
S
S
C LO
b+
TYPE OF SUPPORT WITH STEEL RIB

NOT DRAWN TO SCALE

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of TUNNEL MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT LINES
Limited
6.00
6.00
2.00 2.00
TOP HEADING SPILES
-Initial spiles spacing (face): 0.30m.
-Spiles length: 6.0m. 6.00
-Longitudinal overlap: 2.0m. 0m
-Spiles Ø 33mm OVERLAP 2.0
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB

SPACING 1.00 m
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB
SPACING 1.00 m

SECTION A - A
SECTION B - B
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
SPILES Ø33 SCALE=1/25
SHEAR ZONE
PLAN 33mm
SCALE=1/100
SECTION SPILES
(dimensions in mm)
0.30
0.30
SHEAR ZONE SHEAR ZONE

8
8
6.0
6.0
SR
SR
6
6
6.0
ILE
6.0
ILE
.R
.R
SP
SP
T
T
EX
EX
TOP HEADING TOP HEADING

BENCH BENCH
CROSS SECTION A - A CROSS SECTION B - B

SCALE=1/40 SCALE=1/40

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of TUNNEL MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT LINES
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National SPILES FOREPOLING
Limited
TOP HEADING FOREPOLE UMBRELLA
-Initial pipes spacing (face): 0.35m.
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
FOREPOLE UMBRELLA 5+25cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
-Steel N-80.
5
-Slotted tube for injection 0.3
8 atmospheres.
Ø int. = 72.9mm +9.40
Ø perf. = 101mm

AND BENCH (15cm)
R5.40
6
5.7
6
6.0
.R
.R
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 1.00m
INT
T
TABLE OF MATERIALS
EX
+6.18
CONTROL
.21 ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
R6
E
LIN SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
NT .31
R6
SHOTCRETE LINING ME LA POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL
150° P AY BR
EL
UM CAST IN PLACE
0.30m FINAL LINING CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE FOOTING AND WALLS
ISHB-150
BEAM RIBS USUAL
S-275-JR
Ø ext = 88,9 mm;

TOP HEADING FOREPOLE UMBRELLA Øint=72.9mm; Øperf=101 mm; USUAL
BENCH N-80

3.00
2%
2% 0.00
CROSS SECTION - FOREPOLE UMBRELLA

SCALE=1/50

12.00 -Half conical angle: 5º
OVERLAP 3.00m -Pipes length: 12.0m.
5°
PIPE CROSS SECTION

SCALE=1/5
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB ISHB-150 STEEL RIB
SPACING 1.00 m SPACING 1.00 m
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE
STEEL PIPE N-80

Ø ext. = 88.9mm
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Drilling Ø = 101mm
DRILL Ø 101mm
GROUT SINGLE INJECTION

ACHIEVING 8 atm
SCALE=1/50

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION FOREPOLE UMBRELLA
Limited
TOP HEADING DOUBLE FOREPOLE UMBRELLA
-Half conical angle: 5º CROSS SECTION - FOREPOLE UMBRELLA
WITH LARGE WATER INFLOW 5+25cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
-Steel N-80. FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
-Slotted tube for injection 0 .35
8 atmospheres.
Ø int. = 72.9mm
+9.40
Ø perf. = 101mm THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE

AND BENCH (15cm)
R5.40
6
5.7
6
6.0
.R
.R
INT
T
TABLE OF MATERIALS
EX
+6.18 CONTROL
ELEMENT TYPE
.21 LEVEL
R6
E SHOTCRETE USUAL
LIN .31
M30 GRADE
T R6
EN LLA POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL
SHOTCRETE LINING YM BR
E
PA UM 6.41
ST LA R CAST IN PLACE
F IR M B REL CONCRETE IN USUAL
U M30 GRADE
OND
SE C 0.30m FINAL LINING FOOTING AND WALLS
ISHB-150
BEAM RIBS USUAL
S-275-JR
Ø ext = 88,9 mm;
TOP HEADING FOREPOLE UMBRELLA Øint=72.9mm; Øperf=101 mm; USUAL

N-80
BENCH
3.00
2%
2% 0.00
CROSS SECTION - DOUBLE FOREPOLE UMBRELLA

SCALE=1/50
TOP HEADING DOUBLEFOREPOLE UMBRELLA

12.00 -Half conical angle: 5º
OVERLAP 6.00m -Pipes length: 12.0m.
5°
PIPE CROSS SECTION

SCALE=1/5
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB ISHB-150 STEEL RIB
SPACING 1.00 m
SPACING 1.00 m
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE
STEEL PIPE N-80
Ø ext. = 88.9mm
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Drilling Ø = 101mm
DRILL Ø 101mm
GROUT SINGLE INJECTION

ACHIEVING 8 atm

Z MORH TUNNEL
TYPICAL SECTIONS EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION FOREPOLE UMBRELLA
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National WITH WATER LARGE INFLOW
Limited
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS SPECIAL SECTION
SCALE=1/200 MINOR SQUEEZING SUPPORT WITHOUT WATER CHARGE
SCALE=1/50

-Longitudinal overlap: 6.0m. SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m
-Steel N-80. MBL 280 kN. 1 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS
8 atmospheres.
R21.47
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Ø perf. = 101mm
I. - EXECUTION OF FOREPOLE UMBRELLA. II. - EXCAVATION AND FACE REINFORCEMET.

BUTTRESS
0.40
5.00 aprox.
AND BENCH (15cm)
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM 1
2
+6.18
SHOTCRETE LINING 1
III. - IMPLEMENTATION OF TOP HEADING REINFORCEMENT. IV. - TOP HEADING REINFORCEMENT.
0.40m FINAL LINING 2

CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SHOTCRETE BUTTRESS CONFINEMENT
FEET RIBS
SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m
MBL 280 kN. 2 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS MBL 280 kN. 2 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS
0.40
TOP HEADING
BENCH
GRANULAR FILLING L=
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE 9m
TOP HEADING INVERT (40cm)
FILLING MATERIALS
3.00
2%
2% 0.00
L=
9m
V. - INITIAL BENCH REINFORCEMENT. VI. - BENCH EXCAVATION AND TEMPORARY INVERT.
2.29
L=
0.40
9m
40cm SHOTCRETE
TEMPORARY INVERT
VII.- DEMOLITION AND BENCH REINFORCEMENT.

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited MINOR SQUEEZING SPECIAL SECTION SUPPORT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National WITHOUT WATER CHARGE
Limited
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
SCALE=1/200 SPECIAL SECTION
SEVERE SQUEEZING SUPPORT WITHOUT WATER CHARGE
SCALE=1/50

8 atmospheres.
R21.47
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Ø perf. = 101mm
I. - EXECUTION FOREPOLE UMBRELLA. II. - EXCAVATION AND FACE REINFORCEMET.

BUTTRESS
0.40
5.00 aprox.
AND BENCH (15cm)
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM 1
2
+6.18
SHOTCRETE LINING 1
III. - IMPLEMENTATION OF TOP HEADING REINFORCEMENT. IV. - TOP HEADING REINFORCEMENT.
0.40m FINAL LINING 2

FEET RIBS
MBL 280 kN. 2 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 12.00m
MBL 280 kN. 2 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS
0.40
TOP HEADING
BENCH
GRANULAR FILLING L=
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE 12
TOP HEADING INVERT (40cm) m
FILLING MATERIALS
3.00
2%
2% 0.00
L=
12
m
V. - INITIAL BENCH REINFORCEMENT. VI. - BENCH EXCAVATION AND TEMPORARY INVERT.
2.29
L=
12
0.40
m
40cm SHOTCRETE
TEMPORARY INVERT
VII.- DEMOLITION AND BENCH REINFORCEMENT.

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited MINOR SQUEEZING SPECIAL SECTION SUPPORT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National WITHOUT WATER CHARGE
Limited
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS SPECIAL SECTION
SCALE=1/200
SUPPORT FOR FAULT GOUGE WITH WATER CHARGE
SCALE=1/50
ADVANCE UNDER TRUNCATED CONE

DOUBLE FOREPOLE UMBRELLA FACE REINFORCEMENT WITH SHOTCRETE,
-Half conical angle: 5º FIBERGLASS DOWELS AND DRAINS
-Initial pipes spacing (face): 0.20x0.25m.
8 atmospheres.
R21.47
Ø int. = 72.9mm
Ø perf. = 101mm
EXTERNAL INJECTED
MICROPILES
0.40
I. - EXECUTION OF DOUBLE INJECTED FOREPOLE UMBRELLA. II. - EXCAVATION AND FACE REINFORCEMET.

AND BENCH (15cm)
I
+6.18
SHOTCRETE LINING
0.40m FINAL LINING

FEET RIBS
III. - IMPLEMENTATION OF TOP HEADING REINFORCEMENT. IV. - TOP HEADING REINFORCEMENT AND PUMPING WELLS SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) L = 9.00m
0.40
EXECUTION. MBL 280 kN. 2 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS
TOP HEADING MBL 280 kN. 2 BETWEEN STEEL RIBS
BENCH
GRANULAR FILLING L=
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE 9m
FILLING MATERIALS
3.00
IIB 3V 3V IIA
1H
IIIA 1H
2%
2% 0.00
1.79
IIIB L=
0.90
9m
V. - EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT, SIDE TRENCH (BY STAGES). VI. - EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT OF THE OTHER SIDE TRENCH. SHOTCRETE
TEMPORARY INVERT
CROSS SECTION EXCAVATION
I TOP HEADING.
II SIDEWALLS EXCAVATED
I
ALTERNATELY.
IIB EXCAVATION OF THE SECOND TRENCH
CANNOT BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE
SUPPORT IS PLACED IN THE FIRST ONE.
IIIA
CENTRAL DITCH.
IIIA
IIA IIB IIIB EXCAVATION OF INVERT SECTION
WITH IMMEDIATE CONCRETING.
IIIB

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited SPECIAL SECTION SUPPORT FAULT GOUGE
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National WITH WATER CHARGE
Limited
TUNNEL FACE SEALED WITH
HM/P/30 10cm THICK SHOTCRETE
TUNNEL FACE
1.00
1.00
Ø 22 FIBERGLASS ROCK BOLTS
L = 12m WITH OVERLAP OF 3.0m
140kN FRAME TENSILE STRENGTH
IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN
1.00x1.00m GRID
(3 glass strips and polyethylene frame) SELF-DRILLING PVC SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE
FOR FACE IMPROVEMENT OUTER DIAMETER RANGE: Ø 2".
L = 12m IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN 3.00x3.00m
WITH OVERLAP OF 3.00m.
TOP HEADING
BENCH
3.00
3.00
SUPPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENT
FIBERGLASS ROCK BOLTS AND SELF-DRILLING DRAINS
SCALE=1/50
NOTE:
CEMENT GROUT
-THE ROCK BOLTS MUST BE RIPPED BY MECHANICAL
POLYETHYLENE
FRAME MEANS OF EXCAVATION.
FIBERGLASS STRIP
FIBERGLASS ROCK BOLTS
22 TABLE OF MATERIALS
LEVEL
ELEMENT TYPE
CONTROL
85 SHOTCRETE GRADE M30 USUAL
FIBREGLASS
ROCK BOLTS Ø 22mm GLASS 3 STRIPS USUAL
(Tensile strength ≥ 140kN)
9
DRILL Ø 101mm 55
DETAIL FIBREGLASS ROCK BOLTS
(dimensions in mm)
SCALE=1/1

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of SUPPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENT
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSSING OF FAULT ZONE
Limited
Ø 22 FIBERGLASS ROCK BOLTS
L = 12m WITH OVERLAP OF 3.0m TUNNEL FACE SEALED WITH
1.40kN FRAME TENSILE STRENGTH HM/P/30 10cm THICK SHOTCRETE
IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN TUNNEL FACE SEALED WITH
1.50x1.50m GRID HM/P/30 10cm THICK SHOTCRETE
(3 glass strips and polyethylene frame)
FOR FACE IMPROVEMENT SELF-DRILLING PVC SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE
OUTER DIAMETER RANGE: Ø 2".
L = 12m WITH OVERLAP OF 3.00m.
TUNNEL FACE
TUNNEL FACE 1.50
1.50 4.40
3.50
1.50
3.00
1 1
4.50
2 2
1.25
TOP HEADING
TOP HEADING
BENCH
BENCH
BUTTRESS
SUPPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENT SUPPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENT

BUTTRESS AND FIBERGLASS ROCK BOLTS IN TUNNEL FACE OF TOP HEADING SELF-DRILLING DRAINAGE IN TUNNEL FACE OF TOP HEADING
SCALE=1/50 SCALE=1/50
TUNNEL FACE
TUNNEL FACE
1 1
2 2 DIRECTION OF EXCAVATION NOTE:
1 ROUND -ROCK BOLTS MUST BE RIPPED BY MECHANICAL
LENGTH
1.5
MEANS OF EXCAVATION.
SHOTCRETE LINING 1.00m
1.5
TABLE OF MATERIALS
BUTTRESS
CONTROL
BUTTRESS ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
4.50
FIBERGLASS
SHOTCRETE LINING
DIRECTION OF
Ø 22mm, 3 GLASS STRIPS

EXCAVATION
ROCK BOLTS USUAL

(Tensile strength ≥ 140kN)
PLAN
SCALE=1/50 LONGITUDINAL SECTION
SCALE=1/50

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of CROSS SECTION S-V
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT FOR FAULT ZONES
Limited
REMEDIAL MEASURES: TREATMENT STAGES IN CASE OF GROUND COLLAPSE
2.- IMMEDIATELY SPRAY A THIN LAYER OF SYNTHETIC FIBER REINFORCEMENT 3.- BUILD A FORMWORK IN THE LAST SUPPORTED SECTION AND BACKFILL
1.- GROUND COLLAPSE AFTER BLASTING
SHOTCRETE (PFRS) FROM SUPPORTED AND SAFE AREA. DON’T BY LOW DOSAGE CONCRETE. REMOVE AS LITTLE MUCK AS POSSIBLE
COMING FROM CROWN AND FACE.
REMOVE MUCK. IN THE PROCESS.
4.- FOREPOLING UMBRELLA / SPILLING GROUTED PIPES

Ø ext.= 88.9mm Ø int.= 72.9mm Ø perf.= 101mm, FULLY BONDED 5.- REMOVE THE FORMWORK AND MOVE ON WITH SMALLER ROUND OF ADVANCEMENT
UNDER UMBRELLA GROUTING. STEEL RIBS WITH BRACINGS WILL BE PLACED UNTIL
WITH CEMENT GROUT. THE LENGTH OF PIPES MUST BE
THE COLLAPSE ZONE IS CROSSED. FINALLY TWO SECTIONS FOR CONVERGENCE
SUFFICIENT TO TRAVERSE THE GROUTED CAVITY. MEASUREMENT MUST BE INSTALLED IN THIS AREA.
6.- USUAL ROUND OF ADVANCE AFTER CROSSING THE FOREPOLE UMBRELLA,

AND AFTER CHECKING THE STABILIZATION TENDENCY OF CONVERGENCE
MEASUREMENTS

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of REMEDIAL MEASURES: TREATMENT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National STAGES IN CASE OF GROUND COLLAPSE
Limited
OUT OF SCALE REVISION : V 1.1
REMEDIAL MEASURES: TREATMENT STAGES FOR CAVES
.
.00m
L= 9
TEMPORARY RIB
15° A 30º
1.- CAVE. 2.- IMMEDIATELY SPRAY A THIN LAYER OF SYNTHETIC FIBER REINFORCEMENT
3.- FOREPOLING UMBRELLA / SPILLING GROUTED PIPES
SHOTCRETE (PFRS) FROM SUPPORTED AND SAFE AREA. DON’T
REMOVE MUCK. Ø ext.= 88.9mm Ø int.= 72.9mm Ø perf.= 101mm, FULLY BONDED
WITH CEMENT GROUT OR SHOTCRETE. THE LENGTH OF PIPES MUST BE
SUFFICIENT TO TRAVERSE THE GROUTED CAVITY.
FORECAST 7.00 m
L=12.00m.
5.- SECOND FOREPOLING UMBRELLA / SPILLING GROUTED PIPES

4.- MOVE ON WITH SMALLER ROUND OF ADVANCEMENT UNDER UMBRELLA GROUTING.
Ø ext.= 88.9mm Ø int.= 72.9mm Ø perf.= 101mm, FULLY BONDED
STEEL RIBS WITH BRACINGS WILL BE PLACED UNTIL THE COLLAPSE ZONE IS CROSSED.
WITH CEMENT GROUT. THE LENGTH OF PIPES MUST BE
FINALLY TWO SECTIONS FOR CONVERGENCE MEASUREMENT MUST BE INSTALLED IN THIS AREA.
SUFFICIENT TO TRAVERSE THE GROUTED CAVITY.
FORECAST: 20 CAVES OF 200 CU.M ALONG THE MAIN TUNNEL

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of REMEDIAL MEASURES: TREATMENT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National STAGES OF CAVES
Limited
PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS FI = 25mm. L = 6m
SELF DRILLING BOLTS (IBO) IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x1.00m(IN-PLANE)
L = 12.00m MBL 280 kN. EVERY 2.00m
PRESTRESSED ROCK BOLTS FI = 25mm. L = 6m

IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x1.00m(IN-PLANE)
A´
6
0
R5.40
5.7
1.0
.86
.R
R5
.0 1
INT
T.
R6
EX
T
EN
YM
PA
E
L IN
2%
2% 0.00
SHOTCRETE LINING
CROSS SECTION
SCALE=1/100
FORECAST 100 m
SQUEEZING IMPROVEMENT
SCALE=1/100
FORECAST 200 m
EXPANSION-SHELL
CEMENT GROUT
SHOTCRETE LINING
SHOTCRETE BUTTRESS SMOOTHENING
CONFINEMENT SHOTCRETE (DS ≥ 30mm.)
RIBS FEET
0.10
0.40
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE GRANULAR FILLING

WELDED WIRE MESH OF 0.60x0.60m. AND
FILLING MATERIALS
Ø6/150/150mm.
0.60
SEVERE SQUEEZING IMPROVEMENT

SCALE=1/100 SECTION A-A
FORECAST 60 m SCALE=1/5
SQUEEZING IMPROVEMENT ROCK BURSTING IMPROVEMENT

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of SQUEEZING AND ROCK BURSTING IMPROVEMENT
Limited
CROSS SECTION SG-I
SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 6m RMR (Bieniawski) >45 I FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION
Q (Barton) >2

+9.40
1.50
0.30m FINAL LINING EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SG-I
4
R8 .2
+6.18
NOTE 1:
0
PAYMENT LINE (15cm)
.6
R8
FOR SMOOTHENING.
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.88m (IN-PLANE) OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
NOTE 2:
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING

1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.88m (IN-PLANE) TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
C NOTE 3:
C´
+0.15 SHOTCRETE LINING
1.16 -SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL
-0.15 0.00 GROUTED ROD BARS, PROVIDED THAT DESIGN STRENGTH
2% AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
1.00
1.00
45°
45°

8.
00 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.88m (IN-PLANE) UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 8m IN PATTERN 00
8. TIPICAL CROSS SECTION SG-I 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.88m (IN-PLANE)
LAY-BY CLEARANCE PROFILE

SCALE=1/50
0.15
SECTION C-C
SECTION A-A SCALE=1/5
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT
PLATE DETAIL SCALE=1/5 0.10 0.05
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m
TABLE OF MATERIALS
(dimensions in mm) SECTION B-B´ M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH

POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.88m (IN-PLANE) ELEMENT TYPE
CONTROL
LEVEL
(dimensions in mm) SEALING LAYER
CEMENT GROUT SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
B B´
SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
FRICTION BOLT
10
BOLTS USUAL
150
0.05
2 SN BOLTS Ø32
10°
0.15
0.10
CAST IN PLACE
150
FOOTING AND WALLS

M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
SEALING LAYER
STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
STRUCTURAL LAYER
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 20% IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION SG-I
Limited
CROSS SECTION SG-II
RMR (Bieniawski) >35
Q (Barton) >0.1
I TOP HEADING
5+20cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE II BENCH

FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) 150
9.0
A´
+9.40 94º
36.15 36.15
A I
150
ISHB-150 STEEL RIB SPACING OF 1.00 m THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE 5.4
0
2.0
R=
8.
0
.0
4
R=
4
R8 .2
+6.18 II
SHOTCRETE LINING
ISHB 150 SECTION
(dimensions in mm)
0.30m FINAL LINING
0
.6
R8
AND BENCH (15cm)
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SG-II
1.00
1.00
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS
45°
45°
L = 8m IN PATTERN TOP HEADING NOTE 1:

BENCH -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES
2.07
2.07
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 8m IN PATTERN THE TECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL OVERBREAK.
1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.07m (IN-PLANE) -INDICATED WATERPROOFING LAYER INCLUDES TOLERANCE
8. FOR SMOOTHENING.
00 00
3.00
8. C C´ -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
+0.15 NOTE 2:
-0.15 6.
00 0.00 00
6. 2% -MAX. TOP-HEADING EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 2.00m.
45°
TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
45°
1.50
1.50
Ø32 SN BOLTS
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
L = 6m IN PATTERN 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.07m (IN-PLANE)
1.00m (OUT-PLANE)
x 2.07m (IN-PLANE) NOTE 3:
8.
00
0 0 -SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL
8.
UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 8m IN PATTERN UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 8m IN PATTERN GROUTED ROD BARS, PROVIDED THAT DESIGN STRENGTH
1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.07m (IN-PLANE) 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.07m (IN-PLANE) AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
TIPICAL CROSS SECTION SG-II
LAY-BY CLEARANCE PROFILE
0.25
SCALE=1/50
0.20 M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH SECTION C-C
0.05
STRUCTURAL LAYER
SCALE=1/5
SECTION A-A
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT SCALE=1/5 POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH TABLE OF MATERIALS
PLATE DETAIL POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
SEALING LAYER
(dimensions in mm) SECTION B-B´ SEALING LAYER Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN ELEMENT TYPE
CONTROL
LEVEL
(dimensions in mm) B B´ SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 6m 1.00m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.07m (IN-PLANE)
SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
FRICTION BOLT
BOLTS ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN) USUAL
10
CEMENT GROUT
0.05
150 2 SN BOLTS Ø32

43-52
ISHB-150
BEAM RIBS USUAL
TE-31 Mn4 (s/Din21544)
0.25
0.20

150
45°
CAST IN PLACE
FOOTING AND WALLS
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 20% FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH ISHB-150 STEEL RIB
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) SPACING OF 1.00 m
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National CROSS SECTION SG-II
Limited
CROSS SECTION SGE-I TABLE OF MATERIALS
NOTE 1:
RMR (Bieniawski) >40 ELEMENT TYPE

CONTROL
LEVEL
Q (Barton) >1 SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
FOR SMOOTHENING.
SWELLEX OR SIMILAR -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
FRICTION BOLT OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
BOLTS USUAL
NOTE 2:
SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 3m SN BOLTS Ø32
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) -FULL-FACE SECTION OF EXCAVATION.
CL -MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 3.00m.
VERTICAL AXIS CAST IN PLACE
TUNNEL AXIS -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
FOOTING AND WALLS
A´ FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION NOTE 3:

FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) -SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL
0.30m FINAL LINING GROUTED ROD BARS, PROVIDED THAT DESIGN STRENGTH
5.00
A
.05
1 .5
R4
0
.2
T.
R4
5
IN
PAYMENT LINE (15cm)
R3.7
.
XT 5
E 4.3 FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION
ER I
T LIN SHOTCRETE LINING
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN EN
YM
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) PA
C C´
1.50
R5.41

0.00 I
45°
45°
1.50

00
6.
00
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SGE-I
6. UNDERPINNING Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 6m IN PATTERN
CROSS SECTION SGE-I WITHOUT INVERT

ESCAPE TUNNEL AND ENLARGED COMMUNICATION GALLERY
SCALE=1/50
0.15
SECTION C-C
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT
SCALE=1/5 0.10 0.05
PLATE DETAIL M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
(dimensions in mm) SECTION B-B´ POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
CEMENT GROUT
B B´
10
150
0.05
10°
43-52
0.15
0.10
150
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH

POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR STRUCTURAL LAYER SEALING LAYER
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SGE-I WITHOUT INVERT. ESCAPE
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National TUNNEL AND ENLARGED COMMUNICATION GALLERY
Limited
TABLE OF MATERIALS NOTE 1:
CONTROL
CROSS SECTION SGE-II ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
30< RMR (Bieniawski) <40 SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
FOR SMOOTHENING.
FRICTION BOLT -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
0.08 Q (Barton) <1 BOLTS ( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN) USUAL
SN BOLTS Ø32
NOTE 2:
BEAM RIBS LATTICE GIRDER USUAL
CAST IN PLACE TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
CL CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL
VERTICAL AXIS FOOTING AND WALLS -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
TUNNEL AXIS
EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST. NOTE 3:
A´ 5+15cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
WATERPROOFING SYSTEM FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
0.30m FINAL LINING 5.00
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE A
I TOP HEADING
5
4.0
AND BENCH (15cm)
00 BENCH
.R
II
2. I
.25
.40
INT
LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50m
5
R4
R4
R3.7
E
T.
IN
TL
EX
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN N
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.00m (IN-PLANE) Y ME
4.00
PA
1.00 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.00m (IN-PLANE)
TOP HEADING 7.00
10°
BENCH II
R5.41 C C´
1.50
SHOTCRETE LINING
0.00
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SGE-II

1.00
1.00
-0.94
45°
45°
LATTICE GIRDER DETAIL

(dimensions in mm)
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) TECHNICAL DATA
D1 D2 d B H G e
6. mm mm mm mm mm kg/m cm
0 0 00
6. 20 25 10 142 115 10.30 6.44
CROSS SECTION SGE-II WITH INVERT ARCH

D2
H
SCALE=1/50 d
e
D1
B
0.20
SECTION C-C
0.15 0.05 LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50 m
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) SCALE=1/5 SWELLEX TYPE BOLT Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN
STRUCTURAL LAYER
PLATE DETAIL SECTION B-B´
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH (dimensions in mm) (dimensions in mm) CEMENT GROUT
SEALING LAYER B´
B SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 3m
10
150 2
10°
43-52
0.05
0.20
150
0.15

SEALING LAYER
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10%
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
Transportation 25-07-16 TYPICAL SECTIONS EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SGE-II WITH INVERT ARCH. ESCAPE
Limited
CROSS SECTION SGE-III
RMR (Bieniawski) <30
Q (Barton) <0.08
NOTE 1:
TABLE OF MATERIALS
CONTROL -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES
ELEMENT TYPE THE TECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL OVERBREAK.
LEVEL
CL -INDICATED WATERPROOFING LAYER INCLUDES TOLERANCE
VERTICAL AXIS FOR SMOOTHENING.
TUNNEL AXIS -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
A´ 5+20cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL

WATERPROOFING SYSTEM FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) NOTE 2:
CAST IN PLACE
CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL -MAX. TOP-HEADING EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 2.00m.
FOOTING AND WALLS
0.30m FINAL LINING 5.00 FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE A EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
PAYMENT LINE IN TOP HEADING TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
5
4.0
AND BENCH (15cm)
.R
INT
0
.3
5
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE 5
R4
4.4
R3 .7
ER
T.
I N
EX
T L
EN
4.00
AYM
P 1.00
TOP HEADING 7.00
BENCH SHOTCRETE LINING

R5.41
1.50
0.00
I TOP HEADING
-0.94
I II BENCH
CROSS SECTION SGE-III WITH INVERT ARCH

II
SCALE=1/50
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SGE-III
SECTION A-A
SCALE=1/5

POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) (dimensions in mm)
SEALING LAYER STRUCTURAL LAYER
TECHNICAL DATA
D1 D2 d B H G e
20 25 10 142 115 10.30 6.44
0.05
0.20
0.25
D2
H
d
e
D1
B

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SGE-III WITH INVERT ARCH. ESCAPE
Limited
CROSS SECTION SGC-I

NOTE 1:

CL -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE

VERTICAL ROAD AXIS OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
NOTE 2:
A´
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE -MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 3.00m.

A
SHOTCRETE LINING NOTE 3:
FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) -SWELLEX BOLTS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY CONVENTIONAL
PAYMENT LINE (15cm) GROUTED ROD BARS, PROVIDED THAT DESIGN STRENGTH
0
5
R1.8
20
.0
2.
R2
R
0
T.
1.5
T.
EX
IN
5
2.3
ER
T LIN
EN
YM
PA
0.25m FINAL LINING

CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TABLE OF MATERIALS
R3.60 CONTROL
ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
0.00 BOLTS
SWELLEX OR SIMILAR
FRICTION BOLT USUAL
CAST IN PLACE
FOOTING AND WALLS
CROSS SECTION SGC-I WITH INVERT FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
COMMUNICATION GALLERY EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
SCALE=1/25
SECTION A-A FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION

SWELLEX TYPE BOLT I
SCALE=1/5
B B´
10
150
0.05
2
I
43-52
0.15
0.10
150

STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR STRUCTURAL LAYER
150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10% IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE)
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SGC-I

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SGC-I WITH INVERT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National COMUNICATION GALLERY
Limited

TYPICAL SECTIONS EXCAVATION DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
SG-I SG-II SGE-I SGE-II SGE-III SGC-I
THEORETICAL TOP HEADING 153.684 90.697 45.486 26.309 26.956 14.40

EXCAVATION
(m 3 /m)
BENCH - 89.136 - 23.279 23.562 -
EXCAVATION TOP HEADING 32.268 24.096 18.372 12.868 13.025 10.27 OF SUPPORT DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
PERIMETER
(m 2 /m) BENCH - 9.306 - 5.658 5.656 -
SEALING 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

LAYER
THICKNESS (cm)
SUPPORT 1ª LAYER 10.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 10.0
LINING 3
INVERTS (m /m) - - - - - -
SHOTCRETE
PAYMENT - 15.0 - 15.0 15.0 -
INNER CONCRETE LINING e
E
3
4.84 13.36 2.76 6.49 7.47 1.54 E SS SUR
TOTAL m /linear m
KN LO
IC +C
T H NT
+
TYPE SWELLEX SN SWELLEX SN SWELLEX SN SWELLEX SN - SWELLEX b Y ME
P A
OF
BOLTS 6.00m 6.00m 3.00m. 3.00m.
LENGTH / PATTERN 6.00m. 1.50 x1.88m 6.00m. 1.00x2.07m 3.00m. 1.5x1.5m 3.00m. 1.5 x 2.0m 3.00m. TYPE OF SUPPORT WITHOUT STEEL RIB
(m) 1.5x1.5m 1.0x2.0m 1.5x1.5m 1.5 x 2.0m - 1.50x1.50m
8.00m 8.00m 6.00m 6.00m NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
2 / 1.50m 4 / 1.00m 2 / 1.50m 2 / 1.50m
2.67 (6m.) 2.0 (6m.) 1.34 (3m.) 1.34 (3m.)

DENSITY 9.33 10 4.67 3.34 - 4.67
( BOLTS/linear m) 1.33 (8m.) 4.0 (8m.) 1.34 (6m.) 1.34 (6m.) e - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT LINE OF SHOTCRETE.
DIVISION -
ISHB-150
-
LATTICE LATTICE
-
b - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT OF INNER LINING.
/ 1.00m GIRDER GIRDER
(m)
/ 1.50m / 1.00m
LENGTH - 33.247 - 18.372 18.526 - EXCAVATION LINE WIDER THAN THEORETICAL

STEEL RIBS
BRACINGS - 20Ø25 - 12Ø25 12Ø25 - SECTION BY TYPE OF SUPPORT
TYPE - - - - - -
NUMBER / m
- - - - - -
PIPES
LENGTH - - - - - -
ARCH 13.697 13.697 5.195 5.195 5.195 2.15
3
(m /m)
PAYMENT 4.95 - 2.87 - - 1.66

3
(m /m)
INNER
CLOSURE - - - - - -
CONCRETE 3
(m /m)
LINING
FOOTING
3
(m /m)
2.444 3.934 1.892 1.892 1.892 -
e OF
+ P
INVERT INNER CONCRETE LINING
SLAB*
T H AY
3
- 6.429 - 2.002 2.002 *1.35
(m /m)
IC M
RE
KN EN
U
ES T
S
S
C LO
SG-SECTION: LAY-BY
b+
SGE- SECTION: ESCAPE TUNNEL, ACCESS TUNNEL AND MOTORABLE CONNECTION
SGC- SECTION: PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
NOT DRAWN TO SCALE

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National COMMUNICATION GALLERY - TUNNEL
Limited
CROSS SECTION SVT-I NOTE 1:
RMR (Bieniawski) >40 TABLE OF MATERIALS -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES
CONTROL
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE Q (Barton) >1 ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL

SWELLEX TYPE BOLTS L = 3m SWELLEX OR SIMILAR OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
IN PATTERN 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) FRICTION BOLT
( Minimum Breaking Load ≥200kN) NOTE 2:
BOLTS USUAL
PAYMENT LINE (0.15 m) SN BOLTS Ø32
A´ -FULL-FACE SECTION OF EXCAVATION.
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER SEE NOTE USUAL -MAX. FULL FACE EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH: 3.00m.
CAST IN PLACE
SHOTCRETE SUPPORT +8.25 CONCRETE IN M30 GRADE USUAL -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
FOOTING AND WALLS TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
+7.76
INNER LINE OF SUPPORT A FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
NOTE 3:
50
10
1. AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
.52
R4.
R4
7
.6 FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³)
T.
R4
IN
FINAL LINING CAST-IN-PLACE T . 2
EX 4.8
CONCRETE 0.30m. ER
IN
+4.52 TL
EN
YM I FULL-FACE SECTION OR EXCAVATION
PA
10°
10°
EXHAUSTED AIR 18.91 m2
1.50
1.50
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN I
1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.50m (IN-PLANE) 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 1.50m (IN-PLANE)
10°
10°
C C´
1.50
1.50
0.00
2%
1.00
45°
45°
1.00
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SVT-I

1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE) 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x1.50m (IN-PLANE)
CROSS SECTION SVT-I WITHOUT INVERT

0 6.
6 .0 VENTILATION TUNNEL 00
SCALE=1/50
0.15
SECTION C-C
SWELLEX TYPE BOLT
SCALE=1/5 0.10 0.05
CEMENT GROUT
B B´
10
150
0.05
10°
43-52
0.15
0.10
150

STEEL QUALITY S-275-JR STRUCTURAL LAYER SEALING LAYER
STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SVT-I WITHOUT INVERT
Limited
REVISION : V 1.1
CROSS SECTION SVT-II
25< RMR (Bieniawski) <40
0.1< Q (Barton) <1

A´ NOTE 1:
PAYMENT LINE (0.15 m)
TABLE OF MATERIALS
SHOTCRETE SUPPORT CONTROL
+8.25 ELEMENT TYPE
LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50m LEVEL
-FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE SHOTCRETE M30 GRADE USUAL
A OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
NOTE 2:
0.1
INNER LINE OF SUPPORT 5+15cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE
52
R4
CAST IN PLACE
00
4.
2.
.R
.72
R4
T
7 -MAX. BENCH EXCAVATION ROUND LENGTH .TWICE TO THREE FOOTING AND WALLS
IN
T. 4.8 TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
FINAL LINING CAST-IN-PLACE EX ER
+4.52 T LIN FIBERS AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH WHEN THE ENERGY ABSORPTION
CONCRETE 0.30m.
EN -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
YM EXCEEDS 750 JOULES IN THE PLATE TEST.
PA TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
NOTE 3:
10°
10°
TOP HEADING AND PULL-OUT TESTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.
2.00
2.00
BENCH
Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN EXHAUSTED AIR 18.91 m2 Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN
10°
10°
3.00
I TOP HEADING
C C´
2.00
2.00
II BENCH
(dimensions in mm)
0.00
TECHNICAL DATA
D1 D2 d B H G e
1.00
45°
45°
1.00
20 25 10 142 115 10.30 6.44

I

CROSS SECTION SVT-II WITH INVERT ARCH
D2
VENTILATION TUNNEL 6.
H
00 00 d
6.
e
SCALE=1/50
II
D1
B
EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SVT-II
SECTION A-A
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH 0.20
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) SCALE=1/5 SWELLEX TYPE BOLT SECTION C-C
STRUCTURAL LAYER SECTION B-B´ 0.15 0.05 LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50 m
PLATE DETAIL SCALE=1/5
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH (dimensions in mm) (dimensions in mm)
POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³) Ø32 SN BOLTS L = 3m IN PATTERN
SEALING LAYER 1.50m (OUT-PLANE) x 2.00m (IN-PLANE)
10
CEMENT GROUT
150 2
43-52
0.05
0.20
150
10°
0.15

150 MINIMUM ELONGATION 10% M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH
LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.50 m POLYPROPYLENE FIBER (6kg / m³)
SEALING LAYER

STRUCTURAL LAYER

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SVT-II WITH INVERT
Limited
REVISION : V 1.1
CROSS SECTION SVT-III
RMR (Bieniawski) <25
Q (Barton) <0.1
NOTE 1:
THEORETICAL EXCAVATION LINE A´ -PAYMENT LINE OF EXCAVATION DEFINES

PAYMENT LINE (0.15 m)
+8.25 -FILLING OF THE OVERBREAK WILL BE PAID WITH THE PRICE
SHOTCRETE SUPPORT OF m³ OF FINAL LINING.
A 5+20cm M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE

INNER LINE OF SUPPORT FIBER REINFORCED (6kg / m³) NOTE 2:
10
.52
R4.
77
R4
4. TIMES THE TOP-HEADING.
.R
T.
T 2
IN
EX 4.9 -THE EXCAVATION ROUND MAY BE REDUCED ACCORDING
ER PAYMENT LINE IN TOP HEADING
+4.52 L IN TO AUSCULTATION RESULTS AND SEEING.
FINAL LINING CAST-IN-PLACE T AND BENCH (15cm)
CONCRETE 0.30m. EN
YM
PA
TOP HEADING
BENCH
EXHAUSTED AIR 18.91 m2 TABLE OF MATERIALS
CONTROL
ELEMENT TYPE
LEVEL
3.00

0.00
CAST IN PLACE
FOOTING AND WALLS

CROSS SECTION SVT-III WITH INVERT ARCH

VENTILATION TUNNEL
SCALE=1/50
SECTION A-A
I TOP HEADING
SCALE=1/5
M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH M30 GRADE SHOTCRETE WITH (dimensions in mm) II BENCH
SEALING LAYER STRUCTURAL LAYER I
TECHNICAL DATA
D1 D2 d B H G e
20 25 10 142 115 10.30 6.44
0.05
II
0.20
0.25
D2
H
d
e
D1
B
LATTICE GIRDER SPACING OF 1.00 m EXCAVATION OF CROSS SECTION SVT-III

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited CROSS SECTION SVT-III WITH INVERT
Limited
REVISION : V 1.1

TYPICAL SECTIONS EXCAVATION DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
SVT-I SVT-II SVT-II
THEORETICAL TOP HEADING 76.751 42.023 42.843

EXCAVATION
(m 3 /m)
BENCH - 39.906 40.318
EXCAVATION TOP HEADING 24.392 16.306 16.464 OF SUPPORT DEFINED IN DRAWINGS
PERIMETER
(m 2 /m) BENCH - 8.242 8.242
SEALING 5.0 5.0 5.0

LAYER
THICKNESS (cm)
SUPPORT 1ª LAYER 10.0 15.0 20.0
LINING 3
INVERTS (m /m) - - -
SHOTCRETE
PAYMENT - 15.0 15.0

INNER CONCRETE LINING e
E
3
E SS SUR
TOTAL m /linear m 3.66 8.59 9.88
KN LO
IC +C
T H NT
+
TYPE SWELLEX SN SWELLEX SN b Y ME
- A
P
OF
3.00m. 3.00m.
BOLTS LENGTH / PATTERN
3.00m. 1.50x1.50m 3.00m. 1.50 x 2.00m TYPE OF SUPPORT WITHOUT STEEL RIB
1.50x1.50m 1.50 x 2.00m -
(m) NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
6.00m 6.00m
2 / 1.50m 2 / 1.50m
2.67 (3m.) 2.67 (3m.)

DENSITY 6.67 4.00 -
( BOLTS/linear m) 1.34 (6m.) 1.34 (6m.) e - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT LINE OF SHOTCRETE.
DIVISION -
LATTICE LATTICE b - THICKNESS OF THE PAYMENT OF INNER LINING.
GIRDER GIRDER
(m)
/ 1.50m / 1.00m
LENGTH - 24.391 24.548 EXCAVATION LINE WIDER THAN THEORETICAL

STEEL RIBS
BRACINGS - 16Ø25 16Ø25 SECTION BY TYPE OF SUPPORT
TYPE - - -
NUMBER / m
- - -
PIPES
LENGTH - - -
ARCH 10.304 10.304 10.304
3
(m /m)
PAYMENT 3.77 - -
3
(m /m)
INNER
CLOSURE - - -
CONCRETE 3
(m /m)
LINING
FOOTING
3
(m /m)
2.08 2.08 2.08
e OF
+ P
INVERT INNER CONCRETE LINING
SLAB*
T H AY
3
- 2.26 2.26
(m /m)
IC M
RE
KN EN
U
ES T
S
S
C LO
b+

NOT DRAWN TO SCALE

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
Limited
PRIMARY LINING
9 STEEL PIPES Ø 40mm WALL

THICKNESS 4.00mm. AND L=8.00m.

0
8 .0
9
R5 .4
8.00
30°
PRIMARY LINING
5°
3
TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE BEAM
.7
R5
LAY-BY
R4
25.00
.0 5
R3.7
5
MOTORABLE COMMUNICATION GALLERY
ESCAPE TUNNEL ENLARGEMENT

0.00
SECTION A-A
0.00 FOREPOLES FOR MOTORABLE COMMUNICATION GALLERY
SCALE=1/75
COMMUNICATION PEDESTRIAN GALLERY

PRIMARY LINING
CROSS SECTION FOREPOLE
SCALE=1/50
.84
R3.60
R3.
INT
PRIMARY LINING
6.00 6.00 MAIN TUNNEL
5°
5°
25.00
PEDESTRIAN COMMUNICATION GALLERY

1.00 ESCAPE TUNNEL ENLARGEMENT
2%
2% 0.00
SECTION B-B
FOREPOLES FOR PEDESTRIAN COMMUNICATION GALLERY
SCALE=1/75
250m. 250m. 250m.
PEDESTRIAN GALLERY
COMMUNICATION
ROAD AXIS ESCAPE TUNNEL
GALLERY
COMMUNICATION MOTORABLE GALLERY

CROSS SECTION FOREPOLE
SCALE=1/75
LAY BY MAIN LAY BY
TUNNEL 40.00m.
750m.
SCHEMATIC PLAN

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited FOREPOLING FOR CROSS SECTIONS
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National COMMUNICATION GALLERIES
Limited
(*) 0.35
0.30 0.05
BOLTS/TARGETS OF CONVERGENCE
STRAIN GAUGE
TOP HEADING
LATTICE GIRDER
15.00
BENCH
10.00
DETAIL OF PLACEMENT OF STRAIN GAUGE
NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
BOLTS/TARGETS OF CONVERGENCE DISTRIBUTION DETAIL
5.00
SHOTCRETE
SUPPORT
CONVERGENCE MEASURES
STRAIN GAUGE OF
VIBRATING STRING
ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME, MEASUREMENT SECTIONS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED,
MORTAR OF
IN PRINCIPLE, EACH 20m OR IN EACH FAILURE ZONE. EXACT LOCATION AND
REGULATION
FREQUENCY WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTION OF WORK ACCORDING TOTAL PRESSURE CELL
TO THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF THE GROUND TO BE EXCAVATED. IN VIBRATING STRING
RADIAL THRUST OF THE GROUND

PLACING THE SECTIONS AND TAKING MEASUREMENTS AS SOON AS POSIBLE, ON SHOTCRETE TO
B O CO
AFTER PLACING THE SUPPORT WHICH IS MANDATORY, NOT LATER THAN X NN
EC
TIO
24 HOURS OF TUNNEL EXCAVATION. NS
.76
R5.40
R5
THE TARGET MODEL MUST BE APPROVED BY THE TECNICAL TEAM.
.
INT
CONTROL BOREHOLE
NO CORE RECOVERY DETAIL OF PLACEMENT OF TOTAL PRESSURE CELLS
3.95 TEMPORARY SHOTCRETE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
SUPPORT FOR TOP HEADING
15.00 15.00
2.00
2.00
9.00
10.00 10.00
0.75
5.00 TOP HEADING 5.00
(*) BENCH
(*)
CONTROL BOREHOLES WITH
STEEL RIB BEAM ISHB-150 NO CORE RECOVERY
LEGEND (*) SIMPLE OR MULTIPLE POINTS ROD EXTENSOMETERS TO CHOOSE.
ROD EXTENSOMETER (ONE POINT MEASUREMENT)
TOTAL PRESSURE CELL

MAIN TUNNEL, LAY- BY, ESCAPE TUNNEL,
ACCESS TUNNEL AND MOTORABLE CONNECTION TUNNEL
2.00
2.00
STRAIN GAUGE (TANGENTIAL)
LOCATION OF SECTIONS
DEPENDING OF ROCK MASS QUALITY (S-V' ; S-VI') INSTRUMENTED CROSS SECTION FOR SEVERE SWELLING HAZARDS
SCALE=1/50

Z MORH TUNNEL
IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited INSTRUMENTED CROSS SECTION
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National SEVERE SWELLING HAZARDS
Limited
(*)
BOLTS/TARGETS OF CONVERGENCE
SHOTCRETE
SUPPORT
TOP HEADING
STRAIN GAUGE OF
VIBRATING STRING
MORTAR OF
REGULATION
TOTAL PRESSURE CELL
IN VIBRATING STRING
RADIAL THRUST OF THE GROUND

ON SHOTCRETE TO
B O CO
X NN
BENCH EC
TIO
9.00
NS
6.00
BOLTS/TARGETS OF CONVERGENCE DISTRIBUTION DETAIL
DETAIL OF PLACEMENT OF TOTAL PRESSURE CELLS
3.00
NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
CONVERGENCE MEASURES
ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME, MEASUREMENT SECTIONS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED,

IN PRINCIPLE, EACH 20m OR IN EACH FAILURE ZONE. EXACT LOCATION AND
FREQUENCY WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTION OF WORK ACCORDING
TO THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF THE GROUND TO BE EXCAVATED.
PLACING THE SECTIONS AND TAKING MEASUREMENTS AS SOON AS POSIBLE,

AFTER PLACING THE SUPPORT WHICH IS MANDATORY, NOT LATER THAN
(*)
.76
24 HOURS OF TUNNEL EXCAVATION.
R5.40
SIMPLE OR MULTIPLE POINTS ROD EXTENSOMETERS TO CHOOSE.
R5.
INT
THE TARGET MODEL MUST BE APPROVED BY THE TECNICAL TEAM.

NO CORE RECOVERY
3.95
9.00 9.00
2.00
2.00
9.00
6.00 6.00
0.75
3.00 TOP HEADING 3.00
(*) BENCH
(*)
NO CORE RECOVERY
LEGEND
ROD EXTENSOMETER (ONE POINT MEASUREMENT)
TOTAL PRESSURE CELL

2.00
2.00
MAIN TUNNEL, LAY- BY, ESCAPE TUNNEL,
ACCESS TUNNEL AND MOTORABLE CONNECTION TUNNEL
LOCATION OF SECTIONS
INTALLED WITH SUPPORT CHANGE (WORSE CATEGORY)
OR EVERY 500 METERS. MANDATORY SECTIONS CLOSE TO PORTALS
INSTRUMENTED CROSS SECTION WITHOUT SPECIAL HAZARDS
SCALE=1/50

Z MORH TUNNEL
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of INSTRUMENTED CROSS SECTION
MINISTRY OF ROAD Z-MORH-Tunnel including Approaches on National WITHOUT SPECIAL HAZARDS
Limited

Tunnel Report v. 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnel Report v. 1.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnel Report v. 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OF Z-MORH TUNNEL INCLUDING APPROACHES ON

July 2016 V. 1.1

2. GEOMETRIC DEFINITION ................................................................

3. DEFINITION OF SUPPORTS ................................................................

July 2016 V. 1.1

3.5.2. Suport SVT-II ................................................................................................

6. SECTION CLOSURE ...........................................................................................

July 2016 V. 1.1

7.3.4. Fractured Metabasites 180 m Overburden Ch 6+150................................ 243

10. LAY BYS AND VENTILATION CAVERN .......................................................

11. SPECIAL SECTIONS ...........................................................................................

July 2016 V. 1.1

11.2. Section Ch 8+488 (Support S-I)

12. SQUEEZING AND ROCK BURSTING .............................................................

13. WEDGE FALL RISK INSIDE THE TUNNEL ..................................................

14. REINFORCING ELEMENTS................................................................

15. WATERPROOF AND DRAINAGE ................................................................

16. FINAL LINING................................................................................................

17. PORTALS ................................................................................................

APPENDIX 1 HIDROLOGIC SURVEY

July 2016 V. 1.1

Responding to the invitation made by IL&FS, Transportation Networks Ltd., Grusamar

The project area of the approximately 6.5 km long Z-Morh

No. Description Lenght (m) Lane Configuration

Two Lane bidirectional

2 Egress Tunnel 6413 Parallel Egress Tunnel

Table 1.1.- Tunnel

July 2016 V. 1.1 1

The main characteristics of the tunnel are shown in Table 2.1.

Road Srinagar to Leh

Tunnel name Z Morh

Chainage (km) 4+636 to 11+049

Length 6413 m (mined tunnel)

Type Single tube, two lane, bi-directional

Clearance traffic envelope H=5.5 m, W=8.0 m, lateral sidewalk

Inner Radius R1=R3=6.87 m and R2=4.6 m

Lay-bys Every 750 m.

Pedestrian emergence exit Every 250 m.

Safety and fire niches on Every 125 m.

Ventilation Transverse with air ducts above the

Drainage Extrados longitudinal drain and slot

Maximum overburden Approx. 1080 m

Excavation method Drill and blasting (NATM)

Intermediate tunnel length 586.719 m

The diagram of the main

July 2016 V. 1.1 2

2.1. MAIN TUNNEL

The geometric characteristics of

July 2016 V. 1.1 3

The cross section contour of the tunnel

July 2016 V. 1.1 4

July 2016 V. 1.1 5

The ventilation duct

2.2. ESCAPE TUNNEL,, ENLARGED COMMUNICATION

The intermediate access tunnel is a transverse tunnel

July 2016 V. 1.1 6

This gallery will be made in cast-in-place