RSR Vickham

I 1 .1, I 1 I ■.
•
■■- '
AD-773 018
GROUND SUPPORT PREDICTION MODEL (RSR

CONCEPT)
George E. Wickham , et al
Jacobs Associates
San Francisco, California
January 1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
KJ
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
„.u^HMftlMl iniiMiii ii ii ■ '■ --■' -.^M-*---~.- . .

f'i-i'" immmi^^m^^mîiimM mi 11
■rapwMPMiBffpanM
1
'mamî^m^^
Unclassified
l»euwt| CI»tti(ic«lion ///J 77Jc/r
f Jacobs Associates
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA R&D
(Stivni, clmflllttlân »I till: korfr ol mbtlfmtl «ntf Indnlnt m*n»l*ll*> muH b* f,i»f* mhi, it,, „»fill rmmmi It »fllllMgil
~ ,.t*. MCÔHT tCCUHITT CLAMIPIC tTIOM
Unclassified
-t-
500 Sansome Street iH. cnou»
San Francisco. California 94111

J "t PQ» T Tl TL C
GROUND SUPPORT PREDICTION MODEL

'RSR CONCEPT)
I OC>CMl»TivC NOT(| ;T)fß* ol fptri t%4 Inctutlr, «■(••;
Final Report
» AKJ TMOmitt (Flt'l namt ■ IMU Inlilal, Imn n»m—)
George E. Wickham
Henry R. Tiedemann
« HCPOMT O»TC
>•. TOTAL NO. O* PACKS
January, 1974 15
271
•• CON'MAC T ON 6n*NT NO
«•I
Bureau of Mines H0220075

6 *»OJtC T NO
JA - TR 125
ARPA Order No. 1579 Amend. 3
Program Code 2F10 •*• 2,LMi" ""0"T NO, ,
• 35 •tf'« <"—»••• —tmr*. m»
10 Dlt TRIVUTION ITATIMCNT
Distribution of this document is unlimited
II. tPONSORINa MILITARY ACTIVITY
Advanced Research Project Agency

Department of Defense
A methodology is described for predicting rock tunnel support requirements in the

pre-construction period, based on geologic investigation, and construction factors such
as oize and shape of opening, direction of drive and method of excavation to be employed,
Development of this method, known as the Rock Structure Rating (RSR) concept, was
begun under U.S. Bureau of Mines Contract No. H0210038 and completed under Contract
No. H0220075. Work performed under the previous contract is reviewed. Based on a
case history study approach, it utilized data from 33 tunnel projects o develop a tenta-
tive prediction model. The Rock Structure Rating is a measure of the ability of a rock
mass to support itself around a given tunnel opening by assigning weighted ratings to
important geologic and construction factors affecting this ability. This combined rating
(RSR) is correlated to actual support systems, resulting in an empirical relationship
which can be used to project support predictions for future tunnels.
—p Development of a modified and expanded prediction model is described based on
o: additional research. Twenty case studies were added bringing the total to 53. Seven
X- mining operations were investigated to check the applicability of the prediction method
U .
to mining. Twenty-five prominent men and agencies involved in tunneling reviewed the
I-- *
method, completed questionnaires and offered comments and suggestions.
■
■ ■
The resulting revised prediction model was used to predict support requirements for
six on-going tunnel projects and verification of actjai supports used, made by field site
■
visits where possible. Results of these field investigations are given and analyzed
DD .^..1473 "■*LAC(* OO »ONM !«?•. I JAM «4

oa»OLiT( worn AMMT ut«.
«MICM )«
classified
3»rurt»v Clatilltcauon
•MUH tmum
II I !
Hnciiiijflad
WMnif B CM
ci>ttinc«How
LINK • LINN C
MOLI »T nOLt «T «Owt «T
Rock Structure Rating (RSR)

Rib Ratio (RR)
Tunnels (Rock)
Rapid Underground Excavation
Ground Support Systems
Geologic Predictions
Support Requirement Chartr.
\^ Unclassified
Sacurity CUiiUlcatlon
mm äi^tam **j-^—— ~- ■ «^«—

GROUND SUPPORT PRLDICTION MODLL
(RSR CONCEPT)
Prepared by
JACOBS ASSOCIATLS
500 Sansome Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Sponsored by Advanced Research Projects Agency

ARPA Order No. 1579, Ammendment No. 3
Program Code 2F10
Principal Investigators
George E. Wickham
Henry R. Tiedomann
Telephone: (415) 434-1822
This research was supported by the Advanced Research Projects

Agency of the Department of Defense and was monitored by the
Bureau of Mines under Contract No. H0220075
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those

of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily re -
presenting the official policies, either expressed or implied,of
the Advanced Research Projects Agency or the U. S.Government
Effective Date of Contract: June 7, 1972

Contract Expiration Date ; January 7, 1974
Amnount of Contract : SGO^GSS-s 00

r-DiSrmBüfioN si ■ :_[±
rovtd lot public wto««
,h
ammm a^^äJmata/ma —m^mmam i-u-i..- i—. tMa. m ^—^—-■

••-•■-•—"■"■"---•-—-—^-—w—-^-—^--»-—-—••»•».^^^■î^p»^^^^^^^»^^^BB^^^^^—-.w—»-»w^w^^BWB»^^pWp^^^W^WB^BB»^B
PREFACE
This report sets forth final results of continued research in the
development of 0 Ground Support Prediction Model (RSR Concept) for
practical usage to civil and/or mining applications. The study effort was
undertaken by Jacobs Associates in accordance with terms of Contract
No. H0220075 dated June 7, 1972 with the Bureau of Mines, Department of
the Interior. It is an extension of work previously performed under Contract
No. H021003Ü and is part of ARPA's Military Geophysics program directed
toward improvement of underground rapid excavation technology.
The Contracting Officer is Mr. Frank Pf viich, Bureau of Mines,
Denver Federal Center; the Project Technical Officer is Mr. Eugene H.
Skinner, Spokane Mining Research Laboratory. Mr. Skinner has taken an
active part in the research effort being part of the field study team, and has
contributed information contained in Appendexes D. & E. Historical tunnel
data and records used in developing the prediction model were provideti by
different government and private agencies. Many individuals of the construc-
tion industry provided suggestions, comments and criticisms of the RSR
concept which were most helpful in final evaluations. Both civil and mining
operators were very cooperative during the inspection and gathering of field
data pertaining to on-going projects. The help and assistance of these and
others who contributed to the research effort is fully appreciated.
I(V
mmmmmmmtmmmtt^ma^mama^^^^âtm *—**"-— -—-

mmmi
TABl.r. Or CONTENTS
Section Page
PREFACE 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS II
I.IST OF FIGURES V
INTRODUCTION VII
SUMMARY VIII
ROCK STRUCTURE RATING CONCEPT 1-1
1 Introduction -1
.2 Background -1
.3 Factors Affecting Ground Support -4
.4 Developing the RSR Concept -5
.5 Determination of Support Requirement -15
.6 Summary -18
CASE HISTORY STUDIES - CIVIL TUNNELS 2-1
2. 1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Scope 2-2
2.3 Source of Information 2-5
2.4 Applicability ol Rocorded Data 2-10
2.4.1 Physical Dimensions and Construction
Factors 2-10
2.4.2 Geologic Data 2-11
2.4.3 Actual Ground Supports 2-13
2.'J Comparison of Results of New Case Studies
to Original Prediction Model 2-16
II
ittm m^m MMaWHallMllttlUMMlM

mm^*î*'m\ ■ —*-^M«W
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Ccntinued)
Section Page
CASE HISTORIES - MINING OPERATIONS 3-1
3. I Introduction 3-1
3.2 Comparison of Mining and Tunneling Methods 3-2
3. 3 Mine Geology 3-8
3.4 Site Visits to Operating Mines 3-10
3.4.1 Henderson Haulage Tunnel 3-10
3.4.2 Amax Henderson Mine 3-11
3.4.3 Lucky Friday Mine 3-13
3.4.4 Crescent Mine 3-16
3.4.5 Bunker Hill Mine 3-18
3.4.6 Star Mine 3-19
3.4.7 Caladay Mine Development 3-20
3.4.8 Pine Creek Mine 3-23
3.5 Correlation of Mining Operation Support 3-24
INDUSTRY EVALUATION OF RSR CONCEPT 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1

4. 2 Method of Approach 4-2
4.3 Industry Response 4-10
4.4 Evaluation of Industry Response 4-16
4.5 Industry Acceptance of Prediction Model 4-25
GROUND SUPPORT PREDICTION MODEL 5-1
5. 1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Model Format & Concept 5-2
5.3 Rib Ratio 5-7
5.4 Case History Data 5-7
5.5 Empirical Relationship RSR - Rock Loads 5-19
5.6 Ground Support Requirements 5-22
5.7 Use of the Prediction Model 5-34
III
Hi KM* Man ka^Mi uafcfta^M* ■: •''

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Pagr
TIELD VERIFICATION EXPERIMENTS 6-1
b,l Introduction 6-1

G.2 Field Experiment Projects 6-2
6.3 Implementation of Prediction Model 6-7
6.4 Evaluation of Field Tests 6-15
6.5 Conclusions 6-21
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1
7.1 Conclusions 7-1

7.2 Recommendations 7-3
Refcroncos
APPENDIXES
A - Industry Comments RSR Concept A-l

B - New Support Concepts B-l
C- Use of Prediction Model-Hypothetical Tunnel C-l
D- Rock Classification D-l
E - Remote Sensing E-l
IV
mmmmam
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Original RSR Parameters 1-8
1.2 Original Correlation of RSR and RR 1-14
1.3 Support Requirement Chart 1-18
2.1 Recording Format - Case History Data 2-3
2.2 Case History Study Projects 2-7
2.3 Photo - Excavation and Support of Flathead Tunnel 2-19
3.1 Basic Ore Mining Methods 3-4
3.2 Mine Drift Development 3-7
3.3 Photo - Typical Steel Rib Support in
Henderson Tunnel 3-12
3.4 Photo - Henderson Mine - Heavy Rib
Support at Vasquez Fault 3-12
3.5 Photo - Henderson Mine - Typical Rock
Bolt Reinforced Drift Section 3-14
3,G Photo - Henderson Mine - Shotcrete
Support in Sump Drift 3-14
3.7 Photo - Lucky Friday Mine - Typical Rock
Bolt and Steel Mat Supported Drift 3-17
3.8 Photo - Star Mine - Untypical Drift - Driven
bv Tunnel Boring Machine 3-17
3.9 Photo - Star Mine - Example of Side Squeeze
of Rock 3-21
3.10 Photo - Star Mine - Example of Effect of
Rock Burst 3-21
3.11 Photo - Star Mine - Underground Hoist Room
Supported by Shotcrete 3-22
3.12 Plot of Mine Drift RSR and Supports on original
RSR-RR curve 3-26
5.1 Rock Structure Rating - Parameters A, B, and C 5-3
5.2 Typical Rib Sizes for Datum Condition 5-9
5 3 Rock Structure Rating and Rib Ratios of
Case Study Tunnels 5-11
5.4 Correlation Curve of RSR and RR 5-17
5.5 Correlation of Rock Structure Rating to Rock
Load and Tunnel Diameter 5-23
5.6 Rib Spacing Based on RSR and Tunnel Diameter 5-25
5.7 Support Requirement Charts 5-29
. *«v
»M-,\U kmi^MmU*tlU*tm^*^^,^^tkt*ii*»nm*,\i, ■
"W^w—•—
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
riguro Page
G.l Comparison Tables of Predicted and Actual

Supports for Field Case Studies 6-9
6.2 Comparison of Predicted and Actual % of
Tunnels Supported for Field Case Studies 6-16
6.3 Correlation of Predicted RSR and Actual PR for
Field Case Studies 6-18
VI
Ml gOMft mm
INTRODUCTION
The need for ground support research in rapid underground excavation
has been well identified in recent years. Two of the major problem areas
are: 1) to find means of predicting rock loads in advance of actual construc-
tion; and 2) to develop methodology for determining safe, efficient, and
economical ground support design practices.
Noting these needs, the Bureau of Mines, acting as agent for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency, has undertaken contract research efforts
relating to the problem. One such study - "Research in Ground Support and
Us Lvaluation for Coordination with System Analysis in Rapid excavation"
(1)* developed and proposes a methodology for predicting subsurface conditions
based on pre-construction geologic data and correlating such predictions
with appropriate ground support systems. The overall methodology developed
is the Rock Structure Rating (RSR) concept. The purpose of the presen* research
is to extend this prior work to areas of limited data; to evaluate industry
acceptance of the RSR techniques, to undertake field implementation and to
assemble findings and data into final format emphasizing its usage. In add-
ition, the appendixes of the report contain brief comments and review of new
concepts of ground support, rock and support classification methods and
remote sensing devices all of which are relevant to the general area of
predicting ground support for future tunnels.
* refers to reference at end of report.
VII
■ 111——11 II J——ft—Mil
■ ■ ' ■ ■'" ..-■II ' ■ - ■ ■• I I —"—^Wll
SUMMARY
The difference between a successful and unsuccessful tunneling
operation can usually be traced to some form of ' misinterpretation" of sub-
surface conditions during the pre-construction period. Although present
tunnel site investigations normally provide adequate localized geological
information, in many instances projections to tunnel grade and the resulting
influence on suppf.rt requirements, are dependent on the individual making
the projection. This is due partly to differences in discipline oriented
methods of evaluating and analyzing available data; lack of an accepted
common method of correlating past tunneling experiences with conditions of
on-going or future projects and lastly, the ever present legal conflict of
responsibility when encountered sub-surface conditions are not the same as
anticipated.
A technique or procedure which would provide a reliable method of
predicting and projecting support needs for the rock structure to be penetrated
would be of great benefit to the tunneling industry. Barring the unlikely
event of an early breakthrough in geophysical techniques; any improvement of
the 'art' of predicting sub-surface conditions must rely heavily on better
utilization and correlation of past tunneling experiences with data and infor-
mation available from present technologies of tunneling, geology, and rock
mechanics.
The ground support prediction model described in this report presents
a solution to this problem. It is based on an empirical relationship between
VIII
***'^—''^—*•-—*—-**"t—~--—— - -—^—^~— -^^tmm-mmm ■ . —_^^._... _,- .

actual ground support installations and prebid geological information as
determined from a study and review of 53 tunnel projects. The model considers
and incorporates the experience, judgment, and opinions of qualified indi-
viduals involved in all aspects of underground construction. The format of
the RSR model ia presented in terms commonly used in the tunneling industry,
is fairly simple to use, and is capable of "up-dating" or modification as may
be dictated by continued use or inclusion of more exacting data which might
become available.
In essence the RSR method provides a common method for evaluating
and rating, on a numerical scale, the competency or physical quality of a
rock structure with respect to its need for structural support. This is accomp-
lished by use of three weighted parameters, each of which considers the
relative effect on the support requirement as occasioned by various combina-
tions of geologic and construction factors. Quantitative and qualitative
appraisals of several factors; such as rock type, strike and dip, joint pattern
and direction of drive can normally be made on the basis of information
available in the pre-construction period. The weighted value assigned to
each parameter is determined by considering the appropriate limits of measure
and possible occurence of respective factors as depicted on the model format.
A Rock Structure Rating (RSR) is obtained as the sum of values determined for
each of the three parameters. It is a relative measure of the rock structures
need for support irrespective 01 tunnel size, and provides a means of correla-
ting geological information with actual or predicted support requirements.
Empirical relationships between determined RSR values, rock loads.
IX
uaMMB -— _u
tunnel si/.o and stocl rib, rock bolt, and shotcroU- su[ port were developed
from case history data and various theoretical and analytical methods of
ground support determination. Support requirement charts are presented herein
which delineate appropriate support systems required for various si/.ed tunnels
driven through different ranges (different RSR values) in rock structures. They
do not include or apply to soft ground or squeezing ground conditions.
The overall concept of the ground support prediction model was
critically reviewed by 25 individuals of the tunnel industry. Suggestions,
criticisms, comments, changes and modifications have been incorporated in
the RSR as deemed appropriate. The general consensus was 1) a ground support
prediction model is needed, 2) empirical correlation of geology and ground
support is a reasonable approach, 3) the proposed model considers and
evaluates the most important factors involved in determination of ground
support, 4) the model should be expanded to include a greater variety of
tunneling situations, 5) dimensional rather than descriptive terminology
should be used to define geologic factors, and 6) provides a common means
of comparing, checking and correlating encountered conditions with predictions
and/or results obtained by use of other techniques.
It would be impossible to consider and treat separately all situations
and respective requirements as expressed by various disciplines involved in
tunnel construction. Consequently the prediction model is structured so as
to present a reasonable compromise between theory, actual practice and other
presently accepted standards or criterion. It is not intended to be an exact
measure of a particular support member at a specific location but rather to make1
UMMMdIMHB
realistic appraisals of overall support requirements for future tunnels.
The validity or reliability of the mouel was, and is belny, tested by
field application to several on-going projects. Results to date, although
not conclusive, show a reasonable correlation between predicted support
requirements and actual installations. Practical usage to either mining or
civil applications depends to a large extent on the degree of confidence
developed through continued use.
The attached appendixes include: A - Individual comments pertaini ig
to the RSR evaluation. B - Descriptions and evaluation of newly developed
tunnel support methods and innovative support methods proposed in connec-
ticn with these contracts. C - An example of RSR concept application to a
hypothetical tunnel situation. D - A discussion of rock classification systems,
E - A discussion of remote sensing systems as applied to geologic investiga-
tions.
ARPA RECOMMENDATIONS
Achieving the defined goals of ARPA related to underground rapid
excavation required the development of (1) a more reliable method of predict-
ing ground support requirements, and (2) an adequate ground support system
which can be installed with little or no reduction in the anticipated heading
advance rates of unsupported tunnels. The Rock Structure Rating (RSR) and
the Rib Ratio (RR) procedures, and the ground support concepts developed in
this contract provide means for achieving the goals of safe, efficient, and
economical ground support systems suitable for the needs of the Department
of Defense (DoD) military oriented programs as well as having civil and mining
application.
XI
am mm ^^^^mammmam
SECTION 1
ROCK STRUCTURE RATING CONCEPT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
An objective of the present research effort was to extend, verify,
and modify the ground support prediction model previously developed
under Contract No. HO 210038 (1). This section of the report presents •
general review of the methodology used in developing the initial model
which is referred to as the Rock Structure Rating (RSR) concept. Appropriate
revisions and modifications determined from the present research effon are
discussed in Sections 2, 3 and 4. The finalized prediction model including
appropriate derivations is presented in Section 5.
1.2 BACKGROUND
In most cases the inclusion of the ground support subsystem in the
overall tunneling process has a very adverse effect on daily advance rates
that could otherwise be achieved in driving an unsupported tunnel. This is
especially true when using a boring machine or other innovative method of
excavation. Delays are due largely to the inability of knowing in advance
the need for or type of ground support which may be required.
Advancing a heading at 200 feet or more per day, aJ'ows little time
for making ground support determinations on the basis of in situ test data.
The use of long horizontal probe holes ahead of the face give indications of
potential major problems more than suggesting support requirements. These
1-1
.—^^»^___—^_^_^ „— .,_—
and other limitations of present techniques point out the necr>sslty for de-
veloping some method by whlc^ an adequate support system and associated
method of Installation can be determined in the pre-constructlon period and
realistically projected along the tunnel line. Within limits of present-day
technology, these determinations must be based on predictions of subsur-
face conditions and subsequent evaluation of the relative effect of all perti-
nent geologic and construction factors on the ground support requirement.
Any prediction method is essentially an 'art' which in the case of
ground support, involves the collective consideration of personal experi-
ences, judgements and observations as well as r:oults, findings, and con-
clusions derived from the sciences of geology and rock mechanics. Present
Improvement of the 'art1 depends to a largo extent on better utilization and
correlation of historical tunneling data with theoretical design and practical
experience of many years of tunnel construe tion. This process is compli-
cated by: 1) discroponcles In terminology and respective meaning as used
by different disciplines to describe or define pertinent factors and their re-
sulting effect on support requirements; and 2) the fact that no two tunneling
situations are Identical with respect to either geological conditions or con-
struction and contractual requirements.
Any attempt to critically analyze and evaluate all possible combina-
tions of factors Inherent to the prediction of irornd support would be virtual-
ly Impossible and would not be warranted when viewed with respect to the
overall tunneling operation. However, It is desirable that some form of a
1-2
•MMMMm *--^— - -
prediction method be developed which would provide realistic solutions to
be used in the planning and construction of future tunneis; be capable of
common evaluation by various disciplines and alleviate as much as possible
the perpetual controversies arising from 'changed conditions'.
There has probably been numerous occasions where similar solutions
have been reached, even though there may have been significant deferences
in methods of analysis and approach to the problem. Seldom, however, are
such determinations, reasoning or conclusions adaptable to comparison or
evaluation with respect to each other or to future projects. In many instan-
ces it would be difficult to subsequently re-evaluate a specific project for
reasons why the initial support prediction had or had not been correct.
The HSR prediction model provides a standard approach with the po
tentlal for uniform solution to the problem. It Is not Intended to technically
define a particular structural support member for a specific tunnel location,
but rather to make an evaluation of a support system which would afford a
near optimum solution to the tunneling process. It is an effort to bridge the
gap between a highly theoretical analysis and the more practical aspects of
the tunnel constructors. Although no prediction model could be all inclusive
for every possible situation, the RSR concept gives a fairly straightforward
common basis for evaluation and correlating major geologic and construction
factors which affect support requirements for most rock tunnels. In a general
way, it could be compared to procedures used to define or rate many other
engineering materials, such as timber, wherein each board is graded with
1-3
_1-_——«a«
respect to numerical occurrence and limits of measure (size of knots, etc.)
of various defects which are present. The RSR method Is essentially an
empirical approach to the problem, based on historical data; review and
evaluation of findings and conclusions presented in published papers per-
taining to geology, rock mechanics and theories of support determinations,
and consideration of the practical aspects of tunnel construction. It can be
modified as may be dictated by field testing, continued research or critical
review by the tunnel construction industry. The reader xs referred to Refer-
ences 1 and 2 for additional detail regarding the RSR concept.
1 3
- FACTORS AFFECTING GROUND SUPPORT
The need for ground support depends on the physical competency of
the rock structure or its ability to support itself when penetrated by the tun-
neling operation. Approximation of this need can be made by considering
various geologic and construction factors which in one way or other affect
the quality or condition of the exposed structure. The RSR concept groups
pertinent factors into three basic parameters, each of which is subsequently
evaluated with re. ect to their individual or combined relative effect on the
support requirement. Geologic factors include: 1) rock types, 2) joint
patterns, 3) dip and strike, 4) discontinuities, 5) faults,shears and
folds, 6) ground water, 7) rock material properties and 8) weathering
or alteration. Construction factors relate to: 1) size of openings, 2) di-
rection of drive and 3) method of excavation.
1-4
MMMâxM
m^^^^^^^^^^m
Although it is apparent that comments could be made as to whether
or not the above factors are all inclusive; reflect most important considera-
tions; or are synonymous or ambiguous in meaning, they do relate to those
conditions commonly considered in determining support requirements and
are usually definable to some degree from information provided in the pre-
construction period.
Geologic factors can be considered individually withir -^ range of
possible occurrence and collectively with respect to their relative effect
on the rock structure. For instance, a rock may be described in terms of
hardness; such as Mobs' scale or other analogies, and also in terms of
various joint or fracture patterns. An overall evaluation must consider both
properties or conditions and the relative mix of each. It is aibo necessary
to consider the various geologic factors with respect to size of opening,
direction of drive and method of excavation. Each combination of geologic
and construction factors requires that different evaluations be made in deter-
mining the need for ground support. An appraisal of the above factors with
respect to the RSR concept is given in Reference 1.
1.4 DEVELOPING THE RSR CONCEPT
O e or more predictions cf ground support requirements are made for
every tunnel that Is constructed. They are usually based on an Individual's
personal evaluation of available geologic and construction data which would
affect the tunneling process and generally Include Information obtained from
site and core Inspections, review of geology reports and past tunnel'ng
1-5
MM ■•-*" —
wmm!mwmmmmm^mrmmm^^m\ii iu IIBILIJI,
experience. Although considered factors ar.d analyses may differ, most
individuals probably use similar methods of evaluation. Tha RSR concept
attempts to put this cjenoral thought process for evaluating rock structure
into a format which could be commonly used and understood by all involved
in tunnel construction. It was apparent that all requirements expressed by
different disciplines could not be treated separately, consequently, various
generalizations and compromises were made, ail in keeping with the goal of
reaching realistic solutions. Consideration was made of the following:
1) Typical geologic information available in the pre-construction
period.
2) Types of geological investigations used and reliability of
developed data.
3) Most important geologic factors to be considered with respect to
their effect on the physical condition of the rock structure.
4) Methods of measuring the qualitative and quantitative properties
of each factor.
5) Relative effect on ground support requirements.
6) Development of a general method or procedure of rating the rock
structure.
Since the direction of drive with respect to the strike and dip of the
formation affects the apparent quality of the rock structure, this factor Is
also Included in the RSR concept. The physical effect on support require-
ments due to size of opening and method of excavation are treated separately,
1-6
■faMMMMk^
...u. ...... .■.»..I iiinwum»... . i ■■«■IIHI ■
A basic format was established which listed all factors and limits
of measure for both quantitative and qualitative properties. A weighted
numerical value was assigned, which reflected the relative effect of the
factor on the overall support requirement, the rock structure rating being
the sum of weighted values determined for the applicable factors. The high-
er numbers indicating 'good' ground conditions, wherein little or no support
would be required, the lower numbers indicating various degrees of heavier
suppc.t. The initially assigned weighted values were based on evaluations
of actual tunneling situations similar to those envisioned for the prediction
model. Although there was a tendency to include all factors and combina-
tions thereof, it was realized that the detailed information needed for such
an approach would rarely be available in the pre-construction period. Also,
inherent unknowns in any prediction of subsurface conditions are such that
attempts to specifically define all factors would not be warranted. Conse-
quently, the original concepts were revised and condensed into three basic
parameters as shown on Figure 1.1. The parameters Include most of the
above mentioned factors and indicate the combined relative effect on ground
support requirements as determined for various combinations and conditions.
They also reflect the interdependency of different factors in the overall eval-
uation of the rock structure.
Parameter A is a general appraisal of rock structure through which
the »unnel is to be driven. Geological Information needed to define the
limits of measure and describe the stiucture is available in the pre-construc-
1-7
—i—— i —'
■■pP(P^»^»W»»"WPW^W»"W"»»fPflW
1 I '"«^11
OEWtML A»C* GDOLOdf
urOIOGIGAL STUUCTORt
MM
HOC« TYFI ill .HTU MODauTci.r INTCNSElv
TAUITCD FAULTtD TAULtED
MASSIVE o« raioni o» rouDr.D 0« POLDCn
IGNDOUS 10 ■ 11 10
3CDIM tNTA«Y 1« 10 II 1
MCrkMOVHIC ■ 13 M •
jecs_fT«y cry «i Mima.

JOINT rATTUm
WKBBt Qf Pmvi
smret J. TO AXIS STSIHI U TO AXU
AVERAGE anccnoN or D«vt DIHtCTION Of DW\t

IOINT SFACING
rtcr tOTH wn« DIP AGAIN« DIP •OTH
Dir 01 MOMINIWT lOli.lS DIP OP PPOMINENT IOINT9
njiT DIPPING VimCAL PIPPING VtllTICAL PLAT DIPPING VEPTlCAl
17 20 It II 14 IS 12
(CLOSCir IO INT EDI
.5-1.0
MODOUTtLT II 10 10 24 24 24 20
lOINTtD)
1.0-1.0
IMODDUTC 14 H 1» 10 12 10 21
TO iLocrr)
1.0-< 0
ttiootr TO «1 «4 It II 40 J> 10
MASSIV! )
x.o <•
(MAUIVt) JO 41 41 41 41 11
"•< 0. - 10°
Olpfla« 10° - 10°
v.rMc.l 10° - lO0
MflLmamimmM
«OUWD WAT»
IOWT oowcmoii
«DM or rAMMmaf ••■

ANTICIPATtO
WATOI
INPLOW
20-45
1 41-10
(tpn/lOOV) JOWT OONDmON 1
1 1 I 1 1 1
NONI 1* II 10 10 II 14
fUOHT
(<2O09p.) IP It » 1« 11 10
MODMATf
no«-IIM«Ml II * I II 11 1
MtAVT
OlOMm^ I i 1 14 10 1
IOIIR Cmttumn
1 • ri«M « O
2 - nit« ip wmttmt
m\r\W*ulmm4 m 0»M
I - lnMilp
Figure 1.1
1-8
"—•■—'- -
—^mmm^*^^**" '■■ ■' " " .— •- , i.
tlon period. It is usually presented in terms compatible to all disciplines,
such as "massive granite" or "intensely folded serpentine". The assigned
weighted value for Parameter A in the first instance would be 30; in the
second, 9.
Parameter B relates the joint pattern (strike, dip and joint spacing)
and the direction of drive. Most surface geology surveys or maps give an
indication of the strike and dip of various formations. Therefore, such data
is ordinarily available. Direction of drive is determined from project plan-
ning. There are usually several sources of information that can bo used in
determining the anticipated average joint spacing of the rock structure.
Geological terms such as "closely jointed" or "blorky", driller's logs,
core analysis or RQD indices are examples. Geology reports usually give
some description of anticipated joint spacing. Defining this factor is diffi-
cult but it is felt that reasonable approximations can be made by considering
all available information. For purposes of the RSR method uf evaluation,
five numerical limits of measure were chosen for joint spacing. The respec-
tive bracketed words in the left hand column of Parameter R (Figure 1.1) are
used to show intended correlation or equivalency between the given numeri-
cal limits and common geological terminology. The value to be assigned to
Parameter B can be obtained from the table by considering appropriate limits
of measure determined for joint spacing with respect to applicable strike and
dip of the formation and direction of drive.
1-9
kMMBMMMMMMaHMnMMBflHMMMMMta-âflMM "■' '

1
! «I "W^^P^W^WW^P
Parameter C takes into consideration the following: 1) the overall
quality of the rock structure as indicated by the numerical surr, c f values
assigned to Parameters A and B; 2) the condition of joint surfaces, and
3) the anticipated amount of water Inflow. Establishing limits of measure
or estimating possible occurrence of the last two factors is normally left
to the discretion of the contractor. Data pertaining to pump tests, local
wells, ground water levels, surface hydrology, topography and rainfall
should be c nsliered In conjunction with the anticipated geological formation
III estimating .^round water Inflows. Condition of joint surfaces would be
appraised from surface or historical geology, driller's log or inspection of
core samples. The RSR method allows for three types or conditions of
joint surfaces which are described as: 1; tight or cemented, 2) slightly
weathered and 3) severely weathered or opened; and four quantitative esti-
mates of water Inflow. The value assigned to Parameter C Is obtained from
the table by using the limits of measure determined for the different factors.
The RSR value of the particular geological section under considera-
tion Is the numerical sum of Parameters A, B and C. These values, which
range from 25 to 100, reflect the quality or competency of the rock structure
regardless of size of tunnel opening or method uf excavation. Each distinct
formation penetrated by the tunnel would require separate analysis with
respect to RSR values.
To verify the appropriateness of the concept, a study was made of
previous tunnel construction records to see '. reasonable evaluation of the
1-10
-MMMflMBM
i-^ iiHiii«! iiRniîHaM i^BiîMHmwiiijiii«i^^p^mwww«^^Mn«n«iiaraMH^nâ^p^M9ninKHmHHiiJiiiiiHii ^nHDi)ip««np|H
quality of the rock structure could be made. Some 33 tunnels were studied,
each being divided, as appropriate, into separate geologic sections. This
provided approximately 100 sample sections. In most cases, RSR evaluations
wtsre made on the basis of information which had been provided in the pre-
construction period, in othors, additional as-built data was used. Results
indicated that in general, it would be possible to make a resonable apprais-
al of the quality of the rock structure by use of the RSR concept in conjunc-
tion with information normally provided in the pre-bid period. The next step
was to develop some relation between the RSR values and support require-
ments .
In order to make this RSR-support correlation it was necessary to
develop a standard ddtum by which different supports could be compared on
a common basis. Since the majority of case history tunnels were supported
with steel ribs it was decided to use a measure that would relate actual
support installation to some thecetical support (rib size and spacing) which
could be similarly determined for each study tunnel. This measure, desig-
nated as the Rib Ratio (RR), was developed from Terzaghi's formula for deter-
mining roof loads In loose sand below the water table (datum condition).
See paragraph 5.3 for derivation of rib ratio concept. Using tables provided
In "Rock Tunnellnq with Steel Supports" (3), the theoretical support spacing
required for the same size rib as used in a given study tunnel section was
determined for the datum condition. Rib Ratio Is then obtained by dividing
this theoretical spacing by the actual spacing and multiplying the answer by
1-11
^^H^ppwBB^^MP—^ -- fwm .mmwmmmmimvmm^mmmm9!m'mm\tm < <î,-* ^^-.P.«>U***«V-WII i. i- ,-.,^KMH._. ............. VH. „..., .^>*«.>W.M .. IIIJVWIIHM i I.P.IP.JI ■ ■ WI-.KI.^ »".. .11 ■• n w 1.1 1 , . 1 « in
1Ü0. For instance, if the theoretical spacing of a G WF 25 rlt was deter-
mine J to be 2 feet, for the datum condition, and the actual spacing of the
same rib used in the study sample was 5 feet, the RR would then be 40. Or
expressed otherwise, the sample tunnel used only 40% of the support re-
quired for the datum condition. Rib ratios for tunnels with widely spaced
support would be low, and zero where no support was used.
It is apparent that different size tunnels, although having the same
calculated RR, would require different weight or size of ribs for equivalent
support. The rib ratio can be used as a common basis for correlating
RSR determinations with actual or required support installations.
Charts were prepared which showed the relation between determined
RSR values and corresponding rib ratios. RSR values were plotted on the
vertical axis, respective rib ratios on the horizontal. Each chart was eval-
uated by determining the number of sample points falling within or near an
envelope of curves developed for the average graph of all plotted points.
Since rib ratios remain constant, it was possible to see what effect varia-
tions in weighted values assigned to different geologic factors or parameters
used in RSR evaluations would have on the developed curve. Figure 1.2
shows the resultant graph plotted with respect to RSR and RR values deter-
mined for approximately 80 sample tunnel sections. The relatively narrow
width of the band of these sample points, comprising the 90% envelope,
indicates a reasonable degree of correlation. Assuming that the RSR evalua-
tion did In fact reflect actual quality of the rock structure, It can be conclud-
1-12
M«rWMHMIIII M——I -■'- - ■• - ■■•- " - ■

mmmmmmtm^^*^ ^mm^m>m^^mm^^m^*m
ed that points falling above the average curve represent tunnels which were
"over-supported" and those below, the curve; those tunnels In which mar-
ginal support was used. Most exceptions to the plotted envelope were
shown to be In the "over-supported" category.
Using the equation for the average curve shown on Figure 1.2 It Is
possible to determine numerical rib ratios corresponding to different RSR
values. Some typical relations «t various RSR values are show below:
RSR Values and Rib Ratios

(Based on average curve equation - Figure 1.2)
(RR + 70) (RSR -H 8) = 6000
RSR 27 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 77
RR 100 88 70 55 43 33 25 18 12 7 0
Rock structures with RSR values less than 27 would require heavy
support; those with ratings over 77 would probably be unsupported. Struc-
tures with ratings between 27 and 77 would require varying amounts of ground
support.
The rib ratio basically defines an anticipated rock load by consider-
ing the vertical load carrying capacity of different sizes of steel ribs, conse-
quently the RSR values can be expressed In terms of unit rock loads for vari-
ous sized tunnels. Derivation of this empirical relationship Is given In
paragraph 5.5. Typical results are shown below:
1-13
m*—mmm ^■..-.J.J...-,—^-.-._^
o in
9 0)
to 0)
0) 5
i
•M
w
a LO
ffi
810 rr c
s
X-l u
£
•K
0)
O rn
o
o
1
<J>
ä c
(0
o
gB
N
„
o
o •
(0
O
a10 0)
^^
1-
<
(U 5en
g o
CD
Ü
o C
* cn
o
5
in
ibSd) ONiivd aaruondis xooa
1-14
MMHMMMmMMi M^riHMMr
«■•»^■■«•■^»^^■^^^^^^■■^■■W IU
I I"I«»»IU1I11IL1-I I.Mll ..«".»Hill JIMI ll> HI IIIMLIII IIIHI I I I. IIMIHR »i. 11 I I ■»! Jll. II , . Ill J «Ml ■ ■ ^ ■■ R. IW
Correlation of RSR with Rock Load

and Tunnel Diameter
Tunnel Rock Load in Kips per sq. ft. (Wr.)

Diameter 1.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
D (Ft) RSR VALUES
12 S5.0 47.7 41.9 27.2 — —
16 59.5 53.0 47.7 33.2 24.7 -
id 62.5 56.8 51.9 38.0 29.4 -
24 64.7 59.5 55.0 41.9 33.2 27.2
28 66.3 61.6 57.0 45.0 36.5 30.4
10 66.9 62.5 58.6 46.4 38.0 31.9
1.5 DETERMINATION OF SUPPORT REQUIREMENT
Requirements for a particular steel rib are usually expressed by the
rib spacinr) determined for different rock loads and size of tunnels. The
theoretical rib spacing determined for the datum condition reflects a rib
ratio of 100 and corresponding RSR value of 27. Rib spacings for other RSR
values (or equivalent rock loads) vary proportionately from the datum spacing
as the inverse ratio of the respective rib ratios. The following example
shows typical rib sizes and required spacing with respect to various RSR
values and tunnel diameters of 16 and 20 feet.
Rib Spacing (ft) Based on RSR Values

and Tunnel Diameter
Tunnel Diameter
RSR 16 Feet 20 Feet
Value Steel Rib Spacing
6H15. 5 6H25 8WF31 6H 20 8WF 31 8WF 48
27 1.4 2.2 3.2 1.2 2.1 3.3

30 1.6 2.6 3.7 1.4 2.4 3.8
35 2.0 3.2 4.6 1.7 3.1 4.8
40 2.6 4.1 5.9 2.2 3.9 6.1
45 3.3 5.2 7.5 2.8 5.0 7.8
1-15
*" - ' — . .
■■"." Hi l"î^"^»^»^B^^^^ I""' »T ■•w»r»i»™iin»w(™»aB
RSR 6H15.5 6H25 8WF31 6H 20 8WF 31 8WF 48

50 4.3 6.8 - 3.6 6.5
55 5.7 4.8
60 7.9 6.7
Historical data were found not sufficient to make reasonable correlation be-
tween rock structure and the use of rock bolt or shotcrete type of support.
However, an appraisal of rock bolt requirements (spacing or pattern) can be
made by considering rock loads with respect to the tensile strength of the
bolt. This Is a very general approach; It assumes adequate anchorage and
that all bolts act In pure tension, only. It does not allow for Interaction
between adjacent blocks nor assumption of compression arch formed by the
bolts. These and other conditions would probably be evaluated In detail
design, but for purposes of the RSR evaluation the following relation Is used
for one Inch rock bolts with a working stress of 24,000 psl.
Spacing or pattern of bolts (in feet) ■#•*

iWr
Where Wr = rock load In kips per sq. ft.
Although shotcrete support has been successfully used under many
varied conditions, there Is still no accepted theory to date as to its ultimate
effect as a structural member. Most applications have been made on basis
of rules-of-thumb. Various studies such as Sutcllffe and McClure (4) and
Lauffer (5) have Indicated a general relationship between thickness of shot-
crete lining and other equivalent support systems. An attempt was made to
correlate available theoretical and empirical data with some standard measure
of the shotcrete requirement that could be related to geologic predictions.
1-16
■«yMMMaMMMMM «MM '■'- '

'"■■ ' ■ '- U m^^*—* • mmm . ■■<■ uiut^^mt ■ ■ ■ ■ I «■ WV^^^^^^^«W«Wi^MH^^^W^MMi^WiHMi^^HP^n«an«WHVH
Results wire negative. Consequently the following empirical relationship
is suggested. It is used in subsequent evaluations of shotcrete requirements:
1.25
Where t equals nominal thickness of shotcrete lining in inches and
Wr = anticipated rock load in kips per sq. ft.
The preceding paragraphs have discussed various support require-
ments and have indicated common measures by which these requirements can
be correlated with respect to geologic predictions and tunnel size. Using
this data, it is possible to develop "Support Requirement Charts" for tunnels
driven through different rock structures. A typical chart is shown as Figure
1.3. Other charts could be developed for different sized tunnels. The three
steel rib support curves shown on the chart reflect typical sizes used for the
particular tunnel diameter. Dashed portion of the respective curves indicate
conditions for which the indicated rib size would probably not be used due
to practical considerations. Curves for shotcrete and rockbolt requirements
are similarly shown.
As indicated on the chart, there are usually several support systems
which would satisfy the support requirement for most rock tunnels. The most
appropriate or economical system to use would be determined from a cost
analysis, taking into account the relative effect of each system on the over-
all tunneling process.
1-17
Mil —i—TM—iMl I I I m—niii MMIiîl

• ' ■ ■ vmm*mm*mmm* I I" li
I Dimmtltr
S«e» ••It«
4.*i?-
Practical Limit For

Rib And Bolt Spocmf
RIB SPACING (Ft )

BOLT SPACING (Ft «Ft)
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS(ln)
Figure 1.3 - Support Requirement Chart - 20' Diameter Tunnel
1.6 SUMMARY
The prediction of ground support requirement is based on case history
data, the RSR method of evaluating rock structures, and the rib ratio measure.
The datum condition used in developing the rib ratio is not critical, and
could be changed without affecting the results. Although existing methods
or theories of determining support requirements were considered, no compar-
ative analysis was made between these and the proposed method. However,
this could be accomplished by using the intrinsic relationship between rib
ratios and rock loads. Most present support calculations consider loads in
terms of feet of rock to be supported. Height (in feet) of the unit rock
1-18
mam ^tatmmm
■»P^-^M^WW
column is defined as (n (B + H)) where n is a variable factor and B and H
represent physical dimensions of the tunnel opening. Assuming the unit
weight of rock as 165 lb. per cu. ft. and that B = H = D (for a circular
tunnel) the factor "n" can be approximated by dividing rib ratios used in
this study by 100.
The support requirement chart (Figure 1.3) reflects drill and blast
tunneling operations. Although boring machines were used on several case
study projects, information was not sufficient to make a reasonable correl-
ation of support requirements between the two methods. Considering data
that was available, it is suggested that the following procedure be used to
determine support requirements for machine driven tunnels. The RSR value
would be adjusted upward to reflect a better condition of the penetrated rock
structuie normally associated with the use of a boring machine. Such a
factor might be defined as shown below:
• 10
g•*
u 15
9
*-'
0) 20
m
Q 2b
—<
30
H 35
■+- + + —I
1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
RSR ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
RSR Adjustment for TBM Operation
1-19
■ mmmmm—*.
miwmimmm* ii.iiiwi.Bi ■ '■»■n-i n ■->i lummmvmmwm . m i.îini ■». ,1- M-■ •« P^PW ^-»■■ ■ ■ — IMH ■■ ^ I WWIWXH » i»« i ■■ ■ ■■ iw ■ ■ W HIMMII Will PII»ÎIII I^^MI I ■ l. l ■^n^qj
For example - an RSR value of 50 has been determined for a 25 ft.
tunnel. In consideilng appropriate support systems for a boring machine
operation an RSR value of 58, (50 x 1.15) - would be used when entering
the Support Requirement Chart.
Subsequent sections of this report discuss additional research
undertaken to expand, modify or verify the original RSR ground support
prediction model as outlined tn this section. The same general procedures
and methods as discussed here are used in both instances.
1-20
mm^*m—*.m*—iamma
«M*-pi«ii>..N i 'i ■«■^■■I«IP ■»■«■■1.11. i \ im H^^mmmmmm'm^mw-m™^^^^**^m*mr~~- n t^^m*mmmmmm*-*^'^^^^™mvmi
SFCTION 2
CASi: HI3TORY STUDIES
CIVIL TUNNELS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The basic data input used in the development of the Rock Structure
Rating (RSR) concept was obtained by case history studies of previously
constructed tunnel projects. The information sought in these studies con-
sisted of three general categories: I) physical dimensions and construction
factors, 2) geolcgy - prebid or as-built as appropriate and 3) actual ground
supports placed during construction. The degree to which these data had
been measured and recorded determined the reliability of the input. Where
one or more categories were missing the project could not be effectively
used in the study.
It was found that in general the quantitative data and quality of con-
struction records is improving, especially since 1960. The well documented
tunnel project of 1950 was an exception; today, fortunately it is not. In
addition to pre-construction geological Investigations, many agencies today
use geologists to record actual ground conditions during tunnel driving.
This latter Information is usually given on as-built drawings together with
construction data such as direction of drive, method of excavation, progress
achieved, ground water flows encountered and the type, location, and amount
of support. This amount of d<jcumentatlon Is not only useful determining
cost of construction and validity of possible claims; It also forms a valuable
2-1
-—-' * -■..--.. _
•mmmmm.i i ^^mmmmmmmmm
guide for possible future construction planning. In addition to obtain-
ing such data as described, there is a trend toward instrumentation to mea-
sure physical characteristics of the rock mass and its interrelationship with
the tunnel opening.
While this presents an optimistic picture for future fact gathering,
current .studies must be based on the existing, less complete records of
the past. The format for recording data for this study evolved with the de-
velopment of the prediction concept, and is shown in final form as Figure
2.1. It allows for general tunnel data and detailed information needed for
RSR computation for individual tunnel sections.
2.2 SCOPE
The initial RSR concept was based on data obtained from study of 33
construction projects. Although fewer projects had been originally contem-
plated, it soon became apparent that the number of variables affecting
ground support requirements and the difficulty of assigning definitive values
to many of them necessitated a great variety of situations to be examined.
All tunnels whose records were made available were used if there was suf-
ficient information to determine RSR values, and records of actual ground
support were given. The majority of these tunnels were driven by the drill
and blast method of excavation and used steel ribs as the primary means of
ground support.
In order to refine and further develop the concept, it was decided
that additional case studies in the second year be made primarily with re-
2-2
mammmmmmmmmmmmm^^^mmm .—/•.■..— -i. -■ —^ -

Q
w O
55 a
o P
n 5;
U Ö
a: o >
Q P
^-. ^H CM n T in
<
Ü
o p □
> H
u Ö
iJ
tu
w
o x
O
BS
H
s
0)
cu
5 O
< H
O
»—*
H
Ü
U
CO
p
p
H
CO
cd
O
K
<
 c
DC
O o
u 0
>
O 0) o
< Ü
u 2 CN1
Q
0)
ac OC C g 5
w
s s
l-H
s Q
O
u o 0 £ O D
II X)
p 2 0)
H 0
b H
O < ■a 'S
| Q
'■M
> i ü
M Q 33 P
u
(0 CQ H CO
CO I CC
w O
< a- H
0 II II a, pi
2 P O
a.
CO
Qi
CO
a.
P
CO
Iu H
o o
s b
P
O
Q
H
>
&
a: H
U
<
of
Ü P
O
s« Q ..
O Q cc: CQ W W
IB ■B Ü w
H
3 Ö
a: a: 2
O W
o Ü 2
p M
O H M
3U 8a: w
O
^ u
<
a S
CO CO
ü
<
o
o
2-4
H«,WMMMW«wwMBMIP1lim"MMiq[
spect to those areas in which original data was insufficient to make realis-
tic conclusions, namely: 1) greater variety of tunnel sizes, 2) tunnels
using shotcrete or rock bolt reinforcement and 3) mining operations. Min-
ing operations will be treated separately in Section 3. Twenty new civil
tunnels wore studied bringing the total to 53. These 53 tunnels have an
aggregate length of almost 200 miles, constructed mostly in the West and
mid-West, U.S. They range in size from 8 feet to 36 feet in diameter.
Individual tunnel lengths vary from d few hundred feet to over twenty
three miles. They have been driven through a variety of rock types and
conditions from uncemented conglomerates, that could barely be called
rock, to the hard massive qranite of the Sierras, with the need for support
varying accordingly. The complexity ot ground structure also varies from
uniform rock conditions throughout the tunnel to as many as twelve distinct-
ly different qeologic sections with faulted and folded conditions.
2.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
To acguire the necessary tunnel project records, many agencies
were contacted. The problem of support prediction is a common one in the
industry and everyone was cooperative in making their records available,
if possible. The notable exceptions« significantly, were some recently
completed projects where there was a possibility of litigation to settle
claims of changed conditions or support requirements. In each case where
data was obtained, it was from the owner agency or engineer representative,
as their records are qenerally more complete with regard to geology and
■■■ mämmm**.^.
support placement. In addition to making their records available many
people gave their personal views of the completed projects, which was
helpful In evaluation In cases of Insufficient data. The following agencies
provided data for the study. Their cooperation was most helpful.
1. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - Denver
2. U.S. Corps of Engineers - Omaha
3. Department of Water Resources - Sacramento
4. Pacific Gas and Electric Company - San Francisco
5. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California -Los Angeles
6. Sacramento Municipal Utility District - Sacramento
7. Bay Area Rapid Transit District - San Francisco
8. Board of Water Commissioners - Denver
9. Hatch Hetchy Water Supply - San Francisco
10. San Francisco Water Department - San Francisco
11. Granduc Operating Company - Stewart, B.C.
Additional Information for several projects was already available
from Jacobs Associates In the form of pre-bld geologists reports, site In-
spection reports and personal knowledge.
The fifty-three tunnel projects investigated were divided from one,
up to maximum of 12 study sections, made necessary where marked geologic
differences existed between adjacent sections. Approximately 200 sample
tunnel sections vere developed by this procedure. The table of Figure 2.2
lists the study projects and the general physical features of each. Numbers
2-6
MnOMMMMMMM
2
o >
EC tM<
m
H H
CD
HOO CQ CQ ri
CQCQCOCQCQCQaacQ ^ ^ C1 03 S 5 5 ' "^
§ a QQQQQÖQQ P
OQ CQ 03 ^ ^ ^ '-A
H H HQQ Q Q
u,
O QO
^T CO (M OD 00 CM CM CM rsi rg CM CM n n r-4 t-< tNJ
O H(J
S5WQ
oooooooo oooo o ooooooo

oooooooo OOCMO o ooooooo
OOroi/iuni-OO'-i Oi—tcoixi t-^ nu30ix)>-ioooo
^rooooTrocM^r-^ iD O tn in U3 LO •-< o us CM »r oo
CMcNi ro O-MO •-< U3 --i CM rr CM CM i/1 ro
CO to oooooooo oooo o OOOOOOO

COCOOOOOr^LO'TOrJ« '-ii-Hrocr) en ii3n»-iLnLniO'-H
H H
Ü u o •-H oo n ^-t ^-t r>-) CT,
M O w in
CO
o U
N COCO
S \
i—i •n CO CO CO CO CO co CO
a. E tC ^
W X X CM
s
w
ui CO ro
CM
t4
XX,-"-,a1xXXWUUXXUXUQUP^Dnn
Q
I
H ■rCMCMCM XOTrOOOCMOCD^Hi-Hf-lr-loOCMO'tr
ro (N o "" ^r
CM CM CD rs]
CO CM 00 00 cl
>
o O
X X X X
H H Ü OJ Q) 0)
to •a •
'i; o^!
Ä u o -C
(0 -^ —'
0 iQQiOtOiOaiBQ • ■ • •
Q CU CO
w ► 1 ÜUUÜÜUÜU u DD2ÜOOÜ
<C
U
'-«i
in
a)
z ^H (NJ a
(1)
• • ra c
H O O
■a
-I-)
U)
^X 8) J:
rn B u
.-*
o J-: ^ C •—< CM
5 a en
.a
v a> a) C • • o q . J
c 2
ring Cre
ring Cre
u. .
U-. ^ C ^H
c *-> S u
0) 0) a
y 0) c o G) c —«
>. jri a. a ni 1—t a u a >
(Ü QJ ^ 0) Cn
M w in
> u) co co H OOU < X X CQ O co^5uuo< a;
^J r
-H k.
i- -i
( 1 H
HO irsin^TLn^JrÔO (DOr-ncM n T LO U3 r^ 00 CD o
OQ
»—•»--* f—* t—I i-H »—* CM
2
<<!) nn
( 1 H
2-7
MMMMM —-
Q
O >
|0ö oQ m CQCQOQOQGQOQQQOOCQOQca OQOQSCQQQOQOQ
S3 ÖÖQÖQÖQQQÖQQQgQQQQ
CO
OQO
~-5^
OfeU
in «M ooint^.oot~.h>focMTr'j'rv cnincMineD^co
gjCO w
CO
o o ooooooooooo ooooooo
o o ooooooooooo oooooicin
O UJ toiDcoi-«incMOm(T>tôn cMtooocMtoi-iLn
•-• m coOi-tiniDOf-iM'Oooin tot^co'-iini—i
HJ es« CM CMi-ICMCMCM r-H m r-i r-t r-l e*
*
O
• o
CO
CO
H
K ooooooooooo ooooooo
•-^■-•inr^cr)<DoocMî"Tro r^tôiDiocM>-i
uw »N B o
CO ^r
cocoM'^r—tcMi-icocMcMo roTrcMcMCJTcn
\ .
s
»—> Ö CO -a
3^: CO CO r0*5 cocococococococococoOT w
w M
0)
o
c
OH
2 +->
o • • cMoomcDM'cntDLDO ^Hn._it^. r^— CM c
Q ^XX ininCMCMrH^Hf-l^Hi-lr-t?^ t
^c,^Q,_,'-'Qfy'' Ü
D (1 ,
CM ^P rn oococoro^ QO'<a'cnr^[v.<N -«coiDt^t^rocM u
H C^J CM CO ^H^HCMCMr-t^^H^-i^-l^-tCM CMCM—lp-tr-lcMrO
CO
s CM
o o e
H
CO
£ ^ £ J ^ ^ J J J J J J J J ^ ^ o co
B 3 VM >*-(
x(0 a(t3
M
o
i3
i0(0f0i0(0'0f0(0(0'0o to iotO(Oia'0i!,
CO
ÜÜ UüüüUüUUüü2üOUUü2O
<
Ü in
2
. o
| ^ o
^ O i-
2"S
2| tO
i i5S
y
m
to «
-H a)
BM ^r^
^ Ü CM ,n
-«CM t: >
3 •-<
c 3
o e—
Poe Tunnel (*
Berkeley Hill!
Balboa Outlet
Foster Dam D
Lucky Peak O
Loon Lake Ta
McCloud No.
Beiden No. 1
Beiden No. 2
McCloud No.
Pit River No.
Union Valley
Poe (partial)
Caribou No.
w fl to
Butt Valley
0u Q
Flathead
E 2
Jay Bird
Camino
" 81
M to
c^
^H CM o^rmiDrôooiOi-icMroT iniDt-~ooa>o
CM CM cMCMCMCMtMcMcMnrororoci COCOPOCOCOT
2-8
mmmm mmmm^t __
1 through 33 were studied during the first year, and 34 through 53 the
second year.
2.4 APPLICABILITY OF RECORDED DATA
Prediction based on past experience is quite common and necessary
in tunneling, whether it involves excavation progress, ground support or
muck handling. This is made necessary by the complex and varying nature
of the rock medium in which the tunneler must work. Much of the measured
success for a tunneling project is how well we apply the lessons of past
experience to new situations. The more variables a problem contains, the
more facts are needed for a solution. The possible combinations of geolo-
gic factors in determining rock mass characteristics are virtually infinite.
One objective of this study has been to simplify the number of factors to
those most important in determining rock competency, and to acquire enough
factual data through studies of case histories on which to base an empirical
prediction method of needed rock support or reinforcement. Assuming tenta-
tively that this is possible, we must recognize the fact that the method can-
not be more accurate than the data it is based on. It is necessary therefore
to evaluate these data and the methods employed to obtain and record them.
2 4 1
' ' Physical Dimensions and Construction Factors
The most important construction factors in considering requirements
for ground support is the size and configuration of the tunnel bore and the
direction of drive with respect to the strike and dip of the Jointing system
2-10
mmm
in the rork. A ldr()cr opening will require more support thdn a smaller one
In the same .[round. Likewise, a Hal buck or flattened arch will require
moio support than a semi-circular arrh. The orientation of the strike and
dip of the r«»« k with the axis of the tunnel will determine whether or nol
individual blocks or slabs will tend to fall into the tunnel to form a stable
back.
Generally, records of phy leal dimensions are the easiest to obtain
and the most reliable. Where neither the pre-constmction, nor as-built
geology records indicated the direction of the strike and dip an assumption
was made bused on other factors -r an average value assigned to that
factor.
2,4,2 Geoli '<jic Data
The following geologic fa. tors were determined to be the most impor-
tant when coniidering requirements of ground support:
1) Rock type and classification; 2) Rock structure (relative fault-
ing or folding) 3) Joint strike and dip, 4) Joint spacing, 5) Condition of
joints, and 6) Ground water Inflow.
While other factors are I r port ant for determining boreabllity, dril-
labillty, and muck handling, they are not necessarily Important to the
problem of support.
The sources for obtaining this information in the pre-construction
stage are:
1) Boring samples and logs, 2) Surface geology, 3) Geology
2-11
- .M^üMiMinMiMiMtate^ü« *-"- — ■
reports. 4) Historical geology, 5) Records of nearby projects, 6) Seis-
mic itudies, and 7) Laboratory tests.
An attempt was made to use only such data as was available prior
to construction in determining Rock Structure Ratings. Only when such in-
formation was missing, was as-built data used to augment this determina-
tion. The available data was then reviewed for the first 33 case history
studies. A table was made indicating what type of data was available with
an indication of how well defined it was. This was in turn used to produce
a "Reliability Profile" chart indicating the ability to define the six geologic
factors shown above from the data available. It was found that for these
studies factual data was sufficient to define geoloric factors about 50% of
the time, varying from 80% for rock type to 25% for joint spacing. In many
cases where defining data was missing the study team assumed values on
the basis of Judgment of available information. Where no information was
available for a particular factor an average value was assumed.
The concept of evaluating input data was continued during the
second year for the remaining case history studies. This evaluation was
incorporated in the data recording form, Figure 2.1. Results were similar
for the 20 additional case history studies with higher ratings for more recent
projects. The current on-going field studies, which will be described more
fully in Section 6, are indicative of this trend toward making more geologic
studies in the pre-construction period. When calculating RSR values for
the final predition model, the best available data was used in each case,
2-12
m—w—i ii
whether it was pre-construction, as-built or a combination of data.
For many of the tunnels Investigated having both pre-construction
and as-built geology available, there was a reasonable similarity between
the two. This was particularly true for relatively shallow tunnels in simple
rock structures. Tunnels in complex folded and faulted structures however,
such as the Harold D. Roberts tunnel (case study no. 52), showed a
marked disparity between rock conditions projected from the surface and
actual conditions encountered in the tunnel.
2.4.3 Actual Ground Supports Used
One question that keeps recurring concerns the appropriateness of
using actual supports placed in the past as a guide to a prediction model
for the future. Are we merely perpetuating the abuses of over support that
sometimes apparently exists because of contractual, monetary, or construc-
tion expediency considerations? Or, do the support systems used in the
case studies truly reflect the loads carried? After lengthy consideration
of this question during this two-year study the facts appear to substantiate
use of past experience records if used judiciously.
We know that the support systems investigated are conservative
because they have not collapsed. We do not know to what degree each in-
dividual case is oversupported, but given enough individual situations, and
assuming factor values to be reasonably correct, trends and patterns emerge.
A review of the RSR support graph in Figure 1.2 shows an envelope
of points rather than a thin line. We can make the general statement that
2-13
I MM ■IMIIIII II I I —Ml ll—MMI

the points to the right and above the average curve are more conservative
in their load carrying capacities for a given situation than those to the
left and below the line. Given enough points and confidence in the method
we can eliminate those Fituations which obviously fall far outside the
range of the majority. This will be discussed further in Section 5 where
revisions to the prediction model are presented.
One fact should be born in mind; a point outside the envelope does
not necessarily imply that too much support was used, merely that the sup-
port appears conservative within the limitations of the model. The model
considers only normal vertical load with minimal side pressures. Because
of the limited nature of some facts available in the case history records,
it has not proven practical to include factors such as high in-situ stresses
or swelling or squeezing ground. Many of the points above the envelope
do in fact represent this type of situation.
By eliminating these points from consideration we can develop an
empirical relationship closer to the norm for the majority of situations that
are covered by this model. While this relationship is still conservative
it does eliminate those extreme cases and is based on the average of the
remaining points, not the most conservative. Hopefully, increased use of
instrumentation will help to define actual loads more closely in the future.
As mentioned earlier most of the ground support used in tunnels of
the original 33 case studies was steel ribs. Only a few sections used
rock bolt reinforcement and none were supported by shoicrete. A special
9-14
.^.-.^■■^—...-^ L. -.
effort was made during the second year to locate examples of rock bolt and
shotcrete tunnels applicable to this study. Although use of shotcrete is on
the rise in the United States there are still not many completed tunnels
available for research analysis. Thosfi that were available were used and
one, New Melones diversion tunnel is described later as a field study.
Through the cooperation of the U .S. Corps of Engineers office in Omaha,
records of several tunnels were made available to the study team. Six of
these tunnels as well as the Norad Extension, used as a field study were
supported in whole or part by rock bolt reinfo. ^ment.
It should be noted that many of the in .ial sections studied were
unsupported. This was done in an effort to define, if possible, the RSR
value where supports were considered unnecessary. It was not possible to
do this directly and this was found by interpolation and projection. To un-
derstand the reason for this situation we must consider the practical aspects
of setting supports under conditions of fairly competent rock. Even if it
should be determined that supports would be sufficient on 10 foot to 20 foot
spacing, it would be impractical because of consideration of blocking, lag-
ging, collar braces, etc. It is common practice to limit rib spacing to
about 6 feet, until support is no longer needed. In like manner there are
practical limits to rock bolt spacing patterns and shotcrete thickness.
Most of the projects investigated gave a reasonable definition of
actual supports used in terms of size, spacing, etc. Some project records
gave only approximations or total quantities in pounds where temporary
2-15
•MMIHMMMIHHM llMhiMBiliiii ■ -- ------^-..■-■■- 1^^—- -

supports were a pay Item. If the tunnel was short and in fjlrly uniform
rock, this was sufficient to develop an average RSR-support relationship.
In a longer or more complex project where geologic conditions and supports
varied, it was not possible to correlate the two without sufficient detailed
data. Where only a total pay quantity of pounds of bolts was recorded, it
was Impossible to reconstruct the probable bolt pattern used. This account-
ed, in part, for the lack of such study sections in the first 33 case histories.
2 5
- COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF NEW CASE STUDIES TO ORIGINAL
PREDICTION MODF.T.
The first 33 case studies were used to develop the original RSR pre-
diction method. This evolved In stages. At each step, factor values were
altered, eliminated or combined. New combined RSR values were computed
for each study section and compared to the actual support (RR). These were
plotted on a new RSR vs. RR graph and the effects of the changes on the
overall pattern were noted.
The procedure differed In the second year in that each new case
study added could be Individually compared to the existing model. After
dividing the tunnel Into geo'ogic sections, known data was entered on the
forms in Figure 2.1. RSR values were found and corresponding rib ratios
(RR) and unit rock loads (Wr) computed. These were used to estimate pre-
dicted ground support which were then compared to the actual support system
used.
2-16
■HMMMH - ■ ■
Where discrepancies were found, an attempt was made to explain
them through additional record search or discussion with someone familiar
with the project. This had the effect of making each case history study in
the second year into a modified field study. In general, the correlation of
these studies fit the original prediction model. Observation of some of the
exceptions contributed to the decision to modify and expand the final model,
to be described in Section 5.
The particular items that these investigations highlighted as de-
serving of additional attention were;
1. Very soft or decomposed rock
2. Crushed and highly fractured rock
3. The aforementioned nebulous zone of minimal support
It is interesting to note that the first twe items were also mentioned
in the comments of people whose aid was enlisted to evaluate the RSR
method.
In reviewing the other objectives of these additional studies the
following Is noted:
The slightly deficient gap in tunnel size has been corrected In the
second year. A check of the 200 total study sections Indicates an average
excavated cross sectional area of about 300 sq. ft., equal to a circular
section 20 foot In diameter or a horseshoe section 18.5 x 18.5 feet. A
typical lining would reduce this to a 16 or 17 foot tunnel. There Is an even
graaatlon from this average down to 50 sq. ft. (8' diameter) and up to 1000
2-17
MHMHI
sq. ft. (36' diameter).
As mentioned earlier, lack of sufficient tunnel data available for
either rock bolt or shotcrete reinforced tunnels did not permit the same type
of correlation possible for rib supported tunnels. Those points that could
be plotted for such tunnel sections were based on the previously assumed
approximation of equivalent Rib Ratios and compared favorably to the plots
of rib supported sections. These approximations therefore will be main-
tained at present for the current prediction model.
The original empirical curve was plotted using only drill and blast
excavated tunnels and a tunnel boring machine (TBM) adjustment factor
curve suggested. This adjustment factor would raise the RSR value to re-
flect a better condition of the penetrated rock struc'urfc normally associated
with the boring machine. This factor, which varies iiivcrccly with the dia-
meter, was used to determine adjusted RSR values for all TBM study sec-
tions not previously used. These points also compared favorably to the
existing model and were subsequently used in establishing the new model.
Figure 2.3 shows typical rib supported and rock bolted sections
of the Flathead Tunnel in Montana during excavation. This horseshoe
shaped tunnel (case study no. 33) was excavated by drill and blast utiliz-
ing a Jacobs sliding floor.
2-18
'—-—-—-—--
■ "i
CO
>
Q
1-
;-
LU
<
Z
z
D
h-
Q
<
n LU
g <
U-
C3
-
0
a
a.
D
CO
<
>
PI<W>III..W>I>III. n iiaimi i ■■<■■■ mamH ' i i ■.■^.^^^•■«»^•■-■■"^■-»-^-"—•" ""i"^-J"«■",■■•*•"'>"w ■■■■■• «» i mw^"! IIJ«I,H
SECTION 3
CASE HISTORIES
MINING OPERATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This ARPA sponsored research project, as well as others In this
BurMines managed series, was directly aimed at maximizing tunneling sub-
systems for rapid excavation. It has long been realized that the greater the
need for support in a particular tunnel, the greater the impediment to rapid
excavation. Today, it is not unusual to find a tunnel boring machine (TBM)
that is capable of normal progress of 200 feet per day slowed to one quarter
of that speed in ground requiring support, and even to 10 feet per day under
very adverse conditions. The ability to predict support requirements ahead
of the face is obviously of prime importance in the effort to maximize the
rapid excavation systems.
Extending these civil concepts of support requirements to the problems
of mining was a necessary further application of the RSR for the following
reasons. First, ground support is a problem common to all underground work
and while the type of support used in mines is often dictated by the nature
of the ore body, the need for a support prediction requirement is nevertheless
present. Secondly, there are many more miles of mine drifts than civil tun-
nels and It would help this research effort to be able to tap this wealth of
experience.
3-1
. _^^JJ»^_I ^â^^..^^^,.^.. _
•""'""■ '-"■■•".^ iwuiuiMM 11 , m^ntmi^mm^mmmmmm^ßmt^mmi^mmmfmmmî^mm^miâmmmmmmmmimmmmmmm
Except for mine haulage tunnels, general mining operations do not
readily lend themselves to neat lengths of geologic uniformity. The Gran-
duc Haulage Tunnel was used in Section 2 as case study no. 53 and the
Cajone Haulage Tunnels will be described later in the field studies. How-
ever, most mining operations are not readily adapted to the same type of
studies made for existing civil tunnels. There is much that can be learned
from the wide and varied experience in ground control gained in mining oper-
ations. It Is fitting that this topic be treated separately.
3.2 COMPARISON OF MINING AND TUNNELING METHODS
In order to achieve a true perspective of the applicability of the
RSR concept to mining It Is necessary to view objectively the similarities
and differences of mining to civil tunnels.
The primary purpose and function of most civil tunnels Is transpor-
tation from one point to another, whether It be for trains, vehicles, pedes-
trians, water supply or waste disposal. These tunnels range In size from
less than 6' to over 40'. Generally they are permanent Installations with
permanent lining, designed for the desired function of the tunnel. Most
tunnels, whether built for public agencies or private owners, are construct-
ed by contractors who specialize in this type of work. Temporary ground
support is generally the responsibility of the contractor as Is the choice of
excavation method. The aim of the contractor Is to complete the excavation
and lining as economically as possible within the time and cost framework of
3-2
■MMMMMMMMMMMBMBMMt.Hi^Mi ■ ,..,..■ . ^^.—^^^.

" " -•" — "' ■! u-m'^^^^m^*^^^*!*' r—- , xt.mm'mmmwmnim.impn^mmmmmv^m^m*mm*mim
his contract. With one major working area, at the face, and a comparatively
large overhead, achieving rapid advance Is usually the main economic con-
sideration. To achieve this rapid progress the contractor, within llmvv.atlons
Inherent to the Individual project, fills the heading with as many men and as
much equipment as can operate without mutual Interference. The equipment
Is often purchased or designed specifically for that project and often scrap-
ped on completion. The ground support methods employed are governed by
the economics Involved, where cost of materials must be weighed against
ease of erection and Interference with the excavation cycle.
In mining operations the objective Is to remove rock and ore from
the earth in a reasonably uniform and complete manner. The size, shape
and configuration of excavation for the ore body are as varied as nature and
the Inventiveness of man can make them. Figure 3.1 shows several basic
mining methods. Within the ore body, supports are temporary but a safety
necessity, and often are designed to last only as long as the life of the
mining operation. Controlled caving of the ore body or the gob after removal
of ore Is common In certain mining methods such as block caving method (e)
open stope mining (b) and room and pillar methods (a). Where this Is not
practical, the excavated area may be back-filled with waste or mill tailings,
as In cut and fill methods In a narrow vein (c) or large vertical body (d). It
Is apparent that ground support with steel sets does not lend Itself to these
operations In addition to being relatively expensive. Mines use timber In
some areas, because of local economies, but many have gone to rock bolts,
3-3
EMMMMMMMMMaMMM^M iMM—iÜMiliaiB ^. . ...- ■.. . .. . Atäton,,, i ■!

■•'i ' ■■ ■ ii i ■ <mmtmmmmmmmmm>^rmn^mm i •••iminii .11 •»•^^■■«•1
Classification of Underground Mining Methods

Elements of Mining (3rd edition), Lewis and Clark: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
FIGURE 3.1.a FIGURE 3.1.b
ROOM AND PILLAR METHOD SUB-LEVEL METHOD
FIGURE 3.1.C
CUT AND FILL METHOD
FIGURE 3.1
3-4
mtmmam "-—•— ■'-

wii.iuw nmmmm i*mw*wmm -—--™—■———-—
^ßwî^m^^^^mm ' ■ ■!■■ \ ii m*mmmm^^m^^m*m4
TIMBERED SQUARE SET

(WITH BACKFILL) METHOD
FIGURE 3.1.d
Original Surface
Caved
BLOCK CAVING METHOD
FIGURE S.l.e
FIGURE 3.1 (Cont'd)
3-5
mmmmm UMMIkUMMia ^tmmmm -^-j*—-*-~

and more recently several mines use shotcrete where applicable. Mining
companies either hire miners and operate the mines themselves or contract
portions of the work directly with the miners on a crew basis while having
service and maintenance personnel on force account.
The mining operations most comparable to civil tunnels are the main
haulage tunnels and drifts. Haulage tunnels are generally driven to trans-
port ore from the mine to surface installations such as smelters. They are
essentially private railroad tunnels. Examples are the Granduc Tunnel (case
study no. 53), the Cajone Tunnels (field studies no. 2 and no. 3) and the
Henderson Tunnel of the Amax Henderson Mine, to be discussed later.
These haulage tunnels are horseshoe shaped from 14' to 24' in height and
width, and are driven and supported very similarly to civil tunnels. More
typical of mine tunnels are the drifts that are driven to reach the ore body
and to remove the ore to a shaft or portal. A single mine may have many
miles of these drifts on many levels, extending over a vertical interval of
several thousand feet. Drifts are driven rectangular or horseshoe shape in
cross Motion and generally vary from 8' x 8' to 14' x 14' as determined by
the choice of equipment used for driving and hauling. Figure 3.2 shows a
portion of the extensive system of drifts the Bunker Hill mine needed to de-
velop the "J vein". This mine is In the Coeur d'Alene Mining District of
Idaho, where ore veins are generally narrow and steeply dipping. They are
worked at successively lower levels by the general method shown in Figure
3.1c, and the void left by mining the vein is backfired with waste rock or
3-6
11—111 ■■!—
———————r— w^^^^^^^î^wKmm mmVV-MmwVm^m^KW1mr:wmwmmi
c B
1J (0
L Bi
- B
/ I
IM E
a
o
T- O
L.
I« 0)
■ c
3
CQ
I
■—
CQ H
; 'it £>
J,.i ^
V11 ' . ..:' l/if
i;
s O t)
a»
•; \
I I ft? v/ 8
n
>-
P E
^-. ^-t
o N
E
CM
w
.
en c
c ^
E
X
1 a &
o c<D
in
OJ X
fc >
IB 0) TJ
m Q c
.5 a
a
X)
B —■
0)
ta
>- ;
o T3
-.', -»if i . ö- x
0
-O E «R
T3 0 o • tt3
4) u
•— 0
^-i iJ TJ
i*-
0)
*-» *-*
a C ■S Di
i- «0 0
u r^
U> 0 a
in 0) >, 0)
*— K xi u:
3-7
MMMMMMM*. - —' -" ■

iiimiiaiiLii «■.."Jill« nmmimmmt"mtm i mmm <I<.IPI»<« ,*,.,<<. ,mm,mimK .immw] mmt.wvtwim'n.mmmwi.i «W wm . i^^ViiniOTNHPiVVVOTIVMPVMiMapieiimmiW
mill tailings.
Speed of excavation Is not the pressing problem In driving mine
drifts that It is In the heading of a tunnel. The work can be performed In
many locations simultaneously and scheduled so that a new level of develop-
ment Is ready when the ore has been worked out on the previous level. It
Is not unusual for two man work crews to drive two headings for maximum
efficiency. One drills the round, loads and shoots while the other mucks
out the other heading. If support is needed it may be placed by a separate
crew. In many mine drifts today the most predominant support consists of
three or four rock bolts in conjunction with fabricated steel "mats", about
1 foot wide and 9 feet long. The mats are generally placed across the main
Jointing planes. Some mines more recently have gone to shotcrete support
of drifts. Steel support practice is generally limited to main haulage adits
with a long service life or larger openings such as underground shops or
shaft entries.
3.3 MINE GEOLOGY
The major problem in predicting tunneling support requirements is
knowing the characteristics of the rock mass to be penetrated and how that
rock will react with a proposed support system. Surface geologic features
and borings currently provide most of this information. Usually this covers
only a small percentage of the entire line of the tunnel. If the rock struc-
ture Is complex, or the tunnel lies at great depth, the geologist can give
only an approximation of what the tunneler will find. Long tunnels such as
3-8
*—™*~*—~^- - —...JJM»«—»—»- .
■ I I III MMIIU* "T --—>..— W - J ,-. 1IL ^. ■ ■, p,... I. .,.._..
the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel (case study no. 52), may pass through several
different formations, types of rock, and degrees of competency.
Usually the tunneler will pass through a particular rock just once
and he is never quite sure what he will find just behind the existing face.
In the few occasions where a tunnel is driven parallel and resonably close
to an existing one, the uncertainties of geologic conditions are considera-
bly reduced. The Berkeley Hills Tunnel (case study no. 34), driven through
the Hayward fault, was completed successfully largely on prior knowledge
gained in the nearby Caldecott Tunnels. The geology of the complex layered
sedimentary rock penetrated by the Carlin Canyon Tunnels (field study no.
5) .s another example of reliable ground support predictions, based on near-
by parallel railroad tunnels excavated many years before.
The story of geologic knowledge at a working mine is as different
from the two parallel tunnels as they in turn are from the single tunnel.
Over the many years of development, the mine owner not only obtains a
fairly complete three-dimensional picture of the rock mass (that a tunneler
would envy), but he also has gained the experience of miles of drifts In
which to judge his support requirements. The biggest unknown is whether
the vein will widen out or narrow at the next deeper development level.
Even faults, like bad habits, can be recognized as drifts cross and recross
them. Most large mines have staff geologists and draftsmen who produce
detailed drawings of the mine, level by level. Most mines maintain elabor-
ate three-dimensional models which are Invaluable for obtaining an overall
picture of conditions and help In planning future work. In areas such as the
3-9
MMlilMBttMMM^tiiilMM^MlMMMIIMMMIMMiMMfcii.iii i --■ ■ .
w^^mrnn^^mîmK^^mrmrnvt ' iitmimt.mm.iii .■« IIIIIUIIII»HIWI«I> uutm timo^mr^^mmm^m^m'^^^mmmf^mim
Coeur d'Alene Mining District of Idaho there are several large operating
mines in close proximity and the geologic knowledge gained by each producer
augments that of the others. Much overall knowledge of rock behavior and
ore mineralization can be gained in this way.
However, the need for reliable ground support prediction is needed
In mining when either developing a new mine or when expanding an existing
mine into new and relatively unknown areas. The degree of experience with
ground support gained under known conditions through years of mine develop-
ment in one area, can rarely be duplicated in other mines. Thus the miner
has much to gain, and to contribute, in this particular field of study.
3 .4 SITE VISITS TO OPERATING MINES
During the past year a joint study team consisting of a member of
Jacobs Associates and the Technical Project Officer of the Bureau of Mines
visited a total of seven mines and one mine haulage tunnel. Five of the
mines were in full operation, and two were in the development stage. While
the main objective of these visits was to study the ground support methods
used, the team also observed typical ore mining procedures in the working
mines. In each case the ground support problem at the individual mine was
discussed with one or more members of the staff. A brief description of each
of these sites follows:
3.4.1 Henderson Haulage Tunnel
This tunnel is being driven by drill and blast methods beneath the
3-10
iMMMMi
rpPP^wrpw»^»«"»« ii '■," i"1-« JII>IMIIW«IWP»WI^*««W»W^« ■■■!«" m^^mmmmw.i < •> ■■ . mtwwnm*ir*<^m iiiuaiini
continental divide In Colorado by a contr^.. -r U Am^x, the Dravo Corpora-
tion. It is horseshoe shaped, 18' x 18' excavated, and will be ten miles
long, connecting the Amax Henderson molybdenum mine with the Henderson
Mill. Originally It was thought to be a good prospect for a field prediction
study. The study team had the unique opportunity of discussing the project
with the owner, the contractor and the geologist who performed the original
exploration. In addition they visited the tunnel site during construction
when approximately 2 miles had been driven. Unfortunately, this tunnel
Is representative of the worst difficulties of geologic prediction. It is in
the same general area as the Straight Creek and Harold D. Roberts tunnels.
The rock structure is faulted and folded; the tunnel is deep, averaging 2500
feet and up to 5000 feet below the surface across the continental divide;
surface outcrops are scarce. The rock found In the three miles of tunnel
driven by June 1973 bears only token resemblence to that on the surface and
has required more support than anticipated. Support Is mainly provided by
steel ribs, though in Isolated short sections shctcrete has been used,
(separately or supplementing steel ribs). To further complicate the problem,
several areas of squeezing ground have been encountered requiring placing
invert struts and 8" ribs instead of the 6" ribs used elsewhere. Figure 3.3
shows a typical steel supported section In this tunnel.
3.4.2 Amax Henderson Mine
This mine Is being developed to use the same block caving techniques
that has proven successful at the Climax M'ne. The molybdenum ore body
3-11
— ---l,., H [^
PBWPWWPii' PH luwwwpm " ' ■" —mm^^^ i j i mi i ■■
beneath Red Mountain near Empire, Colorado, varies from 400 to 800 feet In
thickness. It Is contained In a sequence of rhyollte porphyries that have
invaded Sliver Plume Granite. Many miles of haulage drifts, slusher drifts,
finger-raises and cross-cut diifts must bo driven before cavinq of the ore
can begin. In June 1973, about 10 miles of such development work were
completed along with two (of the three) shafts, each about 2400 feet deep.
Drifts are driven hoseshoo shape about 14' by 14' usinq rubber
tired equipment; carriages mountiny three drills and articulated mine-type
muckers with 5 cu. yd. front end buckets. Muck is dropped down chutes
to lower level with rail mounted muck trains pulled bv dlesel locomotives.
Most of the drifts are unsupported. One section, through the Vasque?.
Fault, required steel ribs at two-foot centers with solid steel legging. (See
photo Figure 3.4) Fortunately, this was an exceptional case. In other areas
requirinq support, rock bolts or a 2" thick shotcrete layer have been used,
as shown in Fiqures 1.5 and 3.6. Shotcrete has proven so successful that
it is now used almost exclusively where support is needed in drifts. Under-
qround warehouse and shop areas are also covered with shotcrete and paint-
ed white.
In some areas, high in-sltu stresses pop slabs from the vertical
sides of the hoseshoe shaped drifts until an almost circular shape Is pro-
duced as a naturally stable shape.
3.4.3 Lucky Friday Mine
This mine is fairly typical of a deep mine in the Coeur d'Alene
3-1]
Mining District of northern Idaho. The followinq general description will
apply to the other mines and only significant differences will be noted.
The ore is found in mineralized veins and consists of lead, zinc,
silver and copper, in order of abundance, with small amounts of other mine-
rals. Lead in the form of qalena, leads all other minerals combined 3 to 1.
The veins vary in thickness from 1 to 5 feet and occasionally to 21) feet, and
dip steeply. Mining in the Coeur d'Alene dates back to the ISSO's and the
upper levels of known veins are depleted. Most ore veins mined today are
relatively deep, some over 7,000 feet below the surface.
Access to the Lucky Friday mine is typical of many mines in the
area. A work area was leveled off on the side of the hill and an adit driven
to the ore vein. A vertical shaft is then sunk to the desired working levels
and development drifts driven to the vein. The ore is mined horizontally
out about 150 feet on either side of the stope service raise using a slusher
to pull the broken ore to the raise chute leading to the drift. On completion
of mining a horizontal slice, hydraulic backfill of tailing fines is pumped
into the void where the ore had been. When this is sufficiently compact,
the next higher working level is excavated using the Jill as a base. As the
ore is being removed, the shaft is deepened to the next development level,
usually 200 feet below. This next level is then developed so that it is
ready for mining when the previous level has been mined out.
In the Lucky Friday mine, all drift excavation equipment is present-
ly rail mounted. An overshot mucker loads a single car which is taken to
3-15
MaMaMMMMi_M«MMMMMiaM __ . .— ^^ .- -■ - -~.-:..~ .. ■
the shaft, dumped and returned to the heading. The drifts are driven rectan-
gular about 9" x 9'. The country rock is Revett quartzite; almost white,
hard, blocky to closely jointed, with joints dipping steeply. The mineral-
ized veins are very pronounced and sharply defined. Where the rock is
closely jointed, support is provided by rock bolts and fabricated steel mats
as shown in the photo, Figure 3.7. In this mine, it was evident how this
support system could be used to its full advantage. In drifts perpendicular
to the strike, as in Figure 3.7, the mats in the arch are placed parallel to
the centerline. Where drifts are parallel to the strike, mats in the arch are
placed across the drift. In both cases sidewall mats are about 45° to the
horizontal, with top toward the heading, and bottom overlapped by the pre-
vious mat. Using 4 bolts per mat gives a bolt pattern about 3" x 3'. In
some of the other mines usin- this type of support, bolts and mats were
placed in a regular pattern without regard to the strike and dip of the joints.
3.4.4 Crescent Mine
This mine is similar in many respects to the Lucky Friday, being
largely in Revett quartzite and utilizing the same support method of rock
bolts and mats. In deeper levels of this mine, the excavation equipment
now used is generally rubber tired. The drill carriage mounts two drifter
drills and mucking is by a front end load-haul-dump unit.
The 4000 foot long main haulage adit is at elevation 2800 and was
excavated in 1928. Mining has been carried to the 3900 level (1100 feet
below sea level) and ore is now being mined from the 4100 level (1300 feet
3-16
below sea level). Development work is being carried ui on \hn 430(1 level,
(r>i)0 fein below sea leveP. At unventil-jted levels the temp" i iturc is over
90° and humidity almost 100"/.
3.4.5 Bunker Hill Mine
The bunker Hill Mine in Kellogg Is the largest in the Coeur d'Alene
district. As in the case of several other mines, it hau grown by consolidat-
ing properties of several smaller mines for more efficient operation. The
main access adit is the Kellogg Tunnel, 9000 feet ioi g, driven between
1893 ami 1905. Inclined shafts, roughly parallel the dip of the ore veins
at about 50° to the horizontal. Ore, men and materials travel these inclined
shafts between the adit and lower mining levels. The h ist, as in many of
these mines, is housed in an underground hoist room. Witb increu ;ing
depths of mining, the hoists and rooms havi grown over the years. The
latest, installed in 1945, is housed in a semi-circular arched room. The
40' span is supported by 15" ribs @ 5' centers.
Drifts are approximately 9' x 9', supported where necessary with
rock bolts and mats. The mine reports over 100 miles of drifts. The Bunker
Hill mine is changing a portion of its mining to a trackless system with 15°
ramps to connect the lower working levels; two cu. yd. loaders are used
for these longer runs, as compared to the 1 cu. yd. loaders used previously
(6).
On our inspections, a thick, more flat lying vein of high grade zinc
3-18
blMHIMMH K^M^MI iilM^tiimi i i i

ore In this mine was being excavated by an overshot loader Instead of the
usual slusher. Support in this area is by pre-cut timber square sets.
3.4.5 Star Mine
Although in many respects the Star Mine at Burke is similar to other
Coeur d'Alene mines, there were several unique features of particular inter-
est observed in the mine visitation. This is the deepest mine visited, with
current mining operations 7500 feet below the surface. The rock temperature
at this level is about 110oF. Refrigerated a.'r conditioning has reduced the
ambient air temperature to 76° F.
In 1969 the Star Mine experimented with a tunnel boring machine for
driving drifts. The rock through which the machine was driven was hard
blocky Revett quartzite with an average unconfined compressive strength of
29,000 p.s.i. The first section driven by TBM was about 100 feet. Except
where blocks had fallen out, the typical smooth bore produced by the machine
is evident in Figure 3.8. Rock support in this area is by rock bolts and mats
on both sides and perpendicular to center line, each mat is held by three
bolts. Mats are 4' on centers giving a bolt pattern of 4' x 4'.
It was found necessar/ to modify the TBM to overcome muck handling
problems and then used to drive a second section about 200 feet long. The
major problems encountered concerned muck size. Because of the hard,
brittle nature of the quartzite, blocks 6" to 9" fell out of the face. These
damaged the lubricating system and the scrapers and scoops which were not
designed for such large cuttings. Also, in the second section more fallout
3-19
:
*"•*»--■— -'-' - — --w —, -^-
behind the face was experienced. Mine representatives felt that machine
progress and costs were reasonable when the machine was working, but
that there would have to be many changes made to tunnel boring machines
to be adaptable to mining in this type of ground.
The rock at this depth also displayed typica' Coeur d'Alene Mining
District evidence of high in-situ stresses in the form of squeezing rock and
rock bursts. Blocking and wedging with considerable side squeeze on the
timber cap is shown in Figure 3.9. In another area, the invert heaved about
1 foot after excavation and had to be recut. Figure 3. 10 shows a drift side-
wall rib where a large rock burst had occurred. Note the effect this burst
had on the rock bolts and steel mats. In some areas, rock slabbed off the
sides of the rectangular drifts to produce a more stable circular shape.
In 1967-1971, new No. 4 shaft and hoisting facilities were con-
structed at the Star Mine. The new underground hoist room on the adit 2000
level is horseshoe arch shaped 96' long 40' wide and 40'high , is supported
with rock bolts and 6" to 8" of shotcrete as shown in Figure 3.11. In addi-
tion, nearby transformer and slurry pit rooms, each about 20' wide arched
back are supported by 4" of shotcrete. The only evidence of shotcrete crack-
ing found on visitation was at shaip exterior comers and a very pronounced
crack where the country rock in the shaft area is crossed by a thin ore vein.
3,4.7 Caladay Mine Development
Work on this new mine development began In 1969 and to date con-
sists of about 5000 feet of 12' high by 9' wide horseshoe shaped access adit,
3-20
iniTm—»n i niiiaiii n
STAR MINE -
EXAMPLE OF SIDE
SQUEEZE OF ROCK
J , ■ • • • ■
STAR MINE -
EXAMPLE OF EFFECT
OF ROCK BURST
FIGURE 3.10
3-21
■ —— . — — -- - ■ ■- ■ ■— .. „J
FIGURE 3.11
STAR MINE -
UNDERGROUND HOIST ROOM
SUPPORTED BY SHOTCRETE
3-22
iLamt mmmt
~^*-^m*i I I I llll I ... .».ÔT^mi I III ^HW-^v-w^mwwwvOT-
auxllary drifts at the adit level, and an underground hoist room. The main
adit is in the Wallace and St. Regis formations consisting of argillite and
quartzitic fine grained metamorphic rock, less jointed than the Revett.
Most of the access adit is unsupported. Only a portal section has
timber sets and lagging. About 10% of the adit is supported by shotcrete,
reported 2" thick. Shotcrete was also used to support development drifts
where necessary. This was the only mine visited in the Coeur d'Alene dis-
trict where extensive shotcret support of adits and drifts had been practiced,
although other mines have used it In special situations. Attempts to use
shotcrete In an area covered by wire fencing and rock bolts resulted in fail-
ure of the shotcrete by not adhering to the mesh and yielded poor results.
When used on bare rock, shotcreting was successful and has stood up quite
well.
The underground hoist room is 94' long, 54' wide and 54' high with
a flat back, rock bolted and covered by 6" to 12" of shotcrete. It is the
largest underground hoist room in the area.
3.4.8 Pine Creek Mine
Pine Creek Mine is located near Bishop, California on the eastern
slope of the Sierra Nevada. It is one of the largest tungsten deposits in the
United States and is also a source of molybdenum and copper. The ore body,
a tactite, is about 4000 feet long, 3000 feet in vertical depth and up to 100
feet wide. Drifts for mine development have penetrated through surrounding
contact zones of quartz monzonlte and granite with intermingled velnlets of
3-23
H-l.^--.. .^. . -■J^... ^.... ^. ^ ^

piM IIIMJI m\m>twniimy*mm^^!wmmmmmumm^- ■^^ -— - "«P" ■ j.-PI-u.«..m■■I.ain.ap "^•^wwrww^^wwBW^Bwpra"«
quartz. Rock units are massive with few visible Joints. Not oven when
passing from one type of rock to another is a plane of weakness apparent
although the transition is usually sharp and distinct. This massive rock
permits an open stope mining method in that large flat back stopes are car-
reld in an under-cu* and mill hole mining method. Stopes are 60 to 80 feet
wide and 80 to 100 feet long with few comparable sized pillars between.
Most of the drifts are driven without support. For Instance, In the
Easy-Go-adlt, the main mine haulage level, only 600 feet are supported by
steel sets out of a total of 12,000 feet. The Easy-Go adit is presently be-
low mining In the ore body with service raises to drifts at various working
levels above. As the stopes are mined at successively higher levels, huge
open stopes hundreds of feet high remain. This has created a strain on some
Intervening pillars In the vicinity of these stopes, which in places is evi-
denced by the peeling of large thin slabs from the rib.
3 .5 CORRELATION OF MINING OPERATION SUPPORT
The amount of time available for detailed review of support practices
along the miles of mining adits and drifts visited did not permit a comprehen-
sive classification Into geologic sections. Because of the additional three
dimensional complexity of these extensive drift systems, it would take a
long time to gain familiarity with the entire mine layout to separate out simi-
lar geologic-support sections. In the mines visited it Is possible to general-
ize a range of RSR values with comparison to supports used.
3-24
mi—ii ■ ii • -' • *
"i •• ^^m^mm^mtmtm^mmmmtmmmmmmm"" —-""^^•^^""■™" ■ m^m^mmm^t^r^mmm^fr^m^^mmmmir-m^m^t
For the Coeur d'Alene mine drifts driven in Revett quartzite, and
where support was required, a range of RSR values was estimated at between
44 and 57. The rock bolt spacing observed varied from 31 x 3' to 4' x 4'.
To show this on the RSR vs. RR graph it was necessary to find equivalent rib
ratios for these bolt spacings. Using the relationship suggested for rock
bolts in Section 1, the weight of rock supported, and the spacing for 3/4"
bolts, is:
S ■ A/13-5 or Wr = !}*£
VWr S»
where Wr is the unit rock load in kips per sq. ft.
and S is the bolt spacing in feet.
This can be used to estimate a rib ratio capable of supporting the same
weight of rock:
D x RR 302 Wr
Wr - or RR =
302 D
where D is the average of the height and width
of the drift in feet.
In the case of the Coeur d'Alene drifts, this gives equivalent RR of 50 for
the 3x3 pattern and 28 for the 4x4 pattern. Figure 3.12 shows this range
of RSR and RR values as compared to the original model envelope.
In the case of the Henderson mine, three RSR values were estimated;
1) for rock in areas not requiring support (RSR 83), 2) for areas requiring
rock bolt or shotcrete support (RSR 56), and 3) for the area of he Vasquez
fault requiring rib support (RSR 32). To find the equivalent rib ratio for the
shotcrete the weight of rock supported is found by using the suggested
3-25
MMMM
m*^*^^^*^^^**mmmm^^mmimmi n , î^m*mmmmr^^m^m***i^^^ r-r ^ -"■••■ ■ «■■I !■ IMHIBM ■IVWW^^^W
UJ
trt o
LU V) N
1-
3
»- OK
tf)
»- =1 "K
2
</) Q u. 2 u.
UJ U.I « N a
«n z a Q
o uj
UJ o
5
PPORTE
(VASQU
BOLTS
CREEK
z o
CRETE
-I
< o
-i
Q 0)
< K
z UJ
o Z) a
UJ z woo" ~ o
a o UJ ZIO? f 0>
o o z r> woro: a.
*
I ^•a« <]
o
CO
o 2
• ^ 1(1
i
o 5g
UJ
z
UJ
o
<
>
O
o U.'
1?4)WNgw no«»x»
"ajLiiniOHs ,i
(^)9MI0»^S moi'^x*
o
.. o
(dSd) 9Niivd 3tini3nuis xooy
3-2)
i^M
^^■VOTn
relationship:
t = 1 + JäÜL or Wr - 1.25 (t - 1)
1.25
where t is thickness of shotcrete in inches.
This equivalent RR is 27 and for rock bolts 4' x 4' is 25. The RR for
steel ribs at the fault is 90. These have been plotted on the graph. Figure
3. 12.
The Pine Creek mine drifts were essentially unsupported, except for
occasional rock bolts, and the estimated RSR value of 88 bears this out.
It is interesting to note the relatively more widespread use of rock
bolt support in mining, as compared to civil tunnels. Based on the case his-
tory studies of civil tunnels investigated, the use of rock bolts has been lim-
ited to relatively competent rock, RSR>57, where minimal support is sug-
gested. The mining Industry has apparently been successfull In using rock
bolts in rock structures with an RSR value of 44. This value would fall in
the medium support requirement range.
It appears that good correlation exists between the mining examples
shown on Figure 3.12 and those used to establish the RSR model.
Unfortunately, more data required for RSR determinations are not
readily available from most mining operations. The records kept by mining
geologists ai.d draftsmen are primarily for ore search and planning mining
operations. The type of quantitative data required for determining the geolo-
gic parameters of RSR can best be found In most mines by visual observation.
Since most mine drifts are not lined, it Is possible to observe the rock even
3-27
"^^»•^ IWÜP ^^vmrnrj^mm ■ i ■im^niii ■ in ami imi
In drifts more thin 50 years old (provided it has not been altered by weather-
ing).
A major ad/antage for using data collected from mines concerns the
unresolved question of oversupport that exists in some civil tunnels. The
mine operator, acting as general contractor, has no financial or contractual
advantage in using more support than necessary. It is obvious that the act-
ual support used represents his best judgment of the required ground support.
It would seem that additional research investigation along this line in the
future could be beneficial to both the mining and tunneling industries.
3-28
. ——t..
■ ii ii j
■ -
SECTION 4
INDUSTRY EVALUATION OF RSR CONCEPT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Improving the state-of-the-art in tunneling is a continuing challenge
to those involved in underaround construction. New methods and procedures
are usually evolved over a relatively long period of time as compared to ad-
vancement in other types of construction. This is probably due to the fact
that tunneling deals with a variable physical medium - the rock structure -
whose physical properties are not only extremely varied, even under closely
controlled samplings, and which in most cases is virtually unknown at time
of penetration. This hovering of the unknown tends .o make "non-believers"
of many, with individual experience highly valued. At best, it leads to a
reluctancy in accepting any change in methods which does not show a high
probability of success. Consequently, one of the major obstacles to over-
come In the advancement of any new technique dealing with tunnels is ob-
taining the general approval and acceptance by Industry. Regardless of the
concept's technical merit, it could contribute nothing unless this acceptance
is achieved. The proposed ground support prediction model Is no exception.
In recognizing this; ARPA, through its agent the Bureau of Mines, has empha-
sized this requirement as an important aspect of the present research effort.
This section of the report deals with initial Industry evaluation of
the ground support prediction model. It set., forth and discusses those vari-
ous comments, suggestions, criticisms, advantages and disadvantages
4-1
mmmmmttmmtmnmm\tm \ ——um ■■—»m

expressed by different disciplines; all of which are relevant to possible
acceptance and use of the concept by industry. Although the discussion
relates primarily to civil applications, the basic principles apply equally
to the mining industry. In the latter casti however, the overall objectives
and requirements of tunneling operations are somewhat different than civil
construction. This is discussed in Section 3 of the report.
4.2 METHOD OF APPROACH
Various techniques which would be appropriate for soliciting industrv
evaluation of the RSR concept were reviewed with the Technical Project Offi-
cer. Personal interviews, essay, simple 'yes - no' type questiois, multiple
choice or preference statements, specific or general comments, and other
possibilities were examined. Each technique was considered with respect
to the complexity of the subject matter, the amount of time and effort which
would be required for individual responses, whether or not comments or an-
swers could be realistically correlated and evaluated, and lastly whether
or not they would generate sufficient Interest so as to obtain a representa-
tive number of responses from Industry.
Although a general evaluation of the RSR concept was of concern, it
was realized that it would be very difficult to propose direct specific ques-
tions without giving some consideration or qualification of the many other
factors which could have or may have affected a particular tunneling situa-
tion. Valid but opposing answers could be given for the same question de-
pending upon the Individual's interpretation of the intent and scope of the
4-2
subject and his particular background or area of Interest.
It was decided that a general 4-part questionnaire would be the best
approach. Several sample questionnaires were prepared using different for-
mats and phrased questions. These were reviewed by various members of the
study team and eventually finalized in the form shown on pages 4-4 through
4-9. (The Indicated answers shown on the questionnaire are discussed la-
ter). The questionnaire Includes several answering modes ana covers a
variety of subjects pertinent to ground support determination. The final
questionnaire represents a compromise between an exceptionally long ques-
tionnaire that would be required to cover all aspects of the problem, and
which would probably be unduely burdensome on the respondent, and a short
one which would not provide sufficient information for meaningful results.
The requirement was to obtain a minimum of twelve representative
evaluations from industry, including responses from groups representing
engineers, geologists, owners and contractors. Potential candidates from
each discipline were first contacted to see if they would be interested in
participating in the study. In nearly all instances the reply was affirmative.
This excellent cooperation was probably due to: l) the general wide-spread
interest and concern with ground support problems, and 2) the natural desire
of expressing one's opinions on a controversial and complicated subject.
Many candidates were of the opinion that an effo.t to formulate a better
method of predicting ground support (not necessarily the RSR concept) was
long overdue and that they had In the past endeavoured to set down some
4-3
„.^^^^^^—^...
1
ROCK STRUCTURE RATING CONCEPT EVALUATION
Generdl
1. Predicting ground support involves consideration of many factors or

criteria drawn fron different disciplines. Please rank the following
with a weighted % (on a scale of 100%) as to the most frequently used
criteria on which you have based your past prediction of ground
support.
Pre-bid geology 4/ /o
As-built geology (nearby projects) /2 /o
Past Tunneling experience /3 %
Personal judgement /4 %
Empirical relationship s %
Rules-ox-thumb 3 %
Theoretical analysis 4 %
Others 2 %
%
100 %
2. To establish a correlation between pre-bid geology and ground support
would you: (Check most appropriate choice) 75 % a) Include or
make allowance for all available geologic information. 26 */* b)
Use a general approach considering only major geologic factors.
3. In your oMnion, what is the minimum geologic data that should be

provided in the pre-bid period for the purpose of determining tunnel
support?
(5tc PifpenJix ft )
Rank in order of preference (1st, 2nd, etc.) the following investigation

techniques which you believe provide the most meaningful information
for predicting ground support (assume amount of detail provided by each
to be compatible with present day investigation cape bilities).
Vertical Borings and Logs /
Surface Geoloqy
Historical Geology
Seismic Surveys
Laboratory Testing of Samples
Other
5. Do you believe that the state-of-the-art for making geological

investigations is adequate to provide information needed to make a
reliable prediction of ground support?
Yes 47% No £3> %
4-4
MMMMMM mm ..— ..^ - ,■.

HOCK STRUCTURl RATING CONCETT CWUJATIUN
6. Should the projection of surface geology to tunnel grade be provided

in pre-bid documents?
Yes 74 % No 26 %
7. Should the type, spacing and locations of anticipated support be

included in pre-bid documents?
Yes 14-% No ZQ>%
8. Supports are sometimes installed for reasons other than geological

considerations. In your opinion what percent of support is placed for
the following reasons?
Actual ground requirements 46 %

Potential safety hazards 2S %
Expedient to tunnel driving 15 %
Construction methods
Other considerations j? %
Total Support Installed for typical tunnel project. TÖtT
9. Additional comments on part 1. General (êe hbprnd, * f\ \
11. Geologic Factors

1 The need for ground support is dependent on and/or related to, various
geological factors or conditions which individually or collectively affect
the physical quality of the rock structure. Rank the following with a
weighted % (on a scale of 100) as to the most important factors to be
considered in describing the quality of a rock structure with respect
to its need for support.
Geologic Factor Symbol Weighted Values

Rock Type-Lithologic Classification (RT) /2 %
Joint Orientation-Strike and Dip (JO) II %
Degree of folding or faulting (RF) 13 %
Rock Properties-Hardness etc. (RP)
Joint pattern-Spacing & Orientation £.
of fractures OP) 20 %
Geologic Structure (GS) _fi %
Condition of joint surfaces QS) 6
Ground water inflow (WF)
Weathering or alteration (WA)
Other ( ) Z %
100
4-5
iMMUMMMÜÜlMMMM^k-..
HUCK STRUCTURE RATING CUNCETT FVAI.UATIüN
The effect of geologic factors on the support requirement is usually

dependent on other chüracteristics of the rock structure. In your
opinion, which of the factors shown in 1-above must be considered
collectively to properly describe their effect on the support requirement.
Please indicate grouping of factors by symbol (i.e. ground water inflow
and condition of join1 surfaces - WF+JS — etc) in the left hand column.
Show in the right hand column the weighted value you would assign to
each grouping with respect to their combined effect on the support
requirement.
Geologic Factor Relative effect on

Grouping Support Requirement
RP->RT IZ %
JO^JP 15 %
WF-*Wf\ 6 %
6 %
Others 59 %
100 %
Various descriptive and quantitative terms have been used to define
rock properties or geologic conditions which affect the rock structure
and which are considered in making predictions of ground support.
Within the general context of support determination, please, indicate
your preference (1st, 2nd, etc) as to most appropriate means of
describing the following geologic factors.
Rock Type
a. Igneous-Sedimentary-Metamorphic /
b. Classification by subdivision and formation 3
c. Composition, texture, color, geological age 2.
etc. in addition to info in (b)
d. Other 4-
Geological Structure
a. Massive-intensely folded or faulted etc.

b. Origin and sequence, geologic age, etc.
c. Other
Joint Spacing (Predominant Set)

a. Descriptive (Massive, blocky, intensely jointed,
etc.)
b. Quantitative (2", 2" -6", etc.)
c. Other
Joint Condition
a. Descriptive (fresh, weathered, stained, etc.)

b. Quantitative (i.e. 1/4" wide with clay gouge)
c. Other i.
4-6
mm aaâ^MI
ROCK STRUCTURE RATING CONCEPT EVALUATION
Ground water inflow
a. Descriptive (Damp, Light Flow, etc.)

b. Quantitative (Anticipate about 50 gpm/1000 L.F.)
c. Other
Mechanical Properties of Rock Material
a. Descriptive (Medium to hard limestone)

b. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (i.e 18,000 psi)
c. Other
4. Additional comments on Part II Geologic Factors
III. Support Prediction Model
Jacobs proposed prediction model (RSR concept as described in the R. E.

T. C. paper on page 9) rates the competency of a rock structure on a
numerical scale by evaluating three general parameters, each with respect
to several geologic factors and where applicable with respect to each
other. RSR ratings were determined and correlated with actual support
installations for approximately 120 sample tunnel sections. Empirical
relationships were developed which identifies typical support installations
with anticipated rock conditions. (See RETC paper presentation (pages
9 thru 16) previously mailed to you).
1. Do you believe the most essential geologic factors have been included
in the RSR evaluation? Yes 9 2 No 8%
2. In your opinion, what additional factors should be included?
3. What relative values would you assign to Parameter "A" 3/

Parameter "B" 45 Parameter "C" 24- (See Appendix A
of R. E. T. C. paper)
4. Do you believe the weighted values assigned to specific combinations

of geologic factors and conditions as shown on tables for Parameters
"A", "B", "C" reasonably reflect differences in support requirements?
Yes 74% No 26%
4-7
iammiim .
■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ II umm IIIIIV^W^V^M mmmm
ROCK STRUCTURE FATING CONCEPT EVALUATION
5. Do you believe that pertinent features or physic<:il condition of rock

structure can be properly identified on a numerical scale?
Yes SB No 12%
6. Do you believe that an empirical relationship between geologic factors
and support requirements can be developed which would be adaptable
to most rock tunnels?
Yes 93% No 7%
7. Rate the following in order of preference (1st, 2nd, etc.) as to type
of information you would most heavily rely on in developing a support
prediction mode'.
Unproved investigation techniques /

Empirical relationships based on past experiences
Theoretical analysis of rock mechanics
Rules-of-thumb
Insitu testing
Data Banks
8. Additional comments on part III Support Prediction Model

yr
IV. Acceptability of Proposed Rock Structure Rating
Any proposed scheme of rock structure classification for support prediction

must ultimately have industry acceptance.
1. Please rate in order the segment (s) of industry you believe would most
benefit from any concept of Rock Structure Rating.
Federal or State owner agencies /
Private owners, i.e. utilities
Owners A & E representatives
Design engineers
Geologists
Contractors
4-8
MMMMMBMB aaMMttoi - - -- ■ ■ -■-'■ — -*- ■

RÜCK STRUCTURE RATING CONCLRT I'.VALUATION
2. Do you believe such a concept would improve or worsen the following;

No
Improve Effect Worsen
Owner-engineer relationship 70% 2 5"% S%

Owner-geologist relationship AUL
Owner-contractor relationship 20 X
Changed Condition Clauses
Contract Price 14% TLZL £Ä
3. Do you believe such a concept would increase or decrease responsibil-
ities of the following groups in the tunneling indubtry?
Increase No Effect Decrease
Owner's responsibility 5-9% 27Ä (4%

Engineer's responsibility 30% /ox
Geologist's responsibility 61 7a 14% si
Contractor's responsibility 16% 23% $?%
It is probable that in the future, advanced techniques in instrument-
ation or geologic investigations will enable us to get an accurate
model of the actual rock loads imposed on a support system. Any
support prediction model, to be useful in the future, should be adapt-
able to this type of aata input as it is developed. Do you believe the
proponed Rock Structure Rating concept as proposed is adaptable to
such change?
Yes 93^ No 7%
5. Additional comments on part IV. Acceptability of Proposed Rock

Structure Rating ___^
("iee 5ecflon 4.5)

Name
4-9
^*'**^*"",fcJ—^- - - -—-—-
um . . - \imum
form of criteria or standards which could be used. Some of the individuals
were already familiar with the purpose of the research effort, others were not.
To better explain the concept and the purpose of the questionnaire, addition-
al individual reports were enclosed which included the following:
1. Paper presented at the Chicago Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conference - June 1972 (Ref. 2)
2. Tables showing the RSR parameters and support
requirement charts taken from Sections 2 and 4
respectively of Reference 1.
3. Example use of the RSR concept to determine support
requirements for a hypothetical tunnel - Section
6 of Reference 1.
These reports, along with an explanatory cover letter and the ques-
tionnaire, were sent to 30 individuals, each of whom are prominent in their
respective field of interest. This was followed by various discussions and
correspondence so as to answer or explain questions raised by the candidates.
4.3 INDUSTRY RESPONSE
Overall response from the industry was considered excellent. Of the
30 questionnaires sent out, 25 were returned with most of the questions an-
swered. A listing by general disciplines is given below; names of respond-
ents are given on pages 4-12 and 4-13.
4-10
MUfaht^^M^....^.-.-.. .-.■■ ■ , ■.-.■■.. ^. ■

' '■■"■ ■ ■■ WP"
Discipline No. of Responses
Geologist - Owner 4
Geologist - Consultant 3
Engineer - Owner 5
Engineer - Consultant 4
Contractor 3
R&D and Educational 6

25
4-11
—MMM—MM âmt^mm mMU^^ aMMll'lllll .;» .

RESPONDENTS TO RSR QUESTIONNAIRE
Mr. Amll Dubnie - Dr. D.F. Coates U. S. Bureau of Reclamation

Dept. of Energy, Mines & Resources Federal Center
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Denver, Colorado
Mr. T. M. Noskiewlcz Mr. Eugene F. Casey
Hatch Associates, Ltd. New York City Iransit Auth.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada Brooklyn, New York
Mr. E.H. Shea, Jr. Mr. Harry Sutcllffe

J. F. Shea Co. , Inc. Bechtel Corp.
Dublin, California San Francisco, Ca.
Mr. A. G. Bennet Mr. Reginald Darrow
John Connell - Mott Hey & Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Tudor,
Anerson, Hatch, Jacobs Bechtel
Melbourne, Australia Oakland, Ca.
U. S. Bureau of Mines Mr. Alan L. O'Neill

Spokane Mining Research Center U. S. Corps of Engineers
Spokane, Washington San Francisco, Ca.
Dr. Charles 3. Robinson Dr. Edward J. Cording
Charles S. Robinson & Assoc, Inc. University of Illinois
Denver, Colorado Urbane, 111.
Mr. Paul G. De Marco Mr. Richard V. Proctor
Grow Tunneling Corp. Metropolitan Water District
New York, N. Y. Los Angeles, Ca.
Mr. Robert S. Mayo Dr. Ernest E. Wahlstrom
Robert S. Mayo & Associates Colorado School of Mines
Lancaster, Pa. Boulder, Colorado
Mr. Clark E. McHuron Mr. John A. Trantlna
Consulting Engineer Geologist Woodward - Clyde & Assoc.
Santa Rosa, Ca. San Francisco, Ca.
Mr. Carl G. Bock Mr. John W. Woodward
Bechtel Associates Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Washington, D.C. San Francisco, Ca.
Mr. F. T. Lee Mr. Samuel Taradash
U. S. Geological Survey Comm. Shearing & Stamping Co.
Denver, Colorado Young stown, Ohio
4-12
MHMBHMi Hk. «MMMMn - IIH—MMiiMHiiMin - ii MMMMittiüiîii

Mr. L. B. Underwood Mr. John F. Johnston
U.S. Corps of Engineers MacLean Grove & Co.
Omaha, Nebraska New York , New York
Dr. Madan M. Singh Mr. J. N. de la Vergne

ITT Research Institute J. S. Redpath Ltd. ,
Chicago, 111. North Bay, Ontario
Dr. Paul LeComte

Geology and Soil Mechanics Div.
Hydro-Quebec
Montreal, P. 0.
The authors again wish to express their appreciation to those who
took the time and effort to help in this research.
In addition to the above, continuing inquiries and comments regarding
the RSR concept were received from both local and foreign sources. In one
instance a member of the study team made a presentation on the use of the
RSR method for an engineering class at a local university. Included in Hand-
book on Tunneling - Other engineering class - etc.
Several of the candidates expressed concern over the difficulty of
trying to isolate or consider a specific factor involved in ground support
determinations without first evaluating all factors which might in one way or
another affect the particular tunneling situation. The reasoning being that no
two tunnels present identical conditions. Another problem occurred where
several individuals within the same organization were either unable to agree
on a specific answer or were concerned over the possibility that a particular
answer might be taken out of context and considered as a policy statement of
the organization. This relates principally to potential legal aspects of con-
tracting. Such concern was anticipated and fully appreciated by the study
4-13
!■ IIB—>M>— I faltawl^, ■ -"■■■■'

•w^~mmmmwmm'*m^^^^mm^^mmmmmmmmmm
team. Such reasoning may be why a prediction model has not been advanced
in the past. It does, however, point out the necessity for developing some
common solution which would provide realistic answers and be acceptable
to all involved in tunnel construction. For the present, and at least the Im-
mediate tuture, it must be accepted that the prediction of ground support re-
quirements is not an exact science and should not be construed as such for
purposes of circumventing contract requirements. Also, a method of 'exact'
dimensioning for support members has a relatively minor effect on toial cost
and effort when considering the overall tunneling process.
Most of the submitted questions could be answered by 'yes' or 'no' ;
ranking in order of preference; or assignment by weighted percentages on a
scale of 100. Industry response to these questions is shown on the included
questionnaire. The indicated answers or values reflect a straight numerical
average of responses given for the particular questions. The geologic factor
grouping and percentages shown for question II-2, page 4-6, is an exception
to the above and is discussed later.
Responses to the six comment questions (1-3, 1-9, II-4, III-2, III-8,
anc IV-5) covered a wide range of individual thought and suggestions. Sev-
eral separate written critiques were returned which discussed the overall
concept and gave suggestions for changes and/or additions, which might be
made. A brief synopsis of some of the comments as well as ideas expressed
during infonnal discussions of the RSR method are given below. Additional
comments are given as Appendix A of this report.
4-14
mmtmmmmmatmm —- -
mmmmmmw m t mmi«'rmi*Mwm\ ■■ i •"■ ^■■«^'■i-" i " " mi-i »imwi n II-IM».
Fairly useful technique -
A significant step in right direction -
Not workable in present form -
Should be expanded to include extreme conditions -
Avoid using descriptions that lack dimensions -
Highly desirable for correlation between predictions and
actual rock loads monitored -
Legal Implications and effect on changed condition
clauses -
Need in situ testing to see if support is adequate -
Misuse of basic geologic terms or concepts -
Requires more emphasis on accurate mapping -
Must prove reliable on first try -
Quality and quantity of input of prime importance -
Need explicit dimensions rather than verbal terminology -
Require consideration of past and present tectonic stress
Consideration of stand-up time of excavated rock -
Don't throw out the baby with the dirty water -
Must consider special problems of gas and water -
Excellent classification system for design -
Just don't believe it will work -
Projection of surface geology to grade most difficult -
4-15
mmmm uu^Müi ■HMM ^4 . - . .~—_*- iflli

-- ..„^^.v.., ... ^
1
ll""l^l «■■
- Factors other than geology affect type and amount of
support -
- Would be a way of testing to increase confidence in
Instrumental data.
As seen by the above, and Appendix A, the prediction of ground

l
support requirements Is not only a subject of wide-open discussion, b one
which would be of special benefit to the Industry if properly developed for
effective use.
4.4 EVALUATION OF INDUSTRY RESPONSE
The following discussion evaluates industry's response to the RSR
prediction model questionnaire. It considers and incorporates those com-
ments, factors, and suggestions directly related to or affecting the proposed
model and which most nearly reflect different requirements as expressed by
various di„ iplines involved in tunnel construction. The evaluation Is not
intended to imply or Infer the endorsement or rejection by any individual or
organization but rather it is presented as an objective endeavour to provide
a workable and useful tool for the benefit of the industry.
Answers to "yes - no* and preference type questions appear to re-
flect general industry concurrence with respect to most of the requirements
and objectives of the proposed prediction model.
The Importance and heavy reliance on pre-bld geology In making pre-
dltlons of ground support Is shown by answers to question 1-1. Question
1-4 Indicates several types of pre-bld geloglcal Information which would be
4-16
^Mj^^^Hl^ |, ig^^^^^^^^^^mm
fftmill I I I ■ .«p»« .«■>«.■ i i luiunnaivmaOTacwwaniii'i ■ i •■■•«■•••—»^^wim»! !■ IM nmt^^m^m^m^^^ «»»■<WW«.IP.IM»I»IIP»»W»»"""»»">"»"WW«""»"—"-""™»I"""W™
most meaningful In this respect. These answers, which could be anticipated,
probably reflect one or both of the following: 1) Continuation of a well In-
doctrinated Industry procedure, or 2) lack of, or reluctancy to accept, new
methods or procedures measuring rock properties In predicting ground support.
Although past tunneling experience and judgement rank second as to most
frequently used criteria in predicting supports, their combined weighting
(33%) is somewhat less than given for pre-bid geology (41%). In a general
sense this might indicate that the owner, who usually provides pre-bid geo-
logical information, should depict and include in the contract documents a
fairly specific delineation of the anticipated ground support requirement..
Criterion used in developing the RSR concept are essentially the same as
listed by the industry as being most important.
Question 1-7 emphasizes the need for improving techniques used in
making geological investigations for tunnel projects. Although remote sens-
ing or other techniques might be developed, indications are that such devices
will not be available for use in the immediate or near future. Empirical rela-
tionships, as ranked second, have been derived and used in correlating RSR
evaluations and support requirements for the proposed prediction model.
Question III - 3 shows the average relative values assigned to the
three basic Parameters - A ) General Area Geology; B ) Joint Pattern and
Direction of Drive; and C ) Ground Water and Joint Condition. These ques-
tionnaire averages are substantially the same as used in the original RSR
model as shown below:
4-n
<*~~„—. .. »J.i....^—■ ^----nrli« tiiWimni

EVALUATION OF RSR PARAMETERS
Parameters Original Value Industry Response (Aver.)
A 30 31
B 50 45
C 20 24
Several comments were also made to the effect that the range of rock
types shown for Parameter A should be expanded to Include badly broken or
decomposed rock.
Most candidates had expressed a preference, whenever possible, to
use quantitative or dimensional values in aescribing geological factors, in
Question II-3, as opposed to verbal descriptions. Various suggestions were
made in this respect, one of which is shown by the following table submitted
byE. H. Skinner - USBM, Spokane, for mechanical properties of rock
material.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Porometer A-Rock Strength Max. Value 30
LABORATORY© FIELD (D DESIGN
UNIAXIAL SEISMIC ELASTIC
Rock Classification COMPRESSIVE VELOCITY MCDULU S
STRENCTH
(ptM ( fpt) (!»•'«••• )
Hard Rock < 20,000 < 15.000 5 — 9
Medium Rock 10- 20.000 10,000-15,000 3— 5
Soft Rock 5- 10,000 5 000-10,000 1 -— 3
Decomposed Rock >I000 >5000 ® >l.0
I.) In-situ tiastic modulus may be estimated with laboratory uniaxial elastic modulus.
Divide laboratory tiastic modulus by joints per foot. Joints per foot by field count only.
2.) Prediction c s 11 mates of elastic modulus may be obtained from seismic velocity
and rock hardness
3) Assumed water saturated ^ if not velocity slightly greater.
4-18
HIM m i in i ii amm ■■—Mil 11 <■■

mrmmtrmmmm
Another example, regarding definitions of geological properties, re-
lates to Parameter B which considers the anticipated Joint pattern of the
rock structure. Normal usage of terms such as "closely jointed" or "blocky"
have different meaning to different Individuals even though qualified by a
numerical value. Adequately defining this factor Is Important In any deter-
mination of ground support requirements and was frequently referred to In
the Industry response. It Is felt that a method proposed by Mr, John
Trantlna - Woodward Clyde { Associates, offers a resonable solution to
this problem . It basically gives a two dimensional definition of the Joint
pattern as shown by the graph.
Massive (5)
24
Blocky To Massive ®
tf> 18
o
c
Moderate To Blocky ®
W|2
0)
c
-^
(_>
Moderately Jointed ®
Closely Jointed ®
12 18 24 32
Separations { Inches)
4-19
mmmmtm ttu-^^tHimm** *—um—m

These and other comments regarding the definition of geologic fac-
tors are considered and used In formulating the final prediction model In
Section 5 of this report.
Opinions expressed for questions 1-5 and 1-8 bear on the overall
possibility or necessity of developing a ground support prediction model.
Question 1-5 -- whether or not present-day techniques of making geologic
Investigations are adequate — Is crucial, since the validity of a prediction
model depends on the reliability and Interpretation of developed geologic
data. Although the overall consensus shows about an even distribution of
thought It Is Interesting to note that most geologists and R&D personnel
were of the opinion that present methods were not adquate, while contractors
and engineering consultants felt that they were. This difference Is probably
due to requirements and degree of detail which each discipline thinks Is
essential to the problem. There Is no question as to the desirability of
having and using as much geological information as possible (question 1-2)
but it is felt that reasonable predictions can be made from findings and re-
sults obtained by the use of present-day techniques. Question 1-8, reasons
for installing support -- gives another insight to the problem. Most disci-
plines polled feel that more than 50% of all tunnel supports are installed
for reasons other than on the simple basis of actual load carrying capacity
or ground supporting requirements. Contractors were an exception. Reasons
for installing supports as a precaution against "potential safety hazards"
are more or less indeterminate, depending entirely on the personal Judge-
4-20
llMfllMiliMMi <M»MMIM—MIMMiwi^mi in i imuUMmmMiimämm^]»

mmm<mm^'^mi^mmî wmwm<m »•- mm~<- i n iiaiaiHn«*«P«ir— ■ "i"
ment of those in charge of the heading. Usually, such decisions are made
immediately after the rock is exposed, allowing little time for an analysis
as to the actual structural need for the support member. Undoubtedly, sub-
sequent inspection or testing would show some of this support as being
superfluous with respect to actual load carrying requirements, hence the
contention of "over-supported". Convincing a walking boss that this consid-
eration is more important than measures taken which might possibly prevent
a fatal accident would be very difficult indeed.
In a broad sense, the above raises the question as to the merit or
effectiveness of trying to obtain complete geological data necessary for ,
or attempting to make a theoretically correct support design. This does not
condone "over-supporting" of tunnels as such, but rather is intended to
point out the possibility and need for a reasonable compromise between tech-
nical design and real-v/orld tunneling practices.
Whether or not surface geology should be projected to grade and
anticipated supports indicated in project documents, (questions 1-6 and
1-7) Is a problem to be resolved in the preparation of all tunnel contracts.
Although Industry response is generally in favor of such inclusions, it is
seldom that this type of information is provided. This is probably due more
to legal aspects of responsibility for changed conditions that it is to engi-
neering or geological considerations. The continued, and perhaps increasing
nu.aber of claims relating to changed conditions indicate that the more-or-
less non-committal approach used lr many contracts Is not solving or
4-21
MMMMMMttttMi^ i
■Jin ii iHiiii^pfmpimign i" pi in' " "" i"
Improving the situation. Although the area of contractural requirements is
beyond the scope of this study, it is suggested that a commonly accepted
method of evaluating support requirements by all the tunneling industry,
both during the pre-bid and construction periods, will eventually lead to
more equitable and realistic procedures to be followed in the preparation
of specifications for tunnel construction and in payment for actual work per-
formed .
Answers to questions III-5 and III-6 indicate that most candidates
(90%) think that it is possible to identify physical features or conditions of
a rock structure by some type of numerical scale and that an empirical rela-
tionship between geologic factors and support requirements can be estab-
lished. Although these two questions were not specific as to what the numer-
ical scale or empirical relationship should be, it appears tha* the basic
principals used in developing the RSR prediction model are reasonable. The
concept lists commonly referred to factors or groups of factors and assigns
a weighted value to each with respect to its effect on the overall support
requirement. Their values are subsequently correlated with support needs
on the basis of an empirical relationship derived from case studies (Section
2). Question II-1 requested the candidates to rank on a scale of 100%
those geologic factors which they felt were most important in this respect.
The percentages shown in the questionnaire (page 4-5, 4-6) reflect numeri-
cal averages of 22 responses to this question." The following tabulation
shows averages as given by the four different disciplines.
4-22
iwnn i mi [■Mi—m —■—■—.-- -~

M^^M«M>—W- — ^ i ■ mmi i ii
Factor *
i
Discipline RT JO RF RP TP GS IS WF WA other
Geologist 11 5 19 4 28 4 7 11 9 2
Engineers 10 13 11 9 18 11 8 10 10
Contractors 15 12 8 7 20 10 12 5 8 . 3
R&D 17 15 12 10 I« 5 8 8 6 3
Average 13 11 12 7 21 13 9 9 8 2
* See questionnaire, question II-1.
The above tabulation, as well as individual answers show
wide variation in thinking as to the relative importance of the listed factors.
This, of course, is also reflected in Question II-2 — grouping of geologic
factors and assignment of weighted values with respect to relative effect
on the support requirement. In this latter instance, some 51 different group-
ings were given. Group RP + RT was listed 7 times; JO + JP, — 5 times;
WF +WA, -- 4 times, and WF +JS, — 3 times. Thirteen groupings were
listed twice, the remainder only once. The percentages shown for Question
II-2 are averages given by 12 respondents who included the indicated
groupings in their evaluation. Regardless of the individual differences,
there appears to be the general consensus that the most important consider-
ation in the evaluation or prediction of support requirements deals with the
anticipated Joint pattern of the rock structure. Rock types and rock proper-
ties appear to be next, followed by some consideration as to the effect of
water In-flow, and condition of the joint surface. This ranking of the
4-23
am ...*~**M~~~,~ -. .-., .
mmmmi m HÎIIIMNI^
combined relative effect on the overall support requirement for various geo-
logic factors Is In general agreement with values assigned to Parameters
A, B and C as used In the RSR concept. These two questions Ol-l and II-2)
are fundamental and as anticipated the most difficult to answer and evaluate.
They involve consideration of 1) what Is meant by each of the listed geo-
logic factors, 2) whether or not they can be or should be treated Individually
or collectively and 3) what If any Is their effect on the support requirement.
Indeed, this concern wac expressed by several respondents who commented
that some geologic factors were undlstlngulshable from others or were am-
biguous In meaning. Although clarifying or establishing acceptable stan-
dards and limits of measure for these factors is a major task to be accom-
plished In finalizing the prediction model. Industry response to the ques-
tionnaire, and findings of this and previous research efforts Indicate that
the range of potential answers Is being narrowed to within acceptable limits
of agreement. This is inferred somewhat by answers to questions III-l;
whether or not most essential geologic factors he.ê been Included In the RSR
concept and ni-4; whether or not weighted values assigned to Parameter A,
B and C reasonably reflect differences In support requirements. Both were
affirmative.
Any prediction model must be adaptable to such modifications as may
be determined by continued research or use; opinions expressed for ques-
tion IV-4 indicate that this is possible with the RSR concept.
Potential benefit of an accepted method for predicting ground support
4-24
»«i^MMMü — ■ ■
Is shown by answers to questions IV-1, 2 and 3. Most candidates think
there would be a general Improvement In relationship between various
disciplines and In other aspects pertaining to tunneling.
The evaluation of multiple opinions and comments Is difficult and
always presents the Interpretative problem as to whether ^.- not answers
given to a specific question by one discipline should be weighted more
heavily than those given by another. Although this was considered, the
final evaluations were based on equal consideration for all responses.
Since effective use of a prediction model requires general acceptance by
all disciplines It was felt that this was the best approach even though It
Induces or Implies the requirement of compromise between some presently
accepted standards or criteria.
4.5 INDUSTRY ACCEPTANCE OF PREDICTION MODEL
Based on Industry's response, comments, suggestions and overall
Interest, It Is concluded that the ground support prediction model would be
acceptable and could be widely used as a practical tool In the planning and
design of future civil works tunnels. It Is similarly concluded that to a
large extent, Initial RSR use will probably be in the area of comparing or
verifying ground support systems as determined by other methods. This
more-or-less cautious approach is understandable and is essentially the
same approach used in developing the modal wherein some 53 case histories
were considered. With a basic model format to follow, requirements, find-
ings and results of future work can; when appropriate, be effectively Inte-
4-25
■MMMMllfMMBMigjMMMMMM ■■MWMlli iiaaW—»HI ■mil

■^^^"W»l II - ' '■ WW^^HW(«MI .1 ■ .„...«.„,.,»,-,„, ,.^ .TWIWVWRU ■ IHPff ■ laMHIIMI.! \ l\ H.\ .^^^l^^^g^f^
grated so as to Increase the degree ot confidence In making predictions of
ground support requirements.
Various adjustments and revisions expressed by Industry are Incor-
porated in the proposed prediction model as discussed in Section 5. Addi-
tional refinements which may be Indicated by results of continued use can
readily be made. In all cases, and as previously mentioned, the effective
use of a ground support prediction model requires engineering Judgment and
compromise from each discipline. A cooperative approach should prove
beneficial to all concerned.
Use of a prediction model by the mining Industry would probably be
limited to determination of support required for access or haulage tunnels
Although these tunnels are usually small In cross section, their aggregate
length could. In some cases, constitute a major undertaking In which a
reasonable prediction of ground support would be of substantial benefit.
There may be other Instances, but In general, it is assumed that the accep-
tance and use of a prediction model by the mining industry would be some-
what less than in civil applications. This is due in part to Inherent differ-
ences in requirements, procedures and objectives between the two industries.
On the other hand, geologic and in situ testing data developed in typical
mining operations could be of significant value in ultimate refinement and
acceptance of the prediction model by the tunnel Industry, if properly corre-
lated with model parameters and goals.
4-26
■TIM—illlMII^JMfcÜtM I I l^—Wllll l—M—111 in mil ■■ -

• ^w^^«~»ii ii iii^wamanilll im m.„.m,mmmwu'» • mi. ^m^m^mimiii ■ . m ii»n
SECTION 5
S.l INTRODUCTION
The basic concept used in developing the initial ground support
prediction model was discussed in Section 1. In brief, it provides a method
of rating a rock structure with respect to its need for support during tunnel-
ing operations. This rating is indicated on a numerical scale which relates
to most rock tunneling situations. It is determined by considering and
evaluating various geological and construction parameters which are appli-
cable to the tunneling operations and which are available for consideration
in the pre-construction period. The higher ratings indicating good rock
conditions wherein little or no support would be required, lower ratings
indicating various degrees of support requirements. Using data from case
studies and developed empirical relationships, steel rib support (size and
spacing) that would be required for a particular size of tunnel has been
'ietermined and correlated with the RSR values. The concept has been
expanded to include consideration of shotcrete and rock bolt type of supoort.
The object of this research phase is to further develop and verify the
prediction model for practical usage to mining and/or civil applications. Two
of the indicated requirements weie 1) Incorporate additional case history
data so as to refine and develop the concept and 2) seek industry evaluation
and acceptance of the concept. These two areas of effort were discussed in
Sections 2, 3, and 4.
5-1
■WWW !■■ Illl«*—II I lllli^«!! »—MM ■ -

1
■ ■■•ii■inn tmmmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmît m^mm**^~***^mm^mm^m^mmm*^*wm^^^*^nmmm*^w***mmi^Hmmrmm
This section of the report incorporates findings, comments, data and
recommendations as developed or determined in the previous sections with
respect to the initial RSR prediction model. The overall methodology and
empirical relationships used in finalizing the model are similar to those
described in Section 1 and Reference 1. Since case history data and empirical
relationships are interdependent (any singular change or adjustment of a
weighted parameter value or limit of measure necessitates re-evaluation of
all case study data) it was necessary to make a "trial run" for each potential
adjustment. Results and calculations pertaining to those intermediate steps
are not included herein except as they affect the final ground support predic-
tion model.
5.2 MODEL FORMAT & CONCEPT
Critical review of the original RSR format by the tunnel industry
indicated that specific changes or modifications should be made. They
relate primarily to the weighted numerical values assigned to Parameters
A, B, and C, and to methods or measures used to define various factors. The
revised format is shown as Figure 5.1. Comparison with Figure 1.1 shows
adjustment and changes that have been made.
Industry also indicated the desirability of extending the scope of
the model so as to include a larger range of rock conditions. To a certain
extent this has been accomplished by expanding the basic rock type descrip-
tors and respective weighted values shown for Parameter A. (See paragraph
5.5) However., the model is still not applicable to soft squeezing or swell-
5-2
i ii iiiiiäaif i i i—- -.-■^——^-^— ■ J

- ■ ■ - —
•wmmmmmmm wm^mmmmm^m
1
" '"«"■■I
p
UJ
03
u
CD 00
o U
n H o
u
i p
H M Q Q
M
Ü m
53 u
2 w D o
n < tu
< 2
Ü
»—*
Ü
O >1 Q Q
»3 M
o 5 0 o oo UO
UJ 5 {a o •? CM CM
Ü O
a^
09
fa
I—t
H
u o
S (D
5 m CM
H
Ü
g
• ••^
CO U,
a,
8 o
u ■^r ^r «r
u
Q
H
O ro co TT
CO
•
v:
Q CM ro
CM
Ü
O
u. 9
Ü
i—<
§DC f—i r-H CM
|
CQ
Ü
w
l-H
a,
a;
1H a, K K
|3 O OH
O
w
fc E
H Q
3 W M
CO
5-3
UM MM Mi« mj. -' - ■ ■ -■ - -

mtm^mm^m i mm mm* ■nvoi wmmi^m wmmmmt ■' ""■'"■'■,'
rn K-l
H <
2 U t^ i-H
Ol ^r 00 ■q*
r-H r-^ CM CM CO
CO
O
in > i—.
^T G 1—*
H >
Q 2
U
5 O
H
tu,
2 0
O
<
> 5 t—1
Sa, n
• o o
CO
0 a.
CD
•-H eg
00
CM CO
00
CO
*—1
H a, Q
2 1—1
PC
Ü
Ul
Ü H
en o
H o
1—1 a, —i CM CO CO
Q >-<
Q
H-l
<
a. CM CM oo m o
i—i r-H i-H
CM CM CO
Q K
H U
>
o
1—1 CO o
< H Ü en
-a
l-H
H —
<
S <
1—4
cu o LO in I
(D
3
a: OJ
_i f-t
a: 0
1—1 Ou ^^ <Tt
«-H CM
CO
CO
t^
CO C
l-H
M UJ
Q CO g H Q c
1 2 LO
M a; o
H O 0
H U Q
Ü o i—i < a
o lh
2 Ü cr> u ^—i
•
1 H
^3 CO OD to O in
< O ro <•
2 H »—4
a. O
^H CM T in
a, o Ü
W o Q >
3
8a:
1—t
Q g u
H O
a.
Ü 0
2 o
H
CO
a:
»—l
Q
5 a l-H
cu
cu
^H lO ^r CM 00 CO
in
HH
»H CM CO CO ■^r l
Q
0
2C
o
H en ro o
O
CO
3u, r-H CM CO
U3
CO
o
Cn
c
a
a
i
@ Q
■ •
i
m
U Q
a
IS o
W
2 80 o
® o Q so 3 CM
z
z
i—>
m
0
1
CO
I
1
(V (/)
l-H
o
»—1
a
U)
H
u o
O
■M
® ü
a
M W
1 a
Q
ro
—-4
CO CO
Q ••
© z
2
Q
8 co co
S 1 s O
O O
03
<
T
>fi
1
s»
1
o* ;
i 1—1 r
0
O
0 0 B © e 0 O
2
j S3H3N Nl O.JlOVdS
1
5-4
■MM MMMlHa MMa

mmrnn^^mf^wm tmiw
cc
O CO ■^r CM o
0 ■—1 •—< i-H ^H
0)
M cu
0)
^ >
NJ
0)
< CO
>
•
o
s i QC
h-4
CM CT) iß ^'
00
to
8S M i—I f—i rH
+ a)
c
< 0)
CO
oc fe
H
o
1—1 Q
H O in cr> l-H CO
T3
0)
2 Q 0 CM CM CM i-H u
•
§< sz:
o
Ü 0)
o S u 0)
p
c
t—1
H 2
o s *->
c
b
DC
W O
*—<
o o
u H H b § CM
«—I
a> fv 10
■"H
V
CO
ex 0 —H
p w % a. CO
H H
uMQ o II
to
u
p 2
H
CO
<
o
DC
>*
^r
I
c?
—<
cu PL,
'o "So
^ Ü i K in
^^ CO
•^ ■—i
I-) 00
fi L-
8cc
i-H
6M 0)
E
I
Q
0 CM 0i in o o> -a
0 CM ■-4 i-H r-H
Ü
H £
ii «
1
*|
c
Q ^-
o
I o
H o Ia I
It
bH O
o
MODERA'
OlOOO g
(200-100
CU t i-H
Ü * 0
HEAVY
M
CU Ü o
< s o
2 CO 3
o
5-5
mmmm m .^—^■■MMMI
i ■' iv*w'mmmmm**m<'im***mmmnm
^
Ing ground conditions where support requirements would likely be determined
by use of criteria developed from soil mechanics or other analytical analyses
dealing with soil pressures and loads, all of which is beyond the scope of
the present research effort.
Another mentioned extension of the model; and one which should be
of substantial benefit to the tunneling industry, would be to show a correla-
tion between RSR values and a "drillability factor" as it relates to potential
use of a boring machine for tunnel excavation. Although not considered in
the present study, it is felt that such a correlation could be made within
the same general format and procedures used in developing the prediction
model. Since "drillability" relates to both mechanical properties of the rock
(hardness, abrasiveness, compressive strength, etc.) and to the anticipated
joint pattern or fracture system. It is possible that a reasonable evaluation
of the applicability of a boring machine could be made by expanding the
definitions and/or limits of measure presently used for the three basic RSR
parameters. It would require a separate correlation between RSR values and
some common datum or measure of assessing tnt drillability of the rock
structure. This would probably be an empirical relationship similar to the
rib ratio used to define support requirements.
Based on industry's response and other comments and evaluations,
the overall concept of describing properties of a rock structure by means
of a numerical scale and using correlations based on empirical relationships
appears to be a reasonable approach to the problem. The model Is structured
to accommodate more exacting data or information that may be developed.
5-6
■—-— "-*"'—-~ IM III ■ - - ■ -■ ...

IUIWim^pP^W^—W"»l.|.[l^^^^TH1 Uli I M PI i.iiiiiiiiwiiii«ijiw«.pw->i i' LULIU.
It encompasses geologic and construction factors normally considered and
provides a common basis for predicting ground support requirements for
future tunnels,
5.3 RIB RATIO
As mentioned In paragraph 1.4, the correlation between RSR values
and actual ground support was obtained by use of a "rlb-ratlo" (RR) which
gives a relation between steel rib support used in a tunnel study section
and a theoretical rib support determined for a common datum condition. The
determination of the rib-ratio is shown on page 5-8, Figure 5.2 shows the
spacing of common sizes of steel ribs for various tunnel diameters as
calculated for the datum condition. The RR for a particular tunnel study
section is obtained by dividing the rib spacing listed on Figure 5.2 by the
actual rib spacing used in the study section and multiplying by 100,
Assuming the study section to be a 14 ft circular tunnel supported by 6H20
steel ribs on 5 ft centers then the RR is 46 (2. 32 - 5 .0 x 100'. Rib ratios
were determined for each tunnel study section and subsequently used to
develop the empirical relationship between determined RSR values and
ground support requirements which is discussed in the following paragraphs,
5.4 CASE HISTORY DATA
All case history projects were initially considered, and respective
RSR values determined, on the basis of original model format (Figure \ .V .
Due to subsequent revisions and other modifications (Figure 5.1) it was
necessary to re-evaluate all tunnel study sections so as to obtain new RSR
5-7
mtammm MM •MMH ■tttMUMa.

punapiiw i ii mi •m^mm*^*'*~~~*~^^maumimi^mi^m^mr^^^*^mmi* i m ««««■■■■■«■■MRV^mwipimnwan^^pwvaaiiMNHaHîBHiaviiaMWWVti1 ' < i11 ',VV«>S*M*^
DETERMINATION OF RIB RATIO
êrzaghl Empirical Formula for Maximum Roof Load for Loose, Coheslonless
Sand Below Water Table (Frcm Ref.No. 8 ) Page 70, Table 2:
PI = [1.38 (B + H )] x Bx^ (D
Where: PI = Vertical load on rib (lb. per linear foot of tunnel)

B = Tunnel width (ft.)
Ht = Tunnel height (ft.)

^ = Unit weight of sand (assumed 120 Ib./cu.ft.)
Formula (1) applies to tunnels with a seml-clrcular arch.
P - 1.38 ( B + Ht ) x Bx 120
Pj = 165.6 B (B + Ht) (2)
For tunnels that are circular or where height (Ht) = width (B) = Dia. (Q
Pj = 165.6 D (D + D)
P. = 165.6 x 2D2
P1 = 331 D2 (3)
Using load table from "Rock Tunneling With Steel Supports" by

Proctor and White, Page 238: (Reference No. 3)
Pt = Pr x D Where Pt - Total allowable load on rib (lb.)
Pr = Chart value of allowable load per foot
of tunnel width (lb.)
To find theoretical rib spacing (Sd) for "Datum" Condition:
Sd = Pt
PI
Sd Pr x D
331 D^
Sd Pr
331 D (4)
The rib ratio is a measure of the actual tunnel support provided compared
to the datum and is expressed as:
RR = Sd x 100 Where Sa is actual spacing (ft.) of ribs used In (5)

Sa sample tunnel.
5-8
^•^^^^tmmmmmm mm mw
THEORETICAL SPACING (Sd) OF

TYPICAL RIB SIZES FOR DATUM CONDITION
SPACING GIVEN IN FEET
TUNNEL DIAMETER
Rib Size 10' 12' 14' 16' 18' 20' 22' 24' 26' 28' 30"
417.7 1.16
4H13.0 2.01 1.51 1.16 0.92
6H15.5 3.19 2.37 1.81 1.42 1.14
6H20 3.02 2.32 1.82 1.46 1.20
6H25 2.86 2.25 1.81 1.48 1.23 1.04
swâi 3.24 2.61 2.14 1.78 1.51 1.29 1.11
BWÔ 3.37 2.76 2.30 1.95 1.67 1.44 1.25

8V\r48 3.34 2.78 2.35 2.01 1.74 1.51
(
10\Ar49 2.59 2.22 1.91 1.67
12\Ar53 2.19 1.91

12W^65 2.35
Figure 5.2
5-9
■pi ■um ■ << ,,.„.„„»—.„„,„-.,. ■■■■mimiiiin i ■ i i .■ un p ■■ j» i I.IIIIIIIL un^m^^^mmmmm
values. Actual support installations and calculated rib ratios (see paragraph
5.3) were, of course, not affected. Figure 5.3 lists the 53 projects and
sample tunnel sections which were investigated in conjunction with develop-
ment of the prediction model. Rock type and individual values for parameters
A, B and C are as determined by use of Figures 5.1. Where applicable, a
TBM factor is shown in accordance with discussion on page 1-16. The
table also shows actual support and calculated RR for each tunnel section.
Figure 5.4 is a graph of points plotted with respect to RSR values
and rib ratios determined for some 190 sample tunnel sections. The graph
shows an empirical relationship between RSR and RR developed by the same
general procedures as discussed in Section 1 and Reference 1. Twenty
points, which fell well above the curve envelope were eliminated from
consideration. They indicated either an extremely conservative support
system (over-supported) or a loading condition, such as squeezing rock
beyond the scope of the prediction model. Although sample tunnel sections
which were unsupported (RR = 0) help define the limit of RSR values wherein
no support is required, they do not contribute to, and are not included in
the calculation of the empirical relationship curve. There is usually a
"grey" area in differentiating between an unsupported tunnel section and
one which requires only nominal support. In actual practice nominally
supported sections normally occur at the beginning or end of a supported
section of tunnel, and are usually evidenced by use of scattered rock bolts
or other minimal "umbrella" type of support. This support situation is shown
by the deviation from the plotted curve on Figure 5.4 and reflects an evalua-
5-10
I illilM—mil ■IIMIilll— tJ u
m
—""J
ROCK STRUCTURE RATINGS AND RIB RATIOS

DETERMINED FOR CASE STUDY TUNNELS
CASE TUNNEL ROCK RSR DETERMINATION SU PPORT

NO. SIZE TYPE TBM RIB
(Ft.) A B C FACTOR TOTAL SIZE SPACE RATIO
1-1 24x24 HS' 1 22 3P 19 _

79 0
-2 2 13 24 9 - 46 8W28 4.0' 34
2-1 12x12 HS 1 15 11 18 - 44 5W18.9 5.0' 50
3-1 22 Dia. 2 13 11 11 _ 35 8H34 4.0' 48
-2 2 13 15 15 - 43 8H34 4.0' 48
-3 2 13 23 11 - 47 8H34 5.5' 35
-4 2 13 11 9 - 33 8H34 4.0' 48
4-1 22 Dia. 2 13 19 12 * 44 8H34 5.0' 39
-2 2 9 15 9 - 33 8H34 4.0' 48
-3 3 13 15 12 - 40 8H34 5.0' 39
5-1 9x9 HS 4 10 15 9 _ 34 4H13 4.0' 60
-2 4 10 15 12 - 37 4H13 5.0* 48
-3 4 10 13 12 - 35 4H13 4.8' 50
-4 4 10 17 9 - 36 4H13 4.7' 51
-5 4 10 12 12 - 34 4H13 4.5' 53
-6 4 10 12 7 - 29 5H18.9+ 2.3' 183
-7 4 6 9 9 - 24 [ 4H13+ 2.5' 96
-8 3 12 14 9 - 35 4H13 5.0' 48
-9 3 12 23 9 - 44 4H13 5.0' 48
-10 3 12 14 6 - 32 4H13 4.0' 60
-11 3 12 23 6 - 41 4H13+ 6.0' 40
-12 3 12 23 12 - 47 4H13 6,0' 40
6-1 20x20 HS 1 15 22 19 _ 56 8M32.6 4.0' 57 i
-2 1 15 17 15 - 47 8H40+ 2.7' 94
-3 2 13 17 15 - 45 8H40+ 2.0' 127
-4 2 13 17 15 - 45 8M32.6+ 2.4' 103
-5 2 8 17 9 - 34 8M32.6 2.8' 83
-6 2 i 17 9 - 34 8M32.6+ 2.3' 107
-7 2 8 17 15 - 40 8M32.6 4.1' 54
-8 2 8 17 9 - 34 8M32.6 4.1' 54
7-1 14x14 HS 30 40 18 m 88 _ _ 0
-2 30 40 21 - 91 - — 0
-3 30 40 21 - 91 _ — 0
-4 30 40 23 - 93 _ — 0
-5 30 40 21 - 91 — _ 0
-6 30 40 23 - 93 - _ 0
-7 22 35 14 - 71 _ — 0
-8 22 35 18 — 75 — - 0
Figure 5.3
5-11
mmm mmmmi^^m. mmmm»

-■■■ ' ■ ^^Ml».»»! -

CASE TUNNEL ROCK RSR DETERMINATION SUPPORT

(Ft.) A B C FACTOR TOTAL SEE SPACE RATIO
8-1 13x13 HS 4 10 13 12 _ 35 6H20 4.0' 65

-2 13 Dia. 3 12 16 9 1.18 44 6B16 3.0' 70
9-1 14 Dia. 3 lb 22 9 1.18 58 6112.5 6.4' 21
-2 3 18 22 9 1.18 58 3/4 RB 3,x5, 19
10-1 20 Dia. 3 18 29 19 1.17 77 0
-2 3 18 29 19 1.17 77 417.7 4.5' 8
1 U-l 19x19 HS 3 18 22 19 _ 59 1"RB 6x6 11
-2 3 18 22 19 - 59 6W20 5.6' 20
12-1 11x11 HS 4 10 13 18 - 41 4W13 3.0' 58
13-2 11x11 HS 4 10 13 18 - 41 4W13 3.0' 58
! 17-1 20x20 HS 2 13 7 7 _ 27 8W31 3.0' 71
-2 1 15 11 15 - 41 6W2 5 3.4' 43
-3 1 15 14 15 - 44 6W25 4.0' 37
18-1 8 Dia. 3 13 14 18 - 45 4W13 6.0' 47
19-1 8 Dia. 3 13 14 12 - 39 4W13 6.0' 47
20-1 34 Dia. 3 12 23 18 — 53 10W49 4.5' 27
-2 3 12 24 18 54 10W49 4.5' 27
21-1 22x30 HS 2 13 19 22 _ 54 8W28 6.7' 19
-2 2 13 25 19 - 57 8W28 + 5.7' 23
-3 2 13 25 15 - 53 8W28+ 5.6 23
-4 2 13 25 19 - 57 8W35 6.0' 28
-5 2 13 25 22 - 60 8W35 6.0' 28
22-1 24H.Dia. 3 12 14 12 _ 38 10W33 3.2' 53
-2 33H.Dia, 3 12 14 12 - 38 10W45 2.6' 54
23-1 18.5 HS 2 13 28 15 _ 56 6M25 5.9' 29
-2 4 10 7 9 - 26 8M40 4.0' 78
!
-3 2 13 19 15 : 47 6M25 4.4' 39
-4 2 13 28 7 - 48 6M25 5.5' 31 1
-5 2 i 13 16 | 9 - 38 6M25 + 4.2' 40
-6 2 13 22 7 - 42 6M25 5.0' 34
-7 2 13 17 11 - 41 6M2 5 4.0' 43
-8 4 10 15 9 ~ 34 8M32.6-f 4.3' 51
Figure 5.3 (continued)
5-12
MM - ■ -
■HHmmmiimapMiMiP«H(v '"'■"■ I
ROCK STRUCTURE RATINGS AMD RP RATIOS

RSR DETERMINATION SUPPORT

CASE TUNNEL RDPK
18.5 HS 4 10 16 12 _ 38 6M25 4.0* 43

24-1
-2 2 13 17 18 - 48 6M25 5.2' 33
-3 3 12 22 15 - 49 6M25 5.9' 29
-4 2 20 22 11 - 53 6M25 6.1' 28
-5 4 10 17 12 - 39 6M25 4.0' 43
23x22 HS 3 IB 14 18 _ 50 lOxlOTlm. 2.5' 29

25-1
-2 1 22 14 22 - 58 lOxlOTUr, 5.9' 13
-3 1 15 14 18 - 47 lOxlOTlm, 2.9' 43
-4 4 6 10 9 - 25 16xl6Tlm, 2.5' 85
-5 1 15 14 11 - 40 12x12+ 2.7' 40
-6 3 12 14 7 - 33 12x12+ 2.5' 53
-7 1 22 )4 18 - 54 10x10+ 4.3* 18
23x23 HS 2 18 22 22 _ 62 8W24+ 6.1' 18

26-1
-2 2 18 22 25 - 65 8W24+ 6.5' 17
-3 2 13 22 18 - 53 8W24+ 4.0' 28
-4 2 20 22 22 - 62 8W24+ 6.1" 18
-5 2 20 22 22 - 62 8W24+ 6.3' 18
-6 2 13 22 12 - 47 8W24+ 3.1' 48
-7 2 20 22 12 - 54 8W24+ 6.2' 18
-8 2 13 14 18 - 45 8W24 2.3' 55
27-1 14x15 HS 1 22 29 25 m 76 - - 0
-2 1 22 29 25 - 76 - - 0
-3 1 22 29 23 - 74 - - 0
-4 2 20 39 25 - 84 - - 0
-5 1 22 28 25 - 75 - - 0
-6 2 20 24 25 - 69 - - 0
-7 2 12 11 12 - 35 6M20 3.8' 61
28-1 18x18 HS 1 22 40 23 _ 85 - - 0
-2 1 22 40 22 - 84 - - 0
-3 1 22 36 22 - 80 - - 0
-4 1 22 36 22 - 80 - - 0
-5 1 22 28 22 - 72 - - 0
-6 1 22 36 19 - 77 - - 0
-7 4 15 22 12 - 49 6H25 5.0' 36
29-1 14x14 HS 1 22 34 25 m 81 . _ 0
-2 4 15 22 15 - 52 6H20 5.5' 42
-3 4 IS 10 12 - 37 6H20 4.5' 52
30-1 19x19 HS 2 20 34 22 _ 76 _ — 0
-2 2 13 24 12 - 49 6H25 4.0' 41
5-13
mmm
mmmmmmr^t^mm^m ^^m^^m
1 ROCK STRUCTURE RATINGS AND RIB RATIOS

DETEFIMINED FOR C :ASE STUDY TUNNELS
CASE TUNNEL R SR DETEI IMINATION SUPPORT

ROCK
NO. SIZE TYPE TBM
(Ft.) RIB
A B C FACTOP TOTAI SIZE SPACE RATIO
31-1 17x16 HS 1 3 12 14 11 _ 37 10x10+ 2.5' 56
-2 4 b 14 9 - 29 12x12+ 2.1' 78
-3 4 1U 14 9 - 33 10x10+ 2.3' 50
-4 4 b 14 7 - 27 12x12+ 2.3' 80
32-1 17x16 HS 3 12 14 12 _ 38 10x10+ 2.9' 45
-2 4 10 22 12 - 44 10x10 3.4' 38
-3 4 b 14 7 - 27 12x12+ 2.1 i i06
-4 4 b 14 11 - 31 12x12 2.0' 101
33-1 22x30 HS 2 20 22 15 _ 57 RB+ 4'x4' 14
-2 2 2U 22 10 - 52 6H20+ 4.4' 25
~3 2 13 24 8 - 15 8H34+ 3.9' 37
-4 2 13 23 12 - 48 6H20+ 4.3' 30
-5 2 20 23 15 - 58 | 6H20+ 4.7' 22
-6 2 18 19 15 - 47 6H20+ 4.6' 25
-7 2 ZU 23 15 - 58 6H20+ 4.9' 15
34-1 21x21 HS 3 12 19 15 — 46 8W40 4.0' 63
-2 3 V 13 7 - 27 8W40 2.0' 126
-3 3 12 17 9 - 38 8W40 2.1' 119
-4 3 12 17 15 - 44 8W40 2.6' 97
-5 3 12 22 18 52 8W37 3.8' 62
-6 3 12 22 15 - 49 8W37 3.6' 64
-7 3 7 22 18 - 47 8W37 2.9' 82
-8 3 12 20 15 - 47 8W37 4.0' 59
-9 3 12 15 15 - 42 8W37 3.8' 61
35-1 23x23 HS 2 20 35 25 m n
80
-2 2 13 28 18 - 59 8W20+ 5.8' 18
-3 2 20 28 15 - 63 8W18+ 6.3' 16
-4 2
-5 2
13
13
14
28
18
15
-
-
45 8W24+ i.r 43
56 8W20+ 6.2' 17
36-1 16 Dia. 3 18 17 15 1.20 60 Shotcrete 3.5"TH . 59
-2 3 18 17 9 1.20 53 Shotcrete 3.5"TH . 59
37-1 17x17 HS 3 18 19 18 _ 55 4W13+ 4.7' 21
-2 3 18 24 18 - 60 4W13+
-3 5.8' 14
3 18 11 12 — 41 6W20+ 3.9'
-4 33
2 20 28 22 70 4W13 i.r
-5 16
3 12 11 18 - 41 4V/13+ 2.1' 40
38-1 17x17 HS 3 12 32 12 - 56 4W13+ 3.7' 22
5-14
MM ■n
iMMMiiMPiiMpb.! mtmmm. ^W W■l«I.NU«P*R«l , , VIHIIIipiMWWM - " ' mi^—mmwmmmimmm


CASE TUNNEL ROCK
38-2 17x17 HS 3 12 25 7 _ 44 4W16+ 3.4' 33

-3 2 20 24 19 - 63 4W13 + 8.5' 10
-4 3 12 23 9 - 44 4W16+ 4.0' 26
-5 2 13 24 19 - 56 4W13+ 4.8' 18
-6 2 13 25 15 - 53 6W20+ 4.0' 36
-7 2 13 30 15 - 58 4W13 5.8' 14
-8 3 12 22 11 - 45 4W13 + 3.1' 29
-9 3 12 28 18 - 58 4W13 + 4.0' 21
39-1 23 Dia. 1 22 24 19 _ 65 8118.4 5.5' 16
-2 1 22 16 15 - 53 8118.4 4.0, 23
-3 1 22 37 23 - 82 _ _ 0
-4 2 20 16 12 - 48 8118.4 3.6' 28
40-1 32x32 HS 3 18 35 23 _ 76 1" RB 3.5x3.5 18
-2 3 18 22 14 - 54 8W34.3 3.9' 24
-3 1 22 35 23 - 80 1" RB 3.5x3.5 18
41-1 20x20 HS I 22 28 19 _ 69 I" RB 4x5 18
-2 3 18 24 15 - 57 1" RB 4x5 18
42-1 16 Dia. 3 18 23 18 - 59 1" RB 5x5 18
43-1 18 Dia. 4 15 30 22 - 67 6W15.5 4.0' 28
-2 4 15 23 18 - 56 6W15 .5 4.0' 28
44-1 17 Dia. 3 12 23 15 _ 50 7115.3 5.0' 25
45-1 10x10 HS 2 12 19 9 - 40 4W13 4.0' 50
46-1 11 Dia. 3 18 42 18 - 78 3/4" RB 4.5x4.5 18
47-1 21x21 HS 2 13 22 19 _ 54 8W17 3.0' 35
-2 2 13 28 15 - 56 8W17 3.0' 35
48-1 22 Dia. 3 12 23 18 - 53 8125.5 3.0' 39
49-1 26 Dia. 3 18 22 18 _ 58 8W24 4.0' 25
-2 3 18 22 18 - 58 10W33 4.0' 23
50-1 24x24 HS 1 22 22 15 - 59 1" RB 5x5 13
51-1 27x27 HS 3 18 35 22 m 75 1" RB 5x5 11
"2 18 Dia. 3 18 29 22 — 69 1" RB 4x5 20
Notes: 8 W 28+ indicates size most prevalent in this area of

tunnel (more than one size used)
5-15
MMBMH IMHMMMI __^—fc_—- - - ■

la^mmmmm mm um


CASE TUNNEL ROCK
(Ft.) A B C FACTOR TOTAL SIZE SPAC E RATIO
52-1 12x12 HS 3 7 23 8 _ 38 6 H 20 + 6.5 46

-2 3 7 14 7 - 28 6 H 20 + 3.8 79
-3 2 8 11 6 - 25 6 H 20 + 2.5 121
-4 2 8 16 6 - 30 6 H 20 + 5.0 60
-5 2 13 17 9 - 39 6 H 20 + 5.6 53
-6 2 13 19 15 - 47 6 H 20 + 8.6 35
-7 2 13 17 9 - 39 6 H 20 + 6.9 43
-8 2 13 19 11 - 43 6 H 20 + 6.8 44
-9 1 15 28 15 - 58 6 H 20+ 10.8 28
-10 2 13 24 15 - 52 6 H 20 + 10.3 29
-11 1 15 28 19 - 62 6 H 20+ some 14
-12 2 13 36 23 - 72 6 H 20 + some 5
53-1 15x15 HS 2 8 11 7 - 26 4 H 13 1.5' 69

-2 4 10 11 9 - 30 Shotcrete 4" Th. 75
-3 3 18 19 15 - 52 1" R.B. 4,x5 24
-4 1 22 19 15 - 56 1" R.B. 4'x5 24
l
Notes: 8 W 28+ indicates size most prevalent in this area of

tunnel (more than one size used)
5-16
fi*M mttm
?
I
="9
8
J
1
UJ 1 )
D « I
la'"
j
O
O ^n
25o 1
r
-n uJ « /
IS
o •
Z u> W
8 s
/
T3
C
S en
eo 0)
o «■'
i
«4 S1
rPL,
0)
cu,
o
Ü
~-*
(0
c
o
r^K
ÄS ö i
:.i
%\ n •I
j
fa /
f > I f f- I o
O 000 o o o o o o o
O 0k CO K 10 10
(as«) SNiivy aanionais XDOM
5-17
MMMOMI i^HM -'-- ^-^«^Mif

-i ■"■ nm*mmmmmmmm'm*mmrmmim*******tm'*im - ™^^^m'm***~r*H*<**i^mmimmmm*^'*mimmmmmmmmmmmmmmnmm^*t^^*
tlon of low rib ratios (less than 20) wherein actual support was minimal ajj
compared to the datum condition or whe-e support may have been placed
primarily as a safety precaution. The descriptive support designations
(light, medium, heavy, and very heavy) shown at the top of the graph are
given mrely to show possible correlation between the prediction model
and other methods used to describe ground support requirements.
Industry comments indicated some concern over the use of case
history data in developing the RSR concept, the contention being that if
sample sections were in fact "over-supported" the model would perpetuate
the same condition. In a general sense all tunnels that have not collapsed
due to structural failure of a support system could be classed as "over-
supported." Until such time that exact determination of rock loads and
conditions can be predicted, it must be accepted that tunnel support will
continue toward the conservative. In most cases the difference in cost and
effort occasioned by the use of a heavier rib or closer spacing than might
be dictated by a theoretical correct design, would probably be insignificant
in comparison to differences resulting from initial misinterpretation or
prediction as to whether or not any support would bo required. The prediction
model attempts to identify those rock structures which would normally require
support during tunnel construction and indicates appropriate support systems
to be used. Based on findings and results of this research effort, it is
concluded that case history data (excluding the 20 sample points as noted
above) does provide a realistic appraisal of the ground support requirement.
No prediction model incluJing mathematical or theoretical analysis will
5-18
n |tf—^—^—^ !■■■■»■ mi ii 1
rw^^^'." i i II i i i IJIII ~î^mm<~~~*m*^***mii^***^mmmmiîmmm mm*mmmmmmmi
eliminate the judgment factor for those in charge of the heading as to what
constitutes a safe, adequately supported tunnel section during construction.
The goal should be to provide a means of making realistic appraisals of
support requirements during the pre-construction period which can be readily
used and correlated with encountered conditions so as to augment or facili-
tate the instant heading determination of an adequate support system.
5.5 EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP RSR - ROCK LOADS
A correlation between RSR and RR values was shown by the empirical
equation developed for the average curve on Figures 5.4. That equation
considers some 140 sample points contained within the relatively narrow
envelope shown on the graph.
Basic Equation: (RR+ 80) (RSR + 30) = 8800
RSR values and Rib Ratios:
50 55 60 65 70 75 HO
30 24 18 13
As seen by the above tabulation, the upper (80) and lower (19) limits
of RSR values, as defined by rib ratios of 0 and 100 respectively, have been
extended to include a larger range or type of rock structures, (see page
1-13) Since RR basically defines an anticipated rock load (datum condition)
by considering the load carrying capacity of different sizes of steel ribs, it
follows that RSR values can also be expressed in terms of unit rock loads
for various sized tunnels. Derivation of this empirical relationship follows
on page 5-20 and 5-21. A correlation of RSR values and rock loads as
5-19
~m*m*tmt^m* ■ - -
m^mmimwm—m^mm WB
EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS FOR RSR. RR AND ROCK LOAD
Using values of rock staicture rating (RSR) and rib ratios (RR) computed from
case study geologic sections, a graph (Figure 5,4) was plotted using RSR
from 0 to 100 as ordinate and RR from 0 to 100 as abscissa, equation (6)
shows the average curve for these points. See page 5-8 for definitions.
(RR + 80) (RSR + 30) 8800 (6)
Or
8800
RSR - 30 (7)
RR +80
It was observed that a direct relationship exists for the rock structure rating
and unit rock load (Wr = K/Sq. Ft.) for a specified size of tunnel. This
empirical relationship can bo derived as follows:
Wr = ^7 T 1000 (8)
Pr
Sa = (9)
1000 x Wr
Combining equation (5) from page 5-8 and (7)
8800
RSR ■ /Sd x 100N + 80 30 (10)
Substituting for Sa (equation (9) )
8800
RSR ■ /Sd x 100 x Wr x 1000\ + 80 30 (11)
Restating equation (4) from page 5-8
fid = i (12)
Pr 33 ID
5-20
MM
^mp^manMmngM^Mwm»".- ^HTwav**^* * * v mm^**mi**mm*^*^v^m*,**^îw*wmmmmmim*m* IIIII i mm^^mm
Substituting for—- in equation (11)

Pr
8800
RSR - /100.000 WrW 80 u\ 03)
\ ' 331D /
Or
8800
RSR ■ /302_WrV HI) - 30 (14)
Restated to find Wr, qivon RSR & D:
/ 8800 N n'\
80 (15)
Wr =
302 _(^m7)j - J
Or
D x RR
Wr » (16)
3 02
Gonoral empirical equation for (6), (14) & (15) can be written as
follows:
(RR + A) (RSR + B) C (6)
RSR - (14)
Wr = (15)
For thi. i report:
A = 80
B - 30
C = 8800
5-21
umntmamm tmrnmrn *^'""fc-**j— - - ■ - ■ -

■ ' ■■■"" ■ ■ ' »->" -I >'■'■"—.'•-•^^^^•miii.piviili i^^"^"w 11.11 i ■■^■MNMiipHPpmPHBmMn*««'Wl I tmmm.m\muî^^^^m ti ■■ ■«■ i mn mm*.mmMH^*^miw«m
determined by use of equation (14) page 5-21 is shown by Figure 5,5. Once
an RSR value has been determined for a particular tunnel section it is
possible, by use of Figure 5.5, to indicate anticipatrd rock loads which
must be supported. For instance, if an RSR value of -JO has been determined
for a 20 ft. tunnel, the anticipated rock load is about 3 kips per sq. ft. It
is noted that the same RSR value denotes different rock loads depending on
size of tunnel.
This correlation between RSR values and anticipated rock loads can
be used to determine appropriate tunnel support systems based on the type
or quality of the rock structure predicted to be penetrated by the tunnel.
Since most case history data pertain to steel ribs, this correlation relates
primarily to rib support. However, the determined rock loads can be used
(see paragraph 5.6) to indicate a pattern of rock bolts or thickness of shot-
crete which would provide adequate support for the predicted type of rock
structure.
5.6 GROUND SUPPORT RFQUIRLMFNTS
Three primary support systems are considered: 1) steel ribs,
2) rock bolts and 3) shotcrctc, any one or combinations of which could be
used for many varied rock conditions and tunnel sizes. The most appropriate
system would normally be determined on the basis of cost analysis made
for each with respect to other tunneling subsystems. A brief discussion
and evaluation of various now concepts of ground support is given in
Appendix B.
5-22
"'
II
o
• 00 CO
o • •
•—( CO 00
o t^ t^ in
a> >->
f—4 CM
o CO t 1^ CD (7> C^
• K • • • • •
00 w ID 00 o CM
CM CM CM
CO
',—^ Ü
d o 2 v •-> CO co CO T
• H • • • • ■ •
t^ tv o
s
o* CM V CD 00
(0 rH CM CM CM CM CM
o K LO 00 ID CO ID oo 00 CO
ö • • • • •
H in 00 »—4 00 o CM
O U •—i •—1 CM CM CM «M CO CO
0) •-) o H oo »T oo ID CO in 00 f^ T
u CO • • • •
^ in u O ID CD 1—4 CO in r^
2 Ü
■—1 CM CM CM CM CO CO CO CO
c
^
H o
o:
o oo r^ CD CD oi r^ CO in co ^r 1—4
86 • EM . • • a • • • • • *
o T o ro
•-H
00
■—i
CM
CM
CD
CM
(Ti
CM
CM
CO
in
CO
t^
CO
a>
CO
1—4
^r
CO
^r
CO
9 M
oo
S O
CO 1—*
l£> OO
o
•
CD
1^
•
CM
o
•
CM
•
CO
CO
CO
• •
o CM CM CO CO CO ^r T ^r ^r ^r ■*r
Ut Ü
c o
o o tv m ^J" t^ CD CD CD r^ CO CO 00
^_ • • • • • • • • • • • •
u r^ ^r
T3
oi
CM
g fM
cr» CO
r-4
^r T
rv
T
CD
^r
f-H
in
CO
in
in
in
CO
in
t^
in
W
(0
^ 0
(X,
CQ CO
ID CM [^ CO CM r^ i^ in o CO in ^r
• • • • • • • • • • •
f-H
PS
o ^ 00 i—i CO in r^ <T) o »—4 CM
»r ^r ^r in in in in in CD CD CO
O
Ü
O en t^. ir> o o in CD o 1—4 CD 1^
»-H CD ro io O) t—i CM CO m to ID t^-
T in in in ID ID CD ID CD CD co
LO in o CD CO in ^T (O o CO O ^r
o CM in co oo CD O 1—4 CM CM CO CO
cr> ID l£> ID CD t^ t^ r^ t^ r- r^
rfl
a CM ^r ID 00 o CM ^r CO 00 o
i—* f—4 ■—i r—1 #—1 CM CM CM CM CM CO
5-23
mm Miirin UMMMh
mmm^^****ti*m*i0mmi
Support capabilities or requirements for a particular size of steel nl
are usually expressed by the rib spacing as determined for anticipated rock
load and tunnel size. Determination of rib spacing for the datum condition
was discussed In paragraph 5.3. Results were shown on Figure 5.2. They
reflect a rib ratio of 100 and a corresponding RSR value of 19 (see paragraph
5.5) Rib spacing for other RSR values or equivalent rock loads vary propor-
tionately from the datum spacing as the inverse ratio of the respective rib
ratios. Using this relationship, it Is possible to show typical spacing for
various rib sizes required for different tunnel sizes and RSR values as given
on Figure 5.6. After determining the RSR value for a particular rock structure
the size and spacing of steel ribs which would satisfy the support require-
ment of various sized tunnels can be identified.
General appraisals of rock bolt (spacing or pattern) and shotcrete
(thickness) support with respect to anticipated rock loads were made in the
previous research study (Reference 1). Data obtained from additional case
studies performed under this contract was not sufficient In quantity or detail
to disprove the previous assumptions. Although there is Increased use of
these types of support, it is likely that it will be several years before
historical data would be meaningful. Research sponsored by Governmental
Agencies and similar efforts being put forth by the tunnel industry should
provide. In the not too far future, more definitive criterior for the design
and use of rock bolts and shotcrete for tunnel support. For the present,
however, and since rock bolt and shotcrete data available from case studies
showed fairly reasonable correlation with the prediction model, the initial
5-24
Merita ■•■ —-■- ■

RIB SPACING (IN FEET) BASED ON RSR AND TUNNEL DIAMETER
10' DIAMETER 12' DIAMETER

RR RSR
417.7 4H13 6H15.5 4H13 6H15.5 6H20
100 19 1.16 2.01 3.19 1.51 2.37 3.02
80 25 1.45 2.51 3.99 1.89 2.96 3.78
67 30 1.73 3.00 4.76 2.25 3.54 4.51
55 35 2.11 3.65 5.80 2.75 4.31 5.49
46 40 2.52 4.37 6.93 3.28 5.15 6.57
37 45 3.14 5.43 8.62 4.08 6.41 8.16
30 50 3.87 6.70 5.03 7.90
24 55 4.83 8.38 6.29
18 60 6.44 8.39
13 65 8.92
14' DIAMETER 16' DIAMETER 1

RR RSR
4H13 6H15.5 6H25 6H15.5 6H25 8W31
100 19 1.16 1.81 2.86 1.42 2.25 3.24
80 25 1.45 2.26 3.58 1.78 2.81 4.05
67 30 1.73 2.70 4.27 2.12 3.36 4.84
55 35 2.11 3.29 5.20 2.58 4.09 5.89
46 40 2.52 3.93 6.22 3.09 4 .59 7.04
37 45 3.14 4.89 7.73 3.84 6.08 8.76
30 50 3.87 6.03 9.53 4.73 7.50
24 55 4.83 7.54 5.92 9.38
18 60 6.44 10.05 7.89
13 65 8.92 10.92
18' DIAMETEFI 20' DIAMETER

RR RSR
6H15.5 6H25 8W40 6H20 8W31 8W48
100 19 1.14 1.81 3.37 1.20 2.14 3.34
80 25 1.42 2.26 4.21 1.50 2.68 4.18
67 30 1.70 2.7Ö 5.03 1.79 3.19 4.99
55 35 2.07 3.29 6.13 2.18 3.89 6.07
46 40 2.47 3.93 7.33 2.61 4.65 7.26
37 45 3.08 4.89 9.11 3.24 5.78 9.03
30 50 3.80 6.03 4.00 7.13
24 55 4.75 7.54 5.00 8.91
18 60 6.33 10.05 6.67
13 65 8.77 9.23
Figure 5.6
5-25
IMMMMMBII -
RIB SPACING (IN FEET) BASED ON RSR AND TUNNEL DIAMETER
22* DIAMETER 24' DIAMETER

RR RSR
6H25 8W31 8W48 6H25 8W40 10W49
100 19 1.23. 1.78 2.78 1.04 1.95 2.59
80 25 1.54 2.23 3.48 1.30 2.44 3.24
67 30 1.84 2.66 4.15 1.55 2.91 3.87
55 35 2.23 3.24 5.05 1.89 3.55 4.71
46 40 2.67 3.87 6.04 2.26 4.24 5.63
37 45 3.32 4.81 7.51 2.81 5.27 7.00
30 50 4.10 5.93 9.27 3.46 6.50 8.63
24 55 5.13 7.42 4^.33: 8.13
18 60 6.83 9.89 5.78
13 65 9.46 8.00
26* DIAMETER 28' DIAMETER

RR RSR
8W31 8W40 10W49 8W31 8W48 12W53
100 19 1.29 1.67 2.22 1.11 1.74 2.19
80 25 1.61 2.09 2.78 1.39 2.18 2.74
67 30 1.93 2.49 3.31 1.66 2.60 3.27
55 35 2.35 3.04 4.04 2.02 3.16 3.98
46 40 2.80 3.63 4.83 2.41 3.78 4.76
37 45 3.49 4.51 6.00 3.00 4.70 5.92
30 50 4.30 5.57 7.40 3.70 5.80 7.30
24 55 5.38 6.96 9.25 4.63 7.25 9.13
18 60 7.17 9.28 6.17 9.67
13 65 9.92 8.54
30 ' DIAMETER
RR RSR
8W40 10W49 12W65
100 19 1.25 1.67 2.35
80 25 1.56 2.09 2.94
67 30 1.87 2.49 3.51
55 35 2.27 3.04 4.27
46 40 2.72 3.63 5.11
37 45 3.38 4.51 6.35
30 50 4.17 5.57 7.83
24 55 5.21 6.96 9.79
18 60 6.94 9.28
13 65 9.62
5-26
MMMMM ■MMM
appraisals and relationships are used.
Rock bolts are considered on the basis of a simple correlation
between both strength (working stress) and rock loads as shown below:
Spacing or pattern of bolts /BS

in feet (s) Y Wr
Where Bs is the allowable tensile strength of the bolt expressed in
kips per sq. in. and Wr is the rock load in kips per sq. ft.
For the purposes of this study and assuming allowable working stress
of 30,000 lb. per sq. in. , the required pattern for different size bolts can
be shown as:
S (5/8" 0 bolts) ■ / 9.2

V Wr
S (3/4" 0 bolts) - /13.5

V Wr
S (1" 0 bolts) fm
V Wr
S (1-1/4 0 bolts) =
y Wr
In all cases, appropriate bolt length, required torque, and adequate
anchorage are assumed.
The suggested empirical relationship between shotcrete requirements
(nominal thickness in inches) and predicted rock loads is:
Nominal thickness t = l" + Wr

1.25
5-27
mmam ■Mi
■"■,'l»ll .......ii.i..-.. i . ■.iiai. .■■nil 111.1 ua . 1...1.1M1 i.iuii MM lu^M^wâim
This relationship, as in the case of rock bolts, appears to be conservative
for the cases investigated.
It is realized that the above rock bolt and shotcrete correlations
are very general in nature and do not allow for certain inherent structural
advantages or properties associated with each. For instance, a principal
advantage of shotcrete is its ability to inhibit or restrict initial loosening
of the exposed rock arch. Individual blocks react as a compression ring
when properly bolted. Although consideration as to the effect of these
characteristics on the support requirements should, if possible, be included
in the model it is doubtful that they would affect significantly the initial
prediction of tunnel support. Exceptions would be in determining supports
for large underground caverns or other areas where time is available for
in situ testing and other investigations.
The developed relationship between RSR values, rock loads and
support systems are used to show typical ground support which would be
required for various tunnel sizes and rock conditions. This is shown by
the "Support Requirement Charts" for 10, 14, 20, 24 and 30 foot diameter
tunnels of Figure 5.7. Similar charts could be prepared for other tunnel
diameters or for horse shoe shaped tunnels when considering applicable
widths as being roughly equivalent to a given diameter. When considering
flat arch sections it would be necessary to calculate rock loads (Wr) based
on RSR and applicable tunnel dimensions and then design supports as noted
in paragraph 6.3.
The charts would be used as follows: Assume a 30 ft. tunnel to be
5-28
--r LÜ
*i V)
— lA. CO
-^ * UJ 3
Ü
CD O -
tr
LÜ
i)
u
< < UJ Lü m
en co^
<
o: o •- Q
CQ O
I O
(O
ONIlVd nyis xooy
5.-29
■MHM
.0 c
«. o
— a
EOT
\ \ — OB
£ ■Ä %\ Si
00
t ^ %\
T3
LÜ
3
C
■•H
li. c
o
u
g3
0 0 CP
< <iii
a. a. j"
(0 en ^
m <
01 o»-
DO O
I
V)
öNiivd 3dniondis >iooä
5-30
!!«■ !
o 5
2 ÜJ
^ ^- (O
^ x llJ ■a
0)
3
C
-.—1
0 O- a: * J
B
O
z z x UJ ^)
ö o '" h- (^
< < UJ LÜ I/)
Q. 0- h-
OJ
E>
< ST'
Q
00 O
I O
CO
C\J
(y bs/M) avon MOOU

m o o o
O —
in
— C\J ro
O
t
o
in
O
u> e
O o o O o o
s <X) in t fO OJ
9Niivd 3dniondis MOO«
5-31
MM Ml
o E
«. o
— a.
Eco
ÜJ
■a
a»
3
li-iT z I- G
C
o
zz I UJ
ÜJ
<
a: o »-
CD o
1
CO
9Niivd 3dniondis xood
5-32
—^^^■Ml MMMte
- 00
- U)
_l
-^ UJ
c
Z
in CO Z n
CO
^_ x 111 3 0)
ti z ^
\-
3
C
c
o o: Ü
CD ® U
z z X
»-
hi
Ü o h-
< < UJ iii
en OT S 1
Q: < 0
- to CD
o
o: o
CO
»-
o
n
I
CO o
ro
- (VJ
Hd'bs/x) avcn xoo8

in m o O O o o o
o C\J
00 en
O o o
ONiivd 3dniondis xoou
b- J J
MBH iuuâuaattnttluiia -'- ^_—

driven through a rock structure with a predicted RSR value of 60. A horizontal
line drawn to the right of RSR 60 on the 30 ft. diameter chart intersects four
support system curves. Vertical lines from respective intersections to the
bottom scale indicates the following requirements;
1. Shotcrete - 2-1/2" nominal thickness
2. Rock bolts 1" 0 3.7 ft. pattern
3. Rock bolts 1-1/4" 0 4.5 ft. pattern
4. 8WF 40 Ribs - 7 ft. ctrs.
Although each system would be evaluated with respect to the over-
all tunneling operation, it is likely that in this instance shotcrete would
be used. Note that steel ribs are at their maximum recommended spacing
for an RSR of 60 with this diameter tunnel.
RSR values less than 19, indicated by the dashed 'datum' line on
the charts, reflect the need for very heavy structural support. Values in
the general range of 70 - 80 indicate areas where minimal or light supports
may be required (see paragraph 5.4). Tunnel sections with a predicted
RSR value of 80 or greater would be unsupported.
By adjusting the predicted RSR value in accordance with discussion
on page 1-19, the charts could also be used in determining support require-
ments for machine driven tunnels.
5.7 USE OF PREDICTION MCDEL
Although the structure and format of the ground support prediction
model has intentionally been kept as simple and straight forward as
5-34
^mmmmmitmmiummtmmmämmmmmtmmmmit\ i HMI n «am—i iî m i H—MUMM

possible so as to amplify and encourage its use by those involved in tunnel
construction, effective use and assignment of weighted numerical values
require a comprehensive understcinding of both geologic and engineering
requirements. Application of the RSR model to a particular project would
consist of the following steps:
1) Investigation, review and evaluation of known geologic and
construction data available in the pre-bid period. This information to be
recorded on forms as shown on Figure 2.1. If distinct geologic sections are
apparent, specific information pertaining to each would be noted.
2) Determination of respective RSR values using Figure 5.1 and
applicable data from item 1 above.
3) Using a specific Support Requirement Chart for the considered
tunnel size (Figure 5.7), and the determined RSR value, typical support
systems are identified. Decision as to most appropriate system would
require separate evaluation with respect to proposed tunneling operation.
Anticipated rock loads can be read from the correlations shown on the
Support Requirement Chart or obtained from Figure 5.5.
A tunnel profile would be developed showing either predicted
support (type and amount) or unsupported sections along the centerline.
The profile and associated RSR data would be used for planning, designing
and costing of the tunnel and would also provide a common means for
correlation and comparison between encountered and predicted conditions.
Envisioned use of the prediction model was illustrated by considering a
hypothetical tunnel project given in Appendix C.
5-35
^-''-^-^^-'-—■**—— —- ■■!!■—in mimmtmtm MI mum i*mämi iimn «■■aiaiii« um

Evaluations and determinations as noted for steps 1 and 2 above
would require the combined efforts of both geologist and engineers. The
specified factors and limits of measure of the model format would enable
(essentially require) these disciplines to reach a common understanding as
to what is meant and the relative effect on support requirement of various
geologic and construction conditions. As mentioned, this will probably
require certain compromises between the two, but once accomplished, there
would be a standard approach or guide for support determination throughout
the job. Those in the heading should be able to verify or adjust RSR values
on basis of previous evaluation of geologic factors. Periodic adjustments
of RSR values could be made if encountered conditions were significantly
different from anticipated.
It is obvious that the RSR value is fundamental in the prediction
or determination of ground support. Through continued use and familiariza-
tion with the model, factors and pre-bid evaluations, it is possible that a
heading crew would soon be able to verify or adjust the predicted RSR value
based on observed conditions of the rock structure.
5-36
— ■ --
SECTION 6
FIELD VERIFICATION EXPERIMENTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
A stringent requirement for eventual acceptance of the prediction
model as a practical working tool of the tunneling industry is aptly stated in
one of the responses to the RSR questionaire - "must prove reliable on first
try" . Although very demanding in context it does signify a prime pre-
requisite of any new concept. However, the complexity and inherent un-
knowns involved in the prediction of sub-surface conditions are such that
"Instant" success is unlikely and that an acceptable degree of reliability
will not be achieved until the model is adequately field tested on various
tunneling situations over a period of time.
This testing of the model was Initiated under the present research
effort wherein several on-going projects were investigated. Ground support
requirements for each were determined by use of the prediction model. As
construction proceeded, actual support installations were compared with the
respective predictions. Due to limited nature of current tunneling activity
and corresponding time required for construction, it was difficult to find
suitable projects which were being started and completed within the research
period. Consequently, some of the field experiments have not been fully
evaluated (comparison of predicted and actual support) at the present time.
Selection of on-going projects to be used for field application of the
6-1
liiMiiiyMMH—iiiiiiifc
of the prediction model was mutually agreed by the TPO and a member of the
research team. A brief project description and comments pertaining to field
investigations is given in paragraph 6.2.
6.2 FIELD EXPERIMENT PROJECTR
NEW MELONES TUNNEL: The New Melones tunnel, near Jamestown,
California, is a diversion tunnel for the proposed New Melones Dam. It is
3800 feet long and was driven by drill and blast method using heading and
bench. The horseshoe shap excavation is 31 feet wide and 37 feet high.
Excavation was completed a. i the concrete lining begun when the site was
visited in July 1972. In addition to inspecting the tunnel, :he study team
discussed the project with representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the
contractor joint venture Ball-Granite. This was the largest tunnel in the
United States to that time, entirely supported by shotcrete. Both the Corps
and the contractor were deservedly proud of their accomplishment and were
enthusiastic of the use of this support method.
The rock mass consists of layers of meta-volvanic rock interbedded
with meta-sandstones, slate, slate breccia and serpentine. The bedding is
almost vertical and the rock is generally blocky to massive except in narrow
fault and shear zones where it is closely jointed and shattered. The entire
tunnel above the invert Is shotcreted. In most areas there is 4" of shotcrete
in the arch and 2" on the sidewalls. In the fault and shear zones the shot-
crete support has been supplemented with a few steel ribs.
6-2
- ' .— —.
CUAJONE TUNNELS: It is unfortunate that during the period of this research
the number of rock tunnel projects in the United States available to the
study team were very limited. To overcome this difficulty, and to extend
the field studies to selected foreign and mining-type operations, it was
decided to use the Cuajone Tunnels in southern Peru.
This project consists of a series of five railroad tunnels in the
Departments of Moguegua and Tacna which will be used to haul copper ore
concentrate from the Cuajone Copper Mine to Toquepala. The horseshoe
shaped tunnels are being constructed for the Southern Peru Copper Corpora-
tion under the supervision of the Utah Construction and Mining Co. They
are excavated IV high and 24' wide by drilling and blasting full face, in
rock consisting mostly of granite, granodiorite, diorite, and rhyolite
porphyry. The rock is hard and generally competent except in fault zones
where it is shattered and crushed.
Although it was not possible for the study team to visit the job site
during the construction period, these tunnels were chosen because access
to the pre-construction geology reports and current progress reports showing
as-built conditions was available. In addition, one member of the study
team had visited the job site prior to construction. Two of the tunnels,
Cuajone Nos. 4 and 5, were being excavated during this study period;
19,200 feet of No. 4 (total 48,400 feet) is now excavated and all 7,600
feet of No. 5 .
Although geologists had spent considerable time on pro-construction
6-3
Mi^MMMMM^M*
Investigation, the scope of the project (88,800 feet of tunnels), the moun-
tainous terrain, and lack of roads, limited these investigations primarily to
surface geology. This data had to be projected as much as 2,000 feet
vertical to tunnel grade without the aid of boring logs. The type of data
needed for RSR evaluation was therefore lacking, and interpretation of
verbal descriptions had to be used.
Supports for these tunnels included steel ribs, rock bolts, shotcrete,
and varying combinations of each. Since possible combinations of support
are limitless, an approximate comparison of these to the predicted supports
is given as equivalent rib ratio (RR) values. (See paragraph 6.3)
WASHINGTON METRO SUBWAY: The largest single tunneling project now
underway in the United States is the Washington Metro Subway. Portions jf
this project are close enough to the surface to be excavated by cut and cover
methods. Of the remaining sections, some are tunneled in soft ground but
most will be in rock, including several large underground stations.
Section 1A0061 of the Rockville Route was chosen for field study for
several reasons. It is one of the longest sections, with over 18,000 feet of
single track tunnel, a two track transition section, a crossover section and
over 2,000 feet of exploratory drifts for underground stations. It was bid in
December 1972 and a prediction of ground support requirements was made
based on the RSR concept by the study team prior to the bid date based sole-
ly on the geologic information made available to the bidders. This predic-
tion assumed excavation to be by drill and blast. The study team subse-
6-4
—Mil I «■■—■II
quently learned that the contractor, Morrison-Knudsen Co. plans on using
a tunnel boring machine for the single track tunnels. The table of pre-
dicted support requirements shown In Figure 6.1 has been revised to include
a TBM factor for these sections.
It is unfortunate that none of these tunnel sections have been exca-
vated to date to check these support predictions. They are Included so that
they can be compared to actual supports by interested readers during the
progress of the project. The rock in this area consists of chlorite schist,
schistose gneiss, and quartz-dlorite gneiss.
CARLIN CANYON TUNNELS: These twin highway tunnels each about 1,400
feet long, are being constructed for Interstate Route 80 in Elko County,
Nevada by Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company under the
supervision of the Nevada Department of Highways. They are being exca-
vated as heading and bench using drilling and blasting. The excavated
horseshoe shaped arch Is 38 feet wide and 30 feet high. When the job site
was visited In May 1973, both headings were completely excavated and the
contractor was removing the benches.
Although the project was begun prior to the time the study team
received the pre-bld plans, specifications and geology report, the estimate
of support requirements was based entirely on these documents. In prepar-
ing this estimate, the study team avoided any knowledge of the contractor's
or engineer's estimate, even to ignoring the bid quantity for temporary
support. The rock penetrated by the tunnel consists of closely Interbedded
6-5
—
t
sedimentary rock Including sandstones, siltstones, shales, limestones
and conglomerates, with almost vertical bedding planes. Despite the com-
plexity of the rock mass the geologic prediction was fairly accurate, being
based on a projection of rock features from an adjacent Southern Pacific
Railroad Tunnel.
The original support estimate was based on 14 W 61 steel ribs with a
shotcrete alternate. This was later revised to an equivalent 8 W 67 rib to
compare more easily to the supports actually used. It is interesting to note
that the engineer, the contractor and the study team, each, independently
estimated support required for the full length of tunnel with the study team
quantity midway between the other two.
NORAD EXPANSION: In 1961 excavation was begun on the underground com-
plex called NORAD to house the North American Air Defense Command. This
complex consisted of access and ventilation tunnels, offices, fuel and water
storage, generator and heating areas. This was constructed in the massive
pink granite of Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. In the late 1960's it was
decided to expand this complex to Include a complete power plant to make
NORAD self-sustaining.
This expansion project is the sixth case study of this report. It con-
sists of two large chambers for the powor plant and cooling tower as well as
various sized interconnecting tunnels for access, air intake and air exhaust.
The excavation used the drill and blast method with heading and bench ex-
cavation in the larger chambers. This work was performed by the Tiro Con-
6-6
q^KÔTJii ui.iniiiuji ipuiii ii iwn—i«>w^«MOT«iiw i IHI.MIIHI umiiji 'm^mmmmimmmimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiBmmm
struction Company under contract to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Excava-
tion was complete when visited by the study team in October 19 72. All areas
were reinforced by rock bolt on patterns specified by the Corps of Engineers.
Specified smooth wall blasting was successfully produced in the hard granite.
It is likely that basic criteria used in design of ground support for
this project considered factors not normally associated with typical tunnel
construction. For one the construction rock is exceptional, and the empha-
sis on excavation procedures and ground support exceed that in normal tun-
nel construction. This must be considered in the correlation of predicted
and actual support ds determined, in eventual verification of the prediction
model.
6.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF PREDICTION MODEL
The projects were investigated in a manner similarly described in
paragraph 5.7 and elsewhere in this report. Available geologic and con-
struction data was reviewed, evaluated and recorded on study formats shown
as Figure 2.1. Each project was considered as several test sections depend-
ing on applicable geology and construction requirements. RSR values were
determined for each section. Using appropriate Support Requirement Charts
(Figure 5.7) the types of support (steel ribs, shotcrete or rock bolts) that
could be used and which would be adequate for the predicted ground condi-
tions were identified and listed. For those tunnel sections with a relatively
high RSR value and for which it would be questionable as to whether or not
support would be required, the prediction is shown as applying only to a
6-7
J,^.-J.- _ .-.- —
wm^^^mmmm^mmmmmmmmmwrnm^m^mîm^^mu^Fm^timr mi iiihiwiui.uiniMi . iiiimiHpmppMPvii wun ■■m ■■ i ^»^^wî »IUWH WMI»HJ^»^W^»IIWI«W
percent of the total section length, the remainder being unsupported. This
applies primarily to the Cuajone Tunnels and is noted accordingly. Actual
support installations were subsequently recorded and compared with the
respective predictions. Figure 6.1 is a summary tabulation. It shows in-
dividual tunnel sections considered for each project, the determined RSR
values and corresponding rib ratios, the predicted support alternatives,
actual support installations of the completed sections and the actual rib
ratio as determined in accordance with paragraph 5.3. In cases where
actual support consisted of either shotcrete or rockbolts an equivalent RR
was determined by using the empirical relationships discussed in paragraph
5.6. For Instance, knowing the actual thickness of shotcrete It is possible
to determine anticipated rock load (Wr.) which in turn Is related to an equi-
valent steel rib and corresponding rib ratio for the particular tunnel section.
Similar evaluations were made to determine equivalent rib ratios for those
sections in which actual installations consisted of a combination of support
systems such as shotcrete plus steel ribs. These rib ratios (predicted and
actual) are subsequently used ot evaluate results of the field experiments.
Transition sections 1 and 2a and the crossover section 7c, shown for
the Washington Metro (field study 4) have flattened arches. Prediction of
rib supports for these sections was based on the anticipated rock loads (Wr)
as Indicated by the respective RSR values and the applicable physical dimen-
sions , using design procedures outlined In Example 2, Chapter 11 of Rock
Tunneling with Steel Supports (Ref. 3). Predictions of shotcrete and rock
6-8
'■---"-^--—-^—^— —~
ill iiwiiiMam
0)
XI
< £
UJ Ö a ro t«« r» rs t^ cr> o
K (T>
H
U a
UJ
CO U3 CO CO co -o CM
C
0)
<
^J J3
<£ 0)
(1) o a) LO OJ uo
2 « 0) a; a* 0)
*->
0
0)
i-i i-i
U
£®
u o u 0 O O u u o
So o *
►3 O o o o , O T o 0
x:
x:
u a. w -9 -^ CO CO -£ 0
< P , 2 . 12 . (2 1 QQ
- ; i
«. 00
(0
CM
^J
CO * + to + * + CN] M
4
^J* CO
0)
Q ■— XI
2 •a
2 0)
c
^ -•H
H
CO
aO .—<
CM
X,
1—1
CM
.—l
CM
f—t
g
0)
w 4-*
CQ 2 1
CM CM CO CM
0)
« CO OJ CM CO
X X X
O C/l CM CM 4-1
X
8s X X CM
j w X OJ
S
o
M H CM co 1—1 c
S < * 5 cu
i 1 1 1
QJ
2 CM CM co <M u
^ cx 1
1
s 5< M
*
■£>
2
■ s
U4 CO
H CO
H
U M g 3
o
a,
R
U ^
M 8it. r^
■H
6 E _ -
^r
.
co
,
^ (0
2 ro 10 T un CO
CO x £ c
o
^ co H
4->
Q Q (0
D UJ
H c
H
en o x>
M Q
10
*9 o
< CM 1
ü O CD O \ o O O
T T (0
q w 55 f* ^^
0)
M ZI ^
4->
fO
tu
CO 00 @ <M@
F-4
oo O o@
•—(
CD® CO (§} CD (B) oo (g) e
0)
Ul
C
-^ 0
M
(0
10
a> c
—<
a XI
Q PC CO o CO o cr> o E E
CM CO CO •f-4
1/5 CO
C-J
vt 0
U o
0)
Q (0
o ■■
cn XI
Di LO rr o ai LO o
Q_
CO U1 ro LO co LO to LO
a:
x:
5^ r» 8,
Q H *
•^* r». 00
^M •-H CM CO LO LD
6-9
MMM ■MHIU^BMM.
1
" "" ■ I'
^> Q
*
CS) t*» o O>J o r^ r-H rj< 00 00
CO N CO CM to ^H ro CM
X
1
M
n >P iP iP "iP iP "sP î3 ''O
g
^ ö^ ^ Ö« Ö? 3« ^ 05
o ocgooa>LO r^t^rn U3 T o m en o CD CM
35 Ko o
^H
CsJ —• C^ r-H CSJ 00 P-H
t>>. 00 o
<-t
CO o
^H
in m
<D 0
• • € fi
CQ OQ OQ CO*
< > • • • • o U
CO a: a DC OC • o 0
w w • M \ w X 01 ""V w ui "X . a) s: cc
JQ JQ ^ XI * " XI * XI J X) * XJ * • OQ • 'A
0 2 cSaiScoco 2co2 x: ^ ä ^ x: x:
CO CC CO CK CO CO
J3 ii
DC CO o
c
Ü
(0 4-J
1-1 a U)
•2 no
2:
CO
«Tj
a«
Q) ~ ^-.
-a v ö§
fl)
T3
^S
(0 <v >. 0)
5 OQ O a X
O CO C " o > rn a 0)
H m ^ a) «r in ^ a) ^r in
^ o 6 fQ) u a E n n
® s
M
g
•4-"
O
= fc O = it! O = r CM ^^ s9 0)
CM
0
x;
0 -H o c
G CO
| 1 0) -1^
I—I
a:
a
3 £ 5 -H xi a II 0)
Ü
<
s 3
c 6
o o
0 O
3
CO
s
-o
(0
0)
3
c
8 i

0
CVJ & H n
a h w
S*
o
a«
o
ae
O
Se
O
s? ■ O ■Q CD .» û
o
11 i—i •
If) . ^> C
a. •«T TJ«
E U
o a. ro co ^ ^ ro k, ^r oo %-rr ?o U ^ g
3 E 3
a o ■
Q
0
w
n
By
B X
Uj (x. fe 6J lu s 3
in
o -' 0
< >»-
ID •3^
CO
0)
1
ted geo logi sections
are sim pie Iternates
W E-4
b M ^3
H H
O a) ID 2o
tn
»—( c 9
M Q ü
N CM 0 2^
W M
< oc • • • « *-• in
Ü cu u TJ Ü -O ü T3 on o T3 u 10 —<
3
-H 00
o.
II
S d g" « oj s o if n o'9 ^ d 8" (0
<
o -a
□ 55
(D
M <
9 2 ^« a ID o G
b, ao (§) O
4J ^
oo® 0
♦J "^
cx)(g)
4J
0
$'"*
00 © 0
^^
CD (g)
I
-a
a
a;
0
X)
DC 3
9 II
u DC
u
—< u-l tjl
E S C ■S O (0
■5 w 1 c
J (U
c ••-"
■9
4-1
T) (1)
p o t^ a> co o> ro 00 CO 00 CO w X C) c >
M fi n >-• CO 1—1 CO r-t T ^ ^ •—I M H p < w <
Ü
»—1
1 1 1 1
Q < 00U Q W CM
^ co o ^H ««J' li? ^ in a* m <n * * « * « *

■
lO
in «> ^r u)
a. TT «A co u> co ID
••
>< t«
5 £ 0)
IS
Bö
<
i-t CM co ^" m
♦
io t^ 00 CD o
+J
o
2
6-10
«MaMMBkai^ HBHiîHU^^^
■■ ' •wvmnnvvva
H > ü
S E «
D & OS COQ0t^.COUJCT)CT>POt^^
H Q« CO ^,.-^Ô^HlOC^^^,^,
U W
< x
ü
♦
^0 so ND SP SD ND SD SD VO ^P >>i> sP ^P iP iP iP üP iP iP iP
O^ o^ o^ o^ ^^ ^^ o^ o^ u^ o^ o^ o^ o^* o^ 0^ o^ o^ o^ ö^ ö^
roroc>jvooooiooootDoorôooiom QJ
4-<
I—I
COOO CMO^PO^HOOIO OO tvoOTCTI 0)
f-H •—1 r-1 i—t ^H i—1 ■—1
^2 OQ
+J
0
CQ
^
m
in wi w\o) ^w «,'w ■ ■ w
• <-0
■
QJ O
t m K
6 KCOCCCOKCOCOKDSCOCODSDCCOalcOaCOKCO
*4 n
s: in
-Q
■^H
w .*
t«
Ö> ^ Ul u
l-J a as 0
u T3 TJ Tl TJ "O w J3 a
"X ^R |*iJ lî? |*s |c 1c
vary
orted
^ XO CXO CXO CXO id
^) Q o «
QQ M
<D Q) 10 (l)_CO (U.,.^ (U tn
B
•
^ A
11 -^
5
U
^^
V.3
< Qi
-^ ü II XI ul
c ^ m E C
ü a
<
0 «-• OS 0
ü
OJ
n>
(0
4~i
c
1 H w -"^ -—~. -—' -—^
T3
0) (0
u 0
H co 0 0
CO
so öS ö« 3§ d? 0) C 3 >
ombi
mero
o o o o f0
• «
a,
o ro coui^T rou^T rouT rOu^J* f 3
O 0
2 0 O O 0
>^
Q
co DC K
CO H
6 fij & SJ t«
O •«
(0 -T^
<
ü
<
10
3
c
1
0 i
OJ
Dl
Q T
P M " * ca M
ctior
one (
mate
H H
r #6
O
»—1
O
W r]
Q N
C/) w • • • • • • 81 0 a»
< OS o-a ox) 033 033 0
. u
4-> LO 00
U o. 0 rj (0
w 59
S 01 Sog So* « 0 jT S 0 S d •in 3
cn (0 <
II
S 0)
w
XI
C
w2 m
CO "*
^^«
co(ä)0
^^2
oo(9)0
$'"*
00(9)0
^' t ^^^^
oo(g)o aa ® ao ®
0 IJ-1
O T) #
U3 * Q.
DI F _<
! »—1
Z 2 Z Z

3
+-"
l)
0 9
IM
(1)
H w ^ < Ä H <
y 1 1 1
Q
3 o: LOincDtOCT) lOCDLOCniO < OQ ü Q
co LOlDPOlOCO lOrOCDrO^" * * * * *
&
••
U3
< oa 0)
* * ■u
O
I-HCVICO^*!/) lor^cacDO 2
&5W
6-11
Mi
I' i • .immi'm't-^miimmBw^mrmî 11
™" " ' ■ ■ !■
—_
•D -a XI
H 0) 0)
0)
CO
OS T3
C
(U
T3 lO
C X
U) LO
lO
to
X
TT
"g1
x

U3
x
T3
-
tT
x x
lO
X X
X) TI
u CD in 01 CT
rl C ^
sisi® ® ® ® *
W
>—1 r-l -—i ■—i S o
H A Oi g &£
•—t
ID a u
: : XI
O O Hco CM CM V- CM rg
O a, ^ to cr
\
s cu
C3 - - - : T T ^ r—t —1
1
• CO ^J* ^ CM CM r-H ^H (U PH CM »—1 rsi ir <"
C C
o Q O o
H
XX 2 ^
w CO H
Ü
1 i—i o
in
+
2H a, ■a
CO
T3 ^ r-
H
W CO ai u a, o' g" o "cr o
M CQ ® d
^ o ^ < CQ (0 ^ o Ü * Ü OQ Ü CQ CD 0 ot; o
CO K > , m CO <U
O (U 0) 0) V
*-• 4-1
1
H OoOO O "^ O o o 0 o Q 1*»
rr cj
Ü -H irtJ -H ^ ^ £ ^ (öJ S 2 2 2 8
0®°
c
s
w
Q
w
4
CD in* ^;
Q) 4-1
r.
s1
H
►3 a:
CD CO
*
n
*
ID io
*
,—i
*
^D CO
*
CO
■K
i—i o in
*
co
■H* ID UD lO LO t^- CX3 rv to r^ ID in GO - ' o •
in s^tn CO
O
• Ü
o , a o a la 5
2*tt
JH w o a
■p-4
(M
C C <ü Q) (U (L 0) l- 0) QJ a a
CO
CO ^
co O
o
,H
10
a
._
w
xi
H
xi
H
*e
"^
xi
H
xi
H
n $
XI
H
3
O
.—i s I H
^ > w w
c c ^
c ^
c a, c c n
w 00 C C CO w C w S1"« 'S
CO u w X -—< X 0 •- a) c c c
< CO
^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 CM
r~-i
>-•
U H
5
c w 2 2
-"ill
co
* <:OQü
O oooooooooooooo OOOO ooo ooooO
mLoiOLOLOoooooooocD OOOO cpoo
P Xttt+++++4++++ + + + + + -l-a.
OOOO? n
X4.xa- + cu
Ö
H
oocrcnrocorv.r^r^t^^Tr--iotO'-< ^r ^H r-i r^ (^ co oo
^H^r-HCMtNirsicMcocMcoroiOLOrv CD t^ rx CN. t^ O CD
to in co co '—,
o
O O) CD o ^
to »—1 r-H i-H f—1
•-, CMr-t eg r-H rt fNJ CM
5M ^ CM
« Xi
CM
ro
CO
XI
CO T3<
«
LO
Si
in co
(0 Si u
ts N t^- 00
^w
6-12
mtm mmm
■pill II ■ I....I IIKIIII .1 .LM.M.IV "j*^m?^^^^ 11
! J ' ! ■ "-UMP"
iJ
m
1«
ft «J
Ü
«O
m
00
CM
00
OJ 1/5
«Ö
«/»
CO
CM
00
CM
<*
"T
<
• • • •
ü
•
Ü
• o• Ü
•
o • •
o o • * 0
CO .
-I Oi DC CM ü 0 CM ** ^ ü* Ü CM
tv N. tv Iw *
^ J 0 »D .-1 UJ o 5 0 lO r-l ^>^ 0^0 ^^

D H^ 1 I
H " a-
Ü K p ^^^ LO ^^ ^« ^ci,^ üo ^ in *£
< Kw 00 (g) oo ® 00 @) 00 @ oo (§) oo (B) oo (§) 00 ®
2 *
*
s w
H M co N
H co
(£ 0)
2 M IT ^p CO UO lO 5P CO in c
o Ö 5^ c
< xS
CO H
3
*J
< 73
ü DC C
2
o
a,
(0
Oi
t—*
a. u c
• • •a 3
< CO 0
• • • o T3
C
-•*
ü • • • 0) ■*->
Q '-, r« eg u• Ü CM O Ü ü C
. M w ^2 t^ \ tv
o t^ • t^ ' t>. \ t-» ^ r^
O to O• !£> O
t^ • —^ oo
H vo F-I to lO O to O LO •-) lO (0
in Ü LO ^« ^?o Ü
•
1—1
Q
CO * ^«^ •5^ lO ^ ID ^«
20)
O oo (9) oo @ oo (§) CO @) CO ® CO (B) oo® 00 (§) to
2 | >
a,
S
s eg
0)
w
H Q IX «3 t^ T «O IV CM T
CO UJ B CO (M CM T co eg CM T 3
(0
H
M Ü a>, Üi
< Q
U
ga. a:
CO ID
^
CM
lO
IO
uo
■—<
T
U3 CM 03 i-H CO TJ
an
9u M« ID LO * 1 ^1
T3
Q)
c
(U
E
E*—* oE
« Q 8
CO
2 TOO o o o o o moo o o o o o
T cn cn m <D r>. r^ cv -_ t^ o o 00 00 00 00 Tf C
O + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
o
1—4
Q Q
g i «
§CO ^3
r^ a> en
r~ rv rv
r^ r» r*.
CO CO (Tl
00 oo oo
t-^ tN. 1^
<Ji
co cn
t>. r^
.-H 2
t)
o
tv CT) O) r-l r-< CO 00 -*
r^ t^ rv 00 00 00 CO Ol
t^ t^ tv tv tv CV iv tv
co -^
O ^H nH ^H r—i r—i f—1 1—4 f-H rH i—1 i-H i-H »—1 i-H t-t 1—1 —i 03
a m
H hi
i
CO CO 0
< 5
< oi
>• ^ M t^
ro ro *
—• 04 T r-i CM T
OT
K
6-13
M__ ■ —
^-1 .
s§
5&g l-t
o
CM
•—1
r-l i—i CM
LO
CM CM
—t
« « o
■
CM (M
•I. •I. I-v c
H • o
•»1
KJ ^ S M
< O a • • - «* M* M- TT u
p UQ Ui 0)
X X t^ X X X X
RHC • • M-
■^ T M" ■^
PC
o
-^
-H
S5
O 9w _ O
CO
S s 5
ro
lip
CO
CO •
III X ID in CO
X
X X X X •
CM X
s
r-l
CM
\
r-t
LO LO CO
X
1
CO
Q ^H
•
■^r
t
O
as
1 n
u
a:
PE
00 ui
t-H
00 LO
■—)
LO
f—1
LO
•—<
oo
0)
>
•
^^^
1
to H
U
?
B
o Q
4-1
(0
SB CO
o CO o n CO co o c
x> LO
a, OS
u
OT in CO CM Q 4-i 3
H 00 00 ■—( o Q CM
O 4J
CO f—1 i—i --I m ■—1
•-• ro
^ a
X X X CO X X
CO X 1 c

Q w *< n
to
LO LO
CM
t^- s ■rH
s s 00 c
♦ o
w CO <:
-'
X X X X oc en
00 CM o »—i 1 TJ
co CO CO CM ^ i
3
0)
> | C
2 ■M 4-1 *-> 5 c
o 3 to
> <1)
—1
0)
0 3
H H 3
N
cu -a 4J XI Q x 9 X,
ta § c £ g E s 3
2 3 i g 0) « i
^ O
O X3
u 1 85 ? u (0
CO
M
Q
a. u o u
a. < 1° 2
■*-»
c
-* ua *
00
CM ♦
^ ,•
S f-1
r-l eg ro T LO CO r>.
H co
CO
6-14
MHMUHMB MMM1 ■ '■ - ■

mmmmimu^*'**~mmr~m ■"■" '■«l ' » " ■ l111'1 •^p^r^ÄBiiw.Pi mm mf m^^mm
bolt supports are based on suggested relationships discussed in paragraph
5.5.
Length of individual test sections, size of tunnel and notations as
to whether supported or unsupported are shown on Figure 6.2.
6.4 EVALUATION OF FIELD TESTS
A general appraisal of reliability occasioned by use of the prediction
model can be made by plotting the actual or equivalent rib ratios for respec-
tive tunnel test sections vs. determined RSR values. Results are shown on
the summary graph of the prediction model of Figure 6.3. It is seen that
nearly all plotted points fall within the developed envelope and are gener-
ally above the statistical average curve used in developing the model. A
possible conclusion based on this evaluation is that the prediction model is
too optimistic - that is, it reflects lesser support requirements than actually
needed. This is somewhat contrary to expressed concern that the prediction
model would perpetuate the "over-supporting" of tunnels.
Other evaluations can be made by considering the actual or pre-
dicted lengths of supported or unsupported tunnel. (See Figure 6.2)
Total length of tunnel for which it was possible to compare predicted
and actual support is 34,980 feet. Use of the prediction model indicated
that approximately 23,265 feet would require support, the remaining 11,715
feet being unsupported. Corresponding actual lengths were 24,808 and
10,172 feet respectively. The overall predicted length of supported tunnel
was 94% of actual though greater variations can be noted In Individual
6-15
jm mm ^ ttmtmt mtmm
mmmmm •— — ■ ■in" '-"v ■ !■»—»Wf
FIELD STUDY GEOLOGIC SECTIONS

% SUPPORTED - PREDICTED AND ACTUAL
FIELD DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC SECTION % SUPPORTED

STUDY OF TUNNEL
NO. LENGTH SIZE PRED, ACT.
(FT.) (FT.)
F-l New Melones 1 280 30 x 34 HS 100 100

U.S. Corp of Engineers 2 180 100 100
3 960 100 100
California - D(S.B A 60 100 100
Length"3, 770' 5 660 100 100
6 600 100 100
7 800 100 100
B 230 100 100
F-2 Cuajone No. 4 1 150 24 x 22 HS 100 100

Southern Peru 2 750 50 46
Copper Company 3 2000 100 70
4 1100 40 5
Peru- D&B
5 3000 100 77
Length 19,200' 6 6400 40 75
(as of July, 1073) 7 300 100 100
8 3300 40 38
9 300 100 100
10 1900 40 73
F-3 Cuajone No. 5 1 300 24 x 22 HS 100 87

Southern Peru 2 1500 40 22
Copper Company 3 100 100 100
4 1600 40 40
Peru - D&B 5 100 100 100
Length 7,600' 6 1100 40 64
7 100 100 100
8 2000 40 66
9 100 100 100
10 700 100 96
Figure 6.2
6-16
. —^ - .-
• " ^■»..™
FIELD STUDY GEOLOGIC SECTIONS

% SUPPORTED - PREDICTED AND ACTUAL
FIELD DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC SECTION % SUPPORTED

STUDY OF TUNNEL
NO. LENGTK[ SIZE PRED. ACT.
(FT.) (FT.)
F-4 Wash. Metro IA0061 1 100 30 x 21 HS 100 •
Washington Metropolitan 2a 400 44 x 27 HS 100

Area Transit Authority 2b 350 2 @ 19 Dia 100
Wa shington, D .C. - T .B .M. 3a 1000 2 @ 19 Dia 100
3b 700 6 x 8 HS 100
Length'22,200'
4 1900 2 @ 19 Dia 50
5a 1500 2 @ 19 Dia 0
5b 700 12 x 8 HS 50
6 600 2 @ 19 Dia 100
7a 2900 2 @ 19 Dia 50
7b 700 12 x 8 HS 100
7c 100 58 x 30 HS 100
8 1500 2 @ 19 Dia 0
F-5 C arlin Canyon E-l 246 38 x 31 HS 100 100
Nevada Department 2 400 100 100
of Highways 3 580 100 100
4 200 100 100
Nevada - D&3 W-1 121 100 100
Length~'2(787' 2 280 100 100
3 700 100 100
4 260 100 100
F-6 NORAD Expansion 1 189 67 x 53 HS 100 100
U.S. Corps of Engineers 2 185 38 x 45 HS 100 100
3 113 32 x 25 HS 100 100
Colorado - D & B 4 140 20 x 27 HS 100 100
Length 1,623 5 374 19 Dia 100 100
6 502 18 Dia 100 100
7 120 19 Dia 100 100
D & B = Drill and Blast
T.B.M. = Tunnel Boring Machine
*Not yet excavated
b-17
mtmmm
^mmmmmm
g«
> •
-o 2
3 B
S go
i 20) 5u
i -
u. en
(Ü
II
rg
l
I
Q
Ä ]
I x:
a
* i
in
/ u
O
-1 : i;
*[«
_ .
/
»51 ! 3
i
«SI i
c
/ o
-o
o
$Ü
MII
ti
o
iii 01
(E
/, " o ^-
m c
k ? r y O o
4-"
/ u
s 2
ffl •M
Ü)
cr 0)
o H
_.o
h-
o O
(dS8) 9NIJV8 Bdmoridis MDOy
6-18
■■I
^*wimmm^m^^~^m^mm
sections.
Another comparison can be made by extending respective rib ratios
(predicted and actual as discussed in paiagraph 6.3 and shown on Figure
6.1) against corresponding lengths of applicable sections expressed as a
percentage of the total length of supported tunnel. Since rib ratios bas.'cally
define the physical properties of the respective support systems (size and
spacing of ribs, thickness of shotcrete, etc.) it provides a fairly realistic
appraisal of the overall support requirement. Results of this computation
are given below:
Average R.R.
Project Predicted Actual
! New Melones 28 37
2 Cuajone #4 36 37
3 Cuajone #5 35 38
4 Washington Metro
5 Carlin Canyon 29 36
6 Norad Expansion 13 21
All Projects 32 36
The overall prediction of support requirements was approximately
897 of actual, or expressed otherwise, the total quantity of support (pounds
of steel ribs, cubic yards of shotcrete or number of rock belts) as may have
been determined by use of the prediction model would have been approxi-
mately 117 less than actually used.
Although the above evaluations show a fairly high degree of relia-
6-19
..
*****^*^mmm
bllity In using the model, a comparison of predicted and actual rib ratios
for Individual tunnel sections (see Figure 6.1) may show rather large discrep-
ancies. This Is due primarily to basic methodology used In developing the
model, wherein a statistical average of case history data was used tc estab-
lish the empirical relationship between rock structure and ground support.
Although a rit ratio defined by a determined RSR value reflects the statistical
average, it can be seen by the graph of Figure 5.4 that the rib ratio for any
particular RSR value could vary between limits of the developed envelope.
This might be construed as a weakness of the model, but until the prediction
of sub-surface conditions becomes an exact science it must be accepted that
the determination of ground support for future tunnels will continue to be a
"qualified art". It is both desirable and likely that by continued use of the
model the width or range of the enclosing envelope will be narrowed so that
more definitive answers can be obtained. In essence, this reflects the
initial intent In that the prediction model is not intended to be an exact
measure of a particular support member at a specific tunnel location but
rather to provide a realistic appraisal of the overall support requirement.
The tabulation on page 6-20 shows that although there were differences for
individual tunnels, the overall prediction of support requirements substan-
tially agreed with actual installations.
The Support Requirement Charts generally indicate three alternative
support systems which could be used for a particular tunneling situation.
The most appropriate being determined by individual analysis. Although this
6-20
*■*-***-" -. _ - . . „ .
P^vwnpwiain« >..'M»M<*^W«III* PI iwwOTÔT .1 ■«"■•p» w^w«OTmp"pp.w."«!w«mmR«*«*«i(Wf i iM«iHip*wr«nn«w^*nK^Mr*«M>nniwnppîvi^ÔTaMiMi^nOTOTm
multiple choice approach is typical of all prediction methods, it would be
desirable if guide lines could be established which would enable potential
users of the prediction model to pick that system which would most likely
be used. The field studies also indicated the use of "combination support
systems", which are not specifically Included In the prediction model.
Correlation between these combination systems and the prediction model
can be made by calculation, as discussed in paragraph 6.3. It may be
preferable, in the future, to Include a limited number of representative
support combinatlonb in the support requirement charts.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
Although It is realized that the limited number of tunneling situations
considered are not sufficient in themselves to make final conclusions, It
does appear that realistic predictions of ground support requirements can be
made by use of the RSR model. This is further evidenced by similar results
obtained from the second year case history studies which were essentially
treated as on-going p-ejects. Within limits of present day sub-surface
Investigations, and the model Itself, It would be unreasonable to assume or
expect a reliability requirement of 100%. Whether the reliability criteria
should be plus or minus 10% or even 20% Is hard to say, but any method
which would provide conslstant results within the above limits would be
substantial Improvement over the present state-of-the-art. The field exper-
iments show the reliability of the proposed prediction model to be in the
general range of minus 10% with respect to actual requirements. If con-
6-21
■M —- ■ —■■■■ -- -
.•■■.i.imivii.|«niii iii«>M^^«pnnmMmil«n^W*'^P IISI i mmm*m^^m*nr*^m \\Ml\ mi injnmmmrmmmivmmiwwmi^îmmmmimmm
tinued testing shows similar results, the basic empirical relationship be-
tween RSR values and rib ratios should be modified and Support Requirement
Charts adjusted accordingly. Due to the manner in which the model was
developed, checked and verified by this and the previous research effort,
such refinement at this time is not warranted.
6-22
■■JMM MMMMMfiiM II i—■—■■■mn n

SCCTION 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
The ground support prediction model (RSR concept) provides a stand-
ard approach and realistic solution to a complicated problem. It includes
and evaluates those geologic and construction factors most pertinent to the
determination of ground support and which are usually available for consid-
eration in the pre-construction period. The format and procedures used to
predict the competency of rock structures and support needs along the tunnel
line are expressed in common terms and presented in a straight forward
manner readily adapted to initial planning, design, and costing, of future
tunnels, and field implementation during construction.
The model developed can be modified or adjusted as needed to prop-
erly reflect findings and/or determined correlations between predicted and
encountered conditions that m-iy result from continued use, research or
testing efforts.
The model provides a more definitive description of commonly used
support systems (steel ribs, shotcrete, rock bolts) than obtained by use of
existing methods. Most existing rock classification systems, although
geologically detailed, give only general recommendations for "light",
"medium" or "heavy support."
Initial testing by field ippllcation to several on-going projects
7-1
II Ml I ^j^^^. .^.^ ■iiiiiiiiin' r --■■■■ — -■■-■■ ■

indicate that realistic appraisals of ground support requirements of future
tunnels can be made by use of the prediction model.
Due to differences in construction requirements and overall methods
of operations, the prediction model is generally more applicable to civil
works than to mining applications.
Until such time that advanced geophysical or remote sensing tech-
niques can define exactly sub-surface conditions, the "art" of predicting
ground support will depend primarily on the qualified judgement of involved
disciplines with respect to findings of actual construction and theories of
geology and rock mechanics. The systematic correlation of judgement and
physical data afforded by the proposed prediction model is a sign'ficant
improvement to the present state of the "art". Continued use and subse-
quent testing in either civil or mining operations would soon lead to a useful,
reliable tool for practical usage by the tunneling industry.
One of the greatest pitfalls in developing a reasonable prediction
model, and one which hopefully the RSR concept will help to eliminate, Is
the ever present tendency of attempting to minutely define the large number
of variables which are or could be Involved in evaluating the competency
of a rock structure. Although volumes have been written which fully des-
cribe the sciences, theories and complexities of geology and rock mechanics,
existing results pertaining to the prediction of ground support can be cate-
gorically described as "Good rock = no support" , "Bad rock = support".
This expression Is slightly pragmatic and Is Intended not as criticism but
7-2
■^^^^■" " ■"l,l,lp^"^^î i^^^^■■^■■»••■■■■«■^•■■•■■■■■■^■^■■^■■"^'^■"•"'^•■^•■»•■•■•'««■"^»■■■wwiîw^ ■ n ii*mim*^m^^<mm*9.nHui fi^^m^^r^^mmmm
rather to point out the necessity of developing, at some point in time, a
common standard or approach that would provide realistic answers. No
method, whether consisting of numerical parameters or lengthy technical
descriptions, would be completely adequate for all situations,
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Acceptance of the grour j support prediction model by the tunnel
industry will depend largely on validity of results as obtained by field
application. Although case history data is meaningful, it cannot be con-
sidered the same as actual experience. Unfortunately, current or planned
tunnel projects in which the model could be tested are fairly scarce at the
present time and usually are of such magnitude that results would not be
known for some time. Without discouraging maximum field implementation,
it is recommended that the following areas be investigated, all of which
would contribute to and encourage usage to Increase confidence in the
prediction model.
1. Compare factors and conclusions derived from the RSR concept
wilh results obtained from other methods of predicting ground
supports, such as Deere's (5), Terzaghl's (6), or Wahlstrom's
(7); or from various analyses based on the theory of rock mech-
dnics.
2. Correlate anticipated rock loads (Wr) as Identified by predicted
l<;;R values with loads determined from in situ or lalxDratory
H'Stinn procedures .
7 )
MMMHI "-' " -■-- • ■ ^-—■■-^^-

"itt'"w,~**^mmmimmmm • m\mttmt i J HI ■••
3. Relate RSR values to a '■drillability" factor in conjunction with
potential use of a tunnel boring machine.
4. Establish guide lines by which the most appropriate of possible
alternative support systems can be identified.
5. Develop RR correlation between combination support systems
(shotcrete, rock bolts, etc.) and RSR predictions.
6. The Bureau of Mines is encouraged to promote and sponsor
additional research in the field verification of the RSR and RR
with particular emphasis given to instrumented rock, support,
and rock-support interaction data.
7-4
mmarn ^-^MflBBMB
nipiv^^nmHinn . ii ii ■ nana MI ivisnmv^ni i n nmmmmmmmmm^m^^mm'^^îfnmvm'mmfmm^K^^rmfmmmm^m'^mm^r^^^mmmi^^mmfmf
REFLRENCES
1. Wlckham, G. E. and H. R. Tledemann, Research In Ground

Support And Its Evaluation For Coordination With System
Analysis In Rapid Excavation. Contract No. HO 210038, U.S.
Bureau of Mines, ARPA Program, National Technical Information
Service, AD-743100, (1972).
2. Wlckham, G. E. , H. R. Tledemann, and E. H. Skinner,

"Support Determinations Based On Geologic Predictions", RETC
Proceedings, Vol. I, Chapter 7, pp. 43-64, (1972).
3. Proctor, R. V. and T. L. White, Rock Tunneling With Steel

Supports, The Commercial Shearing and Stamping Co. , 1946
(rev. 1968).
4. Sutcliffe, H. and C. R. McClure, "Large Aggregate Shotcrete

Challenges Steel Ribs as a Tunnel Support", Civil Engineering,
ASCE, November 1969, pp. 51-55.
5. Lauffer, H., "Geblrgsklassifizierung fur den Steollenbau",

Geologi und Bauwesen 24, H. I. (1958).
6. Russell, R. L. and H. W. Zimmerman, Rdmp Development of

Deep Ore Bodies at Bunker Hill. Bunker Hill Mine, 1970.
7. Deere, D. U. , "Geologic Considerations", Chapter 1 in Rock

Mechanics in Engineering Practice. K. G. Stagg and O. C.
Zienkiewicz, ed.. New York, John Wiley & Sons, pp 1-20
(1968).
8. Terzaghi, K. , "Introduction to Tunnel Geology" in R. V. Proctor

and T. L. White, Rock Tunneling With Steel Supports, the
Commercial Shearing and Stamping Co. , Youngstown, Ohio (1946).
9. Wahlstrom, E. E., Tunneling in Roc!., Developments in Geo-

technical Engineering 3, Elsevier, (1973).
10. National Academy of Sciences, Rapid Excavation - Significance -

Needs - Opportunities, published by National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D. C. (1969).
MIIMi iiMl—MMIM—IMIII ■ ■ . -
■vmnmn^nffi
11. Parker, H. W., et al, Innovjtions In Tunnel Support Syitams

Report No. FRA-RT-72-17, Office of High Speed Ground Trans-
portation, U.S. Department of Transportation, (1971).
12 CrOV
VDLester f'' et a1
' Preliminary Snrvev of Pwlympr-imprOT
U BureaU of Mines Re
of^cof
Kl ' /. ^
7542 (1971) Port of
Investigations,
13. Bortz, S. A., et al. Evaluation of Prênt Shotcrete Technology

for Improved Coal Mine Ground Control. Conrrnf-t M^ HO 111881
U. S. Bureau of Mines, National Technical Information Ser-
vice, PB - 222 872/4WN (1973).
14. Habberstad, J. , C. Walde, and R. Simpson, "The Pumpable

Rock Bolt: A New Roof Control Concept", Engineering and
Mining Journal, vol. 174 no. 8, August 1973, pp. 76-79.
15. Olavson, L. G., et al. Feasibility Study of Surface Tmprpnn.-

tlon Equipment for Chpmlcal Stahilt^tlon of Co.il M.HP StmcSâ
Contract No. H0210055, U. S. Bureau of Mines, (1972) *
mmm mmmtmmimmt
mmmmmmmm^*mmw*ammmmi^*mm
APPENDIX "A"
INDUSTRY'S COMMENTS REGARDING
(RSR CONCEPT)
This appendix contains a general summary of comments regarding the
RSR concept of predicting ground support as received from members of the
tunneling industry. They are grouped in accordance with numbered sections
of the questionaire as shown in Section 4 of the report. As explained in
Section 4, this questionnaire was sent to selected representatives of the
tunneling industry for a critical review of the RSR concept. The names of
individuals quoted have been omitted to avoid any misunderstanding that
might arise from taking quotes out of context. Names of all respondents are
given in Section 4.3.
A-l
MWUMMaa*
——" wn^mtmmmmtm.
CONTENTS
Section
Pago
A.l General Comments A-3

A.2 Answers to Question :-3 A-5
A.3 Additional Comments on Part 1 A-8
A.4 Comments on Part II - Geologic Factors A-9
A.5 Comments on Questions III-2 & III-8-
• Support Prediction Model A-ll

A.6 Comments on Part IV - Acceptability of
Proposed Rock Structure Rating Method A-14
A-2
■_■ mäamm^mm—^.
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRY'S COMMENTS REGARDING
GROUND SUPPORT PREDIGTION MODEL
(RSR GONGEPT)
A. 1 General Gomments
"A few of the questions were a little ambiguous."
"I believe you have hit on the basis for a fairly useful technique."
"I believe you have a very interesting concept and one which should be
workable. Its application is simple enough that supervision at the tunnel
heading can use it without waiting for an engineer or geologist to interpret
conditions. Only experience with its application will prove its value, [t
is too bad that this concept was not developed years ago as I would have
liked to try it out on some of our tunnels based on my thirty years experience,'
"I wish I had the confidence in our surface geology and its projection to
tunnel level to use the RSR system."
"There are many alternatives and you have to select the right one."
"My responses are colored to some extent by my experiences and compar-

isons. Some of my thoughts regarding the influence of joint orientation and
character of the joints are summarized."
"Your work has stimulated my thinking and I want to spend more time com-
paring your rock loads with some of our rock load predictions".
I replied to your questionnaire to tne best of my ability."
"I am confident that the final results will be very useful in evaluating the
Rock Structure Rating."
"My answers to your questions reflect my opinion or the start-of-the art of

tunnel geology in a manner that will serve as a guide in refining a very use-
ful contribution to tunneling technology" .
"Please pardon my delay in completing your questionnaire as I have been

busy trying to resolve with the owner the problems of adequate support for
a project."
A-3
«MMMflMHaaBHaaaH|a||aHiflMaaMKaH_^^Mai -"Mil ■ ii
"The use of such a method within the industry would be beneficial to every-
one so involved. It has lorg been my contention that too little time and
money are spent to obtain geological information and evaluate it properly
prior to the design phase and preferably prior to the taking of bids. Any
innovation which will reduce the guess work involved will benefit both the
owner and the contractor and cannot help but improve relationships between
the owner and the public who in the final analysis foot the bill."
"In our use of the concept on a cuirent tunnel contract it has been found to
provide quite reasonable correlation with measured set loads (50 sets mon-
itored^ ."
"Geology is more complex than the support system requirements; therefore

many different ground conditions can be supported by the same support
system."
"The estimates and numerical values assigned to each rock type are depen-
dent upon the accuracy and availability of preliminary geologtc information
It would require more emphasis be placed on accurate geologic mapping,
joints, fractures and other rock defects. "
"The legal Involvements of a tunnel owner preparing and making available

this information would have to be investigated. This may be another tool for
contractors to sue for changed conditions based on geology again. "
"The report is based on ii case history studies. Support in any tunnel is

still based upon the experience and Judgment of the contractor building the
tunnel. The only way of telling if a tunnel is unsupported is by failure of
the support system. Because of this, most tunnels are probably oversuppor-
ted. The Jacobs report takes a theoretical numerical value and assigns It
to a rock type. The accuracy of this method is dependent upon the experience
and judgment of the person utilizing this method."
"This report would be a useful tool in preliminary estimates or tunnel costs

It could be used for cost analysis of different tunnel routes if comprehensive
preliminary geologic studies were done. I doubt if this method could be used
to prove either oversupported or undersupported tunnels and it is probably
best used for preparing bids. Engineers may read and utilize the RSR eval-
uation, but 1 doubt that you could get experienced tunnel contractors and
miners to abandon their "art" of deciding tunnel supports."
"In general, I like the method used. It assigns numbers to rock types and
gives the engineers something to understand. This Is another step, like
RQD, in giving numbers to rocks. "
"The report is very interesting, principally from the fact that an empirical
method is developed for design of rock supports. You people do have a lot of
A-4
imKmim*m*mmm^*mm
experience and no doubt your procedure bears looking into,"
"In your conclusions and recommendations you go back to needing better

geology, better handling of the data, and better retrieval systems which
basically comes back to the same thing, the struggle was at the beginning.
There isn't any good system for tunnel design, and the report indicates there
isn't going to be a good one in the near future other than an empirical method."
"It is difficult to accurately report on your rock structure evaluation because

factors other than geology affect the amount and type of tunnel support.
This is further complicated because a substantial portion of the basic data
used in the development of the rock structure rating concept contains example
tunnels in which the quantities of support do not necessarily relate to geol-
ogic conditions."
"As you can see from my answers, I am skeptical as to the likelihood of

accurate support prediction by the use of any rating system."
"I am of the firm opinion that the more information that is provided during
the bidding period, the less changed condition claims will be filed. This
is why systems such as yours on rock structure rating and rib ratio concepts
must be developed and used on underground construction."
"I regret the delay in completing your questionnaire, but felt compelled to
hold off until I could competently submit a reply."
"You have done much to convince me that there may be a way of weighting
the experience we call geologic engineering judgment. I expect more uniform
results for more equitable tunneling conditions under the most varied of
tunneling conditions encountered world-wide."
"The RSR as I view it does not speak to the extremes, which are the most
difficult and most critical of the tunneling conditions; such as "squeezing",
"swelling", and "running" ground. These would be most useful to the
industry. The hardest, soundest and best granite tunnel does not need more
than a statement to that affect by a competent geologist from conception
through construction yet the RSR speaks best to these conditions."
A. 2 Answers to Question 1-3:
" general description of ground water table -- and major faults --

strike and dip of for.nation."
" portal drilling if portal is In overburden, plus surface mapping along

the route."
A-5
u ■ iuim^nnw* IMwM i u uimmmmmmmfmmm^mmm^^mmmmmm i i mmmmmmmm
a11
" geologic boring logs, geophysical surveys, surface geologic
information, laboratory tests on rock defects, all ground water information,
'.aboratory tests on rock defects, all ground water information, plus any
nearby experience."
"Careful, professional geological mapping with aid of remote sensing

imagery. Core drilling and geophysical investigation as required or econom-
ically feasible. "
"A geologic report of area to be penetrated including a geologic map with

emphasis on structural features of formations."
"Geological reports and maps; with comparison to Jobs in similar geologic

environments; some subsurface exploration with detailed study, description
and report on core logs; ground water information."
"Regional geologic framework, including tectonic activity. Rock types

and elements of rock competency, determined from surface (outcrop) and
core hole samples ."
"Reference to other tunnels, cuts, slips, and groundwater conditions in

area. Continuous core samples (logged) with classification logs of borings
showing observed joint patterns, dip, strikes, etc. Geologie profile based
on actual samples, observation, and classification. Ground water location,
temperature, flow, pressure loss, and pump tests. Lab tests of hardness,
compressive strength, and shear."
"Drill logs of all exploratory holes, rock type, fracture spacing, water
flows, water table level, weathering."
"A geological section along the center line showing boundaries of different
types of ground with conclusions as to antiripated conditions whether favor-
able or unfavorable."
"Detailed surface geology. Vertical borings and logs at critical locations

such as adit intersections unless rock is massive and does not warrant drill
holes. "
"Borings, cores, existing geological maps, typical supports in similar

tunnels In nearby area."
"Type of rock, rock strength. Joint planes, wate- flow, nature of rock, cores
(and borehole logs), rock structure."
"The prebid geology report should explain the limitations and assumptions."
"At lease a reliable estimate of quantities are needed, and in known problem
A-6
mmmmntmmmmmmmm^^^tmmBumtmm^mmtmamm
11
I
areas, the contractor should be told what support is required. However,

support locations cannot usually be given exactly for a long tunnel -- this
could result in changed conditions."
"Heading support of overriding significance in a full-face tunnel."
"Legal, contractual, and tradition unfortunately receive too much attention."
"None! however, when ' none ' is provided then more must be done and it
may take longer LO make a realistic geologic appraisal for bidding. Contract
conditions must also be studied differently. If both are available -- then
borings and logs ■ 1; because it Is possible to get some surface geology
more readily than boring data within the limited time available."
"Geologic profile alony proposed alignment. Lithologic classification.

Tunnelman's Ground Classification."
"1. Core study. 2. Drillers' logs. 3. In-hole water pressure tests.

4. Otiented core summary. 5. Air photos. 6. General geology -- previous
studies in area. 7. Available data on nearby tunnels. 8. Map of surface
exposures, geologic data in vicinity of tunnel line. But emphasize major
factors. (Information to be used in bidding a job: Much of this could b
provided by the engineer (owner's representative" in a prebid geology report.)"
"Vertical borings on 1,000 foot centers. Surface geology. As-built geology."
"Mineralogy, structure, genesis, and geologic history of rock. Quantitative

definition of structure, its dimensions frequency, and attitude." "General
geology including basic ground water data, surface mapping if practicable,
cores and detailed geology at portals as practicable, drill logs and core
samples of rock along tunnel alignment determined by design requirements."
"Borings with complete geological interpretation of them by engineering

geologists."
"Lithology, ground water, joints (and fillingl, and major faults."
"Geologic classification (sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic), chemical

data, mineralogical, e.g. the effect of exposure to the atmosphere, the
effect of water, joint orientation and pattern."
"Core logs, samples, and geologic maps."
"Geologic map and cross section, written geologic report, logs of borings
(including reasons for poor core recovery) , as-built geology of nearby
tunnels."
A-7
—fc-»,M*——— ^■~— -—~ i-i——_- _-^._

mmmm^mmm
A. 3 Additional comments on Part I
"In many situations, explorations ahead of the tunneling operation are a

must. These have been largely ignored except for work of Tom Williamson."
"Answers entirely depend on contract conditions. The basis for the engineer's
estimate should be provided. Answers dependent on whom it is intended
that the cost of over-runs Is to be borne."
"Projection of surface geology to tunnel grade depends on many varables,

some unknown. Guesswork In projections serves no good purpose. '
"The owner has had the most time to expend effort to explore and disign
tunnel, therefore, his basis for design should be available to bidd .'rs. How-
ever, with regard tc Questions 6 and 7, revealing these data shou d not be a
basis for changed conditions unless there are gross differences in conditions
requiring changed driving method and support type."
"Each project should be classified Into a geologic structural province accord-

ing to present tectonic stress, depth of cover and past structural-tectonic
history; temper this with effect of ground water and blasting and the support
picture shapes up quickly."
"The Rib Ratio doesn't allow for less actual support than theoretical support,
I.e. RR gi3ater than 100."
"Give contractor choice of type of tunnel if possible, such as circular,

horseshoe, top heading and bench,"
"Many of the questions on this questionnaire go beyond geology and should

rightly be put Into the context of the geology of the project and the contract
documents in order to make them realistic and germalne to this important
subject."
"The owner's geologists should be more qualified on these local geologic

conditions than others. Also, the contract documents should stand squarely
behind those predicted projections. The owners would get work at less cost
and with more equitable bidding, because of removal of some of those con-
tingencies which more correctly belong to owners than to the constructors
bidding that work."
"Only where geologic data are highly definitive but not where, as is the
common case for long tunnels under deep cover, the interpretation of tunnel
grade conditions is speculative."
"The factors affecting support placement vary from tunnel to tunnel,"
A-8
'-■■ ^— - -
1
' • I . 11 I 1
"Magnitude of in-silu stress, if any, should be determined when possible."
"A rock mechanics classification system similar to the classification system

used in soil mechanics is needed."
"Geological investigation methods which are faster should be developed for

deep-lying tunnels."
"When the type, spacing, and location of support is Included in pre-bid

documents, the owner is taking on the risk."
"Exploratory drifts would be most desirable for pre-bid work."
"All reports and conclusions should be in tunnel layman's language. Effort

and money spent on pre-design and pre-bid geological information will reduce
project cost and construction by many times."
"Actual ground requirements were Interpreted as geological considerations."
"I am In favor of complete pre-bid geologic reports as part of the contract

documents (or referenced). I do not believe that there is much evidence that
such information (carefully prepared) will hurt the owner. Many claims stand
because quantities and design are inadequate, not because of changed
geology. If there is a real changed geology, then the pre-bid report will
help make the settlement equitable."
"Supports are often installed unnecessarily simply because 'he has the
steel ordered and the gang organized' and he is being paid for it."
"A major problem in estimating tunnel support is making quantitative measure-

ments of geology at the surface, and the reliability of the projection of these
very limited data to tunnel level."
"Expedient refers to contractor's profit margin on steel ribs."
"All available factual data should be given to all bidders without comments,
opinion, conclusions or predictions by the owner."
"Improvements in Tunnel Support Piediction techniques can be made gradually

so that the support requirements are more in keeping with ground conditions
and less dependtnt on other factors."
A-4 Comments on Part II - Geologic Factors
"If possible, any knowledge of 'locked-in' stresses in the rock prior to

excavation would be helpful."
A-9
rMtnmtammmmmmmmmmmimi t, immta—mmtii ■■■■wm *"---- - ■■- ^ •■ — ■ ■■-■- ■— - ■ - —■ ■

■ •" " ' mm mi]».lim i, ii^mnHMH^www^Kmu.iu iitmmmmm*~^mmmi^mmm^mHmmmammmimmmmmmmmmmmm'*'mmmmmiimmmm
"In general, quantitative data Is preferable to qualitative data."
"Need explorations ahead of the face for very deep tunnels to ferret out
rock defects and rock conditions not predictable from above."
"I have never worked on a long tunnel where detailed, quantitative prediction
of geologic conditions at depth was possible."
"Each excavation site would probably have different emphasis on geologic

factors depending on rock type and geologic structure."
"The geology cannot be too well explored and known. Core logs should be
detailed, complete, and well explained. The man logging the holes should
be a geologist well experienced in coring techniques. This information is
basically what the support system will be based upon."
"Once you get into quantitative fields, the owner opens himself to claims."
"Other wear parameters relating to drillabllity partlcvlarly with reference

to machine tunneling could be Included in mechanical properties."
"There is no point in separating Joint orientation and joint pattern."
"Geologic structure means too many different things."
"Rock type question -- I presume subdivision refers to petrologlc nomencla-

ture, such as andesite, sandstone, etc."
"Ground water flow -- the data is limited to ground water levels, standard
water tests, and pump test results without quantitative evaluation. "
"I have used a category which may be termed "Joint prominence" or 'Joint
rank.' This is a measure of the continuity and how extensive the Joint or
Joint set is, i.e. local or widespread. This information aids in estimation
of water inflow and stress-structural influence."
"The degree of weathering or alteration (WA) and the condition of the Joint
surfaces (JS) are the two most Important considerations to me, but when
neither are present as is true under some geologic conditions, then the joint
orientation in relation to the direction of driving becomes a major factor
particularly for TBM considerations."
"Perhaps more information on the mechanical properties could be made

available by laboratory testing of samples. Particularly the reactions of the
rock when relieved of its stresses, temperature, moisture content."
"Quantitative measurements, not relative terms, should be used to describe
A-10
- - ■ ——».. — ■ - ^âaaanauM^^
l
• «' imiim
geologic factors."
"(Joint spacing) A and B are the same: 'Blocky' is used in general discussion
but blocky is usually defined in reports as to exact joint spacing."
"In the future, with more knowledge gained by tunnel people, I believe
qualitative descriptions will be used more extensively."
"Geologic factors are very difficult to rate without an in-depth study. The
rating of your report (Table 1) is acceptable to me as a general rule. Hnder
certain conditions the maximum values could change; for instance, should
the geology be massive or faulted granite the effect of water in-flow or joint
seal is minimal, however, the reverse could be true with a different geolog-
ical formation."
"The bore size has a great deal to do with support requirements within the
same formation. In massive rock, the bore size would have little effect. In
badly fractured rock, including granite, or weaker rock, the bore size is
often the controlling factor. Your empirical formula and resulting curves seem
to adequately provide for this effect of bore size."
"I believe that the quantification of geologic factors and their effect on
tunnel supports can be made uiore rational and uniform with the use of appro-
priate classification schemes."
"Often helpful to know the history and character of a specific formation."
A.5 Comments on Questions III - 2 & 8 - Support Prediction Model
"It is a commendable effort."
"There is a danger in extrapolation from data that often are qualitative.

Personal judgment based on experience and honest indication of what is not
known is essential."
"Regards Question 6 -- general relationships can be developed, however, I

doubt that one set of values would have universal application. I believe
that each job is unique and within certain limits, different weighted factors
would apply to have reliable predictions."
"Data banks would bo helpful and must be composed of uniformlly collected

and treated data. Field data are seldom in the same ball park with lab data
in this regard."
"I would rely most heavily upon the quality of drilling, the quality of geology
and the total investigations dont' by others and then add to their data factors
A-U
Mir—W I IMiM—■—>■ ■ iiMUMâT MM^îrn i ■ - - ■ —

■ - ■- ■
which are most significant and critical in terms of my own site appraisal and
then render the sum total of these as my best judgment in terms of the con-
tract conditions. It is the experience of the geologist which is the 'data
bank' weighting different factors and conditions for the tunnel that must be
most heavily relied upon to communicate and equate this information in terms
of a meaningful support prediction model for that tunnel."
"The Sunport Prediction Model as conceived, is certainly applicable to

circular underground excavation. However, it must be recognized that add-
itional factors are required to determine support for other than circular geo-
metric sections of excavation,"
"The most important geologic factors in determining support requirements

are, in order of importance: 1, Size of rock fragment that must be supported,
2. Compressive strength of rock mass in relation to tunnel dimensions, etc. ,
3. Mineral composition and behavior of minerals under environmental condi-
tions, 4. Attitude of discontinuities in relation to axis of tunnel, 5. Ground
water, 6. Fracture fillings. These factors must be predicted at tunnel level
based on geologic and geophysical investigations at the surface, physical
exploration, and field and laboratory testing. The compilation of data,
extrapolation into covered areas, and projection of the data to tunnel level
Is the most difficult -- or can be done with least reliability. The correlation
of support requirements with geologic factors on an "as constructed" basis
can (and should) be done for each tunnel with a high degree of reliability or
confidence. The definition of the geologic factors at tunnel level prior to
construction -- not their influence on support requirements -- is what is
most difficult, and is where the greatest error is introduced in design require-
ments and estimates of cost."
"No place for squeezing ground or unusual adverse condition. Sedimentary

rock is too broad a classification -- degree of cementation, type of cemen-
tation, friability should be used in classification. Parameter A is too
general -- e.g. , limestone can be close to a soft marl or a hard marble."
"1 rated the way it is because past experience on tunnel supports best takes
into account the factors in question. Certainly a theoretical analysis of
rock mechanics cannot take into account such reasons."
"The detail design based on the RSR Concept could be refined so as to make
it more useful to the industry."
"Reference Parameter 'A1. The basic type of rock has little significance on
support requirements. Information on the intensity of rock defects (dimen-
sioned on a numerical scale) is more important than the type of rock that may
be encountered."
"Parameter A: I can see some advantage to use of such a parameter, but !
A-12
——-
know of an intensely folded rock - Manhattan schist - which has wavy
Joints, surfaces, and shears which requires little support. In Washington,
the rock has been Intensely folded, but has very continuous planar joints.
Support conditions are much more difficult. I like the Idea of Joint orienta-
tion (Parameter B). There will be some difficulty In long tunnels where Joint
(strike) orientation wanders, or Is not easily predictable. I would place
more emphasis on the character of the Joints.
"Anything is better than the present 'Rule of Thumb."
"RSR parameter weighting often must depend on subjective evaluation."
"The values you show In Table I are acceptable to me. A detailed In-depth
study might change my opinion."
"I'm not sure it can be done with one rating. At least, I would like to use
the major parameters separately in evaluating the load, and even In estimat-
ing support."
"It is assumed that question 7 means In addition to competent geologic

Investigation."
"Present support design Is too conservative — with better prediction, support

could be designed more rationally."
"Anticipated support requirements should be adequately and clearly defined

In pre-bid documents. If actual requirements are greater, there should be
compensation."
"Rock properties should be better defined from the rock mechanics point of
view, i.e. unlaxial compression, strength of rock substance, failure char-
acteristics."
"I believe tunnel support requirements should be adequately and clearly

defined In pre-bid contract documents. Actual ground requirements may
change the amount of supports actually used but the contractor, or the owner,
must be compensated for the difference. Hence I agree with the concept of
a 'support prediction model.'"
"Amount of surface cover and quality of Investigations."
"To broaden your classification I recommend inclusion, perhaps seperately,

of dynamic factors such as fault movement likely during life of project and
earthquake hazard. The static aspects of rock masses are well covered; the
dynamic aspects are not,"
"The geometry of the structure Is of prime Importance. The hazard of exposure
A-13
■MMMHBMMaMMgHHBMMHHMftMUMMMtfiiaMWMUtuw-.^M^^MMMH IramiMaiii i
11
»w- n wi ■■■ ■■■ ■ t-'imw. ummwitm^m^^m^m^v^^mr^^mmm'mm >< « '*'<* m> >w*^mmmmmi^^m» t * i ■ mmmt\n\.»m^^^^^^mmm^mf^^mw^mmm^^mmrwwm^^n^mmmamm
due to time between excavation and completion of structure."
"Additional factors are not required, but the basic factors which have a
direct bearing on support requirements should be put into a common perspec-
tive."
"Not entirely; Joint continuity planarity, filling."
"Alluvium should be Included under rock (soil) types."
"Effect of in-situ stress field or an estimate thereof from adjoining mountains."
"In urban areas (for Rapid Transit) surface geology may not have been mapped
before urbanization and few outcrops are available now. Then you would
have to rely on historical — structural geology."
"Depends on complexity of geology. For simple geology: yes. For complex

geology: no."
"But we do not take advantage of the available methods nor do we adequately

interpret geologic information that is obtained. We should obtain 100 per-
cent of core recovery and should know orientations of structures."
"In near-surface tunneling (cover less than 100 feet — yes, if structure is
simple and consistent; no, if complex structure and cover greater than 100
feet."
"It should be, for cost estimates, but no matter how well intentioned this
information might be, it only causes contractual problems later and 'change
of conditions' claims.
"In-situ testing has not been taken into consideration because it is not
extensively employed; however, a factor that might be developed at a later
time. Deformation rate and support load factors as possibilities for heading
support modification."
"Use term RSR as Rock Support Rating rather than Rock Structure since geolo-
gists use the word structure in a different context."
A. 6 Comments on Pi»rt IV - Acceptability of Proposed Rock Structure Rating

Method
"If half the supports are put in for reasons other than ground loading, a rating
based on historical data may tend to perpetuate over-design. I am also con-
cerned as to the projection of historical data into new methods — such as
machine excavation."
A-14
> ,>il>l
MHMBMtfMaiMHftM^^^MdMW * **fcli,*lfc**-— - ----- - -
"Based on past experience, engineers and contractors accept new ideas and
change very reluctantly, A real selling job will be requiiad for general
acceptance. Until more accurate geological data is available and tied to
how it can applied to support needs, acceptance will probably be on limited
scale."
"No two tunnels are exactly alike. Each must be analyzed separately. Even
then, tunnel construction must be fcaght out at the heading. The ideal goal
would be to have a machine and support system which can handle all ground
conditions expected to be encountered. I think it would be interesting to
combine all the various attempts at classification, by Deere, Jtini, Lauffer
Aufmuth, Handewith, Bureau of Mines, Bui eau of ReclamaticM, Brekke,
Goodman, O'Neil, and others just to see if an ideal classification could be
developed."
"As for any rating scheme, the quality and quantity of the input are of prime
importance. Tunnel geology ranges from simple t^ extremely complex and
rarely is the budget for investigation adequate to supply answers to many
critical questions. Tunreling is still maimy an art."
"Any techniques developed for obtaining rock load would be indirect methods,
subject to verification. RSR concept would be a way of testing to increase
confidence factor of instrumental data."
"It was with some consideration and thought that 1 answered this question-
naire. However, it made me think of a questionnaire sent to me some years
ago, to sample the reading tastes of subscribers to periodicals. When I had
finished, I found that I had not only convinced myself that 1 should subscribe
to a periodical, but that it should be (Life, Time, etc.) and for 3 years!
Somehow I feel now that I have subscribed to something here that does not
completely consider the way the specs and contract are written and that
money is the real objective and this affects many relationships. If the RSR
works and is accepted by most -- that's fine, but its first failure, resulting
in much greater costs, affects everybody and damages the concept."
"As mentioned before, some allowance should be made for system(s) of load-
ing other than gravity. Probably a majority of underground measurements
show horizontal forces exceed vertical forces."
"The most accurate instrumentation on existing supports do not relate direct-

ly to heading and freestanding conditions, i.e. the most critical time at the
most critical location."
"When reworked, this RSR concept could do much to help the less experienced
engineering geologist to better equate his prediction of tunneling conditions
for the owner, for the AE, for the contractor and for actual tunneling conditions
encountered in each instant tunnel. Thus, both as presently conceived and
A-15
■^WHMMMWMmM llTI—■——■-■«■—11 I
"^■^■^■WI
better yet, In a reworked concept, could serve as a good checklist and tool
to each engineering geologist for an Instant project. It cannot, without
serious legal problems, become a substitute for prudent engineering geologi-
cal Judgment. However, I feel that the RSR is a serious step forward to
assist us in the finding of tools to serve to further reduce unforeseen tunnel-
ing conditions."
"The proper use of RSR during the planning and design phases of a project
would be of the most benefit to the industry. Although the contractors will
always be responsible for the prosecution and safety of the work a much
better pre-bld evaluation could be made,"
"Lumping all parameters into one RSR might tend to oversimplify the problems -
I think the emphasis should be placed on the major parameters (such as Item
II-2) and then move to estimates of support using summary charts. The
tendency might be for people to classify rock on basis of RSR. I agree with
the need for becoming more definitive in the determination of support require-
ments, and found your work very interesting. Perhaps, in using a single RSR ,
you could Dlace more emphasis on the parameters goind into the rating. I would
like to use already developed rating, along with o'her parameters, as you've
described in your work, and as I outlined in Item II-2."
"Present day methods of evaluating support requirements are not based on

reliable standards, but on personal Judgment and experience. The reason for
this is perhaps due to many uncertainties that are involved in appraising the
condition and structural behavior of sub-surface materials. In view of this
circumstance, the geologic appraisals have been almost entirely descriptive
and in verbal terminology which does not render an explicit workable dimen-
sion. Needless to say, tunneling technology, in the geological sense,
seriously needs improvement so that engineers, geologists and contractors
can communicate on a knowledgable and workable level. The RSR concept is
a significant step in that direction. Any new concept of appraising the
geologic and tunneling condition of rock should avoid using descriptions
that lack dimensions such as highly Jointed; thinly bedded; moderately
blocky; slightly folded; Intesely faulted; etc. A concept, whereby these
descriptions are replaced by common standards, should help to establish a
basic foundation for geotechnical research in tunneling."
"This can be a step forward if it doesn't become too complicated for the
ordinary tunnel contractor."
"An excellent start. Needs to be updated as the significance of this approach

is accepted by the industry, and better quantitative records are kept and 'pre'
and 'as-constructed' data."
"The changed condition clause in most contracts is a very misused thing. A

email error in prediction can be magnified by the contractor. The RSR may
A-16
am
provide more grounds for such a claim. The contractor will still place more
supports than instruments show is needed if the specifications are written
to allow him to bid such that he profits by oversupporting. One method of
doing this is lump sum excavation bid item."
"I'm a bit hesitant to use a combined rating which lumps several parameters.
I'd rather use several known parameters separately as a classification, I'm
afraid there will be too many changes in the RSR with time."
"The RSR Concept needs to be developed somewhat further so as to exactly

pick out the section of rib required. I think the RSR Concept is a good one
but the Rib Ratio (RR) technique needs to be improved. In the example of the
Donjay Tunnel for instance, Section D requires ribs at 6 and 7 ft. , depending
on D and B and TBM. Yet this is not shown by the Support Requirement Chart.
"This is the best proposal I have seen to date. I believe it can be used in
many cases with good results. It is simple enough so that the average
walker and shifter can understand it and put it to use. Too many systems
are so technical and/or corr plicated that an engineer or geologist is required
to make use of them."
"1 just don't believe it will work."
"I am greatly in favor of developing a better classification system based on

rock mechanics -- I am in favor of the proposed scheme of rock structur3
classification for support prediction provided it is developed in conjunction
with other important prediction requirements as: (1) permanent tunnel lining,
(2) construction and excavation methods, and (3) special problems and
hazards."
"This meihod has tremendous possibility, I will be very much interested in

seeing the final report."
"Generally favorable."
"It is a step in the right direction."
"Contractors may use system more conclusively than is Justified in order to

obtain contractual advantages."
"Large faults and associated heavy ground zones are major causes of delays
in construction, especially where associated with water inflows. To a degree
this possibility is considered, but some additional provision for such even-
tualities based on geologic evidence might be included."
A-17
■■ mm
i i i^^nwc^qpi
APPENDIX B
NEW CONCEPTS OF GROUND SUPPORT
Research conducted under Contract HO 210038 (Ref. 1) included
the Investigation of new concepts of ground support which might Improve
the present state-of-the-art of rapid underground excavation. Sixteen dif-
ferent concepts were studied and subsequently evaluated with respect to the
overall tunneling process. By means of an engineering trade-off analysis,
each concept was rated as to its potential In Improving the art. This
Appendix gives a brief synopsis of the previous work with respect to the
five most promising candidates plus discussion of several other concepts
which are currently being developed by the U. S. Bureau of Mines and
their contractors.
B-l
CONTENTS
Section Page
B.l Introduction B-3
B.2 Components of the Tunneling Process B-4
B,3 New Support Materials B-9
B.4 New Concepts of Ground Support B-10
B.5 Evaluation of Ground Support Concepts B-1B
B.6 Status of New Coacepts Development B-24
B.6.1 Shotcrete B-25
B.6.2 Pumpable Rock Bolts B-26
B.6.3 Polymer Rock Stabilization B-26
B.6.4 Flexible Linings B-27
B.6.5 Yielding Rock Bolts B-28
Figure
B.l Estimated Cost of 20' Tunnel, Unsupported B-6
B.2 Cost Comparison-Unsupported vs. Supported

Tunnel B-7
B.3 Comparison of Cost Components - 20" Tunnel B-8
B.4 Fiberglass Segmented Lining B-ll
B.5 Movable Tunnel Support System B-13
B.6 Crawler Support Over T.B.M. B-14
B.7 Radial Gang Drill B-15
B.B Automatic Shotcrete Applicator B-17
B.9 Comparison of Support Concepts B-20
B-2
.._—^»^t^^ . >^^-.— —^^—^—.

■,"'-' ' — .-—..- - - — mrw - » «P^np^
APPENDIX B
NEW CONCEPTS OF GROUND SUPPORT
B.l INTRODUCTION
"The growing national concern for enhancing and maintaining the
quality of the environment in the face of growing resource and urban develop-
ment demands would be substantially lessened if greatly improved under-
ground-excavation technology were available; i.e., if the real cost of
underground excavation were reduced 30 to 50 percent, and if sustained rate
of advance were increased 200 to 300 percent in both soft, medium and hard
rock."
The above statement is taken from the National Academy of Sciences'
report on Rapid Excavation, (10) submitted to the Bureau of Mines in 1968. It
defines a goal to be achieved within a period of ten years. The two require-
ments - reduction in costs and Increase in rate of advance - aie relative to
each other; that is, an increase in rate of advance is tantamount to a reduc-
tion in cost. The proportional relationship varies depending on method of
excavation (drill and blast or boring machine), type of rock structure and if
required, the support system being used. The effect of the support require-
ment is probably the moot crucial element to be considered. To achieve the
designated goal, it will be necessary to develop an optimum support system
which is defined as "That system which provides safe, efficient and econom-
ical ground support with little or no reduction in the potential rate of advance
that could be achieved in driving an unsupported tunnel. " It must be an
B-3
,.......«.«. p <v f.mm i>
integral part of the overall tunneling process with respect to all components
of work and cost.
A new concept could consider or include the use of new materials or
techniques; variations of existing methods, and/or possible combinations
thereof. Due to large variations in requirements depending on rock structure,
tunnel size and method of excavation, no one support system is expected
to provide optimum results for all tunnels. The general appraisals made for
specific conditions as discussed in the following paragraphs are indicative
of concepts which would be applicable to most tunnels censidered within the
scope of the present research. They may, however, not be applicable to In-
novative methods of excavation, such as high velocity projectiles or thermal
disintegration.
B.2 COMPONENTS OF THE TUNNELING PROCESS
The tunneling process is composed of various subsystems, all of
which must be effectively integrated to provide an efficient and continuous
operation. These subsystems, which are generally defined as 1) excavation,
2) ground control, 3) logistics, and 4) environmental control, can be eval-
uated with respect to various applicable cost components such as labor,
material and equipment operation. Although each subsystem can be analyzed
individually, it is necessary to consider the relative effect of each with
respect to the others in final determinations. This is due primarily to the
cyclic or sequential nature of tunnel construction. In most instances the
tunneling process can be described or evaluated in terms of cost per I'.neal
B-4
■m—r-MtM twmmmimmii^mfm.m!,» ...„^m.

!" ii imwi ii; ii ■«■■^^pfpH^^pnw^^wi.MMaiiiiBKiwi. p.ii mil m*unwimv»^^m^wm^m*m<^^m*m^mm
foot of tunnei, wmch reflects the total of individual cost components per-
taining to each subsystem Involved. Figure B.l shows the estimated costs
for an unsupported (without the ground control subsystem), 20-foot bored
tunnel being advanced at the rate of approxinidtely 200 feet per day. It
lists the dollar cost per lineal foot of tunnel as well as percent of total
cost represented by each component.
Assuming the rock structure for the above example was such as tn
require continuous support, it would be necessary to add the ground control
subsystem to the overall evaluation. This addition will affect all work and
cost components, but its principal effect is reflected in increased cost of
direct labor and support materials which, in turn, are dependent on type of
support being installed. Figure B.2 shows the cost and percentage increase
of direct labor and support materials resulting from the necessity of install-
ing conventional support systems at the face. Although the direct labor
component reflects additional requirements (logistics, support installations,
etc), the major portion of the indicated increase is due to the substantial
decrease in daily advance rate occasioned by driving a supported tunnel
within the concept of the present state-of-the-art.
The total effect of adding the ground control subsystem to the tunnel-
ing process is shown by the cost summary given on Figure B.3. This com-
parison shows the increase in total costs per lineal foot due to support
installation to be 49% to 74% of the basic cost of an unsupported tunnel.
These increases, which include consideration of all applicable components
B-5
■J.Mt»^..—
r»- rmmmmmnm • in« i 11 i ■ .mi
I«
U3 CM o oo o
CM o
S9 o
o o
O
o
O o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
O o o
00 o (0 o 00 o
f—l LO
CNJ
to a
a)
cc
u.
<
o
CL,
O
Ü u
H
a CO 0) 4-»
c
c
0
en
O
8 y
c
a
0)
E
a
c
U O 8 0)
(0 3
4-1
c
o
c 0 L0
■a u
0 U ^3 ^3
E 0) «3
Ü a 0)
4-t s 0
a
.c:
c ■4-J
c
1 3
a 0)
Q s u Ä 3
B-5
Hâa, MMtW ■ n^wtii ■M^fiia««

■ ■
«I
a.
I l-l PO
w O
o
Ü 00 o CO
cu S
< <S> <A
O w
g H OS
Q
2
CO u.
O w •-) ■
U 2 < J
O o
ng QL.
CU g R r-H
<A
8H
•^ "^ oc w .
Q a: O cu
^ w ou < OJ
,?
a
H
<
o<
D
S w ^ |8 I«
< 2 w U ^2 N in
2 £» H
O
o
H
^0
U
u
K
co to CM
a: B CSJ CO
v> </> to CO
5D co ■-,
o EH
ü
I
Q «
0)
c
c u c
C E
\ JC ^^
H t7>
u
cn ^^ C
I c ac
V) Ü a
to 10 4-1
o a
(0 E
co
XJ o
a 0 aa co o
a CQ co
O lO H
w
B U
o
-H O
Xi
5 0)
P K CO CO
B-7
MlaaaAAB ■aMHB^b.
1
CO
CQ
CO o m oo 00
CO CO CO CO CM a«
K4 V>
W
U
H
CO
oCL
Ou
H
P to oo 00 en eg oo
CO Ü CO CO 5 *
o DC
iy>
(73
CO
w
z
o
ao
CQ
oo CD o
CO CO CSJ
^ ?: CO O
<A
U p
U H 8cc CO
Q CQ
u
o
Ü o Q
CQ
b< 1
H
0 cc
O
^
O
t cu
cu
00
rg
o <D at ao CO o
(Nl
w o <^ </>
>—i
CNJ CO
<
cu
s
O
u
n
CD
t
o
a
C a
O Ü 3
-•H
tn (i) C «
—* w c 0) C
2 C o>
a
(Ü
s
0
a I
a
c
u
81
o
4-»
c 1-1
O
X)
*-> IT) o
0
sSw 5
3
*J
c 0
C) cn 2 ■q atr 0
0) (0 Q)
•4-» E i4 eo 0) ^5 ^3 U w
(0
Ü
(1) -»-a 0) >: a ■—i
(1)
s s
4~t C
0 it) u
J3 Q.
o o Ü
a Ü 0 CO 5 su H C
B-8
«^.^
111
'mim i ■ limn
of the respective tunneling operations, are substantially less than shown
by the comparisons on Figure H.2 which treats only labor and materials.
They do, however, indicate the large area of improvement which could be
achieved by use of a more optimum support system. Similar comparisons
could be made with respect to use of the drill and blast method ol excavation.
The cost of individual components for the drill and blast method would be
different, but the relative increases would be of the same order-of-magni-
tude as indicated for the machine-type of excavation.
All comparisons would relate to respective component costc deter-
mined for the potential maximum rate of excavation or advance of an unsupp-
orted tunnel. Consequently the optimum support system must be sensitive
to possible improvements of underground-excavation technology.
B.3 NEW SUPPORT MATERIALS
The scope of work included the investigation of new material
which might fulfill the requirement for an optimum support system.
Although the desired ultimate characteristics and properties of such a mater-
ial can be defined, the results of the research effort were somewhat less
than encouraging. Various new materials such as polymers, fiber glass,
epoxies and polyurethane were investigated. Discussions were held with
different agencies and organizations involved in the research and develop-
ment of materials which might fulfill the need. The apparent disadvantages
of present prospects outweighs the advantages. With the exception of
possible proprietory information, which was not made available to the study
B-9
■■- — -
nvnîi
team, it is concluded that within the limits of present-day technology there
are no new materials which would immediately meet requirements for an
optimum support system. However, it Is likely that continued research
will provide the ultimate product and that additional Improvements In con-
ventional materials such as high-early cement or fiber-Impregnated concretes
can be expected. Current and recent studies being conducted by the Bureau
of Mines and the Department cf Transportation, deal specifically with this
problem. Examples are "Innovations In Tunnel Support Systems" (11) and
"Preliminary Survey of Polymer-Impregnated Rock" (12). The reader Is re-
ferred to these and similar studies for detailed Information pertaining to the
present stage of development of new ground support materials. Some of
these will be discussed briefly In paragraph B.6.
B.4 NEW CONCEPTS OF GROUND SUPPORT
As used herein a "new concept" Is taken as any combination of sup-
port materials and method of Installation which has not been used extensive-
ly in previous tunnel construction. Most Involve new techniques or methods
as opposed to use of new materials. They relate primarily to tunnels driven
with a boring machine which Is considered the primary tool for achieving the
goal of rapid excavation.
Of the sixteen concepts previously described In Section 7 of Refer-
ence 1, the five with the greatest potential will be described. The method
of selecting these Is given In paragraph B.5. The Individual concepts are
Illustrated on Figures B. 4 through B. 8. A brief critique Is given which
B-10
I^M—M—llMHillMnwmw ■—■^Mnii !■■ im fliMM—i ii

Wvnn^wai«Wi "•»^^^w1" ■ > i
GROUND SUPPORT CONCEPT SUMMARY
No:
Title: FIBERGIASS SEGMENTED
CYLINDER WITH POLYURETHANE

BACKING
Purposej
Support near face.

AREA OF USE
RSR Range: 20-80
D & B: FacejC Behind
T.B.M.: Face Behind X

r
TMkt r\t)t j 'Lil
fpk t.-iiuni'H« Chance of Success: Fair
Fatentabi lity: Good
Comments: One of several

^(.WtHM.0 FlBtWOLAOO LINING possible designs presented.
WITH POlYURF THANE e^CKI^^G
Originator: Tiedemann
Description: Thin shell segmented lining would be set at face in D & B

Tunnel or at tall end of TBM. Polyurethane foam would be injected to
fill void between lining and rock, to act as continuous, impervious,
blocking. Thickness of web can vary with anticipated rock loads.
Design and detail should take advantage of fiberglass properties,
light weight, moldability, etc. Concept shown reduces erection time
and cost by eliminating bolting. Segments sized as shown can be
erected by hand or light weight ^rector.
Advantages: Provides complete temporary and permanent support within

minutes after lining is set. Segments light, easy to erect, no bolting,
Polyurethane provides more uniform loading and good resistance to shock.
Disadvantage;;: High material cost. Low heat resistance. Requires pro-

tection during blasting of face.
Figure B.4
R-ll
mitmii wertîmm* tarn *M.~ .- .J.,^.^.»-.. -...-, ■.-J^^^..

NU. 3a
£— OuTl<ct>C
CR044 »Tl FINidS

^ ti)<£(
C
IMJtcTiOW HOLtl
, IUVI,-
S F LKN'.e
P L K N
FlfcERGirvCS S«&M6#r
FLAN^C
Me> [Jtt>
SEMI - HiiiO
VOiOJ CAN fc>t IMJECTfö

WITH i !>o»> IF L6M<**t
-IN41UE Fê
OF LINING
C0NNECTIOK1 DETMLS
FI&ERGUkSS TUNNEL LINING SEGÊWT
coNCSfr H.» tnor"»««"
Figure B.4 (continued)
B-12
mum MMdMHMaoM MaaMHHM

^^"•^mmmm
No:
Tnio:_ MOVABLE TUNNEL
__ SUPPORT SYSTEM
Purpose: _ Support ground

temporarily at face.
AREA OF USE,
RSR Range: 20-80
D & B: Face - Behind -

T.B,M.:_ Face X Behind
Chance of Success: Good
Patentability: Already patented.
Comments:_ Patent by
I. D. f« cobs (No. 3. 613. 379)
Description: A system of continuous, partly overlapping rings, with an

aopropriate cutter head. Serves the dual function of temporary support
at the face, and propulsion of the cutter head. The rings move in small
increments, (by use of jacks), one at a time, from front to rear. By
use of transverse jacks (not shown) the ring to be moved reduces its
diameter slightly and pulls in its grippers. It then moves iorward by
pushing against the frame system. The other rings maintain a constant
pressure against the frame (and in turn the rotating cutter head). These
rings are held in position by pressing outward on the rock with multiple
small grippers. This machine was designed to be used in conjunction
with a slip Torm behind with continuous reinforcing (concept No. 11),
But any suitable support could be erected in the protection of the tail.
Advantages: Provides continuous temporary support. In addition, it pro-
vides continuous excavation by eliminating the need to retract cind move
large sidewall grippers. Thus this type of machine makes possible an
optimum system of excavation and support.
Disadvantages:
Figure R,5
B-13
^mmmmtaamm "-■
No: 10
Tltlo: CRAWLLR SUPPORT
OVER TBM
Purpose^ Support ground
temporarily at face.
AREA OF USE
RSP Rnnge: 40-80
D & B: Face - Behind -
T.B.M.: Face X Behind
Patentabi lity: Good
Comments:
Originator: Williamson
Description: Continuous tractor type steel crawlers are mounted, closely

spaced, above TBM, running from cutting head to tall end of machine.
They will be held in place by hydraulic jacks and be capable of being
raised or lowered as required. Crawlers would not be powered.
Their function is to hold the rock until . ther support can

be placed behind the TBM.
Advantages: Prrmits setting of ground support behind machine where

there is more room and less interference with excavation. Reduces
drag friction of shield over TBM by maintaininq point to point contact
with rock.
Disadvantages: Small rocks may fall between crawlers. Rock has more
time to loosen, which may make load transfer difficult in lower
RSR range.
Figure B.6
B-14
mm ^^tmmmmm
■ biH mm mmiw
III' 0 » TV«»«»
IM-M*LI Mux No; 12
UI/K(MOT* CO-VM.
Title: RADIAL GANG DRILL
CARRIAGE
Purposej Drill for rock bolts
or polymer injection.
AREA OF USE
RSR Range; 45-80
D & B: Face X Behind
T.B.M.: FaceX Behind
Chance of Success; Fair
Patentabi lity: Fair
Comments; "STEM" - Storable

Tubular Extendible Member
(Pa 'd.) - short turbine drill
belnj developed by Dyna-Drill.
Originator; Wickham
DGScription; Drills mounted on movable track to drill radial (or near

radial) holes for insertion of rock bolts, or polymer injection for
rock joint cementation. Short, lightweight, in-hole turbine drills,
and strong furlable drill steel are shown, but alternate possible
combinations exist.
See 12a for alternate drill set-up utilizing longer drills
if shorter drills cannot be developed.
Advantages; Permits rapid gang drilling of holes behind cutter head of

TBM not possible with present equipment.
Disadvantages; Much development and testing necessary for drills, furlable

drill steel and remote controls.
Figure B.7
B-15
UttMMHMaM mmm '■■-■ ^-~-^~----J- ■ ri atrninr^ wir i i m

Illl ■ 11 iw^^W^w i ■ ' ■" ■ ' "' 'i"»"
No. 12 a
^ lll'a», TwK»INk
S' LONfc
r«A»UNTt.D ON T. ft M. TQ &HH.L HO!.«^
IK JlCTiON
Note: Turbine drill lengths shown are

maximum for 14' tunnel with
T.B.M. as shown. Larger tunnels
could accommodate longer drills.
Figure B.7 (continued)
B-16
MM mum*
PWfWMPVW^MVWH I 1 P PU» mm.,mmm^ » . ■■ .» ■ l»WW»^^^|PWWW^<î -■..-.- ■ WOTwmtM
GFÔUND SUPPORT CONCEPT SUMMARY
No:_ 13
Titlf,
L AUTOMATIC SliOTCRLTE
APPLICATOR
Purpose 'lApply she )t c re to over
TBM or drill jumho.
AREA OF USE
RSR Rünge:_ 4U-80
D ^ B: PdC(> X Behind
T.B.M.: Pace X Behind
Patentability: Others are

working on similar concepts.
Comments:
Oricunator: Wickham
Description: Applicator would be used on a remote controlled carriage

on a circular track mounted above a TBM or drill jumbo. Nozzle would
project thru a slot in a steel rebound plate. The slot would have a
split neoprene seal. A water sprinkler system would keep rebound
plate wet and troughs (not shown) would deposit wet rebound material
on muck conveyor.
Advantages: Particularly useful for rock support in lower ranges of

HSR values that may not stand unsupported for long.
Disadvantages: Takes up a lot of space - probably could not be used In

small (under 14' ft. diameter) tunnels. Dust - fog, etc. associated
with shotcrete.
Pigure B.8
B-17
w^û ii iniMiaiaüfciii —,-—^^-_

wnqnvv^mn^MîMiHiiuiiiiOTOTa^wij •^^^mm^*m^**" ' mmmmimmmimm
points out potential advantages anrl disadvantaqos as well as general des-
criptivtj comments pertinent to each. These and other noted considerations
are used in the overall evaluation given in paragraph B. 5. The intent was
to show a variety of concepts even though some are obviously beyond the
limits of present day technology.
A 14 foot diameter tunnel is used to depict the various concepts
described above. It is felt that this is the smallest practical sized tunnel
to be considered due to critical space limitations between the tunnel wall
and the configuration of present-day boring machines. The feasibility of
some concepts would be improved if mechanically compact boring machines
could be developed. Also, if considered with respect to larger sized tunnels,
which usually provide more working space between the top of the machine
and the tunnel arch. The common practice of using sidewall grippers poses
restrictions on the use of full circle support placed behind the cutter head.
Some of the concepts would not be adaptable to the drill and blast method of
excavation due to the cyclic nature of the operation and the effects of blast-
ing. Some concepts were eliminated because they would require and elaborate
material handling system to accommodate continuous support installation, or
because they would require vastly improved ventilation systems for success-
ful use. These and other underground logistic and environmental problems
were considered in the evaluation of these concepts.
B. 5 EVALUATION OF GROUND SUPPORT CONCEPTS
For purposes of evaluation of the original sixteen concepts they were
B-18
t I—I«M—iari ii i n in—ii
in in iwnmmmmmmmmmm^**mmmmm
grouped into four general categories 1) New Materials 2) New Uses of
Existing Materials 3) Mechanical Support and 4) Mr hanical Placing
Concepts. The numerical numbering of the concepts are in accordance with
the above rather than as an indication of preference or evaluation. The
concepts are compared with respect to eight different parameters or criteria
which affect the tunneling process. The parameters are assigned a relative
value on basis of an overall evaluation of 100, which, for purposes of this
report reflects the optimum system. The individual concepts are rated
numerically with respect to each parameter.
Several appraisals using different parameters and values were made
before finalizing the matrix shown on Figure B.9. Each concept was eval-
uated and rated with respect to its potentiality of fulfilling the requirements
for an optimum support system (See paragraph B.l). Possible cost or time
of development which might be required for a new material or concept was
not included as a separate parameter. However, a general appraisal ofthat
criterion was considered in the overall evaluation of concepts with respect
to parameter A - Feasibility. For example, if present or emerging technolo-
gies indicated a high possibility of success within the next few years, a
relative high feasibility rating was assigned to the respective concept; if
not, a low rating was used. In addition, evaluations for parameter A included
other general aspects of the tunneling process such as practicability, size
of crews, etc. Weighted values assigned for parameters B through H were
based on applicable comments and features given for each respective concept.
B-19
—n—H—iii MM■■!■■—ani m HUM nmi ._^MMM .

•^ w
o 00 V CNJ m in
r-( ro M- a>
ro
■ 0)
u it)
vi) cn U3 n
•-< rg T ro o
'T
ü 1
CO
M
m *->
10
•-
o -Q OD (O 00 T oo
Z f—4 T ^r CM
4-1
a
-3
tu
S2
x;
in
OT
ü
•—» r
o w
ü e 5 CO iJ-> »-I T ro CM CM ^
u w CM
X .—1
w
u
QJ
w N
ffl u
H Di Q) 0)
2
a,
UJ
C) L
ü
a
'III O
a,
LO ^3 CNJ
n en ro CM rH LO
<N
n
0 3
. «3 !
91
CO
H m
et pi W T c o O cn 00 rv
w n 0J in ? (0 1—( •—1
uO ro n in 0)
O 5 S £■£ in C
Cu
a.
>■ ^»S." CD
D ■ Ql
f0 i
U, 2
O CD co 00 r^ •^r CM CM f-t
s W -• -C
O ♦!
in
O CU
00
2
<
a. LO in o 10 00 U3 i—i T in
—1
O S Ei
0 » 1
E
D W
E i O in o
CM
o o o O o
r-H
<—1 t—t o
r-l
Q) 1
O l
♦* rd £ o o U
X-l E
u
0)
*«2 o o
C •M (0 o 5 c
1 ^-«
T3 |
c E
(0 c
XI c c
pl
o 0
^^
at 6 35
4J C

IM r*
9u < K 4-.
11« >? a
P 3
n co
m
ÖÜO
C
<"
III
~x
«A (0
0
H
CO cu u
• • •
< CQ 6 Q
■
0 B
B-20
-
■" iui|ii(ipiHaii., i <«"""!"""i^p(i^pm»i|MM
D1 —
U3
C a)
UD m 00
"O «1
a> i/) a;
c
m ^
C3> cnx:
un oo LO
e
u(0 III
(1)
u
S -c 00 CD m
CO "31
O)
V
s o
EMS
a)
13 U
u oc ao X) ^3 IO '£>
SB U o a
(u
i2^_
en u
l-i
H c
cu OI 4J
to £
'0 u
Ü U
o
O 0)
o _ c C
H g Q ■t-J
a: yQ 'jj 'O c
O 5 o
(X,
cu
2 U
D
m
0) ^
?s —i o
? a .-Nl
m
O 00
fl ft 0)
u
O 8« Üw 3
U'
CO
I—I
a: 5«
<
a, cn 59
O
U I" 00 CC5
o LO
CXI
S3^
o O ^_, r
0)
0)
^ o o u
10 10
o
la •u c c or; ai
o c
QJ
i:
0 e
c XJ +-<
•w >-
X» (0
C
0
c
o o c
n
■a
E a 0
ro
> Ü e 0
3
C ■I-J
C
ra
n
la Ifl 0) r a
<n
5 C)
a u S ro
m Ci U
o a cu c 0) 0) ^ (0
10
DU 0) (0 c
CO w
2 io X 35 o c 3 o a M CJ
w
fli
to
< > (X PL cr, u U O > ' M
m U UJ CT X
B-21
mmmmmmmaummrw*'-. u ijiw»»^w»ww»wiii»Bw^wi«»T»i»witwwww«MMi iiwiuiun^-j«CTw»wwwipi»w»ww<wiiwiiPiwwpiwiî«Biwa^
These parameters relate to conditions or features usually considered In eval-
uating tunnel systems.
It Is difficult ot make relative comparisons of basically different
support systems, especially those of a conceptual nature, where of neces-
sity, many conclusions are based on assumptions. Although concept #1 has
been assigned a relative low rating. It has many theoretical advantages
over some of the others. If a suitable plastic material should be developed
In the near future, the rating for that concept would be significantly Increased.
Conversely, a mechanical concept with an Indicated high rating might have
to be downgraded If engineering studies revealed technical flaws. Concept
#8, Rock Pins, would probabl/ have a higher rating If Its application were
considered solely with respect to coal mining operations Instead of conven-
tional tunneling. It Is realized that this reasoning might apply to all con-
cepts; that Is, It Is likely that different ratings would be assigned If each
were considered Individually with respect to a specific tunneling situation.
For purposes of this study, however, all concepts have been rated on the
basis of present day technologies and requirements for typical civil works
tunnels driven through fair to good rock structures.
The optimum system must be capable of providing adequate support
for a wide range of rock conditions (RSR values from 19 to 80) which Is con-
sidered with respect to parameter D. To a certain extent this requlreirent
can be fulfilled by present systems or new concepts which Involve the ise
of existing support materials, I. e. the size and spacing of steel ribs can
B-22
II*IIIIJJ>«>( i jNmviuwswwnvnnmKRPMnB^H
be varied, different thicknesses of shotcrete can be applied and rock bolts
installed in varying patterns. While steel ribs are adaptable to all RSR val-
ues; shotcrete and rock bolts would probably not be used for initial support
in tunnelF with an RSR value less than 40. It is possible that concepts using
steel or fiberglass segments with polyurethane backing could be made adapta-
ble to all rock conditions. This might be accomplished by varying the thick-
ness of the segment webs and increasing the load carrying capacity (density)
of the polyurethane when injected behind the segments. Varying the thick-
ness of sprayed-in-place or corrugated fiberglass linings would increase
their adaptability to a larger range of rock conditions. In all cases, evalua-
tion of parameter D must include also the consideration of l) how the sys-
tem could be installed and 2) possible delay or interference with the overall
tunneling process. In this respect, a concept such as Movable Support -
No. 9, has an advantage. It provides complete support for all rock conditions
with little or no interference of the heading operation. However, it requires
the use of other support systems behind the movable shield.
Although eight different parameters were considered in making the
evaluation, it is obvious that each has some effect on the others. This is
illustrated to a certain degree by the cost comparisons shown on Figures B. 1,
B. 2 and B. 3. Figure B. 9 shows that concepts number 9, 10, 13, 12 and 3
(in order of ratings) offer the greatest potential of fulfilling the requirements
of an optimum support system in the near future.
The development of new support materials or new techniques of tunnel
B-23
■ ^11 nWlilll<IÜI«i<MM—— 1 -. al—^MiM« ■ H I IMI^MIIII II II -"——■—--— - -. . .

■ ' ' "'~^^^^m^^^^~m'r^mmm^^^rmmmmmmmmimim*i*^*mmfmm^mmmim^m^~-'m
excavation could easily alter the ratings shown on the matrix. Comparing
maximum parameter values with respective concept ratings gives an Indica-
tion of potential Improvement which might be made In that specific area or
feature of the concept. General appraisals can be made by considering the
four different categories. "Mechanical Support" concepts appear to be the
most likely candidates for Improving the art of tunneling at the present time.
"Mechanical Placing" concepts are next, with "New Materials" and "New
Uses of Existing Materials" following in that order. Even though ratings for
new material concepts have been more or less downgraded due to limitations
of existing technology, they show greater potential than concepts using
existing materials and about the same as mechanical placing concepts.
Although continued Improvements can be expected in all categories,
it appears that any significant "breakthrough" In tunnel support systems will
be In the area of new materials. This Is due to the fact that most of the
other concepts presently reflect the results of past research and basic im-
provements which have been made over an extended period of time. Future
technology will probably be more in the nature of modification instead jf
large advances in overall technologies.
B. 6 STATUS OF NEW CONCEPTS DEVELOPMENT
While the new support systems described in paragraph B. 4 are still
in the conceptual stage, development work is currently being carried out on
previously conceived tunnel and mine support ideas. The use of polymer
concrete in thin precast segments is being tested by the U. S. Bureau of
B-24
|(«M| ^_. MI|i

•wiiîawii ■ ii ■ ■ i«t^mmmimmK^**mmmm^**mw^mm^''<mmr mnmiii. -«mi.
Reclamation and Department of Transportation, among others. Likewise,
the U, S, Bureau of Mines has been owrking directly, and through research
and development contractors, on several new concepts of ground control.
These include shotcrete, plain and wire reinforced, pumpable rock bolts,
polymer stabili-ation of rock, flexible linings, and yielding rock bolts.
B. 6. 1 Shotcrete
Although shotcrete has been used in Europe for a number of years,
its use in the United States has been very limited until recently. It still
remains more of an art than a science. IIT Research Institute, under con-
tract to the Bureau of Mines investigated physical properties of shotcrete
under controlled simulated field conditions (13). Results show that con-
trolled high early strength shotcrete can be achieved with fast-set agents or
Regulated Set Portland Cement; however their use results in a lower ultimate
strength. The Regulated Set cement produces higher early strengths than the
fast-ret agents. The wet and dry mix equipment used in this research pro-
duced shotcrete with similar strengths. No significant strength difference
was found between 2-inch and 6-inch thick layers, or when placed on verti-
cal planes or overhead. Laboratory tests of wire-filled shotcrete wore made
at Battelle Northwest Laboratories on specimens obtained using a dry process
machine on vertical test panels. A summary of these test results show a
slight decrease of compressivo strength and increase of tensile strength up
to 20 to 32 percent.
B-25
BaHHa^^MII-a>BMHHMlMMaa^MHHHIBi
iii.iimi.nwt^m^mtmmr*mmmimmw^^m^>mm^*^m^mmmmi^^~»'""»"H-'>mKmi'mn» m i 'm iimtim«.mmi^^^mmmmmBmmi^mmtmmmimmmmm**wmimr^*m'nma.w>. i™* «v.<i n
B. 6. 2 Pumpable Rock Bolts
A new fully pumpablo, fiberglass-rovj.ng-reinforced, polymer roof
bolt for mine support is being developed by the Bureau of Mines In conjunc-
tion with its contractor, the Brookhaven National Laboratory. The bolt con-
sists of three basic components: a polyester resin, a catalyst, and fiber-
glass roving. The fluid components are mixed just prior to placing and the
glass roving is pulled from a spool, through the placement head as the mix-
ture is pumped into the hole. After placement the polymer forms a stiff gel
in 2 to 3 minutes and achieves 80% to 90% of its final strength in 5 to 10
minutes (14). In recent field tests at the White Pine Copper Mine In Michi-
gan pull tests shov/ed that the pull out load for a 1-3/8" by 34" long bolt
placed in a dry hole was greater than 16,000 pounds, (the tensile strength
of the pulling cables). A prototype bolt placing machine to permit automatic
remote placement of pumpable bolts Is planned for 1974. Besides the safety
features of remote placement, other advantages Include: placing bolts of
any length, placing long bolts In areas of low head room, drilling with flexi-
ble shafts (holes need not be straight), and ease of material handling.
B. 6. 3 Polymer Rock Stabilization
It has been recognized for some time that ground support using chemi-
cal stabilization by the chemical bonding of weak or poorly cemented rock
could have very useful mine and tunneling applications. Recent development
of new polymer materials and successful polymer Impregnation of concrete
prompted the Bureau of Mines to Initiate a research effort to study the feasl-
B-26
mmm^m^^mmm
■'"■w ■> •)mmmm^*~mm^mrimimmmmnmmm'^mi^*mmmmmmmmamKßmmmmm*emmmmmmmmmmm<mmmfmmmmm^mmmi>'<>'''l>
blhty of this concept aoplied to the strengthening of mine structures. A
feasibility study and prototype impregnation machine design was conducted
by the Eimco Division of Envirotech Corporation (15). Field testing of this
support concept is being evaluated and should yield much useful data on
this method of ground control.
B. 6. 4 Flexible Linings
Much theoretical and laboratory investigation of support systems
incorporating a flexible liner surrounded by a backpacking material has shown
that stresses and deformation of the liner can be controlled by proper design.
Studies have indicated that the system behavior is controlled by the surround-
ing backpacking thickness, material modulus, and the thickness and mater-
ial properties of the liner. For instance: a system with a 2-inch thick back-
packing and a modulus ratio of backpacking to the surrounding medium of 1
to 100 is theoretically shown to decrease the stress in the liner by 25 percent,
and a 12-lnch thickness to decrease the liner stress by 61 percent. Analyses
indicate that for a given modulus ratio, an optimum thickness of the backpack-
ing material can be designed to give the desired -tress reduction. Therefore,
a theoretical advantage of the flexible liner support system is evident.
Large scale field testing by the Bureau of Mines in cooperation with
the Kennecott Copper Corporation at Bürgin Mine, Utah, verified that the
flexible support system design is effective. A test section of 8-foot diameter
corrugated aluminum liner, 58 feet long, with 1/4 inch wall thickness, was
installed in an underground drift where previous ground support was a serious
B-2 7
■n—■ IWIMM
minmr^m^mmw ■
problem. After 11 months, the flexible liner concept is accepted as struc-
turally sound, having deflected only about one inch. This contrasts sharply
with abandonment, because of continued failure, of an adjacent circular,
rigid-arch system installed in the same drift.
B. 6. 5 Yielding Rock Bolts
The yielding rock bolt concept was originally developed in South
Africa and has been laboratory tested by the Bureau of Mines and the Law-
rence Livermore Laboratory of the University of California. Designed foi
ground exhibiting excessive displacement, the bolts advantage Is yield at
a controlled rate. Conventional bolt capacity to yield is limited to the
plastic deformation of the steel. Ordinarily, less than the theoretical
plastic deformation occurs before breakage or failure of the anchor when
high strain rates are encountered. Basically, a smooth-bore die or collar
Is fitted to standard rock bolts and the yield load Is controlled by varying
the configuration of the Internal bore of the die. Laboratory tests of ylelda-
ble bolts Indicated dynamic loading produces slightly higher loads (15%)
than static loading. The strain hardening effect which increases yield and
ultimate strength Is partly offset by adlabatlc heating of the threads which
causes a decrease In strength. Field tests of 250 yleldable rock bolts are
now underway by the U. S. Bureau of Mines at the Lucky Friday Mine.
B-28
■ —— — -
■ im i mm~^^m~^^^^^*m*m~~~mmmmmmmmmm**mm^mmm**r^mmmmmimr**mmm*mi
APPENDIX C
USE OF PREDICTION MODEL
HYPOTHETICAL TUNNEL
Contemplated use of the ground support prediction model is illustrated
by considering a hypothetical project -- the Donjay Tunnel. The example
has been expanded, but is substantially the same as given in Reference 1
(Section 6), and inr-ludes findings and results of the present research effort
with discussion of potential actual use given in Section 5. RSR determina-
tions and recommended supports have been revised to be consistent with
the final prediction model. Reference to figures or sections other than as
included in this Appendix pertains to respective numbers in the report.
C-l
- . .^-.. . ... . s...^......

Ip^pM^^^m^«...!. ! III..UU...,._I.M. i, , ,1,1, u mi niu i jnw^v^^wBsvaHipni ■ i ■^^■«■»WIIPIIII» Kin m^si«mnanMPaiPii«imrpinanvp«f«<««wwa«(v
CONTENTS
Section Page
C.l Introduction C-3
C.2 Donjay Tunnel C-4
C.3 Pre-Construction Geology C-6
C.4 Evaluation of Rock Structure Rating C-15
C.5 Determination of Support Requirement C-21
C.6 Rate of Advance C-24
C.7 Cost Evaluations C-29
Figure
C .1 Typical Tunnel Sections C-5
C 2 Geologic Plan C-8
C 3 Pre-Bid Geologic Profile C-9
C 4 Logs of Bore Holes C-ll
c 5 Geology Report C-16
c 6 RSR Determinations C-19
c 7 Rock Structure Rating - Parameters A, B & C C-20
c 8 Support Requirement Chart C-22
c. 9 Progress Estimate for Drill and Blast Tunnel C-26
c. 10 Progress Estimate for TBM Tunnel C-28
c. 11 Cost Summary - Drill and Blast Tunnel C-32
c. 12 Cost Summary - TBM Tunnel C-33
C-2
r—MiMMlm miiiiM—■ i ^MMMMMMI

•"""»■pwiBPimpiPwwwM^^^w—^■^^^■■■«w«»»
APPENDIX C
USE OF PREDICTION MODEL
HYPOTHETICAL TUNNEL
C..1 INTRODUCTION
An Important decision in the design and construction of any tunnel
is the iritial determination as to whether or not ground support will be re-
quired and, if so, the type and amount of support system which should be
used. This decision is relevant to all phases of planning, design and con-
struction and has a marked influence on ultimate costs. In the pre-con-
struction period, it provides the basis of making comparative evaluations
of compotlttvc bids. Tunneling methods or systems to be used during con-
struction are dependent on predictions of support requirements. This is
especially true with respect to boring machines which are usually designed
for specific conditionf,. Most claims or litigation pertaining to tunnel work
arise from differences between "anticipated" and "actual" support require-
ments .
Although in-situ testing and as-built geology provide useful, after-
the-fact information, the initial decision requires a realistic appraisal or
prediction of subsurface conditions and the subsequent correlation of those
conditions with appropriate support systems. The RSR method of prediction
and use of Support Requirement Charts as proposed in this report would
assist in making that decision. The procedure is illustrated by considering
a hypothetical project, the Donjay Tunnel. Various steps, type of inform-
C-3
^m*m***,*~****~**~m.~*~^.~.... —... -.—^-^—^■„■. . . ....,.———-^ I I ■■ialMIMfllMMlllll ■ ■■- --

■wnuiiiiK^^nfWVMWNlBVqmnwmn^M^^miaHauMiaiiL, ii . i ■■ iMvamMaMi*« m i ■>!■-«nm-n» •■•■<■>■> i^ •■■î IIUH ■■ ■.HHMH w ■■■■ JW
atlon required, necessary evaluations and other aspects of the problem are
discussed in the following paragraphs. An analysis is made which shows
comparative economic evaluations of various conventional support systems
used in conjunction with either drill and blast or machine method of exca-
vation.
Although the Donjay example relates primarily to civil applications,
similar procedures would be followed in the planning of mining operations
such as a long haulage or access tunnel. In the latter Instance, contract-
ural stipulations, manpower, direct cost, and schedules would probably be
treated differently than as discussed herein.
C.2 DONIAY TUNNEL
This example tunnel is a composite simulation of various tunnel
sections considered in case history studies. It Is proposed to be con-
structed in one of the Western States; is approximately 16,000 feet long
and can be driven either as a modified horseshoe or circular tunnel section
at the option of the contractor. See Figure C. 1. Other tunnels have been
driven through similar formations within the same general area. The gener-
al and special conditions, technical specifications and other contract stip-
ulations are typical of most tunnel projects. Construction time is not crit-
ical and no liquidated damages are specified. It is assumed that the hypo-
thetical tunnel site has been inspected by the contractor during the pre-bid
period. Available cores and other physical features of the work were ex-
amined at that time. Although permanent concrete lining Is required through-
C-4
.»A*HM*a>
' ■■■
LLI
z
z
D
I- u
>- 3
<
z
o
o
C-5
IHMB
" i. i.i».i . i... inw^^ma
out, this discussion treats only those operations and determinations relat-
ing to excavation and Initial ground support.
C.3 PRE-CONSTRUCTION GEOLOGY
Geologic data provided with the documents consist of the following:
1. Surface geology
2. Geologic profile along tunnel center line
3. Drillers' Logs of Bore Holes
4. Geologist's report
The specifications include typical disclaimer clauses within the
following general context:
"Geologic data Is made available only for Informational
purposes ...."
"Owner disclaims any responsibility for conclusions, interpreta-
tions "
"It Is the contractor's sole responsibility. ..."
"Owner does not represent that geologic data Is Indicative of condi-
tions to be encountered...."
These statements tend to nullify the validity or usefulness of con-
siderable effort and expense which was probably required to document pro-
ject geology. The owner Is in a far better position to conduct geologic in-
vestigations and reach conclusions pertaining to subsurface conditions
than any potential bidder. This applies to both time and cost considera-
tions . The tunnel will penetrate all rock structures along the alignment
C-6
,^^,
———————m—! n NIMM—n mmnii ^*^*^-^— * —'- -
www^m^mmmm*
regardless of whether or not they require support and Irrespective of who
(the owner or contractor) made the initial decision as to support require-
ments . It is also likely that approximately the same quantity of support
will be used in constructing the tunnel regardless of the contractor
assigned or the quantity of support indicated in the bid documents. The
common goal should be to make the best possible determination of support
requirements prior to start of construction rather than to see which party
could or might be held responsible in the event subsurface conditions are
not exactly as predicted.
The pre-construct ion geology provided for the Donjay Tunnel is
sufficient to make reasonable evaluations of geologic factors which affect
support requirements and illustrates the type of Information required to det-
ermine RSR values.
Surface geology is shown on Figure C.2. It gives the essential
area topography and shows the approximate extent and general description
of geologic formations anticipated along the tunnel line. Surface observa-
tions of strike and dip, location of bore holes and other general geologic
and engineering information are also noted.
Figure C.3 is the developed geologic profile of the Donjay Tunnel.
It shows the owner's, or his geologist's, interpretation and extrapolation
of all geologic information developed during the pre-construction investi-
gation. The profile should reflect also, any pertinent data which may have
been obtained from study of historical geology and/or records of previous
C-7
~~. . ——^^»»^-— .. âMMM—■

■w- i in ■ >wi«m
C-H
»■•■i i ■■»■■ii
1PP*^P*n*iiiii in ■ i 11 i i »mi« îm**imm*wi^*mm
o
N -1
3 I UJ
a I > Z
rr,
o o-
o o
z-)
c»
o m o y-
o
(VI if)
o
0) ." "
o >
5 <
-y
• z
k m
l
ou o
Q
a> V)
u
a.
C-9
MHHHKM - -*-*1*
■ !■ i mi naiHi H.upBppai ^ PWIHI.III ww-.w wmm^mrm^^mi^m^^.v JIII^ i 111. i in IHJ ■. IIML^MVOTHW ^•'■-■•
I
I I« ^"^^^p-w i II ■ i ill lWlOT«mn^mppp|Bm««niPHIipaHBMI«in«p
underground construction. This might consist of attitudes of faults or syn-
clines and anticlines not apparent on the b> it . Location and depth of
various bore holes are shown. Boundaries between different rock types or
formations are projected from the surface to tunnel grade as either a solid
or dashed line. A solid line indicating a well defined interface, the dashed
line an extrapolation made by the onwer's geologist. Support requirements
are usually determined with respect to a geological profile, whether it is
provided by the owner or developed by the contractor. Using bore hole in-
formation and surface geology given for the Donjay Tunnel, it is likely that
all parties would have developed approximately the same profi'e as given
in the documents. This may not have been the case if the geology had been
more complicated, i.e. consisted of numerous folds, faults, etc. The pro-
file indicates that the tunnel will penetrate four distinct formations or rock
structures. They are identified as Sections A, B, C and D on Figure C.3.
Subsequent determinations of RSR values and support requirements are re-
lated to those sections of the tunnel.
The logs of various bore holes made during the investigation are
shown on Figure C.4. These logs are typical of bore hole information pro-
vided for tunr.el projects. In some cases Deere's RQD Index might be in-
cluded along with the % core recovery. A possible addition would be to use
a RSR value to describe various rock structures encountered. An important
consideration is the location of the bore holes. The geology and types of
rock in the area of the Donjay Tunnel are comparatively well defined which
C-10
■MMMHMiMM'MaMMMHaBMM
^^mmmmmim^^'^
D-l D-2
EL 2485 EL 2300
0-31 Overburden And 0-390verburden And

Weathered Rock Weathered Rock
31 - 74 Soft,Gray To Brown 39-92Bro\«n Siltstone,Medium ToSoft,
Fine Siltstone With
30 - 50 - Badly Fractured Wifh.Layers Of
Sandstone Layers Sandstone Joints < I.
i
Joints < l"
74-i32Red Friable Sandstone
With Layers Of Soft Siltstone
C'l/ 92-l79Red Sandstone,Fractured With
100 -, Joints 2 Max Open And I oo -
Weathered Joints With Thmb^dded
Weathered Siltstone Layers Joints l" To 2 '
'■'<
TD 132
ISO
l79-207Brov»n Siltstone, Mediam To Hard

Some Inter bedded Sondstone
200-
T0207 Joints Average 2"
D-3 D-4
EL 29 36 EL 3325
0- I Decomposed Granite 0-2 Decomposed Slate

I -lOOtGray,Medium To Hard Granite. 2-25 Black Seamy Slate With Phyllite
Somrf Staining Of Joints,But Weathered Joints 2" To 6"
Generally Tight Joints 2'To4'
90 90 •25150 Gray Phylllfe.Soff ToMedium
With Slate And Hornfels.Some
Limestone Seams Joints 6"To 12"
I 00- IOO-2l7Hord,Fresh,Gray Granite 100

Tight Joinf8,Avtrage3'To4'
I 90 — ISO l50-308Dark Gray To Black Phyllite

Some Hornfels.Fresh.Clean
Joints I'To 2'
200 - 200
2l7-304Dark Gray ToBlock Phyllite
With Hornfels.Some Limestone
290- Hard To Medium.Some 250
Layers Of Seamy Slot«
Weathered Joints At 3" To 6"
300 300
TD304
308-390Grey,Medium To Hard,Fresh
Grämte Tight Joints 3' To 4'
CORE(») 390
DEPT ( v HOCK DESCRIPTION
TD 390
TUNNEL INVERT
Boring Logs Sh.I Of 2
TD = Total D«pth
(«) Black indicates Cort Recovery
DONJAY TUNNEL
Boring Legend
Figure C.4
C-U
■— ■ ■ I ' ■ ■ —'—
D-5 0-6
EL 3162 EL 2658
o 0-120 Groy Phyllitt,M«dium To Hord 0-239 Dork Gray Phylhte,Some Hornfels
With Some Slate And Hornfcls And Slate Joints l'To 2',Slightly
Joints 6"To 2',Slightly Weothtnd Weathered
so so
81-62 Basaltic Dike,Hard And Brittle

100 100
120-122 Basaltic Oikc.Gray.Hard And
leo r1 Brittle
122 240 Groy To Dork Groy Phyllite
With Some Hornfels Joints
6" To 2',Stained.
eoo Is eoo
240-270Intermingled Layers l'ToZ'Of Phyihie TD 239'

250 And Slate Dipping At 45*
300
1 270 4IODork Gray Phyllite With Hornfels
Jomts l' To 2,Stained
350
400
410-470 Dork Gray Phyllite With Bosol/ic
Dikes Varying From l" To 18" Thick
Phyllite,Medium Hord; Basalt,Brittle
450
470-745 Dark Grey To Black Phylhte With

HornfeiSiSome Slate Joints 1^0 2',
SOO Slightly Weathered
SSO
600
«SO
S
700
T D 745
Boring Logs Sh.2 0f2
DONJAY TUNNEL
Fiqure c.4 (continued)
C-12
MHMMMMMMMH
"i" ii ""—"^"^ I i ■ —mmm*mmm^w*~^^~~m^^*^~m~m j ■ wmi^mr**wrm**^mw
helps in specifying the tocation ol Ix^rinys, Very often this is not the case,
llxtensive faulting, irosion and altering of rock inay leave transition zones
which would be difficult to define even though numerous borings were made
at various locations. There is always an elusive point of diminishing re-
turns where the value of information that may be gained from additional bor-
ings would not materially add to the accuracy of determining support re-
quirements. Where possible, the boundaries between different rock struc-
tures should be defined. This is illustrated by borings D-3, D-4, and D-5
{see Figure C.3) which were made in an attempt to establish the boundar-
ies of two zones of metamorphic rocks and the thick layer of intrusive
granite between them, location of D-5 was approximated by considering
the strike and dip of the exposed formations. It was made to verify the
projection to grade of the southernmost extent of the intrusion. The fact
that it did not encounter the granite even though carried below the tunnel
invert, indicated that the boundary lies somewhere to the north of the bore
hole. Consequently the projection of this boundary is shown as a dashed
line on the profile. The log of D-S shows the rock at tunnel grade to be
more competent than indicated by surface exposures. This information is
helpful in determining RSR values for Section D. Boring D-2 was made to
define an obvious weakness in the rock structure. Borings D-l and D-6
depict portal conditions.
Available cores, rock outcrops, road cuts, topographic maps and
other data which give indications of subsurface conditions were inspected
C-13
m^M——— ■■■■iiM—amini i i i^mmmmmmmmw n M*tmm*mm - - .. ...

IN
""ll1 ■ i i ■ «I ■ . i ii i IT ii mti. ■■■H» i > •mttmmmmn^wm^mmm it , mu, itmmm~^> •* i.m^m
and considered during the site visit. No apparent discrepancies were found
between conclusions drawn from that inspection and the geologic data pre-
sented on the surface geology map, the tunnel profile or driller's logs.
To be complete, the pre-construction geologic survey memorandum
should contain a written report or summary, of the findings and interpreta-
tions of the geologist who made the investigation and who is familiar with
the needs and understanding of tunnel engineers and contractors In some
instances, the desire of the owner to refrain from assuming an implied re-
sponsibility for pre-construction geology results in vague or nonconclusive
statements. The owner and his engineer representative might spend several
years considering a particular project before taking bids. The contractor
rarely has more than a few weeks in which he must determine his methods
for excavating, supporting and lining the tunnel; consider acquisition of
equipment, plant and material and prepare a detailed cost estimate for com-
pleting the work. Although a contractor may use a geologist to interpret
available prebid geology data, or make an independent appraisal of the site,
it is unreasonable to expect him to conduct geologic investigations com-
parable to that performed by the owner. It should be understood by all
concerned that pre-construction geology is not a guarantee as to the actual
conditions that might be encountered during tunnel construction. It should,
however, be accepted as the best available appraisal of subsurface condi-
tions on which to base project planning and costing. Decisions pertaining
to ground support requirements should be made by disciplines directly in-
C-14
■ •wxmmmmmt^'^miiti i i \iiu^»mmmmim*rmimm*m^^mi^mFm*~~~^^mmmmmm-mmiîmim*im'm*****m^Bmim^*^*^***'^^^***^*~^*i^^
volved in tunnel construction, not by the courts or related agencies,
A summary of the geology report provided with the Donjay documents
is given as Figure C.5. Any such report shouH include comments pertain-
ing to historical geology, laboratory tests, conditions encountered in pre-
vious underground construction, ground water studies or any other data
which may have been considered in initial planning or investigation of the
tunnel. Special emphasis should be made to identify and define in as much
detail as possible those geologic factors and parameters required for a RSR
evaluation of the rock structure. (See Figure C.7).
C.4 EVALUATION OF ROCK STRUCTURE RATINGS
RSR values for each of the four Donjay tunnel sections were deter-
mined in accordance with procedures discussed in various sections of ihe
final report. Figure C.6 is a tabulation of data considered. The descrip-
tion and occurrence of geologic factors used to define parameters A, B and
C are based on information provided in the pre-construction geology. The
corresponding values assigned to the different p?rameters are obtained
from Figure C.7. The four tunnel sections encompass a large range of RSR
values. Section A, with a rating of 23, is at the lower end of the scale,
indicating heavy support requirements. Section C (RSR = 83) is within the
range of good competent rock requiring little or no support. Sections B
and D with luspective rock structure ratings of 44 and 64 will require
various types and quantities of support.
The RSR values relate to conventional drill and blast method of
C-15
—^■-, -^ — —^ _-*■_. *M*

GEOLOGIC REPORT SUMMARY
OF THE PROPOSED DONJAY TUNNEL
(simulated Tunnel Model)
It is anticipated that this tunnel will be most con-

veniently driven from the north portal as a one-heading
operation. This portal area affords more room for a
contractor's surface plant and by driving from north to
south, the tunnel heading will advance uphill minimiz-
ing the pumping of ground water. The amount of time
available for construction appears to be sufficient to
eliminate the necessity of working from both ends. The
description of the rock to be encountered will be given
on this basis; however, It will be the contractor's
option to drive from either heading.
The first tunnel section adjacent to the north

portal. Section A, will probably contain the most
severe tunneling conditions to be encountered. This
section approximately 3900 ft. In length will be through
Jurassic sedimentary deposits known as the Red Hills
Formation. This formation consists of Intensely folded
Interbedded layers of slltstones and friable sandstones.
This thinly bedded material averages well below 2
Inches between Joints. The strike and dip vary consid-
erably but average about 30 degrees to 50 degrees In
dip, with the strike almost parallel to the tunnel center-
line. Borings D-l and D-2 taken In this formation show
ROD Ratings varying between 0 and 30%. The average
RSR for this section Is estimated at 23. The pumping
tests taken on Boring D-2 In the saddle of a slight valley
Indicate that a flow of 200 gallons/minute and possibly
as much as 500 gallons/minute can be expected In this
area. Flows of 100 gallons/minute or more can be antic-
ipated anywhere In this formation, especially at the con-
tact with Section B.
Figure C.5
C-16
I I ■llll —*
At approximately Sta. 39 + 00 the tunnel will start
passinu into the Durango Formation. This formation
consists of metamorphic rock; principally phyllites with
some slates and hornfels and occasional basaltic dikes.
(This metamorphic rock will exist in two sections of
tunnel, separated by a massive granite intrusion)
Section B, between Sta. 39 + 00 and Sta. 72 +00, con-
sists of thickly layered strata of phyllites and slates.
It is generally more seamy than the section at the south
portal with joint spacing averaging 3 inches to 6 inches
and moderately folded. Although it did not reach tunnel
grade Boring D-3, shows a RQD of 60%. The estimated
RSR for Section B is 44. The dip of the rock in this sec-
tion averages 30 degrees to 55 degrees to the south.
The strike runs east and west. It is anticipated that
water inflow at the face in this area will not exceed 50
to 100 gallons/minute.
From Sta. 72 + 00 to approximately Sta. 120 + 00,

Section C, the heading will advance through a hard massive
intrusive granite. This rock is tightly jointed with joint
spacing varying from 2 to 4 ft. Boring D-3 and Boring D-4
(which penetrates this rock) show RQD of 90% to 100%. The
average RSR is 83. Little or no water is expected in this
formation, although fracture zones may temporarily yield
water.
From approximately Sta. 120 +00 to the south portal

161 + 00 the tunnel will again pass through the Durango
Formation of metamorphic rock. The rock in this area
based both on surface outcrops and borings D-5 and D-6
is generally harder, more uniform in texture than the
similar rock in Section B. Core RQD range from 65% to
90%. Joint spacing averages 1 to 2 ft. and joints are
slightly weathered. The rock consists primarily of
phyllites with occasional layers of slate and hornfels.
The dip in this area is also 30 degrees to 50 degrees
to the south and the strike is generally oast to west. The
RSR for this section is estimated as 64. Water flows will
Figure C.5 (continued)
C-17
BMMIMâlMliBi
be between 50 gpm and 100 gpm cjnd because of steep
surface topography, run off is expected to be greater
than over Section B.
It is anticipated that Section A will require heavy

steel temporary bracing with 50% to 100% timber lagged.
Section B will probably require medium support with a
minimal amount of lagging. Section C will probably
require no support. Section D may require support con-
sisting of light ribs or roof bolts. Use of shotcrete as
an alternate support will be permitted. The contractor
will have the option of selecting supports with size and/
or thicknesses to be approved by the engineer.
Results of laboratory tests of uni-axial compressive

strengths:
Boring Depth Comp. Str. (psi)
D-l 64' 7,900

79' 9,500
D-2 91' 8,200
D-3 202' 26,900

298' 11,000
D-4 252' 13,800

380' 29,200
D-5 684' 16,700
D-6 161' 14,600
Figure C.5 (continued)
C-18
- - mm-. MMu ii i ■-—''

DONJAY TUNNEL
COMPUTATION OF ROCK STRUCTURE RATINGS
PARAMETER GEOLOGIC INFORMATION VALUE
SECTION A Rock Type Sedimentary

Intensely Folded
B Drive 1L to Axis Dip 30o-50o

Joint Spacing < 2"
Subtotal 16
C Water Inflow-Moderate
Joints Badly Weathered 7
Total RSR Value 23
SECTION B A Rock Type - Metamorphic

Moderately Folded 13
B Drive JL & with DIP 30o-55o

Joint Spacing 3"-6" 16
Subtotal 29
C Water Inflow-Slight
Joints Slightly Weathered 15
Total RSR Value 44
SECTION C A Rock Type - Igneous

Slightly Folded 22
B Drive _L & with DIP 35o-50o

Joint Spacing 2'-4' 38
Subtotal 60
Water Inflow - Slight

Joints Tight 23
Total RSR Value 83
SECTION D A Rock Type - Metamorphic

Moderately Folded 13
B Drive ± & with DIP 30o-50o

Joint Spacing l'^' 32
Subtotal 45
C Water Inflow - Slight

Joints Slightly Weathered 19
Total RSR Value 64
Figure C.6
C-19
mam gtttttmamm — . . _ ....^

»QCHaiKUCIUHt »AIIMG
-
MMMBa 'A
G£MC«ALAM>f;timir.V
MAX. VALUE )0
«ASIC ROCK TYPt GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE
HARD MED son DECOMP.

1GNCOUS 1 2 i 4 SUGHTLT MODERATELY INTENSELY
PAULTID TAU LTED TAU LIID
MtTAM ORPHIC 1 7 1 4 OR OR
rOLDCD I'OLDED
SEDIMENTARY 1 i 4 4
PAEAMETE« ■»•
if MB fMUW
MAX.VALUE H
STRIKE X fOAXIS SIRUt ii. TO AXIS

DiRErno« or DRIVE DIRECTION OP DRIVE
®
1» BOTH WITH DIP AGAINST DIP •OTH
1 -.Q ^_ DIP OE PROMINENT IOINT8 DIP OE PROM1NE XI JOINTS
i « «MMM TUT DIPPING VERTICAL DIPPING VERTICAL ELAT DIPPWG VERTICAL
(I^VtRY CLOSELY lOINTED 11 li 7
(j) CLOSELY lOINTED 1« 17 11
Ö) MODERATELY lOINTtD 24 22 IS
® MODERATE TO »LOCICY 1] 21 24
® «LOCKY TO MASSIV! 11 40 IS 2«
S) MASSIVE 40 4] 40 40 34
NOTES; rUl 0 - 20°: Dipping 20° - 50°: Vullcil SO" • 10°
ROC« STRUCTURE RATING

PARAMETER C
GROUND WATER
JOINT CONDITION
MAX. VALUE 2S
SUM OP PARAMETERS A * ■
AVTK IPATtD 11 - 4« «k - 71
WATl»
INn.OW
IOIHT CONDITION
ICPM/I000I
GOOD FAIR POO« GOOO FAIR POO«
NONE II li 12 II 21 li
SLIGHT
1(200 dpxl 11 IS • II II It
MODIPATE
1200 ■ 1000 »pml IS 11 7 11 It II
HEAVY
01000 giaiil 10 • < It 14 10
]OM Condmo« Good - TKM or OnHM* r.lr - Sllghtlr WMIhmd or Allorad Poo, - t.™,.!,
WMtharo« Aliwod. oc awn
Figure C.7
C-20
UM .
excavation. It is possible, however, that a boring machine might be used
for Donjay. Geologic formations which are anticipated for tunnel sections
A, B and D could be readily excavated. Section C (hard granite) is margi-
nal with respect to use of present-day machines. If a contractor chose to
use a boring machine (TBM), an approximation of corresponding rock struc-
ture ratings could be made as discussed on page 1-19. Using the indicated
adjustment factor for a 24-foot diameter tunnel, the RSR values to be con-
sidered with respect to a machine operation are as follows:
Basic RSR Adjustment RSR Value

Section Value Factor For TBM
A 23 1.15 26
B 44 1.15 51
C 83 1.15 95
D 64 1.15 74
C.5 DETERMINATION OF SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS
Conventional support systems (steel ribs, rock bolts, or shotcrete)
that may be appropriate for various support requirements of the Donjay Tun-
nel can now be Identified from a Support Requirement Chart developed for a
24-foot tunnel, which is shown as Figure C.8. Two horizontal lines are
shown at the respective RSR values determined for tunnel sections A^ and
D. One line represents RSR values for a drill and blast operation, the other,
an adjusted RSR value based on use of a TBM. The intersection of these
lines with various support curves identifies a support system which would
satisfy the support requirement. Only tunnel section C RSR values are
above 80, hence support is not considered necessary for either conven-
C-21
if*M*m*~im4*Ml*K*m*m***~*~***~*^~*~*M~*~i-**,—... iiiililMfMiilll i i umiMI ^ - - -

00
- (O
7 y
in ^ V) ■F
Û. (0
^; K UJ 3
u.^ z h-
^ w *
<oe)^ a: 00
zz X UJ Ü
■
ö^1" h-
UJ
a
2 tin
ro <
59ti5
a:o i-
m o
n
V) ^t
CVJ
CM
ndbs/>oav(n xood
in ID o O o o O o Oi
o to
O o o o o o
C\J
ONiivy 3dniondis xood
C-22
•MMMM
tional or machine driven tunnel. Potential support systems are tabulated
below:
Donjay Support Requirements
Tunnel Possible Support Systems

Section Drill and Blast Machine
A 10 W 49 @ 3' 10 W 49@ 3 1/2'
B 8 W 40 @ 5' 8 W 40 @ 6'
Rock Bolts @ 2 1/2' Rock Bolts @ 3'
Shotcrete (4") Shotcrete (3")
C Unsupported Unsupported
D *6H25@ 6' **6H25@ 71 (for 40%

Rock Bolts® 4 1/2' Rock Bolts @ 6'
Shotcrete (2") Shotcrete (1 1/2")
* nominal support
** less than nominal, based on proportion of RR.
The user of a Support Requirement Chart must bear in mind how they
were developed and what limitations are imposed. The charts give an av-
erage determination of various support systems which would be appropriate
for a particular section of tunnel or rock structure. They are not meant to
replace the judgement of the man at the heading. Few geologic formations
present uniform ground support conditions for any appreciable distance.
Consequently, variations of the support system might be required as the
tunnel advances. (See paragraph 5.7).
As seen by the above tabulation, it is usually found that several
different support systems would be adequate and could be used for those
C-23
fcMM ■111 I
sections of the tunnel requiring support. Steel ribs can be used in all cases;
the use of shotcrete and rock bolts is generally restricted to rock structures
having an RSR value greater than 40. Within the intermediate range of fair to
good rock structures (RSR values from 40 to 80) the problem always exists
as to which system would provide the most optimum solution to the tunneling
process. The answer requires a detailed analysis and evaluation of all
operations and cost components which are affected by the use of a particular
system.
For purposes of this example a tentative appraisal Is made to show
the general approach and to indicate possible effect on advance rates and
costs as occasioned by use of the different support systems, In conjunction
with either drill and blast or machine excavation. All situations are analyzed
and evaluated In approximately the same manner, consequently comments re-
garding one system are In general applicable to the others.
C.6 RATE OF ADVANCE
The cost per lineal foot of tunnel, which Is an accurate measure of
the overall efficiency of the tunneling process, is directly dependent on the
dally rate of advance of the tunnel heading. It Is determined by considering
the relative effect and corresponding time requirements for completing all
work operations or subsystems. For conventional drill and blast methods,
the subsystems (excavation, ground control, logistics and environmental
control) are basically sequential In nature. They car be Individually ana-
lyzed on the basis of relevant components of work. For example, the work
C-24
OMMMMMM HMfe. «Mfli ' - ■ . . ■

components or operations pertinent to the drill and blast excavation sub-
system are usually identified as follows:
1. Move in and set up drill jumbo
2. Drill blast holes
3. Load powder
4. Blast face and clear smoke time
5. Muck out
Other subsystems can be similarly '^fined. Each would be evalu-
ated with respect to relative quantities of wok involved depending on size
of tunnel, rock structure, length of round pulled, etc. Time required to com-
plete each operation is determined by considering the construction capabil-
ities of the particular equipment and labor crew involved. The sum of the
separate time requirements is the "cycle time". The maximum or optimum
advance per day is obtained by dividing available working hours by cycle
time and multiplying by the length of round. This rate is adjusted to allow
for lost time and other inefficiencies inherent to tunneling operations so as
to arrive at the estimated daily advance rate. This adjustment, or construc-
tion efficiency factor, varies with respect to type of operation, length of
tunnel, labor regulations and other conditions. Figure C.9 shows a typical
format and the determinations used in estimating daily advance rates for the
Donjay example tunnel. It lists the major work operations and their respec-
tive time requirements. Length of round pulled, cycle times, number of
rounds per day and construction efficiency factors used to determine optimum
C-25
■■mil— Mia—— mm»*mim^m,i ■ immm n -.

in o IO IO in CM io o O
o ro «M »H co co o ^D
•
ai
•
.
■^r
Ifl
<J3
_
10
»K
CD
^
LO
o •-« o O i-H o o T M- m 00 T r-H
o .
o in o in in m CM in
O CO Cg rH co co o
lO
*
LO
o • o^ . v
o^
1
D-, Q • • IX) N (D M"

O Q ^ o >-i o O i-l o o * LO to ^r
D CO
CO
Q
2 in .
CM (£)
in in co in o o m o rv.
_ # . sy iß
§ (31 CD O i-l CM ^-l CM co o CD
•
tv.
• CM LD in ^H CD
O rH O O i-H o o CO LO LO 00 ^r CM
2 in o in in in in (Nl T
o
t—c
O CO CM r-l co . o <D
•
r^
•
.
ro
ftV
o
_
ts 1
H Ü Ö »H O O f^l ö n m 'X> en in
CO
>
O in in co in in oo in LO OJ
0 o o CM ■-< in co o T LO
•
_ # _ S^' 8(
•M H <D ■ CD LO ro og CO
x O . o »H o o o o o CO (0 ro 00 00 * CM
co *
CD
Wl LO in in co in in o in r^ ts
u o o CM •-• in •-• o (D
•
LD
•
^ Hi m * ^
m o U3 T ts o N
Z Qi £0 ö' -< ö o o* »H ö oo LO 00 00 ro M*
CD
CM
3
b
H
H
CO
O
in in co o ao oo r^ o
_ _
8
O O CM
LO
^H O CO o LO
•
oo
•
ft^ ;* ^
CO
UD 00 LO oo CM CM
^(§) O »-• Ö Ö'^H Ö* Ö oo LO 0O CO 00 ■* 00
-I
CD
'3"
2 CO in o CM m co o o
P O TJ" CM rH ^r TT r-t CD (S S-0 -
Pi >Q ö o" ö ö ö o* ö Ovl
in
00
ID
CM LO
o
O
in
M Q a Q
H u 3 c
< H wj in
i- >. OJ Q)
EC m
t—4
2 M
»j
t»
n n (0
H
PL.
o Q >.
() u
K
an O X
H w c/i CM H r (U E 3 ri£.
F K Q o C 9 CM 0)
a 0) u. 3
en
en
w
u
u
m 6a &
o §S
o
CO &i
a2
3
S 6
u.
0)
a u
£
0)
u
u
c
a
ai E
O s co v H (0 > 0 oO te
M a
0) > c -a c ac a
2 Z. o 0)
.—i
.—i
u -a
<
a < ■rt 3 -" O
OH
o a, u (0 Ü
P >^ ■g c co c ^
5 O 3 U E ü
IS ^4oE,.-.
0)
a, H Ü 3 3
a, CO S i- 4^ 4-> 4-> 0
Ü -, 0 E 0
n, 0
-Z
D
(0
E
co ■M C
M CM co T in co r^ o o a o 4-1
w (U T3 (u >
-I
H 2 O U
C-26
^m^Mm ■
and estimated advance rates are shown. Separate analyses have been made
for each of the four tunnel sections with respect to applicable support system
determined for the drill and blast method of excavation (see tabulation on
Page C-23). No supports are required for tunnel Section C.
The tabulation illustrates the overall relative dependency of all
conditions and work operations pertinent to the drill and blast method of ex-
cavation. The need to provide ground support in different sections of the
Donjay Tunnel could reduce the anticipated optimum advance rate (57 feet
per day in unsupported Section C) by as much as 54%. This applies also to
Section A where the estimated advance rate is 26 feet per day. Percentage
reductions for the other sections and support systems are also given. Ano-
ther evaluation or comparison could be made by eliminating time required to
install supports (work operation #6) from respective cycle times. Using the
adjusted cycle times, dally advance rates which reflect all operations ex-
cept the actual installation of support can be determined. A comparison of
these rates with the anticipated rate of advance for Section C shows a
reduction of approximately 40% (tunnel Section A) as compared to the pre-
viously given 54%. This comparison of percentage reduction in daily advance
rates; which reflects the extreme conditions of the Donjay Tunnel, shows
that a large portion of the reduction is due to conditions dictated by the in-
herent properties of the rock structure as opposed to the actual installation
of supports. It is obvious, however, that all operations and conditions are
dependent on each other. For instance, it would not be necessary to use a
C-27
■.—.
2" Th.
:crete
Ä oo o^ r^.
P^
s
«am
• •
ro —.
• •
^r
•
ro
• 1^ Mi »1 00
1? K
<x>
oo o -• —* in in in o
—1
•«r
& Q 8|S ÜD 1 *0 1/5

-< (M
CD O
CM O
co
CM CD
in Kl m ^H
2 ac cQ io U3 -• o o -. - —*
o 00
^^
CO
M i * o in
in CM
co t>.
_H ,-,
o
CO CO
W ^ ^
r« • • • • • • 3«
o
äs oo o -. —• —1
CM
—< 00 in
►—1
g P
Ü
+
t u
ü Kl c
l in II II 1 1 in co (0
u
3
CO CM
cn in
1
u
0)
CM §€
If
* 01 9
m o in r^ in u >
lo 00 O 00 l£)
00
• cn * Ö> C
o • • • • • 00 o -i
ü CO M CD O -H o o —< CM
Äh g
■
o
4-1 *4-l
—• ^ •
E IM
i
P ü
CQ
OC CQ ro
CD
9i
in o
tv m
■Ô
oo f^
oc io
o o
in
~-*
■ i-^
CO
Kl
—H
CM
CO
CM
It
0 (u &
i
0)
Di
s
Ui
otal ycle
2:
and rew
c
p ^
H X
O O
to in
O —i
co "C c^- O ü
s ^co IC s o o o o O
• • in
co
«1
00 00 »-M
CQ O) CM l£) ro "'
H oo(§)
cn ** c
U . H o o o o o M 3
u. * CM
N lO B 00 O 00 CO —1 in in a« ^r
(0 Oi
1 <
>S
2(9)
• >
—<
• •
O -H
• •
o o '-i o
CM
•
i^
in
(M
in •-4
port
rete W5
»-t
H
03
s| eu
U
5
Dl 05
M (U
—< 4_. ro o o
U 0)
>«H -^ 1- S. -M in
•Q
Bü 8a gä
o 
>4-l
Ü
o
U-l
O
o o tn
CM
0^5 O
H
U
"fi ^
^ o 3
o
OS
• ^2 ^ o
1 .
O 0) 0)
CO .M c N -f-H
M
W o
s| ai (0 8 .? C H 0Q 4-« ü O
OT
0) ., * «J U
a
K CO
îr
*->
»4-1
C c
E c o o
11
0)
u •
e > 6 2§ T3T)
T) (0 E , ■ ö*
o o n
O
o -H CM co tr
Q^ m2 u < CQÜ Q w 2.C H * &y H * * ■K ■«<
C-28
mmmm mmumm •MM

four foot round for Section A if the rock structure did not require support.
This interdependency is most pronounced for the drill and blast method where-
in all operations are sequential in nature. It has less effect for machine
methods and possibly could be eliminated by development of new technolo-
gies or concepts.
Following the same general procedure as outlined on Figure C.9 ,
estimates were made of daily advance rates that may be achieved by use of
a TBM. Results are shown on Figure C.10. Different operations are con-
sidered in analyzing the machine method of excavation. Advance rates for
boring machines are usually determined by first considering the maximum
penetration rate; which is dependent on machine design and rock properties,
and then reducing that rate in proportion to anticipated interference or delays
caused by other operations.
C.7 COST EVALUATIONS
Having estimated daily advance rates for the various tunneling
situations it is now possible to determine applicable costs per lineal foot
of tunnel. Costs, such as labor, equipment operation and depreciation,
supervision, overhead, etc. are directly related to time requirements. Job
materials, small tools and supplies and permanent materials are based on
actual requirements or quantities used to complete the work. Plant instal-
lations or requirements and contractor's mark-up (profit and contingency) are
dependent on the particular project being considered. The same general
costing procedure is followed in all cases, regardless of whether or not
C-29
■"■■■«■"»«^■w"*1«" i im in.»™ in ii ,IHU..ÎIIIMI immmmr*™ • -'i'''nimmmmmi^mm^*~~m*îi^mi'^mmm*immm'**i^m*mmm**mm^mmmm^wmm*i*mmmimi*m
the work is to b^ .ccomplished by oonventional drill and blast methods or
by use of a boring machine.
As mentioned previously, this report does not include the large
amount of detail and calculations which would be required to prepare an
actual cost estimate. It does, however, present results which reflect
typical procedures used in eatimaiing tunnel costs and shows comparative
evaluations of different support systems and excavation methods.
The cost components most affected by support installations are
direct labor and support materials. Labor costs are directly proportional to
the size of crews and daily advance rate. Typical size of crews (excluding
supervision and overhead) for the Donjay Tunnel would vary between 112 and
121 men per day (three shifts) for a drill and blast operation. Assuming an
average hourly labor rate of $10.50 (1973 base) in conjunction with the
respective daily advance rates given on Figure C.9 it is possible to deter-
mine the direct labor cost per foot of tunnel.
Cost of support material is determined by extending the applicable
unit price against the quantity of support material required for one foot of
tunnel. Quantity of material for each support system is based on respective
requirements such as rib size and spacing, thickness of shotcrete, and rock
bolt pattern.
Other components of costs such as job materials and supplies,
equipment operation (fuel, lube repairs, etc.) overhead and general expenses,
plant and equipment write-off and mark-up have been determined on the basis
C-30
■—"-—***"*—"—— - — -*mmmamm IIMIMI ■ ■ .^J-J. .^ ,..,.,.. ...J..._....

imim9*mî**vm
of total requirements for constructing the Donjay example tunnel.
Estimated cost for a drill and blast operation is shown on Figure
C. 11. It g.ves reasonable appraisal of costs per foot of tunnel as occa-
sioned by use of the respective support system.
Costs per lineal foot of supported tunnel range from 120% to 230%
of the cost of the unsupported Section C. This is approximately the same
differential as indicated by the analysis of daily advance rates.
On the basis of this evaluation, the most efficient (least costly)
conventional support system to be used for tunnel sections B and D would be
shotcrete. Section C is unsupported. Due to low predicted rock structure
rating for Section A, only steel ribs were considered. The other systems
would probably not be competitive. The cost per foot of tunnel for the re-
spective components gives an indication of their relative effect on the over-
all tunneling operation.
Figure C.12 shows results of a similar evaluation made by consid-
ering conventional support systems with the machine method of excavation
for the Donjay Tunnel. Costs were determined in the same manner as those
for the drill and blast method. Daily advances and crew sizes considered in
the evaluation are shown on Figure C.10. Comparing total cost per lineal foot
of tunnel as shown for corresponding tunnel sections on Figures C.ll and C.12
shows lower costs for the machine methods for Sections A, B änd D. This
could be expected due to greater daily advance rate of the TBM. The higher
"machine" cost for Section C is due to the fact that hard massive granite
C-31
'lii*,<lla,l*M—^*-—^—AîM*—â>îf*M—^■A^^.-.^. . .. _.^. _ _
•^m^mmmm^mmm
Q w
►-, tin
W ü
i H n* J
\P CC • W CM CD U3 CO o o LO lO
U3 tr ai * CM LD O CD
a
r^ rv. ID * IT) iT *T
ti Q
t! u 5
r-j t)
W CQ ft. H
Q Q n
«t
a 2y ^
^
OT
io X "^ us CO
ro
CO
LO
00
CM
LO
00
CM
LO
CO
CM
CM
cn
^H
en
i—i
CM
■^r
o
CM
CM
O)
i-H
8. 5 ft. -5
E
^_^_^^_^.^_
CO
t-J f-1 CO
»-J < ü H on ^T r—* 00 oo r-1 r-H co
1O H W CO
og o
CM
U3
CD
■«r
^-1
UO
O
■^r
CM
CM
f
co
O
CO
o
CO
HQÜ
g s^
So
2H rv 00 •V lO 00 O o rH
O ro
Ü s^
£> w
CO CO Csl CO CO CO
i O1^
w O
z co
m
D
ss en
2i OJ CM CO T LO cn
H 00 o 00 CO LD CM ■—<
H
CO
3
OQ
li
CO |g
1
u
CO
i-J CO
^J
H-l
3 B
OQ « Q H4 00 ft.
in LO en ai 00
H 0 w 5 o^ lO CO CO ro CO
<
Q s ^
i
IX
og T t^ en ^ 00 t^ l/>
in oo IT) en LO o o i—1
ro CM CO CM ^1 (M CM CM
07
2 Q 3
5
CO CO
§
CM
§U s
i
_ CM
CO r- 8 C J»
s "p
CO g < m S •a 10 CM
® CQ Ü i P
I
CO
SB SB
M 0) 2 0)
a» o SB
O o o O
O O 0
i g
LO
a
1
l—1 OQ OQ
XT
H H M H H
CM u
JJ 1
Ü Ü U co Ü U
M
CO
o
•—1
w
CO 00 a
8 CO CO
C
t> CO U3 CO
CO
C-32
mttk ■ I Mil , ^«MMMHH

■ ■" 1 1
■ l"""
Q w .
w U ^ HJ
<n <M LO U0 ■—> M* N m
t^ CD r-H ir> LO T rM CM
ID T in T vX5 * T ^r
CO 3 ^ H
u
Q Q
«i M cu
H SB ä
ffi < g <N
^H
oo
tn
U3
o
N
OO
LO
U3
o
ro
o
co
00
■^r
CO
■^
^ w ^ </>
(M CM CM rM CM CM
C/3
H
Oi i-l H CO
O < ü H (^ r^ LT) r^ LO T cn fv
a. H W CO io r-t "<r CD ^r 00 ts r^
a. O oc O CO CM CM r-H ro i-H ^H ■-H
p ** 1_- ^,,'
<^
CO
a: co
io W H
H CO CM
CM
o
ro
O
CO
O
ro
N
^H
00
M"
CO
T
00
T
Rü
Q 0 Ü
55 ►J
o § uo
CM
m
CM
(•)
CM
ix>
CNJ
o
N
r^-
(M
S
(M
ao
CM
u
1 Ü
l-J
u CN]
z ■q- T LD 00 o * ■^T
.—I
z ou «
E M
00 cn UO CM I ro r-l •-t
Ü
p CO
r-H
8
H
2
3
u
H H
^J CO
< K-l J
2 < o (NJ T ro oo CM CM CM
>< 2 O
CO H
2 (M 00 ro O m t» CO LO
b "2
^ CQ
CO
i—1
U3 -o
^-1
r-H
—1
C4
^<
t^ 00 00
CO </>
5^
&5 CO
o
u
O U ^ O
CM
u g <
i—i
ro
X
Ü Q
0
«X)
X
CM
\
•—1
O ro Q ro üB 1
ro 0 T3 O i-H
0)
1 * H
E-' to H to
U ». U
w
•4-J
—* 0) u u ®
4-1
r-H 0)
2 o ■4—'
8 o 4-*
1 S UJ UJ
CO ^ (O o PQ Q. LO CQ
^ U 3 (M
IM
Ü
4-* M M
s ^ O o PC o
^
o
r-( 00 K
O x:
CO § IX) K
8 x:
CO
CO
C-33
■HMMMI i «■—fc«i
■I^^^^^WW" HI immmimmrmwi^mmmmmmmmmmn** w*mi^1*m** •" '" '•
(rock encountered in Section C) cannot be economically cut with present day
boring machines. The relative position of different support systems with
respect to total cost are about the same for both methods of excavation.
On the basis of the above evaluations predicted ground support for
the Donjay Tunnel would be as follows:
Tunnel Section Drill and Blast TBM
A 10 W 49 @ 3' centers 10 W 49 @ 3 1/2' centers
B 4" shotcrete 3" shotcrete
C Unsupported Unsupported
D 2" shotcrete 1-1/2" shotcrete
C-34
mmtm ——*•>*****-*•*** • ^...... .

wmmi*mmmmmimmmimmm*m'''*'i i m^^m^r^mmtmi^"" • " npimin i im i mîmm^mm*m*mmmiwiiim .1 " .MI n .m 1 11
APPENDIX D
ROr-K ^TASRTFTCATIQN
by Eugene H. Skinner
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Spokane Mining Research Center
It has been said that the classification of rock as a structural
material is not a simple problem (1, pg 466). Classifications are made in
order to place things in their natural relations so far as possible and to
allow their systematic study. Of course, in actuality sharp demarcations
are not possible between artificial degrees of classification. Classification
occupies a central position in nearly all sciences, therefore, it is well to
consider this in some detail. Whether it has become necessary, or simply
convenient, there is a general feeling shared by all workers in science
fields that things or objects belong to "classes" . Terminology of classifica-
tion uses terms-definition, correlation, description, and quantitizing such
that, "divisions" between classes or objects may be made. Perhaps the
emphasis for classification is because the language of everyday conversa-
tion is filled with vagueness, ambiguity, and replete with inaccuracy (even
technical treatises are not always much better).
When the science worker states that it is the business of science to
gather the facts and then to classif/ them, we do not have a clear or adequate
account of the situation. First, some manner of classification is involved
in determining what facts should be gathered. Obviously, there are few rules
1) Obert, Leonard, and W.I. Duvall Rock Mechanics and the Design of
Structures in Rock. John Wiley, Publ. , 1967, 650 pg.
D-l
Wka.
■'■" l^^^»"^^P»^w ■! I ■ II ■ ■ I ■ i»^^_a^^^w>ww^
for classification In an Informal system of logic. Rigorous pursuit of formal
rules would define a "natural" and an "artificial" system of classification
(2, Chapter 12), One of the founders of modern methods was Carl Linnaeus
(1/07-1778), the Swedish naturalist who established the modern system of
scientific classification nomenclature - briefly, as order, genera and
species. It will be noted that although his original format has undergone
revision, its basic outline survives. It is beyond the scope of this Appendix
to cover this entire subject but it is concluded by noting that NO classifica-
tion is theoretically perfect under exact rules of logic. Even such highly
structured sciences as botany and chemistry have inadequacies when
examined completely.
Since rock classifications are central to this research, it is necessary
to briefly review rock classifications Ü). All of the previous discussion on
formal logic of classification is germane to the history of rock classification.
Very early in the development of the subject it was appreciated that there
were three great, sharply contrasted genetic rock groups. In modern times,
systems of Igneous rock classifications were not readily accepted until the
Rosenbusch classification (1873 and 1877) and is referred to as the Rosen-
busch model classification. It is noted that in the next 50 years over a
dozen new rock classification schemes or modifications were proposed.
2) Cohen, M.R. and Ernest Nagel. An Introduction to Logic and the Scienti-
fic Method. Harcourt Brace and Company, 1939, 467 pg
3) Travis, R.B. Classification of Rocks. Quarterly, Colorado School of

Mines, v. 50, No. 1, January 1955, 98 pg
D-2
■M—■■in ii—fcan ■■—ii ■a ■with- ~- ■ ■■ .■.~^.---. . ^-— - -

■•"»^»»■■^W^WWW'WPIW^Www^â^pi^" M ii 11 im-mmmm^^mm^^m^mi^B^^rm >v-i 'vmimmm^mmmm^m^mrm'*****^^*****^
Of all these, Johannsen (4) probably submitted the most highly
structured system. His review of the general subject is as applicable today
as then with the following quotation from his introduction.
"It is with considerable hesitation that the writer introduce a new

classification of igneous rocks. He knows that he who adds a
single term to an already overburdened vocabulary is looked upon
with disfavor, while he who brings in many has hearty objurgations
heaped upon him; yet he hopes, as others who have gone this way
before him have hoped, by fixing definite boundary lines beyond
which the different families cannot pass, to eliminate the multiplica-
tion of rock names which differ in no essential particular from previous
described types. It is being recognized more and more, that there
is need for three classifications of igneous rocks. One must be for
field use, another must be chemical, and the third must be mineralo-
gical."
Johannsen further went on to note that all rock classification systems fail
in their lack of quantitative element. The reader may recall that Johannsen's
three volume work on rock classification was published in 1931.
The geologist should note that his field is highly oriented toward
classification with every subject - from rock to faults, folds, cleavage,
joints, and mineralogy, all too numerous for discussion herein, subject to
detailed classification. Further noted is that none of these classifications
are acceptable to all with discussion continuous to this day.
One of the first engineering uses for rock properties (and indirectly
rock classification) was obtained by the Watertown Arsenal and reported
during the period 1882 to 19 13 (S, pg 393-401). This effort terminated at the
4) Johcinnsen, Albert. Sugqestions for a Quantitative Mineralogical Class-

ification of Igneous Rocks. Journal of Geology, v. 25, No. 1 Jan-Feb
1917, pg 63-97
5) Watertown Arsenül. K< port oj the Test of Metals and Other Materials
for Industrial Purposes al Watertown Arsenal, Mass. Ordinance Dept.
U.S. Army, 1894, pg 322-418
D-3
-^ ■ - - ■■ -■■-' •'■
»*"i *mvm^m'*K*'mimmKmmw^^™^^m^^^^^^9^*^^^*i^mwm*mmmin^mf*» n i 11-..11 m^;î^mmm^m*^*mßtwimwiMvm~immimmmii^m^mrii^mmmuiMm.mm^^mmnB^mi^^m^mmmimrm
beginning of World War I when the National Bureau of Standards, U.S.
Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Mines efforts in rock testing were
redirected into avenues which have been followed to the present. This early
effort, however, produced results which are widely quoted today in most
Civil Engineering handbooks for properties of building stone (6). Although
the methods, the testing, and the equipment for these early results would
probably not be acceptable today, they are nevertheless widely quoted.
Mitchell in 1917 (7) noted that the need for an accurate rock class-
ification system for engineering work is not always appreciated by engineers
and contractors (this is perhaps one of the first published remarks on the
subject). Shortly after. Smith (8) and Plrsson (9) elaborated on rock class-
ification for engineering. They noted that technical rock classifications
are too clumsy for field use; a good classification will have to include terms
used both by geologists and engineers; it must be recognized that all dispute
cannot be resolved; and the classification should have regard for the material
Itself.
6) Cross, Hardy, and P.J. Brennan. Masonary and Plain Concrete. Chapter
23, pg 23-01 to 23-06, UT_Abbett, R.W. American Civil Engineering
Practice. John Wiley Publ., 3 v., 1957
7) Mitchell, G.J. The Need of Accurate Rock Classification in Engineering

Contracts. Economic Geology, v. 12, No. 3, April-May 1917, pg 281
8) Smith, W.D. Rock Classification for Engineering. Economic Geology,

v. 14, No. 2, March-April 1919, pg 180-183
9) Plrsson, L.W. Rock Classification for Engineering. Economic Geology,

v. 14, No. 3, May 1919, pg 264-266
D-4
■MaWMMklMAfe' -—-""-*"-"'— ——
■ l'"ll • '
The Department of Agriculture, then containing the Bureau of Public
Roads, was early concerned with rock classification for road building (K)).
This monumental work was summarized in 1953 with results from over 13,000
rock samples (H). It is illustrative that the final results showed little
emphasis on definition of rock and only five "important" physical properties
for road building - bulk specific gravity, absorption, abrasion loss, hardness,
and toughness. Test methods wtre developed for each of these properties.
The lesson learned is that in the f'nal analysis simple terms and methods to
assist the engineer are most desirable.
These few examples illustrate that interest in rock classification for
reasons other than science have existed for over half a century. They also
show that early results have become influential even though the methods,
techniques, and procedures would be of doubtful acceptance today. One
cannot dismiss such empirical classification as Friedrich Mohs' (1773-1839)
scale of hardness which appears acceptable after over 150 years of use.
It is of further note that many similar simple classifications have
been proposed for a host of mining conditions covering everything from rock
breakage to drillability. (_12, JJ, 14, _15)
10) Lord, E.C.E. Examination and Classification of Rocks for Road Building,
Including Physical Properties of Rock witn Reference to Mineral, Com-
position and Structure. Dept. of Agruculture, Bulletin 31, 1908, 29 pg
11) Woolf, D.O. Results of Physical Tests of Road-Building Aggregate

(to January 1, 1951). Bureau of Public Roads, Dept. of Commerce,
1953, 225 pg
12) Gyss, E.E. and H.G. Davis. The Hardness and Toughness of Rock.
Mining und Metallurgy, v. 8, No. 246, June 1927, pg 261-265
D-5
II—MM—Ml—!■——!■ MI—MI I ■■■I

W^HV^M^nnp^^mfVW^Hii. ■. i IB.IM ■■^■IIÎP^PIPBJ.«WI"«MI -PJ ,i m ■in^n^îi I . . iiBiiiiiiiim i uwaim^^^miiJ. J ill .iw.nwi I" "r»^«^^ ■ "i I Pil ■ i
13) Steldle, E. Some Practical and Theoretical Aspects of the Burn Cut.
Joy Manufacturing Company, Oliver Bldg. Pittsburgh, Pa., 1951, 14 pg
14) Goodrich, R.H. Rock Classification Tests. Joy Manufacturing Company,

Claremont, New Hampshire, 1955, 26 pg
15) White, Christopher. A Rock Drlllability Index. Quarterly, Colorado

School of Mines, v. 64. No. 2, April 1969
The published literature concerning systematic classifications for
mining methods began about 1915. Generally the pure classification of
mining methods is of academic Interest. Warner (^6) considered that the
selection of a mining method was a function of internal factors, or those
directly associated with the orebody, external factors, or those related to
the oretody, and economic factors of the mining operation. Warner noted
that some factors Influenced the mining process while others affected only
the details, but ultimately all factors must be considered. Harley (17) noted
that classification of rock conditions for mining purposes will vary with
requirements of management, the miner, and the geologist.
The greatest problem in the selection of an underground excavation
method is the relationship between geologic conditions and the excavation
method. The mining Industry's approach along this line has been that each
mine Is an Individual problem. The method of King (\Q) at the Climax mine in
Colorado Is typical of such work and is summarized as follows: From a
16) Warner, R.K. Selection of a Mining System. American Institute of

Mining and Metall., Trans., v 109, 1934, pg 11-24
17) Harley, G.T. Proposed Ground Classification for Mining Purposes. Eng,
and Mining Journal, v. 122, No. 10, September 4, 1926, pg 368-372,
and No. 11, September 11, 1926, pg 413-416
D-6
■■■ i ■■■■i IIIIM -K-iiP. IMIUIBIIIIIIRIHHHMB ■ M^Maiaai. iHuim ■■.. i •! \^mmi^mm^*^*^*^m*îm*mmmmmmm9*i^mmm\^*w\m*mmmmmmmmmmmim'm'm*mm'*^mmmmmmmi
18) King, R.V. A Study of Geologic Factors at Climax in Relation to Mining

and Block Caving. American Institute of Mining and Metall. , Trans.,
v. 163. 1945, pg 145-155
detailed examination of all mine workings, diamond drill cores, and a care-
ful study of all geologic mapping and drill logs, observed geologic factors
are correlated with the behavior of the rock in the stopes being caved. The
result is a relative comparison between rock characteristics by recording
quantitatively the intensity of fracturing and qualitatively the hardness of
the rock, extent of mineralization, weathering, decomposition, disintegra-
tion, and oxidation. These data resulted In four classes of rock ranging from
strong to weak for which mining methods could be developed. Presently, a
modified scheme partially based on this early work Is used as a basis for
block caving and Is known as the "Cavability Index". The Index has a range
of 1 to 10.
Clark U9) gathered geologic data from 52 mines using 8 mining methods,
Clark selected the following seven geologic factors as important In the
selection of a mining method: (1) structural type of orebody, (2) dimension
or geometry, (3) type of country rock, (4) extent of faulting, folding, and
fracturing, (5) alteration of ore and country rock, (6) type of mineralization,
and (7) summary of geologic factors. Clark stated that the Immediate problem
is to interpret physical characteristics of mineral deposits in terms of
geologic conditions; but these are the most difficult to properly evaluate.
A similar review of the literature of tunneling shows that no distinctive
19) Clark, G.B. Relationship of Geology to Underground Mining Methods.

Mining Engineering (AIME), v. 6, No. 8, August 1954, pg 812-816
D-7
iiimHiwv UN iiww^^w^>w»»wiiim inwiin i n
excavation-support correlation has been proi -.cil which Is based on an
engineeriny scheme of rock classification. 'Ms lecognized that the state
of knowledge concerning the application ol ijround support systems within a
rock classification system is unsatisfactory. It appears that no serious
attempt has been made to establish a universal engineering classification of
rock suitably incorporating ground support and the most important geologic
factors in the excavation system. This would, of course, be incomplete
without discussion of the Terzaghi concept of rock loads proposed in 1946
(20). Terzaghi's theory occupies a very prominent position in American
practice because of its almost universal acceptance and widespread applica-
tion in perhaps hundreds of tunnels. Terzaghi offered a system of rock
classification and a method of estimating rock loads imposed on supports.
The reader will note that the method apparently fails to go that one small
step further to make direct integration into the excavation and support system
toward a final design. This oversight can be attributed to the lack of suffic-
ient case history data. Terzaghi wrote as follows (2_0, pg 69):
"Our knowledge of the intensity of rock loads on tunnel supports

is derived chiefly from the results of tests which were carried out
in various railroad tunnels in the eastern Alps. In these tests
v/ooden blocks with known strength were inserted between the
individual membcrj of the timber sets and the load on the timbering
estimated from the progressive failure of the blocks."
As the foremost proponent of the Case History method it is only speculation
to what may have developed had Terzaghi had access to the wealth of data
20) Terzaghi, Karl. Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Support. 100 pg,
in Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports. The Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Company, Youngstown, Ohio, 1946, 278 pg
D-8
imimmmmmm^***™^^*™' '■■ ttw^mr^^m . nm^^mmmm' 'îmmmmwmmm^^Mmni i i.ui.*^mi^*r'^^mmm*'**»
from more recent projects. Several recent publications have reviewed the
state-of-the-art in rock classification with reference to tunneling {Q, 22,
23, 24).
A review of rock classification for engineering use given in this
Appendix proposes the following informal rules:
1. Classification is an essential part of any subject.
2. Classification always evolves.
3. No classification can achieve perfection.
4. A sufficiently accurate classification can be developed for specific

application.
5. The classification must be simple if it is expected to be widely used.
6. The classification must use terms understood by all users.
7. The classification must have rerard for the material being classified.
8. A classification must be able to assist those using it.
9. A classification must consider the "most important" factors with due

regard for not allowing any "inadmissible simplifications".
Although portions of this procedure may seem incomplete from the viewpoint
21) Coates, D.F. Classification of Rock for Rock Mechanics. Int. Journal
Rock Mech. and Mining Science, v. 1, No. 3, 1964, pg 421-429
22) Deere, D.U. and R.P. Miller. Engineering Classification and Index
Properties for Intact Rock. AFWL-TR-65-116, Univ. of Illinois, AD 646
610, December 1966, 300 pg
23) Deere, D, U., A.H. Merritt, and R.F. Coon, Engineering Classification
of In-Situ Rock. AFWL-TR-67-144, Univ. of Illinois, AD 848 798,
January 1969, 272 pg
24) John, M. Properties and Classification of Rock with Reference to Tunnel-

ing. National Mech. Eng.Research Inst., Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa, CSIR Report MEG 1020,
June 1971, 54 pg
D-9
MM——i i [■■■■Ulli IW ■"--"-- ----

of the theoretician, a classification system can be constructed such that it
will not Involve any inadmissible simplifications of the actu il situation.
The self-imposed goal of any ground support prediction model, therefore, is
to be assured that all important factors were considered and ore understood
by all users and that "inadmissible simplifications" have not occurred. This
research has achieved a relationahip between rock load and support require-
ments with a quantitative index classification of rock.
D-10
UMaaMBMiMMM — -■ — ■ ■ —--
APPENDIX E
REMOTE SENSING
by Eugene H. Skinner
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Spokane Mining Research Center
Throughout this report great emphasis has been given to the pre-bid
estimate of ground support requirements in the tunneling system. The
approach given in this analysis has been conventional project engineering
through evaluation of prior support practices projected to a common basis
of rock structure rating (RSR). Further promise of the pre-excavation know-
ledge of rock structure has long been a located by researchers using geo-
physical instruments and remote sensing. For purposes of this appendix
both subjects shall simply be termed remote sensing. It is not intended
to cover the entire field of remote sensing but primarily to cover those areas
within the Bureau of Mines research effort under the ARPA program1 which
have bearing on ground support prediction techniques. All are contract re-
search projects funded as one or two year efforts within the same time frame
as this contract. Each project has received theoretical and laboratory in-
vestigation and at least one fieid demonstration. In the following project
commentaries, no remarks have been made as to the success of each remote
sensing technique for the simple reason that some have achieved success
while others have not; whereas in juture applications, under other field
conditions, the reverse may occur.
i;-i
!!■■■■ IIMIf
Title: Electromagnetic Pulse Sounding for Geological
Surveying
Contractor: The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Contract No: HO 210042 (FY 71)

HO 230009 (FY 72)
2
Final Report Number: AD 7548 4 7
Objective and Summary:
To develop a method of volumetric subsurface geologic mapping using

electric pulse sounding techniques. Study the feasibility of determining
the type, location, and size of geologic conditions and man-made objects
in the area of underground excavation from the spectral content of the echo
pulse.
Analytical studies were conducted to secure design data for the pulse
sounding probe and to allow scattering characteristics of planar and
spherical contrasts to be idealized models of geologic anomalies. Measure-
ments were made with a 5 volt peak pulse generator (3 ns base, 2 MHz
repetition rate). In addition to numerous probe tests and control target
measurements, a number of targets (various sizes of metal and plastic pipes
buried in overburden) were measured using the probe in the orthogonal mode.
Title: Excavation Seismology
Contractor: Honeywell Research Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota

HO 220070 (FY 72)
Final Report Number: AD 742146 (FY 71)
Evaluate the effectiveness of selected principles and techniques in deter-

mining subsurface geologic conditions. Increase the quality of geologic
data obtained by seismic and/or acoustic methods in underground excava-
tions. Establish the compatibility of the system concept with the require-
ments of rapid underground excavation.
The seismic reflection method was considered the most suitable application
E-2
—-- - --■- ■
The principle technical problem was identification of reflections superim-
posed on other source-produced coherent interference. Signal processing
techniques, including cross-correlation and velocity filtering (or beamform-
ing) using an array of receiving sensors, were investigated for enhancement
of reflections. A seismic source/receiver combination was developed which
produces a simple, repeatable transmitted seismic pulse. A field recording
system was assembled and seismic signals recorded and digitized for re-
flections from free surfaces on grantie, both in blocks and in situ, using
a single receiver at various locations to simulate an array of receivers.
The digitized signals were subsequently processed by digital computer to
simulate and assess signal processing techniques. Two seismic array
processing techniques were verified and evaluated. A prototype portable
seismic/acoustic system was successfully demonstrated.
Title: Prediction of Geologic and Hydrologie Conditions

Ahead of Rapid Excavation Operations
Contractor: U.S. BuMines
Contract No: BuMines In-House FY 71

BuMines In-House FY 72
Final Report Nurrber: AD 748 637
Develop improved techniques for detecting, delineating, and evaluating

geologic and hydrologic conditions, as well as man-made, in advance of
rapid excavation operations to allow preventative or evasive action to be
taken along the line of a tunnel.
A mobile geophysical well Jogging unit was designed, developed, and

calibrated for use in vertical drill holes. The well logging system for
making measurements of physical properties of rock penetrated by vertical
drill holes was directed to special needs of geological-hydrological predic-
tion problems associated with tunneling. Models were developed for pro-
viding a means of improved quality control required for the measurements of
interest. A new interpretive technique for determining P- and S- wave
velocities from acoustic logs was developed and preliminary tests were
performed to evaluate its effectiveness.
E-3
Title: Research in Long Hole Exploratory Drilling for
Rapid Excavation Underground
Contractor: Jacobs Associates, San Francisco, California

HO 220020 (FY 72)
Final Report Number: AD 743224

AD 753052
Objectives and Summary:
Provide an optimum drilling system lor exploration drilling in advance of

underground excavatlor. projects. This system is consistent with require-
ments of drlll-and-blast and mechanical boring methods of driving tunnels
with emphasis on the latter.
A novel horizontal rock drilling method was developed. Hardware has been
produced and assembled to provide a long-horizontal probe-hole drilling
machine. The drill is instrumented to record data for selecting the best
combination of thrust, RPM, fluid, air flow rates and pressures. The test
drill components and methods were selected with ultimate space and under-
ground environment limitations in mind. A new method of handling 1,000
feet of drill rod in a single piece was also developed. This method pro-
vided a new concept in circulating fluid (air or water) through the storage
pipe and into the open end of the drill rod stored in it. The research
developed a drill to make a hole 4 inches in diamater and 1,000 feet deep.
The drill is capable of coring, as required, 5 feet of solid core at least
every 50 feet of advance.
Title: Research on Tunnel Site Selection by Remote Sensing
Contractor: University of Michigan, Willow Run Laboratory,

Ann Arbor, Michigan

HO 220064 (FY 72)
E-4
mmm mttm
^«wnw-^w»"^
To develop an airborne remote sensing system comprised of the simultan-

eous application of microwave radar, multispectral scanning, radiant
energy, and aerial photographic equipment for use in siting large-scale
underground structures. Interpretation and analysis of this Imagery shall
provide as complete a description as possible of the surface geologic
features In selected regions of this imagery.
An investigation was designed to utilize simultaneously aerial photographs,

microwave radar, and multispectral scanners for geologic study. These
were used In conjunction with ground truth Investigations In an attempt to
construct geologic and llthologlcal maps applicable to the selection of
tunnel sites. Vincent's Image ratiolng technique was used to determine
different types of surface and subsurface features. Various types of
coherent optical processing techniques were studied for the enhancement
of geologic studies In radar imagery. The potential for using both high-
resolution L band and X band and cross-polarized synthetic-aperture radar
Imagery was Investigated.
Title: Seismic Determination of Geologic Discontinuities

Ahead of Rapid Excavation
Contractor: Bendix Research Laboratory, Southfield, Michigan
Contract No: HO 210033
Final Report Number: AD 7499 77
Evaluate the feaslbllit/ of applying ultrasonic acoustic methods to detect

large geological discontinuities that might affect excavating conditions,
within a reasonable working rango and ahead of excavation.
The feasibility of using several non-destructive ultrasonic techniques for

detecting the presence of large geological discontinuities was demonstrated.
The pulse reflection method was found to be best suited to the proposed
application. A study was undertaken to determine the optimum radiation
frequency (or range of frequencies) most likely to delineate geological
discontinuities, with a given working range, ahead of the excavation.
Field tests were conducted at the Colorado School of Mines experimental
mine.
E-5
mmmmm t.mmimmmmiw»
Title: Seismic Holography for Underground Viewing
Contractor: Bendlx Research Laboratories, Southfleld, Michigan
Develop seismic holography system for underground viewing capable of

detecting and locating tunnels, mines, bunkers, other anomalies, and
features of the earth using principles of acoustic holography. The ability
to accurately determine potential hazards and drastic changes ahead of
excavation shall be investigated.
A theoretical analysis was performed to determine requirements of a holo-

graphy system for processing seismic data to map tunnels, bunkers, mines,
and/or various discontinuities in rock. The contractor designed a series of
experiments based on on-site as well as off-site data. Computer models
of the test site were developed and computer simulation studies were made
to further develop a holographic weak-signal-enhancement technique ("WSET)
Computer programs were written to calculate the straight line ray paths for
body waves.
Title: Techniques for Measurement of Ground Characteristics

in Advance of Excavation in a Marine Environment
Contractor: Marine Minerals Technology Center, Tiburon, Calif.

HO 220019 (FY 72)

AD 763811
Objective and Summary;
To develop techniques and to evaluate the feasibility of using geophysical

instrumentation in a marine application to measure physical properties of
seafloor sediments and rock in ord ^ to predict geologic conditions in advance
of excavation. Design, model, and laboratory test actual systems to deter-
mine their feasibility for application to the problem.
E-6
fc_B_|t-^MMHaMHMMMaMMflaa
'-'•■• "■■'■■
Mass physical properties of iseafloor sediments and rocks were determined

using geophysical tools for the identification of associated parameters. A
direct current resistivity system, fashioned after the land-oriented Wenner
array, was successfully developed. A prototype seismic shear wave
generator was built for marine sediments. A reflectivity experiment to
classify seafloor sediments was performed.
Title: Thermal Monitoring of Geologic Changes During

Excavation
Contractor: Bendix Research Laboratory, Southfield, Michigan
To determine the feas.oillty of using the local temperature distribution

along the walls of an excavation to aid in predicting hazards to tunneling
operations.
Information pertaining to possible temperature conditions, rock formations,

and general mining environmental conditions as well as information about
the state-of-the-art was obtained using noncontact temperature measuring
devices. Calculations were performed on theoretical models of temperature
fields around geologically different areas in an otherwise homogeneous
rock matrix. Numerical data pertinent to radiometer design were obtained.
Radiometer tests were conducted at the experimental mine at the Colorado
School of Mines and at Republic Steel Corp. mine at Mineville, New York.
The remote sensors described in the preceding commentaries provide
a wealth of valuable d^ta for earth science research. These remote sensing
methods have been shown to Include ultrasonic acoustical methods, seismic
holography, seismic reflection, geophysical well logging, marine geo-
physics (applicable to under-water tunneling) electromagnetic pulse sound-
ing, thermal ü.^nitoring, simultaneous aerial photographs-microwave radar-
E-7
■MMM
"■ ' ww—^^^m>r*~~—~~-~~m-m^mmmmmiîm*mamm~mm^*^^*mm^~m' i «^*^mm^9m***~mmrmvmimmmmmm*mm
multlspoctral scanners, and long-hole drilling. This appendix is concerned
mainly with the new and heretofore little used "unconventional" remote
sensing techniques defined by the BuMines/ARPA effort. The use of remote
sensing data for geology and tunnel siting is in its infancy for some tech-
niques, such as microwave radiometry, and highly advanced for others,
such as conventional aerial photography.
In the currently used photographic methods common aircraft are used
in the 10 to 15 Km altitude, low-orbit manned spacecraft and the new Earth
Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS-l) at higher altitudes. On July 23,
1972 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched
the first Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS-l). This satellite is
maintained in a near-polar, near-circular, sun-synchronous orbit circling
the earth 14 times per day, and oriented so that each point on the earth's
surface can be viewed repetitively every 18 days. Each image "s 115 x 115
miles, or nearly 13,000 square miles. Through its ability to photograph
large areas of the earth's surface, ERTS imagery appears Ideally suited to
the problem of initial tunnel route selection and comparitive geologic and
topographic analysis. With relatively little effort,satellite imagery may be
converted into various types of maps - planlmetric, topographic, and
geologic - and at reported savings over normal, ground-based mapping
techniques. Further, the ability to re-map any point on the earth within
18 days would appeal especially advantageous. All ERTS imagery is avail-
able for sale to the public. *
E-8
■■—Mfc—imi iim\mmammm\ ■ —MM—i g^ftH^-f^^^

i»»i ■ i i Hi i 'm^^m^n w—pwn—^^"w*-■ IIIIIII»II i n iiKitm9^^*^^m*m^^mm^^*mi^*^*
Properly used, to supplement other geologic and geophysical tech-
niques, remote sensor data should be of immense value for tunnel siting,
especially regional studies and in unknown areas. As with most techniques,
remote sensing is neither a panacea, nor uniformily applicable or useful-
judicious engineering decisions must still be made as to questions of when,
how, and where to use remote sensing data. Even in reasonably well known
areas, where detailed mapping is available, the proper application of remote
sensing could provide information not otherwise obtainable, and could result
in a better understanding of tunnel siting in a shorter time.
Throughout this appendix it is obvious that considerable field and
design experience is required to develop proper engineering criteria and
adequate design expertise for purposes of pre-bid ground support prediction.
Two different directions are required: (1) Improvement of remote sensing
instrumentation and (2) Improvement of interpretation in the remote sensing
measurements in relation to the field geology. The interpretation of remote
sensing data is a distinct disadvantage at this time - simply due to the
human element of "interpretation" which requires needed field experience by
well qualified personnel. Secondly, even though vastly improved remote
sensing instrumentation has been recently developed, the depth of investi-
gation is insufficient for purposes of tunnel siting at great depth (as in the
classic example of the Roberts tunnel in Colorado^). Therefore, regrotably,
most of the known geophysical and remote sensing methods and techniques
in; not suitable for subsurface tunnoling conditions beyond a few hundred
■ mm i—I——«It— ii
•^rmm^mi^^m*
feet of depth, either ahead or below the point of investigation.
It should be fully appreciated that the results of geophysical explor-
ations are interpretations of physical measurements and are not, in them-
selves, geologic facts relative to the subsurface at a test locality.
The common surface drilled bore-hole method of exploration remains
the most viable method of obtaining necessary pre-bid data for the RSR
method of ground support prediction. The drill core provides direct rock
samples for laboratory testing as well as providing a means for making a
variety of subsurface down-the-hole geophysical measurements. As such,
bore-hole exploratory methods probably rank as the best universal explora-
tion tool yet available.
As noted in the remote sensing commentaries, two BurMines/ARPA
research projects have fulfilled this need. An in-house BurMines research
project was responsible for developing a well-logging system for making
measurements of physical properties in small diameter vertical drill holes
to satisfy the special needs of geologlc-hydrologic investigations In tunnel
siting. This well logging system has been successfully demonstrated. The
second project (HO 210037 and HO 220020) was an ARPA contract project
to develop the necessary equipment and techniques for exploratory drilling
from the tunnel face of either conventional drill-and-blast or machine bored
openings horizontally ahead for at least 1,000 feet. The drilling system
successfully field demonstrated the drilling of a 4 Inch diameter hole and
the capability of taking cores as needed.
E-10
———■llll IIM—III! ■ III

Finally, a bibliography Abstract search, as required for all contracts,
was requested from the National Technology Information Service (KTIS) for
remote sensing reports between 1962 and 1972. Over 400 reports were con-
tained in the search document, and although a reading of all Abstracts
revealed application of remote sensing to nearly every subject field there
were no investigations directly related to tunnel siting except the BuMines/
ARPA projects.
1
Further information on remote sensing projects under the BuMines/ARPA
program may be obtained from Mr. James J. Olson, Twin Cities Mining
Research Center, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111.
2
All reports may be ordered from National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22151
3
EROS Fata Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
57198
4
Wahlstrom, F.F. The Validity of Geologic Projection, A Case History.
Fcon. Geol., v. 59, No. 3, 1964, pg 465-474.
r-n

RSR Vickham

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RSR Vickham

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

RSR Vickham

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I 1 .1, I 1 I ■.

GROUND SUPPORT PREDICTION MODEL (RSR

„.u^HMftlMl iniiMiii ii ii ■ '■ --■' -.^M-*---~.- . .

500 Sansome Street iH. cnou»

San Francisco. California 94111

GROUND SUPPORT PREDICTION MODEL

Bureau of Mines H0220075

10 Dlt TRIVUTION ITATIMCNT

Distribution of this document is unlimited

II. tPONSORINa MILITARY ACTIVITY

Advanced Research Project Agency

A methodology is described for predicting rock tunnel support requirements in the

DD .^..1473 "■*LAC(* OO »ONM !«?•. I JAM «4

Rock Structure Rating (RSR)

mm äi^tam **j-^—— ~- ■ «^«—

Sponsored by Advanced Research Projects Agency

This research was supported by the Advanced Research Projects

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those

Effective Date of Contract: June 7, 1972

Amnount of Contract : SGO^GSS-s 00

ammm a^^äJmata/ma —m^mmam i-u-i..- i—. tMa. m ^—^—-■

This report sets forth final results of continued research in the

development of 0 Ground Support Prediction Model (RSR Concept) for

undertaken by Jacobs Associates in accordance with terms of Contract

the Interior. It is an extension of work previously performed under Contract

No. H021003Ü and is part of ARPA's Military Geophysics program directed

toward improvement of underground rapid excavation technology.

The Contracting Officer is Mr. Frank Pf viich, Bureau of Mines,

Denver Federal Center; the Project Technical Officer is Mr. Eugene H.

Skinner, Spokane Mining Research Laboratory. Mr. Skinner has taken an

contributed information contained in Appendexes D. & E. Historical tunnel

different government and private agencies. Many individuals of the construc-

tion industry provided suggestions, comments and criticisms of the RSR

others who contributed to the research effort is fully appreciated.

mmmmmmmtmmmtt^ma^mama^^^^^atm *—**"-— -—-

ROCK STRUCTURE RATING CONCEPT 1-1

CASE HISTORY STUDIES - CIVIL TUNNELS 2-1

ittm m^m MMaWHallMllttlUMMlM

CASE HISTORIES - MINING OPERATIONS 3-1

INDUSTRY EVALUATION OF RSR CONCEPT 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1

GROUND SUPPORT PREDICTION MODEL 5-1

Hi KM* Man ka^Mi uafcfta^M* ■: •''

TIELD VERIFICATION EXPERIMENTS 6-1

b,l Introduction 6-1

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1

7.1 Conclusions 7-1

A - Industry Comments RSR Concept A-l

G.l Comparison Tables of Predicted and Actual

The need for ground support research in rapid underground excavation

are: 1) to find means of predicting rock loads in advance of actual construc-

tion; and 2) to develop methodology for determining safe, efficient, and

economical ground support design practices.

Advanced Research Projects Agency, has undertaken contract research efforts

Us Lvaluation for Coordination with System Analysis in Rapid excavation"

(1)* developed and proposes a methodology for predicting subsurface conditions

based on pre-construction geologic data and correlating such predictions

with appropriate ground support systems. The overall methodology developed

is to extend this prior work to areas of limited data; to evaluate industry

DD .^..1473 "■LAC( OO »ONM !«?•. I JAM «4

***'^—''^—•-——-**"t—~--—— - -—^—^~— -^^tmm-mmm ■ . —_^^._... _,- .