r

•C H A PT E R 6

Empirical methods of design

It is the mark of an educated man to look for precisionin eachelass-ofthings just so far- as-the- natureofthe------------------ .subject admits.

Aristotle

Empirical design methods relate practical experience gained on previous projects to the conditions anticipated at a proposed site.

Rock mass classifications form the backbone of the empirical design approach and are widely employed in rock engineering. In fact, on many projects, the classification approach serves as the only practical basis for the design of complex underground structures. Most of the tunnels constructed at present make use ofso<ne classification system. The most used and the best known of these is Terzaghi’s rock load classification ■ which was introduced over 35 years ago (Terzaghj, 1946), Since then this classification has been modified (Déêre et al., 1970) and new rock classification systems have been proposed. ' These 'systems "took cognizance of- the -new - advances -in rock-support ■ technology, namely, rockbolts and shotcrete, as well as addressed different engineering projects: tunnels, chambers, mines, slopes and foundations. Today, there are so many different rock classification systems in existence that it is useful to tabulate the more common ones as presented in Table 6.1.

Rock mass classifications have been successfully applied throughout the world: in the United State (Deere, 1964, Wickham et al., 1972, Bieniawski, 1979), Canada, (Coates, 1964, Franklin, 1975), Western Europe (Lauffer, 1958, Pacher et al., 1974, Barton et al., 1974), South Africa (Bieniawski, 1973, Oliver, 1976, Laubscher, 1975), Australia (Barton, 1977, Baczynski, 1980), New Zealand (Rutledge, 1978), Japan (Ikeda, 1970), USSR (Protodyakonov, 1974), and in some East European countries (Kidybinski, 1979). ' " \

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN ROCK EN G IN EER IN G

Rock mass classification can, if certain conditions are fulfilled, effectively combine the findings from' observation, experience, and engineering judgment.-.to provide a quantitative assessment of rock mass conditions and support requirements.

Aims of rock classifications

A rock mass classification has the following aims in an engineering application : a) To divide a particular rock mass into groups of similar behavior;

97

Table 6.1. Major rock classifications currently in use

98 Empirical methods o f design

Name of ' ..classification

Originator and date

Country of origin

Applications

Rock loads Terzaghi, 1946 USA Tunnels with steel

Stand-up time Rock quality

designation Intact rock

strength

Laufler, 1958 Deere, 1964

Deere & Miller... - :

AustriaUSA

USA

supports Tunneling

. Core logging, tunneling

Communication

RSR concept

Geomechanics Classification (RM R system)

Wickham, et al.1972 ....-

Bieniawski, 1973

USA

S. Africa & USA

Tunneling

Tunnels, mines, foundations

Q-system

Strength/block . size

Barton, et al.1974

Franklin, 1975

Norway

Canada

Tunneling, large chambers

Tunneling

Basic geotechnical classification

ISRM , 1981............. International General

J ° pr° vide 3 basls for understanding the characteristics of each group-c) To yield quantitative data for engineering design; andd) To provide a common basis for communication. ’

Ittribut™5 0411 ^ fUlfilfed ^ enSUring th3t 3 c!assification s?stem has the following

a) It is simple, easily remembered, and understandable;

geotogtts*1 te™ 1S dCar 3nd the iermin0l0gy Used is widel>' accepted by engineers and

c) The most significant properties of the rock masses are included;d) It is based on measurable parameters which can be determined by relevant tests

quickly and cheaply in the field; ^auuests.

e) 11 “ based on a rating system that can weigh the relative importance of the classification parameters; and

f) It is functional by providing quantitative data for the design of rock support

Classification parameters .-

An important issue., in rock classifications is the selection of the parameters of greatest

7 *pr s ,o b t • » * " ■ » » « « o. i . * , - ¡e h r s r sq antitatively describe a jointed rock mass , for engineering purposes Various

The strength of the rock material is included as a classification parameter in the

Classification systems in ro '’ 'vgmeering 99

majority of the rock mass classification systems. It is a necessary parameter because the strength of the rock material constitutes the strength limit of the rock mass. The uniaxial compressive strength of rock material can be determined in the field indirectly by means of the point load strength index (Franklin, 1975).

The second parameter most commonly employed is the rock quality designation (RQD). This is a quantitative index based on a modified core recovery procedure which incorporates only sound pieces of core which are 100 mm or greater in length. The RQD is a measure of drill core quality or fracture frequency, and disregards the influence of joint tightness, orientation, continuity and.gougeimfilling) Conseqiip.ntly-- the RQD does not fully describe a rock mass.

Other classification parameters used in current rock mass classifications are: spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities (roughness, continuity, sepa­ration, joint-wall weathering, infilling), orientation of discontinuities, groundwater conditions (inflow, pressure), and stress field.

An excellent discussion of the methods for quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses can be found in a recent ISRM document (ISRM, 1981).

It is believed that in the case of surface excavations and those near-surface underground rock excavations which are controlled by the structural geological features, the following classification parameters are important: strength of intact rock material, spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, orientation of discontinuities and groundwater conditions. In the case of deep underground excavations where the behavior of rock masses is stress controlled, knowledge of the virgin stress field or the changes in stress can be of greater significance than the geological parameters. Most civil engineering projects, such as tunnels and subway chambers, will fall into the first category of geologically controlled rock mass structures.

Rock classifications may be conveniently divided into two groups: intact rock classifications and rock mass classifications.

In tact rock classifications

The subject of intact rock strength classification is a fairly controversial topic since a number of classifications for rock material strength have been proposed. For . completeness, they are compared in Table 6.2. The engineering classification proposed by Deere and Miller (1966) has been widely recognized as particularly realistic and convenient for use inthe field of rock mechanics. Recently, the ISRM Commission on Rock Classification has recommended different ranges of values for intact rock strength (ISRM, 1981). The main reason for the new ISRM ranges was the opinion that the Deere-Miller classification did not include differentiation in the strength in the range below 25 MPa, It should also be noted that this led to a recommendation that the convenient value of 1 MPa (145 Ibf/in2) for the uniaxial compressive strength may be taken as the lowest strength limit for rock materials. Hence, the materials with a strength lower than 1 MPa should be considered as soils and described in accordance with soil mechanics practice,

The major limitation of the intact rock classifications is that they do not provide quantitative data for engineering design purposes. Therefore, their main value lies in enabling better communication while discussing intact rock properties:

Table 6.2 Various strength classifications for intact rock

100 Err ~ ' cal. methods o f design

0.5 07 i » i i » LL2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ,_J-- 1—1—I—.Li ? I I

10020 30 40 50 70

_ J ______I _ I I I t i l i200 300 400 700

- J___ 1 -J...J-1J

Very weak Weak Strong Very strong

Very low strength Low Medium High Very highstrength strength strength strength

Very weak Weak Moderatelyweak

Moderately ____strong____

Strong Very „strong_ Extremely

__ __stropg______Geological Society

Soil — — RockExtremely

lowstrength

Very low low Medium High Very high • Extremelystrength strength strength strength strength strength

Broch and FrankGn

Very softSoft rock

rock rock rock Extremely hard rock

Very low strength Lowstrength

Mediumstrength

Highstrength

Very "high strength

Very low Low strength Moderate Medium High • Very high

IS RM 1979

1 I I T T T T T T2 3 4 .5 6 7 8

i i i n Ti l i20 30 40 50 70

10 100 Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa

—i---r—i i n200 300 400 700

R o ck mass classifications

Of the many rock mass classification systems in existence today, six require special attention because they are most commonly known, namely, those proposed by: Terzaghi (1946), Lauffer (1958), Deere (1964), Wickham, Tiedemann and Skinner (1972), Bieniawski (1973), and Barton, Lien and Lunde (1974).

The rock load-classification of Terzaghi (1946), was the first practical classification system introduced and has been dominant in the United States for over 35 years, proving very successful for tunneling with steel supports. Lauffer’s classification (1958) was based on the work of Stini (1950) and was a considerable step forward in the art of tunneling since it introduced the concept of the stand-up time of the active span in a tunnel, which is highly relevant in determining the type and amount of tunnel support Deere’s classification (1964) introduced the rock quality designation (RQD) index, which is a simple and practical method of describing the quality of rock core from boreholes. The concept of rock structure rating (RSR), developed in the United States by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972, 1974), was the first system featuring classification ratings for weighing the relative importance of classification parameters. The Geomechanics Classification (RMR system) proposed by Bieniawski (1973) and the Q-system proposed by Barton, Lien and Lunde (1974) were developed independently and both provide quantitative data for the selection of modern tunnel reinforcement measures such'as rockbolts and shotcrete. The Q-system has been developed

Terzaghi’s rock load classification I*1

specifically for tunnels and chambers while the Geomechanics Classification, although also initially developed for tunnels, has been applied to rock slopes and foundations, ground rippability assessment, as well as to mining problems (Laubscher, 1975, Ghose and Raju, 1981, Kendorski et al, 1983).

TERZAGH I’S ROCK LOAD CLASSIFICATION

Terzaghi (1946) formulated the first rational method of evaluating rock loads -appropriate- to ..theldesign_at steel sets. This .ymanjmjwrtant development because support by steel sets has been the most commonly used system for containing rock tunnel excavations during the past 50 years. It must be emphasized, however, that while this classification is appropriate for the purpose for Which it was evolved, Le., for estimating rock loads for steel-arch supported tunnels, it is not so suitable for modern

SURFACE

Figure 6.1. Simplified diagram of tunnel rock-load (after Terzaghi, 1946).

During construction of a tunnel, some relaxation of the rock mass will occur above and^on the sides of the tunnel The loosened rock within the area acdb will tend to move in towards the tunnel. This movement w II be resisted by friction forcjS along the lateral boundaries ac and bd and these friction forces transfer the major portion of the overburden weight I f onto the material on either s.de of the tu n n e l;ro r fa n d s,de of the tunnel are required only to support the balance which is equivalent to a h 'ght ^ ° ^zone of rock in which movement occurs will depend upon the characteristics of the rock mass and upon

tunnel dimensions H, and B.

J ü î f ,6'3:, ^ rZaghi’S roc)c load Ossification of 1946.

1.5(5 ' “ feet ° f r0Ck ° n ,Unnel r0° r Wi,h wid‘h B (ft) and height H ,(f I at depth of more than

Rock conditionRock load H in feet Remarks

1. Hard and intact

2. Hard stratified or schistose

3. Massive, moderately jointed4. Moderately blocky and seamy5. Very blocky and seamy6. Completely crushed

7. Squeezing rock, moderate 'depth

8. Squeezing rock, great depth9. Swelling rock

Zero

0 to 0.55

0 to 0.2550.25B to 0.35(5 + H ) (0.35 to 1.I0)(5 4-H) ¡■IO(B + ffJ

(<■10 to 2.10)(S +H ,)

(2.10 to 4.50) (B +jy()Up to 250 feet, irrespective of

the value of (B + ff)

Light lining required only if spallrng or popping occurs.

Light support, mainly for protec­tion against spalls. Load may change erratically from point

-to-pointr~-------- v“----—

No side pressure.Little or no side pressure.Considerable side pressure.

Softening effects of seepage towards bottom of tunnel require either continuous support for lower ends of ribs or circular ribs.

Heavy side pressure, invert struts required. Circular ribs are recommended.

Circular ribs are required. In extreme cases use yielding support.

Definitions:

blasting. This is L I as a “ 7 * T ^ h~ * * *condition involving the spontaneous iB d ^

boundaries between stra ta 'Th^ra^m ayTr m'th ''f h ^ T reS'Stance against sePa«tion along the spalling condition is quite common * " " ttned b* ^nsverse joints. In such rock, the

together or L intimately t a e S d Slat“ ^J f ado not bctWeerl joinfs are loca,|y g™1™ both spalling and popping conditions may te ^countered SUPP° ri' In f° CkS ° f this type’

separated from t a ^ S ^ J t S r i t T J h ^ k r0Ck fragn,“ (S WhiCh “support. ■ P «'O'interlocked. In such rock, vertical walls may require lateral

the properties of a water-bearing sand. r° ° k below the water tabh exhibits

~ „minerals with a low swelling capacity. • icroscopic particles of micaceous minerals or of clay

Terzaghi’s rock ’ classificatori !103

Table'6.4. Terzaghi’s rock load classification as modified by Deere et al., 1970

Frac

ture

spac

ing

(cm

)

9 s

£^ Rock conditiony<

Rock load, H

Initial FinalRemarks

1. Hard and intact 0 0 U Lining only ifspalling - orpopping

-50

9.

stratifiedorschistose

0 0.255 ^ ^ Spalling common O c 3 2w(U O »-< +J

9C

-20

75

-10 _ i i

25

10

-5

2

-2

3. Massive, mode jointed

rately0 0.5 B 2 g, Side pressure if strata

g 6 inclined, some spalling 2>*§

4.- Moderatelyblocky andseamy

0 0.25 B to

0.35C

2 8 -........... ...............................O op g g

p f l

5. Very blocky, seamyand shattered

0to

0.6C

0.35 C to

1.1C

Little or no side pressure

6. Completely crushed 1.1C

Considerable side pressure. If seepage, continuous support

7. Gravel and sane 0.54Cto

1.2C

0.62Cto

1.38CDense

Side pressure Ph = 0.3y(0.5H, + Ifp)

Loose

0.94Cto

1.2 C

1.08Cto

1.38C

TJ

8. Squeezing, moderate depth

1.1Cto

2.1C

Heavy side pressure. Continuous support required

Wea

k ai

cò

here

n

1— ■ ■■ 9. Squeezing,

greatdepth2.1C to

4.5C0. Swelling up to

250ft.Use circular support. In extreme cases: yielding support

— ....................... ........ ..............1. Forrockclasses4 , 5 ,6 , 7 ,whenabovegroundwaterievel,reduceloadsby50%.

2. B is tunnel width, C = 5 + //, = width + heightof tunnel.3. 7 = density of medium.

tunneling methods using shotcrete and rockbolts. After detailed studies, Cecil (1970) concluded that Terzaghi’s classification was too general to permit an objective evaluation of rock quality and that it provided no quantitative information on theproperties of rock masses.

The main features of Terzaghi’s classification are depicted in Figure 6.1 and are listed in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. The latest revision of Terzaghi’s rock-load coefficients was presented by Rose (1982).

104 Empiricr thods o f design

1.AUFFER-PACHER CLASSIFICATION ' ■

The 1958 classification by Lauffer has its foundation in the earlier work on tunnel geology by Stini (1950) who is considered the father of the ‘Austrian School of tunneling and rock mechanics. Stini emphasized the importance of structural defects in rock masses. Lauffer proposed that the stand-up time for any active unsupported rock span is related to the various rock mass classes. An active unsupported span is the width of the tunnel or the distance from the face to the support if this is less than the tunnel width. The stand-up time is the period of time that a tunnel will stand unsupported after excavation. It should be noted that a number of factors may aflect the stand-up time, such as orientation of tunnel axis, shape of cross-section, excavation method and support method. Lauffer’s original classification is no longer used since it has been modified a number of times by other Austrian^engineers, notably by Pacher, •von Rabcewicz and Golser (1974). Pacher’s contributions were particularly notableand are well summarized by Edeling and Maidl (1980).

The main significance of the Laufler-Pacher classification is that an increase in tunnel span leads to a major reduction in the stand-up time. This means, f o r example, that while a pilot tunnel having a small span may b e s u c c e s s f u l l y constructed full lace in fair rock conditions, a large span opening in this same rock may prove impossible to support in terms of the stand-up time. Only with a system of s m a l l e r headings an benches or multiple drifts can a large cross-section tunnel be constructed m such roc

C0' i russification introduced the stand-up time and the span as r e l e v a n t parameters in determining the type and amount of tunnel support, and it has influenced the development of more recent rock mass classification systems.

D EER E ’S RO CK Q UALITY DESIGNATION ,

Deere proposed in 1964 a quantitative index based on a modified core recovery procedure which incorporates only sound pieces of core that are 100 mm or greater in

. length. This rock quality designation (RQD) has been widely used and has been found very useful for the selection of tunnel support, see Table 6.5. For RQD determination,, the International Society for Rock Mechanics recommends a core size of at least NX diameter (54 mm) drilled with double-tube diamond drilling equipment. The following relationship between the RQD index and the engineering quality of the rock was proposed by Deere (1964):

RSR (Rock Structure Rating) concept 105

RQD, percent Ro'ck quality

<25 Very poor25-50 Poor50-75 Fair75-90 Good90-100 Excellent

C o r d i n g , Hendronrand-Deere (-1972) attempted to relate the RQ D index to Terzaghi s rock load factor. They found a reasonable correlation for steel-supported tunnels but not for openings supported by rockbolts. This supports the opinion that Terzaghi s rock load concept should be limited to tunnels supported by steel sets (Cording and

Deere 1972) .Merritt (1972) found that the RQD could be of considerable value in estimating

support requirements for rock tunnels (see Table 6.5) but pointed out a limitation of theRQD index in areas where, the joints contain thin clay fillings or weathered material.The influence of clay seams and fault gouge on tunnel stability was discussed by Brekkeand Howard (1972). . . ,

Although the RQD is a quick and inexpensive index, it has limitations such as ^disregarding of joint orientation, tightness, and gouge (infilling): mateuaConsequently, while it is-a practical parameter for core quality estimation, it is nosufficient on its own to provide an adequate description of a rock mass.

RSR (ROCK STRUCTURE RATING) CONCEPT

The RSR concept, a ground support prediction model, was developed in the United States in 1972 by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner. The concept presents a quantitative method for describing the quality of a rock mass and for se ectmg I e appropriate ground support. I t was the f i r s t complete rock mass classification syste proposed since that introduced by Terzaghi in 1946. .

The RSR concept was a step forward in a number of respects fi s y, quantitative classification, unlike Terzagh.’s qualitative one; secondly, it was a rock mass classification incorporating many parameters unlike the RQD index that is limited to core quality; thirdly, it was a complete classification Having an mpu an output unlike a Laufier-type classification that relies on practical experience to decide on a rock mass class, which then gives an output in terms of the stand-up time and span

The main contribution of the RSR concept was that it introduced a rating system rock'masses. This was the sum of the weighted values of the ind ividual-parameters considered in this classification system. In other words, the relative importance o the various classification parameters could be assessed. Tim rating system was determined on the basis of case histories as well as reviews of various books and technical paper dealing with different aspects of ground support it tunneling. ••

The R S R concept considered two general categories offactors influencing rock mass behavior in tunneling: geological parameters and construction parameters. T

T ab lç6 .1 Support recommendations for tunnels in rock (6 m to

R ock q u a lity

E x cellen t1 R Q D > 90

G o o d 175 c R Q D < 9 p

F a ir50 < R Q D < 7 5

P o o r225 < R Q D < 50

Very p o o r3R Q D < 2 5 (E xc lud ing

squeezing o r swelling g round)

Very p o o r3

V ery p o o r3(S queezing o r swelling)

Ilotes:

12m d iam ete r) based o n R D Q (after D eere et al„ 1970)

T u nne ling m e th o d Airprri**;,,- ~. . ... A lte rn a tiv e s u p p o r t system s

. B oring m ach ine

C on v en tio n a l

B oring m ach ine

C o n v en tio n a l

B o ring m ach ine

C o n ventional

B oring m achine

C o n v en tio n a l

B oring m ach ine

C o n v en tio n a l

-^n'r

B o rin g m ach ine

C o n v en tio n a l

; Steel s e ts 2R o ck b o lts3

N o n e to occ. ligh t set. R ock lo a d (0 .0 -0 .2 )jB

N o n e to occ. light set. R ock load (0.0-0'.3)B

O cc. light sets to p a tte rn on 5- ft to 6-ft ctr. R ock load (0 0

. to 0.4)BL igh t sets, 5-ft to 6-ft c tr. Rock

load (0.3 to 0 .6 )5

■Light to m edium sets, 5-ft to 6-ft c tr. R ock load (0 4- 1.0 ) £

L igh t to m edium sets, 4-ft to 5-ft c tr. R ock load (0 6- 1.3)5

M edium circu la r sets on 3-ft to 4-ft c tr. R ock load (l Q- 1.6)B

M edium to heavy sets o n 2-ft to 4-ft c tr . R ock load (1 3— 2.0)5

N one to o ccasional

N one to o ccasional

O ccasiona l to p a t te rn on 5-ft to 6-ft cen ters

P a tte rn 5-ft to 6-ft cen ters

P a tte rn , 4-ft to 6-ft ctr.

P a tte rn 3-ft to 5-ft ctr.

P a tte rn , 3-ft to 5-ft ctr.

P a tte rn , 2-ft to 4-f t ctr.

Sho terete

M edium to heavy c ircu lar sets on 2-ft c tr. Rock load (1 6 to 2.2 )5

H eavy c ircu la r sets on 2-ft c tr R ock load ( 1.6 to 2.2)5

P a tte rn , 2-ft to 4-ft ctr.

P a tte rn , 3-ft cen te r

N o n e to occ. local app lica tion

N o n e to occ. iocai ap p h c a tio n 2 in. to 3 in.

N o n e to occ. local app lica tion2 in . to 3 in.

O cc. local app lica tio n 2 in . to3 in.

2 in. to 4 in. c row n

4 in. o r m o re crow n and sides

4 in. to 6 in. on cro w n and sides. C o m b in e w ith bo lts

6 in. o r m o re o n crow n and sides. C o m b in e with bo lts

6 in. o r m o re o n w hole section . C o m b in e w ith m edium sets

6 in. o r m ore , o n w hole section . C o m b in e w ith m edium to h eavy se ts

V' ft cteraVRock7laH SetS ° n 2_ PaUem' 2-ft 10 3-ft c tr. K ock load up to 250-: f t .

Very heavy c ircu lar sets on 2- P a tte rn , 2-ft to 3-ft c t r ft ctr. R o ck load up to 250- ft.

6 in. o r m o re o n w hole section. C o m b in e w ith heavy sets

6 in. o r m o re o n w hole section. C o m b in e w ith heavy sets

110 EmPirical methods o f design

The SUPP° rt m s distnbuted as follows;

Sections with steel ribs sections with rockbolts

ctlons with shotcrete Total support Total unsupported Total

147 14 3

164 26

190 sections

(

M £ % )(100.0%)

- w vu ym

^ ^ T s s i h he t h e b S Tah ^was adequate m h ° rs « oufinteraction between adiar ^ aCted in te™ '°non lyft w T ^ thatMci^ age for- d by the b0fe I f ™ . bt o * or for an a s s ^ ^ either for tunnels. Nevertheless th r mck loads were dewl , .MmPress,°n arch

« ■ ,0«, '„ (2 4 » 0? 8 rel‘ " M « * " » ' « 2 5 » I S S "

Spacing (ft) = 24W

’ t ' * 1 ' - ! « , ' , , , » , , , 6 I >

■ No correlation rn„ M u t wuiD/ft •

t = i + _ ! ! _ .

1.25 0 ri = j | ( 6 5 - R SR)where

^ : ; ^ C[etV hickn^ inches; "- ro c k load, Jb/ft2;^ = tunnel diameter, ft.

(6.2)

i?£R (Rock Structure Rf '1 concept 111

Support requirement charts have been prepared that provide a means of determining typical ground support systems based on RSR prediction as to the quality of the rock mass through which the tunnel is to be driven. Charts for 3 m, 6 m, 7 m, and 10 m diameter tunnels are available, an example being given in Figure 6.3. The three steel rib curves reflect typical sizes used for the particular tunnel size. The curves for rockbolts and shotcrete are dashed to emphasize that they are based on assumptions and were not derived from case histories. The charts are applicable to either circular or horseshoe-shaped tunnels of comparable widths.

___The RSR concept is a very useful method fox.selecting^teeJ_rib_sjipportJor rocktunnels. As with any empirical approach, one should not apply the concept beyond the range of the sufficient and reliable data used for developing it. For this reason, the RSR concept is not recommended for selection of rockbolt and shotcrete support. It should be noted that, although definitions of the classification parameters were not explicitly stated by the proposers, most of the input data needed would be normally included in a standard joint survey; however, the lack of definitions (e.g., ‘slightly faulted’ or ‘folded’ rock) may lead to some confusion.

A practical example using the RSR concept follows:Consider a 6m diameter tunnel to be driven in a slightly faulted strata featuring

medium hard granite. The joint spacing is 2 ft and the joints are open. The estimated water inflow is 250gal/min per 1000 ft of the tunnel length. The tunnel will be driven against a dip of 45 degrees and perpendicular to the jointing.

Figure 6.3. R SR concept: support chart for a 6m-diameter tunnel (after Wickham et al., 1972).

geologic parameters were: a) rock type, b) joint pattern (average spacing of joints), c) joint orientations (dip and strike), d) type of discontinuities, e) major faults, shears, and folds, f) rock material properties, and g) weathering or alteration. Some of these factors were treated separately; others were considered collectively. The authors pointed out that in some instances it would be possible to define accurately the above factors, but in others, only general approximations could be made. The construction parameters were: a) size of tunnel, b) direction of drive, and c) method of excavation.

All the above factors were grouped by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972) into three basic parameters, A, B, and C (Tables 6.6,6.7, and 6.8, respectively), which in themselves were evaluations as to the relative effect of various geological factors on the support requirements. These three parameters were as follows:

a) Parameter A: General appraisal of a rock structure is on the basis of:1. Rock type origin (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary).2. Rock hardness (hard, medium, soft, decomposed).3. Geologic structure (massive, slightly faulted/folded, moderately

faulted/folded, intensely faulted/folded).b) Parameter B: Effect of discontinuity pattern with respect to the direction of

tunnel drive is on the basis of:1. Joint spacing.2. Joint orientation (strike and dip).3. Direction of tunnel drive.

c) Parameter C: Effect of groundwater inflow is based on:1. Overall rock mass quality due to parameters A and B combined.2. Joint condition (good, fair, poor).3. Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per 1000 feet of the tunnel).

The RSR value of any tunnel section is obtained by summarizing the weightednumerical values determined for each parameter. This reflects the quality of the rock mass with respect to its need for support. Since a lesser amount of support was expected for machine-bored tunnels than when excavated by drill and blast methods, it was suggested that RSR values be adjusted for machine-bored tunnels in the manner given in Figure 6.2.

108 Emnirical methods o f design . ■

Table 6.6. Rock structure rating - Parameter A: general area geology (after Wickham et al., 1974)

IgneousMetamorphicSedimentary

Basic rock type Geological structure

Hard Med. Soft1 2 3 1 2 32 3 4

Decomp. Massive 4 4 4

Slightly faulted or folded

Moderately faulted or ! folded

. Intensely faulted or ■ folded

Type 1 30 22 15 9Type 2 27 20 13 8Type 3 24 18 12 7Type 4 19 15 . 10. 6

RSR (Rock Structure Rating) concept 1f

Table 6.7. Rock structure rating-Parameter joint pattern, direction of drivefafter Wickham et al., 1974)

Average Strike 1 to axis Strike || to axisjoint spacing

Direction of drive. Direction of drive

Both With dip Against dip Both

Dip of prominent joints* Dip of prominent joints*Flat Dipping Vertical Dipping Vertical Flat Dipping Vertical

1. Very closely jointed< 2in. _ 9 -]-] 13 - 10 12

. 2. Closely jointed 2-6 in. 13 16 19 15 17 14 14 113. Moderately jointed

6-12 in. 23 24 28 19 22 23 23 194. Moderate to blocky

1-2 ft. 30 32 36 25 28 30 28 245. Blocky to massive

2-4 ft 36 38 40 33 35 36 34 28

6. Massive > 4ft.. 40 43 45. 37 40 40 38 34

Table 6.8. Rock structure rating - Parameter C: ground water, joint'condition (after Wickham et al.,1974)

Anticipated Sum of parameters A + Bwater 13-44 45-75

■ (gpm/1000ft) Joint condition**

Good Fair Poor ' Good Fair Poor

None 22 18 12 25 22 18

Slight < 200 gpm 19 15 9 23 19 14

Moderate 200-1000 gpm 15 ' 11 7 21 16 12

Heavy > 1000 gpm 10 8 6 18 14 10

•Dip: flat: 0-20deg; dipping: 20-50deg; and vertical: 50-90deg.•»Joint condition: Good = tight or cemented; Fair = slightly weathered or altered; Poor = severely weathered, altered, or open.

It should be noted that Tables 6.6,6.7, and 6.8 are reproduced not from the original 1972 reference but from a report published two years later. The RSR ratings were changed in 1974 and the latter report represents the latest information available.

A total of 53 projects were evaluated, but since each tunnel was divided into typical geological sections, a total of 190 tunnel sections were analyzed. The RSR values were determined for each section, and actual support installations were obtained from as- built drawings.

112 Empirical methods o f design

Solution: From Table 6.6: For igneous rock of medium hardness (basic rock type 2) in slightly faulted rock, parameter A = 20. From Table 6.7: For moderate to blocky jointing, with strike perpendicular to the tunnel axis and with a drive against the dip of 45 deg, parameters = 25..From Table 6.8: For A + B = 45, poor joint condition and moderate water flow, parameter C = 12.

Thus: RSR = A + B + C = 57. From Figure 6.3, the support requirements for a 6 In ­

dia. tunnel with RSR =57 (estimated rock load 1.5kips/sq ft) will be 6H20 steel ribs at 6-ft spacing.

GEO M ECH AN ICS CLASSIFICATION (RM R SYSTEM)

The Geomechanics Classification or the rock mass rating (RMR) system was developed by Bieniawski in 1973. This engineering classification of rock masses, utilizes the following six parameters, all of which are measurable in the field and can also be obtained from borehole data:

a) Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock material;b) Rock quality designation (RQD);c) Spacing of discontinuities;d) Condition of discontinuities;e) Groundwater conditions;f) Orientation of discontinuities.

To apply the geomechanics classification, the rock mass along the tunnel route is divided into a number of structural regions, i.e., zones in which certain geological features are more or less uniform within each region. The above six classification parameters are determined for each structural region from measurements in the field and entered into the standard input data sheet as shown in Chapter 5 (Fig. 5,17).

The Geomechanics Classification is presented in Table 6.9. In Section A~of Table 6.9, the first five parameters are grouped into five ranges of values. Since the various parameters are not equally important for the overall classification of a rock mass, importance ratings are allocated to the different value ranges of the parameters, a higher rating indicating better rock mass conditions. These ratings were determined from 49 case histories (Bieniawski, 1976).

Once the classification parameters are determined, the importance ratings are assigned to each parameter according to Table 6.9, Section A. In this respect, the typical rather than the worst conditions are evaluated. Furthermore, it should be noted that the importance ratings, which are given for discontinuity spacings, apply to rock masses having three sets of discontinuities. Thus, when only two sets of discontinuities are present, a conservative assessment is obtained.

After the importance ratings of the classification parameters are established, the ratings for the five parameters listed in Section A of.Table 6.9 are summed to yield the basic rock mass rating for the structural region under consideration.

At this stage, the influence of the strike and dip of discontinuities is included by adjusting the basic rock mass rating according to Section B of Table 6.9. This step is treated separately because the influence of discontinuity orientation depends upon engineering application, e.g., tunnel (mine), slope, or foundation. It will be noted that the‘value’ of the parameter ‘discontinuity orientation’ is not given in quantitative terms

j j

Geomechanics Classification (RMR system) 113

STAND-UP T IM E, hr__ Í5~f\] jrA j C'l

' Figure6.4. Geomechanics Classification of rock masses: output for mining amr tunneling; • =^ . 5 = 0

histories of roof falls in mining; □ = tunneling roof falls; contour lines = limits of applicability.

but by qualitative descriptions such as ‘favorable’. To facilitate a decision whether strike and dip orientations are favorable or not,"reference should be made to Table 6.10, which is based on studies by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner (1972). In the case of civil engineering projects, an adjustment for discontinuity orientations will suffice. For - mining applications, other adjustments may be called for such as the stress at depth or a change in stress (Kendorski et aL, 1983).

After the adjustment for discontinuity orientations, the rock mass is classified according to Section C of Table 6.9, which groups the final (adjusted) rock mass ratings (RMR) into five rock mass classes. Note that the rock mass classes are in groups of twenty ratings each.

Next,'Section D of Table 6.9 gives the practical meaning of each rock mass class by relating it to specific engineering problems. In the case of tunnels and chambers, the output from the.Geomechanics Classification is the stand-up time and the maximum stable rock span for a given rock mass rating, as depicted in Figure 6.4.

Support load can be determined from the Geomechanics Classification as (Unal, 1983): •

„ 100-RM R n , ,, r ,P = --------- yB = yh, . (6.3

100

where P is the support load,

T ab le 6.9. G eom echan ic s C lassifica tion o f rock

A . C lassifica tion p a ram e te rs and th e ir ra tin es ,- '

PARAMETERR A N G E S o f v a l u e s

S tre n g th P o in t-lo a d

stre n gth i n d e x

U n ia x ia lco m p re ssivestre n gth

F o r this lo w .ra n g e — unia xia l c o m p r e s - sive test is p re fe rre d

5-25 1-5 < i M P a M P a M P a

2 - 4 MPain tac t ro ck

m aterial

quality RQD 9 0 % - 1 0 0 %

R ating

S p a c in g o f discontinuité

:60 m mR ating

it. V e ry ro u g h su rfa ces. N o t c o n t in u o u s N o se pe ra tlo n

U h w e a th e re d w a ll ro c k .

S lic k e n s id e d ¡surfaces,

¡G o u g e < '5 m m thick ¡ R i S e p a ra tio n 1-5 m m . j

C o n tin u o u s _______

C o n d it io n of d iscontinuities t/*er3ft g o u g e > 5 m m .th ic k

OR', ■>

S e p a ra tio n > 5 m m . C o n tin o u s

(S lig h tly ro u g h surfaces. x S e p jy ^ t io n < T m m

S lig h tly w e a th ered walls

S lig h tly ro u g h su rfa ces.S ep a ratio n < 1 m m

H ig h ly w e a th ered w alls

Rating

nfJoW per 10 m tunnel length ‘

r jo in t w a te r in P fe sa u re

m a jo r p rin c ip a l __________ stress

< 1 0 litres/m in

N o n e 10-25Utres/mii

25 - 125 lltres/rnl/iG r o u n d

w a te r

G e n e ra l co n d itio n s C o m p le te ly d ry D a m pD rip p in g F lo w in g

R ating

D p trioy r ü ö c Ä a i

\J>à çc>jh\

\ fJc- S '.e - '^ k O lC ìC w c je :X c- rv ¿Q ^yH>ty/Oriepta,tioos; .n e a d j u s t m e n t f o r .

ms adjustment for discontinuity orientations

S trik e and d ip . o rie n tatio n s b f jo ints

V e ryfavo urable F a vo u ra b le

V e ryu n fa v o u ra b le

U n fa vo ura b liT u n n e ls

R a tingsFou nd a tio n s

m ass classes d e term ined from to ta l ratings

■ R ating

C lp s s N o.

D e scrip tio n V e ry g o o d ro ckP o o r rock V e ry p o o r ro ck

D . M ea n in g o f ro ck m ass classes

A ve ra g e s ta n d -u p time

C o h e s io n of the ro ck m ass

F r ic tio n a n g le of the ro ck m a;

6 m o n th s fo r 8 m 1 week fo r 5 m1 m span

Geomechanics Classification

(R,

118 Empirical methods o f design

Geo mechanics Classification (f system) 119

Table 6.12. Adjustments to the Geomechanics Classification for mining applications

Strength of intact rock

Rating: 0-15

Discontinuity density

RQD: 0-20 Spacing: 0-20

Rating: 0-40

Discontinuitycondition

Rating: 0-30

Discontinuityorientationadjustment

Basic R M R 0-100

Blasting damage adjustment A B

0.8-1.0

GroundwaterAdjusted R M R

conditionR M R x / t^ x A jX S ...........

Rating: 0-15— max. 0.5

Support recommendations

In-situ stress & change of stress

adjustment A

design of slopes near the tunnel portals as well as allow estimates of the deformability of foundations for such structures as bridges and dams., in the case of rock foundations, the rock mass rating RM R from the Geomechanics

Classification has been related(Bieniawski, 1978) to the in situ modulus of deformation in the manner shown in Chapter 5, Figure 5.12.

The following correlation was obtained:. Em = 2 x RM R - 100 (65a)

where E u is the in-situ modulus of deformation in GPa and RM R > 50.

©

O O D

Table 6.10. Elled of discontinuity strike and dip orientations in tunneling

116 Emp! ~~nl methods o f design v ' '

¡' p i ) ! Strike perpendicular to tunnel axisDrive with dip Drive against dip O -Dip 45°—90° Dip 20°-45° Dip 45"—90' ' Dip 20°-45‘

Very favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable

Strike parallel to tunnel axis -Dip -20p—45—---------Dip-45—90s-

Irrespective of strikenip o- a -----------

Fair Very unfavorable

-Se-' h e s t e>n\.á¿ 'a s c a g e

100- R M Rm

B is the rock-load height in meters' (6.4)

whereB is the tunnel width in meters;RM R is the rock mass rating from the Geomechanics Classification; y is the density of the rock, kg/m3.

The variation of the rock-loads from equation (6.3) for various rock classes as a function of roofspan is presented in Figure 6.5.

The Geomechanics Classification provides guidelines for the selection of roof support ■ to ensure long-term stability of various rock mass classes, as given in Table 6.11. These guidelines depend on such factors as the depth below surface (in situ stress), tunnel size and shape, and the method of excavation.

It should be noted that the support measures given in Table 6.11 represent the permanent and not the primary support. Hence, additional concrete lining is not required for structural purposes. However, to ensure full structural stability it is recommended that tunnel monitoring during construction be undertaken to provide a check on stabilization of rock movements.

The Geomechanics Classification has been used extensively in mining, particularly in1 the United States. Initially, Laubscher and Taylor (1976) applied the Geomechanics Classification in asbestos mines in Africa specifically to assess cavability of ore, while Ferguson (1979) extended this classification to mining tunnels and haulages. Since mining is a dynamic process, additional adjustments to the classification parameters were introduced, such as in-situ stresses, as shown in Table 6.12. Most recently, the Geomechanics Classification was applied to coal mining in the United States (Bieniawski etal., 1980, Newman, 1981, Unai, 1983) and in India (Ghose and Raju, 1981) as well as to hard rock mining in the USA (Cummings et aL, 1982, Kendorski et aL, 1983). Further details of mining applications are given in Chapter 10 both for hard-rock mining and coal mining.

The Geomechanics Classification is also applicable to rock foundations (Bieniawski and Orr, 1976) and slopes (Steffen, 1976). This is a useful feature that can assist with the

ass

ezaC

^ <-

OA/6

. »c

::

aP

or/

v

RO

CK

LOAD

PE

R UN

IT

LEN

GTH

OF

TU

NN

EL

,

k^J

/m

1 6000

14000

-----

12000

10000

8000

6 000

4 0 0 0

2000

Geomechanics Classification (RMR system)

10 15 2 0 25

S PA N , m

Figure 6.5. Variation of rock-load as a function of roof span in different rock classes in the Geomechanics Classification (after Unal, 1983). .

122 Empirical methods of design

Table 6,13. Clarification ratings for Q-systera (after Barton, 1976)

1. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter RQDw — ,— n y u

Rock quality designation C o V flisA -A. Very poor " (RQD, % )

B. Poor 0-25C. Fair 25-50

D. Good 50-75E. Excellent 75-90_

. • 90-100

. 2. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter ./„

Joint set numberA. Massive, no or few joints WB. One joint set 0.5-1.0C. One joint set plus random 2D. Two joint sets 3E. Two joint sets plus random -4~F. Three joint sets 6G. Three joint sets plus random 9H. Four or more joint sets, random, heavily jointed 12

“sugar-cube" etc.J. Crushed rock, earthlike • 15

20Note:(i) For intersections use (3.0 x J ).(ii) For portals use (2.0 x J J

3: 'Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J,

Joint roughness numbera) Rock wall contact andb) Rock wall contact before 10cm shear

A. Discontinuous joints C/JB- Rough or irregular, undulating 4C. Smooth, undulating ^D. Slickensided, undulating -?.■E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5F. Smooth, planar. .ii?G. Slickensided, planar "• 1,0 •"

; : ■ 0.5Note:

(i) ^ t i o ^ r e f o to small scale features and intennediate scale features, in that order c) No rock wall contact when sheared

H : Z °ne containing clay minerals thick enough to prevent rock wall contact ' j 0J. Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone thick enough to prevent rock wall contact To

Note:

(ii) Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is greater than 3 m.

o rlnM ed forCL i L Um s t !e i inar Sl'CkCnsided j ° inis havinS P™vided the lineations are

Table 6.13 (continued)

Qr system 123

4. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J a

Joint alteration numbera) Rock wall contact

A. Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling i.e. quartz orepidete-

B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining onlyC. Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral coatings, sandy

_particles,-day-free-disintegrated-roek-tec;---------- ---------------~2 0

V.)

0.751.0

D. Silty-, or sandy-clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-soft.) 3.0E. Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e. kaolinite or mica.

Also chlorite, talc, gypsum, graphite etc., and small quantities of ■ swelling clays. 40

b) Rock wall contact before 10cm shearF. Sandy particles', clay-free disintegrated rock etc. 4 0 ■G. Strongly oveNconsoIidated non-softening clay mineral fillings (continu­

ous, but < 5 mm thickness) gQH. Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings

(continuous but < 5 mm thickness) gpJ. Swelling-clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite (continuous, but <5 mm

thickness). Value of J a depends on percent of swelling clay-size particles, and access to water etc. g _ j2

c) No rock wall contact when sheared K. Zones or bands of disintegrated

or crushed rock and clay (see 6 8 orG, H, J for description of clay condition) g _ j2

L. Zones or bands of silty- or sandy-clay, small clay fraction (non-softening) 5.0 M. Thick, continuous zones or

bands of clay (see G, H, J for jq 13description of clay condition) or 13-20 '

5. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J w

Joint water reduction factor ( j j

A. Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e. < 5 1/miu. locally ; qB. Medium inflow or pressure, occasional outwash of joint fillings 0.66C. Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled joints 0.5D. Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint fillings 0.3E. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure at blasting, decaying with '. ■

!ii;le . . . 0.2-O.i r . Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure continuing without notice­

able, decay CU 0.05

Note:

(i) Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase J w if drainage measures are installed.(ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.

6. Description and ratings for parameter SRF

Stress reduction factora) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock mass when

tunnel is excavated.' -■A. Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock,

very loose surrounding rock (any depth)

W,)(approx)

H '(25-35°)

(25-^30°)-----(20-25°)

(8-16°)

(25-30°)

(16-24°)-

'.(12-16°)

(6- 12°)

(6-24°)H

(6-24°)

Apprux. water pres. (kg/cm2) <1 1-2.5

2.5-102.5-10

>10

>10

(SRF)

10

I Kihplrlcal mctlwils of design

' "Mn '■ " * :l ,“ m°*,lon r,lln “' r° r Q-IJWom (after Barton, 1976)

I I>o«crl,.Udnl and ratings for the parameter RQD

Rock quality designation ( V t^ o r C oYd îsAA. Vciy poor ■ (RQD, % )II, Poor 0-25C, Fair 25-50D. Good 50-75

nxccllcnt 75-9090-100

'> y ■ 0 ). v t,' v c b ài-.

(«) RQD intervals of 5, i.e. 100, 95,^ e ^ c . Î r ^ s uffic^nt"yS a r a r a T ™ ' Va'Ue ^ “ T * ‘° eVSlUate Q'Ofc\\\£c'C<û

2. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J n

Joint set numberA. Massive, no or few joints (*UB. One joint set 0.5-1.0 c. One joint set plus random 2D. Two joint sets 3E. Two joint sets plus random -4~F. Three joint sets 6G. Three joint sets plus random 9 -H. Four or more joint sets, random, heavily join ted 12

sugar-cube" etc.J. Crushed rock, earthlike • . 15

.. 20Note:W For intersections use (3.0 x J ).(ii) For portals use (2.0 x J J

-3 : Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J r ' ............' ..................

Joint roughness numbera) Rock wall contact andb) Rock wall contact before 10cm shear

A. Discontinuous joints (/r)B. Rough or irregular, undulating 4C. Smooth, undulating 3D. Slickensided, undulating .E. Rough or irregular, planar 1.5

. F. Smooth planar.. ■ 1.5G. Slickensided, planar "• 1,0' •• •

' 0.5Note:

* ? N S ; r r r ,“ 7 - ^ <*•* - -

f : s a l t v T 8 clay T r * “ eD0Ugil t0 pr™ ' roct m|1 “ w ioJ. Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone thick enough to prevent rock wall contact ¡0

Note:

2 ' f S l ‘hC.Dlean,Spfac:r,g, ° f the relevanti oint « « greater than 3m.

]-system 12 3 '

Table 6.13 (continued)

4. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J 0

Joint alteration number i j <.a) Rock wall contact

A. Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling i.e. quartz orepldete- ' . Q ? j

B. Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only jq

C. Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral costings, sandy-------i a« icfes,-day-free-dismtegrated-roek-tec:---------- ----------------20_______

D. Silty-, or sandy-clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-soft.) 3 0E. Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e. kaolinite or mica.

Also chlorite, talc, gypsum, graphite etc., and small quantities of swelling clays, 40

b) Rock wall contact before 10 cm shearF. Sandy particles’, clay-free disintegrated rock etc. ' 40 ■G. Strongly over-consolidated non-softening clay mineral fillings (continu­

ous, but < 5 mm thickness) ggH. Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay mineral fillings

(continuous but < 5 mm thickness) 80 ' ’J. Swelling-clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite (continuous, but <5 mm

thickness). Value of J , depends on percent of swelling clay-size particles, and access to water etc. g_(2

c) No rock wall contact when sheared K. Zones or bands of disintegrated

or crushed rock and clay (see 6 8 orG, H, J for description of clay condition) g jp

L. Zones or bands of silty-or sandy-clay, small clay fraction (non-softening) 5.0 M. Thick, continuous zones or

bands of clay (see G, H, J for !0 13description of clay condition) or 13-20 '

5. Descriptions and ratings for the parameter J n.

Joint water reduction factor

A. Dry excavations or minor inflow, i.e. < 5 l/min. locallyB. Medium inflow or pressure, occasional outwash of joint fillingsC. Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled jointsD. Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint fillingsE. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure at blasting, decaying with

time' 'F. Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure continuing without notice-

able, decay

Note: : .

(1) Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase J w if drainage measures are installed.(ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.

6. Description and ratings for parameter SRF

Stress reduction factora) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock mass when

tunnel is excavated/A. Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock,

very loose surrounding rock (any depth)

( J J

1.00 . 6 6 -

0.50.3

0 .2— 0.1

0.1-0.05

W,)(approx.)

B ’(25-35°)

“(25-30°)----(20-25°)

(8-16°)

(25-30°)

(16-24°)-

’ (12-16°)

(6- 12°)

(6-24°)B

(6-24°)

Approx. water pres. (kg/cm2) <1 1-2.5

2.5-102.5-10

> 10

> 10

(SRF)

10

Table 6.13 (continued)

124 E n r !-ical methods o f design

B. Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (deptb ofexcavation <, 50 m)

C. Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock (depth of.excavation > 50 m)

D. Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), ioose surrounding rock (any depth) 7 iE. Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free) (depth of excavation < 50 m) 5ÆF. Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free)'(depth of excavation > 50 m) 2.5-G. Loose open joints, heavily jointed or ‘sugar cube’ etc. (any depth)

2.5

5.0

• Note:" . . .(i) Reduce these' values of SR Fby 25-50% if the relevant shear zones only influence but do not intersect theexcavation.

b) Competent rock, rock stress problems«■>!

H. Low stress, near surface > 200I Medium stress 200-10K. High stress, very tight structure (usually favorable to

stability, may be unfavorable for wall stability) 10-5L. Mild rockburst (massive rock) 5-2.5M. Heavy rockburst (massive rock) <2.5-

cJO l (SRF)>13 2.5 ‘13-0.66 1.0

0.66-.33 ■ 0.5-2■ 0.33—.16 5-10

<0.16 10-20

10, reduce a( and c. to 0.8 c(Note:(ii) For strongly anisotropic virgin stress field (if measured): when 5 < a and 0.8 <7,. When <j,/<73 > 10, reduce <rc and a, to 0.6 a, and 0.6 a„ where: <sc = unconlined compression strength, and c, = tensile strength (point load) and <r, and cr3 are the major and minor principal stresses.(iii) Few case records available where depth of crown below surface is less than span width. Suggest SRF increase from 2.5 to 5 for such cases (see H).

c) Squeezing rock: plastic flow of incompetent rock under the influence of high rock pressure (SRF)N. Mild squeezing rock pressure 5 10O. Heavy squeezing rock pressure 10 ®

d) Swelling rock: chemical swelling activity depending on presence of water- P, -Mild.swelling-rock pressure---- ~ -- - ---------- — ---- ------ --- - -

R. Heavy swelling rock pressure 10-15

Additional notes on the use of Table 6.13

When making estimates of the rock mass quality (Q) the following guidelines should be followed, in additionto the notes listed above: ' .

1. When borecore is unavailable, RQD can be estimated from the number of joints per unit volume, in which the number of joints per meter for each join t set are added. A simple relation can be used to convert thisnumber to RQD for the case of clay-free rock masses:

RQD = 115 -3.3 ./„(approx.)where

; „ = total number of joints per m3;(RQD = 100 for J„< 4.5)

2. The parameter J „ representing the number of joint sets will often be affected by foliation, schistocity,■ slately cleavage or bedding, etc. If strongly developed these parallel ‘joints’ should obviously be counted as a

complete joint set. However, if there are few ‘joints’ visible, or only occasional breaks in borecore due to these features, then it will be more appropriate to count them as 'random joints’ when evaluating J„.

3. The parameters f and J a (representing shear strength) should be relevant to the weakest significant joint set or clay filled discontinuity in the given zone. However, if the joint set or discontinuity with the minimum value of ( J J J . ) is favorably oriented for stability, then a second, less favorably oriented joint set or discontinuity may sometimes be of more significance, and its higher value of J J J , should be used when evaluating Q. The value of ( J J J , ) should in fact relate to the surface most likely to allow failure to initiate.

The ESR is related to the use for which the excavation is intended and the degrSi safety demanded, as shown below.

Excavation category ESR No. of cases

3-5 2A. Temporary mine openingsB Vertical shafts:

. 2 5 -C ircular sectionrectangular/square section 2.0

C. Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for i.6--------hydro power-(exGltiding-hig-h«ptess.ure

penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts, and headings for large excavations

D. Storage rooms, water treatment plants, minorhighway-and railroad tunnels, surge chambers,

i " “ ,r£ .i-p/C i iw '© f a & c><e sov^jem c & access tunnels. ■E. Power, stations, major highway or railroad 1.0

tunnels, civil defense chambers, portals, inter­s e c t i o n s * ^ « ^ cV W W OYij

F. Underground nuclear power stations, 0.8 railroad stations, factories

The relationship between the index Q and the equivalent dimension "I an nv..li»iidetermines the appropriate support measures. Barton etal.(19 M) i....1,1 ■ "ncategories which pve estimates of permanent support. Fo. i - v ’"'I’I" "determination, either Q is increased to 5Q or ESR is increased to i 1 1of the support measures using the Q-system, the reader should.... .ill ..............paper by Barton et al. (1974) or the book by Hoek and Brown ( l™ l)

-The maximum unsupported span can be obtained as follow»

Maximum span (unsupported) = 2(ESR)Q0'4

The relationship between the Q value and the permanent .......... '*«' ,calculated from the following equation:

■P = % - w ( U )* r o o f j ^

If the number of jointfets is less than three, the equation is cxpirv.nl .r.

n _2 Jm - J- IQ -W■roof 3 a J r V

( 6.9)

4 When a rock mass contains clay, the factor SRF appropriate to.loosening I " ....... nln'uld be cviluited.

should be made for those rocks that deteriorate when exposed to moist or saturated condition,

x \ A c k * c c X r- ( . o c n à o C

128 Empirical methods o f design

Step etermine the ratings of the six classification parameters from Table 6.13 and calculate the Q value from equation (6.6).

Step 4: Select the excavation support ratio (ESR)Step 5: Determine the support measures for the Q value and the tunnel span/ESR

ratio from a paper by Barton et al. (1974).Step 6: Estimate the possible maximum unsupported span from equation (6.7). Step 7; For comparison purposes, determine the support pressure from equation

(6.8) or (6.9).A correlation has been provided between the RMR and the Q-yalue (Bieniawski,

1976). A total of 117 case histories were analyzed involving 68 Scandinavian cases, 28 "South African cases,lmcr2 Pother documented case historiesTrom the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. The results are plotted in Figure 6.6 from which it will be seen that the following relationship is applicable: .

RM R = 9 In Q + 44 (6.10)

Rutledge (1978) determined in New'Zealand the following correlations between the three classification systems: '

RM R = 13.5logQ + 43 (standard deviation =9.4) (6.11)

RSR = 0.77 RM R + 12.4 (standard deviation = 8.9) (6.12)

RSR = 13.3 logQ + 46.5 '• (standard deviation = 7.0) (6.13)

A comparison of the stand-up time and the maximum unsupported span, as shown in Figure 6.7 reveals that the Geomechanics Classification is more conservative than the Q-system, which is a reflection of the different tunneling practice in Scandinavia based on generally excellent rock and long experience in tunneling.

A comparison of the support recommendations by six different classification systems is given in Table 6.14. This study was made (Bieniawski, 1976) during the construction of a-railroad-tunnel described by Bieniawski'and“Maschek,i975:The- tunnel, 5.5 m wide and 3.8 km long, was characterized by highly variable rock

' conditions - from very poor to very good. In addition, a one-year tunnel-monitoring program featuring 16 measuring stations facilitated a comparison between the classification ratings of rock conditions with the amount of rock movement, the rate of face advance, and the support used. This project thus afforded an ideal opportunity for comparing the various classification systems.

More recently, Moreno Tallon (1982) made a detailed comparisonof the rock mass classification schemes in a tunnel in Spain.

Although the above comparisons are interesting and useful, it is believed that one should not necessarily rely on any one classification system but should conduct a ■sensitivity analysis and cross-check the findings from one classification with another. This would enable a better ‘feel’ for the rock mass.

RECEN T D EVELO PM EN TS

Looking back over the past ten years, three positive aspects are evident:I. No matter what classification system is used, the very process of rock

Recent developments tzy

STAND UP TIME, hours

Figure 6 7. Comparison between stand-up times for unsupported excavation spans predicted by the Q- system, R M R and Austrian rock mass, classification systems. Ratings are for the Geomechamcs

Classification (RM R).

VERY GOOD ROCK

Q> 100

o.<£r sii 31 I < » « 10ROCK MASS QUALITY Q

Figure 6.6. Correlation between Geomechanics Classification and Q-system.

T a b le 6.14. C o m p ariso n o f ro ck m ass classifica tions applied a t

G eom echan ics C lassifica tion (Bieniawsfci, 1973) !

L o c a lity C lass S u p p o rt

a ra ilro ad tunne l (w id th 5.5 m)

Q -system (Barton* 1974)

C lass

H .6

H 2

H 3

H 5

IV ery goo d ro ck

R M R = 83IIG o o d ro ck

R M R = 67

IIIF a ir rock

R M R = 52

IVP o o r rock

R M R = 29

V ery p o o r rock R M R = 1 5

S u p p o rt

O ccasiona l spo t b o lting

Locally , g ro u te d bo lts(20 m m dia .) sp aced 2 - 2.5 m, (length 2.5 m p lu s m esh ;

, sh o tcre te 50 m m th ick . ; if req.

S ystem a tic g ro u ted b o lts ; (spaced 1.5-2 m , leng th 3 m plu s m esh an d 100 m m thick

J sh o tc re te i ' .S ystem a tic g ro u te d bo lts

spaced 1- 1.5 m, leng th 3 m,m esh p lus 100-150 m m sho tcre te (ribs a t I .5 m)

S ystem atic g rou ted bo ltsspaced 0 .7-1 m . leng th 3.5 m, 1 5 0 -2 0 0 m m sh o tc re te and m esh p lus m ed ium steelribs at 0 .7m . C losed

. invert

R S R c lassif ica tio n (W ickham , 1974)

C lass S u p p o r tG o o d rock S po t bolting only Q = 33.0

G o o d rock S ystem atic g ro u te d bo lts ^ “ 5 <20 m m dia.) spaced 1 m - 2 m •

length 2.8 m

RSR = 68 B o lts a t 2 r

R S R = iO M e d iu m rib s a t 2 m

F a ir rock Q = 8.5

P o o r rock Q — 1.5

S ystem atic g ro u te d boltsspaced 1.5 m, leng th 2.8 m,-. and m esh

S h o tc re te only : 7 5 -1 0 0 m m th ick o r bolts a t 1 m,2 0 -3 0 m m sh o tc re te .and m esh

R S R = ; 7 R ibs 6H 2 0 a t 1.7m

RSR = 5 2 R ib s 6 H 2 0 at 1.2 r

EXtDooely t, S ho tcre te onl^ 7 5 -1 0 0 m m p o o r rock thick o r ten sioned bolts

at 1 m plus 5 0 -7 5 m m: . sh o tc re te and m esh

Q = 0.09.R SR = 25 N /A

R Q D classification (D eere, 1970)

H 6

H 4

Excellent R Q D > 9 0

G o o dR Q D ; 75-90

F a ir to good-^S8-Sr=í«¡_

O ccasio n a l bo lts only

B o lts 25 m m dia., 2 m - 3 m long spaced 1.5 - 1.8 m and som e m esh o r 5 0 -7 5 sho tcre te o r ligh t ribs

A ustrian classification (P acher, 1974) 'F re n c h c,

IStable

IIO ver­

b reak ing

Bolts 26 m m dia., 1.5 m long spaced 1.5 m in ro o f plus w ire m esh

B olts 2 - 3 m long spaced 2—2 .5m , sho tcre te 5 0 -1 0 0 m m w ith m esh

ass ifica tio n (Louis, 1974)

H 3

H 5

F a ir to good R Q D ; 5 0 -9 0

P o o rR Q D : 2 5 -5 0

V ery p o o r R Q D < 2 5

o r l ig h t r ib s

B olts 2 m -3 m Jong a t 0 .9 -1 m ■ mplus m esh o r 5 0 -1 0 0 m m F rac tu redsh o tc re te o r ligh t/m ed ium ■ to very

■ 'lb s at 1.5m 1 fractu red

.....-Per/o-bo/rà

50*m m sh o tc re te o r 3 m lo n g bo lts a t 3.1 m

100 m m sh o tc re te with m esh a n d 3 m bolts a t 2.8 m

Bolts 2 m - 3 m long a t 0 .6 -1 .2 m w ith m esh o r 150 m m sh o t­cre te w ith bo lts a t 1.5 m o r m ed ium to heavy ribs

IVStressed

rock

150 m m sho tcre te all a ro u n d p lus i V m ed ium to heavy c ircu la r ^Very ribs a t 0 .6 m cen ters w ith ! stressed lagg ing | rock

P erfo -b o lts 2 6 m m dia., 3 - 4 m long spaced 2 m plus 150 m m sh o tc re te p lus wire m esh a n d stee l a rches T H 16 spaced 1.5 m

P erfo -bo lts 4 m long, spaced 1 m by 2 m plus 200 m m sh o tc re te plus m esh p lus steel a rches TH 21 spaced 1 m . C o ncre te lin ing 300 m m

P erfo -b o lts 4 m long spaced 1 m plus 250 m m sho tcre te p lu s m esh and steel a rches ' T H 2 9 spaced 0.75 m.C losed invert. C o n cre te lin ing 5 0 0 m m

D

150m m sh o tc re te with m esh and 3 m bo lts a t 2 .5m

210 m m sh o tc re te w ith m esh and 3 m bolts a t 2 m and steel r ib s

240 m m shotcrfcte with m esh an d 3 m bo lts a t 1.7 m ; steel r ib s a t 1.2 m.C losed invert

130 Em

pirical methods of design

128 Empirical methods oj design

Step etermine the ratings of the six classification parameters from Table 6.13 and calculate the Q value from equation (6.6).

Step 4: Select the excavation support ratio (ESR)Step 5: Determine the support measures for the Q value and the tunnel span/ESR

ratio from a paper by Barton et al. (1974). -Step 6: Estimate the possible maximum unsupported span from equation (6.7).Step 7: For comparison purposes, determine the support pressure from equation

(6.8) or (6.9).A correlation has been provided between the RMR and the Q-yalue (Bieniawski,

1976). A total of 117 case histories were analyzed involving 68 Scandinavian cases, 28 'SoufiTAfrican cases,lindTl otheT3ocumente3’case histories fromlFe dinted States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. The results are plotted in Figure 6.6 from which it will be seen that the following relationship is applicable: .

RM R = 9 In Q 4- 44 (6.10)

Rutledge (1978) determined in New Zealand the following correlations between the three classification systems: • '

R M R = 13.5logQ + 43 (standard deviation =9.4) (6.11)

RSR = 0.77 RM R + 12.4 (standard deviation = 8.9) (6.12)

RSR = 13.3 logQ +46.5: (standard deviation = 7.0) (6.13)

A comparison of the stand-up time and the maximum unsupported span, as shown in Figure 6.7 reveals that the Geomechanics Classification is more conservative than the Q-system, which is a reflection of the different tunneling practice in Scandinavia based on generally excellent rock and long experience in tunneling.

A comparison of the support recommendations by six different classification systems is given in Table 6.14. This study was made (Bieniawski, 1976) during the construction of a-railroad-tunnel described by Bieniawski"and Maschek, 1975: The - tunnel, 5.5 m wide and 3.8 km long, was characterized by highly variable rock conditions - from very poor to very good. In addition, a one-year tunnel-monitoring program featuring 16 measuring stations facilitated a comparison between the classification ratings of rock conditions with the amount of rock movement, the rate of face advance, and the support used. This project thus afforded an ideal opportunity for comparing the various classification systems.

More recently, Moreno Tallon (1982) made a detailed comparison of the rock mass classification schemes in a tunnel in Spain.

Although the above comparisons are interesting and useful, it is believed that one should not necessarily rely on any one classification system but should conduct a ■sensitivity analysis and cross-check the findings from one classification with another. This would enable a better ‘feel’ for the rock mass.

RECEN T D EVELO PM EN TS

Looking back over the past ten years, three positive aspects are evident:1. No matter what classification system is- useci, the very process of rock

Recent developments 12y

ROCK MASS QUALITY Q

Figure 6.6. Correlation between Geomechanics Classification and Q-system.

Figure 6.7. Comparison between stand-up times for unsupported excavation spans predictedlb)Mhe Q- system, R M R and. Austrian rock mass, classification systems. Ratings are for the Geomechamcs

Classification (RM R).

134 Empirical methods o f design

...I E,nR o i Proc 2 2 L 3nd G ' R ° f EmPiri“ ' D« S " Methods for Tunnels in

p „ „ ' ' ‘h RapUt E x c a m Tunneling Con/., A IME, New York, 1979 Vol 1 dd 6R3 Z

m * £ 8 r m ° f b' ° Ck Cavi" g a C0mplex e™ ,onm tal Mining Magazine, Vol. 140,

Frar ™ w t A " ,0bJSerVat‘0nal appr0ach “ >«“ « * « ¡0 » and con.ro! of rock tunnel lining. Shotcrete for Ground Support, Amer. Concrete Inst. PubL SP-54, 1977 pn 556-596

G hofind ,a ' coal-measures! * * * ^ b M ^ ~pp. 422-427. ** n " P' ° n R° cii Mec MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1981,

i ^ u ^ .astaution . o ^ inl„ g_and

H °t „ d o n ,n?98i 5 W27pE T ' InStitUlioi> ° [ M-ing and Metallurgy,

tMethods), Pergamon, New York, 1981,211 p amC'm M m ' Tes,lng'andMonitoring(ISRM Suggested

pp. 293-308 Si ,Cah° n SySlem f° r exravatl0n ln natural materials. S. Afr. Civil Engr., July 1982,

u i Ks : 0s s s r ^ &—^ W a l e r W l t a W i W » “ * ^ ^ ° f RaP''d Wa‘ef PraSUre F t a “ali™ Alined

of Mining Engineers, N e w a rk '’W e 'p p . 4“ " ^ r " " n e %

U U 197tppD37H-50laSS diStinCti0" r° Ck maSSeS- C° aL G M a"d BaSe Mb™ W S - W “ , Vol 23, No. 6,

- fur den Stollenb.u, Geologie unrt BauWesen, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1958,

■

' M en n n ^ a ^ Z AediCtbn i ° r UndCr6r0“ nd EXCaVa,i0nS' * * * » « * » ■ WM b i r i i r r ncan r ution °r Mming En as' New- Y°rk’ i97* 115-132.

constmction L ° 7 T ° l 8e“ nics classification schemes in tunnelpp. 241-146!' tunneling 82 Conference, institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 1982,

. . . ° f ^ * * * * *

° r S S r ■ ■ ■

Reference '5

Olivier, H. J. A new engineering-geological rock durability classification. Engineering Geobgy, Vol. 14,1979, pp. 255-279.

Pacher, F., Rabcevvicz, L. and Golser, J. Zum der seitigen Stand der Gebirgsklassifizierung in Stollen-und Tunnelbau. Proceedings, X X II Geomechanics Colloquium, Salzburg, 1974, pp. 51—58.

Protodyakonov,M. M. fCtessifikacija Gorotworu (originally in Russian), translated into French, Tunnels at Ouvrages Souterrains, VoL 1, No. 1, 1974, pp. 31-34.

Rose, D. Revising Terzaghis tunnel rock load coefficients. Proc,'23rd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, AIME, New York, 1982, pp. 953-960.

Rutledge, J. C. and Preston, R. L. Experience with Engineering Classifications of Rock for the Prediction of Tunnel Support, Proceedings, International Tunneling Symposium, Tokyo, 1978, .pp. A-3-l;7.

Schneider, B. Ground Classification for Tunnel Excavation. Tunnels and Tunneling, July 1980, pp. 59-62.Selmer^Oisen, RT~Snd BrocH^~E Generaf Design Pr^cedUre iofTUnderpound^Openiffgs'in^NoTwa^r

Proceedings, F irst International Conference on Storage in ExC'dvated.Rock Caverns, ITA, Stockholm, 1977, pp. 219-226.' ' ; -

Serafim, J. L. and Pereira, J. P. Considerations of the Geomechanics Classification of Bieniawski. Proc. Int. Symp. on Engng Geol. and Underground Constr., LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, 1983.

Steffen, 0 . K. HL Research and development needs in data collection for rock engineering. Exploration for Rock Engineering, ed. Z,T. Bieniawski, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1976, Vol. 2, pp. 93-104.

Stini, I. Tunnelbaugeologie. Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 1950, 336 p.Terzaghi, K. Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Support Rock Tunneling, with Steel Supports, eds. R. V.

Proctor and T. White, Commercial Shearing Co., Youngstown, Ohio, 1946, pp. 15-99.Unal, E. Design Guidelinfs and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine Roofs. Ph.D. Thesis, The

Pennsylvania Siate University, 1983.Unrug, K. and Szwilski, A. 2. Influence of strata control parameters on longwall mining desirig. Proc. 21s/

U S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, Mo., 1980, pp. 720-728..Wickham, G. E., Tiedemaiin, H. R. and Skinner, E. H. Support Determination Based on Geologic

Predictions. Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, A IM E, New York, 1972, pp. 43-64.

Wickham, G. E., Tiiedemann, H. R. and Skinner, E. H. Ground Support Prediction Model - RSR Concept. Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, A IM E, New York, 1974, pp. 691-707.

•2 Empirical methods of design

Iclassification enables the designer to gain a better understanding of the influence of the various geologic parameters in the overall rock mass behavior and, hence, gain a better appreciation of all the factors involved in the engineering problem. This leads to better engineering judgment. Consequently, it does not really matter that there is no general agreement on a single rock classification system; it is better to try two or more systems and, through a parametric study, obtain a better ‘feel’ for the rock mass.

2. Once a few rock classification systems have been applied to a given project, it may be found that a simplified classification, particularly suited for that project, will evolve. Examples of this approach are the Dinorwic Scheme in Wales and the Washington

------Metro~irthe-Uriited "States: ~ ~3. Quite apart from the engineering benefits such as design data, rock classifications

have been particularly successful in ensuring better communication on the project. This leads to a high morale as well as economical and technical benefits.

Use of borehole data

A trend has emerged to select engineering geological parameters on the basis of ■ borehole data alone which should be sufficient for rock mass classification purposes without the need for tests in adits or pilot tunnels. As a result of the availability of more advanced coring techniques such as directional drilling and oriented core sampling as well as both borehole and core logging procedures, rock mass classifications can be conducted on the basis of input data from boreholes alone (Cameron-Clarke and Budavari, 1981).

Assessing the strength of rock masses

As discussed in Chapter 5, Hoek and Brown (1980) recently proposed a method for the -prediction of rock mass-strength involving, rock-mass classifications (see Table 5.8).- To enable application of the Hoek-Brown criterion to coal mining, Bieniawski and Bauer (1981) prepared a list of appropriate m and s values for coal.

Application in mining

Recently, major advances were made in the use of rock mass classifications in coal mining (Unal, 1983, Ghose and Raju, 1981, Bieniawski et al., 1980) and in hard rock (metal) mining (Cummings et al., 1982, Keffiiorski et al., 1983). Detailed examples of these. developments are given in Chapter 10. In longwall mining, the rock mass classification approach has been utilized for assessment of roof spans and rock

■ cavability (Unrug and Szwilski, 1980, Kidybinski, 1979).

REFERENCES

Baczynski, N. Rock Mass Characterization and ’ Its Application to Assessment of Unsupported Underground Openings. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1980, 233 p.

Barton, C. M. A geotechnical analysis of rock structure and fabric in the C.S. A. Mine, Geomechanics Paper No. 24, CSIRO, Australia, 1977, pp. 1-30.

Barton, N. Recent Experience with the Q-system for Tunnel Support. Proceedings Sywpa^tkcplorat,on for Rock Engineering ed. Z. T. Bieniawski, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 3976, Vol. l.p p W f 11 ■

Barton, N „ Lien, R. and Lunde, J. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Deslgn of Tunne

Support. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4,1974, pp. 183-236. ¡„^¡tutionBieniawski, Z. T. Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses. Transactions, South African Institution

of Civil Engineers, Vol. 15, No. 12,1973, pp. 335-344. ■ p . „ . j : . . . .Bieniawski, Z T Geomechanics Classification of rock masses and its application in mnadmg^Proceedmgs,

Third International Congress Rock Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics Denver, Colo,

1974, Vol. n A, pp. 27-31 , ,,Bieniawski Z. T.The Point-Load Test in Geotechnical Practice. Engineering Geology, Vol. 9, 1975, pp. 11. Bieniawski, Z.T. Rock mass classifications in rock engineering, Proceeding, 0 3 , urn on Exploration for

RocLEngineedng^Z J . J t ie n ja w sk j^ A B a t o a Rotterdam^ , 6, pp. 97--1C6 Bieniawski, Z. T. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories. Int. J . RockJftch.

Min Sci Vol. 15,1978, pp. 237-248.Bieniawski, Z. T. Tuhnel Design by Rock Mass Classifications. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterway

Experiment Station, Technical Report, GL-79-19, September 1979, 133 p. _ rrm nm iBieniawski, Z T. The Geomechanics Classification in rock engineering apphca ions. Proc 4ifi Int. Congress

Beharioi ol Rock T— * ^ C » ™ « » .

Classification Proc 12th Int. Congr. on Large Dams, ICOLD, Mexico City, 1976, pp.Bieniawski, Z .T , Rafia, F. and Newman, D. A. Ground »«tro! mvestiga tionsforassess m e , t of roof

conditions incoal mines. Proc. 21st U.S. Symposium on Rock Meclmics, Rolla, Mo., A IM E, 1980, p.

Ere“ ' T L and Howard, T. Stability Problems Caused by Seams and Faults. Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American Institution of Mining Engineers, New York,

Cameron-Clarke, I. S. and Budavari, S. Correlation of rock mass classification parameters obtained from borecore and in situ observations. Engineering Geology, Vol. 17, 198., pp. 19 53.

Cecil O. S. Correlation of Rockbolts-Shotcrete Support and rock Quality Parameters ,n ScandinavianTunnpk Ph DThesis-University- of-Illinois,JJ.rhana., J970, 414p.------- ------ --- _

Coates, D. F. Classification oi Rock for Rock Mechanics, International Journal of Rock Mechanics an

C o S ' f f a i d o t i D^U.PRock!Tunnel Supports and Field Measurements. Proceedings Rap^d Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American Institution of Mining Engineers, New York, 1972,

C o rd in & E f Hendron, A. J. and Deere, D. U. Rock Engineering for Underground Caverns.J S o„ U n ro u n d Rock Chambers, American Society of Civil Engineers, Pheomx, Ar.ona,

C u i a t ^ d o r s k i , F. S. and Bieniawski, Z. T. C a v i n g M i n e Rock Mass C ^ c a ^ p p o r tEstimation U S Bureau of Mines Contract No. J0100103, Engineers International, 982, 195 p.

Deere, D.U. Technical Description or Rock Cores for Engineer^ Purposes, Rock Mechanics

Engineering Geology, VoL 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 17-22. p. ...M\ q r;Deere, D. U. G eo log ica l C o n s id e ra tio n s . Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice ,^ . R. G . S ta g e O . C.

7ienkiewicz. John Wiley & Sons, London, 1968, pp. 1-20.

' ManualEM 1110-2-2901, Washington, DC, January 15,1978. See also ETL-1110-2-.83, May 31, . Edeling, H. and Maidl, B. Tunnelling Support Methods and t e r possible App cation to Machine

Excavation in Coal Mining. P ro c . Eurotunnel ’80, Inst. Min. Metal!., London, 1980, pp. 120-1 .

CHAPTER 7

Observational methods of design

Experimental science does not receive truth from supedarscknce^she is the mistress and other sciences are the servants.

Roger Bacon

Designing underground mining and tunneling excavations by observational methods involves interpretations of monitoring data during construction. Essentially, therefore, an observational method of design is a ‘design as you go’ method but in some cases a whole philosophy has been attached to an observational method making it distinct from other approaches.

An example is the ‘New Austrian Tunneling Method’ (NATM) (Rabcewicz, 1964) which has received considerable attention in the field of tunneling and has some very promising results to its credit. Most recently, the NATM has been applied to a coal mining project in Germany (Albers et al., 1982, Spaun and Jagsch, 1983). The convergcnce-confinement method has'also emerged within the last three years. Both these methods rely on a number of principles for monotoring the behavior of underground excavations during construction. Whether or not any observational method is distinct in its own right, it is important to understand the broad concepts involved in monitoring rock 'structures during construction. Accordingly one should consider observational methods of design under three topics: rock , monitoring techniques, the New Austrian Tunneling Method, and the convergence-confinement method.

ROCK M ON ITORING TECHNIQUES

Monitoring the behavior of underground excavations during construction is re­cognized today as an important, and often essential, aid in the design and construction of excavations. Systematic in situ monitoring of the performance ofboth the rock mass and the support was found to be one of the most promising developments in underground construction in recent years.

Dunnicliff and Schmidt (1974), analyzing the.value of in situ monitoring of tunnels, make the following observation:

To be effective and useful, monitoring of tunnel construction must be carefully . planned throughout all the steps. A vital and frequently overlooked step is a clear definition of the specific purposes of the instrumentation. Most tunnel construction monitoring has in the past been of benefit to research and the advancement of

137