Occasionally, competent massive rock is so little jointed as to presentno stability problem. More taxing of ingenuity is the jointed,relatively weak, rock whose treatment needs to consider the rocksimultaneously as a continuum and as a discontinuum. Categorisationis affected by the relationship between tunnel size and joint spacing(Hoek and Brown 1980). Where choice exists, the position,orientation, shape and direction of tunnel construction should takeaccount of the rock structure and
stress tensor. Interbeddedrocks, e.g. alternating mudrocks and siltstones, may appear to form acontinuum but the effect of changed stress patterns as a result of tunnelling may induce cleavage along bedding planes with localfracturing and instability. The special needs for support, or foradaptation of tunnel profile, should be considered for suchcircumstances. Whatever may be the features of the tunnel to bedesigned, the approach should include these elements: 1.
incorporating features of empiricism based on anunderstanding of ground characteristics and on successful practices infamiliar or similar ground.2.
using analytical solutions, simple or more complex as thesituation may demand, based on an acceptable ‘ground model’ (seeAppendix 5F).3.
of the behaviour of the tunnel during construction,developing into monitoring with systematic predesigned modificationwhere a feature of Observational Design (Section 2.7) is to be adopted. This approach is illustrated byFigure 5.1, recognising that points 1, 2 and 3are complementary, contributing to the optimal approach to the particularcircumstances rather than competitive techniques of tunnel design. However,the mix will depend greatly upon the circumstances. For a traditional form of tunnelling in familiar ground, reliance on experience will predominate (zoneA in Figure 5.1); the design of a tunnel in a particularly sensitive area willdepend upon a reasoned design combined with the adoption of thetechniques of Observational Design (Section 2.7)and will thus lie nearerzone B of Figure 5.1. Hudson (1993) illustrates (Figure 5.2) an approachtowards a ‘ground model’, with the objective of striking the greatest degreeof proximity between the ‘top down’ and the ‘bottom up’ models, discussedin Appendix 5F.Where a specific problem of stability lends itself to analysis, resort may bemade to the Limit Theorems of the theory of plasticity (confusion may becaused by those who use the expressions ‘upper bound’ and ‘lower bound’more loosely to define high and low estimates of the measures needed toensure stability or safety):
© 2000 Alan Muir Wood