World Tunnel Congress 2013 Geneva

Underground the way to the future!

G. Anagnostou & H. Ehrbar (eds)

Evaluation of Overstressing of Deep Hard Rock Tunnels

D. Brox(1)
(1)

Jacobs Associates, Vancouver, Canada

ABSTRACT: An increasing number of tunnels of being planned and constructed at significant depths more than
1500 m and up to 2500 m for new water transfer and transportation infrastructure. A key risk associated with deep
tunnels is overstressing due to the impact on worker safety and tunnel stability. The occurrence of overstressing
in deep hard rock tunnels is also important to recognize and evaluate prior to tunnel construction for
constructability in terms of minimizing the risk of method of excavation, construction schedule and construction
costs. Overstressing in the form of spalling and slabbing has been known to have occurred in an increasing
number of deep tunnels. Observations and anecdotal information of spalling and slabbing have been back
analyzed from several deep tunnel projects in relation to an empirical method for the prediction of spalling to
assess the validity of the empirical method for tunneling practitioners to adopt as a practical approach for
assessing the potential for overstressing in deep hard rock tunnels. A new overstressing classification has been
developed based on evaluation and observations of overstressing in a number of deep tunnels and has been
confirmed to be in good agreement with observations and anecdotal information. Unique graphical presentations
have been developed for the characterization of overstressing to assist in its early identification, severity, and
quantification as a risk evaluation tool.

Introduction

An increasing number of long tunnels are being planned at great depth in bedrock as part of
infrastructure requirements for civil, hydropower and mining projects. Tunnel boring machines (TBMs)
are strongly considered for long tunnels due to the schedule and overall cost benefits. Drill and blast
excavation has however been adopted for some long tunnels due to geological risks and improved
technology for high speed productivity. Recently completed and ongoing deep hard projects include
the 57 km twin Gotthard Rail Base Tunnel in Switzerland, the Olmos Water Supply Tunnel in Peru,
the 46 km Pahang Selangor Water Supply Tunnel in Malaysia, and the 15 km Ceneri twin rail tunnel in
Switzerland. Figure 1 shows severe overstressing in a the 5 km, 5 m diameter Piora Mulde TBM
exploration tunnel in Switzerland at a depth of 1700 m. The stability of and support requirements for
tunnels at great depth are a function of intact rock strength and the prevailing in situ stresses. Tunnels
at great depth may be subject to brittle failure as spalling due to overstressing of varying degrees
since de-stressing of the rock conditions only occurs to a very limited extent near the advancing face
unlike for drill and blast excavation.
The recognition of the potential for overstressing in deep hard rock TBM excavated tunnels is
important for worker safety, tunnel stability and support requirements, constructability evaluation of the
method of excavation, and construction schedule and construction costs. Overstressing is a serious
condition in tunnel construction that can significantly influence the safety and choice of tunneling
operations. Extreme occurrences of overstressing may result in rockbursting which has now occurred
and has also been suspected in several deep recent and onging tunnels projects.
Finally, unique graphical presentations have been developed for the characterization of overstressing
to assist in its early identification, severity, and quantification during the early stages of planning and
design for new deep tunnels.

-1-

Figure 1. Example of severe overstressing is deep tunnel with 1700 m of cover

Examples of Overstressing in Deep Tunnels

Overstressing in the form of spalling and slabbing is known to have occurred from direct observations
and from anecdotal information in several deep hard rock tunnels around the world as listed in Table 1
below.
Table 1. Examples of Overstressing
Project

Year

Excavation
Method

Length
[km]

Size
[m]

Overburden
[m]

Actual
Overstress

Alfalfal
Lesotho Transfer

1990
1990

Drill & Blast

TBM

4.5
45

5
5

1150
1300

Rockburst
Severe

Rio Blanco

1990

TBM

11

6.5

1200

Severe

Kemano T2
Vereina
Manapouri
Casecnan
Loetschberg
El Platanal
Ashlu
Olmos
Jinping
Seymour Capilano
Qinling
Pahang Selangor

1991
1996
2002
2002
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
2011
2012
2013

TBM
TBM
TBM
TBM
D&B/TBM
Drill & Blast
TBM
TBM
TBM
TBM
TBM
TBM

8
21
10
21
34
12
4
14
16
14
28
46

6
6.5
10
6.5
8
6
4.1
5
12
4
12
5

650
1500
1200
1400
2000
1800
600
2000
2500
550
2200
1200

Minor
Extreme
Minor
Moderate
Rockbursts
Rockbursts
Moderate
Rockbursts
Rockbursts
Rockbursts
Severe
Moderate

-2-

In Situ Stresses

3.1

Topographic Stresses

Topographic stresses can result from the re-distribution of stresses by the erosion of valleys in steep
mountainous and fjord areas. Higher than expected topographic stresses commonly exist along steep
valley sidewalls and at the toes of steep mountainous terrain where the overlying and upward
extending mountain rock contributes to the in situ stresses at depth. In some cases the maximum
boundary stress around a tunnel sited near the toe or sidewall can be as much as 2.5 times the
vertical rock cover.
This was first recognized in Norway in the early 1990s where rockbursts occurred during the
construction of new highway tunnels (Myrvang and Grimstad, 1983). The presence of higher than
expected theoretical stresses at the toe of major slopes or near the side walls of major valleys has
been confirmed on numerous projects from the measurements of minimum stresses performed as part
of the design of the length of steel linings for hydropower projects. Many of the project examples are
sited in mountainous terrain with high relief greater than 1500 m where overstressing has occurred.
3.2

Measured In Situ Stresses

While stress measurements are an important aspect of tunnel design it is recognized that it may be
difficult to perform for deep tunnels due to limited access, availability of experienced specialist
contractors, and the appreciable costs associated with the testing. Hydraulic fracturing testing can be
performed in deep boreholes and is a cost effective method whereby numerous tests can be
performed to give multiple results for greater confidence for interpretation and evaluation of the full
state of in situ stress. Where existing excavations may be present it is worthwhile to consider to carry
out overcoring in situ stress testing that can provide a more reliable estimate of the in situ state of
stress.

Evaluation of Overstressing

An evaluation of overstressing has been performed for all of deep tunnel examples listed in Table 1
above. This evaluation considered the empirical approach of spall prediction suggested by Diederichs
et al. (2010) shown in Figure 2 that provides a relationship between the estimated depth of spalling
and the ratio of the maximum boundary stress to the uniaxial compressive strength (max/c). This
approach suggests that overstressing as spalling can be expected to occur when
max/CI > 1.0,

(1)

where CI is defined as the Crack Initiation Strength and typically equal to about 40% of the uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) and the maximum boundary stress is defined as
max= 31 - 33 = 3(3k-1),

(2)

where 1 is the maximum principal stress, 3 is the minimum principal stress, and k is the stress ratio.
Examples of the evaluation of overstressing following the empirical approach are presented for a
selected number of case projects of Table 1. (Rio Blanco, Olmos, Loetschberg).
Each of the observed cases of overstressing was evaluated by simply plotting the inferred or implied
maximum boundary stresses along the tunnel alignment in relation to the Crack Initiation Strength (CI)
as determined from uniaxial compressive strength testing of rock cores from drillholes completed both
prior to and during tunnel excavation along the tunnel alignment or from block samples that were
tested during construction for the respective tunnel projects
Figures 3, 4 and 5 present plots of limited Crack Initiation Strength (CI) data versus maximum
boundary stresses (max) for variable stress ratios of 1.02 for the Rio Blanco Tunnel, stress ratios of
1.2, 2.0, and 2.5 for the Olmos Tunnel, and stress ratios 1.2 and 2.0 for the Loetschberg Tunnel
respectively. No stress measurements were performed prior to the construction of these projects.
Overcoring stress measurements were performed during the excavation of the 11 km, TBM excavated
Rio Blanco water transfer tunnel due to overstressing experienced during construction. Figure 4
presents Crack Initiation Strengths (CI) from numerous UCS data from rock cores versus maximum
boundary stresses based on a measured stress ratio of k = 1.03.

-3-

Moderate overstressing was observed along long sections of the central part of the tunnel alignment of
the Rio Blanco Tunnel at the El Teniente Mine in Chile and the empirical assessment is in good
agreement with these findings.

Figure 2. Empirical Relationship of Spalling

Figures 3. Overstressing Characterization, Rio Blanco Tunnel

-4-

Figures 4. Overstressing Characterization, Olmos Tunnel

Figures 5. Overstressing Characterization, Loetschberg Tunnel

-5-

Severe overstressing including rockbursts occurred along appreciable areas of the eastern high cover
section of the tunnel alignment during the excavation of the 14 km TBM excavated Olmos water
transfer tunnel in Peru. The empirical assessment is also in good agreement with these findings from
this project where very challenging excavations were experienced.
Severe overstressing including rockbursts also occurred along appreciable areas of the southern high
cover section of the tunnel alignment during the excavation of the 34 km TBM excavated section of the
Loetschberg rail tunnel in Switzerland. The empirical assessment is also in good agreement with these
findings from this project where very challenging excavations were experienced.
The plots of Crack Initiation Strengths (CI) versus the inferred maximum boundary stresses from site
specific in situ stress testing or implied topographic stresses provide a simple method of evaluation of
the observed overstressing. This approach serves to indicate the level of stress ratios existing at these
sites to have caused the observed overstressing. Based on the good agreement of the empirical
approach of assessment to the observations of actual overstressing this approach appears to be valid
for the prediction of overstressing of new deep tunnels.

Overstressing Classification

A classification for overstressing has been developed based on the observations of overstressing from
the project cases and consideration of historical work on the subject (Hoek and Marinos, 2009). The
ratio of the maximum boundary stress to the uniaxial compressive strength (max/c) is suggested as
the key parameter for the identification and severity of overstressing as follows:
Table 3. Overstress Classification
OS
Class

max/c

Description

0.45

Minor

0.60

Moderate

0.90

Severe

1.20

Extreme

1.60

Possible
Rockbursts

The quantification of overstressing can be assessed by identifying the extent over which values of the
ratio of max/c exceed 0.45 along a tunnel alignment with further characterization of the severity of
overstressing subject to the increasing ratio of max/c and the linear extent defined by station
chainages.

Tunnel Support for Overstressing

The occurrence of overstressing in TBM tunnels requires special tunnel support systems to effectively
contain spalling and slabbing rock fragments and under extreme conditions to protect workers from
possible rockbursting. Table 4 presents suggested tunnel support systems that have been used in a
number of TBM tunnels constructed to adequately support overstressing conditions.

-6-

Table 4. Tunnel Support for Overstress Conditions

OS Class

Overstress Depth

Support Types

~ 1.0

Spot Bolts

1.25

Pattern Bolts/Mesh

1.60

Pattern Bolts/Channels

1.95

Steel Ribs/Mesh

2.40

Continuous full profile

system, eg. McNally System

Extreme overstressing and rockbursting conditions can be effectively supported with nominal impact to
TBM productivity using the McNally Roof Support System as proven on the 13 km, Olmos Water
Supply Tunnel in Peru.

Conclusions

The empirical method to estimate overstressing as spalling presented by Diederichs et al. (2010) is in
good agreement with observations of varying degrees of overstressing including rockbursting from
several interantional deep tunnel projects. This approach has been validated through evaluation of
these projects relating the Crack Initiation Strength (CI) to the inferred and calculated maximum
boundary stresses based on consideration of topographic stresses in steep valleys and in situ stress
measurements at the case projects.
Higher than expected in situ stresses and related maximum boundary stresses are believed to exist
around tunnels that are sited near the toe and aligned parallel to steep valleys. These higher than
expected stresses can result in significant overstressing over appreciable lengths of tunnels sited and
aligned in relation to such topography.
This validation serves to establish a practical approach to predict the potential for overstressing in
future deep, hard rock, tunnels, excavated either by TBMs or by traditional drill and blast. A
classification of overstressing has been proposed along with effective tunnel support systems. Unique
graphical presentations have been developed and serve for simple and quick characterization of
overstressing to assist in its early identification, severity, and quantification during the early stages of
planning and design for new tunnels.
This approach highlights the importance of having an appropriate amount of rock strength data prior to
construction from drillhole core or rock block samples along the tunnel alignment in addition to
measured in situ stresses in order to perform a comprehensive evaluation of overstressing.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge various colleagues in the international tunneling industry who
have contributed project data to evaluate overstressing in the example projects and help to develop
the overstressing classification. These individuals and companies include Meridan Energy, the
Robbins Company, Felix Amberg, Renzo Cardoza, and Franois Vuilleumier.

-7-

References

Santiago O. Castro, Juan P. Soler, Carlos F. Andrade and Hugo A. Delucchi. 1996. Rock Mass Stress Release in
the Alfalfal Main Water Tunnel: Evidence and Remedial Actions.

Diederichs, M.S., Carter, T., and Martin, D. 2010. Practical Rock Spall Prediction in Tunnels.
Proceedings from the International Tunnel Association Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
Myrvang, A.M and Grimstad, E. 1983. Rockburst Problems in Norwegian Road Tunnels Recent
Case Histories. IMM Symposium on Rockburst Prediction and Control, London.
Hoek, E. and Marinos, P. 2009. Tunnelling in Overstressed Rock. Keynote address presented at
EUROCK2009, Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions Soft Rocks and Karst.
Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Gong, Q.M., Yin, L.J., Wu, S. Y. and Ting, Y. 2011. Rockburst and Slabbing Failure and its influence
on TBM Excavation at headrace tunnels at Jinping II hydropower station. Engineering Geology
(124) 98-108.
Franois Vuilleumier & Markus Aeschbach. 2004. The Loetschberg Base Tunnel Lessons Learned From The
Construction of The Tunnel, First Brazilian Congress on Tunnels and Underground Structures International
Seminar on South American Tunnelling.

-8-

Summary of Deep Excavated Tunnels

Validation of Overstressing Classification
Project

Country

Year

Length,km

Furka

Switzerland

1982

15

Alfalfal

Chile

1990

LesothoTransfer

Lesotho

RioBlanco

Size,m

MaxDepth,m

Overstress
Actual

1400

Rockburst

1150

Rockburst

1990

45

5.0

1300

Severe

Chile

1991

11

6.5

1200

Severe

KemanoT2

Canada

1992

5.7

650

Minor

Vereina

Switzerland

1996

21

6.5

1500

Moderate

Manapouri

NewZealand

2002

10

10.0

1200

Minor

Casecnan

Philippines

2002

21

6.5

1400

Moderate

Loetschberg

Switzerland

2005

34

2000

Rockburst

ElPlatanal

Peru

2006

12

1200

Rockburst

Ashlu

Canada

2009

4.4

4.0

600

Moderate

Olmos

Peru

2010

14

5.0

2000

Rockburst

Jinping

China

2011

17

12.

2500

Rockburst

SeymourCapilano

Canada

2011

14

3.8

550

Rockburst

BrennerExploration

Italy

2012

10.5

6.3

1250

Rockburst

Cheves

Peru

2012

14

1400

Rockbursts

Qinling

China

2013

28

12

2200

Extreme

PahangSelangor

Malaysia

2013

46

5.0

1200

Moderate

Classification
Prediction