You are on page 1of 6

Underground Space – the 4th Dimension of Metropolises – Barták, Hrdina, Romancov & Zlámal (eds) © 2007 Taylor & Francis Group

, London, ISBN 978-0-415-40807-3

Estimation of rock load for the design of 2-arch tunnel lining
Kwangho You
University of Suwon, Hwasung-Si, Kyeonggi-Do, Korea

Myung Sagong, Jun S. Lee
Korea Railroad Research Institute, Uiwang-Si, Kyeonggi-Do, Korea

ABSTRACT: In this study, the existing methods proposed to estimate relaxed rock load due to a tunnel excavation are compared and analyzed. Also a new approach, by which the stress relaxed zone around an excavated tunnel periphery can be systematically estimated, was suggested for the design of 2 – arch tunnel lining. To this end, local factors of safety are calculated from the redistributed stresses after the excavation of a tunnel. The height of the relaxed rock load is inferred based on the assumption that the stress relaxed zone might coincide with the region corresponding to the local safety factor of 2.0 or 3.0. The new approach proposed in this study has the advantage of estimating the height of rock load regardless of the shape of a tunnel and the ground conditions. Since the height of the relaxed rock load is estimated from the local factor of safety, which is a relatively clear criterion, the designer’s subjectivity involved in the design of concrete tunnel lining might be reduced.

1

INTRODUCTION

2 THE ESTIMATION OF TUNNEL ROCK LOAD 2.1 Terzaghi’s equation Terzaghi(1946) applied the failure mechanism shown in Figure 1 to calculate rock load which a tunnel lining should support when the tunnel was excavated in cohesionless dry coarse soil. Vertical rock load (Proof ) was suggested by Equation (1) for shallow tunnels.

The estimation of rock load is very important for the design of tunnel lining. Terzaghi’s rock load method, Bierbäumer’s equation, empirical methods based on RMR and Q system, and numerical approaches have been mainly used for the estimation of rock load. To estimate rock load of a tunnel excavated in rock mass, Terzaghi’s rock load classification table, RMR index, or Q value can be used but these methods are merely empirical. The Terzaghi’s and Bierbäumer’s proposed equations are also applied. However, these equations were derived based on the limit equilibrium theory with the assumption that the rock mass was continuous. In numerical approaches, on the other hand, rock load is inferred from the stresses behind shotcrete or plastic zones occurred due to tunnel excavation during the stability analysis of tunnels. Nevertheless, these approaches are so ad hoc that the estimated rock load may be different designer by designer. In this study, therefore, the existing methods are compared and analyzed, and a new systematic way is demonstrated to estimate the stress relaxed zone of a tunnel due to excavation. Also, the proposed method is applied for the design of 2-arch tunnel lining.

where B is the relaxed range (= 2[ b/2 + m tan(45 − φ/2)]), v is the unit weight of rock mass, K is coefficient of lateral earth pressure, φ is friction angle, b, m, and H are the width, height, and depth of a tunnel respectively. For deep tunnels, the vertical rock load was also suggested as follows;

2.2 Bierbäumer’s equation Bierbäumer (1913) assumed that the shape of stress relaxed zone occurred due to tunnel excavation might

785

Figure 2.3. They assumed that concrete 786 . And the reduction factor can be obtained as follows.where. The assumed relaxed zone of Bierbäumer. be a parabola as shown in Figure 2 (Part. However it is very subjective and can be applicable only for the horseshoe shaped tunnels. As can be seen in Figure 2. and B is the width of the relaxed zone.3 Approach based on the Q system Barton et al. Also.2 Approach based on the RMR classification system Unal(1983) proposed the following empirical equation for the estimation of vertical rock load (Proof ) based upon RMR values which a tunnel should be supported: Figure 1. • • when H ≥ 5B. • when H is very small. The assumed failure mechanism for Terzaghi’s rock load. 2. 2. Jn is the number of joint sets. where Q is Q value. horizontal rock load (Pwall ) can be calculated from the same equations applied for Proof with the transformed Q value (Q ) according to Table 2. m is the tunnel height.3 Empirical approaches 2. 2.4 Numerical approach Chun and Shin (2001) investigated a methodology to estimate rock load numerically for the design of concrete lining of a tunnel. where v is the unit weight of rock mass and b is tunnel width. (1974) proposed an empirical equation for the estimation of vertical rock load (Proof ) based on Q values as follows. v is the unit weight of rock mass. The height of the relaxed zone (h) is assumed to be proportional to the depth of the tunnel (H ). rock load conditions are divided into 9 categories. 2. if the number of joint sets ≥3.1 Terzaghi’s rock load classification Terzaghi (1946) proposed rock load classification for steel rib support and then Rose modified it as shown in Table 1 in 1982. b is the internal friction angle of rock mass. At tunnel crown. if the number of joint sets <3 . 2003). when H ≤ 5B. h = αH (α is reduction factor). and Jr is the joint roughness coefficient. the vertical relaxed load (Proof ) can be given as follows.3. the upper relaxed zone acts on the tunnel along 45 + φ/2 inclined plane as a vertical load.3. In the system. In Figure 2.

Table 2. As the results.1 ≤ Q ≤ 10 Q < 0.10 ∼ 1. In extreme cases. The other way is that rock load can be a function of radial stresses occurred behind shotcrete. moderate depth 8. They compared two ways of calculating rock load which the lining supports. in general.20 ∼ 0. it was concluded that the radial stresses behind shotcrete might not be properly used as rock load because it became much greater around lower corner than around crown and its magnitude was very small. One way is that rock load can be proportional to the size of the plastic zone occurred around tunnel excavation periphery.10) (b + m) (2. Light support.5b Rock condition 1. This stress state is. Brekke. Hp (m) 0 0 ∼ 0. Hard stratified or schistose RQD 95 ∼ 100 90 ∼ 99 Remarks Light limiting required only if spalling or popping occurs. Local factor of safety. 3 LOCAL SAFETY FACTOR OF A TUNNEL In numerical analysis.60) (b + m) 0.50) (b + m) Up to 250ft irrespective of value of (b + m) Note: b: tunnel width. 3. – Circular ribs required. Squeezing rock.5Q Q lining must support the whole load when the shotcrete lost its support capability after long period time. Circular ribs are recommended. Also when the rock load is estimated to be proportional to the size of plastic zone. Completely crushed but chemically intact 6a.25b ∼ 0. invert struts required. state of stresses can presented at each elements in terms of principal stresses (σ1 and σ3 ) as shown in Figure 3. moderately jointed 4. Therefore. Massive. Range of Q value 10 < Q 0.40 (b + m) (1. Hard and intact 2. (Terzaghi. mainly for protection against spalling. 1982). Swelling rock 85 ∼ 95 75 ∼ 85 30 ∼ 75 3 ∼ 30 0∼3 NA NA NA 0 ∼ 0. 1968) Heavy side pressure. use yielding support. Very blocky and seamy 6.10 ∼ 4.25b 0. great depth 9. m: tunnel height. depicted by a Mohr’s circle (a) with a radius r in 787 . Types 4. it can be very sensitive to the ground properties such as cohesion Figure 3.10 ∼ 2. they recommend that great care must be given in estimating ground parameters for the design of tunnel lining. Moderately blocky and seamy 5. 1946. Rock load height. Squeezing rock. Terzaghi’s rock load classification (Rose.60 ∼ 1.1 Q 5Q 2. and the coefficient of lateral earth pressure etc.Table 1.20 (b + m) (0. Load may change erratically from point to point. Transformed Q value. Sand and gravel 7. 5 and 6 reduced by about 50% from Terzaghi values because water table has little effect on rock load.10 (b + m) 1.

0 27 28 30 33 34 38 800 900 3. Table 3. excavation of left arch tunnel (stage II). 2000).000 0.000 300.0 30. Failure is assumed to occur when the circle touches the failure envelope.5 1. Also.22 the σ -τ plane. and normal rock layer at which the tunnel is located was modeled respectively to get an idea how ground conditions influence the rock load height. 788 . reclaimed soil layer.4.. (a) Hard rock (a) Normal rock Therefore. Figure 4.000 260. alluvial soil layer. The maximum principal stress at the moment of failure (σ1f ) can be written as follows.6 2. The 2-arch tunnel has a cross section of 20.5 m 5m 3m 2m Reclaimed soil Alluvial soil Weathered soil Soft rock Hard rock(1) Soft rock(2) Normal rock(3) 50 m 35. it is expected that the size of relaxed zone occurred by tunnel excavation could be found by finding the contour of local safety factor of 2. (Itasca Consulting Group. local factor of safety is obtained with the assumption that failure occurs by increasing σ1 and keeping σ3 unchanged.5 m 100 m Figure 5. Unit Friction Deformation weight Cohesion angle modulus Poisson’s 3 2 (◦ ) (tf/m2 ) ratio (tf/m ) (tf/m ) 1. Tunnel section of interest. and weathered soil layer are located at the top of the tunnel. and excavation of right arch tunnel (stage III). it is very useful in searching potential weak zones from tunnel excavation and the zone where supports are required (You. Properties for layers. Contours of local safety factors at final construction stage for 3 different rock conditions.0 10. 1999).0 2. soft. a numerical analysis was performed to estimate rock load height for the design of 2-arch tunnel lining. If failure occurs at a certain stress state.40 0. The properties of each layer used for the numerical analysis are listed at Table 3.7 1.0 or 3. σ1 should increase keeping σ3 unchanged until the circle touches the failure envelope like circle (b).000 550. or R2 /r ) is a kind of strength/stress ratio in a given state of stresses and is often called as ‘local factor of safety (FS)’. the construction sequence are simplified into 3 stages. Three different layers. failure can be reached by increasing the radius of the circle keeping the center of a circle fixed like circle (c).25 0. In this study.3 2.0 20. In this study. Layer Reclaimed soil Alluvial soil Weathered soil Soft rock Normal rock Hard rock This approach can be very effective in explaining how close the failure is at each element. 4 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS (c) Soft rock Figure 6.8 2.23 m high as shown in Figure 4. As can be seen in Figure 5. In numerical modeling.8 1.27 0.0. hard. excavation of center tunnel (stage I).8 m wide and 9. In addition.30 0. The ratio of two circles’ radii (R1 /r. Configuration of numerical analysis.0 0.35 0. et al.

07 11. Development of Water Control Technology in Undersea Structures). 23rd U. Si-Hyun (2003). pp.0 or 3. 355p. Commercial Shearing Co. 47–57. Rock Mechanics. N.95 1.8 7. Tunnelling Technology.1 17. “Revising Terzaghi’s Tunnel Rock Load Coefficient”. J. Youngstown.Table 4. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua.3 Layer Hard rock Normal rock Soft rock Excav.0 can give a realistic rock load height for the design of concrete lining. E. it is expected that a tunnel designer’ subjectivity might be avoided in the design of concrete lining. Park. (1999).15 7. 5 CONCLUSIONS In this study.3 8. 261–268. Chun. “A study on the design loads of NATM tunnel concrete lining”. J. Young-Wan Shin (2001).3 9. Gyu-Jin Bae (2000). (1946). Ph.0 0. R. Thesis.6 15. pp. The thickness of relaxed zone which can be considered to be rock load height was obtained by subtracting the elevation of tunnel crown from the elevation of local safety factor contour and the results are arranged in Table 4.65 2.6 3. pp. pp. and Lunde.22 2. stage I II III I II III I II III FS = 2. Vol. White.0 1. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Vol.0 10. REFERENCES Barton. “An assessment of safety factor for tunnels excavated in a weak rock layer”.9 12.. this approach can be effectively used as a systematic way of estimating rock load height for concrete lining design. Byung-Sik.85 Elevation of tunnel crown (m) 8.45 17.0 11. Rose.95 11. Elevation of local safety factor (m) Thickness of relaxed zone (m) FS = 2.25 13. The authors deeply appreciate the authorities concerned. Itasca Consulting Group.85 9. No. local safety factor is calculated from the redistributed stresses due to the tunnel excavation. Yeon-Jun Park. In addition.4 14. Especially.3 9.: 05-D01. AIME. A. 96–108. Die Dimensionnierung des Tunnelmanerwerks. The proposed approach in this study is independent of the shape of a tunnel and ground conditions since rock load height is estimated from a fairly clear and well established criterion of local safety factor. Proctor and T. Then rock load height is estimated based on the assumption that the region corresponding to the local safety factor of 2.85 9. At each element.9 3. D. 2.25 10. 3.. the existing methods of estimating rock relaxed load were compared. Vol. of Korean Tunnelling Association. (1983). USA. the relaxed zone expands and its thickness increases. In this approach. Kwang-Ho. pp. 789 .15 2.59 0.15 FLAC version 3.3 6. V . first of all. eds.0 9. Proc. The Pennsylvania State University.S. 6. From Table 4 and Figure 6.45 FS = 3. No.55 5..4 11. J.D. No. Terzaghi. Additionally. Vol. K. pp. USA. “A study on the review of Terzaghi’s tunnel load theory”.0 1. Figure 6 shows the contour of local safety factors at construction stage III which is the final stage of the construction.95 4. You. Estimated thickness of relaxed zone. Minneapolis. (1982).3 9. (1913).4 was used for the numerical analysis. Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports. FLAC. 11. Unal. 953–960. Inc. Ohio. Design Guideline and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine Roofs.6 12. 3. it can be concluded that local safety factor of 2.3 10. R. (1974). 5. 4. Itasca Consulting Group.0 might be the relaxed zone. 189–236.3 8.3 2.4. “Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Support”.7 1. “Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support”.75 FS = 3. A systematic way was proposed to estimate the relaxed zone around a tunnel periphery due to the excavation for the design of 2-arch tunnel lining.44 10.1 2. the local safety factor was calculated and its contour was obtained at 3 different construction stages.0 or 3. of Korean Society for Rock Mech. No. Lien.0 10.75 13. New York. 15–99. Version 3. Bierbäumer. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was partly funded by the Korea Institute of Construction and Transportation Technology Evaluation and Planning under Korean Ministry of Construction and Transportation in Korea (Grant No. it can be known that as rock conditions become weaker and construction advances. Minnesota. 2.85 9.