You are on page 1of 6


Wilham G. Louhenapessy1

Consulting Engineer, Jakarta. - Email:

ABSTRAK (Indonesia)
Beberapa kelemahan dari Sistim Penyangga batuan berbasiskan Klasifikasi Institut Geoteknik
Norwegia (NGI) atau Q adalah sbb: (a) kurang diperhitungkannya arah kekar terhadap permukaan
galian terowongan; (b) pengaruh waktu tidak diperhatikan; (c) tidak diperhitungkannya kriteria
runtuh getas-daktail (kriteria Papaliangas) untuk terowongan di kedalaman yang besar dan (d)
kurang rasionalnya analisa pengaruh air didalam masa kekar batuan. Paper ini menawarkan suatu
metode yang lebih rasional dengan mempertimbangkan pengaruh-pengaruh tersebut diatas
berdasarkan rekasyasa numerik: Metode Elemen Hingga dan model multilaminate untuk masa kekar
batuan (Zienkiewicz-Pande 1977). Telah dipresentasikan diagram-diagram bunga (Rose Diagrams),
tabel-tabel disain, kurva-kurva dan diagram-diagram alir yang berguna untuk praktek rekayasa
pembuatan terowongan berbentuk lingkaran, tanpa / atau dengan „shotcrecte linning‟. Keruntuhan
batuan diakibatkan dua pilihan runtuh, yaitu runtuhnya batuan intak (intact rock) atau runtuhnya
batuan berkekar (joint rock). Studi numerik terfokus pada terowongan lingkaran, dengan sebuah
kedalaman, berbagai tekanan lateral, berbagai arah kekar dan dua kriteria runtuh: kriteria runtuh
Mohr-Coulomb dan Papaliangas. Diperkenalkan juga, sebuah cara baru untuk evaluasi pengaruh
lapisan shotcrete bagi persyaratan penyangga batuan. Metoda ini menerangkan dan menganalisa
interaksi mekanis antara batuan dan penyangga terowongan terhadap waktu.. Dipresentasikan juga
satu contoh perbandingan metode baru ini terhadap sistim klasifikasi Q. Terdapat dua bagian.
Bagian pertama (Sub. 2 s/d 6) menyangkut analisa elastik FEM dan bagian kedua (Sub. 7 dst.)
menyangkut analisa non-elastik (viscoplastic analysis) FEM, yang berguna bagi instalasi ‟shotcrete‟.
Kata kunci: tunnel support, Rose Diagrams, Failure Indices, Mohr-Coulomb and Papaliangas
criterion, interaction diagram, convergence (Penyangga terowongan, Diagram Bunga, Indeks
Keruntuhan, kriteria runtuh Papaliangas dan Mohr-Coulomb, diagram interaksi, konvergensi).



Man has built tunnels and caverns for various purposes such as access to mineral resources, tombs, house, shelter,
water supply, and drainage system and for transportation. With trains cars and electricity arrived a huge expansion
in tunnel construction. For example: the Channel Tunnel (ICE 1993) between England and France. Many kilometers
of tunnels are constructed for roads and hydro-electrical projects. Most of these are constructed in rock, which is not
competent. Tunnel supports, such as rock bolts, shotcrete lining, steel arches etc. should be required.
A breakthrough for rock tunnel engineers appears in 1946. Based on the observation method of the stable
excavation profiles of old railway tunnels in the Alps, Terzaghi (Terzaghi 1946) proposed to relate rock mass quality
with rock load on steel arch supported tunnels. Even though the engineers / geologists have using accumulated past
experience in the analysis and design of tunnel supports, these procedures are not readily transferable from one
location to another due to the inherent variability of ground conditions and the large number of factors that influence
the pressure on the supporting system. Consequently, several empirical methodologies, based on past experience,
relating the quality of the rock according to certain classification systems have been proposed. Rock mass
classification systems, such as:

RQD (Deere 1967),
Q system (Barton 1974),


RMR system (Bieniawski 1990) and
RMi (Palmstrom 1995)

are efforts to classify rock mass properties and the rock condition as a single number. Although they cover a wide
range of conditions encountered in the field (Hoek 1982, Seraphim 1983, Hoek 1995}, many of the input parameters
are very difficult to measure (Milne 1991). Pande (1995) and Riedmuller (1997) state that in practice, the
classification system is inadequate for support determination and stability evaluation in complex geological
conditions. In Indonesia, mining and hydro-electrical industries are trend to use Q-system and RMR (Koesnaryo &
Rai 1998). They are PLTA and Cirata projects. The Nusantara Tunnel proposed between Sumatra and Java islands,

o is the peak dilation angle under a normal stress (no ) which causes no (asperity) deformation. Universal Distinct Element Code or UDEC (Cundall 1980). A general framework for constitutive models for jointed rock masses: The multilaminate framework for developing a constitutive model of jointed rock masses has been discussed in detail in various publications (Zienkiewicz 1977. the difficulties in attempts to simulate the detail of rock mass properties and other factors have hampered further developments. Alternatively is to apply. Hoek et. There have also been several attempts to apply numerical methods to tunnel analysis using the following approaches: FEM (Honisch 1988. The brittle ductile constitutive model for rock joint proposed by Papaliangas is: j = Cj + n tan ( + ) (2) in which.1995). which are imposed on the rock mass due to excavation. the presence of joints. 3. The failure criterion for intact rock used is the MohrCoulomb criterion as follows. j is the shear stress on the joint plane and n is the normal stress on the joint plane. However. is DeRM = [  n T CLJoint TT i=1 + [DeIntact ]-1 -1 (5) where "n" is number of joint sets. C is the compliance matrix contains joint stiffness data (Appendix B) and DeIntact is the conventional elasticity matrix of the intact rock (Pande 90). Lu et. The philosophy is to treat jointed rock mass as a composite material with intact rock and rock joints as its constituents. An alternative approach is to derive the elasticity matrix of the jointed rock mass from the constitutive properties of its constituents. if required. Expensive cost of computational (numerical analysis) effort is needed in solving the complex rock-structure interaction problem. 2. It is to find the normal stiffness and shear stiffness of the rock joint. 4. STABILITY IN ROCK TUNNELS Failure of the tunnel roof. in such a way that the rock mass is prevented from collapse. The stability of these points in the rock mass is considered based on the adopted failure criterion and the support pressure is computed. nT is the effective normal stress which suppress all dilation (Appendix A). the so-called 'stress path method' in which an estimate is made of the stress path experienced at a few typical points at the tunnel periphery. Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continue or FLAC (Brady & Lorig 1988) and Boundary Element Method or BEM (Crouch & Starfield 1983). Louhenapessy 2003). The elasticity matrix of rock mass. exceed its strength. Some factors affecting stresses imposed by excavation on the rock mass are in-situ stress ratio (Ko) and the depth of excavation. sides or face takes place when the stresses. The factors which influence the collapse of a tunnel are (a) strength of the jointed rock mass and (b) factors affecting stresses imposed due to excavation. number of joint sets and surface roughness. spacing of parallel joint set. (3) where no is the normal stress on the joint rock plane. – Part 1(Elastic Analysis) of this article will be in Sub-section 2 to Sub-secion 6 -. i = ni tan o + Co (4) where ni is the normal stress on the failure plane (happened in intact rock) and o and Co are material constants for intact rock. DeRM .al 1995.  is the dilation angle at the instant of peak shear stress. a lack of rational modeling of the jointed rock mass (constitutive law).al. The strength of jointed rock masses is affected by the strength of the intact rock. mechanical properties of rock joints and also the presence of water (Louhenapessy 2000). T is a transformation matrix. The properties or characteristic of rock joint are: dip and orientation. .probably will give Indonesian engineers a challenge to create another method (Mangkusubroto 2002). CONSTITUTIVE MODELS AND FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS Mohr-Coulomb & Papaliangas models: The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model for rock joints has been adopted as j = Cj + n tan  (1) where  and Cj are friction angle and cohesion respectively for the joint. Louhenapessy & Pande 1998. The elastic constants of a jointed rock mass and rock joint can be determined from large-scale in-situ experiments / large-scale triaxial tests. METHODOLOGY OF COMPUTATION OF PRESSURE ON TUNNEL SUPPORTS The behavior of a jointed rock mass is highly non-linear.

For example.). This stress path at a point is imposed on rock mass and computation made to judge if failure in any of the following modes is possible: (a) failure of intact rock: The strength parameters of the intact rock are examined and the failure function is checked. It is noted that cohesion for joints is adopted as zero and the friction angle is varied between 20 o to 40o. h is the depth of the tunnel and  is dip angle or orientation of joint. analysis of a 12.5 kN/m3 Joint Rock Cn = 1 x 10-7 m/kPa and Cs = 2 x 10-7 m/kPa Joint Spacing = 1 m and Cohession = 0 Mohr Coulomb  = 20 o. Eight points have been chosen on the circumference of the tunnel (Figure 2) for studying the requirement of support pressure. The notation for the fabric of the rock joints is shown in the inset.g.00 and 2. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES In this section. (b) application of normal support pressure to prevent failure under the stress path experienced by point A. For the calculation of stress paths. (c) stress path experienced by point A in principal stress space. If failure is observed in any of the modes. which consists of 736 nodes and 224 eightnoded isoparametric elements. . (a) geometry. 30 o and 40o Figure 2 depicts the geometry of the problem.333.Figure 1. The results for one set are presented here. the density of the mesh is not crucial and it is assumed that the mesh shown in Figure 3 gives accurate stress paths for practical purposes.e. Here.8 m diameter circular tunnel excavated at 80 m depths (CASE I) in the jointed rock having one sets of joints is presented for the illustration of the methodology of computing support pressures. In view of the approximate nature of the method of calculation.3 Cohession = 28870 kPa  = 30o and  = 24. d is the diameter of the tunnel. Material parameters Intact Rock E = 3 x 107 kPa and  = 0. a pressure (p) normal to the periphery of tunnel is computed which would prevent the failure of the rock mass at that point. and (b) failure of joint sets: The strength parameters are examined and failure in shear or tension is checked. NOTES: Points 1 to 8 are located on the periphery of the tunnel (e. Point #1 at the right side -spring level. Pressure applied normal to the tunnel periphery at point A to prevent failure of joint rock. An algorithm. 1. The material parameters assumed for illustration are shown in Table 1. 5. Point 3 is at the roof of the tunnel.of the tunnel... i. a two-dimensional idealization is adopted.00 have been studied. Figure 3 shows the typical finite element mesh used for the analysis. The procedure is repeated at a number of points on the tunnel‟s periphery and simple engineering calculations are made to determine the spacing of rock bolts. etc. Support pressure has been computed for the rock mass having one set of joints at various orientations. consider a point such as A on the roof of the tunnel (Figure 1) excavated at a certain depth in a jointed rock mass. Louhenapessy 2000). The stresses at point A after excavation which may be in stages can be computed assuming jointed rock mass as an anisotropic multilaminate material having the elasticity matrix given by equation (5) or (6). For CASE I tunnels h = 80 m Figure 2. The deviation of stress from the geostatic condition is readily obtained and gives the stress path to which a rock mass will be subjected at point A. Three cases of in-situ stress corresponding to Ko = 0. intact or jointed rock is presented briefly in Appendix C or in detail elsewhere (Louhenapessy 1997. Before excavation this point experiences geostatic stresses. elastic finite element analysis is undertaken. which determines the place of failure onset. Tunnel Geometry and fabric of rock joint (inset) Table 1.

1. N = P / (h) (7) where N is the normalized support pressure. This is a shallow tunnel (CASE-I). in most cases –on the tunnel periphery-. Comparison with the NGI or Q classification system: Here we examine a case of the support pressure requirements and compare them with those obtained from the Q classification system. The tunnel is in sandstone with one set of joint and intact rock having compressive strength (c) of 100 MPa. Jw is the joint water reduction factor. The support pressure has been normalized with reference to geostatic stress at the center of the tunnel before excavation h. Obviously. in situ stress ratio.Figure 3 Finite Element mesh CASE-I tunnels 6. 1974). Ja is the joint alteration number. Jr is the joint roughness number. . J n is the joint set number. Here the support pressure required at a point on the periphery of the tunnel is plotted as a radial line. Q has been calculated based on 6 parameters (Barton et.0 and 2. . Ko . in Figure 5b. The legend of these indices:  “0” is no failure zone and “1” is for failure due to intact rock strength exceeded. =0o and Ko= 0. (8a) and (8b) where RQD is the Rock Quality Designation. with Ko being 0. The requirement for support pressure varies from point to point on the periphery of the tunnel. engineering judgment has to be used and provision should be made for maximum required support pressure in any section.0). Such diagrams are shown in Figures 4a and 4b. According to Barton. failure takes place due to sliding on joints. joint friction angle  . “2” is for failure due to shear strength of joint rock being exceeded (sliding joint) and. support pressure can be obtained based on the depth of tunnel. = 45o Figure 4. = 0o (b) Joint orientation. the values of Q and P roof are defined by. Normalized Support Pressure is calculated from the following equation.  is the unit weight of rock and h is the depth of tunnel. Figure 5a shows the zone of Failure Indices around the tunnel periphery and it shown that appears at the roof (for joint orientation. Normalized Support Pressure (CASE-I) RESULTS Rose diagrams are useful tools for presenting results of parametric studies of tunnel support pressure analysis. the length of which represents the support pressure. Lien and Lunde of NGI (1974). The rock mass On the other hand. From these rose diagrams. It should be noted that. but there are also situations in which joints open or intact rock fails at very high depth tunnel. Failure Indices: Zone of Failure Indices (Figure 5a and table in Figure 5b) can be used together in conjunction with the rose diagrams in tunnel support design. SRF is the stress reduction factor and P roof is permanent roof support pressure.  “5” is failure due to tensile strength in jointed rock exceeded. tension appears at the side of tunnel (for =90o and Ko= 2. and orientation of the joints. P is the tunnel support pressure obtained from finite element analysis. (a) Joint orientation.333.333).

00 0. m b (mm) Ratio. Jr = 1. the minimum and maximum bolt spacing design with the proposed method is 262 mm and 7555 mm. Ko= 2. the use of Q classification system leads to an over-conservative design in some cases whilst leading to unsafe design in others. Papaliangas criterion and m = 30o b) The table above shown failure indices for various orientation of joint. For CASE I. various friction angle & various location on tunnel periphery.0) Based on the above parameters: Q = 54.0 and Jw=1. Identification of modes of failure (CASE-I . Moreover. Ko  30o 40o 30o 40o o 0. Table 2. Ja=1.09 MPa. as expected.75 (high stress.333 2970 2150 2150 2185 2185 0 45o 90o 1.0 (dry).00 2970 2970 2970 2970 2970 2970 2970 2970 No* No* 2810 400 262 No* No* No* No* No* 2840 694 456 No* No* No* No* No* 7555 526 292 No* No* No* No* No* No* No* 700 No* No* No* Notes: WM-C = using Mohr-Coulomb criterion.  1 is the maximum principal stresses (from finite element analysis). SRF = 7.00 2. For. which are almost 9 % and 250 % of Q classification system. Roof bolt spacing design using Q system provides only one value for several different parameters and criteria in rock mass. CONCLUSION In Part 1: Analysis and design of tunnel support system is a complex problem of rock structure analysis. c/1  3. Figure 5.00 2. they provide a more rational and practical solution as compared to that proposed by any classification system.333. . A multilaminate theory is used to compute the support pressure which would prevent the collapse of the rock mass.333 1.00 2. In this paper a rational but practical method of computing support pressure has been suggested. Depth = 80 m. Louhenapessy 1998):  RQD=72 %.67 MPa.circular tunnel with one set of joint) The following data been assumed for comparison (Palmstrom 1995.  for CASE-I tunnel: 1  1. Table 2 shows the tunnel support design of Q system and the proposed method.  Non dilational friction angle.333 1.5 (medium stress. In general the proposed method gives more extensive information i. Basic friction angle. Jn= 2 (one joint set).a) Zone of Failure Indices around the tunnel. It is shown that. This is for insitu stress ration.6 kPa.00 and Proof = 16. Jr=1.0)  for CASE-II tunnel: 1  26. It is based on the 'stress path' method of analysis.5. the zone and extent of area to be rock bolted is indicated.00 0. c/1  91. The stress path at a number of point on the periphery of the tunnel is computed using an elastic finite element method. The methodology is explained by a set of rose diagrams and tables of failure indices. failure criteria. SRF = 1.5 (JRC=6 or o=27o) In-situ OrienWM-C (mm) WPAP (mm) Q system Stress tation. =0o. CASE -I : Roof Bolt Spacing (Diameter 25 mm) CIRCULAR TUNNEL CASE-I. Ko= 0. WPAP = using Papaliangas criterion No* = No support required or using minimum bolt spacing END OF PART 1 11.e.

Bandung.It is proposed that the engineers should develop similar diagrams for the tunnel based on actual laboratory / field data.. J. Chan. and Hencher. T. and Pande. (1995). and Pande. p. (1998). (1990). dan Rai. Engineering. A. E.R. W. 97--124. Wilham G. Lumsden. p. p. “Stress analysis for rock masses”. And Underground Construction.A. & Borna. Wilham G. Edited by F. ISBN 979-96668-2-1. Rotterdam. Univ. S. 58. and Bawden. p. Brady. Int. p. M. p. Numerical Methods in Rock Mechanics. Univ. Agosto (August) 1999. J. Dept.Thesis #1026.. “Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports (Chapter 1)”. 22. Wilham G. (1983). Institut Teknologi Bandung. Jakarta. EUROC’96. p. Louhenapessy. Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics. Toronto..197204.T.. p. Int.L. W. 189-236. Cambridge.Balkema. “Time dependent multi-laminate model of rocks . G. 1 pp. (2000).N. Aachen. (1974). Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. “On a rational method of analysis and design of tunnel supports based on the finite element technique”. CSSC. Springer Verlag.. Swansea.p. and Williams.). G. Canadian Soc. P.. p. Louhenapessy.. “Squeezing behavior of tunnels: a phenomenological approach”. (1998). T. W. of Rock Mech. Geol. J. 1. Y. Cambridge University Press. G.A Rock Mechanics Study. Perkembangan Permasalahan Geoteknik dan Pemecahannya di Millenium Baru. “A Rational Finite Element Analysis Based Procedure for The Analysis of Pressure on Tunnel Supports”. J. Palmstrom. Grant.N. Proc. (2000). thesis.G (1992). REFERENCES Barla. G. Cong. “Newmo3962_2000: User's Instruction Manual”. 8th Int. Vol 6. J.. (1998). Hoek. Felsbau. John Willey.CR/1022/00. Mech. Symp. Sweden.. (1991). Zienkiewicz. No. W. Panet. N. Balkema. on Rock Mechanics. J. 635--643. Vol 1.P. Louhenapessy.T. & Tunneling Tech. 1(2). “Systematic rock mass characterization for underground mine design”. (1997). Dept. These design charts can be readily read for any situation during construction. Wittke. Undrained Analysis of Rock Structures. (Editors). Louhenapessy. Kompas. S. Swansea. Analysis of Tunnel Supports using the Finite Element Method. Wiley. and Mutschler.. A.H. “Peran kuantifikasi sifat-sifat massa batuan dan struktur geologis pada rancangan terowongan dalam batuan saat ini dan masa mendatang”. Pande. 39-56.F. Vol.Sc. Konperensi Geoteknik Indonesia – VI. “Prediction of in situ shear strength of rock joints”. Bentmark. Butterworth & Heinemann. Chichester. ISRM. Scholz. & Pereira. (2003). Rock Mechanics. P.a system for characterizing rock mass strength for use in rock engineering”. Buhler. Minggu. Milne. T. Vol. Vol 2. Bieniawski. LNEC. Januari 1998. “Finite Element Method in Rock Tunnel Engineering”.N. Kaiser. J. Ryerson Polytechnic Univ. Riedmuller. Rotterdam. (2002).. . 3 November 2002. K. (1995). K. (1995). Mangkusubroto. UK. (1996). M. M. thesis. Civil Eng. “Consideration of the Geomechancis Classification of Bieniawski”. Keller. Chichester. Tokyo. Rock support in weak rock – A study based on the URI project – Doctoral.of Wales Swansea. In Rock Tunneling With Steel Supports. Congress on Rock Mechanics. 4 (2).. Bell.a numerical study of deformation and failure of rock masses”. Tunnel Support with Shotcrete in Weak Rock . and Lunde. Z. (1990). S.D. Wilham G. & Pande. Doctoral Thesis. of Civil & Env.K. 284-288.A. 69-108. Terzaghi. of Wales Swansea. Rep No.Balkema. and Noble. R. (1999). G. A. B. Proctor. D.7th Int. On Engng. C. Rock Mechanics: Theory and Applications with Case Histories. Berlin. R. Proc. A. J. Eng. Himpunan Ahli Teknik Tanah Indonesia (HATTI). of Wales Swansea. 236-243. 293-298. Ph.. of Civil & Env. Rotterdam. The Mechanics of Earthquake and Faulting. Dept. Koesnaryo. Prosiding: Geoteknik di Indonesia Menjelang Millenium ke-3. “Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support”. Gallerie e grandi opere sotterane. Germain. (1990). 1.V & White. Sweden. Agustus 2003.of Rock Mech. D.N. A. (1946). G. Lien. A. Jakarta. in Geomech. “Terowongan Nusantara Penyatu Selat Sunda”. Univ. (1982). (1994). (1998). “RMi . Barla (ed. p.L. Tunneling 1982. Engineering in rock masses.P.G. Seraphim. 16 No. Numerical and Analytical Meth. Lisbon. Louhenapessy. (1990). Royal Institute of Tech.289-298.H. 219-247. “Large-scale triaxial test in combination with a FEM analysis for the determination of the properties of a transversal isotropic rock mass”.143-149. (1977). No. Royal Institute of Technology. O. M. Louhenapessy. Swansea. In Part 2: The application of the new method describing and analyzing mechanical interaction between rock and tunnel support (in this case tunnel lining role in design of tunnel. A. Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics. S. A. O. Barton. (1995). Oxford. Papaliangas. UK. “Rock characterization for tunneling – Engineering geologist‟s point of view”.Balkema. & Tunneling Tech. Proc.A.A.. The methods of excavation of support pressure based on a classification system lack rationale and should be used with caution. FORUM 1998. and Guenot. Natau. Ohio. Surat kabar Kompas. “Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel”. Engineering rock mass classification.C. Engineering.