Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rock Mass Classification PDF
Rock Mass Classification PDF
REPORT GL-79-19
Z. T. Bieniawski
D-A219 783
DTIC
ELECTE
3
'
MAR28 19W
January 1990
Distribution Unlimited
IV
Prepared for
20314-1000
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Ib RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
3
SCHEDULE
unlimited
Technical
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
(If applicable)
See reverse
6c. ADDRESS (City,
State, and ZIP Code)
University Park, PA
Vicksburg, MS
8b. OFFICE SYMBOL
ORGANIZATION
US Army Corps of Engineers
(If applicable)
Washington, DC
USAEWES
Geotechnical Laboratory
At
,,, Sta e,and Z/PCode)
3909 Halls Ferry Road
16802
Report GL-79-19
39180-6199
DACW39-78-M-3314
DACW39-84-M-1462
10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
TASK
PROGRAM
PROJECT
NO.
NO.
ELEMENT NO.
WORK UNIT
ACCESSION NO.
20314-1000
22161
17.
.-
COSATI CODES
GROUP
SUB-GROUP
systems.
A comparison is made between the tunnel support design based on the classical
Ter-aghi rcak load method and the support selection based on the RSR Concept, the Geomechanic
Classification. and the Q-System.
These classification systems are described 4-n detail' and
guidelines are given for step-by-step app]ication of the three methods.
Using an actual
tunnel case history, an evaluation is made of the current design practice by comparing it
with the design approaches involving the three rock mass classification systems.
It is
concluded that the current design practice may lead to overdesign of support, and recommendations are made for improved procedures that would ensure the construction of safe and more
economical rock tunnels.
Finally, a few areas are identified where more research would
benefit the current tunnel design practice,
In order to accomplish the main purpose of this report,
20 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT
(2 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED
0 SAME AS RPT
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
DTIC USERS
PrCIa'sif
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
6a.
OF THIS PAGE
19.
ABSTRACT (Continued)
practices with respect to rock mass classification systems, the following scope of work
was defined:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
case history.
The above scope of work was accomplished during this study, and the procedures,
The
results, and discussions are presented in this report originally published in 1979.
report was reprinted in FY 89 during which time a Bibliography covering the appropriate
literture through 1986as well as a discussion of recent dvelopmeats, given in Appendix D,
were added.
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
PREFACE
Funds
for this study were provided by the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) under Purchase Orders DACW39-78-M-3314 and DACW39-84-M-1462.
This study was performed in FY 78 under the direction of Dr. D. C.
Banks, Chief, Engineering Geology and Rock Mechanics Division (EGRMD),
Geotechnical Laboratory (GL), and Messrs. J. P. Sale and R. G. Ahlvin, Chief
and Assistant Chief, respectively, GL.
Acoession For
NTIS
GRAMI
DTIC TAB
Unannounced
Justifiaation
By
Distribution/
Availablt_ Codes
Avail and/or
Dist
1/
Special
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE...................................................................
PART I:
PART II:
INTRODUCTION....................................................
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN ROCK ENGINEERING ......................
7
10
11
13
16
23
34
44
44
45
46
47
PART IV:
49
49
50
5
55
56
56
60
60
PART V:
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS...........................................
62
PART VI:
64
Conclusions........................................................
Recommendations....................................................
64
64
REFERENCES...............................................................
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................
70
TABLES 1-23
Page
TERZAGHI'S ROCK LOAD TABLES .................................
Al
APPENDIX B:
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES FOR ROCK
MASS CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................
BI
B3
B9
B10
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX C:
Cl
TABLES Cl-C2
FIGURES Cl-C7
APPENDIX D:
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE USE OF ROCK MASS
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TUNNEL DESIGN (1979-1984)......................
Dl
By
Multiply
feet
0.3048
metres
3.785412
inches
2.54
centimetres
47.88026
kilopascals
1.609347
kilometres
pounds (force)
4.448222
newtons
47.88026
6.894757
16.01846
0.09290304
pascals
kilopascals
square metres
1.
INTRODUCTION
approaches:
complex nature of rock masses and the difficulties encountered with their
characterization, the analytical approach is the least used in the present
engineering practice.
Consequently, such
that a flexible tunnel lining, utilizing the inherent ability of the rock to
support itself, is preferable to a rigid one.
In practice, a combination of
European practice for which they were evolved c-er many years of trial and
error, but are not easily adaptable to the established U.S. contracting
procedures.
3.
If an
This
empirical design approach, are widely employed in rock tunneling and most of
the tunnels constructed at present in the United States make use of some
classification system.
Europe, 9 - 12 South Africa, 13- 1 6 Australia, 17 New Zealand, 18 Japan,'9 USSR,20 and in
23-24
rock slopes,
25
and
16
with respect to rock mass classification systems and particularly those which
have been introduced in the recent years, have been tried out on a large
number of tunneling projects, and have offered a practical and acceptable
alternative to the classical Terzaghi classification of 1946.
PART II:
7.
application:
a.
b.
c.
d.
9.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
General enough so that the same rock mass will possess the same
basic classification regardless whether it is being used for a
tunnel, a slope, or a foundation.
To date, many rock mass classification systems have been proposed,
10.
These
United States by Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner,5,6 was the first system
assigning classification ratings for weighing the relative importance of
classification parameters.
Bieniawski
13
developed independently (in 1973 and 1974, respectively), and both these
classifications provide quantitative data enabling the selection of modern
tunnel reinforcement measures such as rockbolts and shotcrete.
The Q-System
12.
systems.
17
,18,23,27,28,29
the construction of a railroad tunnel,30 which was 18 ft* wide and 2.4 miles
long.
The
This
means that since rock mass classifications are used as tunnel design methods,
they must be evaluated with respect to the guidelines that they provide for
the selection of tunnel support.
is invariably installed close to the tunnel face shortly after the excavation
is compl~ted.
lining is installed.
14.
In some European
countries, for example: Austria, Germany, Sweden, and Norway, only one kind of
support is understood, generally a combination of rockbolts and shotcrete, and
concrete linings are considered unnecessary if tunnel monitoring shows
stabili.ation of roc': movements.
tunnels, while water tunnels may feature concrete linings, not for strtctural
stability reasons but to reduce surface friction and to prevent water leakage
into the rock.
15.
permanent supports may well lead to overdesign cf tunnels since the so-called
primary support may be all that is necessary and the concrete lining only
serves as an expensive cosmetic feature acting psychologically to bolster
public confidence in the safety r' the tunnel.
placing concrete lining may be that since the current knowledge of rock tunnel
engineering is still incomplete, a radical departure from the customary
methods of design may not be advisable.
16.
has been the most commonily used system for containing rock tunnel deformations
during the past 50 years.
classification is appropriate for the purpose for which it was evolved, i.e.,
for estimating rock loads for steel-arch supported tunnels, it is not so
suitable for modern tunneling methods using shotcrete and rockbolts.
detailed studies, Cecil
32
After
10
Lauffer's Classification
18.
stand-up time for any active unsupported rock span is related to the various
rock mass classes as shown in the diagram in Figure 1.
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.
It should be
noted that a number of factors may affect the stand-up time, as illustrated
diagrammatically in Figure 2.
used since it has been modified a number of times by other Austrian engineers,
0
notably von Rabcewicz, Gosler, and Pacher.1
19.
small span may be successfully constructed full face in fair rock conditions,
a large span opening in this same rock may prove impossible to support in
terms of the stand-up time.
parameters, the stand-up time and the span, are difficult to establish and
rather much is demanded of practical experience.
introduced the stand-up time and the span as the two most relevant parameters
for the determination of the type and amount of tunnel support, and this has
13
influenced the development of more recent rock mass classification systems.
11
z
.
0.1
MIN
1O MIN
1 HR
I DAY
I WK
I MO
I YR
10 YR
100 YR
STAND-U P TIME
.P
K,,
TIME
0
.7
TIME
TIME
TIME
c. EXCAVATIONMETHO A.
Figure 2.
... .
SUPPORT METHOD
12
21.
core recovery procedure which incorporates only those pieces of core that are
4 in. or greater in length.
This RQD has been widely used and has been found
4
very useful for selection of tunnel support.
22.
recommends a core size of at least NX diameter (2.16 in.) drilled with doublebarrel diamond drilling equipment.
RQD, Percent
< 25
25-50
50-75
75-90
90-100
23.
Rock Quality
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
He pointed
out a limitation of the RQD index in areas where the joints contain thin clay
fillings or weathered material.
13
VERY
POOR
POOR
GOODEXCELL.
FAIR
3.0
2.5
C '
EXCAVATIONS)
2.0
1,-
1.5
__
__
LI.
0
1.0
U
0
ROCKBOLTS (SMALL
DISPLA CEMENTS,
LARGE EXCAVATIONS)
cr
0.5
ol0.25
0.10
Q1W
0
25
50
RQD,
75
100
PERCENT
14
100
41111
EXCELLENT
QUALITY ROCK
HARD - FEW
JOINTS
O LOT
SOLOAN,
.[
a: PATTERN
- FT CENTERS)
BOLTING
Go
LEGEND
z
60
w (A
ItO
0.
20
POOR QUALITY
ROCK - CLOSELY
JOINTED &/OR
NO SUPPORT
OCCASIONAL BOLTS
PATTERN BOLTING
STEEL RIBS
_A-
-"_
A
0
WEATHERED
t0
20
40
30
60
s0
TUNNEL WIDTH. FT
(AFTER MERRITT)
0
PATTERN BOLTING OR
4-6 CM 9OTCRErE
'
__ __.
__\\__\_
110
U
V//v//, OR IS,
do
CO
10
20
30
40
TUNNEL WIDTH. FT
so
60
LEGEND
NONE TO OCCASIONAL BOLTING
NOTE:
~ PATTERN
Figure 4.
15
RSR Concept
26.
describing the quality of a rock mass and for selecting the appropriate ground
support.
In other
(dip and
(d) type of discontinuities, (e) major faults, shears, and folds, (f)
Some of these
The
16
(a) size of
30.
Skinner
These three
a. Parameter A.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Joint spacing.
(2)
(3)
c. Parameter C.
31.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per foot of the
tunnel).
quality of the rock mass with respect to its need for support regardless of
the size of the tunnel.
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 5.
17
1o
II.
W 20
W
J
W
Z
Z
30
40 r
1.00
I
I.io
1.05
1.15
1.20
It should be noted that Tables 2,3 and 4 are reproduced not from
because
the RSR ratings were changed in 1974 and the latter paper represents the
latest information available.
33.
same size rib as used in a given case study tunnel section was determined for
the datum condition.
Thus,
RR - 46 would mean that the section required only 46 percent of the support
used for the datum condition.
having the same RR would require different weight or size of ribs for
equivalent support.
be 100 for a tunnel requiring the same support as the datum condition.
18
34.
divided into typical geological sections, a total of 190 tunnel sections were
analyzed.
The RSR and RR values were determined for each section, and actual
distributed as follows:
14
Total supported
164
Total unsupported
( 89.6%)
(
8.6%)
1.6%)
(100.0%)
26
Total
35.
147
190 sections
namely:
(RR + 80)(RSR + 30) = 8800
(Reference 6)
(RR + 70)(RSR + 8)
(Reference 5)
or
- 6000
It was concluded 6 that rock structures with RSR values less than 19 would
require heavy support while those with ratings of 80 and over would be
unsupported.
36.
However, an appraisal of
rockbolt requirements was made by considering rock loads with respect to the
tensile strength of the bolt.
general approach:
acted in tension only; it did not allow either for interaction between
adjacent blocks or for an assumption of a compression arch formed by the
19
bolts.
tunnels.
__
D
or
t=
1.25
__D
(65 - RSR)
150
where
t - shotcrete thickness, in.
W
rock load
D = tunnel diameter, ft
39.
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 author believes that the RSR Concept is a very useful method
approaches, one should not apply a concept beyond the range of sufficient and
reliable data used for developing the concept.
Appendix B).
SHOTCRETE
V-f24
DIAM
5,
S~~
ROCKBOLTS-.,~.-
1.25
70
'~-
-0.5
604"
z 50
T'/'
DIAM
W
- 40
U
1.
0
2.0
DATUM -_o
3.0
20
'
4.0
100
RIB SPACING. FT 2
BOLT SPACING. FT
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS. IN.
Figure 6.
RSR concept
21
I" D'AM
ROCKBOLTS-,,
SHOTCRETE
70
=I~r
0.
161120 RIB
1.0
125
60-
---
lo
Z1.5
oW3
2.0
500
n3.0
-5.0
30
-6.0
-ATU
-7.
20
I-jO
/
-C
/U
20--
'Z/
100
R B SPACING, FT2
2
BOLT SPACING, FT
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS, '..
RSR concept
Figure 7.
SHOTCRETE
:14:
t=
7 01-
I-
=.
-2
OIAM
625
10ROCKBOLTS
RIO
I' 6H
-.
z
w
0
J
-3.0
2:
30-
0
200
(RIB RATIO =100)
10
-I
RIB SPACING, FT
BOLT SPACING . FT 2
SHOTCRETE THICKNESS, IN.
Figure 8.
RSR Concept
-support
22
42.
43.
a.
b.
c.
Spacing of discontinuities.
d.
Orientation of discontinuities.
e.
Condition of discontinuities.
f.
Groundwater conditions.
In
of
Since the various parameters are not equally important for the
investigated by the author 23 while the ir.tial ratings were based on the
5
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 onto the standard input data
sheet, as shown in Appendix B.
45.
worst conditions are evaluat ed since this classification, being based on case
histories, has a built-in safety factor.
the importance ratings given for discontinuity spacings apply to rock masses
23
Once the
Section B of Table 6.
To facilitate a decision
whether strike and dip orientations are favorable or not, reference should be
made to Table 7, which is based on studies by Wickham, Tiedemann, and
Skinner. 5
In the case of
tunnels and chambers, the output from the Geomechanics Classification is the
stand-up time of an unsupported rock span for a given rock mass rating
(Figure 9).
49.
24
44
Ulaw
(N
044
LI
a-I
0o
41
)::
0600
Z .4
4J
Li.
CD
>.
u)
C"
Qi0dfS
<2
-rdS P.J~
100-RMR
100
where
P is the support load, 7 is the density of the rock, B is the tunnel
width and RMR is the rock mass rating.
50.
Hence, additional
However, to ensure
or index can fully and quantitatively describe a jointed rock mass for
tunneling purposes.
Under the same confining pressure, the strength of the rock material
This classification is
given in Table 9.
53.
accordance with the standard laboratory procedures, but for the purpose of
rock classification, the use of the well-known, point-load strength index is
recommended.
rock core retrieved from borings and the core does not require any special
26
preparation.
I.
diameter), a,, = 24 I.
54.
Very soft rock. Material crumbles under firm blow with a sharp
end of a geological pick and can be peeled off with a knife.
b.
c.
d.
e.
It can be seen from the above that for the lower ranges up to medium hard
rock, hardness can be assessed from visual inspection and by scratching with a
knife and striking with a hammer.
27
compressive strength and the product of hardness and density being expressed
39
in the following formula:
where
y= dry unit weight, pcf
R = Schmidt hardness (L-hammer)
It is used as a classification parameter, because although it is not sufficient on its own for a full description of a rock mass, the RQD index has been
found most useful in tunneling applications as a guide for selection of tunnel
support, has been employed extensively in the United States and in Europe, and
is a simple, inexpensive, and reproducible way to assess the quality of rock
core
Spacing of discontinuities
56.
in the rock mass that may be technically joints, bedding planes, minor faults,
or other surfaces of weakness.
the strength of a rock mass, and their spacing governs the degree of such
reduction.
Spacing of discontinuities is a
separate parameter, because the RQD index does not lend itself for assessing
the spacing of discontinuities from a single set of cores.
A classification
In accordance with
28
Condition of uiscontinuities
58.
are clean and closed, and inhibit shear movement along the discontinuity
surface.
measured in terms of tenths of an inch and are readily apparent on a coresized exposure of a discontinuity.
60.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Smooth.
e.
Slickensided.
rock material and the discontinuities separately affect the behavior of the
rock mass.
controls the extent to which the opposing surfaces can interlock as well as
the amount of water that can flow through the discontinuity.
In the absence
the rock wall tend to become more interlocked, and both the filling and the
rock material contribute to the shear strength of joints.
Very tight:
<0.1 mm.
b.
Tight:
c.
Moderately open:
d.
Open:
e.
Very wide:
0.1-0.5 mm.
0.5-2.5 mm.
2.5-10 mm.
10-25 mm.
b.
consistency.
63.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Completely
decomposed
is that of
preserved,
It should be noted that the boundary between rock and soil is defined in terms
of the uniaxial compressive strength and not in terms of weathering.
material with the strength equal to or above 150 psi is considered as rock.
Groundwater conditions
64.
and expressed in terms of the ratio of the water pressure to the major principal stress.
The rock mass along the tunnel route is divided into a number of
structural regions, and the above classification parameters are determined for
each structural region and entered onto the standard input data sheet, as
enclosed in Appendix B.
66.
24
and slopes. 25
only applicable to rock tunnels but also to rock foundations
This is a very useful feature that can assist with the design of slopes near
the tunnel portals as well as allow estimates of the deformability of
foundations for such structures as bridges.
railroad route involving tunnels and bridges, the output from the Geomechanics
Classification for slopes and foundations will be very useful.
67.
In the case of rock foundations, the rock mass rating RMR from the
31
2W
2w
U
MW ,I
wz
w Q
0(
wu
00~
co c
00
(n<
2
o
o
W
00
W 40
a)
,n-4 U
41
00
r
2
(r
0n
a,
N Sd
d
fllOS
c2
N0
l.SN
0n
44O.V~dl0~
68.
41
output from the Geomechanics Classification to the rock slopes was tested by
Steffen 25 who analyzed 35 slopes of which 20 had failed.
69.
Like with
follows:
Consider a slightly weathered quartzite in which a
20-ft-span tunnel is to be driven. The following classification parameters were determined:
Item
Value
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ground water
6.
Orientation of joints
Rating
22,000 psi
80-90%
1-3 ft
12
17
20
12
Moderate inflow
Basic rock mass value
Fair
Final RMR
Rock Mass Class:
II
7
68
-5
63
good rock
Output: From Figure 9, for RMR = 63 and unsupported span = 20 ft, the
stand-up time will be about I month. From Table 8, recommended tunnel
support is rockbolts in crown 10 ft long, spaced at 8 ft with shotcrete
2 in. thick and wire mesh. From Figure 10, the rock mass modulus is
estimated as 3.7 x 106 psi.
33
STABLE SLOPES
FAILED SLOPES
033
I'.
U.
2
0.6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1.2
1.3
1,3
FACTOR OF SAFETY
with the top boundary line determines the maximum span possible in a given
rock mass; any larger span would result in the immediate roof collapse.
An
intercept of the RMR line with the lower boundary line determines the maximum
span that can stand unsupported indefinitely.
0-System
73.
34
Institute. 12
The above six parameters are grouped into three quotients to give
Q = ROD
in
r x
Ja
w
SRF
where
RQD
Jn=
Jr=
76.
overall structure of the rock mass, and their quotient is said to be a measure
of the relative block size.
clay bearing rock, (b) rock stress in competent rock, and (c) squeezing and
swelling loads in plastic incompetent rock.
as the "total stress" parameter.
35
77.
Jr, and Ja, played a more important role than joint orientation, and if joint
orientation had been included, the classification would have been less
general.
a function of both the size and the purpose of the excavation, is obtained by
dividing the span, diameter, or the wall height of the excavation by a quantity called the excavation support ratio (ESR.
Thus,
Equivalent dimension = Excavation span, diameter, or height, meter
ESR
79.
The ESR is related to the use for which the excavation is intended
B.
Vertical shafts:
ESR
No. of
cases
3-5
Circular section
2.5
Rectangular/square section
2.0
C.
1.6
83
D.
1.3
25
E.
1.0
73
F.
0.8
36
80.
in Tables 14-18.
deserves most attention, case histories featuring steel rib support, concrete
arch roofs, and piecast linings have been ignored.
81.
2 + ,1.15 B/ESR
specified to give estimates of permanent roof support since they were based on
roof support methods quoted in the case histories.
P'roof=
1/3
2.0
Jr
If the number of joint sets is less than three, the equation is expressed as
Proof =2 Jnl/2 Jr- I Q1
/3
3
85.
This is supported by
joints per unit volume, in which the number of joints per meter for each joint
37
0
U
00
uj
00
02
00
0
W2
-0
02
0~~
00L
00
N
NO
0-
so
NZ
\
00
r~jUj
0r
0000>
N
o~~
3
cj
-04
~0
2
IN.Hw
0
0.7
Om
MNk~I
ZN1AfO
3bNVI
038
0
0
0
~0
-4-
*0
LuH
DZ
-0
-L
00
Co
(DL LL
LL
LL I1 - XL
oLIi Ir
<
>
0
0
R~
N-
<
00-
-<
_jLo
(D
)::
U- I"
tDLJ0
IzC
xa
C<L4
:,
IiiN
Ljr~r
wc0
4
F- <
- -
U11-
J00
4-)
oo*
>00
1.
0
0
u0mN
0~~
0
-
V4(1
o-
NZdS
U3)OdlS
Ir39
0
0
U0
41i
0
0
0
0
Eo
o0
00
0
..
__<
(r
(i0
0 I
< EL
U n
z
504
()
X.
0)
UO
w~
W-
l)
tn
F-
Ix
Ir
0:
<
<(
W
0
wi
0
<
)*~
W0
C.)
wzwmo
1z
wi
0W
4
~~
X,
w
0
I
a.~ <
>Z
W 1Za
>-~DbO
WW
>01In
ZWI-<
3V411 dn-aNV.LS
wtrzw
0
LLJ W Ti
40
L a0
>0
0z
WI~
000
ITo
S41
02
02
ot
a
0
Er
44
LL)
'-4
00
0(00
MfS~
.J
41(r
<ddfl
40
i
BLT
TENDON
roof
Prf
a.
40
EXCAVATION SPAN, FT
Figure 16.
Design support pressures for roofs
of large caverns (after Cording,
Hendron, and Deere 3 3 )
set are added.
RQD - 115
Jv
-3.3
where J., represents the total number of joints per cubic meter (RQD
- 100
88.
b.
c.
Joint set 1:
smooth, planar
J-
chlorite coatings
ia
4.0
Jr
1.0
Joint set 2:
smooth, undulating
J5 " 2
Thus:
J,
1J -4
Most unfavorable Jr/Ja -
1/4
JW
1.0
a, - 3 MPa
u 3 - 1 MPa
ar - 40 MPa
Virgin stresses
Thus:
a, / a3 - 3 and a. / a,
Q -
50 x 1
4
4
1
1
1.0
3.1 (poor)
Support estimate:
B - 9 m, ESR - 1.6
Thus:
B/ESR - 4.6
For Q = 3.1:
support category - 21
43
PART III.
89.
For Terzaghi's
90.
It requires
Step 2.
Ste
3.
From Tables 2 to 4, determine the individual classification parameters A, B and C and their sum, which gives
the RSR = A + B + C.
Step 4.
Ste
5.
44
SteR 6.
91.
Bieniawski,
span, the stand-up time, the support requirements, the in situ rock mass
modulus, and the cohesion and friction of the rock masses.
Ste
1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Ste
4.
Ste
5.
Step 6.
Step 7.
45
Ste
8.
Step 9.
92.
1974 by Barton, Lien, and Lunde,12 enables the design of rock support in
tunnels and large underground chambers.
Step 1.
Ste
2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
SteR 6.
Step 7.
Step 8.
Step 9.
46
Comparison of Procedures
93.
of the three classification systems are given in paragraphs 41, 70, and 88.
It is
94.
the Q-value. 23
The results
are plotted in Figure 17 from which it will be seen that the following
relationship is applicable:
RMR - 9
Rutledge
ln Q + 44
95.
13.5 log Q + 43
(standard deviation
8.9)
as shown in Figures 9, 13, and 14, 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 the generally excellent
rock and the long experience in tunneling.
96.
.t is
believed that one should not necessarily rely on any one classification system
but should conduct a sensitivity analysis and cross-check the findings of one
classification with another.
mass.
47
000
AW3A
Wood AW3A
ood
WIA
GOOD
Uc
xO0
00
xO
00
--
>0
-+
or
w0
0
.0
0
04
U
-
CY
0b
0
0
0
(fl
0r
00
>.
))
-J
0
4
W v)
W
d.
V0
cnt
4
.M
0
z0W~
r4
02
48
PART IV:
98.
geological exploration and the current design practice were well documented,43
and even in situ stress measurements were conducted.44
logs were available for examination.
In addition, borehole
construction and acquainted himself with rock mass conditions before holingthrough took place.
99.
conduct approximately one-quarter of the maximum flow in the Park River to the
Connecticut River.
It was excavated
through shale and basalt rock at the maximum depth of 200 ft below the
surface.
invert with the tunnel sloping at a rate approximately 7 in. per 100 ft.
The 22-ft-diam tunnel was machine bored and lined throughout with
alternative, the initial design specified the minimum thickness of a cast-inplace reinforced concrete liner as 14 in. (Plate 9a-21 of Reference 44) with
additional 8 in. being allowed to the excavation pay line.
expected concrete thickness would be 22 in. giving the nominal excavation size
of 25.7 ft.
heavy structural support was expected with the concrete liner stipulated as
22 in. thick.
101.
Temporary rock support was prescribed for the entire length of the
49
Typical
In poor ground
condition, the bolt spacing would be between 2 and 4 ft with shotcrete 2 in.
thick.
The anticipated bid prices (1978 dollars) for the tunnel were
$23.25 million for machine boring with precast liners (or $1,880 per foot) and
up to $33.37 million for conventional drill and blast construction.
Tunnel Geology
103.
shown.
The rocks along the alignment are primarily easterly dipping Triassic
Descriptions
route:43,45
105.
a.
b.
c.
Two fault zones, one near sta 57 + 50 and the other between
sta 89 + 50 and 95 + 50.
The bedding is
generally dipping between 10 and 20 deg while the joints are steeply dipping
between 70 and 90 deg.
piezometric level in the bedrock was normally 142 to 175 ft above the invert
of the tunnel.
50
Hal V#V
3NI-7
LLu
~ ~7'~A~K~
~~'4AQ77Z'
CID
TX '
2,--
000
LU
ccn
6iz
cc
0
Q.,j
0
4
CC
Z--
-4
Ct
-4
0-
ISN 13 'N0UVA313
51
N~ilvkv
3N/7
I-
LUC
7
z
77
,-,~-to
0n
lu8
00
k~so
C1
I
--4
cco
<4
.-
3N1 7
Ho
52
3N17
H3IOI V
LO~
-4
0
0n
+1
ujI
U
0
1SV~I
53o
Ii.A
-4
bN
404
'
0%
Id'O.V31
/IS
544
Geological Investigations
107.
removal from the core barrel, and the core was logged, classified, and tested.
A typical drill log is given in Figure Cl, Appendix C.
109.
near the crown, and within one-half diameter above the crown to determine the
density, uniaxial compressive strength, triaxial strength, modulus of elasticity, Poisson's ratio, water content, swelling and slaking, sonic velocity,
and joint strength.
111.
Eight tests
could not be completed because of gage slipping, and two more because of
equipment malfunction.
133 psi.
132 psi.
112.
in Figure 18.
113.
input sheets have been derived from the borings, including information on
55
photography was employed for borehole logging in addition to the usual core
logging procedures.
the data from the geological report for the classification purposes since
engineering geological information was not systematically summarized in the
48
form of classification input work sheets.
114.
the RSR Concept, the Geomechanics Classification, and the Q-System are
performed in Tables 19, 20, 21, and 22, respectively, and are summarized in
Table 23.
115.
options 45.
1.
2.
3.
116.
b.
56
C.
117.
The
designers believed (Reference 43, p. 21) that the actual conditions would
exceed the best average conditions in most of the tunnel.
For machine
installation of the lining, the tunnel would drain less water under the city
than a drill and blast tunnel would.
(temporary) support and the final lining for drill and blast construction are
presented in Figure 19a.
operation, the design of the tunnel liner assumed a pressure of 15 psi for
contact grouting, which would ensure that the liner remains in compression
under net internal load conditions.
These test
The test
sections have been arranged to provide the greatest amount of data based on
57
C4
u4
k,
-AI
z
00
A..A
I-4
4
4J
A7
58
8eckpcA~~q pe.~rd
SVIp1
darn
7*0e
,~,re
TRANSVERSE
REINFORCEMENT
TUNNEL SECTION
PRECAST LINER
SCALE 1- '0
1'0
SCALE 1/4'
DETAILS
PRECAST LINER:
ALTERNATE
L1 ~ ~
-
-~
Ib~ge Ar/bt'
____ '
SECTION
TRANSVERSE
C-C
JOINT DETAIL
SCALE 3%1'0
b,.
PRECAST
Figure 19.
LINER
(Sheet 2 of 2)
59
preSSdCIJ iMrea.46t
Since the
precast segments were designed for the worst ground conditions but were used
throughout the tunnel, they were in effect overdesigned for the major portion
of the tunnel.
units were needed for a particular section of the tunnel, the design could
have been modified by increasing the steel reinforcement, and keeping the same
external shape.
Construction
122.
Upon
completion of the outlet shaft, approximately the first 235 ft of the tunnel
was advanced using drill-and-blast excavation to form a U-shaped chamber about
25 ft by 25 ft in cross section.
section, a tunnel boring machine (TBM) was assembled in the excavated chamber
and the tunnel advance using the TBM began.
The lining
123.
The RSR Concept was not sensitive enough for the rock
conditions encountered; its application is limited to
temporary steel support design.
C.
61
PART V:
124.
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
It is
believed that improved tunnel design procedures, for the construction of safe
and more economical rock tunnels, would result in the following areas:
a.
If a better and more systematic engineering geological description of the rock mass conditions is provided, e.g.,
in accordance with the input data sheets listed in
Appendix B.
b.
c.
d.
e.
If during the tunnel construction a more comprehensive tunnelmonitoring program could be incorporated, similar to the
procedures generally envisaged for the so-called New
Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM), not only the adopted
design could be verified but a safer and more economical
tunnel construction would be ensured.
f.
g.
62
h.
125.
Thus,
program is called for to ensure that the geologists understand the engineers'
requirements and that the engineers make it clear as to what is needed and why
for design purposes.
127.
outdated in view of the current rock engineering technology and its use leads
to the overdesign of tunnels.
The relationship between the stand-up time and the rock span
requires verification from actual case histories in the United States, and a
research program directed to this aspect would make a great
the field of rock tunneling.
63
itribution in
PART VI:
Conclusions
130.
sufficient information, both concerning the geology and the design, and yet
they constitute a most valuable source of practical knowledge.
Recommendations
132.
b.
C.
d.
64
e.
(2)
(3'
65
REFERENCES
I.
Hoek, E., and Londe, P., "The Design of Rock Slopes and Foundations,"
Proceedings, Third International Congress Rock Mechanics, International
Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver, Colo., 1974, Vol 1A, pp 613-752.
2.
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.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Highway
10.
Pacher, F., Rabcewicz, L., and Gosler, J., "Zum Derseitigen Stand der
Gebirgsklassifizierung in Stollen-und Tunnelbau," Proceedings, XXII
Ceomechanics Colloquium, Salzburg, 1974, pp 51-58.
11.
12.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., "Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support," Rock Mechanics, Vol 6, No. 4,
1974. pp 183-2j6.
13.
66
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Houghton, D. A., "The Assessment of Rock Masses and the Role of Rock
Quality Indices in Engineering Geology with Reference to Tunneling in
Hard Rock," M. S. Thesis, Imperial College, London, 1975, p 122.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Cor-ling, E. J., Hendron, A. J., and Deere, D. U., "Rock Engineering for
Underground Caverns," Proceedings, Symposium on Underground Rock
Chambers, American Society of Civil Engineers, Phoenix, Ariz., 1972,
pp 567-600.
34.
Cording, E. J., and Deere, D. U., "Rock Tunnel Supports and Field
Measurements," Proceedings. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference,
American Institution of Mining Engineers, New York, 1972, pp 601-622.
35.
36.
Brekke, 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, 1972, pp 25-41.
37.
38.
39.
68
40.
41.
Hoek, E., and Bray, J. W., "Rock Slope Engineering," revised second
edition, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 1977, pp 113-115
and 150-192.
42.
43.
Department of the Army, New England Division, CE, "Park River Local
Protection, Connecticut River Basin, Hartford, Connecticut Auxiliary
Conduit Tunnel - Site Geology, Foundations, Concrete Materials and
Detailed Design of Structures," Design Memorandum No. 9, Dec 1976,
Waltham, Mass.
44.
Nataraja, M., "In Situ Stress Measurements, Park River Project, Hartford,
Connecticut," Miscellaneous Paper S-77-22, Nov 1977, U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
45.
46.
47.
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abad, J., Celada, B., Chacon, E., Gutierrez, V., and Hildago, E., 1983,
Application of Geomechanics Classification to Predict the Convergence of Coal
Mine Galleries and to Design their Supports, Proceedings, 5th International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melbourne, Australia, Vol. 2, pp. E15-E19.
Baczynski, N. R. P., 1980, "Rock Mass Characterization and Its Application to
Assessment of Unsupported Underground Openings," Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Melbourne, 233 p.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., 1974, "Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support," Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp. 189-236.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1979, The Geomechanics Classification in Rock Engineering
Applications, Proceedings, 4th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM,
Montreux, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 41-48.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1983, "The Geomechanics Classification (RMR System) in
Design Applications to Underground Excavations," Proceedings. International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon,
Portugal, Vol. 2, pp. 11.33-11.47.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1984, "The Design Process in Rock Engineering," Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 183-190.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1984, Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling,
A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam pp. 97-133.
Brook, N., and Dharmaratne, P. G. R., 1985, "Simplified Rock Mass Rating
System for Mine Tunnel Support," Traasactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, Section A, Vol. 94, July, pp. A148-A154.
Cameron-Clarke, I. S., and Budavari, S., "Correlation of Rock Mass
Classification Parameters Obtained from Borecore and In Situ Observations,"
Engineering Geology, Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 19-53.
Dearman, W. R., 1983, "Classification Systems and Design of Underground
Structures Based on Classification Systems," Proceedings, International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, Vol. 2, LNEC,
Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 11.5-11.30.
Einstein, H. H., Steiner, W., and Baecher, G. B., "Assessment of Empirical
Design Methods for Tunnels in Rock," Proceedings. Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, AIME, New York, pp. 683-706.
70
71
King, R. L., 1986, "Expert Reasoning Models Applied to Mine Geologic Data,"
Proceedings, 3rd Conference on the Use of Computers in the Coal Industry,"
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 65-70.
Lama, R. D., 1986, "Effect of Geological Environments and Direction on
Behavior of Roof," Proceedings. International Symposium on Application of Rock
Characterization Techniques in Mine Design, AIME, New York, pp. 114-123.
Laubscher, D. H., 1977, "Geomechanics Classification of Jointed Rock Masses
Mining Applications," Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallur , London, Vol. 93, Sect. A., Vol. 86, pp. Al-A7.
Laubscher, D. H., 1984, "Design Aspects and Effectiveness of Support Systems
in Different Mining Situations," Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, Vol. 93, Sect. A, pp. 70-81.
Lokin, P., Nijajilovic, R., and Vasic, M., 1983, "An Approach to Rock Mass
Classification for Underground Works," Proceedings, 5th International Congress
on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melbourne, Vol. 1, pp. B87-B92.
Moreno-Tallon, E., 1982, "Comparison and Application of the Geomechanics
Classification Schemes in Tunnel Construction," Proceedings. Tunneling '82,
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 241-246.
Nakao, N., and lihoshi, S., and Koyma, S., 1983, "Statistical Reconsideration
on the Parameters for Geomechanics Classification," Proceedings. 5th
International Congress of Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Melbourne, Vol. 1,
pp. B13-B16.
Newman, D. A., 1985, "The Design of Coal Mine Roof Support and Yielding
Pillars for Longwall Mining in the Appalachian Coalfield", Ph.D. Thesis, The
Pennsylvania State University, 392 p.
Newman, D. A., and Bieniawski, Z. T., 1985, "A Modified Version of the
Geomechanics Classification for Entry Design in Underground Coal Mines," AIME
Preprint No. 85-313, 10 p.
Nguyen, V. U., 1985, "Some Fuzzy Set Applications in Mining Geomechanics,"
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 6,
pp. 369-379.
Nguyen, V. U., and Ashworth, E., 1985, "Rock Mass Classification by Fuzzy
Sets," Proceedings, 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Vol. 2, pp. 937-946.
Nicholas, D. E., 1981, "Method Selection - A Numerical Approach," Proceedings,
Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, AIME, New York,
pp. 34-54.
72
73
Unrug, K., and Szwilski, T. B., 1982, "Methods of Roof Cavability Prediction,"
Proceedings. State-of-the-Art of Ground Control in Longwall Mining and Mining
Subsidence, AIME, New York, pp. 13-30.
Venkateswarlu, V., 1983, "Prediction of Roof Conditions Through Geotechnical
Studies - An Approach," Journal of Mines, Metals, and Fuels, March,
pp. 94-100.
Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R., and Skinner, E., 1974, "Ground Control
Prediction Model - RSR Concept," Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference, AIME, New York, pp. 691-707.
Zadeh, L. A., 1965, "Fuzzy Sets," Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3,
June, pp. 338-353.
Zhen-Yu, T., and Zu-Zeng, P., 1983, "Classification System of Fuzzy Sets for
Rock Engineering," Proceedings. International Symposium on Engineering Geology
and Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, pp. II.-l 11.-9.
74
5
4)5
L0 '.
4)4
S
is 0
cl
s.
Ad
'
0~~~
04)c)
N)
ov
-l
'A 0
r
-4)
02
cc
014
4).
Z-4
.. 3o
Q0 4-
~ ~
,,.
-4
4)
to
0 A
'.j
1
m+
En
m .
+ U'
0.
a)00
- u
02
1.
u) L)44
02 9
v4
4)
.4+
.0 4J
04
0
02
*0--
v)
a)14
4):
41 E
43
+
a
+
0
434
*-
'-4
04.
00
01
-Q
()
4)\
0)4
0
0-4
02
EO
50
u) v.0
0 td
-04 CL.
3'
.
1)4
o-0
54)
0
4
3..
0
0
d
to
.4)
41
>
3-.
a~4 'W.
01
j0
-4.0
41.
dc4
).
m)
Q
-
10'
W
00
4.
-.
of.4
v'
d
I
4J
- 02
A-3)-+
.0
+3
.0
)
4)d
45)
+3,
- 4d0
4-
-.41
00A+3
-)
0
)
+3
43
4)
43
W3II
4)
'.0
5u
0
.
44
4)
4)
I
4)
4)I
4
01
'.4
I4)
0
34u
-o1
'0
v) .
3
4)
4-0.4
to4
02
,
-0
1. .1.43+
p4)4
44
j.
w
;3
ca
34)
00.
-4o0
4
41
4)10
&15
v' 4'
cis
4.0
4)
40
4S
'0
044400 N.
4)
W
+43
-45.
4+3 C
01
4a)-4
14
+44
0.-44
3)
)4
N34.0
0+
A
c) 4.
4)J'
.
l'
0)
.
1.
>1.
4)
v-.
x
0
-L\
04
44)
0-
3+14
4t
.1v
a\
V. 4
1'.
3
.03
404r1
)
.4
V34 4-31
u4
'004.4
,0
&'3,-
1.3
404
.4)
)00
00c1.
to
cU'.
a,
4)
ID
0+
4
.45)1
414
4)
4)30
+3
31'
00
t
04
.4
13'
0'.
+3-4
0
0.0
033.
N3
02
u
.4)
1.
-'
00
4-1'-
02
I..
to
..
433+
v
;0.
~~ ~~~
4
.4~
+~l3
4
4)4)0'
+3
)34
~~
44
:3
~.0
+3
4(. V
0+30
-4.
4)0
4).04)
'-4
4)3
+3
0I
a3 0k
4)0
.0
.
00
3'04 -40
c
V4~
4)1.
-4
4)
41
06.3
1.
..
'
v'0
u3
Q-
4)
t
I0s
~d
4))0
6
02q
Ofl.
00+3
oil3
4
4)
.0
4))
0
_T0
-4'Q~ .
.'.
r.
-63+4)4
aU 0.. 04
.
0
-4
05+>
.
4)
r.44)
4)
.
04
a)31
-L.
4)
CU4
it
4)0
4-.
4)
0
u
r-.
4
0
.0
030U)
4."02Cil
-4.
.. *4)
004
.04
w.3
4.4
02
02
U.
4)
.4)
a\
)0
0
0
(a
0
0n
'0- 3
u.
4
00
-40-43Cr-
02
.:t
.-4
43
() o54).-a
0
14
4)
to
v)44
4)0C00I
u) a))0
0i
0
c
m
0
.4)
rM
03aQ1'1
aD
110
'Ac
01--
4)
6
W3 V
4)
'.'
97
02
r
..- 4 to
'060-.0-
w. 4)
v
01-4
-t)
t- 0
(74)03
U0cj
43
.0
..
:1
(d.~
))'
5+1.
v14
0k
0+
0
U\0
-
.
-443.
:
04)
.43
.
4)
02
-4,0
-44r
A0 a
...0
4)
0
*
0.
0
r4
-44
44)5 C'4
43+3r_ C
0) )5
04)0
-4
c
0
+
-4
ho
0
031'
.-
m
.54j
1'33
31I
t.-4
)
'.1
'-44)&C
4)
C0.10.
r.
L\
-'
44W
1.
P..
4)
4)
r;
~1
U)
+3
4
0
'
V%
a2
4)
a, 043
06
m1
d1
1
0T
0
)L
(Wu
.0~
t--3
-4...
+31 302
2>
'o
1.
0
02
4)
02
U)
.00
0
41
w-4
U'.
033
-4
e
-4
4j
41.l
W
41-2
+0
0v~.
I4)
4)
3+
14j
+3a
4)4
04
40
0
43
0+3
'
4).
4
.3
.:
--
.3
4
A0
to
t'
0C'
4- 0
to
4
~~
o0t~
4)J
315
0J.
Ci.
4)03)0-4))
to
50
s:4 G3
3.
0)
0)
ov~~~
o
I
r4I
~
1
0.1
4'
u1.\jc
0~1
8.1
411A
'03
0,
04N)
V
'0
Go
3
ON42t~
0
04
.L
4)
4)
f310
20
Table 2
Rock Structure Rating - Parameter A
Max, Value 30
Geological Structure
Decomp.
Igneous
Metamorphic
Sedimentary
Massive
Type 1
30
22
15
Type 2
27
20
13
Type 3
24
18
12
19
15
10
Type
Moderately
Faulted
or
Folded
Intensely
Faulted
or
Folded
Slightly
Faulted
or
Folded
Table 3
Rock Structure Rating
Parameter B
56-
U4032 -Direction
0
z
24
U,
Ma.Vle4
1 'Strike
_L to Axis
Direction of Drive
8-1
j2
both
0 8
16
24
32
404
THICKNESS IN INCHES
au
Strike 4Lto Axis
Direction of Drive
______________________Mx
Fiat
With Dip
Against Dip
Dip of Prominent Joints*
Dipping Vertical Dipping Vertical
11
13
10
12
13
19
15
17
Both
Dip of Prominent Joints*
Vertical
Flat Dipping
9
1 11.
Moderately Jointed
23
24.
28
19
22
23
23
19
Moerate to blocky
30
32
36
25,
28
3D
28
24.
36
38
1.0
33
35
36
34.
28
43
1.5
37
4.0
4o0
38
34.
( acio10
dw;
JF
di i~
-~
2'
517 to 90 dew.
Table 4
Rock Structure Rating - Parameter C
Anticipated
13 - 44
Water
Inflow
(gpm/1000')
45 - 75
Joint Condition*
Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
25
22
18
23
19
11
11
21
16
12
18
14
10
Good
Fair
None
22
18
12
Slight
(<200 gpm)
19
15
Moderate
(200-1000 gpm)
15
Heavy
(>1000 gpm)
10
Joint condition:
Good
c0
NtlH-
o
(n)
HCMj
t-
ON\
00
H1
C
N
CMj
(N
_z
CQ
'0
~\10
co x
O7\
H-
I'D
0
9
w-
-0t-H
4P
cr
-P-
'0
fn
\0
co
CM
C;
(n
UN'
co
t--
H
m-
LIN
mO
ccC)
ifN
co
HD
H\ZM
C!
-'
IV
L\'00
L0
s-_:
C)
xZ
C)
C)
4-)
cd
E-4
:j
4)'
>
C)
w
co
Cfl
(I;
aj
t-
C
H
CO
H1
CM
CMj
HCMj
CMj
C;
0
m~
CMj
t--
M'
ff)
NN
N.
NN
'.
CMj
O
CMj
CM
m'
LtN
t-
0
-Y'
_z
CM
H-
t-
L(N
ON
(Y)
mI"
H
__-
--
aH)
m'd
*H
+'
_:
.4
(D
Q)
MN
(Y
-T
z
'0
-4
:3c
C)
UN\
CMj
HOi
0
_-r
CO
ON
\-.0
t-
:T
m'
Ll
UN
t-
ON\
.4
--4T
I"
CM
t-
t-
LI".
(Y~)
LN
'.\
Lr(N
IIN
UN
(Y
LCT
UN\
UN\
UN\
UN\
C;I.
\0
UN'
ON\
\.0
\. 0
U-\
\.0
\D0
ONl
'0
LrN
-4
CM
\10
t'0
4C)
ir
CMI
'.0-
COj
N('1
ON
-1
0N
0\j
'0
CMl
0
01
Table 6
RANGE& OF VALUES
Pd
UWs
Stegh.on-od10
of
15
90%- 100%
Rating
.2
2Rating
ni
Rating
inlw1e01
10 m
tnnel legt
'
20- 60 mm
60 -20mml
60 mm
1085
Gerai conditions
Rating
min
-
OR
0.0-0.1
OR
Slighty rough
25
25%
25%-50%
0,6 - 2 rn
_____________
11
APs
0
Nn
Nnlrel
OR
.1
Ratio m Precssur
stes
UPs
42
50%-75%
13
30
5-25
...
13
~~~~~Unweathered
______________
_____________
17
Not
rougt Suttace
Very rough srae.OR
Ntcontinuous
SlgtyGouge
No separation
Separation < 1 mm
wall rock Slightly weatrhered velt
25 -50 Wea
75%.90%
20
Coofo
fdsotniis
Codt~
tdsotnts
OR
10
10-25
litresImin
25- 125
litres/mn
-
-OR
> 125
OR
0,2-05
0.1-02
OR -OR
Continous
Continuous
20
OR
hL
OR
> 0.5
-
Completely dry
Damp
Wet
Dripping
Flowing
15
10
Fair
Untsnourabfle
nfverab
-10
.12
__
Ratings
Very
Fa,,ourable
rnnes
-2
Foundations
-2
-7
-15
-25
-5
-25
-50
-60
Sl" 1
[Class
Rating
100--S1
No
80-61
Vrv
. good rock
Description
1-2 Ula
50 - 100UPS
12
20
spacing of aiscorrlinuitios
-250 UAPs
Rating
Ground
water
2 -4 MPSa
strength__index
intact roak
u~.M
-&tell&iv
S.
ntloadFor
4-t10 UPS
e60-41
'i"'
Good roc:
Fair rock
a.-a21
ock
PC-
20
Very poforrck
C'ansNor
Avirai
standl
time
IV
it)
10 fters to, 15 mn
span 1i6mon~thsto, a m scan
-'00 lip
-45'
100 - 00 kPA
35'
4Is
0 hoursfor 2 Sm span
100 200 kF6
5
25'
"-) 4
mo
w0."
w 0,
oto-
14
C4-
-4
n0,
D,
a)
J-j>
rq
43
0~ 4
06
CCt
4,
m-
oc
4,go
00
*00
~~4,
00
(n
ti)
\,O
4-',
0)
-40
a)
0D
4-J
a.O V
U 44
a)0)
z40
Hc
( 1
.0\
0
+
, D
4-) 'd W 0 $4-'
0)
c-.i.
d1)
0)
0 1
4)
4
-4
4U)
4-4H
0V
) 0
'C40)H
cu
0~
0
0))
.H
O4d
Z .,OU)r
V)a co -1 -4
0
cc
0)
o,
75
- H
o 4
C)
L)
E O0
O.
-0
0.0
00)
0"4*Hl
)0
0-0
>,
4-
,4
HO
0
u'
0
0
0(
4-' N
OH
0
4-
>,dH4.
Hq
d-
- r0
1-. 4
u
.H
4-.
C'T0\D
0
44 -,
cU4-
HJ
0)
at
H4
0)
00
Ol
>4
0
0>
Cd
Cd/I
.-
4-)
H
0
a'C-..-40
CCE
0
0
H-
r+.
4-C400)
w 0
4-'
0 mU
H-0H
O
0
.
4-3
cc'r4
+'d0-I
U H 41
CdW A
r
) rddH
0)>)' 00)
4-'0O04
U
4J04
>)
OP
.d
r.
O 0Cfl1
)
0
.1
U
H
0
-)C
)(
dE
-
0d
'0
0
4)
U)4
0)Cd
Id00 C)
Pl z
U)
04-c'z0
*H
0Cd
>d P40
-1.0P.
.Hc"
E-.C
d 0 .,1-'
a0
0.
P4~ 03
0
4J'- )0
WHO-*0)+
cc
4
H p
00
' 40
0
OO)4'.
14
V)
U\
X4
0.Cd)r-'
0. u\
0)~S
00)
0+00 d
E+H04.-+.
4-H d
0)>U -4
Ino
H.S,
U '
0)
0
Dc
"+
4-'
+) a)
0)
d
~Z-o'Z~
40
9z-0
C
.4
iN
.00
00W
D
0Cd-'
Z0 ) 4-) 4S.) 00)
01 )
$)-.
-1-4 (D 0
'Id 9~'0-
-0
p000u
4-
00)>4
r-uI
C)
4-'
U)
G)4- *
T3 4
Cd
0~
u)
C0
E0H0 10
Z-4-Cd5- 4
UH U)0
w
-
0 rd
4.)
C.
0
.O..O
4-;
E-.
4-'
Hto0
4co
-14
U
+)
.0
HOa)(\ U)
-0)II 0
W d r-U 0
COA :3
(nf~d
UH~
40,
-:
4-)4-
4-'lU
000
U))
A) 4-) W
~ +'O.U-\14-4-4o
Cd-,iU
O
*
0
U,
U)
00'0
00
~~~
C,1~
OH H
)0
C )
V>1
0
U)
Cc
ci
00'OH00
5.0
d
'0
04
-C.dr.)C(U
0)C
4-
'i
-,A
0n
r.
'0
100
00
*tH Hn
00\C>
a)
0z
odI
>
H C..
H
41
ul
S..
4-' 00
t-'
0d
0
r
Od
H
0.4d
n
1-.
1',U
d4Jn~CC00
. a 0'U
H0
0+
0U0>
AO
0
C0
.-
0
4)00
U
bO-O
40
Table 9
Classification of Intact Rock Strength
Description
Very low strength
Uniaxial Compressive
Strength
lbf/in 2
MPa
3 7
150-3500
1-25
Low strength
3500-7500
25-50
Medium strength
7500-15000
50-100
15000-30000
100-200
High strength
Very high strength
>30000
>200
Chalk, rocksalt.
Quartzite, dolerite,
gabbro, basalt.
Table 10
Classification for Discontinuity Spacing
Spacing of
Discontinuities
Description
Very wide
Wide
Moderately close
Close
Very close
Rock Mass
Grading
>2 m
>6 ft
0.6 to 2 m
2 ft to 6 ft
Massive
8 in. to 2 ft
Blocky/seamy
60 to 200 mm
2 in. to 8 in.
Fractured
<60 mm
<2 in.
200 to 600 mm
Solid
Crushed and
shattered
Table 11
Q-System:
0-25
25-50
Note:
(i)
Fair........................50-75
Good .....................
75-90
Excellent ................
90-100
(ii)
0.5-1.0
Note:
(i) For intersections use
(3.0 x Jn)
(ii)
12
15
20
Joint Roughness Number (Jr
Note:
is greater than 3 m.
Rough or irregular,
undulating ...............
Slickensided, undulating
1.5
Note:
Rough or irregular,
planar ...................
1.5
1.0
0.5
when sheared
Zone containing clay
minerals thick enough to
1.0 (nominal)
Sandy, gravelly or
crushed zone thick enough
to prevent rock wall
contact ..................
1.0 (nominal)
Table 12
12
Description and Ratings - Ja
Q-System:
Or (approx.)
0.75
()
1.0
(250-350)
2.0
(250-30 )
3.0
(200-25 )
4.0
(80-160)
4.0
(250-300)
6.0
(160-240)
8.0
(120-160)
8.0-12.0
(6-120)
6.0, 8.0
or
8.0-12.0
(60-240)
(nonsoftening) .....................
0 , Thick, continuous zones or bands of
P., clay (see G., H., J. for
R. description of clay condition) .....
Note:
(i) Values of (O)r are intended as an approximate
guide to the mineralogical properties of the
alteration products, if present.
5.0
10.0, 13.0
or
13.0-20.0
(60-240)
Table 13
Description and Ratings - SRF and Jw12
Q-ystem:
(SRF)
(a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation,
which may cause loosening of rock mass when
tunnel is excavated.
Note:
(i) Reduce these values
of SRF by 25-50% if
A.
Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemically disintegrated rock, very
loose surrounding rock (any depth) .............
10.0
B.
5.0
C.
2.5
D.
7.5
E.
5.0
F.
2.5
0.
5.0
>200
J.
200-10
K.
10-5
L.
5-2.5
<2.5
M.
t /aI
>13
2.5
13-0.66
1.0
0.66-0.33
0.5-2.0
0.6
0.33-0.16
<0.16
and
cc 0.6 on
0
where: compression
c = unconfined
strength, at =
tensile strength
(point load), a and
03 - major and mnor
principal stresses.
5-10
10-20
5-10
10-20
10-15
(kg/cm
1.0
0.66
1.0-2.5
C.
0.5
2.5-10.0
D.
0.33
2.5-10.0
E.
0.2-0.1
'1(.0
F.
0.1-0.05
>10.0
B.
<1
Note:
(i) Factors C to F are
(i)
Table 1
Q-System:
Support
CategIn
rr
Conditional Factors
o
SP
ESP ()
kg/ca
(pro.
1.
23:
4
1000-LOO
1000-400
000-00
10OO-100
..
......
......
0.O1
o 0.01
'0.01
,001
'0...
5.
678.
9
400-100
400-100
400-00 0
400-100
100-0
......
......
......
......
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.25
S100-40
SPAN/
ESP
20-40
30-60
46-80
65-1oo
12-30
19-45
30-65
48-88
8.5-19
Type of
Support
Note
(Tab.e .8)
sb
sb
at
ob
(utg)
(utg)
(uts)
(utg)
-----
ab
Sb
sb
sb
ab
(utg)
(utg)
(utg)
(utg)
(.tg)
------
*0
....
'00
....
B (uJg) 2.5-3.
--
>3C
'30
....
....
0.25
14-30
B (utg) 2-3 a
B (utg) 1.5-2 m
---
,,a
100-40
>30
'30
....
....
0.25
23-48
B (tg) 2-3 a
B (tg) 1.5-2a
+clm
---
12-
i00-i0
!30
'30
....
--
0.25
40-72
B (tg) 2-3 a
B (tg) 1.5-2 a
*elm
---
1..5
'1.5
1.5
01-5
-----
0.5
5-1"
ob (utg)
B (utg) 1,5-2 m
B (utg) 1.5-2 m
B (utg) 1.5-2 a
.S 2-3 cm
0
I
Z0
--
215
0.5
9-23
B (ts) 1.5-2 m
+e
0, 00
'10
--
?15
I,
--
15
B (t) 1.5-2 a
-S (mr) 5-10 c.
B (utg) 1.5-2 s
1,
II
B (tg) 1.5-2
0, II.
i3
4O-ic
2_I0
iO
'10
'10
14
4.0-10
15
0-IO
'10
--...
0.5
15-40
<-....
B (t)
1.5-2 m
IV
I, 00, IV
15
....
B5
....
0.5
30-65
B (tg) 1.5-2 I
cla
B (tg) 1.5-2
.S (a) 10-15 c.
I, V, VI
I.
V, VI
Table 15
Q-System:
Support
Category
17
18
Conditional Factors
"
Jr'
j
10-4
10-4
--
<i0
--
>5
21
>12.5
12.5
--
22
4-1
>10, <30
>10
'30
,30
23
4-1
3.5-9
--
>10m
--
'10 m
--
<10 m
>20 m
1.0
7-15
12-29
1.0
<20 m
..
_35m
24-52
1.0
<35 m
_0.75
--
10.75
>0.75
---
>1.0
>1.0
<1.0
----
2.1-6.5
1.5
4.5-11.5
1.5
--
>15 m
....
..
24See
note XII
1.0
>30 m
-..
18-46
1.5
<30 m
....
.... ..............
....
8-24
1.5
<15 m
..
'
-r.cae r --,rdi a a
Type of
Support
SPAN/
ESR (m)
--.
4-1
..
>10 m
....
10-4
P
2
Kg/cm
(approx.)
>6 m
...-
10-4
SPAN/
ESR
--
..
20See
note XII
..
.
>30
Z10. <30
-10
>5
19
t-
rr.,t.e
Note
(Table 18)
sb (utg)
B (utg) 1-1.5 m
B (utg) 1-1.5 m
+S 2-3 cm
S 2-3ca
I
I
I
B (tg) 1-1.5 m
+clm
B (utg) 1-1.5 m
clm
B (tg' 1-1.5 m
+S 2-3 cm
B (utg) 1-1.5 m
+S 2-3 cm
I, III
B (tg) 1-2 m
+S (mr).10-15 cm
B (tg)1-1.5 m
+S (mr) 5-10 cm
I, 21, IV
B (tg) 1-2 m
+S (mr) 20-25 cm
B (tg) 1-2 m
+S (mr) 10-20 cm
I, V , VI
B (utg) 1 m
+S 2-3 cm
S 2.5-5 cm
B (utg) I m
B (utg) I m + cm
S 2.5-7.5 cm
B (utg) 1 m
+S (mr) 2.5-5 cm
B (utg) I m
I
I
I
B (tg) 1-1.5 m
+S (mr) 10-15 cm
I, II, IV,
VII
B (utg) 1-1.5 m
+S (r) 5-10 n
B (tg) 1-1.5 m
+S (mr) 15-30 cm
B (tg) 1-1.5 m
+S (r) 10-15 cm
I, V, VI
e''v-ta
I
I, 111
I
I, II
I, II, IV
I
I
I, If, IV
,f >a;;tr" ru:renments.
Table 16
Support M~easures for Rock Mdasses of "Very Poor" Quality (Q Range:
Q-System:
Support
Category
25
Q*
1.0-0.4
Conditional
Factors
RQ0!/J,,
JxIJa
'10
1O
--
SPAN/
ESR (mn)
'0.5
-0.5
0.5
--
2.0-0-L
--
27
1.0-0...
--
12 a
--
12 m
--
12 m
<12 m
---
28'
See
note XII
1.0-0.4
--
--
30 m
>20, '30
--
'20 m
-
29-
0.4-0.1
>5
--
30
0.4-0.1
-5
SPAN!
ESE (m)
2.25
1.5-4.2
B (utg) 1 m + m- or cin
B (utg) 1 m + S (m-) 5 cm
B- (tg) 1 m * S (m-) 5 cm
I
I
I
2.25
3.2-7.5
B (tg) .1m
+S (m-) 5-7.5 cm
(utg) 1 m + S 2.5-5 cm,
Vill, X, xi
B (tg) I m
4-S (mr) 7.5-10 cm
B (utg) Im
aS (m-) 5-7.5 cm
CCA 20-4.0cm
4-B (tg) 1 m
S (m-) 10-20 cm
4-B (tg) 1m
I, Ix
-B
'0.25
'5
0.25
0.25
2.25
2.25
6-18
15-38
-CCA
--
3.0
1.0-3.1
---
----
Type of
Support
B (tg( 1 m
4-S (m-) 30-40
B (tg( 1 m
4-S (m-) 20-30
B (tg(1Im
4-S (m-) 15-20
(ax-)30-100
4-B (tg) 1 m
Note
(Table 18)
X. xi
ViII,
ViIl, X. XI
I, ii,
Ix
IV,
cm
I,ii, ix
cm
cm
IV, ViII,
B (utg( 1 m + S 2-3 cm
B (utg) 1 m + S (m-) 5 cm
B (tg( 1 m +- S (m-) 5 cm
-(tg)
B-
2.2-6
I, ix
1, IV, V, Ix
3.0
I, IX
cm
B (tg) 1 m + S 2.5-5 cm
S (m-) 5-7.5 cm
--
)1
P
kg/cm2
(approx.)
--
26
.-.
Im
X, XI
IX
Ix
Vill, X, XI
0.1-O.1
'1-L4. ->1-5
'1.5
-
32
0.4-o.1
See
note XII
3.0
4-14.5
--
--
--
--
,20 m
20 mn
--
--
3.0
11-34
B (tg) 1 m
4-S (m-) 5-12.5 cm
S (m-) 7.5-25 cm
CCA20-40 cm
4-B (tg( 1 m
CCA (sr) 30-50 cm
4-B (tg( 1 mn
Ix
B (tg( 1 m
+s (m-) 10-60 cm
B (tg( 1 m
4-S (m-) 20-40 cm
CA (sr) 40-120 cm
ii,
IX
IX, XI
Vill, X, Xi
IV, ix, xi
4-B (tg( la
i.j&hors'
estimats
of supprrt.
-X
4-
PH
H
H-
HX
>
>
Q)
0,
>
LI\
%-4-'
H-
L-C
$.
2) a
4'
H-
LfLE
1I
C'J 0
-4L-
HHI>
r-
I'DC:J
L\ I
-I
IPC
Lr\
Ur-
fl
U)0
0x
u- 0
0 0
C\
-f
H>
o0
0 1
C\J0v)0
~0 00 -1
~=
H>
~-
C.0
C uLi I
U,
L\
00.
o
C\J p.j0
9--7
1
E-
uCI
Lf
00
\10 \00
II
H>
0tj u
00Cc
0
P.
CiL
m'-mC'-
I
00
0 0-CC\,--
-IY&
W~
4)CO
H'f~
H>
0E~
00o
N
,
-
4'
uj
0) )
tii-
)E
Cq
4*
0000
'p.
CDI
U 0
0
.
CD
w0
a)
0
0
III
H~r-1
II
I
I
II
I
p.
C0
'p
Lf\
Lf\
-\I
U) VAA
I
I
II
I
4'
00
-,
0 0
-4 -4
0C
-14
41
CO
Id
C CLI
I
1
OC0
') -Z
44
002
Ally
V
All
U)
I
1
I
1I 1
I
1
')
4'
4'
0)
00
00
0
000
0
-r
4)
U)zU)
i--
*
CU
Q-System:
I.
Table 18
12
Supplementary Notes for Support Tables
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
CCC
.c
a
*0
or0
4.
0
Iu
u
II 0
u.
4.4.40
-04.C4
00
0 r*CL
t0
rC
>
.t
. 0.~
o00
0.0
>
o
4.00
00
cz
0
e
0
(a
L
04
co
*0
0
040
>
.*
07.0
I
x.
H.
00
.0
0 0
OC
s/
.0~
>4
0cc.
4-)
\04-'
t-3
0..
HH
0
.,
C\j
oc
00
-'s-
4-)
Q)
Q)
0
NM
H-
U) 'd
-0
(d
4-'
-j
c00
r.
U) Cf)
ci
I-q
Q)
C:
4-)
U)
QZ
03 0
s4
Ofr
(Y)4-
r.0
0 H
.11
*H
4-' 0)
E--4 -4
4-'
I
C)
0
CC)-
Ca
-I
V) U)
C U2
c.)-'(-)
Cd
-T
Co
W
I_
4-'0
a)
r
r+4
m0oc
4
C ) CQ
-j
-:
0H'.
C)
(n
4-
(V)
ON
CC)
0)
a)
C)
NM
Cj
4-)
C)
t
0
rn
a)
Cl) 0
CC
V)
-1
-4
.,0M)
_z
CM
NM
4-'
CMj
Q)C m
4-
dt-4-
U)
5-4
\D.
H)
a)
s-I
0)CJ~
aD~H)4-'
CM
-~
L'
4-)
C)
4-'
V)
+~
Y)C
x90
4-)9 r-
(1) 0
5-t
Id
r)*-4
0~C
-4
4)
Q) 10
4)
09 H
04-)
II
He.4
Id
a),
>,
-)
0lE40
Table 21
Rock Mass Classifications for the Park River Tunnel in
Accordance with the Geomechanics Classification
Parameter
and Region
Intact rock
strength
Fault Zones
Region 3
RQD
20
20
13
Discontinuity
spacing
20
20
10
Discontinuity
condition
20
22
10
10
In situ
rating
75
79
47
26
Discontinuity
orientation
-5
-5
-10
-10
Groundwater
RMR
Good rock
70
Maximum span
and standup time
Support
Note:
55 ft at 2-1/2
months or
26 ft at
4 months
Good rock
74
Poor rock
37
26 ft at 6
months
18 ft at 12 hr
5 ft at 1/2 hr
Systematic bolts
12 ft long at
5 ft, shotcrete
5 in. thick with
wire mesh
Ribs at 2-1/2 ft
bolts 15 ft
long at 3 ft,
shotcrete
8 in. thick
with wire mesh
4-3
rd
0) Lf\
C-
S0
En2
LofU\
CjJ
4-)
Lr\
Lr\
CJ
"H
0)
r\\
C\J
~S.0
ILI
Op
a)
)00
co
+1
Q)
4-,)
-i0
u~
4)
D C
0204
+30
02
r-0
00* 4-
0)0H~+ 0
00- C
4-) 03
>
0)
\0
C)
00"
$
0~U
4-4
0
cc
C\J
0)
H U2
C~j
)
>1
0)
~ ~
+0
4-3
0
*H
to
HW~
H-
44
Q) m
>
0-
-)
0 0
0
C)
E- *H
0
4-
L\
uH
0
-)
a)
rl0zxrI
02
0
Cdl
ON~ Hi
UN
C 0
$-CM
L
4-)
Ii
M C
C\
30
+-)LtN0)
H
4-)*
*-
4-
:3:
02) '
0~
0d
) m+3c
EQF
U3
HCJ'
H)
\4:
$2C/+0
4\
4-
0 a,
\10
D
U'
C\J
C C
43 C 40P
00
>,
S.)
0)
U)
+3
Hc
Hd
Ho
a)ri4-4
5-4
0+Nw3,
r4
r4
0d'
0
z
00
00
0.f
4a
02
+03
0);
C)
0
2a
P
+3
0+3
0
0
4
0
(1)
OH
L0
0)
Pc
0)
CL
1..
CL
.3
.OC
C "00O
0G
oV
.r3
0.0
.10
1.
F,
C-1
.4
(n
.000Z0
06
-I
CC
0
U
OD
I
40 cO..
cc0
<0
C
N
'D +
>0SA
i-
0i
SIV
a
nr~
I-
CAgo
APPENDIX A:
TERZAGHI S
ROCK LOAD TABLES
Table Al
2
Terzaghi's Rock Load Classification for Steel Arch-Supported Tunnels
(Rock Load
Width
Hp
B
Rock Condition
. Hard and intact.
2.
Hard stratified or
schistose.**
H
p
Ht
1.5(B + H ))
in Feet
Remarks
Zero
0 to 0.5B
3. Massive, moderately
jointed.
4. Moderately blocky and
seamy.
5. Very blocky and seamy.
0 to 0.25B
0.25B to 0.35(B + H )
No side pressure.
6.
1.10(B + H )
7. Squeezing rock,
moder)te depth.
(1.10 to 2.10) (B + Ht
8. Squeezlne rock,
great depth.
(2.10 to 4.50) (B + Ht
9. Swelling rock.
Completely crushed
but chemically intact.
u.35
.I10) (5
i)
H
(B + Ht)
* The roof of the tunnel is assumed to be located below the water table.
If it is located
permanently above the water table, the values given for types 4 to 6 can be reduced by
fifty percent.
Some of the most common rock formations contain layers of shale. In an unweathered state,
real shales are no worse than other stratified rocks. However, the term shale is often
applied to firmly compacted clay sediments which have not yet acquired the properties of rock.
cucn so-called shale may behave in a tunnel like squeezing or even swelling rock.
If a rock formation consists of a sequence of horizontal layers of sandstone or limestone and
of immature shale, the excavation of the tunnel is commonly associated with a gradual compression of the rock on both sides of the tunnel, involving a downward movement of the roof.
Furthermore, the relatively low resistance against slippage at the boundaries between the socalled shale and the rock is likely to reduce very considerably the capacity of the rock
located above the roof to bridge. Hence, in such formations, the roof pressure may be as
heavy as in very blocky and seamy rock.
A3
Table A2
4)Initial
1.
Final
0
Remarks
or popping
ErI
2.
Hard
0
50 -Strati-
bo
9
0.25B
fied or
95
Schistose
1'
90
Spalling commnon
0'
0.5B
3. Massive, moderately
r- 00
H-
0.25B
to
0
4)
-_
O
0-35C
0WP
Jointed_________________
4. Moderately blocky'
20-
___
and seamy
6'
______________
5.
10
4" 50
25 6.
Very blocky,
seamy and
shattered
0
to
0.6C
1.1C
2"
5
2
_____
______________
S 9.
10.
Notes:
pressure. If seepage,
continuous support.
0.514c
to
0.62C
to
1.C
0.914C
to
13cSide
l.08C
to
pressure
Ph = 0.3y (0.5Ht + Hp)
1-38cI
Loose
1.1C
to
11 .2C
8. Squeezing,
4) 0
Little or no side
pressure
Considerable side
Completely
crushed
10
0.35C
to
1.1C
moderate depth
r2.1C
Squeezing,
great depth
Dense
2.1C
to
up to
250'
Swelling
In
Use circular support.
extreme cases:
yielding
support.
A4
Table A3
Support Recommendations for Tunnels in Rock (20- to iO-ft
D
Diameter) Based on
Alternative Suport Systems
Rouk
.nnelingMethod
R" 1 90
Steel Sets
Rockbelts
Shotcrete
A. Boring Machine
None to
occasional
None to occ.
local
application
B. Conventional
NO-e to
occasional
None to Occ.
local application 2 in. to
3 in.
A.
Occasional to
pattern on 5-ft
to 6-ft centers
None to occ.
local application 2 in. to
3 in.
B. Conventional
Pattern, 5-ft to
6-ft centers
A.
Pattern. 4-ft to
6-ft ctr.
Pattern 3-ft to
5-ft ctr.
4 in. or mere
crown and sides
Pattern, 3-ft to
5-ft ctr.
I In. to 6 in. on
crown and sides.
Combine with
bolts.
B. Conventional
Pattern, 2-ft to
I-ft ctr.
6 in. or more on
crown and sides.
Combine with
bolts.
A. Boring Machine
Medium to heavy
circular sets on
2-ft ctr. Rock
load (1.6 to
2.2)B.
Pattern, 2-ft to
i-ft rtr.
6 in. or more on
whole section.
Combine with
medium sets.
B. Conventional
Pattern, 3-ft
center,
6 in. or more on
whole section.
Combine witt
medium to heavy
sets.
A. Boring Machine
Pattern, 2-ft to
3-ft ctr.
6 in. or more on
whole section.
Combine with
heavy sets.
B. Conventional
Pattern. 2-ft to
3-ft ctr.
6 in. or more on
whole section.
Combine with
heavy sets.
GOO".
75
FAIR
50
RQD
RQX
90
75
Boring Machine
Boring Machine
B. Conventional
POOR
25
RQD
50
A.
Boring Machine
to
crown
.,.
n. on
VERY POOR )
,
25
(Excluding
squeezong or
swelling
ground.)
VERY POOR'
(Squeezing
or swelling.)
Notes
In good "d excellent quality rock, the support requirement will be, in general, minimal but will be dependent upor
Joint geometry, tunnel diameter, and relative orientations of jcints and tunnel.
2) Lagging requirements will usually be zero in excellent rock and w.1l range frum u to 2
g__1 rock to 100$ i%
g.
very poor rock.
Mesh
e
requirements u.su y will be zerc in excellent rock and will range fr,.rocasional mesh (or straps) in good rock
t 100$ mesh in very poor rock.
I, B * tunnel width.
A5
APPENDIX B:
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES
FOR ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
1.
The procedures for rock mass classifications are summarized here for
2.
for rock tunneling applications, utilizes the following six parameters, all of
which are determined in the field:
a.
b.
c.
Spacing of discontinuities.
d.
Condition of discontinuities.
e.
Orientation of discontinuities.
f.
Groundwater conditions.
The rock mass along the tunnel route is divided into a number of structural
regions, and the above six classification parameters are determined for each
structural region and entered onto the standard input data sheet (Figure B1).
The foliowing expianaLlons and terminology are relevant.
Structural regions
3.
type of rock or the spacings of discontinuities are the same throughout the
region.
This term means all discontinuities in the rock mass, which may be
accordance with the standard lahoratory procedures, but for the pur-ose of
B3
,Z:".::.
..
. ..
..
i
E
Jo
..
.. .
,..
:::
,.
! ii
i i
:,
.OR,
. ..-
0)l'4
.4
B4
r~commended.
rock core retrieved from borings and the core does not require any specimen
preparation.
and the
a, - 24 Is.
cedure, which incorporates only those pieces of core that are 4 in. or greater
in length.
It should be
noted that the RQD disregards the influence of discontinuity tightness, orientation, continuity, and gouge material.
Consequently, while it is an
The
Core Quality
90-100
Excellent
75-90
Good
50-75
Fair
25-50
Poor
< 25
Very poor
horizontal and the joint plane taken in a direction in which the plane dips.
B5
Condition of discontinuities
9.
(persistence), weathering of the wall rock of the planes of weakness, and the
infilling (gouge) m~terial.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Completely
decomposed
is that of
preserved,
It should be noted that the boundary between rock and soil is defined in terms
of the uniaxial compressive strength and not in terms of weathering.
material with the strength equal to or above 150 psi is considered as rock.
10.
point-load strength index that can now assess the rock strength in the field.
For the sake of completeness, the following hardness classification was used
in the past:
B6
a.
Very soft rock. Material crumbles under firm blow w__h a sharp
end of a geological pick and can be peeled off with a knife.
b.
c.
d.
e.
It can be seen from the above that for the lower ranges up to medium hard
rock, hardness can be assessed from visual inspection and by scratching with a
knife and striking with a hammer.
7 R + 316
where
7 = dry unit weight, pcf
R
11.
if the surfaces are clean and closed, and inhibit shear movement along the
discontinuity surface.
Small
Such asperities
"ride" over one another during shear displacement, changing the initial
direction of shear displacement.
B7
measured in terms of tenths of an inch and are readily apparent on a coresized exposure of a discontinuity.
13.
a.
b.
C.
d.
Smooth.
e.
Slickensided.
controls the extent to which the opposing surfaces can interlock as well as
the amount of water that can flow through the discontinuity.
In the absence
the rock wall tend to become more interlocked, and both the filling and the
rock material contribute to the discontinuity shear strength.
The shear
Very tight:
b.
Tight:
C.
Moderately open:
d.
Open:
e.
Very wide:
0.1-0.5 mm.
0.5-2.5 mm.
2.5-10 mm.
10-25 mm.
Note that where the separation is more than 25 mm, the discontinuity should be
described as a major discontinuity.
B8
14.
b.
consistency.
Continuity of discontinuities influences the extent to which the
15.
rock material and the discontinuities separately affect the behavior of the
rock mass.
Conse-
and expressed in terms of the ratio of the water pressure to the major
principal stress.
17.
Parameter A.
(1)
(2)
(3)
b.
Joint spacing.
B9
C.
(2)
(3)
Parameter C.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Although the definitions of the above parameters were not explicitly stated by
the proposers, most of the data needed are normally included in a standard
joint survey.
in Figure B2.
18.
Lien, and Lunde,12 determines the rock mass quality - termed Q - as a function
of six parameters:
(a)
weakest joints, (d) degree of alteration or filling along the weakest joints,
(e) water inflow or pressure, and (f) rock stress condition.
These six
rock mass, and their quotient is claimed to be a crude measure of the relative
block size.
(a) loosening
load in the case of shear zones and clay-bearing rock, (b) rock stress in
competent rock, and (c) squeezing and swelling loads in plastic incompetent
rock.
Figure B3.
BIO
The
E4)
Az
N.
I
.
NO*
14
-4
4)
04
10
0)
-4
r-
1)
0co
CL
:s
0.
dc03
(dS.
U, )
-1
4.>
J
w
co
U) M) fn
4)s-
Co
>
V,
4)
)
>
-4
0
0
uS
41 )
+3i-0
-4
to
-I
0
41 VlI
0 4) C
OC
04
0
U%
10-
.. )
4)
4-04
4)
4)
U)
)(
(D)
b 0
1-
40
4-1
C
.,04
. to)4
4 0
M4
0l
40
*I
0
C
42
0f
42
-'
01
)
>\
bd
0td.-
S4
+)'
4J
+3s
ca
m)
I
P.
L4)
-4
-40
k)0
00
iriI4
a)
-4i
04~
f+4l
I.
S.
0.
a)..-
'0
I..
0
04))
0
0
C4-)
:3
-4
43
4 -4 d
'00)
0z)
(1)
Cl
0)
4)
5.
1-
4)4)
0
004)
5.
--3
L.
*.
C,
1
00
~j~~ ~~ ~~ .
U
m-PQ
,'
o a))
P"
'n)
d Z) 100c
4
0 0
S.-
-C
:4~~~~~U
-,
0
U.
4)d
QO
>
-1(
00w
CD
Bll
5-u
4'
01
4)
, H
TI.
4J
-4
C=
.4
0
Cd
*:
I'):
Z
t
..
4 -4
E-4
>
C)
4)
VO
Project Name:
Site -f Survey:
late:
Structural Region:
Rock Type:
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
JOINT SETS
Massive rock, no or few Joints
INo. of Joint sets present
Additional random Joints exist
[Rock heavil fractured
Crushed rock
WATER CONDITIONS
ry or minor inflow
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
ough or irregular
lckensided
nie
ndulating
ot continuous
all rock contact
o wall contact
STRESS CONDITIONS
w stress, near surface
ed. stress: c/a = 10-200
igh 'stress: ac/a
5-10
cl 1
eakness zones with clay
huezingro
qelling rock
rock
tel
tiff clay
oft clay
<5mm
< mm
>mm
>5mm
tress values if
welling clay
<mm
>5mm
vert.
determined:
%orz.
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
Tensile:
si
psi
Compressive:
Average dip
Dip direction
Figure B3.
B12
lb/sq in.
Table Cl
Description of Rock Typcs
C3
o
4) En
Cuj
I'D
Cl)
Cuj
CO4
Cul
L\
\0
LA%
(,nt
U-\
(\
__
LA\
0\
H-
I
I
C\J
UN
\"D
+)
')
(y) \c
Lf'\
LAj
C)
CC) M
Lid
C'
L4
Cu
-\]
03_-r
Cfa
H-
cu
I
co
'
'D
C)\
Cuj a
I
00
Cu
C)
.4-)
H-
tCuj
H
I
Cuj
-Z
H
"0
',*
-i
LA\
Nu
\0
;
00
Cu\
En
(1)
-,4
V\L
00
4)
H_
Ui
0
1
H
VU2
Cuj
I
C\
C
\-0
*Cuj
OD~C
r-4
CCu
CC',
rn)
a)
\\C
Q)Lr\ ad
Lr
0\
4)
4)
\4)~
\o
4)
to
1-
z.*H
W'"*4b
U4-)
to
cn*
o
4)
Wt
4*D
U)
a\
to)
444.)
4) 04 ul
4)
0
C 4
C,
- 4)
(d
bH
4)
4U)
C)
)O
$4 r4U
C4
'
)C
)~
0
BORING NO.
BORE HOLE PHOTO LOG (An example)
FD-B-T
LOCATION
NAME
Hartford, Connecticut
IRIS SETTING
CONDITION OF BORING
Good
DEPTH PHOTOGRAPHED
WATER DEPTH
WATER CONDITION
35.0 to 220.0'
Flowing at Surface
Clear
FFET CASING
None
39.0-220.0'
(In Photo)
35.0-39.0'
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH RANGE
45.5-46.2
45.2-46.3
Gray-green rock
46.2
Bedding Jt., Str. N-S, dip 15 OE, 1/16" partly open, rough, planar
46.3-160.O
53.6
53.9-54.1
Jt., Str. N 20
rough, planar
54.3-54.7
56.2-56.3
Jt., Str. about N-S, dip 45 'W, 1/32", healed with white material,
rough, irregular, discontinuous
56.7-57.9
58.4-59.3
59.1
59.0-59.5
Jt., Str. N-S, dip 10 E, 1/16" healed with white material, rough,
irregular
60.7-61.5
Figure Cl.
C5
43
+00
.+
-4 0
44
ai
044
4)
4).
-~
14-4
40
U) 4'-
All
'
.4)4U
.0
N00.-
a)
0 =
bci)
0.~
~.4+
C4I
r. w0
r-7
1!1
00
$...4+
(.
C>
a 0~
4-,
z+
+1r.
0.0
41-
',
4,.
\O.
..
14 -4
4.
1O
00444
0
\0
C\J~~~-
Cca*-*~0
'4
-4
04-J--1
r. ..
0
o
,-
4.
ho
0U\
4)
+4,1
4143u
0
,-I
0 0p
-H
al
0i
o4
4-1
'-
'C
la
co
o)
4
10
0
-4
4J
+)
-)
'.4
~0
0
-4
00L\O\
r-
0
0
CVJ LA\ -4
0
.5
-A
$41..
M.A2
-H
.4
.
S4
4-
+)
0
41
41
0
..-
4-4
00
41
0
-4
0~
0-
@2*
,e
410
4,
I-
411
'-4--
4,
4
H
S.
2i-.2r.
1
@2
4
20
'-
'.
Id
ho
0
En.
41
4-
4...4
4,
16
4)
0 2 '.
24 V)
C7
%.
0
44
r-
44
0
'.4)
41
ti
>,
04
4,.
r-
410
10.10
0O
4' v
00 4-410
0.
4
If
..>.
r..
0
'-,414
+)
4J4
-4
% 4 5.1
0C
.0
TO
>~
.4
En
143
.-.
4
4)
'.42-4%
4-
41
>
-4
4
4,
to@441 0
4
FA
41
~.-H
0 G2
S..
41
0
+
0
4)
'.0
'4
4
0
4.
4)1-4
-4
0
4J 4,
4-)4
0
-1
4,
>410
'. 4
0,
o
4.)
'.0
0
0-V
4
4J.~
.-4
4,4
4x
4141
4.
4..
- 4
0.
,:
0H
,
:w
2 I)
.
*.
-4
Conducted by:
Date:
G. A. Nicholson
Hock Type:
Subregion l(a)
Shale
98+10-95+20
JOINT SETS
Massive rock, no or few joints
No. of joint sets present
Additional random joints exist
Rock heavily fractured
Crushed rock
20-90
(es
%
WATER CONDITIONS
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
ough or irregular
mooth
lickensided
Undulatni
lanar
o
n
iuos
STRESC CONDITIONS
Low stress, near surface
4ed. stress: a/01 = 10-200
igh stress:
tiff clay
Voft clay
Swelling clay
<
>5m
<5mm
<mm
>mm
>5mm
a /a, = 5-10
%orz.
132 ps
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
Tensile:
si
N/A
Compressive:_80p
si
Average dip
N to NF
!0
Set No. 2 has
lariest joint
openings.
Figure CZ
(Sheet 3 of 3)
C8
0
4-
04
ccL\00
NCC
..
(1)
aj 4)0)
0 4-f
U)
C~ W.'
cd
>
)~
+
r a
. .. .
a.
'~0
-U
44
\o
0)A +)
4-
fn). 02
(dn
'n n
a1
.-
+1
l Cd
cr
&Cd
;3
31
00
4"A-
a, 10'
10
r U
0..
...
.9
0o
-~r
0
0
F:C:
0
4-
--.
I-
CUu
0.-
4"
.,4.
*E.4
0
.~f
.01
%4
+(-9
.4.2
4)
.0
-4
.40.4.
01
'.0 4-)
'-4
U)
4
4..
'A4
U))4)
~
+) 0)
I~
02
.0
tio
'o
0)
)
..
0u.o
4)
r_
-.4
1-
L)
z
0
C)0 A
40ch'aco
v
g ',
" 0 A
t-) 01
UNI'
'A
++
:1
'A
'f
002
02'
+):
0
4)
4)
0r.
]C.1
41
cnC02Uc
V)
)
0
4)
L)
04)
4)
c
U-)
w
v)
w
)
4)
1
-4A
kI-I
-I--
0
4
0
1.
4.
)
I'd. >,
4) .a 4
0
'A
>4)
0
'-f 1
4-)
0
-4,
Mf
02
'
4)
4)
v_.
>
,q
'A
4J
'4
4)
.) .) ...
4)
VD
J.4
4)
Q
0a 0
-4
'4
0 .0
"A)
0
> .
1-4
..
')I
ti
r.
N,21-I..-
~0
9I4)
9
tw
4)0r
10V
000
l
4.4
>0
-H
>2
)
4)?4
-4
2
02
4)
4
(x0p
+.4
-4
0
4)
-4
Y)to12
"I)
414
'A+
c1.1
4)
a)
QV
00
U0
00
,K
PL. V
0 'A
2
C)
0 '-j4)V
co
4.4.
0
'A4
0-J
0
v
V~~4)4)
02
V
)
4))
14
4)
Sj V
v
IA 400
4.*
4-
.
ND
as
V
+)~..
0
>1
)
4)~~.
(j
1- )
04
1U ..
0
V
v)
C4 +
-4
rn2
4
0
V) .4
r 0 V
010
V1
0~~:
w4
U)
~~~C
)U()0-
0
0
'
.
0
02
0
W~ V)
4) '43
1
V4
4)
4)
a)
4)
0)
:R
0-
4)
41
4I
0
04)
4)
.0
4)
4)
4)
'A
'A
.4
4.
to04)
'4
>.
G. A. Nichnlhrnn
Date:
Hartford. Conn.
Site of Survey:
StructL
Conducted by:
egion:Subregion 1(b)
Sta. 91+70-90+25
Sta. 89+85-88+30
Sta.
Sta.
JOINT SETS
82+50-57+10
56+60-31+10
80 %
%
12
ves
_20-100
WATER CONDITIONS
ry or minor inflow
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
/
edium inflow
inflow, unfilled joints ou
rge inflow, filline washed out
ceptional transient inflow
xceptional continuous inflow
lb/sq in.
Approx. water pressure:
ough or irregular
rrge
ouh nsieg
mooth
nduating
lanar
ot continuos
all rock contact
No wall contact
STRESS CONDITIONS
Low stress, near surface
4ed. stress: a/ac = 10-200
---c
7
Tightly healed joints
7
Unaltered, staining only
Slightly altered
Silty or sandy coatings
Clay coatings
Sand or crushed rock filling
>5mmt
<5mm
Stiff clay
Soft cla
mm
>50
mmvert.
Swelling clay
weln ca
<5mm
igh stress: ac /a
= 5-10
c
l
eakness zones with clay
queezing rock
Swelling rock
Stress values if determined:
+
132 psi
N/A
1rz.
>5m_
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
N/A
Tensile:
Compressive:
psi
8900
psi (avg)
N10E
Dip direction
SE
Figure C3
Average dip
(Sheet 3 of 3)
CII
22
IIIsitu
stress
measured
Q
i
*
0 oo
4)
R00
..
-l$
$.+)
544
.14. 0..
r.
d) co
414
(6
8-
v)
qH
d)
.3
04..
u0
00
C.
+
k
Zs
4.Z
r-I
05.
u
-'400r.
0. 0.4
4
s 4
-A
o
d) w
.04W
,Q
R.
04
.'
W ,
02
+)
4-)
p222
0..C
0.
1.
CD
0.0.:
-
PC 0.
:~
C)s
r-.0
0N
I~
8AN
41,
1-4
C12
A43
I I-
00
04
-4
4-)
0
4-
I-~I~
44 -44
_3
4'i
H
izr
0)
-4
H
to.
4+
34
43
>b
43 H
0H
4'
- 10 -.-.
0
43
00
43
OH
Id
01
43
0'
+3
0
0
o+
.-
4'4a4344
)
41
0
a
-4
0 H
10
u
H3+)
ca4 to4
tot*HQ
ag.
--
en
+3
43j:
0
41C
r.*
r.
0
0a
N.
.34
cO
0O
U)
-P
*
54) 2
4i
00
0..
%a 5
05
4- 'd:
24
+3v
-
-'
o3
4'N4'5
430
-4
'a
P,
00
43
-4)3
4
'
04
5
4J
+)
.0 O
4
$43
~~~
.0
C1
0
05
.
t-3
46
40
1
4'
'
'
4
4 0.
-50
4 43
4'
)k
.
033
0
0'O
0.
54
43
4 -4
43
-4
.0
*
*O
4'
:
0..
S.
0
0
V
4.
4J
d
54
0
Date:
Rock Type:
23+10-7+10+
JOINT SETS
Sta.
Sta.
Sta._
G. A. Nicholson
__No.
WATER CONDITIONS
Dry or minor inflow
edium inflow
rge inflow, unfilled Joints
rge inflow, filling washed out
cePtional transient inflow
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
Rough or irregular
mooth
lickensided
nidulting
Planar
lot continuous
all rock contact
No wall contact
V
,
STRESS CONDITIONS
=welling clay
with clay
eakness zones c1
hear zones
3Quezing rock
Slightly altered
Silty or sandy coatings
Clay coatings
Sand or crushed rock filling
>m
<5m
clay
tiffifcly
>5mml
<5mm
oft clay
<mm
>m
<Smm
>5mm
Swelling rock
if determined:
Stress values
5
USO+
vert.
132 psi
%orz. N/A
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
Tensile:
N/A
psi
N23E
Dip direction
SE
Average dip
Figure C4 (Sheet 3 of 3)
C14
20
50 lb/sq in.
.43
1-4
C
to.f-..
.d
0
U)4 04
nOl
0~
00
.0 -14
,4
4) 0J
U.
V.a
541
+
(\i I
001 CC
+.
+A
1.ZI
I!
C15
.~
.1
4).
00
IC
4.)
43
4,
'
43- 0. 44)
+33
V-I
>2
CUJ\+A
, +
0~
I-l.
CVx
40
o+
I~ 13
4m
(H
o
0
)
%a
J434
.
0
0
Aa
44
-3
4,
$4 02
0)
+3
4
+3
W
.4
4,
43
04
-H
. 4
$
0W
44
>4)
'd
-4
U)4
U)
m
V)4
4)C )
>.~ 3.0H4)\C
0 41 V
-S.
Ja
C4+
4.
4)
0)
to
4W
W
0'
4.1
4,
w..Q
.$
-)34
04
> U~(
'-4)
00
0
4-6
14
>
-4)1
fV
S.
4,
0)
,
024)4
0)00
40
4-4
44
~~~~9
HV
cd~
4
,..
4'...
4)
0.
4,) 4,
~
~u
-4
4)
u).
1.
4)o
@
U
-4
d
PQ
02
@0 .
4) H
04)
q
ru
0
UV)
v2~.@
02110
3.4
8
k
0
0. 0.
0
44
0,
4,
43
4
4) , 0q 00
r0,
04)
u
.0.001
ti
00
v4
0
o
(I
00
C16
+2
.044
t-4 4)
W4
H
to
,
@0
a0,
4,
3
4,
k
4-4)
1.
+@
0
0 .
0
0H
0,
.
4
q..
,
0.>
O.,
.+3
-4
to
H-
H)
4)
.
-4
4)
.- to
40 4 (n,
Conducted by:
Hartford, Conn.
Date:
Site of Survey:
Structural Region:
Sta.
%'T -91-70
Sta.
88+30-82+50
G. A. Nicholson
JOINT SETS
Sta.
Sta.
Average RQD =
Range =
90
60-100
%
%
2
Lies
WATER CONDITIONS
Dry or minor inflow
edium inflow
inflow, unfilled joints
Large inflow, filling washed out
Eceptional transient inflow
xceptional continuous inflow
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
ough or irregular
large
o
mooth
lickensided
ndulatin
lanar
lot continuous
all rock contact
No wall contact
water pressure:
-pprox.
STRESS CONDITIONS
ow stress, near surface
= 10-200
4ed. stress: a/a c!
= 5-10
zones
ean
Shear zones
Sweeling rock
Swellin rock
%orz. N/A
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
N/A
Tensile:
psi
Compressive:10,000+
psi
Average dip
N1OE
_A
Figure C5
(Sheet 3 of 3)
C17
65
5n lb/sg in.
A.
ee
*
-6
005-
.1
$I
c.4
4I
+0,
1i
U. .~ . .5-..
0
A
dA
SS
CJ
N
B
+
..
8f8
4U
+a
--
-*~.
I-
4.))
:r cj4
0~+
...
820
-1
cr4J
6-
4)
Au3
*
C1
-.
4.
J.
44-.
4- .
-4
-4
<71
.,q
V4
'a-cr
-8
4-
4.
43
:t
M4A
H-
9 +
)
C\:
.2
u
x)
4)
+~I
c t
r0
$
0)
4
94U)
0
'4
0
4-
.H
-4
430,0
4)
>
-Q+ -4
4-
0-
4-)
0 W
cO
4)
41
4. 4-)
4-)43)3m343)0c4)>
4)
(D
00
0
X
0
-4
1
1co(I2-03
4
3
4)
>
4
co4
co
-
4D
0
4)
3
4J30
c
0)
N )4 a
- 4 'd
0l
4v
41
'd
-~
+)
4 )
0
. d)
$
C\
Ir0
v 0 vI
&.
4-H _4
m
4)
~4) j UN4
0 0 0
4
~ 0
0
,C
a.4
4)
C).
0,
~41-
4)
-4
04
1-d
M.)U)
4
4
43cJ
4)
1-4
4)
4)
I-'Cid
4) HI
0
H4
1-
CO4-.
4)o0
Hf
0
CO
ad
0.
Q0
43
C)
U).:
434
4)
cis
1
0C4)4 0 10
04
. COO
4 0.
*.
4
0
0b
4)
.-4
U
as
Id
)
4)
d
4
w
HCO
ca
d
k4)q
as
0
It
u
)
4
-4
0.
4
4
'-4
0 ) 1?
1.. a.
S.
01 -4 .0
4) 4)
-Il (4 W 10 443
H
3
0
a
O
4
8:
*H
1
ri
q >b
ti)C)
*
40
4)
'-.1
vC
+d
3
+;
u-I
k(4.1)
4)
+;
4)..
43
Id
4) En
034...+..(4
4)4
4) .
00
0
k.
4)
)
4.
0
0
V
'Ci
H1 4 3
4-4
0
d)
(d
C19
O
r
r.4
~as
.)
*
4)4)
k. 5.
) 4)343
(D-4 43.d
4
)
4
0
431
4.0
0
04
'4
5.
t43 v
4
>
H
CO4 Wl
.
Q-SYSTD4
Project Name:
Conducted by:
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Date:
Structural Region:
95+20-94+70
90+25-89+85
57+10-56+60
Average RQD =
Range =
WATER CONDITIONS
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
ough or irregular
Smooth
plickensided
}ndulatin K
G, A. Nirhn1,n
ry or minor inflow
edium inflow
rge inflow, unfilled Joints
Lrge inflow, filling washed out
xceptional
inflow 5 bs
ae transient
rsur:
'ickese
otnar
lot continuous
all rock contact
No wall contact
STRESS CONDITIONS
w stress, near surface
ed. stress: o/c. = 10-200
High stress:
a /o, = 5-10
c
l1
eakness zones with cay
hezne
rone
SQueezing
rock
welling rock
%orz.
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
Tensile:
NIA
si
Compressive: 8.4-10K
psi
N/A
Dip direction
N/A
Figure C6
Average dip
(Sheet 3 of 3)
C20
NIA
Ad
-4
,-
i
.
4,
\00
-4
5.
.H
-.
00.
1~4
p)4
)t
4)
r.
+*
o
1.13
104 -.
0.
In4
4)
'0~~r
~''0
0)M
.0
IOU
I-
.04 4
4,1
r.0
)
>
o-e
'..
$4S.
0,
C2 1
4J
4.
-b
4J
) 4)
0
0
.o
1-0
uloo0
cc.
46c
'
41
4J
4)
>
1
C.)
)0
0.-
.4
>
4)
4)4)
cc
))
0H-
0
CO(
4)
0)
0
00
0
-4
K Ij
-I---l)I
l
o
aV-Hj
4
0
4)
4)
-4
'
id
C
$4
4)
4i
0)
C
Lr
4)j C'
C
- 4 )
OC
cc00.
-)
4
r.
-f-J"4n
4'
4
>1
()
(4
02
0.
0.4
>4.
+~ )
4)
4)
-44
(>
q.
' )0
+)
cI4
l(4-8
,0+
-0wi
r
1-4
".-
0
*M
0 +
4rJ
C
)
4
*
*,41
I
0
0
Ci
C)
C.
'
I*\
E--
zQ
1
4I..--..
-.
40
02-~4
'00
CdC:
CO
v:
4)J
::1
' )
CO0
C:
(n
4)
:3
4
>>
ZC
C4)
4)
'0
4)
>)
as
14
'n
4)
'-
C)40
ti4
(1)
' 40
'00240C
(4
C.
V)
C.
4
C22
H
4
1'0
C.
4)
cHu
4)a
C.-
.-
C.0
C 4 1
Cd
)
4)
0
4)
OH 4
0a.~4
40
0.
>
"0
H
$0
'
'0
-1 0
H
-0
'0
u)
'0
C.
4)
W
4
4-.
)(
:t.
'0
4)
.
4)
5(
o 4)
w>i
S
'0
)
C
4
Project Name:
Date:
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Structural Region:
G. A. Nicholson
31+10-23+10
JOINT SETS
Massive rock, no or few joints
No. of joint sets present
Additional random joints exist
Rock heavily fractured
Crushed rock
__0%
20-100%
WATER CONDITIONS
ry or minor inflow
ROUGHNESS OF JOINTS
i-flow
edium
edu
i'fw
unfilled ,oints
are
rr inflow,
irregular
ough
oh or irgar
lickensided
'ndulating
Ianar
Notcontinuous
_____________________
STRESS CONDITIONS
ow stress, near surface
= 10-200
4ed. stress: a/ c/
_______clay
claN
Swelling clay
______1_1_____
<Amm
<Smm
+
132 psi
a450
voft
Overt" N/Aorz.
>mm
>Smm
GENERAL
Uniaxial strength of rock material
Tensile:
N/A
Compressive: 8300
psi
psi
N2qF
Dip direction
SE
Average dip
15
Figure C7 (Sheet 3 of 3)
C23
lb/sq in.
APPENDIX D:
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE USE OF ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR TUNNEL DESIGN (1979-1984)
Introduction
1.
themselves as a valuable tool for engineers and geologists for assessing the
quality of rock masses for engineering purposes, 2*.
In
rock mass cl-ssification systems as used for the design and construction of
tunnels in rock.
ref3rences.
D3
4.
recent years, namely the Geomechanics Classification (RMR System) and the
Q-System.
(2) rock support requirements, (3) influence of stress field, (4) rock mass
deformability, (5) strength of rock masses, and (6) emerging new applications.
6.
geological report has been prepared for a construction site, use of the
classification systems will be greatly facilitated if the geological input
data is arranged in a convenient form compatible with a given rock
classification system.
7.
Corps of Engineers document ETL 1110-283 dated 31 May 1983 which gives
guidance on the use of rock mass classifications for tunnel support and
depicts the recommended input data sheets for use with the rock mass
classification systems.
8.
rock mass classification purposes on the basis of borehole data alone without
the need for investigations in adits or pilot tunnels.
As a result of the
D4
9.
8
Budavari
characterization based on the RMR for determining rock mass rating values
based on geological explorations from the surface.
Modifications to
some RMR parameters have been introduced and applied to civil and mining
underground excavations in Spain.
Support Guidelines
11.
rock mass classification systems have not changed during the past five years
and the support charts given in this report are still applicable.
12.
metal mining featuring modified RMR values from the Geomechanics Classification.
D5
to0
s-RMR(BC)-RMR(INS)
19
80
U so
X70
6:0
0
30
-8
2~0
4'+
A SOS/
Del
30
20
u
O8e00
20 30 40 50607
0~
-~
Out
COSRMR seeS
Figure D2.
lassificationeck mass
Cofparins of reockmecanis
aundnfro
xlratingobane from bnoeere durin
sufc
ionstucmaing(aftrS)(afteamro
lakn
BudavariD8
0.001
0
1.0
1
0.1
1
10
1
4
1
40
1
1000
0
400
I00
1
STRUCTURALLY
0.1
- 0.1
CONTROLLED
FAILURE
-~
GENERALLY
F9R
LIGHT
04
#A.3o.-
UPPORT
W1
0.4-
00 .6
SUPPORT
MAU
--
>
0.6
i.
U4<
0.4
0.
0.5NARHEA
ow
.7
NOT
-0.6
TO MAINTAIN
STABLE OPENINGS
0.7
to.
STRESS
INDUCED
FAILURE
4X
DZ 0.9
-0.3
MEDIUM
SUPPORT
0.8
0.9
LO
LI
0
gVERY
10
20
POOR
30
IPOOR
40
J
s0
FAIR
0000
60
70
60
90
100
VERY 0000
RMR
14.
conditions.
This
A more detailed
rock mass classification procedure based on RMR values has been developed"
which enables the planner or the mine operator to arrive at rock mass quality
and support recommendations for production drifts in block caving mines.
D7
The
Strength of
intact rock
Blasting damage
adjustment A8
Rating: 0-15
0.8-1.0
Discontinuity
density
0-20
RQD:
Spacing: 0-20
Discontinuity
orientation
adjustment
0.6-1.2
Rating: 0-40
"-'-"F
10-100 Basic RMR,
Discontinuity
condition
Rating: 0-30
0.7-1.0
Adjusted RMR
Groundwater
RMRXAaXAsXS
condition
max. 0.5
Rating: 0-15
Support recommendations
Figure D4.
D8
procedure involves adjusting RMR values for mining purposes and then estimating support requirements for development and production drifts.
dure ic diagrammatically depicted in Figure D5.
The proce-
16.
failure criterion for the strength of rock masses as opposed to the strength
of rock materials.
where
a:
( 3
Orc
+(2m
) 1/2
3
a.
17.
c3.
For rock masses, Hoek and Brown 13 and Priest and Brown 14 recommended
These
original relations between m and s and RMR were based on a small number of
Brown and Hoek 15 have since determined
that the original relationships gave low values of rock mass strength due to
the fact that laboratory test specimens from which tby were derived were
disturbed.
D9
-ff
w
z
ag
ZWw -
gt!a. ol
V)
z
LT
0
wz
Q:iu
z
2z cr
m a..
.7
, u
M
CC
40
awa
Z
wa:. 41 cc
-9
cn
CL
X(Lx
crMu
wo
2 z0
0z0v1.w
-C
am=
CC
(L
moz
U.
M
0
LU
CC
> -H
ca .bo-A
H
$,-1.
-14 0
r-
OM
2 t3v) I
=
5:
-,4
'4
U)
cz 4
rci
cz
41
0
-H
4-1
CZ
ca
(1)
C) Q)
-H J-j
1-4
U)
z
0
4a Z
W
zom
wz
0
=2 0-:
w
mu.0
mmw
W
LL'ir
0
c.
2WZO
W
0.2
3
ul
am
4-4
im
0.40
1-i
0
w
cr
Xj
IL
Z W.0
0ZO
13 uj a
4,
m
(n
co
4m
04
WO:
2 4c
at w
0 tj
U
w
w
CD
Of..
u
cu
0 co gn
a: U)
0
WI-0
G:Cxm
m 0
CL
24
X0
-Iz in
- z
m
Wq
max
ou
---
I=
0
09L
1
0
ci
0
4-1
4-4
a IL %J
00
4 W W CC
Ow
a
Z15
ca
1..-.9
Ulm<
49<
-Ja
4J
r_;
WI
0z
0
WCC
M=W
043W
wee
X
- ----
44
1.4W
0 (1)
0.
t;
Z -
<
0)
0.10
20
wu) a-0
uw<
MW
$4
0. H a)
-j
00>
utew
w
cz
cc
w
z
2
0
z ra
ME 0
0
5z
Z2 0
i: t:
Zo
Oz 0
UO
D10
CL
M
ca
m 1: co
00 0
w -A
0
LW
.
Ln H
r 4
0
4-j
(D
to
ca
'
jC
LA
06
4-
f1-0.5
compressive strength ac
0I2
SA ND S TON E
Dll
in estimating the peak strengths of disturbed rock masses such as these on the
boundaries of slopes and underground excavations that have been loosened by
Door blasting practice and those in embankments or waste dumps.
14
Brown and
recommendations
RR1-00
exp
6>
(RMRl00)
=exp
19.
some cases, normal good blasting practice are used, the rock mass may be left
essentially undisturbed.
exp
Mi
=exp
(iMR-100\
28
( RMR 100)
6
and
values for
and
The
estimate from RMR values both the shear strength of a rock material and the
shear strength of discontinuities in rock.
100.
D12
21.
22.
that after the Q-System was developed, it was discovered by chance that the
arctangent of (Jr/Ja) gave a surprisingly realistic estimate of the shear
strength, namely:
= tan- (J./Ja)0
friction angle
It was suggested 3 that one can base the design on peak shear strength in the
case of unfilled rough joints but only on residual strength in the case of
clay-filled discontinuities.
23.
New research has been conducted into estimating rock mass deforma-
correlation between the modulus of deformation and the rock mass rating RMR
from the Geomechanics Classification.
provided correlations between RMR and poorer quality rock masses having RMR
< 50.
10 40
D13
90
%a.
0
8D
60
AS4- ITOIS
250
IIINASG17
C1/+
04 SER/ I
09PRER,18
0-
1ER1 0
-10
20
10
ewe
+0 0
eomto
nstumdlso
01
40
:-~
198
RR
MASRTN
ROC
nan
60
40
950-HAIC
FiurD7.1 Corlto
CASEee
thHISTumouuoeorS:
Correatio
Fiur 20.
60
10
o0
+A
t
D~20 -+
w~0
0
0
10
_j
00
10
20
CASE HISTORIES:
8IENIAWSKI, 1978
SERAFIM
8 PEREIRA, 1983
-+
30
40
50
60
70
s0
90
100
Figure D8.
D14
Eean
25 log Q
25.
bctween convergence deformations and rock mass rating RMR for tunnels, based
on a case history in Spain.
shows the tunnel deformations as a function of time and rock mass rating RMR,
with support and depth being considered constant.
It has been
cable for estimating the actual convergence of coal mine tunnels as a function
of time.
This is diagrammatically
General Remarks
27.
One of the useful developments in the past five years was the
if a given parameter value was on the borderline between two ranges of data.
28.
It also became apparent that while the parameter RQD and the
D15
A number
E 50-
40-
RMR
g70
-2
T,days
150
RMR
100
50
040
__50
__60_
70
DEPTH
AND%0
SUPPORT
CONSTANT
V
D16
11
10
-0
o0
-Ile
cc
o
ID
-d
44
.4.
0 N 0
0-
Ni
6NVdS
o) n
-Y
4I
I
0n o
In
JOOU
In
NOt1Vkftd.OaCI
1A
-0
U1
00
D17
E
E
4J
14
~-
13
10
...
...
4
..
INTCTROCKATRNGTH
2C,
IS
202
10-
08
00
4-4
22
'40 80
20 60
RQO, %
Figure Dll.
100
0--q
DISCONTINUITY SPACING
of studies were conducted, notably by Priest and Hudson20 , in which a relationship between RQD and discontinuity spacing was derived.
Based on this
development, ratings were allocated for RQD and discontinuity spacing for use
with the Geomechanics Classification as shown in Figure D12.
This figure is
particularly useful when one of the two parameters is not available and an
estimate is needed of the corresponding parameter.
system is used, the very process of rock mass classification 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.
popular rock mass classification systems are the RMR System (Geomechanics
Classification) and the Q-System.
Conclusions
30.
the usefulness of rock mass classifications and the benefits that can be
derived by their use.
classifications can only be derived if more case histories are available for
assessing the value of the classification systems as well as the benefits in
terms of engineering design.
D19
ow
00
0
0___.__H
-E
NmE
U)
24
00
C: 0
0
0~V
L %
D20
4~
systems are always selected for comparative purposes and that careful record
is kept of their application during the construction of a tunnel.
Rock mass classifications should always be applied judiciously as
31.
The main
cations are also useful for estimating the in situ strength of rock masses,
modulus of rock mass deformation as well as cohesion and friction of rock
masses.
These and
other recent papers on rock mass classifications are given in the list of
references.
D21
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Baczynski, N. Rock Mass Characterization and Its Application to Assessment of Unsupported Underground Openings, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Melbourne, 1980, 233 p.
3.
4.
experience from
Bieniawski, Z. T. Determining rock mass deformability:
and Mining
Mechanics
Rock
of
Journal
International
histories.
case
Sciences, Vol. 15, 1978, pp. 237-248.
5.
6.
Bieniawski, Z. T.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. A 1988 Update of the Hoek and Brown Failure
Criterion. 1988 Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, In Publication.
17.
18.
19.
Unal, E. Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine
Roofs. Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1983, 355 p.
20.
D23
Table Dl
Approximate Relationship Between Material Constants.
16
1
Rock Mass Quality, and Rock Types (from Hoek and Brown )
Un
U-
0,,
ME
CLl'_-
ui
X
Oz
%A -
I
uJ
sw
s'
'
ew
U
~~uss.e
Cz
aas
-d1
-0
VRGODQAIYRC
4Ab
undisturbed
rightly
lontsat
rockwithunweathered
m :2.40
s
C 08
00
IGOOOD
to 3mQUALITY ROCK MASS
Fresh to slightly weathered rock,
disturbed
withjoints at
richtly
M
S
8 .56
0 082
m=--0
m5---87
m=0995
m
s =2.0
0189
m=3A3
s=
0189
m
s==5143
0189
.5
in=
s= 018
2.2
s,m=0lo
S = 00023
1=463
m
s
m
RMR = 65
Q = 10
m .512
s= 0 082
-4m19
RMto=m1RMR = 85
Q =
mm0te00omk0ng
=343
m =514
s
0
082=0
0002
t-20006
J0
= 0 00293
00293
m2= 7163
: 311
m
s =009
sm=2.0OS?
=0l5
s = 00029
= 2030
inm=1023
05
s
m=O:f
01
s=029
m
0205
s = :O01'5
0 002
in
n =995
m =
toIm
M=
RMR = 44
Q =1
POOR QUALITY ROCK MASS
NUmerous weathered joints at 30
to 500ram with some gouge
C'-ejn
compacted waste rock
VEPOOR QUALITY
RMR = 23ROCK MASS
Q=01
000
m
=028
s =00019
0002
m =
0947
00
35 3
,smi-n=01
= 0001
m
s = 00Th
00190
,00009
2.301
3l 3
4 1
inO3001
s =0001
m=
s= 00.00102
S=0 000003
.4
s=--0 010003
s069
s=O0019
s =000019
m : 0 00
s=0---s=
0 000003
s--'
000003
Ma 099
rs1
s =-OO19
m = 0 015
m= 0.017
s-0 0000001
-o 0000001
r?
0 0001t
151
s
OW019
RMR
3
= 001
Q =
5000003 1
z 0 010
=0 000003
m = 0219
m =0313
s = 00002
D24
00002
00
0000
s ar Ol
OS2
e
m = 0
10
02
00001
a s 0.70
s = 50