Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT The rock mass classification methods such as RMR and Q system are widely
used in analysis of structure stability and support requirements of underground excavations. In
dealing with high tectonized regimes, the RMR system, predicts a lighter support in
comparison with those actually installed. To overcome this problem, the SRC system was
developed by considering some extra parameters related to geological conditions. In this
study, the SRC system employed to evaluate the stability and design of support system for
QazvinRasht railway tunnel which is situated in weak rock masses under high tectonic
stresses. The results obtained from 20 sections of tunnel, showed that supports proposed by
SRC were much closer to the reality than those proposed by RMR.
143
Entezari A., A. Farhadian, Mirzaei H.
joints are the major joints for about 20 m of importance. Rocks which are located in
tunnel length, 64+ (473-493). middle part of tunnel are highly tectonized.
The other major joint sets have a N40W In parts near the portal outlet, some faults
strike and are of complete different are cutting the trough tunnel direction and
geometry. Part of them with a dip of 40-50 had a great effect on stability of tunnel as
and dip direction toward east north; while the they caused a great collapse in this region.
other part has a low dip of approximately 10- Clay infilling and infiltration of water into
30and dip direction toward west south. The the joints are of other bad parameters that
minor joint sets are not of noticeable affect the stability and made many problems
during the excavation.
employed and there is also some correction factors, the SRC value will differ
factors related to construction process that significantly, that says the construction
can be found in Gonzalez de Vallejo's paper method has changed rock mass conditions.
on SRC. By applying these correction
Table 1 - Geomechanics rock mass classification SRC, de Vallejo (2003).
Rock Quality Indices Range of values
Point-Load test (MPa)
2.Spacing 1.Intact Rock
Uniaxial
compressive
>250 250-100 100-50 50-25 25-5 5-1 <1
strength (MPa)
Rating 20 15 7 4 2 1 0
or RQD
Rating 15 10 7 4 0
Competence factor >10 10-5 5-3 <3 -
Rating 10 5 -5 -10 -
Zones near thrusts/faults of
5.State of Stresses
Gonzalez de Vallejo, during comparative rock behavior during excavation better than
analysis between different types of supports the RMR.
used in tunneling and the recommendations -use of a particular classification system
obtained from rock mass classifications as should consider both the rock mass type and
RMR and Q, suggests that: the parameters involved in the classification
-for good and fair quality rocks, either the because different classifications are not
RMR or Q systems can be used. equivalent. Therefore correlations between
-in week rocks under significant in-situ rock mass classifications are not
stress, the SRC classification can predict the recommended for poor and very poor quality
rocks. SRC is based on the parameters as
147
Entezari A., A. Farhadian, Mirzaei H.
listed below: Intact rock strength, spacing of the region (Alpine or Hercynian orogeny),
the discontinuities or RQD, condition of divided by maximum thickness of the
discontinuity, groundwater inflow, and state overburden during its geological history (in
of stress. meter). This factor is estimated from regional
The last parameter is made up of the geological data, (Gonzalez de Vallejo 2008).
following parameters: Seismic activity: considered if the area has
Competence factor, Fc, is defined as ratio a history of significant seismic activity.
between uniaxial intact rock strength and In SRC method similar to RMR method,
vertical stress. rock mass rated from 0 - 100 and then rock
Tectonic structures: considered when mass class and suggested support system is
significant faults or tectonic structures are selected with the use of Guidelines for
present in the area. excavation and support of 10 m span rock
Stress relief factor: age of the main tectonic tunnels according to the RMR System, which
orogeny (in years ) that has affected is introduced by Bieniawski in 1989.
149
Entezari A., A. Farhadian, Mirzaei H.
surrounding rock mass, the rating of SRC prediction of support is nearly equal to
is smaller than RMR. So SRC propose a actually installed supports.
heavier support system than RMR, which In the parts of tunnel in which tectonic
is more proper than RMR designation in conditions dont affect the stability, the
comparison with actually installed support ratings of RMR and SRC are nearly
systems. similar to each other.
In some sections of tunnel in which the
overburden thickness is low the SRC
REFERENCES
Barton, N.R., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering
classification of rockmasses for the design of
tunnel support. RockMech. 4, 189239.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass
Classifications. Wiley, New York.
Gonzalez de Vallejo, L.I., 2003, SRC rock mass
classification of tunnels under high tectonic stress
excavated in weak rocks, Engineering Geology,
69, pp. 273285.
Gonzalez de Vallejo, L.I., and Hijazo, T., 2008. A
new method of estimating the ratio between
in situ rock stresses and tectonics based on
empirical and probabilistic analyses, Engineering
Geology, 101, pp. 185194.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995.
Support of Underground Excavations in Hard
Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam. Pp. 215.
Singh, B. and Goel, R.K., 1999, Rock Mass
Classification, A Practical Approach in Civil
Engineering, Elsevier, pp 34-46.
Palmstrm, A., 2000. Recent developments in rock
support estimates by the RMi. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology. 6 (1), 1
19.
Palmstrm, A., 2009. Combining the RMR, Q, and
RMi classification systems, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Volume 24,
Issue 4, pp. 491-492.