Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Information: A. About The Rockmass Site
Information: A. About The Rockmass Site
A new update of the site was presented on November 2013 with many new issues, among
others:
Several papers on investigation
Some updates of spreadsheets
More paper references and additional definitions
Some new papers and updates of files.
Thus this web page gives you information on how field observations can be performed and
used in practical rock engineering. The Rock Mass index (RMi) system has been developed
as a tool in this field. The rockmass.net website has also information on other items related
to engineering geology, rock mechanics, and to rock engineering and design. It is hoped that
content of the rockmass.net page can be of interest and a help to people education as well
as practicing in planning, rock design and rock engineering.
The first edition of the textbook on Rock Engineering was launched in 2010, the second
edition of 444 pages in December 2014. The layout of the book and at the same time the
process in rock engineering is illustrated here. The book can be ordered from the following
link http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/book/102927.
Discussion
Published on February 15 2015
A. DISCUSSIONS on the USE of CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
After publishing the paper The deformation modulus of rock masses – comparison between
in-situ tests and indirect estimates in 2001, see the comment by Dr Nick Barton and the reply
by the authors. A summary of the workshop GeoEng 2000 on classification initiated a
critical comment from Dr. Nick Barton which was followed by an answer to Dr. Barton.
B. NORWEGIAN TUNNEL BUILDERS are the world’s best – a myth?
(from http://www.tunnel.no)
During the NFF Fall Conference on 27 November 2014, Arild Palmström, PhD, MSc, RockMass
AS presented points of view on the Norwegian tunnellers. Some of us assuming that the level
of competence is high (even extremely high) whereas others, and the author, have a more
factual view. His presentation underscores some facts rocking the bases for exaggerated self-
esteem. In the following you will find a selection from his paper.
Arild Palmström is well known in the Norwegian geo-engineering sector, he is author of
numerous papers, author or co-author of books on rock mechanics, and has wide experience
from projects worldwide. In his thesis (Doctor Scientiarum Oslo University 1995), an
important part concerns methods for collecting and using geological parameters with focus
on block size, rock material and the quality description of the rockmass defined in the index
RMi.
Summary
Some Norwegians within the underground construction environment boast of our tunnellers
(not limited to the crew at tunnel face), claiming that these obtain weekly advance higher
than competitors abroad. Frequently one will hear that the Underground Olympic Hall in Gjövik
(some 100 km north of Oslo) is the largest underground opening for public use, the Lärdal
Tunnel is the longest road tunnel, or that one will find the deepest subsea road tunnel on the
west coast of the country, and repeatedly that the largest number of underground power
house complexes will be found in our country. The Greek word hybris (arrogance) fits well,
maybe mixed with ignorance one may say.
Smooth tunnelling in line with the planned progress and economy is not always the case.
Sometimes one will meet unexpected difficulties, for some rather few projects the problems
turn out to be serious. Such incidents, mistakes or lessons learned, are frequently presented
by papers for domestic conferences, workshops or similar events.
The whole article can be found in Part 1 and Part 2
Some Rock Engineering Tools
Published on February 15 2015
Tools for rock engineering have been presented and discussed in many papers and textbooks,
e.g. Hoek and Brown (1980) and Bieniawski (1984, 1989), in addition to modern building
codes such as the Eurocode 7.
The stability of an underground opening depends on the behaviour of the ground surrounding
it. The various types of ground behaviour require different assessments or calculation
methods (rock engineering tools) for a proper design that can be relied on to cover the actual
case. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the actual type of behaviour, as a pre-requisite
for estimates of rock support and other evaluations.
The classical approach is to base the design either on the subjective experience called
engineering judgement, or some existing empirical design rule (e.g. classification
system (/articles/classification/classification systems.html)), or some kind of calculation. For
many rock mechanical applications, however, an observational approach is preferable.
A. On the NATM - New Austrian Tunnelling Method (In German NÖT - Neue
Österreichische Tunnelbauweise)
The NATM was first presented by Rabcewicz at the XIII Geomechanics Colloquium in Salzburg,
Austria in 1962. This was based on earlier developments in the concept of
tunnelling.
B. Observational method
The principles of the Observational method are that the presumptions and results found in
the planning phase are verified through monitoring, measurements and observation during
construction.
The observation method was first introduced by Karl Terzaghi in the late 1940s and first used
in soil engineering. It has later been described by Raph B. Peck, by Herbert H. Einstein and
presented by K. Kovari and P. Lunardi on the EngGeo2000 conference in Melbourne, Australia
2000.
The method is integrated as a part of the NATM through the systematic assessment and
monitoring in the construction phase. The Observational method form an important part of
the Eurocode 7 of Geotechnical engineering.
Joint features, like joints characteristics and the degree of jointing are important parameters
applied as input to classification systems, as described in the tag 'Classification systems'.
Joints
The main characteristics of joints include:
joint plane planarity or waviness,
joint surface smoothness, and
condition (alteration) of the joint wall (whether it is weathered/altered or has coating
or the joint has some sort of filling
joint size (length) and continuity
These are indicated in the figure below:
You can find more on the joint features in the tag 'Field Observations'
There is a great variety of joints, from small cracks to long shears or seams, as seen below:
Joint characteristics are used as input parameters to many classification systems, see the tag
'Classification systems'.
You will find examples and applications of joint characteristics in several papers presented in
other locations on this web page and also in the Rock Engineering book.
Jointing
Jointing here means the assemblage of joints. It can be measured and characterized in
different ways, manly from:
field observations at terrain surface or in the underground excavation (tunnel, cavern,
shaft)
drill core logging
seismic or sound velocities
The main jointing features are:
1. Degree of jointing. This property can be measured as rock quality designation (RQD),
volumetric joint count (Jv), block volume Vb), and joint spacing (S), as shortly presented
in the paper Block sizes and block size measurements. The volumetric joint count (Jv)
is a measurement of the degree of jointing. It is given as the number of joints in a
volume of rockmass (of 1m3 size) The following papers deal with the Jv, which was first
presented (in Norwegian) by Palmstrom in 1974, later presented in 1982, 1985, 1986,
and 1996. The paper Application of seismic refraction survey in assessment of
jointing shows how the seismic velocities can be used to estimate the Jv. The
paper Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality
designation (RQD) shows the difficulties in establishing a good comparison between RQD
and Vb (block size).
2. Orientation of joints and joint sets. This has special interest when the joint set is
unfavourably orientated parallel or at a small angle to a tunnel or cavern. This feature
is used as input to the RMR system and the RMi rock support method.
3. Pattern of joints, which is used as input in the Q-system and the RMi support method.
Joint pattern is the occurrence of joint sets in an area. It is manifested in the shape of
the rock blocks as shoen in the figure below:
The Q and the RMi classification systems use a simplified jointing pattern given as 'number of
joint sets' as an input parameter. See also the paper on 'Observation of jointing features'.
A more comprehensive description of various measurements and observations is given in the
paper Measurement and characterization of rock mass jointing.
More can be found in the Rock Engineering book.
Classification Systems
Published on February 15 2015
1. Introduction
Classification systems are probably among the most frequently tools used in the design of
underground excavations in rock. The primary object of all rock mass classification systems
is to quantify different engineering properties of, or related to, the rock mass based on past
experience. Their main core is the assessment of the rock mass quality that, preferably,
can be used as an indicator for rock engineering. From a set of parameters of the rock,
rockmass, groundwater and stresses, the quality of a rockmass with respect to strength,
deformability and stability can be estimated.
Another important task is that they serve as a kind of checklist.
Three different types of output can be distinguished from the rock mass classification
systems:
1. Characterisation of the rock mass expressed as overall rock mass quality,
incorporating the combined effects of different geological parameters and their
relative importance for the overall condition of a rock mass. This enables the
comparison of rock mass conditions throughout the site and delineation of regions of
the rock mass from 'very good' to 'very poor', thus providing a map of rock mass
quality boundaries.
2. Empirical design with guidelines for tunnel support compatible with rock mass quality
and the method of excavation. Traditionally, this is often seen as the major benefit
from the use of rock mass classification systems.
3. Estimates of rock mass properties. Rock mass characterisation expressed as an
overall rock mass quality has been found useful for estimating the in situ modulus of
rock mass deformability and the rock mass strength to be used in different types of
design calculations.
However
The accuracy of these existing empirical design methods is not established.
Contractual problems are often created when unforeseen geological conditions have
been encountered, and where the system has not been applicable. Typical
conditions that are not covered sufficiently are swelling, squeezing, ravelling,
flowing, or popping ground.
In the early stages of a project, the existing quantitative rock mass classification systems
(empirical design methods) can be applied as a useful tool to establish a preliminary
design. At least two systems should be applied (Bieniawski, 1984, 1989). Classification
systems are, however, unreliable for rock support determinations during construction, as
local geometric and geological features may override the rock mass quality defined by the
classification system. Restrictions on their use here are also pointed out by Bieniawski
(1997).
Several classification systems have been developed over time. Some have been developed
specifically for a project. Classification systems are probably among the most frequently
used tools in support design of underground excavations in rock.
Some comments on classification systems are presented here and some references are
presented here.
To view a paper on the ability and use of classification systems, see the paper 'Classification
as a tool in rock engineering'.
2. The RMR classification system
The RMR (or Geomechanics) system was launched by Bieniawski in 1973. It was a further
development of the RSR system by Wickham, Tiedemann and Skinner (1972). Later, the
system has been revised/updated by Bieniawski in 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1989. A short
description of the RMR is shown here.
Numerous papers have been presented and published on the RMR system and the system is
currently being used by many practitioners. The input parameters to RMR and the RMR
support table are shown here.
In applying this classification system, the rock masses are divided into a number of
structural regions. The boundaries of the structural regions usually coincide with major
structural features (Bieniawski 1984, 1989). Bieniawski strongly emphasises that a great
deal of judgement is needed in the application of rock mass classification to support design.
The RMR value has also been used to estimate rock mass properties. Bieniawski (1984,
1989) and Serafim and Pereira (1983) have given a relationship between the RMR and the
rock mass deformation modulus (Em). The RMR value is also used as one way to estimate
the m and s factors in the Hoek Brown failure criterion (Wood, 1991; Hoek, 1994; Hoek and
Brown, 1997) as well as the GSI value to evaluate the rock mass strength properties.
The RMR-values can be estimated using a computer spreadsheet together with Q-values
and RMi-values.
3. The Q classification system
The Q system was launched in 1974 by Nick Barton, Reidar Lien and Johny Lunde of the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). The Q-system is as an empirical design method for
rock support. Together with the ratio between the span or height of the opening and an
excavation support ratio (ESR), the Q value defines the rock support. This is
described here.
Some more information on the Q-system is shown in the two files Q input parameters and
the latest Q support chart.
Over the years, some developments have been introduced by:
a new design of the support diagram (Grimstad and Barton, 1988), see list of
published paper here.
adjustments of the input parameter SRF (Grimstad and Barton, 1993), inclusion of
the rock strength (Barton, 1995), inclusion of shotcrete ribs as a support element
(Barton and Grimstad, 2004).
A paper presenting Q and NATM systems gives some information on the two systems.
Grimstad and Barton (1993) have also presented an equation to use the Q value to estimate
the rock mass deformation modulus (for values of Q > 1). The Q value is also used as one
method to estimate the m and s factors in the Hoek Brown failure criterion (Hoek, 1983;
Hoek and Brown, 1988).
In 1999 the originator of the Q system has increased the limitation of the original Q to also
incorporate excavation by TBM (tunnel boring machines) introducing QTBM (Barton, 1999)
and to also use Q-values for estimates of the effect of grouting (Barton et al, 2001),
estimate Q-values from sound velocities in the ground (found from refraction seismic
measurements).
Some comments on the limitations of the use of classification systems are presented in the
paper 'Use and misuse of classification systems with special reference to the Q
system'. This paper was first presented at the annual Norwegian conference on Rock and
Soil excavation in 2002. A summary in English of this paper can be read here.
The Q-values can be estimated using a computer spreadsheet (/files/Q-RMR-RMi_v2-1.xls)
together with RMR-values and RMi-values. See also Section 6 below.
4. The RMi classification system
The rock mass index, RMi, is a volumetric parameter indicating the approximate uniaxial
compressive strength of a rock mass. The system was first presented by Palmström (1995)
in his PhD. and has been further developed and presented in several different papers, see
the tag 'Why RMi?'
The application of RMi is two-fold:
RMi is an approximate value for the compressive strength of the rockmass (MPa)
RMI is used as input to other calculations or estimates of rock properties, like rock
support, TBM progress assessment, deformation modulus of rockmass
RMi makes use of the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock (UCS) and the reducing
effect of the joints penetrating the rock (JP) has. This is expressed as RMi = UCS x JP
A short introduction to the RMi system is shown here and a more detailed
description here where also the input parameters to RMi are shown. RMi requires more
calculation than the RMR and the Q system, but spreadsheets can be used from which RMi-
values can be found together with RMR-values and Q-values from the same input
observations, see also Section 6 below.
Based on RMi combined with the geometrical features of the underground opening and rock
stresses, the rock support can be estimated using support charts or from theexcel
spreadsheet ( /files/rmi_support_3-1.xls). RMi can also be applied as input to other rock
engineering methods, such as numerical modelling, the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for rock
masses. The paper 'Deformation modulus of rock masses' shows how RMi is used.
The system applies best to massive and jointed rock masses where the joints in the various
sets have similar properties. It may also be used as a first check for support in faults and
weakness zones, but its limitations here are pointed out by Palmström (1995).
For special ground conditions like swelling, squeezing, ravelling, the rock support should be
evaluated separately for each and every case. Other features to be separately assessed are
connected to project specific requirements such as the life-time of the project.
There is more to be found on RMi in the tag 'Ph.D. Thesis on RMi'.
5. Other classification/characterization systems
Several other classification systems have been developed over time. Some have been
developed specifically for a project.
The first one to present a practical classification system for use in rock engineering was Dr.
Karl Terzaghi when he in 1946 wrote the famous article Introduction to tunnel
geology (Terzaghi, 1946) as a chapter in the book 'Rock Tunneling with steel supports' by
Robert V. Proctor and Thomas L. White after visits to several tunnelling projects in America
and in Europe. Many of these projects experienced tunnel excavation and stability problems.
In the 1940s, the rock support was often performed by steel arches, on which the support
evaluation in the Terzaghi system was developed. Today, the Terzaghi classification system
has lost much of its interest. However, the engineering geological part of the book is very
interesting and pinpointing important geological features with respect to tunnel
construction.
The NATM (New Austrian Tunnelling Method) is a sequence of tunnel planning, design and
follow-up, and hence not a classification system.
6. Combination of RMR, Q and RMi classification systems
In two papers Comparing the RMR, Q and RMi classification systems, a Comparison on the
RMR, Q and RMi systems is presented in Part-1 (files/correlation_Q-RMR-RMi-
1.pdf) and Part-2 (files/correlation_Q-RMR-RMi-2.pdf). Shorter versions are presented in
the papers 'Combining the RMR, Q and RMi classification systems' and in a Technical note.
An overview of the input parameters used in the RMR, Q, and RMi systems are presented
here ( /files/parameter_class-systems.pdf)
A computer spreadsheet has been worked out where the RMR, Q and RMi values are
calculated independently by combining the input parameters as described in the papers
mentioned above.
See also references on classification systems.
Classifications
Published on February 15 2015
The geologic classification of the rock material is based on origin, mineralogical composition, mineral size
and petrologic characteristics. The condition, i.e. classes of the various features to be used in rock
engineering should be easily observed or measured in the field and/or laboratory.
The rockmass contains several features, each of them with properties. They all play a role in its strength
and modulus of deformation. Many of these features are applied as input to classification systems. A
collection of classifications is presented below:
Rock properties
A summary of classifications
Classification should provide a common basis of communication, and to identify a rock mass into one of the
groups having well defined characteristics and also yield basic input data for engineering design.
The terminology used should be widely accepted by engineers and geologists. Only the most significant
properties of the rock should be considered, which will influence the engineering properties and behaviour
Construction materials commonly used in civil engineering are mostly characterized by their strength
properties. In rock engineering, however, no strength characterization of the rock mass is in common use.
Most engineering is carried out using various descriptions, classifications and unspecified experience.
Hoek and Brown (1980), Bieniawski (1984), Nieto (1983) and several other authors have, therefore,
indicated the need for a strength characterization of rock masses. The RMi system has been developed to
meet this need.
The development of the RMi system
The concept of RMi was first presented at the Norwegian National annual conference on Rock mechanics
(Bergmekanikkdagen) in 1986. This was partly a continuation of the ideas of the volumetric joint count (Jv),
which had been presented in several papers since 1975.
The practical development of RMi was performed from 1991 to 1995 in a PhD. thesis named RMi – a rock
mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes, at Oslo University, Norway.
Since 1995 the RMi has been applied in several projects; several papers on have been published. Some
developments and improvements of the RMi rock support method were presented in 2000, in the latest
published paper on the RMi rock support method Recent developments in rock support estimates by the RMi,
with some simplifications. In addition, a few minor errors have been corrected since the RMi system was
published in 1995.
Description of the RMi system
The Rock Mass index (RMi) combines numerical values of relevant parameters in the rock mass to express
the RMi value. Most of these parameters, including the rock material and the joints intersecting it, can be
found from common observations or measurements in the field.
The RMi-value is an approximate measure of the uniaxial strength of the rockmass. It can be used in several
calculation methods in rock engineering and rock mechanics, such as for rock support estimates in
underground excavations, input parameters to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for rock masses, and for
estimating penetration rate of TBMs (tunnel boring machines). In addition, RMi can be useful in estimation
of some input data used in numerical modelling.
Click here for a very short introduction to the RMi system and here for a description of the RMi system.
Papers published on the RMi can be found in the tag Papers in RMi.
The Ph.D. thesis on RMi gives the whole development and background on this characterization/classification
system and how it can be applied in rock engineering.
Geological Uncertainties
Published on February 15 2015
Due to the complex character of geological materials there is always an element of uncertainty in geological
investigation and testing. In this connection the following terminology is often used:
Error is defined as the difference between computed or estimated result and the true value.
A bias is the difference between the estimated value and the true value based on statistically
random sampling. For example, joints sub-parallel to an outcrop have less chance of being sampled
than joints perpendicular to an outcrop. This is a bias in sampling for orientation.
Geotechnical design problems often originate from a lack of knowledge, which contributes to uncertainties
and difficulties in determining in advance the actual geology and the behaviour of a geotechnical structure. A
lack of knowledge of the design conditions becomes evident in the execution phase, something that also was
acknowledged by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) when they formulated the observational method. This procedure
has been accepted and formalized in the new Eurocode 7 for geotechnical problems.
In principle the uncertainties in data are depending on the extent of investigations. However, in tunnelling it
may be impossible to carry out any detailed investigate in advance. The most optimal solution may them be
to carry out the investigations during the excavation and let the results in such way influence the design.
Some comments on uncertainties can be seen here.
Collapses of tunnels
Slides, cave-ins, flowing ground which sometimes occur in tunnels are some of the unexpected problems
during tunnel excavations. Some comments on this are shown in the paper Collection of geo-data –
limitations and uncertainties.
See also abstract of the paper on 'Slides in Norwegian water tunnels' and short descriptions on the tunnel
collapses at Vinstra HEP and Sundsbarm HEP.
Conclusion
Unexpected events are often caused by geological features because of lack of information from field
investigations and collection:
1. Although extensive field investigation and good quality descriptions will enable the engineering
geologist to predict the behaviour of a tunnel more accurately, it cannot eliminate the risk of
encountering unexpected features.
2. A good quality characterisation of the rock mass will, however, in all cases except for wrong or
incorrect interpretations, improve the quality of the geological input data for evaluation and
analyses, and hence lead to better design.
3. The methods, effort and costs of collecting geo-data should always be balanced against the
probable uncertainties and errors.
There are generally great difficulties to perform investigation from the terrain surface for a tunnel hundreds
of metres below surface. As long as the tunnel construction is found feasible, some of the investigations
may be performed later from the tunnel face during tunnel excavation.
Some of the impact from uncertainty can be reduced by flexibility in tunnelling contracts by a risk-sharing
system has obvious advantages.
Weakness zones and faults are among the most important features in rock excavation. See
the definitions for right understanding of these terms.
Weakness zones and faults are described in the Ph.D. thesis, Appendix 2.
See also the paper 'The significance of weakness zones in rock tunnelling'.
Weakness zones including fault zones have been responsible for many problems and collapses in rock
tunnelling as described in the tab 'Geological uncertainties'.
More on weakness and fault zones is presented in the Rock Engineering book.
Rock Properties
Published on February 14 2015
Several textbook describe formation, development and composition of rocks as well as rock properties,
among others Lama and Vutukuri (1976), see Publication references.
Some information on rocks can be found in the following:
Geological Information
Published on February 14 2015
The geological setting is generally a prerequisite for a good understanding of the ground conditions in the
project area. Often a general geological map exists in scale between 1: 50,000 and 1:100,000. For large
projects, a separate or additional geological mapping is often conducted. A wrongly geological base may
cause wrong interpretations as e.g.as described in the paper by Winter et al, 1994 and hence strongly
influence on the construction of the project.
You will find a geological timescale here and here (/files/geo_timescale.pdf) and in website
http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2014-10.pdf
(note that Tertiary has been changed into Paleogene and Neogene)
More on geological times can be found on International Commission on Stratigraphy
In addition you can find a simple overview of the geological history in Norway
and a short introduction to rockmass composition.
Field Observations
Published on February 13 2015
Geo-observation means observation and mapping of rockmass and ground parameters that are influencing
on the behaviour of rock excavations, such as cuttings, tunnels, caverns and shafts.
In fact, geo-observations are often the most important contributor for:
numerical modelling.
A precondition for good characterizations is that the geological conditions are understood /or documented so
the engineering geological observations can be placed or viewed in a broader context. Especially important
when the rocks are faulted. Field characterization of rocks, joint features and jointing features includes:
rock(s)
joints
jointing
weakness zones
When the geo-observations are performed in the rock excavation (where the information is used for
engineering and design), the results can be used directly in evaluations and rock engineering.
However, when the geo-observations are made on the terrain surface, often far off the underground rock
excavation in question. Some sort of extrapolation is needed to make a probable assessment of the
underground conditions. This is explained in the paper 'Geo-registrations, Rockmass conditions and Ground
quality', which also introduces a geo-registrations form. This form can be combined with the Excel
spreadsheet geo-calculations where the rockmass and ground quality are calculated. An example of the use
of the Geo-registrations form and the spreadsheet Geo-conditions is shown here.
The ability to observe exposed rocks in the terrain surface varies with the sites, from entire cover by loose
materials and/or vegetation or water to 100% exposed rocks. Different types of investigations can be
performed depending on this and whether the rocks are weathered at the terrain surface. Some information
on field investigations is given here.
As shown here the RMR, Q and RMi systems use partly the same input parameters. Common registrations
of these parameters can be easily made when the field registration scheme described above is used.
Examples with comments of some rockmass observations can be studied here
Observations with the Q-system
As the Q-system is often used for documentation of field observations, there are a few important issues to
be aware of:
1. Observations at terrain surface:
The Q-value found is site specific, i.e. it specifies the ground conditions at the actual location. This is
important regarding the two input parameters stresses and groundwater. When mapping in the terrain
surface, the stresses are low/zero and there is no groundwater pressure or inflow (the observation area may
even be above the groundwater table). What Q input values should be used for these parameters to
characterize the Q-value in the observation point? The 'geo-observation' paper discusses this problem. See
some more comments here.
2. Observations in the tunnel or cavern:
The Q- value indicates the ground quality (i.e. stability) at a specific location. The area to be supported is
often one or two blast rounds long (a blast round varies mostly between 3m and 5m). Thus the area for
assessment of roof stability will be approx. tunnel span × blast round. For a tunnel with 10m span, the area
is 30 – 50m2 (or the double if 2 blast rounds are evaluated). This is important when the number of joint
sets is assessed because the joint sets are those found within the 30 – 50m2 only. This is further discussed
in the 'geo-observation' paper.
Observations with RMi
The RMi value is an approximate measure of the compressive strength of a rockmass. It may be crudely
found from input shown in the figure below, which can be downloaded here. Other methods for calculation of
the RMi value and the support are given in 'Why RMi?'.
On Investigation Methods
Published on February 13 2015
The main aim to perform investigations for a rock excavation is to provide sufficient information and a basis
to carry out the planning of and to evaluate the consequences for the rock excavation in question. This
means to characterize the ground qualities with respect to the actual construction works and find the
distribution of the qualities along the actual excavation.
There should be good reasons for selecting the type(s), amount and locations of the investigations to be
performed, for providing data and relevant, useful information on the ground conditions to be applied in the
further evaluations and calculations.
The geological conditions of the sites may vary within wide limits. Each site has its own characteristics, and
there are no “standard investigation procedures or methods”, which in all cases will be the only right one.
Therefore, the investigations have to be tailored for each site.
Most investigations are performed
1. during planning (before construction),
2. during excavation, or
3. during operation for maintenance purposes
There are numerous methods to perform investigations for an underground excavation project. A list of
various types performed in the field and/or in the laboratory is given here
See also the ISRM suggested methods, which also can be found on the ISRM
website http://www.isrm.net/gca/?id=177
Additional information on collection of geological and rockmass information is presented in 'Geo-
observations'. More can be found in the Rock Engineering book, especially in Chapter 3 from which
a couple of tables are presented.
The investigation should be planned in a way that all investigation results can be utilized in the evaluations
and assessments made during rock engineering, calculations and design.
Thus, it is of little use to map the orientation of joints and work out a joint rosette when joint orientation
(with regard to the tunnel) is not used in the evaluations/assessments made, such as in the Q system,
which has no input parameter on joint orientation.
The results from different investigation methods can be combined for the derived result to be further used
in the rock quality assessments, see the Rock Engineering book where examples are shown on:
Comments on Eurocode 7
Field Observation Schemes
Published on January 30 2015
The methods for the collection of geological data have not changed very much over the past 20 years. Due
to the high cost of sub-surface exploration, the main investigation is often restricted to field observations.
The geo-registrations are mainly based on observation and mapping performed on:
Underground excavations (tunnels, caverns, shafts) during and after construction, or in adits made
prior to construction
About
Published on March 12 2011
Contact
Published on March 12 2011
RockMass as
Oslo, Norway
Mobile: +47 918 29 909
Information on errors, comments, or suggestions for content or layout etc. may be sent to:
E-mail: arild@rockmass.net
Webmaster: webmaster@rockmass.net
Useful items
A list of ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics) Suggested methods for laboratory testing,
field measurements, etc.
The book on Rock Engineering, second edition gives useful information in the planning, design and
construction of rock excavations. You may also take a look at the contents of the book-second edition and
its layout and structure.
Useful links
Norway’s largest consulting company with vast experience in engineering geology, rock engineering
and geotechnical engineering: http://www.norconsult.com.
The journal Tunnels and Underground Space Technology (TUST), the official journal for ITA
(International Tunnelling Association): www.elsevier.com/locate/tust
Norway is a mountainous country with 5 mill. inhabitants. Located between 58o and 71o north, it has an area
of 324 000 km². Rock construction has played an important role in this country during the last 100 years;
first for hydropower development, then for transport and water supply and later for oil development.
Over the years, more than 5000km of tunnels have been excavated, probably the world record compared
with the country’s size and population. Click here to see a short history of Norwegian tunneling
The frequent use of the underground for various purposes has generated some Norwegian specialties in rock
constructions, such as
lake taps by piercing to the lake bottom with the tunnel (for utilizing a larger volume in the
reservoir lake for hydropower);
Some information on these items and on Norwegian rock construction activities can be found in:
The list of some road tunnels in Norway up to 2002. (See also http://www.lotsberg.net)
The list of some underground hydropower stations, large water tunnels and unlined surge chambers
The table showing some of the unlined pressure water tunnels and shafts
The paper on the Norwegian development and experience with unlined pressure tunnels and shafts
The papers on world records in tunnelling progress at Sauda HPP and at Kjosnesfjorden hydropower
plant
For more information on these items and on activities in Norwegian rock construction, see www.tunnel.no
The Norwegian Tunnelling Society (NFF) together with the Norwegian Rock Mechanics Group (NBG) and
Norwegian Geotechnical Society (NGF) arranges an annual conference on tunnelling, rock
engineering/engineering geology and soil mechanics in November called the NFF Fall Conference.
Some Published Papers
Published on March 12 2011
Various papers on rock engineering, design and construction not presented in other parts of the web site.
From time to time, additional papers or summary of papers will be presented. The papers (in pdf-format)
cover the following items:
1. Swelling clays in seams and faults:
Stability problems in tunnels caused by seams and zones with swelling clay and a method to
measure the swelling activity and pressure of the swelling material
2. Hydropower planning and construction: (see also the tag 'Some designs' )
The engineering geological planning and design of the 110 MW Tjodan power plant with an unlined
pressure shaft with 950m head located in gneiss excavated by TBM.
Seminars on hydropower planning and development, arranged by the Norwegian Export Council
in Spain (1989), presented in Spanish and in India (1990)
3. Various items:
Engineering geology applied in the planning of the Lyse one-lane road tunnel
The concept study of the Petromine project: 50km long undersea tunnels from the shore to the Troll
oilfield for bringing the oil on shore.
Oslo, the capital city of Norway has numerous tunnels and caverns in rock as shown in two papers
describing “The Oslo underground” and “The use of the underground in Oslo”
Publication References
Published on March 12 2011
Papers on RMi
Published on March 12 2011
Palmström A.: RMi – a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes. Ph.D. thesis, Oslo
University, Norway, 1995, 400 p.
Palmström A.: Characterizing the strength of rock masses for use in design of underground structures. Int.
Conf. on Design and Construction of Underground Structures, New Delhi, 1995.
Palmström A.: Characterizing rock burst and squeezing by the rock mass index. Int. Conf. on Design and
Construction of Underground Structures, New Delhi, 1995.
Palmström A.: RMi - a system for characterizing rock mass strength for use in rock engineering. Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology, Vol. 1, Number 2, 1995, pp. 69-108.
Palmström A.: RMi - a new practical characterization system for use in rock engineering. Conference
Svenska Bergmekanikdagen 1996, Stockholm, pp. 39-63.
Palmström A.: The rock mass index (RMi) applied in rock mechanics and rock engineering. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology, Vol. 2, Number 1, 1996.
Palmström A.: Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering. Part 1: The
development of the rock mass index (RMi). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 11, No. 2,
pp. 175-186, 1996.
Palmström A.: Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering. Part 2: Some
practical applications of the rock mass index (RMi). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 11,
No. 3, pp. 287-303, 1996.
Palmström A.: A new method to characterize rock masses for applications in rock engineering. Norwegian
annual conference, Bergmekanikkdagen, 1996, Oslo, 27 p.
Palmström A.: Collection and use of geological data in rock engineering. ISRM News, 1997, pp. 21- 25.
Palmström A.: Characterization of rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering. (in Spanish).
Ingeo Tuneles, volume 2, in series Ingenieria de tuneles, Madrid, 1999, pp. 79 – 107.
Palmström A. and Nilsen B.: Engineering Geology and Rock Engineering. Handbook. Norwegian Tunnelling
Society, 2000, 250 p. See Useful information under Miscellaneous tag
Hval O.: Comparison between the engineering geological classification systems RMR, Q and RMi –
experience from practical applications in the Tåsen and the Svartdal road tunnels (in Norwegian),
Cand.scient. thesis, Oslo University, Norway, December 2000, 230 pages. See abstract
Palmström, A.: Recent developments in rock support estimates by the RMi. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Tunnelling Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, May 2000, pp. 1 – 19.
Nilsen B., Shrestha G.L., Panthi K.K., Holmøy K.H. and Olsen V.: RMR vs Q vs RMi. Tunnels & Tunnelling,
May 2003, pp. 45 – 48.
New paper
Table of Contents
Opening pages
Summary
1 Introduction
2 Rock masses as construction materials
3 Collection of geo-data - limitations and uncertainties
4 The combination of geo-data into a rock mass index
5 Rock masses characterized by the RMi
6 The use of RMi in design of rock support for underground openings
7 RMi parameters applied in prediction of tunnel boring penetration
8 Possible other applications of the RMi in rock mechanics and rock engineering
9 Discussion and conclusions
10 References
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: On joints and jointing
Appendix 2: On faults and weakness zones
Appendix 3: Methods to quantify the parameters applied in the RMi
Appendix 4: An investigation of the quality of various jointing measurements
Appendix 5: Using refraction seismic velocities to characterize jointing
Appendix 6: Description of the tests and data used in the calibration of the RMi
Appendix 7: Collected data on ground conditions and rock support in underground openings
Appendix 8: Collected data on ground condition and TBM boring performance
Appendix 9: A method to estimate the tangential stresses around underground openings
Appendix 10: Symbols used
Various
Published on March 12 2011
Some Designs
Published on March 11 2011