Road Tunnel Report PDF

REHABILITATION AND UPGRADATION OF RISHIKESH – DHARASU ROAD
(NH-94) WITH 2-LANE

LANE WITH PAVED SHOULDER FROM DESIGN CHAINAGE KM
58.603 TO KM 58.853 (EXISTING CHAINAGE KM 59.420 TO KM 59.650), FROM
DESIGN CHAINAGE KM 61.630 TO KM 63.950 (EXISTING CHAINAGE KM
62.630 TO KM 65.000) AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 2-LANE
2 LANE WITH PAVED
SHOULDERS CHAMBA BYPASS OF DESIGN LENGTH 2.035 KM INCLUDING
440M LONG TUNNEL ON EPC MODE UNDER IMPROVEMENT TO NH
CONNECTIVITY
ECTIVITY TO CHARDHAM IN THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
DESIGN NOTE ROAD TUNNEL SUPPORT
MARCH 2019
A EPC CONTRACTOR DESIGN

CONSULTANT
BHARAT CONSTRUCTION
Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1. GENERAL ................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................ 11
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................ 11
1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................................... 11
2. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 12
3. BASIC DATA .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 GEOMETRY ................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES.......................................................................................................... 13
3.3 CAPACITY OF ROCK BOLTS ................................................................................................... 13
2
3.4 TUNNEL MATERIAL (FOR PHASE ) ........................................................................................ 14
3.5 PIPE UMBRELLA ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF THE PIPE UMBRELLA IMPROVED LAYER ........................... 15
3.5.2 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 16
4. IS CODE METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 ESTIMATION OF SUPPORT PRESSURES .............................................................................. 17
4.2 ULTIMATE ROOF SUPPORT PRESSURE (FOR CROWN) ..................................................... 17
4.3 ULTIMATE WALL SUPPORT PRESSURE ............................................................................... 17
4.4 CALCULATION OF ROCK BOLT PARAMETERS.................................................................... 18
5. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 18
6. ROOF PRESSURE FOR DIFFERENT CLASS OF ROCKS ...................................................... 18
7. CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................. 19
8. ROCK SUPPORT FOR ROAD TUNNELS WITHOUT LATTICE GIRDER ................................ 19
9. ROCK SUPPORT FOR WITH LATTICE GIRDER ..................................................................... 19
10. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 20
11. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 20
11.1 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL AND MODELLING APPROACH ................................................... 20
11.2 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS........................................................................................................ 23
ii
LIST OF ANNEXURES AND PLATES
ANNEXURES:
Annexure - I(A) : Tunnel Rock Support Design for Good Rock, Q=10-40
Annexure - I(B) : Tunnel Rock Support Design for Fair Rock, Q = 4-10
Annexure - I(C) : Tunnel Rock Support Design for Poor Rock, Q =1-4
Annexure - I(D) : Tunnel Rock Support Design for Very Poor Rock, Q= 0.1 -1
Annexure - II : Phase2 Output File Lattice Girder (Very Poor Rock Q -0.1 -1 )
Annexure – III : RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS III, WITH SUPPORTS
Annexure – IV : RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS IV, WITH SUPPORTS
Annexure – V : RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS V, WITH SUPPORTS
PLATES:
Plate-1 : Tunnel Rock Support (Class II & III)
Plate-2 : Tunnel Rock Support (Class IV & V)
iii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Q = Rock Tunneling quality index
RMR = Rock mass rating
Qru = Ultimate rock Tunneling quality index for roof
Qwu = Ultimate Rock Tunneling quality index for wall
Jn = Joint sets number
Jr = Joint roughness number
ESR = Excavation Support Ratio
Proof = Ultimate roof support pressure
Pwall = Ultimate wall support pressure
H = Overburden above crown or tunnel depth below ground level
f = Correction Factor for overburden (minimum 1)
iv
1. GENERAL
2. Objective
Chamba tunnel has been proposed to bypass the main center of Chamba town as part of the
upgrading of NH-94. The proposed tunnel passes through the ridge on which Chamba town is
located.
The maximum overburden above the tunnel alignment is about 72m. It is anticipated that
discontinuity controlled failure will be the predominant ground failure mode during tunnel
excavation whilst shallow shear failure and crown failure modes due to the low confining stress
may be expected at the portals.
The objective of this report is to design the Support System for the different classes of rock for
Road Tunnel for Chamba Bypass.
3. Purpose
The purpose of this calculation is to recommend the support system for Road Tunnel for
different classes of rock based on their Q value with IS:13365 (Part-2)-1992 and numerical
method.
4. Scope
This report covers the design principles, criteria, assumptions and design of rock support for
Road Tunnel for Chamba Bypass.
5. Reference Documents
Codes and standards referred to in the report are given below:
i. IS:13365 (Part-2)-1992: Quantitative Classification Systems of Rock

Mass - Guidelines - Rock Mass Quality for Prediction of Support Pressure in
Underground Openings, Bureau on Indian Standards, New Delhi.
ii. IS:15026-2002: Tunneling methods in rock masses – Guidelines, Bureau on Indian

Standards, New Delhi.
iii. Ramamurthy, T, "Engineering in Rocks", Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi,
(2001).
iv. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T., “Underground Excavations in Rock”. London: Instn Min.
Metall., (1980).
v. Proctor R.V., White T.L., Rock Tunneling with steel sets With an introduction to tunneling
by Karl Terzaghi (1946).
11
vi. REHABILITATION AND UPGRADATION TO 2 LANE/ 2 LANE WITH PAVED

SHOULDER CONFIGURATION & STRENGTHENING OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO
94 FROM KM 1.957 (RISHIKESH) TO KM 142.000 (DHARASU) IN THE STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND Overview of the Available Data : TUNNEL AND PORTAL CUT
PRIMARY SUPPORT DESIGN REPORT
6. GEOLOGY
Based on clause 1.4 – vi, geological surface mapping and the borehole drilling which was
conducted on site, a geological longitudinal section was developed along the tunnel alignment,
please refer to Ref. [2] drawings T-CHAMBA-TUN-GEO-1003 and T-CHAMBA-TUN-GEO-1004.
As explained in Ref. [1] DOC-CHAMBA-GEN-002-R0 no rock samples could be recovered from

the borehole drillings for any sort of laboratory testing, hence the geotechnical parameters
derived for the geotechnical design are based on estimates from both literature survey on
similar geotechnical material and experience in these rock types.
The following Table 1 provides a summary of the geotechnical parameters used in the design
analysis.
Table 1: Table of Geotechnical Parameters – Underground Excavations

Ground Type Rock Mass Parameters
Bulk Deformation Cohesion, Friction In‐‐Situ
Density Modulus, Emod c Angle, Stress Ratio,
[kN/m3] [GPa] [MPa] [deg] Ko
Colluvium 22 0.7 0.3 32 0.5
Highly Weathered 25 1.2 1.1 19 0.75
Quartz Phyllite
Quartz Phyllite 28 4.0 1.73 25 0.75
The quartz phyllite is both foliated and highly fractured. It is anticipated that the orientation of the
foliation relative to the tunnel axis will govern the rock mass behaviour. For estimating the rock
mass strength of intact foliated rock the strength normal to the anisotropy (foliation) should be
utilized. Based on field classifications it is estimated that the fresh intact rock can range from
moderately weak to moderately strong depending on the local rock texture and has an
unconfined compressive strength in the region of about 40 – 100 MPa normal to the foliation
depending on the quartz distribution and content. Weathered specimens are expected to have
lower intact strengths. Based on field observations the geological strength index (GSI) of the
rock mass was estimated to range from around 20 for the highly weathered or locally sheared
quartz phyllite to about 40 for the moderately weathered to fresh quartz phylllite.
12
Due to the relatively shallow overburden; maximum of only 72m, and the location of the tunnel
alignment across a ridge with valley sides on both portals, it was assumed that the in situ stress
ratio was probably between 0.5 to 1. For the analysis at the portal region an in situ stress ratio
of 0.5 was considered and for the maximum overburden the value of 0.75 was utilized.
7. BASIC DATA
8. Geometry
Geometry of the Tunnel is defined as “Horse Shoe shaped” of size 11.1m diameter.
Figure-1: Typical Section of Road Tunnel

9. Material Properties
Properties of different materials used for the design of rock supports are tabulated below:
• Specified characteristic compressive strength of shotcrete = 35MPa
• Specific yield strength of rock bolts = 500MPa
• Specific yield strength of Lattices girder = 550 MPa
10. Capacity of Rock Bolts
Working load of 25 mm diameter Fe-500 rock bolts is calculated and tabulated below in Table-2.
13
Table-2: Working load of 25 mm diameter Fe-500 rock bolts
Parameter unit Value

Steel Grade (Yield stress) MPa 500
Diameter of rock bolts mm 25
Cross-sectional Area mm2 490

Yield load kN 245.4
Allowable Load (Yield load / 1.5) kN 163.62
11. Tunnel Material (for Phase2)
The linearly elastic, perfectly plastic Mohr Coulomb model is considered with available
geological data. Strength is controlled by Mohr Coulomb criterion and stiffness is controlled by
Hooke’s law. The stiffness parameters are the Young’s Modulus and the Poisson’s ratio. The
Mohr Coulomb criterion is the most important criterion concerning the strength of material in the
present case. The criterion is expressed in terms of stress components and material properties.
The material of tunnel is modelled as a Mohr-Coulomb material and characterized by its

cohesion and friction angle as defined in Cl. 2 above
Residual parameters
The material around tunnel is assumed elastic-plastic. For an ideally elastic-plastic material, the
strength parameters are defined equal to the peak parameters. The residual parameters
together with the other material parameter required in Phase2 are presented in Table 3.
12. Table 3 : Tunnel Material (for Phase2)

Parameter Unit Young’s Poisson ratio Mohr-Coulomb
Weight, Modulus,
KN/m3 GPa C phi
Colluvium
Peak
22 0.7 0.2 0.3 320
Residual
Highly Weathered
Quartz Phyllite
28 1.2 0.2 1.1 190
Peak
Residual
Quartz Phyllite
Peak 28 4.0 0.2 1.73 250
Residual
14
13. Pipe umbrella
According to Hoek (2001), a zone of improved material above the tunnel crown can be used to
simulate the pipe umbrella support. The layer is defined as an arch above the excavated tunnel
face.
The pipe umbrella improved layer is located within an angle of 120° of tunnel crown as shown in
Figure-2.
Figure-2: Pipe umbrella Modeled in Phase2
14. Material properties of the pipe umbrella improved layer
The improved material representing the pipe umbrella support layer consist of steel pipes, grout
filling and the original soil. These three components have very different properties which results
in difficulties when determining properties of the pipe umbrella improved layer.
The material properties of the improved layer are estimated by a weighted average of the
strength and the deformation properties of the components, based on a cross sectional area. A
formula of the assumed weighting of the three components is presented below. Most of the
improved layer consists of soil material. Hence, the soil is given a weighting of 80% of the
improved layer. The increasing strength contribution from the steel pipe is assumed to be 1% of
the total layer due to the steel pipes cross sectional dimension being small. Assuming that the
pipes and the soil are perfectly grouted with concrete, 19% of the layer is given material
properties of concrete. The calculated values of the material properties of the improved layer
15
are presented in Table 4, including the material properties estimated for each of the three
components. Approximations of the values of the improved material layer are performed to fit
the other parameters.
Pipe umbrella improved layer = (soil x 0.80) + (Steel pipe x 0.01) + (Concrete x 0.19)
Due to the soil material being a major part of the improved layer, the failure criterion for the
improved layer is chosen to be Mohr Coulomb, with a plastic failure type allowing yielding of the
pipe umbrella support. Mohr Coulomb strength parameters such as friction angle and cohesion
are assumed high for the steel pipes, not indicating any concrete values. The steel pipes do not
affect failure, when assuming failure will be initiated in the soil and concrete.
However, the stiffness and the tensional strength of the pipe are important parameters to
consider for the layer.
By recommendation from Trinh (2014) the residual strength of the improved material layer is
assumed being 2/3 of the peak values due to the concrete material and is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 - Material properties based on a weighted average of the material properties of

the moraine, steel pipe and concrete, used as input parameters to Phase2.
Parameter Colluvium Steel Concrete Improved Residual

pipe layer value
Unit Weight, 22 78.5 25 23.135 -
KN/m3
Young’s 700 200000 31000 8450 -
Modulus, MPa
Poisson ratio 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.2715 -
Tensile strength 0 400 4.43 4.84 3.23
Friction angle, ϕ 320 - 35 32.25 21.50
Cohesion, MPa 0.3 - 5 1.19 0.79
15. Design Assumptions
(a) Lattice Girder shall compulsorily, be provided as rock support in very poor reach
(Class-V).
16
16. IS CODE METHOD
17. Estimation of Support Pressures
Section 3.5 of IS:13365 (Part-2):1992 details method to assess the ultimate rock support
pressures on roof and wall for squeezing and non-squeezing ground. Ground is termed as
squeezing or non- squeezing based on the height of overburden, H, above the crown of
tunnel/adit. If H is less than 350×Q1/3 the ground is non-squeezing, otherwise it is termed as
squeezing.
In the present case the height of overburden above the crown of tunnels is moderate (varies
from 20m to 72m), hence the ground has been considered as non-squeezing for the design of
support of tunnels. For non-squeezing ground IS:13365 (Part-2) has recommended empirical
equations for calculating ultimate and short term support pressures on roof and wall. However,
in present case short term support pressures have been neglected and only ultimate support
pressures have been considered for the design.
18. Ultimate roof Support Pressure (for Crown)
The ultimate roof support pressure is related to ultimate rock mass quality (Qru) by the following
empirical relation:
−1 / 3
2Q ru
Pru = f
Jr
Where:
Pru = ultimate roof support pressure in kg/cm²
Qru = ultimate rock mass quality for roof = Q
Jr = joint roughness number
f = correction factor for overburden = maximum of {1, 1 + (H-320)/ 800}
H = overburden above crown or tunnel depth below ground level in metres.
19. Ultimate wall support pressure
The ultimate wall support pressure (Pwu) in kg/cm² can be obtained from the following equation:
2Q −wu1 / 3
Pwu = f
Jr
Where,
Qwu = ultimate wall rock quality index calculated from Table-5.
17
In view of the more favorable position of walls as compared to roofs, the following hypothetically
increased value of wall rock quality (Qwu) are used for different qualities of rock mass
Table-5: Equations for calculation of Qwu for different qualities of rock mass
Type of Rock Range of Q Qwu
exceptionally good to good rock Q>10 5Q

fair to very poor rock 0.1 < Q < 10 2.5 Q
extremely poor to exceptionally poor rock Q < 0.1 Q
20. Calculation of rock bolt parameters
The minimum spacing of rock bolts (in m) is calculated from the design rock pressure (in kPa,
calculated under para 17) and capacity of rock bolt (in kN) as per following equation.
Capacity of rock bolt

Spacing = -------------------------------
Design Pressure
The length of rock bolts, L (in m) is calculated by using the following formula
Minimum Length of Rock Bolt = 0.15B

L = 2+
ESR
Where B is excavated Span in m.
21. METHODOLOGY
General design methodology for the rock support system comprises the following steps:
Step-1: Evaluation of the rock mass quality (Q) post excavation. In the present case Q value
has been adopted on the basis of available geological data.
Step-2: Estimate the parameters like length of rock bolts and their spacing by different
empirical relations as per IS Code method for different rock class.
Step-3: Calculate roof and wall support pressures as per IS:13365 (Part 2).
Step-4: perform detailed calculation and find suitable spacing of rock bolt and shotcrete
thickness.
Step-5: Adopt the rock support measures.
22. ROOF PRESSURE FOR DIFFERENT CLASS OF ROCKS
Roof pressure is calculated as per para 17 for different classes of rock and value is shown in
Table-6 below.
18
Table-6: Roof pressure for different classes of rock
Rock Class Q Jr Jn Proof (kN/m2)

Good – I 25 3.0 12 22.80
Fair – II 7 2.0 15 52.28
Poor – IV 2.5 1.0 12 147.36
Very Poor - V 0.55 1.0 12 268.51
23. CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS
Rock bolt and Shotcrete parameters for different rock types have been computed. Based on
these parameters, final rock support measures have been worked out for different rock types as
per IS:13365 (Part-2). The detailed calculations are attached as Annexure-1 (A to D).
24. Rock support for Road Tunnels without Lattice girder
Based on the calculations carried out, the summary of results of rock support system is given in
Table-7 below.
Table-7: Summary of results of Rock Support System
Dia. of Rockbolt Length of

Rock Class Spacing of Rockbolts (m)
(mm) Rockbolt (m)
Good – II 25 5.0 3.0
Fair – III 25 5.0 2.5
Poor – IV 25 5.0 2.0
Very Poor - V 25 5.0 2.0*
* In case roof pressure are very high and rock bolts and shotcrete of reasonable dimension
(size/thickness) are unable to withstand these pressures, Lattice Girder shall be provided at
suitable spacing (generally for very poor rock).
25. Rock support for with Lattice girder
Rock Support for Tunnels using Lattice girder (550 Grade) is shown in Table-8 below.
Table-8: Rock support for Tunnel with Lattice girder
Rock mass Type Q Value Spacing of Steel Rib
Very poor Rock 0.55 Lattice girder (550 Grade) @ 0.65m c/c
19
26. CONCLUSION
Based on calculations, it is concluded that support system for different rock types as mentioned
below are adequate to withstand the roof and wall pressure of tunnel as shown in Table-9.
Table-9: Rock support adequate to withstand the Roof and Wall Pressure
of Tunnel
Rock Type Length of Dia of Longitudinal Thickness Spacing of Pull

(Q Value) Rock Bolt Rock Bolt Spacing of of Lattice
(m) (mm) Rock bolt (m) Shotcrete girder (m)
(mm)
Good Rock Not
5.0 25 3.0 50 3.0
(10-40) Required
Fair Rock Not
5.0 25 2.5 100 3.0
(4-10) Required
Poor Rock 2.0 Not
5.0 25 150 1.5
(1-4) Required
Very Poor Lattice
Rock (0.1- girder (550
1) 5.0 25 2.0 200 1.5
Grade) @
0.65m c/c
Phase2 result for verification of adequacy of cross-section of Lattice Girder and capacity
calculation of Lattice Girder is also attached as Annexure-2.
27. Numerical Analysis
28. Finite Element Model and Modelling Approach
The numerical model has been conceived as plain strain model with infinite medium loading
condition; external boundaries of the model are taken at about 3 times the excavated tunnel
boundaries so that the boundary conditions will have negligible influence on the stress field
around the cavity. Three node triangular finite elements with fine meshing are used close to the
excavation boundaries of the tunnel so that the variations in the stress field could be captured
with higher precision. Size of the elements is gradually increased toward the external
boundaries to reduce the number of elements and calculation time. External boundaries are
taken as fixed and insitu stresses are applied as per the loading condition discussed earlier in
Cl. 2.
The finite element models for tunnel excavation in Class III to Class V are shown in figure 2 to
figure 4, respectively. Excavation sequence, wherever stage excavation is defined, of the tunnel
has been simulated in the model using the stage construction approach. In case of stage wise
excavation Stage-1 is initialization of the insitu stresses, stage-2 is excavation of the crown
followed by support installation in the heading area. In stage-3/ stage-4 is the benching/ invert
shall be done and followed by support installation thereafter invert excavation shall be done.
Mohr-Coulomb material model is used in the numerical analysis. The material and support
20
system properties used in the analysis is presented in clause 3.2 of the report. The capacity
curves for the support elements have been plotted to check the adequacy of the lattice girder.
These support capacity curves are presented in Annexure-V. The results of the numerical
analysis are discussed in Table 8 and support system based on the results of numerical
analysis is recommended in Section 11.2.
The details of support system for the four rock mass classes modeled in the analysis are
tabulated in Table-10.
Table-10: Summary of Support System for Excavation

Excavation
procedure & Class-II Class-III Class-IV Class-V
Support element
Heading, Bench Heading, Bench & Heading, Bench & Heading, Bench &
Excavation procedure
& Invert Invert Invert Invert
Ф25, fully Ф25, fully grouted, Ф25, fully grouted,
Ф25, fully grouted,
Rockbolts grouted, 5m long 5m long @ 2.5m 5m long @ 2.0m
5m long @ 2.0m c/c
@ 3.0m c/c c/c c/c
Shotcrete with
50mm Shotcrete 100mm Shotcrete 150mm Shotcrete 200mm Shotcrete
wiremesh
Lattice Girder 25-
Lattice Girder - - -
25-32@ 0.65 m c/c
Figure-2: Class III. Numerical model for Stress analysis using Phase2
21
Figure-2: Class IV. Numerical model for Stress analysis using Phase2
Figure-3: Class V. Numerical model for Stress analysis using Phase2
22
29. Analysis and Results
Three numerical models for the rock mass types defined earlier have been run with Stress
parameters expected in the field as defined in Error! Reference source not found.. The
rock mass response to excavation of the tunnel and the adequacy of the support systems in
the different rock mass classes is analyzed. As a first step, the support system is calculated
by empirical methods (refer Annexure-I for detailed calculation). Further to this, the supports
have been modeled in the numerical analysis software Phase2 and checked for its
adequacy. Results are presented in Annexure-III to Annexure-V for rock mass class III to
class V respectively. Results of the analyses are summarized in Table-.
From the comparison of results presented in Table 11, it is evident that the stability of the
excavation is influenced primarily by the modulus values and strength properties of the
material.
It is worth noting that the maximum predicted displacement of the tunnel is of the order of
5.2 mm and tunnel closure is in the range of 120 mm in the present analysis, which is less
than the normally accepted limit (taken as 1% of the excavation dimensions, see EPRI or
ASCE).
Table-11: Summary of Analysis Results
Rock mass
Description Comments on analysis results
Class
Class III
• Heading, Benching & Invert • No Yielding zone observed.
excavation. • Maximum deformation on tunnel
• 100mm thick Shotcrete in crown. boundary equal to 1.65mm.
100 mm at wall .
• 5m long, Ф25, fully grouted rock
bolt @ 2.5m c/c bothways.
Class IV
• Heading, Benching & Invert • No Yielding zone observed.
excavation. • Maximum deformation on tunnel
• 150mm thick Shotcrete in crown. boundary equal to 4.50mm.
150mm at wall.
• 5m long, Ф25, fully grouted rock
bolt @ 2.0m c/c.
23
Rock mass
Description Comments on analysis results
Class
Class V
• Heading and benching • Maximum deformation on tunnel
• 200mm thick SFRS in crown. boundary equal to 5.2mm.
200mm at wall. • Stresses in Lattice Girder within
• 5m long, Ф25, fully grouted rock permissible limits.
bolt @ 2.0m c/c.
• Lattice Girder (25-25-32 ) @ 0.65m
24
Rock Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation
Annexure-1A
DT ROCK SUPPORT DESIGN FOR CLASS II ROCK, Q=10-40
1 ASSUMPTIONS:-
Finished Width of HRT = 11.10 m
Lining Thickness = 250.00 mm
Payline = 0 mm
Thickness of shotcrete tc = 50 mm
Excavated height of HRT = 9.09 m
Excavated Width of HRT = 11.70 m
Considering
Considering Spacing of
Q Jr Jn Spacing of rock
rock bolt in Wall
bolt in Crown
Good Rock 25 3 12 3.0 m -
Diameter of rock bolt = 25 mm

Length of Rock Bolt = 2+ 0.15 B/ESR
Where B is excavated width
ESR =Excavation Support Ratio = 1.0 For Road tunnels
Length of Rock Bolt Required = 3.8 m
Provided Length of rock bolt = 5.0 m
characteristic compressive strength of shotcrete = 35 N/mm2
Yield strength of rock bolt (fy) = 500 N/mm2

Yield load of bolt (fy Ab ) = 245.44 kN
Factor of Safety of Bolt = 1.5
Allowable load in bolt = 163.62 kN
1.1 Vertical Support Pressure for Crown

1
−
2 . 0 Q ru 3 f kg/cm2 As per clause 3.5.1.1a of IS-13365 (Part2): 1992
P ru =
Jr
Where
P ru = Ultimate roof support pressure
Q ru = Ultimate rock mass quality = Q
Jr= Barton's joint roughness coefficient.
H= Over burden above crown in tunnel.
f= maximum of (1 , 1+(H-320)/800)
For the present case H varies from 20 m to 72m, adopted value of H is
H= 72 m
f= 1.00
1.2 Ultimate Wall Support Pressure
As per clause 3.5.1.2b of IS: 13365 (Part-2) 1992,
Type of rock Q value Q wu
Good Q >10 5.00 Q
The ultimate wall support pressure Pwu
1
−
2 . 0 Q wu 3 f kg/cm2
P wu =
Jr
Pwu = Ultimate wall support pressure
Qwu = Ultimate wall rock mass quality
1.3 Roof and wall support pressure
S.No. Rock Mass Type Q Qru (for Roof ) Qwu (for Wall) Jr Support roof Support wall
pressure pressure
(kN/m2 ) (kN/m2 )
1 Good Rock 25 25 125 3 22.80 13.33
Page 1 of 8
Annexure-1A
Design of Integrated support System
1.4 Load carried by Shotcrete
Shear strengh = 300 t/m2

= 3.0 N/mm2
= 30.00 Kg/cm2
Thickness of shotcrete = 50 mm
2 q sc t sc
Resistance offered by shotcrete As per Clause 10.4.1 of IS 15026:2002
BF sc =
Where qsc =Shear Strength of Shotcrete =3 N/mm2
tsc = thickness of Shotcrete = 50 mm
Fsc = (0.6±0.05) = 0.65 for present case

B = Size of opening = 11.7m
Shear strength offered by 50 mm thick shotcrete = 0.394 Kg/cm2
Load Taken by Shotcrete (50 mm thick) = Psc = 39.45 kN/m2
1.5 Load carried by Bolt

Diameter of Rock Bolt , d = 25 mm
Grade of steel used for Rock Bolt , fy = Fe 500
Grade of shotcrete = M 35
Width of excavation (B) = 11.70 m
Cross Sectional Area of Rock Bolt = 490.87 mm2
Load carrying capacity of Rock Bolt (P) = 163.62 kN
Considering Spacing of Rock Bolt = 3.00 m m

Area of Influence of Rock Bolt (A) = 9 m2
Load carrying capacity of Bolt for given spacing =(P/A) = = P bolt = 18.18 kN/m2
1.6 Support System Compability Equation Crown

Ultimate support pressure = Total capacity of the support system
u + proof = psc + pbolt

u = Pore water pressure , in this case it is assumed as zero)
2
U+P roof = 22.80 kN/m
P sc+P bolt = 57.63 kN/m2
Since 57.63 >>22.8 Hence OK
1.7 Support System Compability Equation Side Walls
2
Pwall = 13.333 kN/m
2
Psc = 39.448 kN/m
No need of bolt in side walls
Summary of Results
Diameter of Rock Bolt = 25 mm
Length of Rock Bolts = 5.0 m
Spacing of Rock Bolt = 3 m Longitudinal Spacing at crown only
Thickness of Shotcrete = 50 mm thick shotcrete at crown and wall
Page 2 of 8
Annexure-1B
DT ROCK SUPPORT DESIGN FOR CLASS III ROCK, Q = 4-10

1 ASSUMPTIONS:-
Payline = 0 mm
Considering Considering
Q Jr Jn Spacing of rock Spacing of rock
bolt in Crown bolt in Wall
Fair Rock 7.0 2.00 15 2.5 m 2.5 m

Yield strength of rock bolt (fy) = 500.00 N/mm2

Allowable load in bolt = 163.62 kN

1
−
2 . 0 Q ru 3 f As per clause 3.5.1.1a of IS-13365 (Part2): 1992
P ru =
Jr kg/cm2
Where
f= maximum of (1 , 1+(H-320)/800)
H= 72
f= 1
Fair Q <10 2.50 Q

1
f kg/cm2
−
2 . 0 Q wu 3
Pwu =
Jr
Support roof Support wall

S.No. Rock Mass Type Q Qru Qwu Jr
pressure pressure
(kN/m2 ) (kN/m2 )
1 Fair Rock 7 7 17.5 2 52.28 38.52
Page 3 of 8
Annexure-1B

3.00 N/mm2
2
30.00 Kg/cm
2 q sc t sc
BF sc =
Where qsc =Shear Strength of Shotcrete=3 N/mm2
Fsc = (0.6±0.05) =0.65 for present case

Load carried by Bolt

1.5
Grade of steel used for rock bolt , fy = Fe 500
Cross Sectional Area of Rock Bolt = 491 mm2
Load carrying capacity of Rock Bolt ( P) = 163.62 kN
Considering Spacing of Rock Bolt = 2.50 m
Area of Influence of Rock Bolt (A) = 6.25 m2
2
Load carrying capacity of Bolt for given spacing =(P/A) = P bolt = 26.18 kN/m
1.6 Support System Compability Equation
u + p roof = p sc + p bolt
2
2
P sc+P bolt = 104.41 kN/m
Safe
Pwall = 39 kN/m2
Safe
Summary of Results
Spacing of Rock Bolt = 2.5 m Staggered Bothways at crown and wall
Thickness of Shotcrete = 100 mm thick shotcrete at crown and wall
Page 4 of 8
Annexure-1C
DT ROCK SUPPORT DESIGN FOR CLASS IV ROCK, Q = 1-4

1 ASSUMPTIONS:-
Lining Thickness = 250.0 m
Payline = 0.0 m
Poor Rock 2.5 1.00 12 2.0 m 2.0 m


1
−
2 . 0 Q ru 3 f As per clause 3.5.1.1a of IS-13365 (Part2): 1992
P ru =
J r kg/cm2
Where
f= maximum of (1 , 1+(H-320)/800)
H= 72
f= 1

Poor Q <10 2.50 Q
kg/cm2


pressure pressure
(kN/m2 ) (kN/m2 )
1 Poor Rock 2.5 2.5 6.3 1 147.36 108.58
Page 5 of 8
Annexure-1C

(Fibre reinforced) 3.00 N/mm2
30.00 Kg/cm2
2 q sc t sc
BF sc
=
Where qsc =Shear Strength of Shotcrete=5.5 N/mm2

Shear strength of shotcrete = 1.164 Kg/cm2
Psc = 116.35 kN/m2

Load Taken by Shotcrete (150 mm thick) =
1.5
Diameter of Rock Bolt = 25 mm mm
=
Load carrying capacity of Bolt for given spacing =(P/A) = P bolt = 40.91 kN/m2

u + proof = psc + pbolt

2
2
P sc+P bolt = 157.26 kN/m
Safe
Pwall = 109 kN/m2
Summary of Results
Spacing of Rock Bolt = 2 m Staggered Bothways at crown and wall
Thickness of Shotcrete = 150 mm thick Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete at crown and wall
Page 6 of 8
Rock Support Design of Road Tunnel Excavation Annexure-1D
DT ROCK SUPPORT DESIGN FOR CLASS V ROCK, Q = 0.1-1

1 ASSUMPTIONS:-
Payline = 0 mm
Very Poor Rock 0.550 1.00 12 2.0 m 2.0 m


1
−
2 . 0 Q ru 3 ff ' As per clause 3.5.1.1a of IS-13365 (Part2): 1992
P ru =
Jr kg/cm2
Where
f= maximum of (1 , 1+(H-320)/800)
f' = Sqeezing Factor
H= 72
f= 1
f' = 1.1 sqeezing factor

Very Poor Q <10 2.50 Q
1
−
2 . 0 Q wu 3 f kg/cm2
P wu =
Jr

pressure pressure
(kN/m2 ) (kN/m2 )
1 Very Poor Rock 0.55 0.55 1.375 1 268.51 197.84
Page 7 of 8
Rock Support Design of Road Tunnel Excavation Annexure-1D

3.00 N/mm2
30.00 Kg/cm2
2 q sc t sc
BF sc
=
Where qsc =Shear Strength of Shotcrete=5.5 N/mm2


1.5
Factor of Safety of Bolt = 2
Load carrying capacity of Bolt for given spacing =(P/A) = P bolt = 30.68 kN/m2
U+Uroof = Psc+Pbol +P lat.

Design of Lattice As per clause 12.4 of IS: 15026 2002,
U+P roof = 268.51 kN/m2

Load taken by Lattice Girder = 90.14 kN/m2
Lattice Girder has been designed for these loads in Phase2 and suitable Spacing of Lattice Girder is 0.65 m c/c .Lattice Girder
design has been attached in Annexure -3
Summary of Results
Spacing of Rock Bolt = 2 m Staggered Bothways at crown and wall
Thickness of Shotcrete = 200 mm
Lattice Girder = 25-25-32
Spacing of Lattice Girder = 650 mm c/c
Page 8 of 8
Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass) Annexure-2
PHASE2 OUTPUT FILE (EXTREMELY POOR ROCK Q -0.01 -0.1)
Load applied on crown and wall of Class V type of Rock is obtained from Annexure -2(D)
Load applied /m= 90.14 kN/m2 = 0.0901 MN/m2
For 0.5 m spacing Load Applied =0.65x0.09 =0.059 MN/m2
Figure 4A: Loading applied on Lattice Girder (25-25-32)
Figure-4B: Total Displacement around Opening
Page 1 of 2
Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass) Annexure-2
Figure-4C: Moment Vs Thrust Capacity of Curve of Lattice Girder (25-25-32)
Figure-4D: Shear Force Vs Thrust Capacity of Curve of Lattice Girder (25-25-32)
Note: -Since moment capacity and Shear capacity of Lattice Girder (25-25-32) is well within
the factor of safety 1.5 hence Lattice Girder (25-25-32) is safe for applied load on it.
Page 2 of 2
Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass) Annexure-III
RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS III, WITH SUPPORTS
Figure V: Strength Factor around the Opening
Figure V-2: Deformations around the Opening

Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass) Annexure-IV
RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS IV, WITH SUPPORTS
Figure V: Strength Factor around the Opening

Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass) Annexure-V
RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS V, WITH SUPPORTS
Figure V-1: Strength Factor around the Opening

Support Design for Road Tunnel Excavation (Chamba By Pass) Annexure-V
Figure V-3: Capacity Curve of Support Element

TYPICAL ROCK BOLT PATTERN
TYPICAL ROCK BOLT PATTERN (CLASS- III)
(CLASS- II)
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
CLIENT: PROOF CONSULTANT: EPC CONTRACTOR : AUTHORITY ENGINEER: DESIGN CONSULTANT : SAFETY CONSULTANT: PROJECT : DRAWING TITLE :
Rehabilitation and Upgradation of Rishikesh – Dharasu
DRG. NO. CIPL/D1029/TUNNEL/DWG 01/02
road (NH-94) with 2-lane with paved shoulder from design ROCK SUPPORT
Chainage km 58.603 to km 58.853 (existing Chainage Km 59.420 to
Km 59.650), from Design Chainage Km 61.630 to Km 63.950
CLASS II & III DATE : MARCH 2019 REV: D
(existing Chainage Km 62.630 to Km 65.000) and new construction
16 MAR FOR REVIEW DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED
of 2lane with paved shoulders Chamba Bypass of design length 2.035
BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION G-ENG ADVISORY SERVICES CIVILMANTRA INFRACON PVT LTD. M A SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. Km including 440m long tunnel on EPC Mode under improvement to NK
REV DATE DESCRIPTION A B C D
PVT.LTD. BHARAT CONSTRUCTION. NH Connectivity to Chardham in the State of Uttarakhand.
SCALE : AS SHOWN PAPER SIZE : A3
PS AK AA
TYPICAL ROCK BOLT PATTERN TYPICAL ROCK BOLT PATTERN
(CLASS- IV) (CLASS- V)
SECTION C-C
TYPICAL DETAIL OF
LACTTICE GIRDER SECTION D-D
CLIENT: PROOF CONSULTANT: EPC CONTRACTOR : AUTHORITY ENGINEER: DESIGN CONSULTANT : SAFETY CONSULTANT: PROJECT : DRAWING TITLE :
Rehabilitation and Upgradation of Rishikesh – Dharasu
DRG. NO. CIPL/D1029/TUNNEL/DWG 02/02
road (NH-94) with 2-lane with paved shoulder from design ROCK SUPPORT
Chainage km 58.603 to km 58.853 (existing Chainage Km 59.420 to
Km 59.650), from Design Chainage Km 61.630 to Km 63.950
CLASS IV & V DATE : MARCH 2019 REV:D
(existing Chainage Km 62.630 to Km 65.000) and new construction
16 MAR FOR REVIEW DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED
of 2lane with paved shoulders Chamba Bypass of design length 2.035
BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION G-ENG ADVISORY SERVICES CIVILMANTRA INFRACON PVT LTD. M A SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. Km including 440m long tunnel on EPC Mode under improvement to NK
REV DATE DESCRIPTION A B C D
PVT.LTD. BHARAT CONSTRUCTION. NH Connectivity to Chardham in the State of Uttarakhand.
SCALE : AS SHOWN PAPER SIZE : A3
PS AK AA

Road Tunnel Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road Tunnel Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REHABILITATION AND UPGRADATION OF RISHIKESH – DHARASU ROAD

(NH-94) WITH 2-LANE

DESIGN NOTE ROAD TUNNEL SUPPORT

A EPC CONTRACTOR DESIGN

LIST OF ANNEXURES AND PLATES

Annexure – III : RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS III, WITH SUPPORTS

Annexure – IV : RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS IV, WITH SUPPORTS

Annexure – V : RESULTS OF ROCK MASS CLASS V, WITH SUPPORTS

Plate-1 : Tunnel Rock Support (Class II & III)

Plate-2 : Tunnel Rock Support (Class IV & V)

Q = Rock Tunneling quality index

RMR = Rock mass rating

Qru = Ultimate rock Tunneling quality index for roof

Qwu = Ultimate Rock Tunneling quality index for wall

Jn = Joint sets number

Jr = Joint roughness number

ESR = Excavation Support Ratio

Proof = Ultimate roof support pressure

Pwall = Ultimate wall support pressure

H = Overburden above crown or tunnel depth below ground level

f = Correction Factor for overburden (minimum 1)

Codes and standards referred to in the report are given below:

i. IS:13365 (Part-2)-1992: Quantitative Classification Systems of Rock

ii. IS:15026-2002: Tunneling methods in rock masses – Guidelines, Bureau on Indian

vi. REHABILITATION AND UPGRADATION TO 2 LANE/ 2 LANE WITH PAVED

As explained in Ref. [1] DOC-CHAMBA-GEN-002-R0 no rock samples could be recovered from

Table 1: Table of Geotechnical Parameters – Underground Excavations

Figure-1: Typical Section of Road Tunnel

• Specified characteristic compressive strength of shotcrete = 35MPa

• Specific yield strength of rock bolts = 500MPa

• Specific yield strength of Lattices girder = 550 MPa

10. Capacity of Rock Bolts

Table-2: Working load of 25 mm diameter Fe-500 rock bolts

Parameter unit Value

Diameter of rock bolts mm 25

Cross-sectional Area mm2 490

11. Tunnel Material (for Phase2)

The material of tunnel is modelled as a Mohr-Coulomb material and characterized by its

12. Table 3 : Tunnel Material (for Phase2)

13. Pipe umbrella

Figure-2: Pipe umbrella Modeled in Phase2

14. Material properties of the pipe umbrella improved layer

Table 4 - Material properties based on a weighted average of the material properties of

Parameter Colluvium Steel Concrete Improved Residual

Tensile strength 0 400 4.43 4.84 3.23

Friction angle, ϕ 320 - 35 32.25 21.50

Cohesion, MPa 0.3 - 5 1.19 0.79

15. Design Assumptions

16. IS CODE METHOD

17. Estimation of Support Pressures

18. Ultimate roof Support Pressure (for Crown)

Pru = ultimate roof support pressure in kg/cm²

Qru = ultimate rock mass quality for roof = Q

Jr = joint roughness number

f = correction factor for overburden = maximum of {1, 1 + (H-320)/ 800}

H = overburden above crown or tunnel depth below ground level in metres.

19. Ultimate wall support pressure

Qwu = ultimate wall rock quality index calculated from Table-5.

Type of Rock Range of Q Qwu

exceptionally good to good rock Q>10 5Q

extremely poor to exceptionally poor rock Q < 0.1 Q

20. Calculation of rock bolt parameters

Capacity of rock bolt