Chapter 5

Terzaghi’s Rock Load Theory

The geotechnical engineer should apply theory and experimentation but temper them by putting
them into the context of the uncertainty of nature. Judgement enters through engineering
geology.
Karl Terzaghi

INTRODUCTION
This was probably the first successful attempt at classifying rock masses for engineering
purposes. Terzaghi (1946) proposed that the rock load factor (Hp) is the height of
the loosening zone over the tunnel roof, which is likely to load the steel arches. These
rock load factors were estimated by Terzaghi from a 5.5-m-wide steel-arch supported
railroad tunnel in the Alps during the late 1920s. In these investigations wooden blocks
of known strengths were used for blocking the steel arches to the surrounding rock
masses. Rock loads were estimated from the known strengths of the failed wooden
blocks. Terzaghi used these observations to back analyze rock loads acting on the sup-
ports. Subsequently, he conducted “trap-door” experiments on different sands and found
that the height of loosened arch above the roof increased directly with the opening width
in the sand.

ROCK CLASSES
Terzaghi (1946) considered the structural discontinuities of the rock masses and
classified them qualitatively into nine categories as described in Table 5.1. Extensive
experience from tunnels in the lower Himalayas showed that “squeezing rock” is really
a squeezing ground condition, because a jointed and weak rock mass fails at high
overburden stress and squeezes into the tunnels.

ROCK LOAD FACTOR

Terzaghi (1946) combined the results of his trap-door experiments and the estimated rock
loads from Alpine tunnels to compute rock load factors (Hp) in terms of tunnel width (B)
and tunnel height (Ht) of the loosened rock mass above the tunnel crown (Figure 5.1),
which loads the steel arches. Rock load factors for all the nine rock classes are listed
in Table 5.2.

Engineering Rock Mass Classification

# 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 33
34 Engineering Rock Mass Classification

TABLE 5.1 Definitions of Rock Classes of Terzaghi’s Rock Load Theory

Rock
class Type of rock Definition
I. Hard and intact The rock is unweathered. It contains neither joints nor hair
cracks. If fractured, it breaks across intact rock. After
excavation the rock may have some popping and spalling
failures from the roof. At high stresses spontaneous and
violent spalling of rock slabs may occur from the sides or
the roof. The unconfined compressive strength is equal to
or more than 100 MPa.
II. Hard stratified and The rock is hard and layered. The layers are usually widely
schistose separated. The rock may or may not have planes of
weakness. In this type of rock, spalling is quite common.
III. Massive moderately A jointed rock. The joints are widely spaced. The joints
jointed may or may not be cemented. It may also contain hair
cracks, but the huge blocks between the joints are
intimately interlocked so that vertical walls do not require
lateral support. Spalling may occur.
IV. Moderately blocky and Joints are less spaced. Blocks are about 1 m in size. The
seamy rock may or may not be hard. The joints may or may not
be healed, but the interlocking is so intimate that no side
pressure is exerted or expected.
V. Very blocky and seamy Closely spaced joints. Block size is less than 1 m. It
consists of almost chemically intact rock fragments that
are entirely separated from each other and imperfectly
interlocked. Some side pressure of low magnitude is
expected. Vertical walls may require supports.

VI. Completely crushed but Comprises chemically intact rock having the character
chemically intact of a crusher-run aggregate. There is no interlocking.
Considerable side pressure is expected on tunnel
supports. The block size could be a few centimeters to
30 cm.

VII. Squeezing rock— Squeezing is a mechanical process in which the rock

moderate depth advances into the tunnel opening without perceptible
increase in volume. Moderate depth is a relative term and
could be 150 to 1000 m.
VIII. Squeezing rock— The depth may be more than 150 m. The maximum
great depth recommended tunnel depth is 1000 m.
IX. Swelling rock Swelling is associated with volume change and is due to
chemical change of the rock usually in the presence of
moisture or water. Some shales absorb moisture from air
and swell. Rocks containing swelling minerals such as
montmorillonite, illite, kaolinite, etc., can swell and exert
heavy pressure on rock supports.

Source: Sinha, 1989.

Chapter 5 Terzaghi’s Rock Load Theory 35

FIGURE 5.1 Terzaghi’s (1946) rock load concept in

tunnels.

TABLE 5.2 Rock Load in Tunnels within Various Rock Classes

Rock
class Rock condition Rock load factor Hp Remarks
I Hard and intact Zero Light lining required only if
spalling or popping occurs.
II Hard stratified or 0 to 0.5 B Light support mainly for
schistose protection against spalling.
Load may change erratically
III Massive, moderately 0 to 0.25 B from point to point.
jointed
IV Moderately blocky 0.25 B to 0.35 (B þ Ht) No side pressure
and seamy

V Very blocky and seamy (0.35 to 1.10) (B þ Ht) Little or no side pressure
VI Completely crushed 1.10 (B þ Ht) Considerable side pressure.
but chemically intact Softening effects of seepage
toward bottom of tunnel requires
either continuous support for
lower ends of ribs or circular ribs.
VII Squeezing rock— (1.10 to 2.10) (B þ Ht) Heavy side pressure, invert
moderate depth struts required. Circular ribs
are recommended.
VIII Squeezing rock— (2.10 to 4.50) (B þ Ht)
great depth
IX Swelling rock Up to 250 ft. (80 m), Circular ribs are required. In
irrespective of the extreme cases, use of yielding
value of (B þ Ht) support recommended.

B ¼ tunnel span in meters; Ht ¼ height of the opening in meters; and Hp ¼ height of the loosened rock mass
above tunnel crown developing load (Figure 5.1).
Source: Terzaghi, 1946.
36 Engineering Rock Mass Classification

For obtaining the vertical support pressure from the rock load factor (Hp) Terzaghi
suggested the following equation:
pv ¼ g : Hp ð5:1Þ
where pv is the support pressure, g is the unit weight of the rock mass, and Hp is the height
of loose overburden above the tunnel roof (Figure 5.1). Terzaghi’s theory is limited be-
cause it may not be applicable for tunnels wider than 6 m.
The roof of a tunnel is assumed to be located below the water table. If it is located
permanently above the water table, the values given for Classes IV to VI in Table 5.2 can
be reduced by 50% (Rose, 1982).
If the joints in a blocky and seamy rock do not contain clay, the pressure of the rock on
the tunnel support may be as high as one-half of the pressure exerted by the same rock
on the same tunnel at a considerable depth below the water table. On the other hand, if
the joints are partially or entirely filled with clay, a nominal support may be sufficient to
hold up the roof during the dry season; in a dried-out state the clay acts as a cementing
material. However, during long wet spells the clay ceases to act as an effective binder and
the pressure on the tunnel support becomes as heavy as if the joints were lubricated
(Proctor & White, 1946).
Because of this, several large tunnels, which were mined and supported during the dry
season, caved in soon after the rains. If it is uncertain whether or not the rock located
above the tunnel will remain dry throughout the year, it is advisable to design the tunnel
supports on the basis of the values obtained by the equations given in Table 5.2 regardless
of the appearance of the rock during mining operations.
Deere et al. (1970) modified Terzaghi’s classification system by introducing the rock
quality designation (RQD) as the lone measure of rock quality (Table 5.3). They have
distinguished between blasted and machine excavated tunnels and proposed guidelines
for selection of steel set, rock bolts, and shotcrete supports for 6- to 12-m diameter
tunnels in rock. These guidelines are listed in Table 5.4.
Deere et al. (1970) also considered the rock mass as an integral part of the support
system; Table 5.4 is only applicable if the rock mass is not allowed to loosen and disin-
tegrate extensively. They assumed that machine excavation reduced rock loads by
approximately 20 to 25%.

Limitations
Terzaghi’s approach was successfully used when conventional drill and blast methods
of excavation and steel-arch supports were employed in tunnels of comparable size.
This practice lowered the strength of the rock mass and permitted significant roof
convergence that mobilized a zone of loosened rock mass above the tunnel roof.
The height of this loosened rock mass, called “coffin cover,” acted as dead load on
the supports. Cecil (1970) concluded that Terzaghi’s classification provided no quan-
titative information regarding the rock mass properties. Despite these limitations, the
immense practical value of Terzaghi’s approach cannot be denied, and his method is
still applied under conditions similar to those for which it was developed.
With the advent of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) and Norwegian
Method of Tunnelling (NMT), increasing use is made of controlled blasting and machine
excavation techniques and support systems employing steel fiber reinforced shotcrete
(SFRS) and rock bolts. Even in steel-arch supported tunnels, wooden struts have been
Chapter 5 Terzaghi’s Rock Load Theory 37

TABLE 5.3 Terzaghi’s Rock Load Concept as Modified by Deere

Rock class and Rock load

condition RQD (%) (Hp) Remarks
I. Hard and intact 95–100 Zero Same as Table 5.2
II. Hard stratified 90–99 0–0.5 B Same as Table 5.2
or schistose
III. Massive moderately 85–95 0–0.25 B Same as Table 5.2
jointed
IV. Moderately blocky 75–85 0.25 B–0.35 Types IV, V, and VI reduced
and seamy (B þ Ht) by about 50% from
Terzaghi values because
water table has little effect
on rock load (Terzaghi,
1946; Brekke, 1968)

V. Very blocky and 30–75 (0.2–0.6) Same as above

seamy (B þ Ht)

VI. Completely crushed 3–30 (0.6–1.10) Same as above

(B þ Ht)
VIa. Sand and gravel 0–3 (1.1–1.4) Same as above
(B þ Ht)
VII. Squeezing rock at NA (1.10–2.10) Same as Table 5.2
moderate depth (B þ Ht)
VIII. Squeezing rock at NA (2.10–4.50) Same as Table 5.2
great depth (B þ Ht)
IX. Swelling rock NA Up to 80 m Same as Table 5.2
irrespective of the
value of (B þ Ht)

B ¼ tunnel span; Ht ¼ height of the opening; and Hp ¼ height of the loosened rock mass above the tunnel
crown developing load (Figure. 5.1).
Source: Deere et al., 1970.

replaced by pneumatically filled lean concrete. These improvements in tunneling tech-

nology preserve the pre-excavation strength of the rock mass and use it as a load-carrying
structure to minimize roof convergence and restrict the height of the loosening zone
above the tunnel crown.
Consequently, support pressure does not increase directly with the opening width.
Based on this argument, Barton, Lien, and Lunde (1974) advocated that the support
pressure is independent of opening width in rock tunnels. Rock mass-tunnel-support-
interaction analysis of Verman (1993) also suggested that the support pressure is
practically independent of the tunnel width, provided support stiffness is not lowered.
Goel, Jethwa, and Dhar (1996) also studied the effect of tunnel size on support pressure
and found a negligible effect of tunnel size on support pressure in non-squeezing ground
38

TABLE 5.4 Guidelines for Selection of Steel Sets for 6- to 12-m-Diameter Tunnels in Rock

Steel sets Rock bolt Conventional shotcrete

Weight Spacing Total thickness (cm)
Construction of steel Spacing of Additional Additional
Rock quality method sets pattern bolt requirements Crown Sides supports
Excellent Tunnel boring Light None to None to Rare None to None None
RQD >90 machine occasional occasional occasional
Drilling and Light None to None to Rare None to None None
blasting occasional occasional occasional
Good Boring Light Occasional Occasional or Occasional mesh Local application None None
RQD 75 to 90 machine or 1.5 to 1.8 m 1.5 to 1.8 m and straps 5 to 7.5 cm
Drilling and Light 1.5 to 1.8 m 1.5 to 1.8 m Occasional mesh Local application None None
blasting and straps 5 to 7.5 cm
Fair Boring Light to 1.5 to 1.8 m 1.2 to 1.8 m Mesh and straps 5 to 10 cm None Rock bolts
RQD 50 to 75 machine medium as required

Drilling and Light to 1.2 to 1.5 m 0.9 to 1.5 m Mesh and straps 10 cm or 10 cm Rock bolts
blasting medium as required more or more
 Poor Boring Medium 0.6 to 1.2 m 0.9 to 1.5 m Anchorage may be 10 to 15 cm 10 to 15 cm Rock bolt
RQD 25 to 50 machine circular hard to obtain; as required
considerable mesh (1.2 to 1.8 m
and straps required center to
center)
Drilling and Medium 0.2 to 1.2 m 0.6 to 1.2 m As above 15 cm or 15 cm or As above
blasting to heavy more more
circular
Very poor Boring Medium 0.6 m 0.6 to 1.2 m Anchorage may 15 cm or more on Medium sets as
RQD <25 machine to heavy be impossible; whole section required
circular 100% mesh and
straps required
Drilling and Heavy 0.6 m 0.9 m As above 15 cm or more on Medium to
blasting circular whole section heavy sets as
required
Very poor Both methods Very 0.6 m 0.6 to 0.9 m Anchorage may be 15 cm or more on Heavy sets as
squeezing heavy impossible; 100% whole section required
and swelling circular mesh and straps
ground required

Source: Deere et al., 1970.

39
40

TABLE 5.5 Recommendations of Singh et al. (1995) on Support Pressure for Rock Tunnels and Caverns

Terzaghi’s classification Classification of Singh et al. (1995)

Recommended support
pressure (MPa)
Rock load Cate-
Category Rock condition factor (H)p gory Rock condition pv Ph Remarks
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
I Hard and intact 0 I Hard and intact 0 0 —

II Hard stratified 0 to 0.5 B II Hard stratified or 0.04–0.07 0 —

or schistose schistose
III Massive, moderately 0 to 0.25 B III Massive, moderately 0.0–0.04 0 —
jointed jointed
IV Moderately blocky, 0.25 B to 0.35 IV Moderately blocky, 0.04–0.1 0–0.2 pv Inverts may
seamy, and (B þ Ht) seamy, very jointed be required
jointed
V Very blocky and 0.35 to 1.1 V Very blocky and seamy, 0.1–0.2 0–0.5 pv Inverts may
seamy, shattered (B þ Ht) shattered highly jointed, be required,
arched thin shear zone or arched roof
fault preferred
VI Completely crushed 1.1 (B þ Ht) VI Completely crushed 0.2–0.3 0.3–1.0 pv Inverts essential,
but chemically intact but chemically arched roof
unaltered, essential
thick shear and
fault zone
 VII Squeezing rock 1.1 to 2.1 VII Squeezing rock condition
at moderate depth (B þ Ht)
VIIA Mild squeezing 0.3–0.4 Depends on Inverts essential. In
(ua/a up to 3%) primary stress excavation flexible
values, ph support preferred.
may exceed pv Circular section
with struts
recommended
VIIB Moderate squeezing 0.4–0.6 -do- -do-
(ua/a ¼ 3 to 5%)
VIII Squeezing rock at 2.1 to 4.5 VIIC High squeezing 6.0–1.4 -do- -do-
great depth (B þ Ht) (ua/a >5%)
IX Swelling rock Up to 80 m VIII Swelling rock
VIIIA Mild swelling 0.3–0.8 Depends on type Inverts essential in
and content of excavation, arched
swelling clays, roof essential
ph may
exceed pv
VIIIB Moderate swelling 0.8–1.4 -do- -do-
VIIIC High swelling 1.4–2.0 -do- -do-

pv ¼ vertical support pressure; ph ¼ horizontal support pressure; B ¼ width or span of opening; Ht ¼ height of opening; ua ¼ radial tunnel closure; a ¼ B/2; thin shear zone ¼ up to
2 m thick.
Source: Singh et al., 1995.
41
42 Engineering Rock Mass Classification

conditions, but the tunnel size could have considerable influence on the support
pressure in squeezing ground conditions. For more in-depth coverage on this subject,
see Chapter 9.
The estimated support pressures from Table 5.2 have been compared with the
measured values with the following conclusions:
1. Terzaghi’s method provides reasonable support pressure for small tunnels (B < 6 m).
2. It provides over-safe estimates for large tunnels and caverns (diameter 6–14 m).
3. There is a very large range of estimated support pressure values for squeezing and
swelling ground conditions.

MODIFIED TERZAGHI’S THEORY FOR TUNNELS AND CAVERNS

Singh, Jethwa, and Dube (1995) compared support pressure measured from tunnels
and caverns with estimates from Terzaghi’s rock load theory and found that the support
pressure in rock tunnels and caverns does not increase directly with excavation size as
assumed by Terzaghi (1946) and others. This is due mainly to the dilatant behavior of
rock masses, joint roughness, and prevention of rock mass loosening by improved tunnel-
ing technology. They have subsequently recommended ranges of support pressures as
listed in Table 5.5 for both tunnels and caverns for those who still want to use Terzaghi’s
rock load approach. They observed that the support pressures are nearly independent of
size of opening.
It is interesting to note that the recommended roof support pressures turn out to be
the same as those obtained from Terzaghi’s rock load factors when B and Ht are
substituted by a tunnel width of 5.5 m. The estimated roof support pressures from
Table 5.5 were found to be comparable with the measured values irrespective of
the opening size and the rock conditions (Singh et al., 1995). These authors have
further cautioned that the support pressure is likely to increase directly with the ex-
cavation width for tunnel sections through slickensided shear zones, thick clay-filled
fault gouges, weak clay shales, and running or flowing ground conditions where inter-
locking blocks are likely to be missing or where joint strength is lost and rock wedges
are allowed to fall due to excessive roof convergence because of delayed supports
beyond stand-up time. It should be noted that wider tunnels require reduced spacing
of bolts or steel arches and thicker linings since rock loads increase directly
with the excavation width, even if the support pressure does not increase with the
tunnel size.

REFERENCES
Barton, N., Lien, R., & Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support (NGI Publication No. 106, p. 48). Oslo: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Brekke, T. L. (1968). Blocky and seamy rock in tunnelling. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering.
Geologists, 5(1), 1–12.
Cecil, O. S. (1970). Correlation of rock bolt—Shotcrete support and rock quality parameters in
Scandinavian tunnels (p. 414). Ph.D. Thesis. Urbana: University of Illinois.
Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Parker, H., Monsees, J. E., & Schmidt, B. (1970). Design of tunnel support
systems. Highway Research Record, No. 339, 26–33.
Chapter 5 Terzaghi’s Rock Load Theory 43

Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L., & Dhar, B. B. (1996). Effect of tunnel size on support pressure, Technical Note.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences—Geomechanics Abstracts, 33(7),
749–755.
Proctor, R. V., & White, T. L. (1946). Rock tunnelling with steel supports (p. 271). Youngstown, OH:
The Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company.
Rose, D. (1982). Revising Terzaghi’s tunnel rock load coefficients. In Proceedings of the 23rd U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (pp. 953–960). New York: AIME.
Singh, B., Jethwa, J. L., & Dube, A. K. (1995). A classification system for support pressure in tunnels
and caverns. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology, 1(1), 13–24.
Sinha, R. S. (1989). Underground structures—Design and instrumentation (p. 480). Oxford: Elsevier
Science.
Terzaghi, K. (1946). Introduction to tunnel geology. In R. V. Proctor & T. L. White (Eds.), Rock
tunnelling with steel supports (p. 271). Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co.
Verman, M. K. (1993). Rock mass—Tunnel support interaction analysis (p. 258). Ph.D. Thesis.
Uttarakhand, India: IIT Roorkee.