International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Numerical modeling for the engineering analysis

of rock mass behaviour due to sequential
enlargement of Lowari tunnel Chitral Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Zahid Ur Rehman, Noor Mohammad, Sajjad Hussain & Muhammad Tahir

To cite this article: Zahid Ur Rehman, Noor Mohammad, Sajjad Hussain & Muhammad Tahir
(2019) Numerical modeling for the engineering analysis of rock mass behaviour due to sequential
enlargement of Lowari tunnel Chitral Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 13:1, 54-60, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2017.1319615

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1319615

Published online: 25 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 220

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
InternatIonal Journal of GeotechnIcal enGIneerInG
2019, Vol. 13, No. 1, 54–60
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1319615

Numerical modeling for the engineering analysis of rock mass behaviour due to
sequential enlargement of Lowari tunnel Chitral Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Zahid Ur Rehmana  , Noor Mohammada, Sajjad Hussaina  and Muhammad Tahirb
a
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan; bPakistan Atomic Energy Commission Islamabad,
Islamabad, Pakistan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this research work, Rock Mass Rating (RMR) was used for the characterisation of rock mass along the Received 8 February 2017
tunnel alignment based on physical, geological and geotechnical data of the project area. The deformation Accepted 11 April 2017
modulus was determined using established empirical models for each geotechnical unit of considerations
KEYWORDS
(GTU-4, GTU-5 and GTU-6). The support systems were recommended for all geotechnical units using RMR Geology; strength and
support chart. Hoek and Brown constants were estimated for numerical modelling using Roclab software. physical properties; rock
Phase2 software was used for the investigation of redistributed stress conditions and changes in the rock mass rating; finite-element
behaviour due to sequential enlargement of the small size rail tunnel. Various design input parameters method
such as physical and geotechnical properties, in situ stresses, modulus of deformation of rock mass, support
systems recommended by RMR were used as input parameters in Phase2 software. The simulated models
were analysed for each of the selected geotechnical unit. From the analysis of the simulated models, it was
concluded that at GTU-6 there are more chances of instability as compared to other geotechnical unit.

Introduction for such problem based on the engineering judgment and input
parameters likes strength parameters of rock masses provided
Lowari tunnel is mega transportation in Pakistan. It is 8.51-km
by empirical methods. It is suggested that both numerical and
long tunnel situated in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
empirical methods should be used together for the safe, stable
connecting Dir and Chitral valley. The tunnel was first made
and efficient design of tunnels, other underground structures
as rail tunnel but latter on the National Highway Authority
within the rock mass environment and reliable support systems
(Government of Pakistan) has decided to convert Rail Tunnel
(Ozsan, Basarir, and Cilsal 2006; Gurocak, Solanki, and Zaman
in to Road Tunnel as anticipation of heavy traffic owing to exten-
2007; Genis et al. 2007; Rasouli 2009; Bobet 2010; Ali 2014).
sion of Road from Chitral to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and further
The present research was carried out into two parts. In first
Central Asian Countries via Durra Pass (4554 m/15,000 ft above
part, the rock mass classification was carried out using rock mass
mean sea level), traversing Wakhan (Iskatul and Gulkhana)
rating (RMR) based on geology of project area, bore holes data
located in Badakhshan Province of Afghanistan (82 + 118 km).
and physical and strength properties of rock samples collected
It is planned to extend the tunnel profile by 2.5 m at bottom and
from site. In second part, the rock mass behaviour in term of
1.5 m at crown as shown in Figure 1.
the in situ stresses, total displacement, yield element/width of
Rock mass and site characterisation are very essential for the
plastic zone and effects of axial stress on bolts and axial force on
design of excavation in rocks. Effective characterisation provides
shotcrete due to widening of the tunnel profile were investigated
reliable design input parameters for classification systems. The
and analysed by developing simulated models in finite-element
construction of any engineering structures in rock mass causes
method (FEM) based 2D software i.e. Phase2.
the in situ stresses re-distribution which is not assessed by empir-
ical methods, it only assess the quality of rock mass. Moreover,
empirical methods also do not analyse the performance of sup-
Geology of project area
port systems, stress distribution around opening and deforma-
tion around the tunnel while it is used in determination of input Lowari tunnel is positioned in area belonging to the geologi-
parameters for numerical methods (Basarir, Ozsan, and Karakus cal formation of the Kohistan Complex which is positioned in
2005). This re-distributed stresses cause changes in the behaviour between the Eurasian Continental and Indian Plates. It comprises
of rock masses that should be considered in the designing pro- the Kohistan Batholith (intrusive rock) and volcanic sedimentary
cess, for this purpose the numerical analysis are carried. On other groups which usually show more or less influence of metamor-
hand, Numerical methods give the exact mathematical solution phism. Due to movements between the tectonic plates regional

CONTACT  Zahid Ur Rehman  engr.zahid@uetpeshawar.edu.pk

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 55

Physical and geotechnical properties of rocks mass

along the alignment of tunnel axis (GTU5)
Depending upon the available computer code to analyse the rock
mass behaviour around tunnels, it is very important to determine
some basic properties of both intact rock and rock mass. Besides
physical properties, mechanical and geological properties are
also important (Tahir 2016).
Various physical and geotechnical properties of rock mass
along the tunnel alignment were determined by testing the rock
samples obtained along the tunnel alignment Deformation
modulus was calculated from the existing equations of different
researcher for the geotechnical units of the tunnel that was under
consideration.
Other design input parameters like Hoek–Brown constant
were calculated by the help of Roclab software. The different
Figure 1. Cross section of Lowari tunnel. physical and Mechanical properties of rock mass along the tunnel
length are presented in Table 1.

deformations like faulting and thrusting have occurred. Because

of on-going movement of the tectonic plates, this area has to be
considered as an active seismic zone.
On the basis of site investigation and mapping the region are
being grouped into different geological Mapping units. These units
are meta-sediment unit, meta-volcanic unit, meta-igneous unit
and granite unit. Each unit has their own geological conditions.
Minor faults and shear zones are likely to be found in sound and
weak rock. The basis of fault estimation is the use of satellite images
and the occurrence of faults in the field Most of the predicted faults
have a striking direction which is almost perpendicular to the
tunnel axis (which is favourable), but they cannot be avoided by
shifting the alignment. The tunnel alignment is divided into three
units (Geotechnical Units, GTU) where the combined effects of
the engineering-geological conditions, the initial stress situation
and the ground water conditions, including their variations, are
predicted to present consistent tunnelling conditions (Geoconsult-
Typsa, Draft Geotechnical Interpretative Report Lowari Tunnel
Project, 30–04–2004, 2004). The different geological conditions
of rock mass along the  alignment of tunnel are shown in Figure 2.
In situ stresses
The in situ stresses are determined by direct and indirect meth-
ods. In direct methods flat jack, overcoring and undercoring,
hydraulic fracturing etc. These methods are costly, time consum-
ing and the procedures used in determination of these stresses
are difficult and the results may be questionable (Gokceoglu,
Sonmez, and Kayabasi 2003; Khabbazi and Ghafoori 2013). In
direct methods, different established equations for determination
of vertical and horizontal stresses are used. In this study, the
vertical stress was determined by Equation (1).
𝜎v = 𝛾H (1)
where γ is the unit weight of rock mass and H, is the height of
overburden.
The ratio between horizontal and vertical stress is K and is
dependent on depth. However, it is convenient to use theoreti-
cal approach to determine horizontal stress from vertical stress.
It is observed that horizontal stress does depend on constant
of elasticity of rock mass (Sheorey, Mohan, and Sinha 2001;

Figure 2. Geological and long sections of Lowari tunnel.

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of rock samples.

Uni-axial Hoek–Brown constants

Compressive Unit weight (KN/ Deformation
Chainage (km) Rock Type (RT) Strength (MPa) Poisson ratio (υ) m3) modulus (GPa) mb S a
4+600-5+100 Biotite granite 100 0.21 26.10 10.45 2.69 0.001 0.507
5+100-6+100 Granite, Granodor- 150 0.23 25.87 32.22 6.04 0.0094 0.502
ite, occ: Gabroo
7+650-7+900 Metasediments 25 0.20 26.75 10.725 0.93 0.0013 0.506
mainly Schist
56 Z. UR REHMAN ET AL.

Kushwaha and Banerjee 2005). For horizontal stress determina-

tion, the following useful equation presented by Sheorey, Mohan,

Steel sets
and Sinha (2001) is used.

None

None

None
(
𝜐
) 𝛽ErmG
𝜎h = 𝜎 + (H + 100) (2)
1−𝜐 v 1−v

Thickness of shortcrete range

Thickness of shortcrete range

where υ is the poison ratio, β is the coefficient of thermal expan-

Thickness of 50 mm in crown
in crown and 30 mm in the

in crown and 30 mm in the

between 50 mm to 100 m

between 50 mm to 100 m
sion and its value for rocks is 8 × 10−6/°C (Singh, Rao, and
Ramamurthy 2016), Erm is the young modulus of intact rock

Shortcrete
in MPa, G is the thermal gradient of rock °C/m. However, the

where required
sides of tunnel

sides of tunnel
following simple relationship is adopted in this study for deter-
mination of horizontal stress as
𝜐
( )
𝜎h = 𝜎 (3)
1−𝜐 v

1.5–2 m in crown and walls with

1.5–2 m in crown and walls with

mm diameter and fully grouted,

mm diameter and fully grouted,

2.5 m wide with occasional wire
Rock bolt (20 mm diameter,

Locally, bolts in crown 3 m long

4 m long Systematic bolts of 20

spacing range between bolts

spacing range between bolts

4m long Systematic bolts of 20
Rock mass classification along the alignment of the

Support recommendation
tunnel axis

fully grouted)

wire mesh in crown

wire mesh in crown

The rock mass along the tunnel axis were classified into differ-
ent categories based on Geo-mechanical classification system
also called Rock mass rating (RMR-system). This system was

mesh
introduced by Bieniawski in 1976. This classification system was
developed on basis of various case histories in the field of mining
and civil engineering and sequentially was modified in 1974,

1.5–3 m advance in top heading. Commence support

advance in top heading. Installation of support after
1976, 1979 and finally in 1989. In current research study, the

Sequence of excavation is Full face, 1–1.5 m advance.

For excavation, top heading and bench with 1.5–3 m

after each blast. Complete support 10 m from face

most modified version of RMR1989 was used for the classification

Sequence of excavation is top heading and bench

each blast. Unsupported span 10 m from face
of rock mass. This system utilised the following six parameters
for rock mass classification: (Sajjad Hussain 2016)

Complete support 20 m from face

(1)  Uni-axial Compressive strength (UCS)
Excavation

(2)  Rock Quality designation index (RQD)

(3)  Spacing of discontinuities
(4)  Condition of discontinuity
(5)  Ground water condition
(6)  Orientation of discontinuities
Table 2. Rock mass classification and support recommendation along the alignment of the tunnel.

The RMR gives different rating rock mass on the basis of these
six parameters and classifies the rock mass based on quality in
to various groups of similar behaviours. On the basis of RMR
value, support was recommended for each geotechnical unit as
Rock mass class

presented in Table 2.
Good rock
Fair rock

Fair rock

Numerical method
Numerical methods of analysis and design in the field of rock
RMR rating

engineering are tools that make engineers to assess the effects of

different properties of rock mass and surrounding environment
53

70

55

on the design. Numerical modelling applications give a sound

understanding for solving complex problems related to the tun-
nel shape and size, mine layout and design of roof support system
Geotechnical units

to consent consistent and techno-economic feasible performance

(GTU)

of mining structures throughout their planned life of operations

(Singh, Singh, and Murthy 2010). These methods are more pow-
GTU4

GTU5

GTU6

erful and useful tools for understanding the rock mass behaviour
under complex and differential stress conditions. In the present
paper, finite-element method was used.
Chainage (km)

FEM is used to solve geotechnical problems like characterisa-

4+600-5+100

5+100-6+100

7+650-7+900

tion, (Ghafoori, Lashkaripour, and Azali 2007), support design

Analysis (Gurocak, Solanki, and Zaman 2007; Rasouli 2009;
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 57

Zhou and Xia 2009; Azali, Ghafoori, and Lashkairpour 2010)

25,314
Base
7094
2467
and back analysis of tunnels (Akhaveissy 2010). This Method

­recommended
­recommended

­recommended
RMR support

Yield element/width of plastic zone (50%) (mm)

resolved complex engineering problem utilising Plane Strain Two

After widening
Dimension (2D) Analysis, Axisymmetric 2D Analysis and Three

2651
933
Wall

6099
Dimension (3D) Analysis (Sallam 2009).

RMR
RMR

RMR
In Finite-Element Method, rock mass is modelled as a con-

Crown
3008
1156
25,011
tinuum while discontinuities can be represented and modelled

Horizontal stress
discretely in the continuum model. The representative model

(MPa)
domain is discretised into a defined number of segments called

5.99

8.88

1.81

3642
2204
19,281
Base
elements connected at certain points called nodes. By changing

Before widening
the surface/boundary conditions, the stress–strain and defor-
mation can be analysed. An appropriate constitutive model for

880.0
Wall
1825

5301
material is used to define stress–strain relationship. Models in

Vertical stress
multi stage can be easily produced, analysed quickly, handle

(MPa)
22.55

29.75

7.22

Crown

19,255
745.0
material complexity and model a wide variety of support types.

4298
In finite-element analysis, liner elements are usually modelled
as beam element and applied to model rock support i.e. steel

After widening

1.80
4.80
Wall
6.0
sets, shotcrete and concrete (Zienkiweicz and Taylor 2005; Zsaki

Total displacement (mm)

2010; Tahir 2016).

­modulus (GPa)
Deformation

Crown

4.05
The most important feature in construction of FE model in

9.0

3.0
10.725
10.45

32.22
Phase2 is the choice of constitutive model. The other important
parameter is the determination of the material input proper-

2.50
7.50
Wall
4.5
ties ensuring that they are representative of the in situ situation

­widening
Before
(Tahir 2016).

Crown
13.5
5.0
3.0
poisson ratio
FEM Models for each geotechnical unit 0.21

0.23

0.20

After widening
Wall

1.50
0.30
0.5
The following were used as input parameters in analysis of the
rock mass behaviour before and after widening of the tunnel as

Minor principle stress (Sigma-3) (MPa)

Crown
−0.20
0.10
presented in Table 3.

0
For each geotechnical unit, simulated models were developed
Unit weight
(KN/m3)

using Phase2 FEM-based software. For analysis of behaviour of

26.10

25.87

26.75

Wall
1.55
0.05
the rock mass four (4) stage model was assumed. In first stage,

­widening

0
Before
rock mass behaviour was studied before the excavation of the

Crown
0.05
0.05
small size tunnel. In second stage, the tunnel was excavated and

0
support systems were installed and their behaviour was investi-
0.506
0.507

0.502

gated. In third stage, support was removed from most of area of

a

Wall
6.01
8.86
1.89
­ xcavation
the tunnel. In fourth stage, the profile of the smaller tunnel was
Before

widened in the crown and sides and the behaviour of the rock
Hoek–Brown constant

Crown
0.0094

0.0013

mass after enlargement of the small tunnel was examined and

6.01
8.86
1.89
0.001

e
s

analysed. In these models, behaviour of rock mass in term of

stress distribution, total displacement, yielding elements, axial
2.45
Table 4. Rock mass behaviour at different stages of the tunnel profile.

After widening
Wall
10
45

stress on the rock bolts installed and axial force on the shotcrete
installed as support systems were examined and analysed. After
Major principle stress (Sigma-1) (MPa)

Crown

1.25

computation and interpretation of models for each geotechni-

0.93
2.69

6.04
mb

0
0
Table 3. Design input parameters for Phase2 modelling.

cal unit the redistribution stresses, total displacement and yield

element before widening and after widening and support were
Wall

1.65

obtained as presented in Table 4.

­widening

15
20
Before
pressive Strength

In this paper, the simulated models for GTU-6 were selected

Uni-axial Com-

Crown

1.65

due the reason that the rock in this unit is characterised using
2.5
0
(MPa)
100

150

25

RMR classification system as fair rock and the strength is less

than other geotechnical units. The different simulated models
22.60
29.80
Wall

7.0

developed are presented in the Figures 3–6.

­ xcavation
Before

The percentage strain for GTU-6 was determined. After com-

Geotechnical units

Crown
22.60
29.80

parison with empirical model presented by Hoek and Marinos

7.0
e

(2000), the current scenario comes under category A because

in both cases the percentage strain is le Geotechni Geotechnical
cal Units

Interpretative Repcal Interpretative Repss than 1% i.e. the per-

techni-
(GTU)

(GTU)
GTU5

GTU6
GTU4

GTU4
GTU5
GTU6
Geo-

centage strain for small diameter tunnel (before enlargement)

58 Z. UR REHMAN ET AL.

Figure 3. Sigma-1 for the simulated model of GTU-6 at different stages of tunnel excavation.

Figure 4. Sigma-3 for the simulated model of GTU-6 at different stages of tunnel excavation.

was calculated 0.072% and after enlargement of tunnel was cal-
culated 0.04%. Therefore, the recommended support by RMR is
adequate in order to overcome further failure.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the simulated models, it has been con-
cluded that the magnitude of sigma-1 for the GTU4, GTU5 and
GTU6 at crown decreases after small and large excavation as
compared to in situ stresses condition, similarly for GTU4 and
GTU6 at sidewall of tunnel it decreases after small and large
excavation as compared to in situ stresses condition, while in
GTU5 its value increases at the sidewall of the enlarged tunnel.
The magnitude of sigma-3 for the GTU4, GTU5 and GTU6 at
crown and sidewall decreases for the small tunnel profile and
for large tunnel profile as compared to in situ stresses condi-
tion. The magnitude of total displacement for GTU4, GTU5,
at the crown decreases after enlargement, while for GTU6 the
total displacement at crown remains the same after enlargement.
Similarly the total displacement for GTU5 and GTU6 at the side
decreases, while for GTU4 magnitude of total displacement at
side increases after enlargement of the tunnel profile. The yield
element and width of the plastic zone (50%) for, GTU5, GTU6
at the crown increases after enlargement, while for GTU4 it

Figure 5. Total displacements for excavation and support instalment of small and enlarged tunnel profile (GTU-6).
Figure 6. Yield element and width of plastic zone (50%) for small tunnel profile and enlarged tunnel profile (GTU-6).
decreases. Similarly the yield element and width of plastic zone
(50%) for GTU4, GTU5, GTU6 at the sidewall and base increases
after enlargement.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Zahid Ur Rehman   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0044-101X
Sajjad Hussain   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4591-815X
References
Akhaveissy, A. H. 2010. “2D Numerical analysis of Sao Paulo Tunnel.”
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 63: 18–23.
Ali, W. Rock Mass Characterization for Diversion Tunnels at Diamer Basha
Dam,Pakistan – a design perspective. International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Technology; 2014; 1292–1296.
Azali, S. T., M. Ghafoori, and G. R. Lashkairpour. 2010. “Preliminary
Support Design for Diversion Tunnel at Daroongar Dam Site, NE
IRAN.” Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 5 (2): 65–74.
Basarir, H., A. Ozsan, and M. Karakus. 2005. “Analysis of Support
Requirements for a Shallow Diversion Tunnel at Guledar Dam Site,
Turkey.” Engineering Geology 131–145.
Bobet, A. 2010. “Numerical Methods in Geomechanice.” The Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering 35, Number 1B.
Genis, M., H. Basarir, A. Ozarslan, E. Bilir, and E. Balaban. 2007.
“Engineering Geological Appraisal of the Rock Masses and Preliminary
Support Design, Dorukhan Tunnel, Zonguldak, Turkey.” Engineering
Geology 92: 14–26.
Geoconsult-Typsa. 2004. Draft Geotechnical Interpretative Report Lowari
Tunnel Project. Salzburg: Ministry of Communications, National
Highway Authority.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 59
Ghafoori, M., G. R. Lashkaripour, and S. T. Azali. 2007. “Engineering
Geological Characterization of Kallat Tunnel, NE Iran.” World Applied
Journal 2 (5): 499–508.
Gokceoglu, C., H. Sonmez, and A. Kayabasi. 2003. “Predicting the
Deformation Moduli of Rock Masses.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 40: 701–710.
Gurocak, Z., P. Solanki, and M. M. Zaman. 2007. “Empirical and Numerical
Analyses of Support Requirements for a Diversion Tunnel at the Boztepe
Dam Site, Eastern Turkey.” Engineering Geology 91: 194–208.
Hoek, E., and P. Marinos. 2000. Predicting Tunnel Squeezing. Tunnels and
Tunnelling International. Part 1 – November 2000, Part 2 – December
2000.
Khabbazi, A., and M. Ghafoori. 2013. “Estimation of Rock Mass
Deformation Modulus Using a Rock Mass Classification System.”
Geomechanics and Geoengineering 8 (1): 46–52.
Kushwaha, A., and G. Banerjee. 2005. “Exploitation of Developed Coal
Mine Pillar by Shortwall Mining–A Case Example.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 42: 127–136.
Ozsan, A., H. Basarir, and M. Cilsal 2006. “Engineering Geological
Investigations along the Ankara Subway Extension.” IAEG, paper
no. 586.
Rasouli, M. 2009. “Engineering Geological Studies of the Diversion
Tunnel, Focusing on Stabilization Analysis and Support Design, Iran.”
Engineering Geology 108: 208–224.
Sajjad Hussain, N. 2016. “Comparative Analysis of Rock Mass Rating
Prediction Using Different Inductive Modeling Techniques.”
International Journal of Mining Engineering and Mineral Processing 5:
9–15.
Sallam, A. 2009. Application of Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical
Engineering. Accessed 2012. www.fleng.org.
Sheorey, P. R., G. M. Mohan, and A. Sinha. 2001. “Influence of Elastic
Constants on Horizental in Situ Stress.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 38: 1211–1216.
Singh, G. P., U. K. Singh, and V. S. Murthy. 2010. “Applications of Numerical
Modelling for Strata Control in Mines.” Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 28: 513–524.
60 Z. UR REHMAN ET AL.
Singh, M., K. S. Rao, and T. Ramamurthy. 2002. “Strength and
Deformational Behaviour of a Jointed Rock Mass.” Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering 35 (1): 45–64.
Tahir, M. 2016. Failure Criteria for the Design and Stability Analysis of
Tunnels in the Rock mass Environment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa using
Numerical Modeling. 45–60. Peshawar.
Zhou, K. and M. Xia. 2009. “Numerical Modelling for Designing Tunnel
Support in Heavily Jointed Rock.” International Conference on Electronics
Computer Technology, 471–474. IEEE Computer Society.
Zienkiweicz, O., and R. Taylor. 2005. The Finite Element Method: Its Basis
and Fundamentals. 20–30. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Zsaki, A. M. 2010. “Optimized Mesh Generation for Two-dimensional
Finite Element Analysis of Underground Excavations in Rocks Masses
Traversed by Joints.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 47 (4): 553–558.