See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225166928

Rock Mass Characterization and Rock Property Variability Considerations for

Tunnel and Cavern Design

Article  in  Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering · July 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s00603-011-0138-5

CITATIONS READS

84 1,479

1 author:

M. Cai
Laurentian University
140 PUBLICATIONS   4,717 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A study of pillars instability in deep underground mines (NSERC Discovery Grants Program) View project

Time-dependent deformation behavior of brittle rock View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Cai on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rock Mech Rock Eng (2011) 44:379–399
DOI 10.1007/s00603-011-0138-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Rock Mass Characterization and Rock Property Variability
Considerations for Tunnel and Cavern Design
M. Cai
Received: 7 February 2011 / Accepted: 5 March 2011 / Published online: 23 March 2011
Ó Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Geotechnical design input parameters, such as
in situ stress field, rock mass strength parameters and
deformation modulus, are never known precisely. There
are always uncertainties involved in these parameters,
some are intrinsic and others are due to lack of knowl-
edge or understanding of these parameters. To quantify
the effects of these uncertainties on tunnel and cavern
design, it is necessary to utilize probabilistic analysis
methods. In the present study, a quantitative, probabilistic
approach to use the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
system for rock mass characterization is presented. It
employs the block volume and a joint condition factor as
quantitative characterization factors to determine the GSI
values. The approach is built on the linkage between
descriptive geological terms and measurable field
parameters such as joint spacing and joint roughness,
which are random variables. Using GSI values obtained
from field mapping data, and in combination with the
intact rock strength properties, the probability density
distributions of rock mass strength parameters and elastic
moduli of the jointed rock mass can be calculated using
Monte Carlo method. Furthermore, probabilistic analysis
of tunnel and cavern stability based on the variable input
parameters is conducted employing the point estimate
method. One example is given to illustrate how to con-
sider the variability of in situ stress and the rock mass
properties in tunnel and cavern design. The method pre-
sents an approach for systematic assessment of uncer-
tainty in rock mass characterization in rock engineering,
M. Cai (&)
School of Engineering, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
e-mail: mcai@laurentian.ca
and it can assist us to better understand how uncertainty
arises and how the rock support system design decision
may be affected by it.
Keywords Variability  Uncertainty  Tunnel  Cavern 
Rock support  Rock mass strength  Deformation
modulus  GSI system  Probabilistic design
1 Introduction
The design of rock support systems is important in tunnel
and cavern design. Rock support system design practices
for tunnels and large-scale underground caverns had been
reviewed by many researchers such as Cording et al.
(1971), Barton et al. (1977), Hoek and Brown (1980),
Bieniawski (1984), Hönish (1995), Hönish and Nagel
(1988), Cai et al. (2000), and Kaiser et al. (2000), etc.
These datasets serve as empirical design references to
which a contemporary design can be conducted or
compared.
At the preliminary design stage, rock support systems
for tunnels and caverns can be selected based on the
Q system (Barton et al. 1977), the RMR (Rock Mass
Rating) system (Bieniawski 1984), or other empirical sys-
tems. The empirical design approach is most effective if
the current tunnel/cavern size, shape, spacing between
excavations, rock mass conditions are similar to precedent
case histories. The empirical design methods provide a
means to compare quantitatively different tunnel align-
ments or cavern layouts when only limited rock mass data
are available. They also provide a means to communicate
between designers and contractors and to develop con-
struction cost parameters, either for the comparative pur-
poses or for the development of a construction cost budget.
123
380
As a design base, rock mass classification is required when
using the empirical design approach.
However, some limitations in applying rock mass clas-
sification systems for rock support design should be men-
tioned. The RMR system is based on the case histories of
tunnels with relatively narrow spans. As reported by Pells
(2002), the Q system predicted significantly less support
than actually adopted in several caverns he studied in
Australia. A recent discussion on the use and misuse of
rock mass classification systems can be found in Palmstrøm
and Broch (2006). In addition to the points that have been
made clearly by those researchers, it is observed that reli-
ance on rock mass classification-based empirical methods
as the sole basis for support design during bid document
preparation and detailed design can be inappropriate. Such
systems do not promote the analysis and proper apprecia-
tion of the actual rock mass conditions such as can be
exposed in exploratory adits nor do they promote the
design approach of deductive reasoning based on field
observations. Most importantly, the variability of rock
mass properties cannot be properly considered in design
using the empirical methods. In designing tunnels and
caverns of large spans, tunnels and caverns in highly
stressed and difficult grounds, where no precedent experi-
ences exist, the numerical design approach is deemed
necessary. The empirical design approach must be sub-
stantiated with the design approach utilizing numerical
methods.
Furthermore, in tunnel and cavern design, there are
various scenarios or mechanisms, through which the
excavation may fail, as well as the complex rock mass
properties that need to be identified. Having identified the
limiting states of greatest concern, the next step is to
identify and attempt to quantify those geotechnical uncer-
tainties upon which engineering performance depends. The
engineers have to advance from the vagueness and quali-
tative concept of uncertainty toward the more specific
concept of probability. This is important to underground
construction engineering in particular because rock engi-
neering practice faces many types of uncertainties.
In rock engineering practice, data, because of huge cost
involved for their acquisition, are often incomplete and
hence contain uncertainties. Uncertainties are inherent and
unavoidable in the rock mass classification process.
Uncertainties are divided into several types: (a) uncertain-
ties attributed to inherent randomness, natural variation,
etc.; (b) uncertainties attributed to lack of data, knowledge
about events and processes; (c) uncertainties due to our
inability to understand decision objectives. Common
sources of uncertainties in rock engineering include the
spatial and temporal variability of the rock mass properties;
random and systematic errors in data mapping, logging,
testing, and monitoring; analytical and numerical model
123
M. Cai
simplification; human omissions and errors. For example,
the joint spacing varies significantly over space (spatial
variability), and the uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock cannot be correctly predicted (randomness).
Joint geometry distribution is three-dimensional but the
measurement of joint geometry parameters is often made in
one-dimensional spaces (e.g., boreholes and scanlines) and
in two-dimensional spaces (e.g., outcrops and tunnel
excavation walls), thus greatly limits our ability to know
the real joint geometry properly. Hence, the suitable
approach is to cope with uncertainties, assess and manage
the risk associated with uncertainties, i.e., to incorporate
uncertainties into the design and decision-making process.
Mazzoccola et al. (1997) presented a method of apply-
ing information theory in rock mass characterization. The
probability distribution function (PDF) of RMR was
computed as an example. This type of approach opens the
door for considering variability of RMR in tunnel and
cavern design. As mentioned before, numerical tools need
to be used along with the empirical design approach and in
recent years, the generalized Hoek–Brown strength crite-
rion (Hoek et al. 2002) is widely used and is now available
in various numerical analysis tools, in association with the
Geological Strength Index (GSI) system (Hoek et al. 1995).
The GSI system is a rock mass classification system that is
directly linked to engineering parameters such as Mohr–
Coulomb, Hoek–Brown strength parameters or rock mass
modulus. Unfortunately, it is observed that very often the
engineering condition of a rock mass in many applications
was solely quantified with a single GSI value, and a
question of great importance is how much uncertainty in
the analysis result is associated with this value.
In the present paper, we propose a probabilistic design
approach which utilizes the GSI system to characterize the
rock mass and obtain input parameters for design using
numerical methods. Using the quantitative GSI chart pro-
posed by Cai et al. (2004b), we can achieve the objective to
reflect rock mass property uncertainties in the numerical
analysis of tunnel/cavern stability. We will demonstrate,
through an example, how to thoroughly study the likely
failure mode, plastic zones and other instability problems
associated with rock support system design with the help of
site mapping, laboratory testing and numerical modeling
before recommending the final support system. Further-
more, we will show how to properly consider and propa-
gate uncertainties in rock mass properties using the Monte
Carlo method and consider the impact of input parameter
variability on the output parameter using the point estimate
method (Rosenblueth 1981), and reflect the quantitative
risk assessment results in tunnel and cavern design. In this
fashion, the design engineers are able to address the chal-
lenging problem of achieving a balance between the safety
and economy in the design of rock support systems.
Rock Mass Characterization 381

2 Rock Mass Characterization Using the GSI System

where mi is a Hoek–Brown constant for the intact rock, D is
a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance to which
2.1 GSI System
the rock mass has been subjected by blast damage and
stress relaxation.
The rock mass strength and deformation modulus are
required as inputs to analyze the rock mass behavior by
2.3 Deformation Parameter
numerical models. The determination of the global
mechanical properties of a jointed rock mass remains one The mean deformation modulus, for rc \ 100 MPa, is
of the most difficult tasks in the field of rock mechanics.
related to the GSI value as (Hoek et al. 2002)
Because there are so many parameters that affect the  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
strength and deformability of an arbitrary rock mass, it is D rc ðGSI10
E ¼ 1 10 40 Þ ðGPaÞ ð5Þ
generally impossible to develop a universal law that can be 2 100
used in any practical way to predict the strength of the rock
For rc [ 100 MPa, the deformation modulus is
mass. Traditional methods to determine these parameters
estimated from
include in situ block shear tests for strength parameters and
E ¼ 10ð Þ ðGPaÞ
GSI10
plate-loading tests for deformation modulus. These tests 40 ð6Þ
can only be performed when the exploration adits are
where D = 0 has been assumed. When GSI is greater than
excavated and the cost of conducting these tests is high.
80, Eqs. 5 and 6 tend to overestimate the deformation
A few attempts have been made to develop methods to
modulus. In this circumstance, the equation proposed by
characterize the jointed rock mass to estimate the strength
Bieniawski (1978) can be used, i.e.,
and deformability indirectly. The GSI system, developed
by Hoek et al. (1995), is one of them. It uses properties of E ¼ 2GSI  100 ðGPaÞ ð7Þ
intact rock and jointing to determine/estimate the rock
in which the RMR value (RMR76) has been assumed to be
mass strength and deformability. GSI values can be esti-
equal to the GSI value (Hoek et al. 1995), for GSI [ 25.
mated based on the geological description of the rock mass
The inclusion of rc in Eq. 5 shows indirectly the influ-
and the GSI system consolidates various versions of the
ence of the modulus of the intact rock (Ei) on the defor-
Hoek–Brown criterion into a single simplified and gen-
mation modulus of the rock mass, because there is a good
eralized criterion that covers all of the rock mass types
correlation between Ei and rc (Deere 1968). A more recent
normally encountered in rock engineering. Using the GSI
update on the deformation of modulus of jointed rock mass
system, one can obtain a complete set of mechanical
is (Hoek and Diederichs 2006)
properties (Hoek–Brown strength parameters mb and s, or  
the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters c and / 1  D=2
E ¼ Ei ð8Þ
, as well as elastic modulus E) for design purpose. 1 þ eðð75þ25DGSIÞ=11Þ

2.4 Determination of GSI Based on Block Volume

2.2 Rock Mass Strength Parameters
and Joint Surface Condition Factor
The generalized Hoek–Brown criterion (Hoek et al. 2002)
The GSI system has been developed and evolved over
for jointed rock masses is
many years based on the practical experience and field
 a
r3 observations. GSI is estimated based on the geological
r1 ¼ r3 þ rc mb þ s ð1Þ descriptions of the rock mass involving two factors, rock
rc
structure or block size and joint or block surface condi-
where mb, s, a are constants for the rock mass, and rc is the tions. Although careful consideration has been given to the
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock. Once the precise wording for each category and to the relative
GSI value is known, the Hoek–Brown strength parameters weights assigned to each combination of structural and
mb, s, a are given as surface conditions, the use of the original GSI chart
  involves some subjectivity. Hence, long-term experience
GSI  100
mb ¼ mi exp ð2Þ and sound judgment are required to successfully apply the
28  14D
  GSI system.
GSI  100 To facilitate the use of the system, Cai et al. (2004b)
s ¼ exp ð3Þ
9  3D presented a quantitative approach that employed the block
1  volume Vb and a joint surface condition factor Jc as
a ¼ 0:5 þ eGSI=15  e20=3 ð4Þ quantitative characterization factors. The quantitative
6

123
382 M. Cai

approach was validated using field test data and applied to
the estimation of the rock mass properties at two cavern
sites in Japan. The quantified GSI chart is presented in
Fig. 1.
2.5 Block Volume
Block size, which is determined from the joint spacing,
joint orientation, number of joint sets and joint persistence,
is an extremely important indicator of rock mass quality.
Block size is a volumetric expression of joint density,
which can be calculated as
s1 s2 s3
Vb ¼ ð9Þ
sin c1 sin c2 sin c3
where si and ci are the joint spacing and the angle between
joint sets, respectively (Fig. 2). The assumptions included
in the block volume calculation are that three joint sets are
present and joints are persistent.
If the joints are not persistent, i.e., with rock bridges, the
rock mass strength is higher and the global rock stability is
enhanced. Strictly speaking, the joint persistence should be
defined using the area obtained from field survey. Since
this is difficult, the joint persistence can only be approxi-
mated by the measurement of the trace length on the rock
surface exposures. A joint persistence factor pi is defined as
(
li
pi ¼ L li \L ð10Þ
1 li  L

Fig. 1 Quantification of GSI

chart (Cai et al. 2004b)

123
Rock Mass Characterization
Fig. 2 Block volume delineated by joint sets
where li is the accumulated joint length of set i in the
sampling plane, respectively, and L is the characteristic
length of the rock mass under consideration. The
equivalent block volume is given as (Cai et al. 2004b)
s1 s2 s3
Vb ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 p p p  sin c sin c sin c
ð11Þ
1 2 3 1 2 3
The validity of the concept of equivalent block volume
for non-persistent joints has been verified by the block
system simulation using 3DEC (Kim et al. 2007).
2.6 Joint Condition Factor
In the GSI system, the joint surface condition is defined by
the roughness, weathering and infilling condition. The
combination of these factors defines the strength of a joint
or block surface. This joint condition factor, Jc, is defined as
JW  JS
Jc ¼ ð12Þ
JA
where JW and JS are the large-scale waviness and small-
scale smoothness (Barton and Bandis 1990; Palmstrøm
1995) and JA is the joint alteration factor (Barton et al.
1974). The ratings for JW, JS, and JA can be found in Cai
et al. (2004b).
2.7 Calculating GSI from Vb and Jc
In numerical model implementation, it is sometimes trou-
blesome to refer to the GSI chart (Fig. 1) for the determi-
nation of the GSI values. Based on the proposed
quantitative chart, and using surface fitting techniques, Cai
and Kaiser (2006) proposed the following equation for the
calculation of GSI from Jc and Vb
26:5 þ 8:79 ln Jc þ 0:9 ln Vb
GSI ¼ ; ð13Þ
1 þ 0:0151 ln Jc  0:0253 ln Vb
where Jc is a dimensionless factor and Vb is in cm3. The
user needs only to supply the block volume and joint
383
condition factor to calculate the GSI value and hence the
Hoek–Brown strength parameters and deformation modu-
lus of the jointed rock mass. In other words, the Hoek–
Brown strength parameters and deformation modulus can
be directly expressed as a function of Vb and Jc. The
closed-form solution to obtain the GSI value from depen-
dent variables such as joint spacing, orientation, persis-
tence, surface condition factor, etc., makes it suitable for
probabilistic analysis using the Monte Carlo method.
To apply the GSI system for rock mass characterization,
two groups of parameters need to be determined. One is the
intact rock parameter, which includes rc and mi. Another
group is the joint parameter, which is further divided into
the joint geometry and strength parameters. All these
parameters can be considered as random variables. In the
next section, we will discuss the typical probability dis-
tributions of these parameters and present methods to
derive the probability distributions of output variables that
depend on these input variables.
3 Consideration of Variability of Geotechnical
Parameters in Design
In the present study, we focus only on the variabilities of in
situ stress field and the mechanical properties of jointed
rock masses, which are mainly due to the inherent ran-
domness or natural variation. The probability distributions
of all input parameters are discussed.
3.1 Variability in rc and mi
To use the Hoek–Brown strength criterion, rc and mi for
the intact rock are needed. These two parameters can be
determined from a set of triaxial tests on carefully prepared
core samples. Recently, a simple but yet practical method
to estimate mi values of brittle rocks was proposed by Cai
(2010). Compared with the traditional approach which
requires triaxial test data, the proposed method needs only
data from uniaxial compression test with either volumetric
strain measurement or acoustic emission (AE) monitoring
to detect the crack initiation stresses.
Statistically, a Weibull distribution has been used by
some researchers (e.g., Tang and Kaiser 1998) to describe
the rock strength distribution due to heterogeneity in the
small-scale (e.g., grain size); in the large-scale, a normal
distribution with the mean and the coefficient of variation
(COV) can be used to describe the probability distribution
of rc and mi. COV is a fairly stable measure of variability.
Uncertainty for rc varies from low to high, and a COV of
25% can be encountered. The uncertainty for mi is usually
small, with COV about 5–10% for most rock types (Hoek
and Marinos 2000a, b). This is because mi in the
123
384
Hoek–Brown strength criterion describes the frictional
strength component. Test results have shown that the var-
iability of the friction angle is small (Koyama et al. 1997),
with a COV of the same order as mi (5–10%).
3.2 Variability in Joint Spacing
Joint spacing is the single most important parameter that
defines the block size of a rock mass, which in turn
determines the rock mass quality. Joint spacing is defined
as the perpendicular distance between adjacent joints and it
determines not only the size but also the shape of blocks
constituting the rock mass. Priest and Hudson (1976) stated
that statistically, joint spacing follows a negative expo-
nential distribution. This is supported by our logged joint
spacing histogram shown in Fig. 3a. The data were col-
lected at a mine site in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, from a
borehole drilled from the surface. The frequency of a given
joint spacing is defined by f ðsÞ ¼ keks , where k & 1/
s is
the mean joint frequency and s is the mean joint spacing.
Note that the bin size used for the histogram analysis was
0.25 m. The negative exponential distribution had been
used by Priest and Hudson (1976) to derive the relationship
between RQD and k, i.e.,
0:1k
RQD ¼ 100e ð0:1k þ 1Þ
in which a threshold of 0.1 m is assumed.
However, some researchers consider that the joint spacing
distribution is logarithmic. If the interaction of jointing
corresponds to a multiplicatory process, lognormal distri-
bution may result (Dershowitz and Einstein 1988). We find
that the type of distribution seems to be affected by the
minimum bin size used in the histogram analysis. When the
same data set presented in Fig. 3a was analysed, using a
minimum bin size of 0.005 m, we found that a lognormal
(a)
Fig. 3 Joint spacing distribution: a bin size 0.25 m leading to a negative exponential distribution; b bin size 0.005 m leading to a lognormal
distribution
123
M. Cai
distribution approximates well the joint spacing distribution,
as shown in Fig. 3b. In this study, we recommend to use the
lognormal distribution for joint spacing. It is seen that the
block volume will have a lognormal distribution if the joint
spacings of all three joint sets follow lognormal distributions.
3.3 Variability in Joint Orientation
Joint orientation, which is usually defined by dip direction
and dip angle, affects the block shape and size (see Eq. 9).
Joint orientations are stochastic but quite often are clus-
tered in preferred orientations to form joint sets. The joint
orientation variability is thus governed by the degree of
orientation clustering within each set.
Joint orientation data can be collected from field map-
ping of tunnel walls and faces or oriented cores from
boreholes. Tools such as DIPS (from Rocsicence Inc.) can
be used to identify joint clustering. The von Mises–Fisher
distribution is often used to describe joint orientation dis-
tribution. The Fisher distribution is a symmetric distribu-
tion about the mean orientation and the probability density
function is given by
k
f ðaÞ ¼ expðk cos aÞ sin a; ð15Þ
expðkÞ
ð14Þ
where a is the angle between the fracture normal vector and
the vector of its mean orientation and k is a parameter.
Figure 4 presents one example showing the Fisher joint
orientation distribution obtained from a borehole logging
using oriented cores. Because the borehole only intersects
joint sets that are not sub-parallel to the drill hole, only two
major joint sets are identified in this case. To identify all
major joint sets and their spacings at one size using bore-
hole logging technique, it is, therefore, important to have
boreholes orientated in different directions.
(b)
Rock Mass Characterization
Fig. 4 Joint orientation distribution determined from a borehole
logging with oriented cores
3.4 Variability in Joint Size
Joint sizes and trace lengths vary over a wide range. Sev-
eral distributions, such as negative exponential, lognormal,
hyperbolic, Gamma-1 distributions, have been proposed to
describe joint trace length distribution. To some extent, the
reason that so many distribution types were used to
describe joint length distribution may be attributed to the
fact that one observes joint surface traces and not actual
sizes (Dershowitz and Einstein 1988). In the field, this
quantity can only be measured from the exposure of the
rock so that the real length or size of a joint can only be a
guess. The variability in joint size thus includes the
inherent natural randomness and our inability to measure or
model this property, rendering it one of the most difficult
parameters in joint system modeling.
Priest and Hudson (1981) used the negative exponential
distribution to describe joint length distribution. Joint
lengths presented in Fig. 5, surveyed at an underground
storage cavern for liquefied petroleum gas in Korea, show a
lognormal distribution (Song and Lee 2001). Again, we
think that the issue of using either negative exponential or
lognormal distribution is similar to the same issue of bin
size and sampling details discussed in the previous section
on joint spacing. Depending on the problem scale and bin
size used, both negative exponential distribution and log-
normal distribution are appropriate to describe the joint
length distribution. The joint length or persistence infor-
mation is used to calculate the equivalent block volume
size in the GSI system (Eqs. 10–11).
3.5 Variability in Joint Surface Condition
The joint surface condition is controlled by joint large-
scale waviness, small-scale smoothness, and joint alter-
ation. The joint condition factor defined in Eq. 12 is a
385
Fig. 5 Joint length distribution (Song and Lee 2001)
measure of the joint strength against shearing. The wavi-
ness is measured by the undulation expressed as a per-
centage. According to Barton and Bandis (1990), both the
large-scale (waviness) and the small-scale (unevenness)
roughness can be estimated by the amplitude of the
asperities. The joint alteration factor, which covers the joint
infilling and weathering, has the most impact on the joint
condition factor as it can reduce Jc by more than one order
of magnitude. In reality, because the small-scale asperities
have a base length of some centimeters and the amplitudes
are in the order of hundreds of millimeters that are difficult
to measure, a descriptive rating system is often used. The
same strategy can be applied to the rating of the joint
alteration.
In practice, when the joint small-scale smoothness is, on
average, ‘‘rough,’’ there are possibilities that some portions
of the joint are ‘‘very rough’’ while other portions are
‘‘slightly rough.’’ This uncertainty can result from both
spatial variability of the joint surface condition and human
errors in field mapping. A decision, therefore, has to be
made about the rating range and the distribution type. For
simplicity, we have used the normal distribution to repre-
sent the joint roughness and alteration variability, with a
mean rating and a standard deviation determined by the
range divided by 6. When the mean values are near the
extreme values in the rating, a truncated normal distribu-
tion can be used. Figure 6 presents one example of the
truncated normal distribution of the JA parameter. The
average and standard deviation of JA are 1 and 0.1,
respectively. Because the minimum and maximum values
of JA are 0.75 and 12 (Cai et al. 2004b), respectively, the
normal distribution is truncated at 0.75.
3.6 Variability in In Situ Stress
The stability of tunnels and caverns is controlled by not
only the rock mass strength but also the in situ stress
123
386
Fig. 6 Truncated normal distribution of JA
orientations and magnitudes. Hence, knowledge of the in
situ stress field (both stress orientations and magnitudes) is
essential in underground excavation design. In general,
uncertainties in the in situ stress measurement results are
high. Stress magnitude and orientation distributions, as
determined from the overcoring or hydraulic fracturing
method, often show a large variability.
Whereas budget and time permits, a number of in situ
stress measurements can be carried out and histogram plots
of principal stress frequencies and contour plots of prin-
cipal stress orientation can be made. One example from
Brady and Brown (2004) is shown in Fig. 7. A normal
distribution can be assumed for both the magnitudes and
orientations of the in situ stress components. In this
example, the standard deviations of r01 and r03 are about 3
and 3.3 MPa, or the COV are about 6 and 16.6%, respec-
tively. The principal stress orientations are found to be in a
range of ±5° to 10°. For one realization of the magnitudes,
it is required that the principal stresses are mutually
orthogonal.
The reliability of the in situ stress field increases grad-
ually as more field measurement data are available and
back-analyses are performed. Just like the uncertainties in
rock mass strength and deformability, the uncertainties
about the in situ stress can be attributed to the actual spatial
variation of the stress field at various locations, our
inability to know the parameters precisely, and measure-
ment error. Further discussion about the in situ stress var-
iability can be found in Martin et al. (2003).
3.7 Methods to Derive Probability Distributions
of Output Variables
The uncertainties in rock mass mechanical properties and
in situ stress field require a probabilistic approach to design
tunnels and caverns in rocks. As discussed above, the
uncertainties can occur in determining the in situ stress
field, defining the strength of intact rocks, mapping the
123
M. Cai
joint spacing, assessing the joint surface condition. All
these uncertainties are attributed to the inherent nature of
the rock mass and/or the errors made by site engineers or
laboratory technicians.
A probabilistic approach to tunnel and cavern design
analysis allows the observed natural variability of many
parameters in the rock mass characterization process to be
taken into consideration. Within the probabilistic frame-
work, the derived parameters such as the GSI value and the
depth of the yielding zone are regarded as random variables
following a particular probability distribution. The proba-
bility distribution of the output variables can be derived
from those of the input variables. As discussed above, the
rock mass strength and deformation parameters can be
determined from equations linking mb, s, and E directly to
GSI, and GSI is linked directly to Vb and Jc, which are
again linked to joint spacing, orientation, length, rough-
ness, etc. This is suited for the calculation of probability
distributions of the output parameters from the known
probability distributions of the input parameters using the
Monte Carlo method. Once the strength and deformation
modulus distributions have been determined, the proba-
bility distributions of the yielding zones around the exca-
vations can be evaluated and proper rock support system
design conducted. To achieve this goal, stress analysis
using a finite element method (FEM) or a finite difference
method (FDM) program has to be performed considering
the variability of all input parameters, including the vari-
ability of in situ stress. Because extensive numerical
analysis is needed to calculate the probability distributions
of output parameters, the point estimate method (Rosen-
blueth 1981) best suits this purpose. These two sampling
methods are briefly introduced in the following discussion.
3.7.1 The Monte Carlo Method
The Monte Carlo simulation method, which is based on
randomized input, has been widely used in many engi-
neering disciplines including geomechanics. When the
distribution of each variable is known and the output var-
iable can be explicitly related to the input variables, the
Monte Carlo method can be used. For example, Eqs. 9–13
can be used to calculate the distribution of GSI based on
the distributions of joint spacing, persistence, and surface
condition factors, using the Excel add-in program @RISK
(2001). Once the GSI distribution is obtained, Eqs. 2–8 can
be used to calculate the probability distribution of the
Hoek–Brown strength parameters (mb, s) and deformation
modulus (E).
The disadvantage of the Monte Carlo method is that it
requires a large number of simulations to be executed. It
also requires that the distributions of the input variables
should either be known or that they can be assumed, i.e.,
Rock Mass Characterization
Fig. 7 Distribution of principal
in situ stress components:
a magnitude; b orientation
(Brady and Brown 2004)
for the calculation to be automatic, explicit functions are
needed. In addition, the large samples required in the
analysis render it less appealing for certain applications
such as stress analysis using FEM or FDM techniques.
3.7.2 The Point Estimate Method
The point estimate method was proposed by Rosenblueth
(1981) as a simple way to approximate the mean and
standard deviation of a design parameter depending on
several other input parameters. The method is easy to use
and requires little knowledge of probability theory. It is in-
line with the practice of approximating complicated func-
tions by a series of simpler functions.
If there are n random variables, 2n solutions are needed
to find the mean and standard deviation of the targeted
quantity. When the skewness is zero or negligible, the
procedure chooses 2n points selected so that the value of
each variable is one standard deviation above or below its
mean. The point estimate method is mathematically well
founded and robust as well as accurate for a range of
practical applications. We will use it for the stability
analysis of tunnels and caverns using numerical models
which consider the variability of design input parameters.
In the present study, the probabilistic parameters are
assumed to be independent for simplicity. Some of the
variables encountered in the above discussion may be
dependent and the covariance between random variables
plays an important role in the analysis using probabilistic
approach. For example, the Hoek–Brown strength param-
eters mb and s could be dependent. mb and s denote the
frictional and cohesion strength components, respectively.
As shown in the strength models of brittle rocks, the pre-
and post-peak rock strength mobilization process is asso-
ciated with the cohesion strength loss and frictional
387
strength increase (Kaiser et al. 2000). Because of the lack
of research in the covariance of the geotechnical parame-
ters interested to the tunnel and cavern design engineers,
we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that all variables are
independent in the illustration example presented in the
next section.
4 Application Example
In the following discussion, we use field data from an
underground powerhouse to demonstrate the probabilistic
design approach using the GSI system.
4.1 Kazunogawa Underground Powerhouse
Kazunogawa power station (Koyama et al. 1997), located
in Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan, at about 500 m depth and
has a generating capacity of 1,600 MW. The cavern
dimensions are width 34 m, height 54 m, and length
210 m. The cavern excavation was started in 1994 and the
last bench was excavated in 1996.
Extensive field mapping and in situ testing were carried
out in the exploration tunnels. The rock mass consists of
sandstone and composite rock of sandstone and mudstone,
described as two groups (CH and CM) of rock mass types
based on the Denken system (Tanaka 1964). 75 uniaxial
compressive tests of intact rocks were conducted. Three
orthogonal joint sets were observed from field mapping.
The joint spacing of the major joint set is in the range of
1–20 cm. The average joint spacings of the other two joint
sets are 25 and 50 cm, respectively. Joints are fresh, have
small undulation and are rough. The joint surface assess-
ment is supported by joint profiles obtained using a laser
scanner in laboratory tests. The rock grouping (CH and CM)
123
388 M. Cai

and the block sizes are basically controlled by the joint

frequency of the major joint set. From joint mapping data,
it is seen that the average joint spacing is about 10 cm for
CH and about 2.5 cm for CM.

4.2 Rock Mass Properties and Their Variability

In this section, the GSI system is firstly used to estimate the

mechanical properties of the rock mass at the Kazunogawa
cavern site. As it will be seen later, the quantitative
approach of the GSI system allows us to consider the
variability of the rock mass strength and deformation
parameters. The estimated values, both mean and standard
deviation, are then compared with the in situ test data to
demonstrate the applicability of the GSI system to jointed
rock masses. Based on the estimated values, numerical
simulation using an FEM program is carried out to study
the influence of the uncertainties in the input parameters on
the yielding zone distribution and the deformation behavior
of the cavern. To provide a comprehensive understanding
of the uncertainties in two different categories, the effects
of in situ stress and rock mass properties are studied sep-
arately to reveal the relative importance of the variability
of these two important factors in underground excavation
design.
As discussed above, most of the input variables
encountered in geomechanics, such as uniaxial compres-
sive strengths, cohesions, friction angles, and Young’s
moduli, usually follow a normal distribution. Other types
of distributions such as lognormal, Weibull, and Poisson
are applicable to some variables. For example, the joint
spacing distribution can be described using a lognormal
probability function. It should be noted that when only
limited data are available, the data set may only be best
represented by a truncated distribution function. In addi-
tion, when a variable depends on several input variables
whose distribution functions differ, the resulting distribu-
tion of the output variable should be determined by a data
fitting process, also available in @RISK.
In the following illustration example, we consider the
rock mass classification for the CH rock mass and assume
that the joint spacing follows a lognormal distribution. The
average joint spacings for the three joint sets are 10, 25,
50 cm and the standard deviations are 3, 7.5, 15 cm,
respectively. Using the Monte Carlo simulation technique
available in @RISK, the PDF of the block volume Vb for
the rock mass is calculated using 5,000 iterations and the
result is presented in Fig. 8. It is seen that the block volume
also follows a lognormal distribution. In the calculation, a
persistent joint condition was assumed. Field data also
support this assumption.
It was determined that the average values for joint large-
scale waviness Jw, small-scale smoothness Js, and joint
Fig. 8 Block volume Vb distribution simulated using @RISK
alteration JA are 2, 2, 1, respectively, and the coefficients of
variation for all three factors were assumed to be 8%.
Truncated normal distributions were assumed for Jw, Js,
and JA. The truncation was based on the minimum and
maximum ratings for each parameter (Cai et al. 2004b). For
example, Jw should not be less than 1 and not greater than
3. Jw was thus described by a normal distribution with a
mean of 2 and a standard deviation of 0.16, truncated at 1
and 3. Jc thus calculated using Eq. 12 also followed a
normal distribution as shown in Fig. 9.
Equation 13 was used to calculate the GSI distribution
based on Vb and Jc. Although Vb followed a lognormal
distribution, the calculated GSI values followed a normal
distribution, as shown in Fig. 10. The average GSI was
59.9 with a standard deviation of 2.1. The standard devi-
ation of GSI was greatly affected by the deviation of joint
spacing. If the standard deviations for the lognormal
joint spacing are 4, 10, 20 cm, respectively, for the three joint
sets, the standard deviation of GSI will increase to 2.5.
Next, the Hoek–Brown strength parameters (mb and
s) and the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters
(c and /), rock mass tensile strength (rtm), and the defor-
mation modulus (E) are calculated based on GSI, rc and mi.
The uniaxial compressive test results for the intact rock
showed a large variability in the dataset. The average of rc
Fig. 9 Jc distribution simulated using @RISK

123
Rock Mass Characterization 389

distributions illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13. The average

values of c and / are 2.23 MPa and 54.5°, respectively. For
comparison, the average values of c and / obtained from
12 in situ block shear tests are 1.5 MPa and 58°, respec-
tively. Figure 14 presents the strength envelope for the
rock mass. The shaded areas of the strength envelopes are
obtained assuming combinations of c? and /?, c- and
/-, respectively. Here, c? and c- mean the values of
average c plus or minus one standard deviation of c,
respectively. In general, the average envelopes from the
GSI system are very close to those obtained from in situ
shear tests.
Fig. 10 GSI distribution simulated using @RISK The probability density distributions for the Hoek–
Brown strength parameters mb and s are presented in
was 108 MPa with a standard deviation of 42 MPa. The Figs. 15 and 16, respectively. mb values follow a normal
test data range was from 36.5 to 253 MPa. A truncated distribution. Although s values are best described by a
normal distribution, truncated by a minimum value of lognormal distribution, they can also be reasonably
36.5 MPa and a maximum value of 253 MPa, was assumed approximated by a normal distribution as shown in Fig. 16.
for rc. The distribution of the probability density function The distribution for the tensile strength of the rock mass
of rc is presented in Fig. 11. The truncated function shows shown in Fig. 17 can be represented by a truncated normal
an asymmetrical distribution, which is best fitted by a distribution (the truncation is made at rtm = 0 MPa).
Weibull distribution. The truncation may affect the distri-
bution of dependent variables such as c and /. mi was
assumed to obey a normal distribution with an average of
19 and a standard deviation of 2.375. The distributions of
mb, s, c, /, rtm, and E were calculated based on the dis-
tribution of rc, mi, and GSI, where D = 0 had been
assumed in all calculations.
The probability density distributions for c and / are
plotted in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. Both the best-fit
probability density functions of c and / follow Weibull
distributions. This is attributed to the truncated normal
distribution of rc. If rc follows a normal distribution
without truncation, then, the resulting c and / can be
described by normal distributions. Although Weibull dis-
tributions best fit the output distributions, it is seen that
c and / could be adequately described by the normal Fig. 12 c distribution

Fig. 11 rc distribution Fig. 13 / distribution

123
390
Fig. 14 Comparison of shear strengths of rock masses from the GSI
system and field test data
Fig. 15 mb distribution
Fig. 16 s distribution
The probability density distribution of the deformation
modulus E is presented in Fig. 18. As expected, E follows a
normal distribution with an average of 16.5 GPa and a
standard deviation of 2.7 GPa. The average and standard
123
M. Cai
Fig. 17 rtm distribution
Fig. 18 E distribution
deviation of the deformation modulus determined from 29
in situ plate-load tests are 12.9 and 2.84 GPa, respectively.
This suggests that the GSI system overestimates the mod-
ulus for CH rock mass by about 28%. Despite this, the GSI
system predicts the variability of the deformation modulus
well when compared with the distribution of plate-loading
test data. The average and standard deviation of the
strength and deformation parameters are summarized in
Table 1. Normal distributions have been used for all
parameters.
4.3 Consideration of In Situ Stress and Rock Mass
Property Variability in Design
It is seen from the results presented above that the
mechanical properties of jointed rock masses exhibit vari-
ability. These properties are not best represented by aver-
age values, but have respective distributions about the
means, even under the perfect conditions. The design will
make more sense if these input property distributions are
properly considered in the design process. In the sub-
sequent discussion, we perform FEM stress analyses for the
Rock Mass Characterization
Table 1 Summary of the rock mass properties obtained from the GSI
system
Average Standard deviation
mb 4.54 0.67
s 0.0119 0.00278
c (MPa) 2.23 0.56
/ (°) 54.4 2.56
E (GPa) 16.5 2.72
rtm (MPa) 0.28 0.118
Kazunogawa cavern to demonstrate the influence of the
material property variability on design.
The stress analysis is performed using Phase2 (2008).
The in situ stress field and its variability play an equally
important role in affecting the outcome of the stress anal-
ysis as the material properties. At the cavern site, two in
situ stress measurements were carried out using the over-
coring technique (Koyama et al. 1997). From one mea-
surement, the principal stresses in the plane perpendicular
to the cavern axis were determined as 12.6 and 11.2 MPa,
respectively. The maximum principal stress inclined about
14° with respect to the vertical direction. From another
measurement, the principal stresses in the plane perpen-
dicular to the cavern axis were obtained as 14.2 and
9.6 MPa, respectively. The maximum principal stress
inclined about 7.6° with respect to the vertical direction.
Obviously, there are large differences in both the in situ
stress magnitudes and orientations. In general, the confi-
dence on the in situ stress measurement results is low at the
initial design stage. The confidence can be gradually
improved when field monitoring data such as displacement
measurements are available at the construction stage. At
the Kazunogawa site, back-analysis performed using the
displacement monitoring data confirmed that the in situ
stress field was close to the first measurement result
(Tasaka et al. 2000). In this paper, we decide to consider
the variability of the in situ stress field at the initial design
stage. Based on the data presented in Fig. 7, it is assumed
that the COV for the principal in situ stress components (r01
and r03 ) is 15% and the stress orientation (h) variation range
is ±7.5°.
Because the computation effort is huge using the Monte
Carlo method, it was decided to obtain the distributions of
yield zone and displacement by the point estimate method.
The variables to be considered include c, /, rtm, E as well
as the principal stresses (r01 ,r03 , h). The mean and standard
deviation of the yielding zones and roof or wall displace-
ments can then be calculated from 27 = 128 solutions. This
still requires a significant amount of model runs. To
facilitate such a design analysis using FEM tools, the
Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation (CEMI) has
391
Table 2 Simulation cases for in situ stress uncertainty (Series-1)
Parameters
Case # r01 (MPa) r03 (MPa) h (°)
1 10.71 9.61 11.50
2 14.49 9.61 11.50
3 10.71 13.00 11.50
4 14.49 13.00 11.50
5 10.71 9.61 16.50
6 14.49 9.61 16.50
7 10.71 13.00 16.50
8 14.49 13.00 16.50
contracted Rocscience Inc. to add point estimate method
capability in Phase2 (Valley et al. 2010), and the new
version will be available in future release. In the following
discussion, the model runs are conducted manually.
To limit the stress analysis cases and separate the
influence of in situ stress from that of mechanical proper-
ties, we first conducted simulations considering the vari-
ability of the in situ stress only (Series-1). The average
mechanical properties were used in this case, i.e., rock
mass strength and deformation modulus were treated as
deterministic variables. The total solutions were reduced to
23 = 8. The input parameters for all simulation cases are
listed in Table 2. Case-3 and Case-7 show that the mini-
mum principal stress is greater than the maximum principal
stress, which is physically unsound. It was decided that
these two cases be rejected from the analysis list. The
average strength and deformation modulus of the rock
mass are listed in Table 1. The residual strength parameters
were considered as deterministic to reduce the simulation
cases. The residual cohesion, friction angle, and dilation
angle for all cases were assumed to be 0.5 MPa and 50°,
5°, respectively. The residual c and / values are deter-
mined based on the field block shear test results.
Next, the in situ stress field (1st measurement data) was
treated at deterministic and the rock mass strength and
deformation parameters were considered as variables
which contain uncertainties (Series-2). The equivalent
Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters c and /, the tensile
strength of the rock mass rtm, and the deformation modulus
E were used in the simulation. The total solution case
numbers were 24 = 16. The input parameters for all sim-
ulation cases are listed in Table 3. Again, the residual
cohesion, friction angle, and dilation angle for all cases
were considered as deterministic, assumed to be 0.5 MPa
and 50°, 5°, respectively.
The FEM mesh for the cavern excavation is presented in
Fig. 19. To reduce computation time, the arch excavation
was simulated in one excavation step and the lower cavern
excavation was simulated in six bench steps instead of 17
123
392 M. Cai

Table 3 Simulation cases for rock mass mechanical property

uncertainty (Series-2)
Parameters
Case # c (MPa) / (°) E (GPa) rtm (MPa)

1 1.67 51.8 13.78 0.162

2 2.79 51.8 13.78 0.162
3 1.67 57.0 13.78 0.162
4 2.79 57.0 13.78 0.162
5 1.67 51.8 19.22 0.162
6 2.79 51.8 19.22 0.162
7 1.67 57.0 19.22 0.162
8 2.79 57.0 19.22 0.162
9 1.67 51.8 13.78 0.398
10 2.79 51.8 13.78 0.398
Fig. 19 FEM mesh used for the simulation (without rock support
11 1.67 57.0 13.78 0.398
system)
12 2.79 57.0 13.78 0.398
13 1.67 51.8 19.22 0.398
14 2.79 51.8 19.22 0.398
15 1.67 57.0 19.22 0.398
the sidewalls and 3.1 m in the roof. COV’s of the total
16 2.79 57.0 19.22 0.398
displacements are about 7–8%, with standard deviations in
the range of 2.3–3.3 mm.
The probability density distributions of yielding zones
benches (about 3 m each) actually executed during the and total displacements in the roof and on the sidewalls for
cavern construction. The rock support system was not Series-2 analysis are presented in Figs. 23 and 24,
considered in the stress analysis initially. respectively. The in situ stress field was considered as
Figure 20 presents one example showing the yielding deterministic and the rock mass mechanical property var-
zone distribution and the total displacement contour around iability was considered in this case. COV’s of the yielding
the cavern when the last bench excavation is completed. depth are 20% in the roof, 15% on the left sidewall, and
Both tensile and shear yielding of the rock masses are 21% on the right sidewall. The standard deviations of the
observed from the model simulation result. The yielding yielding zone depth are 0.68, 1.44, and 1.95 m for the roof,
depths are larger on the sidewalls than in the roof. The left sidewall, and right sidewall, respectively. It is seen that
same calculations were carried out for each case listed in due to the rock mass property variability, the predicted
Tables 2 and 3. The maximum yielding depths on the maximum and minimum depths of yielding zone can differ
sidewalls and in the roof were recorded for each simula- in a range of 11.9 m on the sidewalls and 4.1 m in the roof.
tion. The total displacements on the cavern wall were Compared with the variability due to in situ stress uncer-
also recorded (one in the roof and two on the sidewalls). tainty, the actual variation of rock mass mechanical prop-
Statistical analysis was then performed to reveal the erties has a more pronounced effect on the excavation
probability density distributions of yielding depth and response behavior.
displacement. In the rock support system design for the Kazunogawa
The probability density distributions of yielding zone cavern, the pre-stressed anchors designed for the cavern
and total displacement in the roof and on the sidewalls (at were 15 m long for the average ground (CH) and 20 m for
three sampling points indicated in the figures) for Series-1 the poor ground (CM) (Koyama et al. 1997). The deter-
analysis are presented in Figs. 21 and 22, respectively. The ministic design approach uses the average material
rock mass mechanical properties are considered as deter- properties. For example, based on the deterministic design
ministic and only the in situ stress variability is considered approach, the average yielding depths for the CH rock
in this case. COV’s of the yielding depth are about 6% on mass are 3.4, 9.8, and 9.5 m for the cavern roof, left
the sidewalls and 15% in the roof. The standard deviations sidewall, and right sidewall, respectively. If 15 m long
of the yielding zone depth are 0.51, 0.65, and 0.59 m for anchors are selected for the average quality ground, the
the roof, left sidewall, and right sidewall, respectively. It is deterministic approach indicates that the anchor coverage
seen that due to the uncertainty of the in situ stress at the is sufficient even if 3 m long grouting length (anchorage
initial design stage, the predicted maximum and minimum length in non-yielded rock mass) is considered. The fac-
depths of yielding zone can differ in a range of 3.9 m on tors of safety, defined as the pre-stressed anchor length

123
Rock Mass Characterization 393

Fig. 20 Yielding zone and total

displacement distribution
(shown as contour) in the rock
mass (Case-11, Series-2)

Fig. 21 Probability
distributions of yielding zones
in the roof and on the sidewalls
for analysis Series-1

divided by the average yielding zone depth, are 4.37, One design consideration in the support of large-scale
1.53, and 1.58 for the roof, left sidewall, and right side- caverns is that the anchors should be sufficient to cover the
wall, respectively. yielding zone depth around the opening, with additional

123
394 M. Cai

Fig. 22 Probability
distributions of total
displacement in the roof and on
the sidewalls for analysis
Series-1

properties are used, this design consideration can be sat-

Fig. 23 Probability distributions of yielding zones in the roof and on
the sidewalls for analysis Series-2. The anchor lengths adopted in the
cavern constructs were 15 m for average ground and 20 m for below
average ground
anchorage length (e.g., 3 m for pre-stressed cables) beyond
the yielding zone into the undisturbed rocks (Koyama et al.
1997). As shown in Fig. 25, when the average rock mass
isfied. However, when the rock mass property variability is
considered, the probability that the 15 m anchor may be
shorter than the yielding zone depth on the right sidewall is
0.19%, and the probability that the anchor’s 3 m anchorage
portion may fall in the yielding zone is 8.8%. Certain levels
of risk show up in the design. What does the probability
shown here mean? We know that probability is neither a
property of the world nor a property of the mind, but a
property of the model used to make sense of a physical
world, a property based on which we make decisions under
uncertainty. When a probability is translated into a verbal
description of uncertainty (Lichtenstein and Newman
1967), 1% is equivalent to ‘‘virtually impossible,’’ 10%
corresponds to ‘‘very unlikely,’’ and 50% means ‘‘fair
chance.’’ Accordingly, we can say that it is virtually
impossible that the lengths of the 15 m long anchors on the
right sidewall will be shorter than the yielding zone depth;
however, it is very unlikely that the anchorage portion of
the anchors will fall in the yielding zone.
The anchor length in the roof is long (15 m) as com-
pared to the yielding zone depth, as shown in Fig. 23. The
probability that the 15 m long anchor may be shorter than
the yielding zone depth in the roof and the probability that
the anchor’s 3 m anchorage length may fall in the yielding
zone are all zero. In practice, the anchor length needs only
to cover this yielding zone plus a reasonable additional

123
Rock Mass Characterization
Fig. 24 Probability
distributions of total
displacement in the roof and on
the sidewalls for analysis
Series-2
Fig. 25 Probability distributions of the yielding zone depth on the
right sidewalls for analysis Series-2 (without rock support system)
anchorage length unless there are structural-controlled
deep unstable blocks demanding longer cables. Cai et al.
(2000) identified that while reinforcement lengths for
cavern sidewalls are generally acceptable, unnecessarily
long rockbolts or anchors have been applied to many
cavern roofs around the world. Significant economic ben-
efits could be achieved from shortening the reinforcement
in the roof and further studies to confirm this conclusion
are recommended.
The probabilistic design analysis can assist in the
interpretation of field monitoring results. COV’s of the
total displacements are about 20%, with standard
395
deviations in the range of 5.3–8.4 mm. The actual cavern
deformations in any given vertical or horizontal cross-
sections showed monitoring values with some variation
ranges (Koyama et al. 1997). For example, the actually
measured surface deformations at the middle elevation of
the sidewalls indicated in Fig. 24 were from 30 to 56 mm
on the penstock side and 15–40 mm on the tailrace side.
This variation can be due to the spatial rock mass property
variation. As can be seen from Fig. 24, the total displace-
ment on the right sidewall can vary in a range from 15 to
70 mm, depending on the rock mass condition. Hence,
when a field measurement is obtained, one should pay
careful attention to interpreting the measurement results
and the associated acceptance or rejection of the prediction
models. Quite often, design engineers are used to the
deterministic design approach. When the field measure-
ment data do not agree with their model predictions, some
of them feel ‘‘disappointed,’’ while others rush to a quick
conclusion stating that the input parameters might be
wrong. A probabilistic design approach can avoid such
unsound engineering judgments and distraction in the
routine design work.
The analysis presented above can be considered as the
first step in rock support system design. After the rock
support system has been chosen, it should be included in
the numerical model for design verification and refinement.
When the selected rock support system is included in the
123
396
FEM analysis, it is anticipated that the distribution of the
yielding zone depths will change, i.e., become smaller
compared with the analysis cases where the rock support
system is not included. The point estimate method outlined
above can be readily applied to the stress analysis including
the rock support system. In this fashion, the risk level can
be recalculated.
To illustrate the approach, the actual rock support sys-
tem adopted for the CH rock mass (Koyama et al. 1997)
was included in the model for a refined analysis. The
rockbolt and anchor lengths were 5 and 15 m, respectively.
Support pressures were 0.213 MPa for the roof and
0.183 MPa for the side walls. The shotcrete thicknesses
were 32 and 24 cm for the roof and sidewalls, respectively.
Figure 26 presents the yielding zone and the total dis-
placement contour around the cavern for Case-11 listed in
Table 3. When the rock support system is considered in the
model, both the yielding zone and the total displacements
are reduced.
The probability density function of the yielding zone
distribution on the right sidewall is presented in Fig. 27.
The probability that the 15 m anchor may be shorter than
the yielding zone depth on the right sidewall is 0.0077%,
and the probability that the anchor’s 3 m anchorage length
may fall in the yielding zone is 1.3%. In the same fashion,
we can examine the probabilities for the left sidewall. It is
found that, on the left sidewall, the probability that the
15 m anchor may be shorter than the yielding zone depth
on the left sidewall is 0.0003%, and the probability that the
Fig. 26 Yielding zone and total
displacement distribution in the
rock mass (Case-11, Series-2,
with rock support system)
123
M. Cai
anchor’s 3 m anchorage length may fall in the yielding
zone is 0.5%. Now we confirm that the 15 m long anchor is
able to cover all the yielding zones around the cavern and
the probability that an anchorage portion of the cablebolt
may fall into the yielding zone is sufficiently small that the
original design of the rock anchor length is appropriate.
In tunnel and cavern design, the yielding of rock mass
indicates that the stress magnitudes have reached the rock
mass strength, and the designers are provided with several
options to deal with the potential construction hazard
associated with rock mass yielding. If the rock mass’s post-
peak strength does not drop, it can carry large loads even if
rock mass yielding occurs. On the other hand, if the rock
mass’s post-peak strength drops significantly to a low
residual level after yielding occurs, the rock mass’s
integrity and load carrying capacity are reduced. Hence, it
is better to place the anchoring portion beyond the yielding
zone. By ensuring that the reinforcement length is not
shorter than the yielding depth is one of the commonly
applied design criteria, although it is conservative in gen-
eral. For large-scale caverns and tunnels in weak ground,
the yielding may cause large displacement and hence
another displacement or strain based design criterion exists.
A third design criterion is to check the loads in rockbolts
and anchors. At any given excavation stage, the loads
should be below the design capacity of the reinforcements.
Sakurai (1981) proposed the concept of critical strain
and used it as a direct strain control technique for tunnel
and cavern construction. The critical strain ranges
Rock Mass Characterization
Fig. 27 Probability distributions of the yielding zone depth on the
right sidewalls for analysis Series-2 (with rock support system)
approximately from 0.1 to 1.0% for good rocks and from
1.0 to 5.0% for weak rocks and soils. Based on the concept
of the critical strain of rocks and rock masses by Sakurai
(1981), we obtain the average critical strain ec for the CH
rock mass using the following equation
rcm
ec ¼ ð16Þ
E ea ¼
where rcm and E are the average uniaxial compressive
strength and initial elastic modulus of the rock mass,
respectively. Based on the parameters listed in Table 1, the
average critical strain for CH rock mass is 0.084%. The
failure strain ef is related to the critical strain as
ec
ef ¼ ð17Þ
1  Rf
where Rf is a parameter representing the failure strength,
which lies in between 0.05 and 0.8 according to Sakurai
(1981).
The determination of Rf needs further discussion as the
wide range of variation of this parameter suggested by
Sakurai is not applicable to a specific case such as Kazu-
nogawa cavern site. Based on the generalized crack initi-
ation and propagation thresholds (Cai et al. 2004a, b), we
know that when the stress level is above 0.4–0.6 rcm, the
stress–strain curve deviates from the linear relationship due
to damage (or AE) initiation (Fig. 28). When the stress
level is above 0.8–1.0 rcm, the damage coalescence and
propagation generate additional strain to the rock mass.
Hence, the Rf parameter is at least 0.1–0.3 for most hard
rock masses. Depending on the damage coalescence near
the peak strength, the Rf parameter can further increase to
0.4.
Note that some of the rock masses around the excavation
will inevitably reach the peak strength. For most strain-
softening rocks, the residual strength level governs the
amount of plastic deformation in the total deformation due
to excavation (Cai et al. 2007). The strain corresponding to
397
σ
σcm Peak strength
0.8∼1.0σ AE damage
cm
Residual strength
0.4∼0.6σ AE initiation
cm
Accumulated AE
εc εf εa ε
Fig. 28 Definition of critical strain and failure strain in association
with crack initiation [the figure is based on the generalized crack
initiation and crack damage stress thresholds from Cai et al. (2004a)]
the point with no further stress drop is of significant
importance in design calculations. Strain can increase
without further stress decrease beyond this point. Hence,
the allowable strain ea can be related to the critical strain as
ec
ð18Þ
1  Ra
where Ra is a parameter representing the residual strength
(see Fig. 28). Assuming Ra = 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, the allowable
strain thus calculated from the critical strain is 0.21, 0.24,
0.28%, respectively. Hoek (2001) suggests that if the tun-
nel strain is \1%, then, little or no construction instability
problems will occur. The strain at this cavern site is far
\1%, suggesting that there will be no major instability
problems at the cavern construction site (as was demon-
strated by the actual successful completion of the cavern
construction).
In some cases, deformation monitoring is conducted to
detect wall deformation. The failure strains can be con-
verted into allowable wall displacements assuming an
opening with an equivalent radius of (34 ? 54)/4 m. The
allowable right wall displacements are 0.0464, 0.0531,
0.0619 m for Ra = 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, respectively, and the
probabilities that the wall displacement might be greater
than the allowable displacements are 11, 1.7, and 0.0525%,
respectively (Fig. 29). In the same figure, the allowable
strain of 0.5% (which corresponds to Ra = 0.83) and the
corresponding allowable displacement are shown. The
average wall displacement is 0.0369 m, which is always
smaller than the allowable displacements for Ra [ 0.5. The
influence of Ra on the probability of failure in terms of
strain is large and careful field monitoring programs are
needed to better define this parameter. In general, a large
Ra value is expected when a rock mass is supported
because the residual strengths of well-supported rock
masses are high.
123
398
Fig. 29 Probability distributions of the total displacement on the
right sidewalls for analysis Series-2 (with rock support system)
In rock support design for large-scale caverns, another
design criterion often used is the measure of the rockbolt/
anchor loads. Using the same probabilistic design approach
for the examination of anchor lengths and displacements,
we can check the anchor load distribution due to rock mass
property variability and calculate the probabilities that the
anchor load might be larger than the design loads and
yielding loads. Due to the length limitation of the paper,
the results are omitted here.
The probabilistic design approach identifies the risk
associated with design. The information obtained will
assist us in better executing the plan using the observa-
tional construction method. It is obvious that cost saving in
terms of reducing the support quantities is achievable if a
certain level of risk is acceptable. By applying the method
outlined here, further cost-benefit analysis can be con-
ducted to reach a rational design of underground works. As
shown in the illustration example, the benefit and the cost
of including risk can be weighed in the decision-making
process.
5 Conclusion
It is difficult to develop ‘‘precise’’ values to describe the
rock mass properties. Instead, distributed data are often
encountered. In the design approach using the deterministic
method, engineers are often faced with difficulty when
selecting representative values from widely scattered data
for design. Application of the probabilistic design approach
to tunnel and cavern design makes it possible to consider
variability in geotechnical parameters of jointed rock
masses. The rock mass property variability is both intrinsic
and subjective and has a considerable influence on the
decision-making in the design works.
The GSI system is now widely used to derive engi-
neering design parameters such as the Mohr–Coulomb or
123
M. Cai
Hoek–Brown strength parameters and deformation moduli
of jointed rock masses. The uncertainty in the rock mass
characterization utilizing the GSI system stems from the
variabilities in the strength of the intact rock, the joint
spacing, the joint surface condition.
This paper illustrates an approach for tunnel and cavern
design utilizing quantitative risk assessment with the use of
the GSI system to determine the required rock support and
to quantify uncertainty in the analysis. The Hoek–Brown or
the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters and the
deformation modulus were calculated using the Monte
Carlo method in @RISK and FEM stress analyses were
performed applying the point estimate method. The method
was applied to characterizing the jointed rock masses at the
Kazunogawa underground powerhouse. Based on the dis-
tributions obtained for the rock mass properties, the yield-
ing zone depth and displacement distributions were
obtained. Risk analysis indicates that for the average quality
rock mass, the possibilities that the reinforcement length
(15 m) may not cover sufficiently all yielding zones on the
sidewalls, are extremely small (‘‘virtually impossible’’ in
verbal probabilistic terms). The possibilities that the
anchorage portions of the anchors may fall into the yielding
zone are very small as well and this uncertainty can be dealt
with using the observational construction method.
The probabilistic method presents a not-so-black-and-
white, systematic assessment of uncertainty in rock mass
characterization in rock engineering design. It provides an
approach to evaluate the effects of variability in each of the
input parameters on the output ones. It also allows us to
better understand how uncertainty arises and how the rock
support system design decision may be affected by it, thus
revealing the key actions needed to reduce uncertainties in
the most cost-effective way. Although it provides a tool for
stress analysis, rock support design, and statistical esti-
mation of rock mass properties, its successful application
relies heavily on the professional judgment of experts, as is
always the case in rock mechanics and rock engineering.
Acknowledgments The method and analysis presented in this paper
were carried out to illustrate the probabilistic design approach and did
not necessarily reflect the design approach adopted by Tokyo Electric
Power Services Co. Ltd. (TEPSCO) and Tokyo Electric Power
Company (TEPCO). The author would like to thank TEPSCO and
TEPCO for previous support on the application of the GSI system for
rock mass characterization.
References
Barton NR, Bandis SC (1990) Review of predictive capability of
JRC-JCS model in engineering practice. In: Rock Joints, Proc.
Int. Symp. on Rock Joints, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 603–610
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech
6(4):189–239
Rock Mass Characterization
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1977) Estimation of support require-
ments for underground excavations. In: 16th US Symp. Rock
Mech, pp 164–177
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability—
experience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 15(5):237–247
Bieniawski ZT (1984) Rock mechanics design in mining and
tunneling. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 272
Brady BHG, Brown ET (2004) Rock Mechanics for Underground
Mining. Springer, Berlin
Cai M (2010) Practical estimates of tensile strength and Hoek–Brown
strength parameter mi of brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng
43(2):167–184
Cai M, Kaiser PK (2006) Visualization of rock mass classification
systems. Geotech Geol Eng 24(4):1089–1102
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y (2000) Comparative study of
rock support system design practice for large-scale underground
excavations. In: Proc. 4th North American Rock Mech. Sympo-
sium, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1027–1034
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Maejima T, Morioka H, Minami M
(2004a) Generalized crack initiation and crack damage stress
thresholds of brittle rock masses near underground excavations.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(5):833–847
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004b) Estimation
of rock mass strength and deformation modulus of jointed hard
rock masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41(1):3–19
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2007) Determination of
residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses using the
GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44(2):247–265
Cording EJ, Hendron AJ Jr, Deere DU (1971) Rock engineering for
underground caverns. In: Proc. ASCE Symp. on Underground
Rock Chambers, pp 567–600
Deere DU (1968) Geological consideration. In: Stagg KG, Zie-
nkiewicz OC (eds) Rock mechanics in engineering practice. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 1–20
Dershowitz WS, Einstein HH (1988) Characterizing rock joint
geometry with joint system models. Rock Mech Rock Eng
21(1):21–51
Hoek E (2001) Big tunnels in bad rock, 2000 Terzaghi lecture.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(9):726–740
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, p 527
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215
Hoek E, Marinos P (2000a) Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in
weak heterogeneous rock masses. Tunn Tunn 32(11):45–51
Hoek E, Marinos P (2000b) Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in
weak heterogeneous rock masses. Tunn Tunn 32(12):34–36
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 215
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure
criterion—2002 edition. In: Proc. 5th North American Rock
Mech. Symposium, Toronto, pp 267–273
Hönish K (1995) Conclusions from 100 constructed power caverns
for future planning: keynote lecture. In: Eurock’ 93, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 1013–1027
View publication stats
399
Hönish K, Nagel KH (1988) Practical use of rock mass classification
for cavern & tunnel support. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:4–5
(Paper No. 131)
Kaiser PK, Diederichs MS, Martin CD, Sharp J, Steiner W (2000)
Underground Works in Hard Rock Tunnelling and Mining. In:
Keynote lecture at GeoEng2000, Technomic Publishing Co.,
Melbourne, pp 841–926
Kim BH, Cai M, Kaiser PK, Yang HS (2007) Estimation of block
sizes for rock masses with non-persistent joints. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 40(2):169–192
Koyama T, Nanbu S, Komatsuzaki Y (1997) Large-scale cavern at a
depth of 500 m. Tunn Undergr 28(1):37–45 (in Japanese)
Lichtenstein S, Newman JR (1967) Empirical scaling of common
verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychon
Sci 9(10):563–564
Martin CD, Kaiser PK, Christiansson R (2003) Stress, instability and
design of underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
40(7–8):1027–1047
Mazzoccola DF, Millar DL, Hudson JA (1997) Information, uncer-
tainty and decision making in site investigation for rock
engineering. Geotech Geol Eng 15(2):145–180
Palisade Corporation (2001) @RISK. Palisade Corporation, v.4
Palmstrøm A (1995) RMi—a rock mass characterization system for
rock engineering purposes. Ph. D. thesis
Palmstrøm A, Broch E (2006) Use and misuse of rock mass
classification systems with particular reference to the Q-system.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21(6):575–593
Pells PJN (2002) Developments in the design of tunnels and caverns
in the Triassic rocks of the Sydney region. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 39(5):569–587
Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13(5):135–148
Priest SD, Hudson JA (1981) Estimation of discontinuity spacing and
trace length using scanline surveys. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 18(3):183–197
Rocscience Inc. (2008) Phase2. Rocscience Inc., v.7
Rosenblueth E (1981) Two-point estimates in probabilities. J Appl
Math Model 5(5):329–335
Sakurai S (1981) Direct strain evaluation technique in construction of
underground opening. In: 22th US Symp. Rock Mech, MIT,
Cambridge, pp 278–282
Song JJ, Lee CI (2001) Estimation of joint length distribution using
window sampling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(4):519–528
Tanaka H (1964) Introduction of geology for civil engineers.
Sankaidou, Tokyo
Tang CA, Kaiser PK (1998) Numerical simulation of cumulative
damage and seismic energy release in unstable failure of brittle
rock. Part I: Fundamentals. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 35(2):113–121
Tasaka Y, Uno H, Omori T, Kudoh K (2000) A joint and rock failure
strain-softening model and its application to the excavation
simulation of large-scale underground caverns. J Jpn Soc Civil
Eng. III-51(652):73–90 (in Japanese)
Valley B, Kaiser PK, Duff D (2010) Consideration of uncertainty in
modelling the behaviour of underground excavations. In: 5th
International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Santi-
ago, pp 423–435
123