Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14 – 26

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Engineering geological appraisal of the rock masses and preliminary

support design, Dorukhan Tunnel, Zonguldak, Turkey
M. Genis a , H. Basarir b,⁎, A. Ozarslan a , E. Bilir a , E. Balaban c
a
Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Engineering Faculty, Mining Eng. Department, 67100 Zonguldak, Turkey
b
Inonu University, Engineering Faculty, Mining Eng. Department, 44280 Malatya, Turkey
c
Turkish General Directorate of Highways, 15th District, 37100 Kastamonu, Turkey
Received 14 November 2006; received in revised form 22 February 2007; accepted 28 February 2007
Available online 12 March 2007

Abstract

This paper presents the results of engineering geological studies of the rock masses along a road tunnel. Rock mass qualities of the
rock units along the tunnel were determined by means of Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Geomechanic Classification (Q) system, Geological
Strength Index (GSI), Rock Mass Index (RMi) and New Australian Tunneling Method (NATM). In order to determine tunnel stability,
necessary support types and categories RMR, Q, RMi and NATM systems were employed as empirical tunnel support design methods.
However, these empirical design guidelines for tunnel support based on rock mass classification systems failed to analyze the support
performance. The performances of the proposed support systems were analyzed by means of numerical analysis, described in this paper.
A 2D finite element analysis program was used as numerical method. The necessary rock mass parameters were obtained by means of
rock mass classification systems.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rock mass classification system; Engineering geology; RMR; Q; GSI; RMi; NATM; Numerical method; Tunnel support design

1. Introduction will have a modified ellipsoid shape with excavated

The Yenicaga–Zonguldak highway is one of the most
important highways connecting the Black sea coast to the
Central Anatolian region. Due to the geotechnical
problems associated with the existing tunnel and heavy
traffic load, construction of a new tunnel called the
Dorukhan Tunnel, was decided by General Directorate of
Highways authorities. The location of project area is given
in Fig. 1. The planned length of the tunnel is 1030 m and it
will accommodate two traffic lanes. The driven tunnel
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 422 3410010/4507; fax: +422
3410046.
E-mail address: hbasarir@inonu.edu.tr (H. Basarir).
0013-7952/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.02.005
dimensions of 11.8 m width and 8.3 m height (Fig. 2).
Engineering geological studies and rock mechanics
experiments were conducted both in the field and the
laboratory. The field studies included geological
mapping, core drilling, discontinuity surveying and
geotechnical descriptions.
Rock mass classification systems are very useful
tools for the preliminary design stage of a project, when
very little detailed information on rock mass are
available. On the other hand, utilization of several
rock mass classification systems is recommended to
build up a picture of composition and characteristics of
rock mass to provide initial estimates of support
requirements (Hoek et al., 1995). The tunnel stability
and the required support systems were assessed by
 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26
Fig. 1. Location map of the Dorukhan Tunnel.
means of RMR, Q, GSI, RMi and NATM rock mass
classification systems.
Although rock mass classification systems are very
useful during the preliminary design stage, they cannot
adequately calculate stress distributions, support perfor-
mance and deformations around the tunnel. Therefore
empirical methods should be augmented by numerical
methods (Kontogianni and Stiros, 2002; Sari and
Pasamehmetoglu, 2004; Basarir, 2006). Since rock
mass strength parameters are essential input parameters
for the numerical methods, a number of studies were
performed to estimate these parameters by means of rock
mass classification systems. In this study, rock mass
strength parameters were obtained by means of RMR, Q,
GSI and RMi systems.
2. Geology
The study area is located in the Western Pontides.
The geological formations mainly consist of igneous
and sedimentary rocks. The geology consists of the
following formations:
Quaternary: Alluvium deposit
Devonian: Aksudere Formation (Erendil et al., 1991)
15
Ordovician: Bolu Granitoid (Erendil et al., 1991)
Quaternary aged Alluvium composed of sandy gravel.
The Devonian aged Aksudere formation is repre-
sented by mainly phyllite, shale, recristalized limestone,
dolomitic limestone (Erendil et al., 1991). Phyllite
shows well-developed schistosity and the main miner-
alogical constituents are quartz, sericite, muscovite,
chlorite, epidote and feldspar. They also host some
embedded massive recristalized limestone blocks.
Bolu Granitoid is composed mainly of granodiorite
and granite (Erendil et al., 1991). Bolu Granitoid is
greenish gray in color, coarse-grained and their mafic
content ranges from 10% to 15%. Diabase and quartz
dykes, generally located along faults, are associated
with the Bolu Granitoid.
3. Engineering geology
The engineering geological studies include both
field and laboratory studies. The field studies consist of
field observation, boreholes and discontinuity surveys.
Laboratory tests were conducted on samples, collected
from the field and the boreholes. A geological cross-
section along the tunnel is given in Fig. 3.
16 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26
Fig. 2. The Dorukhan Tunnel cross-section.
The main rock types along the tunnel alignment
include phyllite, tectonic breccia and moderately
weathered granodiorite. Phyllite is a member of the
Aksudere formation.
Following the intrusion of Bolu granodiorite, breccia
result from tectonic faulting occurred. Tectonic breccia
composed of phyllitic and granitic fragments in the
clayey–silty mylonitic matrix.
Phyllite is bluish-greenish gray in color, lens shaped,
banded and moderately weathered. The uniaxial com-
pressive strength (UCS) class of phyllite is medium with
average strength of 30 MPa. The average RQD of
phyllite is 26%. Joints are moderately spaced and range
from 20 cm to 30 cm. Joints are highly persistent and
their surfaces are planar and slightly rough. Apertures
are 5 mm in width filled by silty sand. A very favorable
discontinuity orientation is observed.
The heavily broken phyllite is the most problematic
rock unit along the tunnel alignment. This unit is in bluish-
greenish gray color and it is moderately to highly
weathered. This rock unit has very weak strength with
the average UCS being 1.5 MPa. The average RQD for this
rock unit is 10%. Joints are very closely spaced and in the
range from 20 to 60 mm. They show high persistency and
their surfaces are undulating smooth. Apertures are mostly
bigger than 5 mm and are filled by silty clay.
The tectonic breccia has weak strength with an average
UCS of 15 MPa. It is highly weathered and the average
RQD is 59%. Spacing of discontinuities ranges from 6 to
20 mm, which is classified as close spacing. Discontinuity
surfaces are slickenslided with clay infilling and possess
high persistence. Apertures range from 1 to 5 mm.
The moderately weathered granodiorite is gray in
color. Average RQD and UCS of this rock unit are 50%
and 31 MPa, respectively. Joint spacing ranges from 20
to 30 cm and is classified as close spacing. Highly
persistent joints are observed and 2 mm wide apertures
are filled with silty sand.
In total 149 discontinuities were measured in the
field. Discontinuity orientations were processed by com-
puter software DIPS 5.1 (Rocscience, 2002), based
on equal-area stereographic projection and dominant
M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26 17

Fig. 3. The Dorukhan Tunnel geological section.

18 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26

Fig. 4. Dominant discontinuity sets.

discontinuity sets were distinguished. The determined
dominant discontinuity sets are illustrated in Fig. 4. The
dip and dip directions of main discontinuities were
determined as 371/248, 82/149, 87/002 and 87/355.
Laboratory experiments were conducted on core speci-
mens of NX size, 54 mm, taken from core drillings.
Laboratory experiments were carried out in accordance
with the methods suggested by ISRM (ISRM, 1981) to
determine the physical and mechanical properties of rock
units, including unit weight, uniaxial compressive strength.
Triaxial compressive strength tests were also conducted on
core specimens to determine m and s Hoek–Brown
constants of intact rock. Table 1 presents the results of
the laboratory tests that were performed by the Turkish
General Directorate of Highways, Technical Research
Department, Soil Mechanics and Tunnel Section.
domain, Jn is the rating for the number of joint sets in
the same domain, Jr is the rating for the roughness of the
least favorable of these joint sets or filled discontinuities,
Ja is the rating for the degree of alteration or clay filling
of the least favorable joint set or filled discontinuity, Jw
is the rating for the water inflow and pressure effects,
which may cause outwash of discontinuity infillings, and
stress reduction factor (SRF) is the rating for faulting, for
strength/stress ratios in hard massive rocks, for squeez-
ing or for swelling (Barton, 2002).
A stress free form of Q was defined later by Goel et al.
(1995) as QN. In order to calculate QN, stress reduction
factor (SRF) is taken as 1, which is given in Eq. (2):



RQD Jr
QN ¼ Jw ð2Þ
Jn Ja

4. Rock mass classification systems Hoek et al. (1995) proposed the modified Tunneling
Quality Index, Q′, calculated in the same way as the
In this paper, RMR (Bieniawski, 1989), Q (Barton
et al., 1974; Grimstad and Barton, 1993), GSI (Hoek et al., Table 1
1995), RMi (Palmström, 2000) rock mass classification Physical and mechanical properties of the rock materials
systems were employed to characterize the rock mass and Parameters, Phyllite Heavily broken Tectonic Moderately
to estimate the rock mass strength parameters. symbol, unit phyllite breccia weathered
granodiorite
The Q-value is estimated from the following
expression (Barton et al., 1974): Uniaxial 30 1.5 15 30.8
compressive



 strength, UCS,
RQD Jr Jw
Q¼ ð1Þ MPa
Jn Ja SRF Unit weight, 2.85 1.96 2.08 2.68
γ, t/m3
where RQD is the percentage of competent drill-core mi constant 7 7 19 26
si constant 1 1 1 1
sticks N100 mm in length (Deere et al., 1967) in a selected
 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26 19

Table 2
The estimated rock mass classification systems
Formation RMR Q GSI RMi Qc QN Q′
Phyllite 29–34 (32) 0.07–0.1 (0.09) 25–30 (28) 0.105–0.145 (0.125) 0.02 0.60 0.91
Heavily broken phyllite 12–19 (16) 0.01–0.02 (0.02) 10–15 (13) 0.002–0.004 (0.003) 0.00 0.15 0.30
Tectonic breccia 25–29 (27) 0.06–0.09 (0.08) 25–30 (28) 0.047–0.075 (0.061) 0.01 0.20 0.61
Moderately weathered granodiorite 39–43 (41) 1.04–1.38 (1.21) 35–40 (38) 0.351–0.463 (0.407) 0.37 1.21 1.83

Table 3
The proposed empirical equations for calculation of Emass
Researcher Equation no. Equation Notes
Bieniawski (1978) (5) Emass = 2RMR − 100 (GPa) For RMR N 50
ðRMR−10Þ
Serafim and Pereira (1983) (6) Emass ¼ 10 40 (GPa) For RMR b 50
Grimstad and Barton (1993) (7) Emass = 25 logQ (GPa) For Q N 1
Palmström (2000) (8) Emass = 5.6 RMi
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
0.375
(GPa) For RMi N 0.1
rci ðGSI−10
Hoek and Brown (1998) (9) Emass ¼ 10 40 Þ (GPa) For σci b 100 MPa
100
 3
Read et al. (1999) (10) Emass ¼ 0:1 RMR 10 (GPa)
1=3
Barton (2002) (11) Emass ¼ 10Qc (GPa)

standard Q rock mass classification, except that the parameter Qc has been defined by Barton (2002) as
stress reduction factor (SRF) and joint water reductions below:
factor (Jw) was set to 1.00.


 rci
RQD Jr Qc ¼ Q ð4Þ
Q V¼ ð3Þ 100
Jn Ja
where σci is the strength of intact rock in MPa.
In 2002, the Q system was re-compiled to improve RMR, Q, GSI, RMi, QN, Qc and Q′ values are pre-
correlation between engineering parameters and a new sented in Table 2. In order to overcome some of the

Table 4
The proposed empirical equations for calculation of σcmass
Researcher Equation no. Equation Notes
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðRMR−100Þ
Hoek and (12) rcmass ¼ rci e 9 (MPa) σci is the strength
Brown (1980) of intact rock (MPa)
ðRMR−100Þ
Yudhbir (13) rcmass ¼ rci e 7:65 100
(MPa)
et al. (1983)
r ðRMR−100Þ
Ramamurthy (14) cmass¼rci e 18:75 (MPa)
(1986)
5:5gQV1=3
Goel (1994) (15) rcmass ¼ (MPa) γ is the density
B0:1
of rock mass (t/m3)
Kalamaris and (16) r ðRMR−100Þ (MPa)
cmass¼rci e 24
Bieniawski (1995)
Palmström (2000) (17) σcmass = RMi
 rci = σciJ1=3
P (MPa)
Bhasin and (18) rcmass ¼ 100 7gQ (MPa) γ is the density
Grimstad (1996) of rock mass (t/m3)
RMR−100
Sheorey (1997) (19) rcmass ¼ rci e 20 (MPa)
Trueman (1998) (20) rcmass ¼ 0:5e0:06RMR (MPa)
RMR β=6
Aydan and (21) rcmass ¼ rci (MPa)
RMR þ bð100−RMRÞ
Dalgic (1998)  rci 1=3
Barton (2000) (22) rcmass ¼ 5g Q 100 (MPa)
Hoek et al. (2002) (23) rcmass ¼ rci sa (MPa)
20 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26

Table 5 techniques were applied and thus the value of D was

The proposed empirical equations for calculation of m and s contants considered to be zero.
of rock mass
The calculated deformation modulus, strength and
Researcher Equation no. Equation Hoek–Brown constants of rock masses for the present
Hoek et al. (1995) (24) m
mi ¼ 0:135ðQVÞ1=3 work are given in Table 6. The averages of these para-
Hoek et al. (1995) (25) s = 0.002Q′ meters are calculated using the weighted average
Palmström (2000) (26) s = JP2
method and used in the numerical modeling.
Palmström (2000) (27) m = mi JP0.64
eð 28−14D Þ
GSI−100

mi ¼ GSI−100
m
Hoek et al. (2002) (28)
Hoek et al. (2002) (29) s¼eð 9−3D Þ 6. Empirical support design

Based on Q, RMR, RMi and NATM classification

uncertainties of the classification systems, a range of rock
mass values was estimated rather than just a single value.
5. Estimating rock mass properties
Rock mass properties such as Hoek–Brown con-
stants, deformation modulus of the rock masses and
uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass were
calculated by using empirical equations based on Qc,
QN, Q, RMR, RMi and GSI.
systems, the necessary support systems and proposed
excavation methods for the rock units along the tunnel
route are presented in Table 7. The New Austrian
Tunneling Method (NATM) classes of rock units were
determined by using correlations with the RMR and Q
system according to the procedure given by the Turkish
General Directorate of Highways (1997).
Considering the support and excavation method
recommendations of empirical methods, two different

5.1. Deformation modulus of rock masses Table 6

Calculated rock mass strength parameters
In-situ determination of the deformation modulus of
Parameter Equation Phyllite Heavily Moderately Breccia
rock mass (Emass) is costly and often very difficult. Thus, no. broken weathered
empirical methods are generally used in estimating Emass phyllite granodiorite
(Basarir et al., 2005). By means of the empirical methods, (5) – – – –
Emass can be easily acquired. The proposed equations by (6) 3.55 1.41 5.96 2.66
different researchers are presented in Table 3. (7) – – 2.07 –
Emass, (8) 2.57 0.63 4.00 1.96
GPa (9) 1.54 0.15 2.78 1.09
5.2. Strength of rock masses
(10) 3.28 0.41 6.89 1.97
(11) 2.88 0.67 7.20 2.29
Different researchers have proposed different empirical Average 2.76 0.65 4.82 1.99
equations to calculate the strength of rock mass (σcmass) (12) 0.69 0.01 1.16 0.26
based on rock mass classification systems. The most widely (13) 0.17 0.00 0.34 0.06
σcmass, (14) 0.80 0.02 1.32 0.31
used equations are tabulated in Table 4. Since the strength
MPa (15) 11.86 5.64 14.09 7.56
value, obtained from Eq. (15), is too high when compared (16) 1.76 0.05 2.64 0.72
to the other strength values, this value was not used in (17) 0.13 0.00 0.41 0.06
calculating the average strength value of the rock masses. (18) 2.58 0.06 6.16 0.94
(19) 1.00 0.02 1.61 0.39
(20) 3.41 1.31 5.85 2.53
5.3. Hoek–Brown parameters
(21) 2.18 0.05 3.19 0.87
(22) 4.11 0.66 9.64 2.38
Hoek et al. (1995), Palmström (2000) and Hoek et al. (23) 0.45 0.00 0.90 0.22
(2002) suggested some empirical equations to calculate m Average 1.57 0.20 3.02 0.79
and s parameters of rock masses mm, sm. The suggested (24) 0.92 0.63 4.30 2.17
m constant (27) 0.21 0.13 1.63 0.56
equations are given in Table 5.
(28) 0.54 0.31 2.84 1.45
In Hoek et al. (2002) equation D is the disturbance Average 0.55 0.36 2.92 1.39
factor that depends on the amount of disturbance in the (25) 1.8 E -3 0.6 E -3 3.7 E- 3 1.2 E -3
rock mass associated with the method of excavation (e.g. s constant (26) 1.7 E -5 0.4 E -5 1.8 E- 4 1.7 E -5
smoothness of blasting). In this study it was assumed that (29) 0.3 E -3 – 1.0 E- 3 0.3 E -3
Average 0.7 E -3 0.3 E -3 1.6 E- 3 0.5 E -3
blasting quality was excellent and controlled blasting
 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26 21

excavation methods and support types were proposed
for the rock units along the tunnel route. Tunnel sec-
tions, the rock units, proposed excavation methods,
round length, support systems and support installation
time are given in Table 8. The proposed excavation
methods and support types are also illustrated in Figs. 5
and 6.
7. Numerical modeling
The objective of numerical modeling is to check the
validity of the proposed support systems and excavation
methods given in Table 8.
The computer software Phase2, a 2D Finite Element
Program developed by Rocscience (1998), was used for
calculating the stresses, the deformations and the
thickness of the developed plastic zone around tunnel.
The software permits two-dimensional study of the non-
linear deformations of rocks using Hoek–Brown failure
criterion. The input parameters presented in Table 6 are
uniaxial compressive strength, Young's modulus, Pois-
son's ratio and m and s Hoek–Brown constants of rock
masses. In this program, an automatic mesh around the
tunnel is generated and based on the elasto-plastic
analysis, deformations and stresses are computed.
For modeling tunnels driven in rock units along the
tunnel alignment, different finite element models were
generated.
In all models tunnel geometry and horizontal to
vertical stress ratio are the same. Tunnel width and height

Table 7
Empirical tunnel support categories and excavation methods
Rock unit Phyllite
Q Span/ESR 0.07–0.1 (0.09)
support 11.8
150 mm thick steel
fiber reinforced shotcrete
(SFRS). 4 m long 1.7 m
spaced rock bolts.
RMR 29–34 (32)
support Systematic bolts 4–5 m
long, spaced 1–1.5 m in
crown and walls with
wire mesh.
Shotcrete: 100–150 mm
in crown and 100 mm
in sides. Light to
medium ribs spaced
1.5 m where required.
Excavation Top heading and bench
1.0–1.5 m advance in top
heading. Install support
concurrently with
excavation, 10 m from face.
RMi support 0.105–0.145 (0.125)
5 m length rock
bolts spaced 1 m.
150–250 mm
thick fiber reinforced
shotcrete.
NATM B3
Class Utilization of systematic
support support and local forepoles.
Excavation Use smooth blasting
or road headers where
necessary. Top heading
(1.5–2.0 m) and
bench (2.5 m).
Heavily broken phyllite Tectonic breccia
0.01–0.02 (0.02) 0.06–0.09 (0.08)
11.8 11.8
250 mm thick steel fiber 150 mm thick steel
reinforced shotcrete (SFRS). fiber reinforced shotcrete
4 m long 1.5 m spaced rock bolts. (SFRS). 4 m long 1.7 m
spaced rock bolts.
12–19 (16) 25–29 (27)
Systematic bolts 5–6 m long, Systematic bolts 4–5 m long,
spaced 1–1.5 m in crown and spaced 1–1.5 m in crown
walls with wire mesh. Bolt invert. and walls with wire mesh.
Shotcrete: 150–200 mm in crown, Shotcrete: 100–150 mm
150 mm in sides, and 50 mm on face. in crown and 100 mm in
Medium to heavy ribs spaced 0.75 m sides. Light to medium
with steel lagging and forepoling ribs spaced 1.5 m where
if required. Close invert. required.
Multiple drifts 0.5–1.5 m advance in Top heading and bench
top heading. Install support concurrently 1.0–1.5 m advance in
with excavation. Shotcrete top heading. Install
as soon as possible after blasting. support concurrently with
excavation, 10 m from face.
0.002–0.004 (0.003) 0.047–0.075 (0.061)
Short blast round, shotcrete quickly Special designed shotcrete
after blast and concrete lining. or concrete lining.
C2 B3
Utilization of systematic support. Utilization of systematic
support and local forepoles.
Use Road header. Multiple drifts, Use smooth blasting or road
1.0–1.5 m advance in top heading headers where necessary.
and 2 m advance in bench. Top heading (1.5–2.0 m) and
bench (2.5 m).
Moderately weathered
granodiorite
1.04–1.38 (1.21)
11.8
90 mm thick steel fiber
reinforced shotcrete (SFRS).
4 m long 2.5 m spaced rock
bolts.
39–43 (41)
Systematic bolts 4 m long,
spaced 1.5–2 m in crown
and walls with wire mesh
in crown.
Shotcrete: 50–100 mm in
crown and 30 mm in sides.
Top heading and bench
1.5–3 m advance in top
heading. Commence
support after each blast.
Complete support 10 m
from face.
0.351–0.463 (0.407)
4.5 m length rock bolts
spaced 1.25 m.
100–150 mm thick
fiber reinforced shotcrete.
B2
Utilization of systematic
support and local forepoles
if necessary. Use smooth
blasting.
Top heading (2.0–2.5 m)
and bench (3.5 m).
22 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26

Table 8
Proposed excavation methods and support types for the rock units along the tunnel route
Tunnel section Rock unit Excavation Round Support system Distance between
method length face and support
29 + 700/29 + 826 Phyllite Top heading 1–1.5 m Systematic bolts 4–5 m long, spaced 1–1.5 m Install support concurrently
29 + 962/29 + 990 and bench in crown and walls with wire mesh. Shotcrete with excavation, 1.50 m
29 + 990/30 + 058 1.0–1.5 m 100–150 mm in crown and 100 mm in sides. from face.
30 + 058/30 + 154 Breccia advance in Light to medium ribs spaced 1.5 m where required.
29 + 929/29 + 962 Moderately top heading.
30 + 154/30 + 730 weathered
granodiorite
29 + 826/29 + 863 Heavily Multiple drifts 0.5–1 m Systematic bolts 5–6 m long, spaced 1–1.5 m Install support concurrently
29 + 863/29 + 929 broken 0.5–1.5 m in crown and walls with wire mesh. Bolt invert. with excavation. Shotcrete as
30 + 058/30 + 109 phyllite advance in 150–200 mm in crown, 150 mm in sides, and soon as possible after blasting.
top heading. 50 mm on face. Medium to heavy ribs spaced
0.75 m with steel lagging and forepoling if
required. Close invert.

are 11.8 and 8.4 m, respectively. The tunnel lies at a
relatively shallow depth, the depth of the tunnel in
generated models changes from 60 to 150 m depending
on the depth of the modeled rock unit. The outer model
boundary was set to be at a distance of 10 times of the
radius of tunnel. 3555 three-noded-triangular elements
were used in the mesh. Finer zoning was used around the
excavation.
The Hoek–Brown failure criterion was used to estimate
the yielded elements and the plastic zone of rock masses in
the vicinity of tunnel. Rock mass behavior was represented
as an elastic perfectly plastic material in which failure-
involving slip along intersecting discontinuities as is
assumed to occur with zero plastic volume change
(Duncan-Fama, 1993) in finite element analysis. This
approach is considered as valid for the following reasons:
In this study the rock masses are jointed such that spacing
are small compared to the size of opening, there are
sufficient numbers of joint sets to assure isotropic strength
properties for the rock masses and there is not any particular
joint set dominating the behavior of the rock masses.
The rock mass properties assumed in finite element
analysis are obtained from the estimated values given in
Section 5.
Vertical stress is a function of overburden. It is more
difficult to estimate horizontal stress, σh. It is known that
they are variable at shallow depth, tending to a hydrostatic
state in deep environment (Hoek and Brown, 1978). In

Fig. 5. Proposed excavation sequence and support elements for Phyllite, Breccia and Moderately weathered granodiorite.
 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26
Fig. 6. Proposed excavation sequence and support elements for heavily broken Phyllite.
this research the ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses (k)
is assumed to be 1 as suggested by Hoek (2003).
Both unsupported and supported cases were analysed
for each rock unit. First of all unsupported cases were
modelled. Then support application to the excavation
boundary was modelled for each case. The support
elements used in all models are composed of rock bolts
and shotcrete as proposed by the empirical methods. The
properties of support elements, such as length, pattern of
bolts and thickness of shotcrete are same as those
proposed in Table 8. Phase2 model applies support
immediately after the excavation. However in real cases
some deformation is allowed to occur and installation
time of support system takes time, in this time rock mass
around tunnel has already shown a certain reduction of
stress state. To simulate delayed support installation a load
splitting option of the software was used for supported
cases. That is, some deformation is allowed to take place
between excavation and support installation stages.
The enlarged view of excavation sequence and the
installation of the support systems for the tunnel driven in
heavily broken phyllite are given in Fig. 7. The model for
examining the supported case with Phase2 included
different; excavation of top heading was achieved and
support elements composed of rock bolts and shotcrete
were installed, bench excavation was performed, necessary
support elements were placed and entire excavation of the
tunnel was completed by invert excavation Finally only
shotcrete was used to support the invert of tunnel.
For unsupported cases, the thickness of the plastic
zones, the yielded elements and the maximum total
23
displacements of the tunnels excavated in different rock
types are shown in Fig. 8.
As it can be seen from Fig. 8, for the tunnels driven in
phyllite, breccia and moderately weathered granite
displacements are small. However, the extent of plastic
zone and yielded elements suggest that there would be a
stability problem for the tunnel. When Fig. 8 is examined,
it is more important to consider the extent of plastic zone
and yielded elements rather than the magnitude of the
displacements.
The most problematic formation along the tunnel line
is the heavily broken phyllite. Maximum total displace-
ment, lots of yielded elements are observed and larger
plastic zone developed around the tunnel as shown in Fig.
8. Therefore, the heaviest support elements are necessary
for this formation as presented in Table 8.
After support installation, not only the number of
yielded elements but also the extent of plastic zone
decreased as shown in Fig. 8. For phyllite, moderately
weathered granodiorite and tectonic breccia the extent of
failure zone decreased significantly, yielded elements are
almost disappeared and the total displacement is nearly
reduced by two-folds with respect to the induced
displacement without support. As for the most problematic
heavily broken phyllite formation, the total displacement is
333 mm before support installation is reduced to 18 mm by
installing the proposed support system. However, in
weaker rock formations such as heavily broken phyllite,
some tunneling problems in terms of surprises are
expected. These rock masses surrounding the tunnel may
be improved by grout injection, and to create protective
24 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26

Fig. 7. Numerical modelling stages for Model II.

umbrella ahead of face grouted pipe forepoles can be 8. Conclusions

placed. Also the thickness of the plastic zone around tun-
nel reduced significantly. This indicates that the pro- Based on the information collected from the field and
posed support systems were adequate to obtain tunnel boreholes, the rock mass and material properties were
stability. estimated.
 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26 25

Fig. 8. Displacements and yielded elements for unsupported and supported tunnelling cases.

Rock mass classification systems indicate that some
stability problems exists for the rock mass along tunnel
route and support measures are necessary. By consid-
ering the support recommendations of the empirical
methods, support systems and excavation methods were
proposed for the rock masses. For the unsupported
tunneling cases, stability problems are also verified by
the numerical method.
Numerical modelling was utilized to evaluate the
performance of recommended support system. The ne-
cessary rock properties for numerical modelling were
obtained from empirical equations using rock mass
classification systems. When the recommended support
systems were applied, not only the number of yielded
elements but also maximum total displacements were
reduced significantly in numerical analysis.
The numerical analyses were all performed prior to
the start of the tunnel construction and, as such, based on
an assessment of rock properties from the engineering
geological studies and empirical relationships. Here it
26 M. Genis et al. / Engineering Geology 92 (2007) 14–26
should be noted that the estimation of rock properties
is not an exact science and both rock properties and
numerical models should be refined based on the ob-
servations and the results of instrumentation installed
during the construction of tunnel. Back analysis of
the tunnel behavior will allow not only the refinement of
the numerical model but also the refinement of the
design for various support elements.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their deep gratitude to
the Turkish General Directorate of Highways managers
and site engineers for their help and permission to write
this paper. In addition, grateful acknowledgements are
given to the Scientific Research Unit of Zonguldak
Karaelmas University, for providing financial support
(Project No: 2004-45-03-02).
References
Aydan, Ö., Dalgic, S., 1998. Prediction of deformation behaviour of 3
lanes Bolu tunnels through squeezing rocks of North Anotolian
Fault Zone (NAFZ). Reg. Symp. on Sedimentary Rock Engineer-
ing, Taipei, pp. 228–233.
Barton, N., 2000. TBM Tunnelling in Jointed and Faulted Rock.
Balkema, Rotterdam. 169 pp.
Barton, N., 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
39 (1), 185–216.
Barton, N.R., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 4, 189–239.
Basarir, 2006. Engineering geological studies and tunnel support
design at Sulakyurt dam site, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 86 (4), 225–237.
Basarir, H., Ozsan, A., Karakus, M., 2005. Analysis of support
requirements for a shallow diversion tunnel at Guledar dam site,
Turkey. Eng. Geol. 81 (2), 131–145.
Bhasin, R., Grimstad, E., 1996. The use of stress–strength relation-
ships in the assessment of tunnel stability. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 11 (1), 93–98.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1978. Determining rock mass deformability: experi-
ence from case histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr. 15, 237–247.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications.
Wiley, New York.
Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D., Cording, E.J., 1967. Design
of surface and near-surface construction in rock. In: Fairhurst, C.
(Ed.), Proceedings of the US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Failure
and Breakage of Rock. Society of Mining Engineers of AIME,
New York, pp. 237–302.
Duncan-Fama, M.E., 1993. Numerical Modelling of Yield Zones in
Weak Rocks. Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 2. Pergamon,
Oxford, pp. 49–75.
Erendil, M., Aksay, S., Kuşçu, I., Oral, A., Tunay, G., Temren, A.,
1991. Bolu masifi ve cevresinin jeolojisi, MTA Report No: 9425.
Goel, R.K., 1994. Correlations for predicting support pressures and
closures in tunnels. PhD Thesis, Nagpur University, Nagpur, India,
308 p.
Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J.L., Paithankar, A.G., 1995. Indian experiences
with Q and RMR systems. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 10 (1),
97–109.
Grimstad, E., Barton, N., 1993. Updating the Q-system for NMT.
Proc. Int. Symp. on Sprayed Concrete, Fagernes, Norway.
Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo. 20 pp.
Hoek, E., 2003. Numerical modelling for shallow tunnels in weak
rocks. http://www.rocscience.com. 2003.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1978. Trends in relationship between measured
in-situ stresses and depth. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr. 15, 211–215.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. Inst.
Min. Metall., London. 527 pp.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1998. Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (8), 1165–1186.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995. Support of Underground
Excavations in Hard Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam. 215 pp.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Corkum, B., 2002. Hoek–Brown
Failure Criterion — 2002 Edition. In: Hammah, R., Bawden,
W., Curran, J., Telesnicki, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of NARMS-
TAC 2002, Mining Innovation and Technology. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 267–273.
ISRM, 1981. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. In:
Brown, E.T. (Ed.), ISRM Suggested Methods. Pergamon Press,
NewYork, p. 211.
Kalamaris, G.S., Bieniawski, Z.T., 1995. A rock mass strength concept
for coal incorporating the effect of time. Proc. of 8th Int. Cong.
Rock Mechanics. ISRM, 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 295–302.
Kontogianni, V.A., Stiros, S.C., 2002. Predictions and observations of
convergence in shallow tunnels: case histories in Greece. Eng.
Geol. 63, 333–345.
Palmström, A., 2000. Recent developments in rock support estimates
by the RMi. J. Rock Mech. Tunn. Technol. 6 (1), 1–19.
Sari, D., Pasamehmetoglu, A.G., 2004. Proposed support design,
Kaletepe tunnel, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 72, 201–216.
Ramamurthy, T., 1986. Stability of rock mass, 8th Annual Lecture.
Indian Geotech. J. 1–74.
Read, S.A.L., Richards, L.R., Perrin, N.D., 1999. Applicability of the
Hoek–Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke rocks.
Proceeding 9th International Society for Rock Mechanics
Congress, Paris, vol. 2, pp. 655–660.
Rocscience, 1998. Phase2 User's Guide. Rocscience Inc, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Rocscience, 2002. Dips User's Guide. Rocscience Inc, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Serafim, J.L., Pereira, J.P., 1983. Considerations of the geomechanics
classification of Bieniawski. Proceedings International Sympo-
sium Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, vol. 1.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1133–1142.
Sheorey, P.R., 1997. Empirical Rock Failure Criteria. Balkema,
Rotterdam. 176 pp.
Trueman, R., 1998. An evaluation of strata support techniques in dual
life gate roads. PhD Thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff.
Turkish General Directorate of Highways, 1997. List of Speci-
fications of the underground Tunnel Excavations with NATM
Practice. Turkish Ministry of Public Works, Ankara. (in Turkish)
105 pp.
Yudhbir, Lemanza, W., Prinzl, F., 1983. An empirical failure criterion
for rock masses. Proc. of the 5th International Congress Society of
Rock Mechanics Melbourne, vol. 1, pp. B1–B8.