188 N.

Barton / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 185–216

Fig. 1. The 1993 updated Q-support chart for selecting permanent B+S(fr) reinforcement and support for tunnels and caverns in rock [5]. The black,
highlighted areas show where estimated Q-values and stability are superior in TBM tunnels compared to drill-and-blast tunnels. This means ‘no
support’ penetrates further.

of NGI, from tunnels that were not designed by the
Q-system [5].
Despite the significant number of new case
records, it was hardly found necessary to make any
changes to the 20-year old Q-parameter ratings. Just
three of the strength/stress SRF ratings were
increased to bring massive (high RQD=Jn ) rock
masses under extremely high stress sufficiently far
‘to the left’ in the support chart to receive appro-
priate quantities of systematic bolting (B), and S(fr).
Previously, such cases were supported in an
entirely different way, and were treated in a footnote
in [3], prior to the development of S(fr) at the end of
the 1970s.
2. Numerical modelling needs
During the period leading up to the development of
the updated support methods detailed in Fig. 1, the
writer was involved in an increasing number of projects
that required numerical verification of the empirical
tunnel and cavern designs. Motorway tunnels in Nor-
way, Hong Kong and Japan, caverns in Israel and
England, and the 62 m span Gj
vik cavern in Norway
[6], figured prominently in an identification of the
obvious need for improved correlations between rock
mass classification, general site investigation data, and
the final input data for distinct element (i.e. jointed)
two-dimensional (UDEC-BB) and three-dimensional
(3DEC) models developed principally by Cundall.
Although the dominant joint sets were generally
modelled using the JRC, JCS and fr index parameters
and the Barton–Bandis constitutive model, or using
derived Mohr–Coulomb parameters for 3DEC, there
was a need for a measure of rock mass deformation
modulus that accounted for the normally rather small
scale (a few m3) of jointed rock that occurred between
the more dominant but widely spaced joints. The former
would be responsible for a reduced RQD if drilled
through, and would normally be the subject of plate
load tests, beneath which there may often be few of the
dominant joints that have to be represented in say, a
50  100 m, 2-D numerical simulation.