Feng, Xia-Ting - Hudson, John A - Rock Engineering Design (2011, Chapman and Hall - CRC)

Feng
Hudson
Rock Engineering Design

With regard to construction on and in rock masses, the subject
of Rock Engineering Design, in combination with its supporting
subject of rock mechanics, has been experiencing a significant
shift in approach thanks to advances in rock site investiga-
tion techniques, computing, access to information and site
monitoring. The current emphasis on safety, accountability and
sustainability thus requires stricter considerations and greater
reliability than ever before.
With a modern approach and anticipating future developments,

this volume introduces a fresh methodology suitable for the
design of all types of rock engineering projects, both at the
surface and underground. Guidance is provided on the nature
of modelling to support design, on flowcharts, on the informa-
Rock
tion required and on the procedure for the technical auditing of
modelling and design. Moreover, the use of computer programs,
model calibration through site observation, interpretation of
computer results and virtual underground laboratories are de-
scribed and explained. Elaborate case studies on the design and
construction of a rock slope and of a large underground hydro- Xia-Ting Feng & John A. Hudson
Engineering
electric plant, as well as technical auditing protocol sheets with
examples, further facilitate bringing theory into practice.
Written by two eminent authors, this modern and illustrated

guide on Rock Engineering Design will benefit engineers, con-
Design
tractors, clients, researchers, lecturers and advanced students
who are working on rock engineering projects in civil, mining,
geological and construction engineering.
Templates of the protocol sheets can be downloaded from

www.crcpress.com.
an informa business
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb i 5/24/2011 6:18:20 PM

Frontispiece
Site investigation borehole core from a Chinese project, illustrating intense core discing
as a result of high in situ stresses.
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb ii 5/24/2011 6:18:22 PM

Xia-Ting Feng
Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
John A. Hudson
Department of Earth Science and Engineering
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
London, UK
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb iii 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2011 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20120620
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-203-09337-5 (eBook - PDF)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the valid-
ity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright
holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this
form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may
rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or uti-
lized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopy-
ing, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the
publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For
organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
Dedication
This book is dedicated to
Professor Lin Yunmei of North-Eastern University, Shenyang, China, who, as Professor

Feng’s PhD advisor, stimulated his interest in intelligent rock mechanics methods,
and to
Professor Charles Fairhurst of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA, who,

as Professor Hudson’s PhD advisor, kindled his interest in rock mechanics and rock
engineering.
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb v 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb vi 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM
Contents
Preface xv
Acknowledgements xvii
About the authors xix
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The purpose of this book 1
1.2 The structure of the book 2
1.3 The ‘long learning curve’ 2
1.4 Rock engineering design, related subjects and the future 3
1.5 Chinese rock mechanics and Chinese rock engineering 6
1.6 Examples of rock engineering projects in China 7
1.7 Problems remaining to be solved 10
1.8 Chapter summaries 13
2 The ways ahead for rock engineering design methodologies 15

2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Modelling and engineering design approaches 16
2.3 The integrated design approach 19
2.4 Modelling approaches which utilise computer networks 22
2.4.1 Internet/Intranet/Local Area Network (LAN)-based
parallel computing 22
2.4.2 Internet-neural network analogy 22
2.4.3 Why do we need collaborative research on the internet? 23
2.5 The idea of a Virtual Rock Mechanics Facility (VRMF) 25
2.6 Development of the method D, level 2, methods: ‘intelligent’
modelling 26
2.7 The integrated methodology for rock slope design 27
2.7.1 Determination of slope angle using neural network
models 29
2.7.2 Recognition of failure modes using an expert system 34
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb vii 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

viii Contents
2.7.3 Estimation of the stability of slopes and their safety

factors using integrated intelligent methods 34
2.7.4 Comprehensive integrated intelligent system for slope
design 39
2.8 Case example using the rock slope integrated design
methodology 39
2.9 Chapter summary 44
3 Flowcharts for rock engineering modelling and design 47

3.1 Introduction and summary of earlier work 47
3.2 The rock engineering modelling and design process 58
3.2.1 Updated rock engineering flowchart 58
3.2.2 Steps in the rock engineering design process 59
3.2.3 Project purpose, constraints and key features of the site,
rock mass and project 60
3.2.4 Establishing the design approach strategy via the
modelling options 61
3.2.5 Utilising the principles of modelling and code
implementation 62
3.2.6 Establishing and verifying/validating the design 64
3.3 Use of the procedure in three illustrative case examples 64
3.3.1 Illustrative Example 1: The design of a conventional
tunnel—Design of the Qiaotou tunnel, Yuanmo
Expressway, China 64
3.3.2 Illustrative Example 2: The design of the powerhouse
cavern for the Shuibuya project, Hubei Province, China 66
3.3.3 Illustrative Example 3: The design of an underground
radioactive waste repository in crystalline rock 79
4 Specifying the information required for rock mechanics modelling

and rock engineering design 85
4.1 Introduction 85
4.2 The different types of information required by the different
modelling methods 86
4.2.1 Forward analysis and the eight basic modelling methods 86
4.2.2 Back analysis and the feedback information 90
4.3 Obtaining the required information and problems associated
with site investigation and in situ monitoring 91
4.3.1 The site investigation 91
4.3.2 An information theory approach 91
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb viii 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

Contents ix
4.3.3 Potential lack of communication between designer, site

investigation personnel, construction personnel
and monitoring—and the remedy 92
4.3.4 Recommended procedure for establishing the required
information 93
4.4 Illustrative case examples 94
4.4.1 Basic rock slope: potential wedge failure, Rubha Mor,
Loch Lomond, Scotland, UK 94
4.4.2 High rock slope at the Longtan Hydropower project,
China 97
5 Technical auditing of rock mechanics modelling and rock

engineering design 109
5.1 Introduction 109
5.1.1 Purpose and principles of technical auditing 109
5.1.2 Information supporting the technical audit 109
5.1.3 ‘Soft’, ‘semi-hard’ and ‘hard’ technical audits and
the audit evaluation 110
5.2 Demonstration Example 1: The procedure for technically
auditing a site investigation measurement—in situ rock stress
(soft audit) 111
5.2.1 Background 111
5.2.2 Auditing rock stress measurements 112
5.2.3 Discussion and conclusions relating to Demonstration
Example 1 115
5.3 Demonstration Example 2: Technical audit of modelling for
the design of hydropower caverns at the Laxiwa Yellow River
site in China (Semi-Hard Audit) 116
5.3.1 The Laxiwa hydropower project on the Yellow River 116
5.3.2 Integrated intelligent recognition of model parameters
for brittle rock masses in high stress fields 121
5.3.3 Auditing the modelling for the Laxiwa project design 164
5.3.4 Conclusions from the Laxiwa case example 166
6 Case example of the design and construction of a rock slope 179

6.2 Types and features of large rock slopes at hydropower stations 179
6.3 Flowchart for the design of large rock slopes for hydropower
stations 179
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb ix 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

x Contents
6.4 The features and constraints of the plunge pool slope 183
6.4.1 The features and constraints of the slope 183
6.4.2 The features and constraints of the rock mass 192
6.5 Initial design of the plunge pool slope 195
6.5.1 Slope angle, height and width of bench, for the plunge
pool slope 195
6.5.2 Support design of the plunge pool slope 195
6.5.3 Water drainage system design for the plunge pool slope 196
6.5.4 The monitoring system design for the plunge pool slope 198
6.5.5 Safety control standard for the plunge pool slope 200
6.5.6 Stability analysis and failure mode recognition for the
plunge pool slope 204
6.6 Feedback analysis and final design of the plunge pool slope 207
6.6.1 Back analysis of the deformation modulus of the plunge
pool slope 207
6.6.2 Establishment of dynamic warning system for the
plunge pool slope 213
6.6.3 Dynamic design of the excavation procedure and
support parameters for the plunge pool slope 226
6.7 Modelling methods and codes used for the design and stability
analysis of the plunge pool slope 232
7 Case example of the design and construction of a large

underground hydroelectric powerhouse in a deep valley region 243
7.2 The underground powerhouse 243
7.3 The features and constraints of the Jinping II underground
powerhouse 244
7.3.1 The features and constraints of the site 244
7.3.2 The features and constraints of the rock masses 252
7.3.3 The failure modes for large underground powerhouses
(cavern groups) 260
7.4 The approach used in the design and stability analysis for the
Jinping II underground powerhouse 270
7.5 Modelling methods and computer codes used in the design and
stability analysis for the Jinping II underground powerhouse 271
7.6 Establishment of the initial design 272
7.6.1 Selection of the orientation of the axis of the
underground powerhouse 272
7.6.2 Optimisation of the excavation procedure and bench
height for the underground powerhouse and transformer
chamber 275
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb x 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

Contents xi
7.6.3 Determination of support parameters from experience 277

7.6.4 Analysis of the deformation and failure characteristics
of the surrounding rock 278
7.6.5 Optimisation of the surrounding rock support design
at key points 284
7.6.6 Design of the monitoring sections and components for
the underground powerhouse and transformer chamber 286
7.6.7 Safety evaluation of the rocks surrounding the large
cavern group 289
7.6.8 Estimation of the entire safe factor for the underground
powerhouse using the over-loading method 292
7.7 Stability appraisal of the underground powerhouse after
excavation of Layer II 294
7.7.1 Prediction of the behaviour of the surrounding rock
during excavation of Layer III of the powerhouse and
Layer II of the transformer chamber 297
7.7.2 Verification of the basic information and mechanical
behaviour after excavation of Stage 3 299
7.7.3 Dynamic design of the underground powerhouse for the
excavation in Stage 4 332
7.7.4 Dynamic design for the control measures of the local
unstable surrounding rock induced by excavation of
the multi-layers 347
7.7.5 Summary of dynamic feedback analysis and design
optimisation for the underground powerhouse
considering the entire excavation procedure 355
7.8 Conclusions 364
8 Protocol Sheets 367

8.1 Protocol Sheet 1: Objective and overall approach to the project 368
8.2 Protocol Sheets 2: Geological setting and site investigation 369
8.2.1 Protocol Sheet 2.1: Information on the Geological
Setting 370
8.2.2 Protocol Sheet 2.2: In Situ Stress 371
8.2.3 Protocol Sheet 2.3: Intact Rock 373
8.2.4 Protocol Sheet 2.4: Fractures and Faults 374
8.2.5 Protocol Sheet 2.5: Rock Mass Properties 376
8.2.6 Protocol Sheet 2.6: Hydrogeological Properties 377
8.2.7 Protocol Sheet 2.7: Other Special Parameters 378
8.3 Protocol Sheets 3: Modelling 379
8.3.1 Protocol Sheet 3.1: Pre-existing Standard Methods 381
8.3.2 Protocol Sheet 3.2: Precedent Type Analysis (PTA) 382
8.3.3 Protocol Sheet 3.3: Analytical Methods 383
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xi 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

xii Contents
8.3.4 Protocol Sheet 3.4: Rock Mass Classification 384

8.3.5 Protocol Sheet 3.5: Basic Numerical Models 386
8.3.6 Protocol Sheet 3.6: Database and Systems Approaches 387
8.3.7 Protocol Sheet 3.7: Extended Numerical Models 388
8.3.8 Protocol Sheet 3.8: Advanced Systems Approaches 390
8.3.9 Protocol Sheet 3.9: Alternative Type(s) of Modelling 391
8.3.10 Protocol Sheet 3.10: Use of Different Modelling
Methods in Combination or Sequence 392
8.4 Protocol Sheets 4: Design 393
8.4.1 Protocol Sheet 4.1: Initial Design 394
8.4.2 Protocol Sheet 4.2: Final Design 395
8.5 Protocol Sheet 5: Auditing evaluation 396
9 Illustrative example of the Protocol Sheets use 399

9.1 Example completion of Protocol Sheet 1 399
9.2 Example completion of Protocol Sheets 2 401
9.2.1 Example completion of Protocol Sheet 2.1 403
9.5 Example completion of Protocol Sheet 5 428
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xii 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

Contents xiii
10 Concluding remarks 431
Appendix A List of all the ISRM suggested methods

(in chronological order) 433
Appendix B The Chinese ‘Basic Quality’ (BQ) system

for rock mass classification 437
B1 Introduction 437
B2 Terminology and symbols 437
B2.1 Terminology 437
B2.2 Symbols 438
B3 Classification parameters for the rock mass basic quality 438
B3.1 Classification parameters and the method of their
determination 438
B3.2 Qualitative classification of rock mass solidity 438
B3.3 Qualitative classification of rock mass integrity 441
B3.4 Determination and classification of quantitative indices 441
B4 Classification of rock mass basic quality 442
B4.1 Determination of the rock mass basic quality class 442
B4.2 Qualitative characteristics of the basic quality and the
basic quality index 442
B5 Engineering classification for a rock mass 443
B5.1 General rules 443
B5.2 Engineering rock mass classification 444
B6 Establishing the KV and JV indices 445
B6.1 The KV index 445
B6.2 The JV index 445
B7 Preliminary assessment of the rock stress field 446
B8 Physical and mechanical parameters of the rock mass
and discontinuities 447
B8.1 Rock mass parameters 447
B8.2 Discontinuity parameters 447
B9 Corrected value of the rock mass basic quality index 448
B10 Stand-up time for an underground rock mass 450
B11 Acknowledgements 450
References and bibliography 451

Subject index 459
Colour plates 461
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xiii 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xiv 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM
Preface
The subject of rock engineering design, supported by the discipline of rock mechan-
ics, relates to construction on and in rock masses of projects such as slopes, dams,
hydroelectric schemes, mines and repositories for radioactive waste disposal. This
subject is now experiencing and will continue to experience major developments in
the future because of the new capabilities provided by the use of computer programs
that can model the rock behaviour in new and more insightful ways. The purpose of
this book, therefore, is to explain modern rock engineering design and to anticipate
its future development, including, inter alia, technical auditing of the use of computer
programs, calibration of the modelling through site observations, computer percep-
tion of the results, and virtual underground laboratories.
The development of the book occurred for two reasons: the authors are both
interested in the future of rock engineering design and the related application of com-
puters, and have jointly written several papers on the subject; and together they led
an International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Commission on the subject from
2007 to 2011. Thus, the book prepares the way for rock engineering design in a world
where computing capability will continue to increase rapidly with all the attendant
advantages, there will be more emphasis on the use of the Earth’s resources and their
sustainability, and greater accountability of engineers’ decisions. Chapters 1–5 pro-
vide the rock engineering background and lay the foundations for the future design
methodologies, while Chapters 6–9 contain illustrative examples of the design and
construction of a large rock slope and an underground cavern complex, together with
the use of protocol auditing sheets. It is hoped that the book will benefit students,
researchers and engineering professionals in geology, mining and civil engineering.
We have tried to present the information in as clear a form as possible; even so, if
there is anything in the book that you do not understand, it is our fault.
Xia-Ting Feng
President of the ISRM 2011–2015
Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
John A. Hudson
President of the ISRM 2007–2011
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK
February 2011
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xv 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xvi 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM
Acknowledgements
This book was developed through the Commission on Rock Engineering Design
Methodology of the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) managed by
the authors in association with the Chinese Society for Rock Mechanics and Engineer-
ing (CSRME). The research and book preparation work were undertaken during the
second author’s ISRM Presidential tenure period in 2007–2011 via an Overseeing
Committee, Task Force Committee and the ISRM Commission itself which consisted
of eleven members.
The authors are especially grateful to Professor Qian Qihu, President of the
CSRME and Academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, for his continuing
support and supervisory talents, both during the initiation of the project and through-
out the work.
The members of the Overseeing Committee, chaired by Professors Qian and
Hudson, were Professors Chen Zuyu, Liu Baosheng, Li Shihui, Feng Xia-Ting, Cai
Meifeng, He Manchao, Tang Chun’an, Yang Qigui, Zhang Chunsheng, Wu Xiaomin,
Song Shengwu, Tang Huimin, Wu Aiqing, Kang Hongpu, Wu Wanping, Mei Zhirong,
Li Zhongkui, Wu Faquan, Zhu Hehua and Li Shucai.
The members of the Task Force Committee, chaired by Professors Feng and
Hudson, were Professors Huang Runqiu, Li Haibo, Zhou Huoming, Chen Zuyu,
Sheng Qian, Li Xiaochun, Zhang Qizhong, Li Ning, Chen Xiangrong, Liu Quansheng,
Zhang Nong, Hou Jing, Zhang Jiaxiang and Zhou Hui.
The members of the ISRM Commission, also chaired by Professors Feng and
Hudson, were Professor Cai Meifeng, Dr. Claus Erichsen, Mr. Erik Johansson, Pro-
fessor Li Zhongkui, Professor Wulf Schubert, Professor Alexandros Sofianos, Profes-
sor Ove Stephansson, Professor Tang Chun’an, Professor L.G. Tham, Professor Resat
Ulusay and Dr. Thierry You. The Commission members were asked to review both
the first and second drafts of the book.
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xvii 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

xviii Acknowledgements
We also wish to thank the following contributors to the material contained in the
book.
• Dr. Jiang Quan and Dr. Xiang Tianbin wrote part of the Chinese draft describ-
ing the design method for the underground powerhouse at the Jinping II Power
Station. Professors Zhang Chunsheng, Wu Shiyong, Zhou Hui, Hou Jing, Chen
Xiangrong, Chen Jianlin, Zeng Xionghui and Wang Jimin also supplied contri-
butions on the application of the methodology to the project. The HydroChina
Huadong Engineering Cooperation and Ertan Hydropower Development Com-
pany Ltd supplied field and laboratory data relating to the Jinping II hydropower
station.
• Dr. Zhang Zhenghua wrote the first draft in Chinese of Chapter 6. Dr. Zhang
Zhenghua, Professor Zhou Hui, Professor Zhang Zongliang and Mr. Dong
Shaorao supplied contributions on the application of the methodology to stabil-
ity analysis and design optimisation of the Nuozhadu hydropower slopes. The
HydroChina Kunming Engineering Cooperation and Huaneng Lancang River
Hydropower Co., Ltd provided invaluable support for the use of the field and
laboratory data relating to the Nuozhadu Hydropower station slope.
• Dr. Jiang Anna, with the assistance of Professors Feng Xia-Ting, Liu Jian, Yang
Qigui, Hu Ying and Zhang Feng carried out numerical analysis of stability and design
optimisation for the Shuibuya underground powerhouse. The Shuibuya Construction
Company Ltd, the Changjiang Institute of Survey Planning Design and Research and
the Yangtze Water Conservancy Committee provided support for the use of the field
and laboratory data relating to the Shuibuya underground powerhouse.
• Dr. Hu Bin, with the help of Professors Feng Xia-Ting, Zhou Hui, Sheng Qian,
Li Shaojun, Pan Luosheng and Zhang Jiajian, carried out stability analyses of the
Longtan slopes. The Longtan Development Company Ltd and the Central-South
Institute for Design assisted with the use of the field and laboratory data for the
Longtan hydropower slopes.
• Dr. Jiang Quan and Dr. Su Guoshao, under the supervision of Professor Feng
Xia-Ting, carried out numerical analyses of the stability and design optimisation
of the Laxiwa underground powerhouse. Mr. Yao Shuanxi, Mr. Ren Zongshe,
Mr. Yang Cunlong, Mr. Shi Guangbin, Mr. Song Yongjie and Professor Liu Jian
provided assistance with the calculations for the Laxiwa hydraulic project.
• The Elsevier publishing company is thanked for their kind permission to use
material written by the authors and published in the International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.
• Professor John Harrison, formerly of Imperial College, London, UK, and now at the
University of Toronto, Canada, is thanked for his contribution to the modelling and
code implementation principles plus the kinematic analysis of the Scottish slope.
• Professors Li Xiaochun, Liu Quansheng, Wu Aiqing, Zhou Huoming, Zhang
Nong and He Manchao provided helpful suggestions.
• Financial support was received from the Chinese National Basic Research Pro-
gramme (973) under Grant No. 2010CB732006, the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 50325414, 50539090, 50920105908,
10872209, and the CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Programme for Crea-
tive Research Teams is gratefully acknowledged.
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xviii 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

About the authors
The authors at the Three Gorges Dam Project site on the Yangtze River, China
PROFESSOR XIA-TING FENG
Xia-Ting Feng graduated in 1986 from the Northeast University of Technology

and obtained his PhD in 1992 at the Northeastern University, China. He was then
appointed and acted as Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor at the same uni-
versity. In 1998, he was admitted by the Hundred Talents Program to the Chinese
Academy of Sciences (CAS). Subsequently, he permanently joined CAS’s Institute of
Rock and Soil Mechanics at Wuhan, China. In 2003, he obtained the support of
the China National Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists; in 2010, he became a
Chair Professor of the Cheung Kong Scholars’ Programme, Ministry of Education,
China; and, in 2009, he was elected as President of the International Society for Rock
Mechanics for the period 2011–2015. He has made original contributions to the sub-
ject of ‘intelligent rock mechanics’ and his methods have been applied to large rock
engineering projects in China and other countries.
PROFESSOR JOHN A. HUDSON

John A. Hudson graduated in 1965 from the Heriot-Watt University, UK, and
obtained his PhD at the University of Minnesota, USA. He has spent his professional
career in engineering rock mechanics—as it applies to civil, mining and environmen-
tal engineering—in consulting, research, teaching and publishing and was awarded
the DSc. degree for his contributions to the subject. In addition to authoring many
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xix 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

xx About the authors
scientific papers and books, he edited the 1993 five-volume “Comprehensive Rock
Engineering” compendium, and the International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences from 1983–2006. From 1983 to the present, he has been affiliated
with Imperial College in the UK as Reader, Professor and now Emeritus Professor.
In 1998, he was elected as a Fellow of the UK Royal Academy of Engineering and in
2007 he became President of the International Society for Rock Mechanics for the
period 2007–2011. He is also an Honorary Professor at the University of Hong Kong
and an Adjunct Professor in the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xx 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK
The term ‘Rock Engineering Design’ encompasses a wide variety of design aspects
relating to the planning and the construction of civil and mining projects on and in
rock masses—from dam foundations to underground tunnels and caverns. The term
also covers a variety of scales from the length and spacing of rockbolts used to stabi-
lise a rock mass to the overall design of an underground hydroelectric scheme. Some
projects, such as a large mine or an underground radioactive waste repository can
have a footprint of several square kilometres.
The subjects of rock mechanics and rock engineering became recognised as dis-
ciplines in their own right in the 1960s with the establishment of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) in 1962. Over the 50 years since the ISRM was
formed, rock mechanics and rock engineering have become more refined and a variety
of books has been published on the state of the art, a selection of the seminal ones
being mentioned in the next Section. However, we are now anticipating a paradigm
shift1 in rock engineering design because, in the future, there will be emphasis on
more sophisticated site investigation, the use and intelligent interpretation of numeri-
cal modelling, technical auditing of the use of computer programs and their inputs,
calibration of the modelling through site observations, computer perception of the
results, and virtual underground laboratories. Given these present and future tools,
the primary purpose of this book is to report on the developments and to prepare the
way for modern rock engineering design in a world where computing capability will
continue to increase rapidly with all the associated advantages, there will be more
emphasis on the use of the Earth’s resources and sustainability, and more account-
ability of engineers’ decisions.
1 The term ‘paradigm shift’ indicates a change in the basic assumptions and procedures within a certain
subject area.
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 1 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

2 Rock engineering design
1.2 THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
In line with the purpose of the book as described above, the contents have been struc-
tured as follows:
Chapters 1–5: The background and foundations for the future methodologies
• C1: Describes the background to the rock engineering design subject

• C2: Explains the need for a modern methodology
• C3: Presents updated design guidance flowcharts
• C4: Considers the information required for design
• C5: Outlines the procedure for technical auditing of the design
Chapters 6–10: Illustrations of the modern approach to rock engineering design
• C6: Applies the methodology to the design of a large rock slope

• C7: Applies the methodology to an underground cavern complex
• C8: Presents Protocol Sheets for using the new methodology
• C9: Illustrates use of the Protocol Sheets for the design of a cavern complex
• C10: Finishes with concluding remarks
Additional material
• Appendices listing the Suggested Methods (SMs) of the International Society for
Rock Mechanics (ISRM) and a description of the Chinese Basic Quality (BQ)
system for rock mass classification.
• References and bibliography
• Subject index
• 8 pages of Figures reproduced in colour
Accordingly, Chapters 1–5 provide the necessary background to the rock engi-
neering design subject and the changes that we anticipate will occur; Chapters 6–9
illustrate how the updated procedures will be implemented, together with the Pro-
tocol Sheets used for technical auditing; and the Additional material includes colour
reproduction of several of the Figures in the book, plus reference material.
1.3 THE ‘LONG LEARNING CURVE’
Changes in the way that engineering is conducted generally occur slowly. In an Edi-
torial entitled “The Long Learning Curve” for Ingenia, the magazine of the Royal
Academy of Engineering in the UK, Steedman (2010) wrote that,
“The risk of an engineering disaster is increased by the separation of research

from practice over what can be a long learning curve. Research and development
activity needs to follow through the introduction of new engineering practices
and technologies potentially for decades after the first deployment to gather

Introduction 3
data, learn how the new solution really works, optimise and refine the support-
ing tools and concepts. Only by integrating research skills with delivery experi-
ence throughout the lifecycle can engineering which is pushing the boundaries of
knowledge manage the risks and maximise the benefits of innovation.”
This quotation directly applies to rock engineering, to our motivation for writing
this book, and to the content of the book. Although rock masses remain essentially
the same over time, their characterisation and the analysis by numerical modelling
of their behaviour when subjected to engineering perturbations is currently develop-
ing by leaps and bounds, partly as a result of the continual increase in computing
capability and partly because of the new software that is being written. However, the
implementation of these new types of analysis and the implications for rock engineer-
ing design and construction are not readily taken up by industry, especially since the
construction process itself for some large engineering projects can take many years.
So, although the long learning curve is in fact a continuously on-going development,
we hope that our book will assist in accelerating the process of implementing the
modern approaches.
1.4 ROCK ENGINEERING DESIGN, RELATED SUBJECTS

AND THE FUTURE
The original two seminal books on rock engineering, written some years ago now, are
“Rock Slope Engineering” by Hoek and Bray (1974) and “Underground Excavations”
by Hoek and Brown (1980), although the books have been updated in later editions/
revisions. Both books rely heavily on the supporting subject of rock mechanics, and
the seminal book on this subject is “Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics”, originally
written by Jaeger and Cook (1969) but now in its fourth edition (Jaeger, Cook and
Zimmerman, 2007). The wide scope of rock mechanics is presented in the companion
books “Engineering Rock Mechanics: An Introduction to the Principles” by Hudson
and Harrison (1997) and “Engineering Rock Mechanics: Part 2—Illustrative Worked
Examples” by Harrison and Hudson (2000). The rock mechanics background infor-
mation supporting rock engineering design is also comprehensively laid out by Palm-
ström and Stille (2010) with the engineering geology background being succinctly
presented by Waltham (2009). The only encyclopaedic reference for rock engineering
is the 4407 page, five volume set of “Comprehensive Rock Engineering” (Hudson,
1993) but, unfortunately, this publication is now out of print.
Pariseau (2007), in his book on “Design Analysis in Rock Mechanics” which
applies the principles of rock mechanics to rock engineering design, points out that
“computer code usage should be learned only after a firm grasp of fundamentals is at
hand”. In this context, readers will be helped by Jing (2003) who has compiled a wide
ranging review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues in numerical modelling
for rock mechanics and rock engineering, and Jing and Stephansson (2007) who have
also comprehensively reviewed the subject of discrete element methods for rock engi-
neering and given examples of their applicability to modelling fractured rock masses.
In terms of input to computer programs and in his clear and comprehensive presentation

of statistics and data analysis in geology, Davis (2002) points out in the preface to his
book that desk computers are now sufficient for most geological applications and that
“computer technology will continue to evolve at a dizzying pace”.
In addition to these sources, there is a considerable amount of information avail-
able on the past and current approaches to rock engineering design and the related
subjects. In the book “Design Methodology in Rock Engineering: Theory, Education
and Practice”, the pioneer Bieniawski (1992), who developed the Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) index for rock classification, outlines a complete procedure for rock engineer-
ing design. In particular, Bieniawski notes that, “The field of rock engineering has an
unsurpassed potential for design innovation”. In the 2007 book “Rock Quality, Seis-
mic Velocity, Attenuation and Anisotropy”, Barton, the originator of the Quality (Q)
system for rock mass classification, highlights the advantages of developing enhanced
cross-discipline interactions as the rock engineering subject develops.
Advanced up-to-date rock slope design in the mining context is presented in the
encyclopaedic book “Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design”, edited by Read and
Stacey (2010) which, in fourteen chapters, comprehensively covers all aspects of the
subject and particularly the supporting individual subject models and the separate
aspects of slope design. The editors note that the purpose of their book is “to link
innovative mining geomechanics research with best practice” and that “it aspires to
be an up-to-date compendium of knowledge that creates a road map which, from
the options that are available, highlights what is needed to satisfy best practice with
respect to pit slope investigation, design, implementation, and performance monitor-
ing”. The subject of risk management and mitigation is explicitly covered in the Read
and Stacey (2010) book, and Einstein et al. (2010) have recently summarised current
thinking on decision making for risk assessment and management in the context of
rock slope instabilities.
Advanced up-to-date underground rock engineering design in the civil context
is described in the “Site Engineering Report Forsmark: Guidelines for Underground
Design, Step D2” (downloadable report, see SKB, 2009, in the References and Bib-
liography section). The authors state that, “The main purpose of this Site Engineer-
ing Report is to provide an overall framework for the designers responsible for the
underground design and layout that meets both the operational requirements for such
an underground facility and the long-term safety requirements related to nuclear-
waste containment.” To apply the SKB design methodology, the ground types (GT)
and anticipated ground behaviour (GB) are defined following the scheme outlined by
Goricki (2003) and Schubert et al. (2003).
Hoek (2001) has pointed out that when the rock is “bad”, the excavation is
“large, tunnels with 10–16 m span”, and the “rock mass strength is less than one fifth
of the in situ stress level”, the rock engineering design can stretch our design capabil-
ity to the limit. So, not only are there still problems to solve but, as technology has
progressed over the last fifty years or so, the scale of rock engineering projects has
steadily increased in project dimensions, costs and environmental significance. For
example, the size of the largest open pit mines can now be measured in kilometres, as
can the depths of many underground mines. On the civil engineering side, the spans
of underground caverns have reached more than 60 m.
Commensurate with increases in the project scale, there have been other associ-
ated developments:

Introduction 5
• establishing the rock conditions has been significantly improved through enhanced
site investigation techniques, especially geophysics;
• computer modelling techniques are revolutionising not only our design capabili-
ties but also our fundamental understanding of the behaviour of intact rock, frac-
tures, and rock masses when subjected to stresses;
• monitoring techniques for detecting the rock responses to construction have also
improved;
• there is more emphasis on safety, accountability and sustainability; and
• access to engineering experience and related supporting information is now much
more readily available through the Internet.
The consequence of all these developments is that there is a current need for rock
engineering modelling and design techniques to be re-evaluated in the context of the
types of project and the associated supporting disciplines and capabilities (Figure 1.1).
Hence, the purpose of this book is to provide background to the development of a
more modern methodology for the design of rock engineering projects which encom-
passes new developments. We will also provide illustrative case examples of the meth-
odology and a manual of methodological procedures with related Protocol Sheets.
In this way, it is hoped that rock engineering design can utilise the new tools and
information that are now available to us.
One subject potentially inhibiting innovation in rock engineering is that in many
countries there is the necessity to follow a particular code of practice, e.g. EURO-
CODE7 in European countries; see Bond and Harris (2008) for an explanation of
Transportation engineering Petroleum engineering
Mining engineering Nuclear waste disposal
Hydraulic power engineering CO2 underground storage
Civil engineering Defence engineering
Rock Engineering
Tunnelling Caverns Slopes Foundations
Artificial intelligence
Geophysics
System science
Engineering geology
Informatics
Hydrogeology Rock mechanics Mathematics
Figure 1.1 The context and scope of rock engineering (modified from Magar, 1998).

EUROCODE7. This innovation inhibiting factor could also apply to any methods
that we ourselves recommend in this book! However, although the techniques recom-
mended in this book are compatible with EUROCODE7, it is hoped that the phi-
losophy and procedures which we outline in the following Chapters will not inhibit
further innovation along the ‘long learning curve’ described earlier. On the contrary,
our ambition is to stimulate creativity using the ever-increasing capabilities of compu-
ter modelling—and hence to advance rock engineering design.
1.5 CHINESE ROCK MECHANICS AND CHINESE ROCK

ENGINEERING
We will be using large Chinese rock engineering projects as illustrative examples in

this book and so it is helpful to understand the background to the present exten-
sive Chinese activity. Although much of rock mechanics and rock engineering design
development has occurred in the West, as evidenced by the references already cited,
there is currently more rock mechanics and rock engineering activity and associated
innovation occurring in the East, and particularly in China. In the report “Energy Sci-
ence & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050”, Chen (2010), it is predicted that
China’s total energy demand will reach 31, 45, 61 and 66 × 108 tce (tonnes of coal
equivalent) in 2010, 2020, 2035, 2050. The associated per capita energy consumption
for the same years is estimated at 2.3, 3.1, 4.1 and 4.6 tce. This demand will be met,
inter alia, by the continued operation and development of new coal mines, hydroelec-
tric plants and nuclear power stations with one or more underground nuclear waste
repositories, all of which will be enhanced by more modern methods of rock engineer-
ing design.
Of course, China is a country with a long history, with rock engineering in China
dating back to ancient times. The irrigation project at Dujianyan, the Great Wall, the
old canal starting from Beijing and terminating at Hangzhou, and the large Impe-
rial Tombs are representative masterpieces of ancient geotechnical engineering. In
those early times, the Chinese did not possess a knowledge of geomechanics, but
they designed and constructed the projects using their experience. The history of rock
mechanics in China is recorded in the book “Century Achievements in Chinese Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering”, a 2004 book published by HoHai University
Press.
Chinese rock mechanics per se commenced in 1958 and, during that early time,
the Three Gorges Rock Foundation Research Group was established. In the 1970s,
the Gezhouba Dam near the Three Gorges Dam site was designed and constructed
solely by Chinese engineers; this involved considering soft rock layers beneath the
dam foundation and associated in situ block shear testing. In fact, specialised Insti-
tutes have been established since the founding of the People’s Republic, such as the
Wuhan Institute of Geomechanics, the Beijing Institute of Geology, the Institute of
Geophysics, and the China Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Rock and Soil Mechan-
ics and Institute of Geology and Geophysics. Corresponding research establishments
have been set up in universities and other enterprises. In 1979, the Chinese delega-
tion participated in the 4th ISRM International Congress on Rock Mechanics held in
Montreux, Switzerland. Further information can be found in the article by Jun Sun

Introduction 7
and Sijing Wang (2000) titled “Rock mechanics and rock engineering in China: devel-
opments and current state-of-the-art”.
The Chinese National Group of the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) was formed in 1978 and is now the largest of all the constituent National
Groups of the ISRM. The Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
(in Chinese with abstracts and figure captions in English) was established in 1986,
and the Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (in English) which
is based in China was launched in 2009. Many international rock engineering related
symposia have been held in China, including SINOROCK2004 held at the Three
Gorges Dam Site and SINOROCK2009 held on the University of Hong Kong cam-
pus, both symposia having been organised by the authors of this book. All this activity
has culminated in the 4-yearly ISRM 2011 Congress being held in Beijing.
1.6 EXAMPLES OF ROCK ENGINEERING PROJECTS

IN CHINA
As an example of current hydropower projects in China, at the Three Gorges Dam

Project on the Yangtze river the shiplock slopes have a length of about 1600 m and
are both more than 155 m high. (Figure 1.2). The spectacular Hoover Dam in the
United States generates 1.5 GW of power, whereas the Three Gorges Dam generates
18 GW of power—twelve times as much.
But the Three Gorges Dam project is only one of the precursors to many more
hydroelectric projects. According to the national medium- and long-term devel-
opment programme in China and, as at 2010, more than 20 large-scale hydraulic
power plants, including Xiaowan, Longtan, Jinping I, Jinping II, Xiluodu, Xiangj-
iaba, Baihetan, and Wudongde, with a total capacity of more than 50 GW, are under
construction or will be constructed within the next 20 years in western China. The
opportunities and challenges for rock mechanics and engineering are tremendous in
these projects. Underground rock caverns with lengths between 168 and 450 m are
being constructed and will be used for the main power houses. For example:
• the main underground powerhouse of Longtan hydropower station has excava-

tion dimensions 388.5 × 30.5 × 77.3 m;
• the main underground powerhouse of Xiangjiaba hydropower station is
255.4 × 33.4 × 87.5 m and its excavated rock slope has a height of 550 m;
• the main underground powerhouse of the Xiaowan hydropower station is
298.4 × 29.5 × 82 m with an accompanying excavated slope height of nearly
700 m.
These powerhouses can have complicated geometries, with an example shown in

Figure 1.3.
The largest water tunnels for a hydropower station are being constructed in China
at the Jinping II site with a maximum rock overburden of 2,500 m (see the geological
section in Figure 1.4a). There are two access tunnels, one drainage tunnel and four
headrace tunnels, each more than 16 km in length with 60 m spacing between them—
totalling a greater length than the three tunnels of the Channel Tunnel project from

(a)
(b)
Figure 1.2 The excavated permanent shiplock during construction of the Three Gorges Dam Project
on the Yangtze River, China. (a) View of the excavations during construction. (b) Section
of the permanent shiplock slopes.

Introduction 9
Figure 1.3 Geometry of the underground powerhouse complex for the Jinping II hydropower project
on the Yalong River in Sichuan Province, China.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.4 Geology and tunnels of the Jinping II hydroelectric power station, China. (a) Geological
section along the axis of the tunnels. (b) Cross-section through the tunnels, from left to
right: access tunnels A and B excavated by drill and blast, water drainage tunnel excavated
by TBM, and four headrace tunnels—two excavated by drill and blast and two by TBMs,
dimensions in metres (diagram not to scale).

England to France. Two of the Jinping II headrace tunnels are 13 m in diameter, exca-
vated using blasting, and the other two are 12.4 m in diameter, excavated using tunnel
boring machines (TBMs), Figure 1.4b). They are being excavated in marble, chlorite
schist, and slate strata, with construction having started in August 2007.
Also, the projects can be located in difficult geological conditions. For example,
the Baihetan hydropower station will be constructed in basalt and tuff strata with
heavy developed columnar-shaped joints and interlayer distributed zones, see Fig-
ure 1.5. Moreover, many rock engineering projects have to be conducted in regions of
high mountains and deep gorges and slopes where high in situ stress conditions can
prevail, see Figure 1.6. For example, at the Jinping II hydropower station, the maxi-
mum vertical stress component is about 70 MPa and the maximum water pressure
can be up to 10 MPa in some regions, causing severe rockbursts and water bursts dur-
ing excavation. In addition, there is the need to evaluate thermo-hydro-mechanical-
chemical coupled processes in some rock engineering projects, such as the deep geo-
logical disposal of nuclear waste and underground storage of CO2.
1.7 PROBLEMS REMAINING TO BE SOLVED
Due to the scale, location and type of rock engineering projects, many rock mechanics
related problems remain to be solved including, for example:
• the stability of large-scale rock engineering constructions in complex geological

conditions;
• the safety of large underground rock complexes, long and large-span tunnels
under high penetrating water pressure and high in situ stress as described in the
previous section involving rockbursts and large displacements; and
• the long-term safety of underground engineering projects subjected to coupled
thermal, hydraulic, mechanical, and chemical processes.
Within the context of the subjects discussed in this Chapter and the three example
problems above, the types of question that have stimulated the work leading up to the
production of this book are illustrated in the following list.
• How can all the relevant factors be accommodated in future rock mechanics
modelling and rock engineering design?
• What are the ‘ways ahead’ for rock engineering design methodologies?
• How does one select rational rock mechanics analysis and modelling methods for
a given rock engineering problem?
• What is likely to be a suitable approach for solving rock engineering design prob-
lems in the future—in the short, medium and long terms?
• How do we anticipate that modelling and simulation techniques will continue to
develop?
• Will modelling become more complicated or less complicated through the use of
neural networks and other ‘intelligent’ methods?
• Will there be more emphasis on the ‘design-as-you-go’ technique, supported by
back analysis during construction?

(a)
(b)
Figure 1.5 (a) Basalt with columnar-shaped joints and (b) interlayer disturbed zone at Baihetan hydro-
power plant, China.

(a)
(b)
Figure 1.6 Difficulties associated with (a) mountainous topography causing (b) high stresses, which in
turn can cause intensive site investigation core discing (also see the Frontispiece).

Introduction 13
• What will be the role of the Internet in future rock engineering design
methodologies?
Related to these questions is the issue of the information required to sustain the
approaches—whatever they may be:
• How do we obtain the necessary information?

• With what accuracy, precision and resolution is this information required?
• Is it actually possible to obtain all the necessary information?
• How will we know when we have enough information?
• In terms of the information required, what is the role of the project’s design life,
from the single day of a coal mining longwall face to the million years for a radio-
active waste repository?
It is important to ensure that the approach taken to the design and construction
for a particular project is indeed implemented and recorded properly. This introduces
the necessity for technical auditing in rock mechanics modelling and rock engineer-
ing design, i.e., a series of checks which is put into practice, preferably contempo-
raneously with the modelling, design, construction and monitoring. The technical
auditing provides continuous checks that the work is appropriate and also provides a
permanent record, or audit trail, of all the activities and decisions comprising the rock
engineering design and implementation.
Bearing in mind all the points made in this introductory Chapter, we hope that
the purpose of the book is now clear and that the succeeding chapters will provide a
foundation for the next phase of rock engineering design development.
1.8 CHAPTER SUMMARIES
In the case of this Chapter 1, it is not necessary to have a chapter summary since, hope-
fully, the motivation and structure of the book, the rock engineering in China, and
the problems remaining to be solved have been made clear. However, in the remain-
ing chapters, where more complex material is presented, we have included chapter
summaries—in order to conclude each chapter with a reminder of the condensed
essence of the content.

Chapter 2
The ways ahead for rock

engineering design methodologies
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As explained in Chapter 1, since recognition of the discipline of rock mechanics and its
application to rock engineering design in the 1950s and 1960s, there has been a variety
of publications describing the many methods that have been proposed to model rock
masses; and there has also been a commensurate development in the approaches to
rock engineering design. These modelling methods and design approaches now cover
the full range from simple methods (e.g., repeating procedures that were successful
in the past) to coupled numerical modelling (e.g., coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical
(THM) models). In particular, rock engineering has been significantly enhanced by
seminal publications covering the stability principles of rock slopes and underground
openings in rock; these have also included design methods and related flowcharts.
However, the stability aspects of large slopes and caverns can be at the limit of or
beyond precedent practice. Moreover, there are now new design demands in projects
where there are complex interacting factors, e.g., radioactive waste disposal, seques-
tration of CO2 and geothermal development—for which the interactions between rock
stress, fractures, water flow, heat and chemistry over long time periods need to be
understood and modelled in order that the necessary predictive process required for
design can be generated. In addition to the increases in project scale and complexity,
there has been a concomitant increase in the modelling complexity, even though the
mathematical descriptions of some rock mechanics mechanisms are weak or incom-
plete and there may even be no generally accepted conceptual model. Furthermore,
even if the mechanisms are understood, it may not be practical to obtain the related
parameter values for a given rock mass.
Thus, there is a need to consider how all these factors can be accommodated in
future rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design: in short, a need at this
point to discuss the ‘ways ahead’ for rock engineering design methodologies. In this
Chapter, we consider the future of rock engineering design methodologies, concen-
trating on approaches that can accommodate the increasing design demands and cap-
ture the associated comprehensive information, yet are practical in terms of providing
support for engineering construction.

2.2 MODELLING AND ENGINEERING DESIGN

APPROACHES
In Figure 2.1, a flowchart of rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design
approaches is presented (Hudson, 2001; Jing, 2003). The purpose of this flowchart is
to include the eight basic methods of modelling within the framework of the project
objective, site investigation, design, construction and feedback from construction.
The four columns in the dotted main box in Figure 2.1, Methods A to D, are four
levels of complexity from the left to the right, ‘simple’ through to ‘complicated’. The
first three types of methods, Methods A to C, are widely used in rock engineering
design. The fourth method in the top row of Method D, extended coupled model-
ling, is currently being developed on an international basis, e.g., in the DECOVA-
LEX research programme (DEmonstration of COupled models and their VALidation
against EXperiments) and via the GeoProc symposia (IJRMMS, 1995; Stephansson
et al., 1996; IJRMMS, 2001; Stephansson et al., 2004; IJRMMS, 2005; Xu et al.,
2006; Burlion and Shao, 2008; Environ. Geol., 2009). The fourth method in the bot-
tom row of Method D, integrated systems and internet-based approaches, has not yet
been developed and is one of the subjects of this Chapter.
The two rows of boxes in the dotted main box represent the two main ways in
which the mechanisms are mapped in the modelling. In the top row, ‘Level 1, 1:1 map-
ping’, there is an explicit attempt in the modelling to represent the geometry and oper-
ating mechanisms on a 1:1 basis. For example, if there is a major fracture in the vicinity
Objective
Method A Method B Method C Method D

Basic Extended
Use of
Analytical numerical numerical
pre-existing Level 1
methods, methods, methods,
standard
Lab and field tests
1:1 mapping
Site investigation
stress-based FEM, BEM, fully-coupled

methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database Integrated
Precedent Rock mass
expert systems Level 2
type classification
systems, & approaches, Not 1:1
analyses and RMR, Q,
other systems internet- mapping
modifications GSI, BQ*
approaches based
Design based on forward analysis Design based on back analysis
Construction and Monitoring
Figure 2.1 Flowchart of rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design approaches (Feng and
Hudson, 2004).
* The Chinese Basic Quality, BQ, classification system is described in Appendix B.

The ways ahead for rock engineering design methodologies 17
of a tunnel, this can be incorporated explicitly in a numerical model. However, in the

lower row, ‘Level 2, not-1:1 mapping’, the modelling techniques are not designed to
include the geometry and mechanisms directly. In the neural network technique, there
are nodes in the neural network used but a specific node cannot be directly associated
with either a location or a physical variable, unlike the finite element approach.
Referring to Method A in Figure 2.1, pre-existing standard methods are used
where standards or pre-existing experience are available and the structure is ‘conven-
tional’, e.g., a tunnel adjacent to a previous one. This technique has been generalised
to consider into which class of experience a new project falls, the precedent type
analysis method (Li et al., 1998).
Referring to Method B in Figure 2.1, in the past the Level 1 analytical methods
have been helpful. These are based on assuming a CHILE rock mass, i.e., a Continu-
ous, Homogeneous, Isotropic and Linearly Elastic rock mass, and hence are most
useful where these conditions apply, e.g., where the influence of stress concentrations
and energy release rates dominate, as in deep tunnels and mines. The analytical meth-
ods can be selected according to the potential failure modes in rock engineering. The
Method B Level 2 indirect method is the rock mass classification approach in which
a set of key parameters is used to develop a ranking that characterises the rock within
the construction context, especially for establishing tunnel support (Hudson, 2001).
The key to the success of the rock mass characterisation approach is that many rock
properties are correlated and, by taking a set of key parameters (six each for the Q
and RMR systems), a good characterisation is achieved easily and quickly. Moreover,
because of the correlation that exists between many rock properties, the classifica-
tion ranking can be used to estimate a variety of rock mass properties, e.g., the mass
modulus and permeability (Hudson, 2001). However, the use of the ranking relies
on the empirical relations, i.e., experience, and hence cannot be readily used for new
projects that are outside this experience.
Referring to Method C, Level 1, in Figure 2.1, basic numerical methods are useful
for analysis and design in cases where analytical solutions are not available, or where the
effect of a single factor or process dominates, e.g., where a particular mechanical, hydrau-
lic, or thermal process dictates the overall behaviour (Jing, 2003). Examples include the
design of high slopes, large caverns for hydropower, the design of rockburst prone stopes
or tunnels, and the design of soft rock tunnels. The equivalent Level 2 methods are
analogous to extended rock classification systems in which there are many parameters,
many correlations between them, and experience from many projects. The use of such
relational databases and other systems approaches (Hudson, 1992) then provides a use-
ful independent complement to the specific Level 1 numerical modelling approach.
Method D in Figure 2.1 encompasses the more complex numerical methods
incorporating semi-coupled and fully-coupled models to support the design of
projects in which the coupled effects of multiple factors are significant, as for exam-
ple in the design of an underground radioactive waste repository and its perform-
ance assessment (Hudson and Feng, 2010). The analysis may require fully-coupled
hydraulic-thermo-mechanical (H-T-M) modelling or fully-coupled hydraulic-thermo-
mechanical-chemical (H-T-M-C) modelling. The content of the Method D, Level 2,
row in Figure 2.1 indicates one of the goals: fully integrated systems approaches which
include use of the internet to address current and future more complicated rock engi-
neering design problems.

We anticipate that the Method A–C methods in Figure 2.1 will continue to be used
because of their relative simplicity and their utility, including the Level 2, not 1:1 map-
ping methods. The latter include precedent type analysis and its modifications, rock
classification (such as the RMR, Q, GSI, and Chinese Basic Quality BQ indices), and
basic systems approaches, such as expert systems, neural network modelling, support
vector machine modelling, rock engineering systems, global optimisation, and fuzzy
recognition. In the last two decades, these have all played their part, especially rock
mass classification systems which have been extremely successful: more tunnels have
probably been designed on this basis than using any other design method.
In fact, analysis and design are currently undertaken using a combination of the
Levels 1 and 2 methods. An example is the Chenchao iron mine, China, where there
are 70 parallel openings arranged at intervals of 10 m on the –220 m level. The roman
arch shaped mine openings are 3.2 m, in both width and height. The axial direction
of the openings was determined according to the orientation of the orebody and the
mining methods used. Rock mass classification was firstly utilised based on the RMR
index and then via an expert system. An optimal excavation sequence and support
system for mining openings in various zones with different RMR classes was estab-
lished using the expert system.
In the general case, the location for a rock engineering project and the conceptual
design can be initially determined using precedent type analysis and its modifications.
Then, rock classification, such as the RMR, Q, GSI, and BQ systems, can be used to char-
acterise the quality of the rock mass and provide design solutions for the different rock
quality zones. Basic numerical methods and basic intelligent systems and approaches
(such as expert systems, neural network modelling, and rock engineering systems) can
be used to confirm and refine these design solutions. The design is then a path through
the Figure 2.1 methods: e.g., pre-existing standard methods → precedent type analyses
and modifications → rock mass classifications → analytical methods → basic numeri-
cal methods → database expert systems, and other systems approaches.
This concept of the design path through the methods in Figure 2.1 raises the ques-
tion: “Which method or combination of methods should be selected to solve a given
rock engineering problem?” The answer will depend on the type of problem being
considered and the different capabilities of the individual methods. In other words,
the modelling and design path through Figure 2.1 must be a function of the project
objective, the rock mass geometry and mechanical features, the mechanisms involved,
and the features of the engineering structure.
The information and data used in the different methods will be different and increase
from Method A to D as the complexity of the analysis and design increases. To under-
take a Method A study, very little information is required, possibly observations from a
walk over the site will be sufficient. To undertake a Method B stress-based analysis, the
only information required is the magnitude of the principal stresses and their directions,
the basic engineering geometry, and a few mechanical parameters. When more data
can be obtained, e.g., compressive strength of the rock, fracture properties such as, dip,
strike, RQD, type, roughness, tightness, persistence, filling, rock mass structure, and
ground water conditions, classification of the rock mass can be utilised.
Considering Method C, more information is required. For example, further data
are required on the overall geometry, stress field boundary conditions, compressive,
tensile and shear strengths of the rock and rock mass, the network of fractures and

their deformation and strength parameters, the excavation procedure, engineering

geometry, etc.
Moving to Method D requires even more information. For example, to perform a
fully-coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical modelling exercise, all the paramet-
ric data relating to the interactive mechanisms are required.
Another point is that the analyses and design are conducted within the flowchart
framework shown in Figure 2.1. Design of a rock engineering project must include
definition of the project and analysis objectives, selection of the analysis and design
methods, site investigation, laboratory and field tests, the design itself, followed by
construction. A feedback loop occurs (see Figure 2.1) because the engineering per-
formance information and the further rock property information obtained during
construction enable judgment on the appropriateness of the design solution and are
used to calibrate the analysis and design. Also, data monitored in the field can be used
to back analyse parameter values for further design and analysis.
The eight methods in Figure 2.1 all have their respective advantages and dis-
advantages. Thus, and in line with this Chapter’s heading, a sensible ‘way ahead’ is
to consider an integrated design approach in which an appropriate design pathway
is established through the Figure 2.1 boxes for a given engineering project. Nowa-
days, we need an integrated approach, incorporating the parallel and sequential use
of the analysis methods harmonising the rock engineering design with the host rock
character. The integrated modelling should be a process of cognition → calibration
and modification → re-cognition to capture the rock engineering system behaviour.
The term ‘adaptive’ is appropriate because it refers to the process of problem solving
enabling adaption to changes of geological conditions, thinking modes, mechanical
parameters and models, and analysis methods. Hence, an adaptive capability is a
key requirement in order to be able to circle through the feedback loop illustrated in
Figure 2.1 of modelling, design, construction, further site investigation data to model-
ling. Moreover, the system modelling and the problem solving process is a pattern, so
the modelling should be arranged to facilitate recognition of the pattern, especially
the relation between the system input and output and the recognition of the influence
of changing or new factors.
It should be noted that some of the approaches in the right-hand part of the flow-
chart are currently on the limit of precedent practice but exciting developments are
anticipated in this column. The extended numerical models involve at least fully-coupled
thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical (T-H-M-C) processes; and work in this subject
area is proceeding in many countries. The non-1:1approaches, integrated systems
approaches, possibly internet-based, are also being developed, especially in China.
So, the eight rock mechanics modelling methods highlighted in Figure 2.1 can be
used singly, or any number can be used in combination, or as a sequential permuta-
tion, depending on the modelling requirements. We explain how this can be done later
in Chapter 3 and we provide extensive practical examples in Chapters 6 and 7.
2.3 THE INTEGRATED DESIGN APPROACH
In the previous section, we have summarised the variety of approaches to rock mechan-
ics modelling and rock engineering design, noting the features of the different methods.

We consider the optimal modelling and design approach to be one that integrates the
methods as necessary—within the requirements context as determined by the objec-
tive. The two immediate corollaries are as follows.
1 Different integrated designs for different projects will involve different sequential
use of the methods available, i.e., different pathways through the eight methods
in Figure 2.1 (or possibly more complex combinations of the methods).
2 The Method D, Level 2, methods shown in Figure 2.1 need to be developed
further, given that significant international progress is currently being made in
the Method D Level 1 methods (see the references at the start of Section 2.2
referring to the research results in the DECOVALEX project and the GeoProc
symposia).
We, therefore, make five points within the context of the complete design approach
and the corollaries above. The subject headings of the five points presented in the
numbered list below are modelling the rock mass and the engineering, integration of
modelling methods, adaptive modelling solutions and pattern recognition, the closed-
loop design process, and developments required.
1 Modelling the rock mass and the engineering. A rock mass should be considered
as a complex system subject to the influence of various geological and engineering
factors. Thus, the system modelling inputs are the project criteria related to the
objective, parameters characterising the geometry and mechanical characteristics,
plus the rock engineering perturbations introduced by engineering. The results of
further site investigation, construction and monitoring are fed back to the model
for updating (see Figure 2.1). Thus, through feedback cycles, the system model
should ideally be self-adaptively regulated to allow for changes in geological,
engineering and environmental factors.
2 Integration of modelling methods. Integration of the methods in Figure 2.1,
can simply be the use and comparison of the different methods in the Methods
A–D columns, or it can be more involved. For example, one model or method
may be embedded in another model or method to provide an enhanced capabil-
ity. Neural network modelling (a component of the so-called ‘intelligent system
model’ approaches in the Level 2 Method C and D methods in Figure 2.1) can be
contained within a finite element code to create neural finite element modelling.
This is achieved by replacing the stiffness matrix for the constitutive law in the
finite element method by a neural network (Feng et al., 2001). This enhanced
model then has an improved capability for self-learning and non-linear dynamic
processing. Alternatively, instead of including a neural network in a finite element
program, a numerical analysis process can be included as a component of an
intelligent system model. This combination can be used to perform back analysis
of parameter values to provide the data for further numerical analyses. A prob-
lem that cannot be solved by a single method, or indeed by all of the methods in
Figure 2.1 used in isolation, might be amenable to solution using a cluster or net-
work of methods. Ideally, the system model should ‘self-choose’ the appropriate
approach by adaptive selection combined with self-learning. Consideration of the
sequence of integration is important, e.g., recognition of probable failure modes,

determination of potential excavation sequence and support schemes, establishing

the construction method and monitoring methods. Integration of models in this
way also supports integration of thinking modes: conceptual, intuitive, visual,
empirical, logical and creative.
3 Adaptive modelling solutions and related pattern recognition. The integrated mod-
elling described above is a process of cognition → calibration and modification →
re-cognition to capture the rock engineering system behaviour. The term ‘adap-
tive’ refers to the process of problem solving that enables adaption to changes of
geological conditions, thinking modes, mechanical parameters and models, and
analysis methods. Thus, the adaptive capability is a key requirement in order to
be able to circle through the feedback loop illustrated in Figure 2.1 of model-
ling, design, construction, further site investigation data, and back to modelling.
Moreover, the system modelling and the problem solving process is a pattern, so
the modelling should be arranged to facilitate recognition of the pattern, espe-
cially the relation between the system input and output and the recognition of the
influence of changing or new factors.
4 The closed-loop design process. The design process follows the feedback loop
described above. Initial design, recognition of probable failure modes, calibration
of design using various analysis methods (e.g., the ‘observational method’ and
integrated intelligent methods, Feng et al. (2003, 2007)), and monitored data in
the field are completed via several feedback loops.
The Observational Method (e.g., Peck, 1969; Bieniawski, 1984; Nicholson et al.,
1999; Sakurai et al., 2003; Finno and Calvello, 2005) has been used more often
in soil projects but has value in rock engineering projects. The method has been
described (Nicholson et al., 1999) as a “continuous, managed, integrated process
of design, construction control, monitoring and review which enables previously
defined modifications to be incorporated during or after construction as appro-
priate”. This is exactly the process involved in the feedback loop in Figure 2.1 and
the back analysis philosophy promoted by Sakurai (e.g., 2003). In Peck’s seminal
paper (1969) he notes that, “The method should not be used unless the designer
has in mind a plan of action for every unfavourable situation that might be dis-
closed by the observations. The observations must be reliable, must reveal the
significant phenomena, and must be so reported as to encourage prompt action.”
However, the procedure that we are describing with reference to Figure 2.1 and
the examples that we present later in the book extend the basic observational
method because, in the modern rock engineering design methodology we are pre-
senting, there is a continuous and audited linkage between the developing site
information, the series of different design methods, the construction experiences
and the corrective actions.
The design process is complete when the results from the repeated applications of
the integrated methods/different methods are in adequate agreement. The model-
ling cases are stored in a case history database and used for future model learning.
In this way, a new modelling and design project begins the first loop by utilising
the experience, relevant data and results of all the previous projects, and not from
zero supporting information.
5 Developments required. In order to develop the integrated modelling and design
approach and the Method D, Level 2, method, work is required on the system

modelling techniques, and the applications in rock engineering. This includes

work on expert system models, neural network models, non-linear approaches, a
self-adaptive recognition method for rock mass constitutive models, an extrapo-
lation method for limited data, and methods to quantify qualitative approaches
to rock mechanics and rock engineering problems. Approaches to uncertainty
and spatial variability are also required. The fundamental techniques aim at con-
structing appropriate algorithms and developing associated integrated intelligent
software and tools—such as the finite element software with a neural network
material model described in item (2) above, intelligent displacement back analysis
tools, integrated intelligent numerical analysis tools, etc. The work on engineering
applications concerns the validation of the implementation of the system model
by real rock engineering problems.
2.4 MODELLING APPROACHES WHICH UTILISE

COMPUTER NETWORKS
2.4.1 Internet/Intranet/Local Area Network (LAN)-

based parallel computing
For 3-D finite element analysis of a large-scale rock engineering project (e.g., the perma-
nent, five-stage, double-channel shiplock at the Three Gorges Dam Project in China, as
illustrated in Figure 1.2), it may be necessary to have one million elements to take full
account of the geological structure, ground water, engineering structure and excava-
tion procedures. Simplified numerical analyses (e.g., reducing the number of elements
and/or reducing the computing scale) are necessary to operate the code on a personal
computer, which can introduce errors. However, parallel computing can be utilised to
reduce the errors associated with large element sizes through a cluster of computers
connected via a Local Area network (LAN), an Intranet or the Internet. A RSM-VPCE
(Rock and Soil Mechanics Visual Parallel Computing Environment) can be developed
using the Windows operating system (Feng et al., 2001). Then the cluster of computer
components can be considered as a single parallel virtual machine (Figure 2.2).
There are two ways to parallel compute: one method is to divide a complicated
rock mechanics analysis and associated rock engineering design task into a sequence of
sub-tasks, so that each sub-task can be solved by a separate computer simultaneously;
another method is using numerical analysis on the large scale. Firstly the problem is
decomposed into domains, i.e., a large computing domain is divided into multiple
sub-domains (the number of FEM mesh nodes in each sub-domain being similar), and
then each sub-domain is solved by a separate computer. The former sub-task method
can reduce the computing time considerably. The latter sub-domain method enables
the modelling resolution to be considerably enhanced and hence to use element sizes
that are commensurate with the geological components of the rock mass.
2.4.2 Internet-neural network analogy

Artificial neural networks have already been used successfully for many subjects in
rock mechanics modelling, as described in Jing (2003). The principle, copying the

cas.ac.cn
ic.ac.uk
neu.edu.cn
nninepipe.umt.edu
nire.go.jp
Figure 2.2 An example computer network forming a parallel virtual machine within the Rock and Soil
Mechanics Visual Parallel Computing Environment (RSM-VPCE), Feng et al. (2001).
operation of the brain, is that the model consists of a series of interconnected nodes
and is trained to match a set of known inputs and outputs by altering weighting func-
tions at the nodes. When a person catches a ball, they do not solve a series of math-
ematical equations to do so: they just catch the ball using a neural network that has
spent a lifetime learning how objects move around and how to catch them. The neural
network model is thus a non-1:1 mapping Level 2 method in the context of Figure 2.1
because only the inputs and outputs have a direct physical meaning: the values at the
internal nodes cannot be directly related to specific geometrical or mechanical param-
eters. The internet can then be considered as a type of neural network in the sense that
an input at any node of the inter-linked network will generate a corresponding output
in the network (Hudson and Hudson, 1997).
A large network can consist of sub-networks, each being used to interactively
model a sub-problem. The sub-networks are combined to build a coupled model,
such as a thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical, fully-coupled model. In Figure 2.3,
we present a diagram illustrating how a collaborative problem solving system could
include a LAN/Intranet or the Internet (the lower part of Figure 2.3) as a neural
network capability with data being stored in the distributed database. A distributed
learning machine is developed so that the model can learn across the Internet. This is a
future approach and a suitable model and computer platform needs to be developed.
2.4.3 Why do we need collaborative research

on the internet?
With the increasing complexity of rock engineering projects, the related information
and the knowledge used, models are becoming larger and more interdisciplinary. It

Tele-monitoring
Audio/Video/Text/Image
Shared computer White board
Remotely display
Virtual rock controlled
mechanics laboratory
facility Real-time electric www site,
cameras
notebook Sharing explorer
work
Sharing virtual space Real-time video
conferencing E-mail
Tel-conferencing (dynamic discussion)

Collaborative research environment for rock
mechanics and engineering design problems
Interdisciplinary collaboration:
Collaborative research for
rock mechanics, rock
solving rock engineering
engineering, geology,
design problems
geophysics, thermodynamics,
elastic/plastic mechanics,
chemistry, hydraulics, artificial
intelligence, etc.
Internet/intranet/LAN
Sharing and
RSM-VPCE re-utilisation on
environment internet/Intranet/LAN
Net learning Distributed
machine database, internet
From 1:1 direct numerical Perception of rock mass-

Use of internet/intranet/LAN for
modelling to non 1:1 engineering system – for
neural network not having
modelling via neural improving the ability of the
1:1 mapping structure
networks system to appraise designs
Use of a single
personal computer
Using the same or less information
to conduct neural network modelling,
which emphasises engineering
perception
Figure 2.3 Internet-based approaches for rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design prob-
lems (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
is no longer easy, probably not possible, and certainly not necessary for a single rock
mechanics modeller or rock engineer to attempt to complete the entire design of a com-
plicated rock engineering project, e.g., a hydro-electric project or a radioactive waste
repository. Cross-disciplinary interaction and international collaboration are required.
One example is the thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical coupled modelling collabo-
rative research conducted for the DECOVALEX project (DEvelopment of COupled
models and their VAlidation against EXperiments) over the last two decades (see the
references at the beginning of Section 2.2) which can involve in the order of ten to
twenty separate research teams which are widely dispersed in discipline and location.
This kind of collaborative research relies heavily on inter-team meetings, and it is not

easy to integrate the approaches into an overall system model. However, enhanced
use of virtual facilities, plus the Internet’s natural attributes of high speed information
transmission and access, will be a natural development. Moreover, the use of the inter-
net can be developed further into the neural network concept already described.
Through collaboration on the Internet, researchers of all nations can, in principle,
perform their research without regard to geographical location, by interacting with
colleagues, accessing instrumentation, sharing data and computational resources, and
accessing programs and information from digital libraries and databases. By means
of this collaboration, rock mechanics researchers can provide new methods of rock
mechanics modelling for rock engineers and, in turn, rock engineers will be provided
with a tool, not only to access the integrated methods, but also a repository for their
own practical knowledge which can be stored in a readily accessible way worldwide.
Furthermore, the collaboration between workers in different disciplines will acceler-
ate the development and dissemination of basic knowledge and minimise the time lag
between discovery and application. Indeed, this is already happening through plat-
forms such as Elsevier’s sciencedirect.com from which relevant journal papers can
rapidly be found and downloaded.
A new paradigm for significantly more enhanced collaboration among scientists
is thus emerging which will accelerate the development and dissemination of basic
knowledge, optimise the use of research tools, and minimise the time between dis-
covery and application. Transforming the individual resources of all researchers into
communal resources for all researchers will change a remote collaborator from a
part-time partner into a full-time collaborator. Online teaching and training can also
be made available, e.g., the rock mechanics lectures available to ISRM members on
www.isrm.net. The mentor may convey the principles of rock mechanics and model-
ling or use prepared materials and live demonstrations to teach a student data acquisi-
tion and analysis techniques.
2.5 THE IDEA OF A VIRTUAL ROCK MECHANICS

FACILITY (VRMF)
We require a collaborative laboratory, a distributed model and analysis method base,

and a rock engineering database on the Internet. The collaborative virtual laboratory
will be an open laboratory, spanning geographical regions, in which collaborators can
work together and interact with each other via electronic tools. The laboratory can
unite scientists in various domains of common interest. The creative capacity of such
a laboratory far exceeds that of a single existing physical laboratory. Distributed inte-
gration of neural networks, expert systems, evolving algorithms, case-based reasoning,
fuzzy systems, numerical methods, non-linear mechanics models and object-oriented
techniques may be conducted using the internet, possibly within a neural network
configuration. The computing scale and precision will thus be greatly improved. The
collaborators may be working in different subject areas, such as elasticity mechan-
ics, plasticity mechanics, fracture mechanics, artificial intelligence, mathematics, non-
linear sciences, system science, geology, geophysics, chemistry, hydraulics, thermal
mechanics, and rock engineering, etc. Moreover, there is likely to be development of a

single fully-coupled model based on physical laws that can be adapted for the variety
of discipline orientated uses (Jing, L., personal communication). The ease of collabora-
tion can also help to cross the gaps created by the different motivations of researchers:
a rock mechanics researcher may be interested in a new mechanical phenomenon,
while an engineering collaborator may be trying to reduce the project cost. Currently,
they may have little contact; in the virtual laboratory, it will be much easier.
Developing a virtual rock mechanics facility will also be a focus for providing
secure remote access to scientific instruments and experimentation from distant loca-
tions. It could focus on the sharing of large, expensive instruments such as triaxial
test systems with high temperature and pressure functions, a true triaxial test system,
centrifuge, etc. This can be expanded to the sharing of smaller devices. However, data
acquisition, analysis, computation, and visualisation software written for a single
local user will need some modification for collaborative use. The instruments can thus
be on-line launched and data saved directly to the electronic laboratory notebook.
With the VRMF, collaborators can direct and securely control the instruments,
monitor instruments, including on-site instrumentation and television images, and
collaboratively analyse results and have interactive web-based access to group notes,
experimental parameters, proposed testing methods, and other aspects of a research
or engineering project. This initiative requires that a VRMF computing management
system structure be generated and implemented so that contributing groups know
how to adapt their devices to the system and so that the VRMF runs smoothly.
The virtual laboratory capability raises many intriguing possibilities, not least
of which is the testing of virtual rock specimens and rock masses. The International
Society for Rock Mechanics generates Suggested Methods for physical rock testing
(see Appendix A, and Ulusay and Hudson, 2007) and, with several different computer
programs simulating rock masses, e.g., UDEC, 3DEC, PFC and RFPA, there is likely
to be a need for Suggested Methods for virtual rock testing in order to be able to com-
pare the consistency of the different codes in simulating a given rock mass.
2.6 DEVELOPMENT OF THE METHOD D, LEVEL 2,

METHODS: ‘INTELLIGENT’ MODELLING
The standard way to solve rock engineering design problems is the use of pre-existing
standard methods → the stress-based analytic method → basic and extended numerical
analyses, supported by rock mass classification and database/expert system informa-
tion. The so-called ‘intelligent’ modelling approach is intended to make more use of the
Level 2 methods included in Figure 2.1, i.e., to increase the use of the precedent type
method and its modification → rock classification → basic system approaches with
expert systems and neural network modelling → integrated systems approaches and
internet-based approaches. This increased emphasis on the Level 2 methods not only
makes more use of expert systems and neural networks but also enables a richer research
content and the incorporation of a diversity of approach modes. There is also an empha-
sis in the whole analysis process on non-linearity, self-adaptation and perception.
Currently, the modeller or engineer decides what program to use, uses it, and then
interprets the results. In other words, the programs do not currently contain their own
perception capability. There is no reason, however, why these Level 2 methods should

not include programs capable of perception. When an engineer enters a tunnel and sees
a dangerous roof, the roof danger may be immediately apparent. But how is the danger
identified by the engineer? If it is from the shape of the rock blocks, their configura-
tion and the gaps between them, the danger can surely be deduced by a computer code
from a digital photograph. Similarly, the outputs from numerical finite element and
distinct element codes can be scanned automatically for ‘danger’, defined by various
functions, e.g., the distribution of inter-block apertures in a UDEC or 3DEC output.
Extensive collaborative research in rock mechanics and rock engineering on the
internet will not only accelerate the transfer of research results and enhance the effi-
ciency of researchers but also promote the introduction of new theories and methods.
Thus, developing the virtual environment (an open, cross-platform system) plus build-
ing the virtual rock mechanics facility and virtual space are the fundamental steps nec-
essary for carrying out coherent and extensive collaborative research via the Internet.
2.7 THE INTEGRATED METHODOLOGY FOR ROCK

SLOPE DESIGN
Consider that it is proposed for a rock slope design to obtain the optimal rock per-
formance design solution through a closed-loop study of the main tasks, such as rec-
ognition of potential failure modes, estimation of the safety factor, determination
of the slope angle, and performance of the designed slope. An integrated intelligent
system is then developed as a computer-aided design tool. As an illustrative case study,
two integrated approaches are suggested for estimating the performance of the per-
manent shiplock slopes (Figure 1.2) at the Three Gorges Project, China, during their
excavation and operating period.
Figure 2.4 shows the Figure 2.1 eight-method concept adapted for rock slope
design and with text added to indicate the input information required by the different
methods. Note that the listing of this input information is only intended to be indica-
tive and is certainly not all-inclusive. Using the methods shown in Figure 2.4, determi-
nation of a slope angle can be firstly given with an expected safety factor because the
potential failure modes can be recognised for slopes with given orientations and slope
angles. The safety factor and performance can thus be estimated for a specific slope.
If the slope performance is not as expected, there is feedback to check the determina-
tion of slope angle and recognition of potential failure modes. A mechanism can be
proposed for this checking and feedback process.
Suppose that there is a problem space P(t) and there is a solution space S(t) at the
current stage, t, see Figure 2.5. There is then a problem space P(t + 1) and solution
space S(t + 1) for the next phase. The evolution of the model is thus two evolving
systems in problem space and solution space. The evolution of each space is steered
by the newest information. The foundation for studying this evolution is a genetic
algorithm and genetic programming. The evolution from one phase to the next can be
performed using the interaction population method. In this method, two spaces are
considered as a set of genotype aspects (system features) and phenotype aspects (sys-
tem development). One is used to simulate the expected actions and another is for the
solution. Therefore, it requires a change of the population (potential solutions) and
the solution, i.e., if an action is evolved in the current generation, the structure will

Simple Complexity and information used are exponentially Complicated
Objective: Design a suitable slope angle with sufficient economy and safety
Probable mechanical problems: Sliding in different modes, soft rock, ground water, chemical
erosion and time-dependency
Geology, magnitude and direction of

principal stresses, geometry and Additional properties required
Magnitude and direction of mechanical properties of the intact rock, to support the coupling
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 28
principal stresses, slope angle fractures and rock mass, excavation algorithms, e.g., the detailed
and height, unit weight, procedure, slope angle and height, influence of rock stress on
cohesion and friction angle of hydraulic head and flow pressures, fracture deformation, and of
joints and rock mass, strength engineering geometry, time dependent water pressure on affecting the
of rock mass, and ground water properties, chemical erosion properties, normal stress in the rock close
level and its properties fluid mechanical properties to a fracture
Basic e.g., HM,
Use of THM, HMC,
Limit equilibrium numerical Level 1
pre-existing methods, THMC
analysis, Sarma, 1:1 mapping
standard FEM, BEM, Similarly, coupled
Bishop, etc.
methods DEM, hybrid
information on modelling
the significance or
METHOD A METHOD B METHOD C intensity of all the METHOD D
THMC couplings
Site investigation
Lab and field tests
Precedent Systems Fully Level 2
Rock approaches, integrated Not 1:1
type
classification databases, systems, mapping
analysis, approaches,
e.g., SRMR expert systems,
modification RES internet-based
Compressive strength of rock, fracture Database information, case histories, compressive, tensile and
properties (e.g., tightness, persistence, dip, shear strength of rock and rock mass and their deformation
strike, roughness, type, filling, planarity), parameters, structure of the rock mass and its integrity, excavation
RQD, rock mass structure, ground water procedure and geometry, geo-stress, pressure of groundwater
conditions, and slope angle and height or/and its change, time dependent properties, etc.
Construction and monitoring
Figure 2.4 Evolution of analysis methods and associated input information with the complexity of the rock slope modelling and
design increasing from left to right—see Figure 2.1 for the eight methods.
Note that the input information here is indicative, not all-inclusive. (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
5/24/2011 6:18:34 PM
Dimension of Evolving
P(t) P(t + 1)
problem space
Amendments
Modelling and Modelling and
estimating estimating fitness
fitness
Dimension of Evolving
design solution S(t) S(t + 1)
space
Time t
Figure 2.5 Evolution of the model problem and the solution from time t to time t + 1 (Feng and
Hudson, 2004).
be evolved at the next generation. If new information can be added, the slope design
will be continuously evolved from the current phase to the next in the same way as
described above.
A reasonable slope design can be suggested by performing one or more loops like
this as shown by the example flowchart in Figure 2.6.
2.7.1 Determination of slope angle using neural

network models
Considering the existence of the interaction of multiple factors, pre-determination
of a slope angle may be achieved using neural network modelling techniques. In
this modelling, factors that affect the stability of the slope, no matter whether
they are qualitative or quantitative, can be input to the model at an early stage.
As opposed to mathematical/mechanical modelling methods, in neural network-
based modelling there firstly has to be a learning process to develop the model
from case data. Naturally, performance of the neural network model’s learning
depends on its learning procedure and the representativeness of the case data. Two
kinds of new learning algorithms are adopted to obtain a model’s performance for
predictions. One is an improved back propagation (BP) algorithm; the other is an
evolving learning algorithm. The former is applicable when the structure of the
model is known; while the latter is applicable when the structure of the model is
unknown.
Generally, the BP algorithm is used to train a multi-layer feed-forward neural
network There are two key parameters (maximum allowable learning iterations
and the maximum allowable error) to determine the end of the learning process.
These two parameters are usually determined from a user’s experience. Erroneous
parameters will result in ‘over-training’ or ‘lack of training’. The former indi-
cates that the performance of the model in predicting new cases becomes worse as
learning proceeds.
What are reasonable parameters and values to halt the learning process of the
model? When does the model learning process finish? Given these questions, an
improved BP algorithm has therefore been proposed (Feng and Wang, 1994). With

Back analysis based on neural

network-finite element method
Parameter estimation Empirical estimation based on rock classification
Estimation based on statistical equations
Recognition of structure of constitutive model and its

parameters using genetic algorithm-genetic programming
Model recognition
Recognition of coefficients to be determined
in statistical models
Rock mass
classification RMR, Q, SRMR, GSI, BQ values
Slope design and its performance estimation
Neural network model taught by evolving algorithm

Determination of
slope angle
Neural network model taught by improved BP algorithm
Recognition of
Expert system
failure modes
Statistical models recognised using genetic algorithm
Neural network model taught by evolving algorithm
Neural network model taught by improved BP algorithm

Estimation of
safety factor
Rough set based neural network modelling
Fuzzy neural network modelling
Limit equilibrium: methods by Sarma, Bishop, etc.
Numerical methods: finite element method

Estimation of
and discrete element method
performance and
stability analysis
Reliability analysis
of the slope
Neural network-based time series analysis
Figure 2.6 Example of integrated ‘intelligent’ modelling for slope design and performance estimation
(Feng and Hudson, 2004).
this algorithm, the model will finish its learning process when the model provides the
best predictions for all new cases at hand.
Modes of rock slope failure are indicated in Table 2.1. Using the neural network
models, an angle for a slope under the given geological conditions can be estimated.
A comparison for the determination of the appropriate angle for twenty-six existing
slopes using the neural network models learning via two different algorithms is shown
in Table 2.2. The results, obtained by input of uniaxial compressive strength of rock,
dip angle of fracture, relation of fracture and slope face, ground water conditions,
rock mass structure, probable failure mode, cohesion of rock, internal friction angle

Table 2.1 Modes of slope failure (modified from Hoek and
Bray, 1977, and with information from Ulusay, personal
communication).
Slope failure modes Sketches
Bedding sliding
Bulking failure
Toppling failure
Wedge sliding
Horizontal
translation
Falling failure
(Continued)

Table 2.1 (Continued ).
Sliding on a
single plane
Sliding on single
plane with a
tensile crack
Sliding on a single
plane with
multi-blocks
Sliding on a single
plane with shear
failure at the
bottom of the slope
Sliding of
en echelon
multi-planes
Sliding on double
planes having the
same dip
(Continued)

Table 2.1 (Continued).
Sliding on double
planes having
different dip
Multi-planar
failure or active
on multi-blocks
Circular failure
High water
pressure
Excess deformation
resulted from high
stress or water
pressure at the
bottom corner
of the slope High
stress

of rock, height of slope, and the expected safety factor, are in agreement with the
actual slopes used in practice.
2.7.2 Recognition of failure modes using

an expert system
There are several kinds of potential failure modes for rock slopes as we have indi-
cated in Table 2.1. These potential failure modes are controlled by the geological
structure and the strength of the rock mass and high stress or water pressure at the
bottom corner of the slope. Since failure of the slopes can be both structurally and
non-structurally controlled, the identification of the potential failure modes can start
from the identification of the geological structures. An expert system was specifically
developed for recognition of massive and bedded rock masses using the shell RMEST
(Feng and Lin, 1993).
The input parameters for the expert system should include, inter alia, the rela-
tion between strike of the slope and that of the strata, dip angle of strata, angle of the
designed slope, internal friction angle of strata, lateral cutting face, geo-stress, height
of the design slope, uniaxial compressive strength of rock, ductility ratio, type of frac-
ture, outcrop slip face at the bottom of the slope, outcrop slip face at the top of the
slope, number of fracture sets and arrangement of fractures. Limit equilibrium and
numerical methods are also used for calibrating analysis. For some high slopes, since
the overall slope and the individual bench slope are different in angle and height, their
separate potential failure modes are identified.
2.7.3 Estimation of the stability of slopes and their

safety factors using integrated intelligent methods
The safety factor of a slope can be estimated according to its potential failure modes,
and there are different kinds of intelligent methods that can be used to estimate the
safety factor for these given failure modes. Neural network models for the subject can
be built using different learning algorithms, such as the evolving algorithm and an
improved BP algorithm. Also, there are other neural network methods: i.e., rough set
based neural network modelling and fuzzy neural network modelling (Feng, 2000).
An inherent characteristic of rock slope analysis and design is the lack of knowl-
edge of the complete system. However, fuzzy neural networks are robust enough to
assist with uncertainty of knowledge and data. A fuzzy neural network consists of an
input layer, a membership function calculation layer, a fuzzy rule layer and a back
fuzzy layer. Numerical data can be transferred into the fuzzy language variables using
membership functions. Therefore, fuzzy neural networks can have both qualitative
and quantitative inputs. The details are in Feng (2000).
Searching coefficients to be determined in an empirical/statistical equation repre-
sent a combination optimisation problem having multiple parameters. Using the stand-
ard formulae for estimating the safety factors of potential circular failure slopes and
potential wedge failure slopes, the values in Tables 2.2 and 2.3, although obtained with
different neural network models, are in acceptable agreement. The added application
of a genetic algorithm to recognise parameters and models for input to numerical
analysis can also be found in Feng (2000).

Table 2.2 Estimation of angle for slopes from neural network models obtained by using evolving learning and an improved BP algorithm (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
Internal Angle
Uniaxial Dip friction Height of Slope angle Slope angle
compressive angle of Relation of Ground Rock Probable Cohesion angle of Expected slope estimated estimated
strength of fracture fracture and water mass failure of rock of rock slope safety used by neural by neural
No. rock (MPa) (°) slope face condition structure mode (MPa) (°) (m) factor (°) network I network II
1 106.3 50 Parallel 5H Thin bedding- Circular 5.0 37.5 496 1.2 39.5 39.1 39.0
inlay structure failure
2 78.0 70 Vertical 4H Bedding Circular 8.2 39 496 1.15 37.5 38.2 37.8
structure failure
3 38.2 70 Oblique 5H Massive-inlay Plane-circular 3.8 37.5 494 1.25 37 37.3 37.1
cross structure
4 154.9 50 Oblique 3H Bedding-like Sliding of 5.7 36 480 1.15 42 41.7 42.0
cross structure double planes
having the
same dip
5 154.8 47 Oblique 3H Massive Sliding of 5.0 38 292 1.15 45 44.8 44.9
having the
same dip
6 67.7 62 Oblique 3H Massive Sliding of 4.5 36 365 1.15 46 46 46.0
having the
same dip
7 67.7 62 Oblique 3H Bedding-like Circular 6.4 35 382 1.15 46 45.7 46.1
cross structure failure
8 67.7 62 Oblique 3H Bedding- Sliding of 6.0 39 645 1.15 37 37.5 37.3
cross massive double planes
structure having the
same dip
(Continued)
5/24/2011 6:18:36 PM
Internal Angle
Uniaxial Dip friction Height of Slope angle Slope angle
compressive angle of Relation of Ground Rock Probable Cohesion angle of Expected slope estimated estimated
strength of fracture fracture and water mass failure of rock of rock slope safety used by neural by neural
No. rock (MPa) (°) slope face condition structure mode (MPa) (°) (m) factor (°) network I network II

same dip
10 64.2 65 Oblique 7H Bedding Circular 6.8 35 108 1.2 55 54 54.4
11 46.2 45 Oblique 7H Bedding Circular 6.8 35 200 1.2 55 56.4 55.1

same dip
13 64.8 45 Oblique 5H Bedding- Sliding of 7.0 37 231 1.25 52.5 52.7 52.6
same dip
14 59.0 80 Oblique 2H Bedding- Sliding of 4.8 37 218 1.2 39.5 39.2 39.1
same dip
15 82.1 60 Oblique 5H Massive Sliding of 4.1 38 138 1.2 48 48.5 48.2
having the
same dip
5/24/2011 6:18:36 PM
16 82.1 50 Oblique 5H Massive Sliding of 4.2 37 115 1.2 57.5 56.9 57.4
with 45° having the
same dip
17 82.1 45 Vertical 5H Massive Sliding of 2.9 34 123 1.2 52.5 53.3 53.3
structure double planes
having the
same dip
18 82.1 45 Vertical 5H Massive Sliding of 4.0 36 110 1.2 57.5 56.5 56.4
having the
same dip
19 147.4 67 Oblique 5H Massive-inlay Plane-Circular 9.9 36 198 1.2 48 48.1 48.0
20 147.4 45 Oblique 5H Massive-inlay Plane-Circular 8.5 36 142 1.2 52.5 52.9 52.4
21 124.8 60 Oblique 5H Massive-inlay Plane-Circular 9.0 35.5 182 1.2 52.5 52.1 52.6
22 67.7 65 Parallel 3H Bedding Sliding of 6.0 34 462 1.15 43 43.2 43.9
having the
same dip
23 72.0 65 Oblique 7H Massive-inlay Circular 7.0 37 154 1.2 50 49.7 50.3
24 64.2 65 Oblique 7H Massive-inlay Circular 6.4 35 138 1.20 52 52.1 52.5
with 45°
Neural network I: the model is obtained by using an evolving learning algorithm; Neural network II: The model is obtained by using an improved BP learning algorithm.
5/24/2011 6:18:36 PM
Table 2.3 Estimation of safety factors for circular slope failures using different neural network models (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
Safety Safety
Cohesion Internal Angle Safety factor Safety Safety factor factor
Unit of rock friction of Slope Pore predicted by factor factor predicted predicted
weight, γ mass c angle φ slope ϕf height pressure Actual limit predicted predicted by model by model
No. (kN/m3) (kPa) (°) (°) (m) ru stability** equilibrium by model I* by model II* III* IV*
1 20.00 20.0 36 45.0 50.0 0.25 Failure 0.96 1.03 1.09 1.02 0.95
2 27.00 40.0 35 47.1 292.0 – Failure 1.15 1.16 1.25 1.20 1.22
3 25.0 46.0 35 50.0 284.0 – Stable 1.34 1.44 1.22 1.44 1.44
4 31.3 68.0 37 46.0 366.0 – Failure 1.20 1.14 1.20 1.20 1.22
5 25.0 46.0 36 44.5 299.0 – Stable 1.55 1.62 1.50 1.44 1.52
6 27.3 10.0 39 40.0 480.0 – Stable 1.45 1.41 1.46 1.43 1.42
7 25.0 46.0 35 46.0 393.0 – Stable 1.31 1.47 1.27 1.28 1.42
8 25.0 48.0 40 49.0 330.0 – Stable 1.49 1.60 1.56 1.44 1.26
9 31.3 68.6 37 47.0 305.0 – Failure 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.16
10 25.0 55.0 36 45.5 299.0 – Stable 1.52 1.64 1.49 1.44 1.55
11 31.3 68.0 37 47.0 213.0 – Failure 1.20 1.14 1.21 1.20 1.21
* Model I: The neural network model learned by using an improved BP algorithm in which the learning process ends when the minimum error for testing samples is obtained.
Model II: The neural network model learned by using an evolving algorithm.
Model III: The rough set based neural network model.
Model IV: The fuzzy neural network algorithm.
** The stabilities of the slopes were all correctly estimated by the four models above.
5/24/2011 6:18:36 PM
2.7.4 Comprehensive integrated intelligent system

for slope design
An integrated intelligent system was developed to aid slope design using VC++ on a
personal computer. It includes integration of multiple tasks and integration of analysis
methods (Figure 2.6). The former includes recognition of mechanical rock mass parame-
ters, recognition of the model, rock mass classification, determination of slope angle, rec-
ognition of potential failure modes, estimation of the safety factor, and analysis of slope
performance. Parameter recognition is sub-divided into recognition of Young’s moduli
using back analysis of displacement, rock mass classification and statistical models, and
the strength of the rock mass using rock classification and statistical models. The latter
includes integration of potential methods used to solve one task or multiple tasks.
There are four methods used to analyse stability of a rock slope: limit equilibrium,
numerical methods, reliability analysis, and neural network-based time series analy-
sis. There are six methods used to estimate the safety factor in the system: statistical
models-based, neural network modelling using an evolving learning algorithm, neural
network modelling using an improved BP algorithm, rough set-based neural network
modelling, fuzzy neural network modelling, and a genetic algorithm.
A mechanism has been designed to harmonise solutions arising from the use of
multiple methods. The data and cases dealt with in the analysis process can be saved
into a database and casebase. A user-friendly interface has been developed to conven-
iently select methods. The data can be input using the interface and an error check func-
tion is provided to confirm the correctness of a user’s inputs. For the error checking,
some basic data are already stored in a database. Visualisation of the output results is
also provided (Feng, 2000).
2.8 CASE EXAMPLE USING THE ROCK SLOPE

INTEGRATED DESIGN METHODOLOGY
We now present a case study illustrating the use of the integrated design methodol-
ogy for the slopes at the Three Gorges Dam Project shiplock in China, previously
illustrated in Figure 1.2. The shiplock is excavated in rock and forms two high and
steep slopes at both sides (Figure 2.7). Its maximum height is 170 m and the length is
1617 m. Excavation started in autumn 1994 and finished in April 1999. The excava-
tion steps are shown in Figure 2.8.
The deformation performance of the slopes during excavation and the succeeding
period was closely monitored and scrutinised. Most of the advanced analysis methods
illustrated in Figure 2.1 were used for the study. Among these, the integrated intel-
ligent methods were considered attractive. Figure 2.9 indicates how this integrated
analysis was used to estimate the deformation performance of the slopes during exca-
vation. The method was integrated with neural network-based time series modelling
and neural network-based finite element modelling.
The estimated slope angles are given in Table 2.2; the safety factors for circular failure
are given in Table 2.3; and the safety factors for wedge failure are given in Table 2.4.
For the neural network-based time series modelling, a relation between displace-
ment data monitored at previous time steps j − p − 1, …, j − 1 and time step j is firstly
learned by a neural network to obtain a distributed model. Displacement data at time

111
South slope
North slope
Heavily weathered zone
Moderately weathered zone
Slightly weathered or fresh zone

Damaged zone Unloading
deformation zone
Stress adjustment zone
Stress adjustment zone
F2
Fault Weathered Excavation boundary
Figure 2.7 Geometry and rock mechanics zones of the shiplock slope at the head section of the third
shiplock room of the Three Gorges Dam Project, China (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
Figure 2.8 Excavation steps and displacement monitoring points at the shiplock slope at the head section
of the third shiplock room of the Three Gorges Dam Project, China (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
step j + 1 can then be predicted using the neural network model with input of the
monitored displacement data at time step j − p, …, j. The displacement monitored
at time step j + 1 can be added as input to predict the deformation behaviour for the
next time step j + 2. Thus, the new monitoring data can be fed back continuously as
input for model re-learning. As an example, the results for estimating the deforma-

Start
Feedback
Displacement data monitored Displacement data monitored at

at previous time steps j – p – 1, …, j previous excavation steps i – p, …, i – 1, i
Back analysis to determine Young’s

Use a learning process to moduli of rock mass zones and
obtain a neural network model values of geostress using neural
representing the change network model representing non-
between displacement xj and its linear relation between mechanical
previous value xj–1, …, xj–p–1 rock mass parameters and displacement
Predict performance of Predict performance of shiplock slope

shiplock slope at excavation at step i + 1 using numerical method with
step j + 1 using the recognised input of recognised parameter values
neural network model above and other parameters determined
using other methods
Monitor performance of Monitor performance of rock mass at

shiplock slope at time step j + 1 excavation step i + 1
j=j+1 i=i+1
No No
Is excavation finished? Is excavation finished?
Yes Yes
End End
Figure 2.9 Integrated estimation of deformation performance of shiplock slope during excavation period
(Feng and Hudson, 2004).
tion behaviour of the top surface of the isolated rock mass in the head section of the
third shiplock room (the monitoring points TP/BM70GP01 and TP/BM97GP02 in
Figure 2.8) are shown in Figure 2.10.
To explain neural network-based finite element modelling, consider that excava-
tion results in the formation of a damaged zone at the boundary zone of the slope and
in the formation of an unloading deformation zone inside (Figure 2.7). The damaged
zone and the unloading deformation zone are extended as the excavation depth is
increased. A back analysis method is proposed to establish the Young’s moduli of these
two zones. The relation between the parameters to be back analysed and the displace-
ment can be represented by a neural network. Constants in the geo-stress estimation
equations and the Young’s moduli for other zones, such as weak weathered zones and
fresh rock mass zones, can also be back estimated using the same method. The moni-
tored displacement data at previous excavation steps i − p, …, i − 1, i (p being zero
or non-zero) can be used for back analysis. The estimated results can then be input to
perform a forward finite element analysis to predict the deformation performance of
the rock mass due to excavation at the next step i + 1, or steps i + 1, …, i + k (k > 0).
The back-analysis and prediction can be continuously performed in this way.

Table 2.4 Estimation of safety factors for potential wedge slope failure using different neural network models (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
Safety factor Safety factor

estimated estimated
by neural by neural
Internal Internal Internal network network
friction friction friction Safety factor model model
Unit Cohesion of angle of Cohesion of angle of angle of Angle of Height of Actual estimated taught using taught using
weight γ fracture I Ca fracture I fracture II fracture II rock mass slope ϕf slope H stability by limit an improved an evolving
No. (kN/m3) (kPa) φa (°) Cb (kPa) φb (°) φp (°) (°) (m) state equilibrium BP algorithm algorithm
1 19.90 40.0 19.0 22 22 37 42 140.0 Failure 0.90 0.89 0.91

2 20.00 0 0 40 40 45 60 100.0 Failure 0.86 0.81 0.84
5/24/2011 6:18:38 PM
40
30
20
Displacement (mm)
10
Monitored for TP/BM70GP01
Calculated for TP/BM70GP01
0
Predicted for TP/BM70GP01
Monitored for TP/BM97GP02
–10 Calculated for TP/BM97GP02
Predicted for TP/BM97GP02
–20
–30
–40
June 1997 Dec. 1997 June 1998 Dec. 1998 June 1999 Dec. 1999
Date
Figure 2.10 Comparison of predicted and monitored displacement for monitoring points TP/BM70GP01
and TP/BM97GP02 at the top corners of the isolated rock mass of the third shiplock room
(see Figure 2.8), Three Gorges Project (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
Traditionally, the displacements of large slopes have been monitored and plotted
to indicate when large-scale instability is likely: i.e., when the curve of displacement
versus time begins to curve sharply upwards. The method described above is an
enhancement of this approach using a combination of the numerical tools now avail-
able and with the advantage of including a predictive capability.
An integrated method is proposed for estimating the deformation performance of
the shiplock slopes for the shiplock’s running period, as shown in Figure 2.11. The
approach is similar to that used during the excavation period, except that the input
data are then updated after specific time period intervals. Another difference is utilis-
ing the integration of the neural network model with the finite element method.
Because of deterioration due to water chemistry, the strength of the rock mass,
concrete and reinforcement units may reduce with time. The water in the Yangtze
river can cause a reduction of about 37% in the compressive strength of the shiplock
slope granite (Feng and Lin, 1993). Therefore, the validity of parameter values and
the constitutive model must be continuously ensured. Which values of the strength
parameters and the constitutive law governing deterioration should be adopted in the
numerical analysis for estimation of deformation behaviour in the long term? These
can be back estimated using displacement monitored during the running period.
There are two ways to do this: one is to back-recognise the deterioration constitutive
model with its parameters and to perform a forward finite element calculation with
input of the estimated results; the other is to back estimate Young’s moduli or other
deformation parameters for different zones using the monitored displacement data at
previous time steps i − p, …, i − 1, i and then input the estimated results with strength

Start
Displacement data monitored at previous time steps j – p – 1, …, j
Learning process to obtain Back analysis of Back analysis of Reduction of shear

a neural network model constitutive model deformation moduli and tensile strength
representing displacement and its parameters of zones using of rock mass,
change from xj and its using monitored monitored concrete and
displacement at displacement at reinforcement at
previous value xj–1, …, xj–p–1 previous time steps current time step j
previous time steps
Perform forward Perform forward numerical

Predict performance of numerical analysis to analysis to estimate
shiplock slope at time step estimate performance and performance and
j + 1 using the recognised displacement of slope displacement of shiplock
neural network model using the recognised slope using the recognised
constitutive model parameters and model
Monitor performance, displacement, and change of

environment conditions of shiplock slope at time step j + 1
Renew displacement data of

one time step
j=j+1
End
Figure 2.11 Integrated estimation of deformation performance of shiplock slope during operating
period (Feng and Hudson, 2004).
parameters tested in the field and/or lab to perform a forward finite element analysis
to predict the deformation of slopes at time step i + 1, i = 1, 2, …. This is based on the
consideration that the strength parameters are not so direct in determining displace-
ment behaviour as the values of Young’s moduli. Thus, continuing estimation using
new monitored displacement values renews the values of the parameters and/or mod-
els used in the analysis. The results will then be closer to the actual values.
2.9 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this Chapter, and with reference to Figure 2.1, we have summarised the suite of
rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design methods available, and we
have noted that both the modelling and the rock engineering projects have become
more complex. We then discussed the integrated design approach, computer networks,
a virtual rock mechanics facility, development of ‘intelligent’ modelling methods, the
integrated methodology for rock slope design, and a case study illustrating the use of
the integrated methodology. This has enabled us to make the following conclusions.

1 Given that rock engineering projects are becoming more complex, that there is a
variety of modelling and design methods currently available, and that the capabil-
ity of modern electronic communications has increased significantly over the last
decade, it is appropriate now to consider the ‘ways ahead’ for rock engineering
design methodologies.
2 The current modelling and design methods fall into two classes: those that involve
1:1 mapping and those that do not. In the 1:1 mapping methods, the basis of the
method is to incorporate directly the geometry and operating mechanisms. In
non-1:1 mapping, this is not done directly. An example of the former is finite ele-
ment analysis; an example of the latter is rock mass classification.
3 The eight methods in Figure 2.1 all have their advantages and disadvantages. It
is appropriate, therefore, to develop an integrated methodology which utilises a
combination of the methods as appropriate. This can be done within the context
of the closed-loop process of site investigation to design to construction to site
investigation, as shown in Figure 2.1.
4 The advantages of computer networks should be utilised via LAN-based, Intranet
systems and the Internet. In addition to then being able to solve larger problems,
there is much potential for local and worldwide collaborative research and design
work. Also, the analogy between the Internet and a neural network could lead to
enhanced emergent capabilities.
5 We recommend the development of an Internet-based virtual rock mechanics
facility in line with the conclusion above.
6 The Method D, Level 2, methods in Figure 2.1, i.e., ‘intelligent’ methods should
be developed further, not only as a separate method class as in Figure 2.1, but
also in the overall role of co-ordinating the separate approaches in the integrated
methodology.
7 The integrated methodology was illustrated for rock engineering design using neu-
ral networks. Both qualitative and quantitative information can be input into the
model. The Three Gorges dam shiplock case history demonstrated the utility of the
approach in being able to continuously input the most recent monitored information
and predict the deformation at the next time step via the neural network approach.
8 We are currently in a transition period between the use of single rock mechanics
modelling and rock engineering design methods and the full use of an integrated
methodology incorporating the advantages of the many methods available. In
order to develop the integrated methodology, an approach structure is required—
probably internet-based and with a neural network ‘supervising’ program.
9 Currently, the operator and the computing are decoupled, in the sense that the
operator decides what to do, the computer does it, and then the operator inter-
prets the results. It is hoped that further development of the integrated method-
ology will also lead to improved operator–computer coupling, particularly the
ability to include perception directly into the computing operation.
Following this Chapter’s content on ‘the ways ahead’, in the next Chapter we
present a discussion on rock engineering design flowcharts that have been generated
in the past and how these naturally evolve into our Figure 2.1 flowchart, together
with an associated new design flowchart. Three illustrative examples of the use of
Figure 2.1 flowchart and the new design flowchart are included in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3
Flowcharts for rock engineering

modelling and design
3.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF EARLIER WORK
In the previous Chapter, we discussed the ways ahead for rock engineering design
methodologies as background to the development of modern rock engineering design.
We also presented the core modelling flowchart in Figure 2.1. In this Chapter, and
as further foundation for the new methodology, we continue the discussion of flow-
charts, both from an historical perspective and to lead into the principles. Addition-
ally, we present an updated flowchart for the rock engineering design process. Finally,
we provide three illustrative case examples demonstrating the application of the flow-
charts, one of which highlights the use of ‘intelligent rock mechanics’, this term refer-
ring to the use of artificial intelligence methods in rock mechanics analyses.
There have been many earlier presentations that have included rock engineering
design flowcharts: e.g., the flowcharts developed by Hoek and Brown (1977), Pahl
and Beitz (1984), Brady and Brown (1985), Bieniawski (1984, 1992, 1993), Hudson
(1993), and more recently through the work of Li (1998), AFTES (2003), Feng et al.
(2003), Goricki (2003), Goricki et al. (2004), Palmström and Stille (2007), Feng
et al. (2007), Bond and Harris (2008), Read and Stacey (2009), GEOtechnical Engi-
neering Office (2009). Some of the flowcharts are reproduced here in Figures 3.1–
3.7, our intention being to present a sample of previous flowcharts, not to attempt
to include all such earlier design flowcharts (for a more extensive compendium, see
Bieniawski, 1992).
In the flowchart in Figure 3.1, the work starts with collection of geological data
and then follows on to the four columns in the flowchart considering instability due
to adverse structural geology, excessively high rock stress, weathering and/or swelling
rock and excessive groundwater pressure or flow. This then leads to decisions on the
support and the applicability of the site.
The flowchart in Figure 3.2 covers the steps of conceptualising the problem, pre-
paring preliminary layouts, establishing the definitive layout and documenting the
final details. This is more of an administrative guidance, rather than dealing with the
rock mechanics issues specifically.
The flowchart in Figure 3.3 provides an outline for mine design which has multi-
ple feedback modes—indicating the need to assess the mine response in terms of the
site characterisation, model formulation and design analysis, so that mine operations
can be optimised through a continuing feedback and hence improvement process.
Bieniawski’s flowchart in Figure 3.4 covers engineering constraints and design
methods including analytical, empirical and observational ones, whereas Figure 3.5

DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND EXCAVATIONS IN ROCK
Preliminary collection and interpretation of geological data from historical documents,
geological maps, air photographs, surface mapping and borehole core logs.
Consideration of the relation between the rock mass characteristics
and the geometry and orientation of the proposed excavations
In hard rock masses with strongly developed When stability is not likely to be dominated by
inclined structural features, excavation stability sliding on structural features, other factors
may be dominated by gravity falls and sliding such as high stress and weathering become
along inclined discontinuities. important and can be evaluated by means of a
Rock classification systems inadequate classification of rock quality
Use of rock quality index to compare excavation

stability and support requirements with documented
evidence from sites with similar geology conditions
Are stability problems anticipated for excavations of Design of excavations
size and shape under consideration? based on operational
YES NO considerations with
provision for minimal
support
Instability due to Instability due to Instability due to Instability due to

adverse structural excessively weathering and/or excessive groundwater
geology high rock stress swelling rock pressure or flow
Measurement of in Slake durability

Piezometer
Detailed geological situ rock stress in and swelling tests
installation for
mapping of borehole vicinity of proposed on rock samples
determination of
core, surface exposures, excavations groundwater pressures
any adits and shafts and distribution
Consideration of
Rock strength tests
remedial measures
to determine rock
e.g., pneumatically
Stability improve- fracture criteria
applied concrete lining Drainage and/or
ment by relocation grouting system to
and/or reorientation Stress analysis of control excessive
of excavations? proposed excavation groundwater
layout to check on Trial excavation to pressure and flow
YES NO test effectiveness of into excavations
extent of potential
rock fracture proposed remedial
measures
Design of Provision of
excavations with Can rock fracture be permanent
provision for close Design of excavation
minimised or groundwater
geological sequence to ensure
eliminated by change monitoring facilities
observation and minimum delay
of excavation layout? to check continuing
local support between exposure
and protection of effectiveness of
NO YES
surfaces drainage measures
Design of support to prevent

gravity falls and to reinforce
potential fracture zones Design of excavations with
provision for trial
excavation, controlled
blasting, rapid support
Can adequate support installation and monitoring
be provided to ensure of excavation behaviour
long term stability? during and on completion of
Reject this site NO YES construction
Figure 3.1 Flowchart for the design of underground excavations in rock (from Hoek and Brown, 1977).

Flowcharts for rock engineering modelling and design 49
Figure 3.2 Flowchart for rock engineering design steps according to Pahl and Beitz (1984).
covers the collection of the necessary data leading to processing of the data and then
the design studies. However, the methods of analysis are not explicitly covered and so
the precise data required are not specified. Although the general principles are appro-
priate, modern numerical methods require specific input parameters.
The 10 steps in Fig 3.6 provide a more expanded explanation of the design proc-
ess from the statement of the problem in Stage 1 to implementation in Stage 10, rep-
resenting evolution of the design by continuously improving the design in Stages 6, 7
and 8, although the exact methods are left to the engineer.

Site characterisation
definition of hydromechanical properties of
the host rock mass for mining
Mine model formulation

conceptualisation of site characterisation data
Design analysis
selection and application of mathematical and
computational schemes for study of various
mining layouts and strategies
Rock performance monitoring

measurement of the operational response to
mining of the host rock mass
Retrospective analysis
quantification of in situ rock mass properties,
and identification of dominant modes of
response of mine structure
Figure 3.3 Outline flowchart for mine design with multiple feedback modes, Brady and Brown (1985).
ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS
Function, Size, Shape, Layout, Methods of Excavation
OBJECTIVES
Safety, Stability, Economy
DETERMINATION OF INPUT DATA

Geological Structure
(engineering geological mapping and geotechnical core logging)
Rock and Rock Strata Properties
(strength, deformability and factors of influence)
Groundwater, In situ stress field
Applied loads
DESIGN METHODS
Analytical Empirical Observational
(numerical and (Rock mass (field measurement)
physical modelling, classification
failure criteria) and experience)
OUTPUT SPECIFICATIONS
For mines and tunnels:

roof spans, stand-up time, support guidelines
For slopes and foundations:
rock mass cohesion and friction, deformation modulus
FEEDBACK
Selection of instrumentation for Performance Monitoring
Remedial Measures in case of instability
Figure 3.4 Simplified design chart for rock engineering (Bieniawski, 1984).

PRELIMINARY DATA
COLLECTION
FEASIBLITY
STUDY
DETAILED SITE CHARACTERISATION
PLAN INVESTIGATIONS
DETAILED EXPLORATORY EXPLORATORY

GEOLOGICAL DRILLING ADITS
MAPPING
GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY IN SITU ROCK

TESTING TESTING MECHANICS TESTS
MEASUREMENT OF
IN SITU STRESSES GROUNDWATER
TESTS
PROCESSING OF DATA
PREPARE FINAL GEOLOGICAL MAPS AND SECTIONS
ANALYSE RESULTS OF LABORATORY AND IN SITU TESTS
ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MASSES IN REGIONS
DESIGN
STUDIES
CONSTRUCTION
Figure 3.5 Flowchart for the design of rock engineering structures with the emphasis on the detailed
site characterisation, from Bieniawski (1992).
The diagram in Figure 3.7 (Hudson, 1993) illustrates the conceptual nature of
the rock engineering design process as a three tier process. The outer border rep-
resents the entry to the problem; the middle border represents the inter-relations
between the various factors; and the inner border represents the analysis of individual
subjects. The overall design process involves entering the diagram with an objective

Stage 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Performance Objectives
Stage 2
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS Design Principle (i)
AND CONSTRAINTS Independence of
Design Variables and Design Issues functional
requirements
Stage 3
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION
Design Principle (ii)
Minimal uncertainty
Geologic Site Characterisation of geological
Rock and Rock Mass In Situ Stress Field conditions
Properties Groundwater
Stage 4
COLLECTION/FORMULATION
Design Principle (iii)
Stage 5 Simplicity of design
ANALYSIS OF SOLUTION
COMPONENTS
Analytical Methods Observational Methods

Empirical Methods
Stage 6
SYNTHESIS AND SPECIFICATION Design Principle (iv)
FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS State-of-the-art
Shapes and sizes of excavations, alternative rock

reinforcement and associated safety factors
Stage 7 Stage 8 Design Principle (v)

Optimisation
EVALUATION OPTIMIZATION
Design Principle (vi)
Performance
Constructibility
Consideration of design with respect to non-rock
engineering aspects: ventilation, power supply, etc.
Stage 9 Feasibility
RECOMMENDATION Preliminary design
Final design
Stage 10
IMPLEMENTATION
Lessons
learned
Figure 3.6 Flowchart for the design of underground excavations in rock, from Bieniawski (1992).

Complete rock engineering problems

Analysis of coupled mechanisms
Analysis of individual subjects
Foundation
Borehole/shaft
Boundary
conditions
Underground
In situ stress, Hydro- excavation
geological regime
e.g., Block analysis or stress analysis

Rock mechanics interaction matrices
Knowledge-based expert systems
Figure 3.7 Diagram illustrating the three tiers of the rock engineering design problem, from Hudson
(1993).
Begin
Input rock mass class, element

division, support data, etc.
User’s interface
Supply of conditions for

In situ measurement data analogue application Rock mass
of typical projects classification,
({U} – measured peripheral Supply of typical
geological environments analogue reasoning
displacement) with previous projects
yes
Supply of Comprehensive Supply of
input parameters no correction empirical Supply of
({U} – reserved {u} = {U} model and special
factor Kc
for check Kc Pi (λ, H/L) mechanical analysis
criteria) parameters channel
Rock mechanics numerical analysis

({U}, the analytical peripheral displacement)
Output of displacement, stress,

yield zone, pull-apart zone, etc.
End
Figure 3.8 Precedent type analysis and the inter-relations between the three components, from
Li et al. (1998).

Geomechanically relevant parameters
Determine
ROCK MASS TYPES
Groundwater Orientation joint Primary stress

conditions sets-tunnel conditions
Determination of excavation and support

Size, shape, and location of the tunnel
Determine
BEHAVIOUR TYPES
Identification of boundary conditions
Definition of requirements (RQ)
Determine
EXCAVATION and SUPPORT
System behaviour (SB)
SB
Equals
RQ
Determine
EXCAVATION CLASSES
Distribution of excavation classes
Figure 3.9a Flowchart for the basic procedure of excavation and support design for underground
structures, from Goricki (2003).
and establishing the content of the three borders, and then exiting with a progressively
developed design.
The flowchart in Figure 3.8 (Li et al., 1998) concentrates on the three compo-
nents of data from previous projects, rock mass classification and numerical analysis.
Li et al. explain that, “Precedent type analysis is a semi-analytic method that applies

Geotechnical relevant parameters
Determination of
GROUND TYPES
Orientation
Groundwater Primary stresses
Ground structure-tunnel
Size, shape, location of structure
Determination of
GROUND BEHAVIOUR
Assessment of boundary conditions
Definition of requirements (RQ)
Geotechnical design
Selection of construction concept
Evaluation of system behaviour in

excavation area
Detailed determination of construction

measures and evaluation of
SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR (SB)
no SB
complies with
RQ?
yes
FRAMEWORK PLAN
Determination of tunnelling classes

Compensation clauses
Specifications
Distribution of tunnelling classes
TENDER DOCUMENTS
Figure 3.9b Schematic procedure of geotechnical design, from Austrian Society for Geomechanics
(2010).
the geological conditions of a so-called ‘typical project’ to an analysed tunnelling

project for its stability analysis. A completed tunnelling project can be used as a ‘typi-
cal’ or ‘reference’ project for others if it satisfies three criteria: (1) monitoring through
construction periods has been carried out and all the data obtained are reliable; (2) an

GEOLOGICAL ACTIONS Input
EXPLORATION
CONSTRUCTION
METHODS
GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATIONS
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE
ROCK MASS
MODEL LIMIT STATES
Limit state CONCEPTUAL

verification MODEL
process (to
be repeated DEFINITION OF THE
for all relevant SAFETY CRITERIA
limit states)
ANALYSIS
No
Is the limit MODIFY THE

state verified? DESIGN
Yes
PREDICTION OF
GROUND BEHAVIOUR
Preparation
DESIGN DETAILING
of the design
for construction
MONITORING PLAN
Construction
process CONSTRUCTION
CHANGE DESIGN
OBSERVATION ASSUMPTIONS
Observations No
match predictions?
Yes
OPERATION
Figure 3.10 Flowchart for Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design (NF EN1997-1 Eurcode 7, 2005).

Geology Structure Rock Hydrogeology
MODELS Geotechnical
Model
Geological
Domains
DOMAINS Strength Failure Modes Structure
Design Sectors
Equipment
Bench
Configurations
DESIGN Regulations Capabilities
INTERACTIVE PROCESS
Inter-Ramp
Angles
Mine Planning
Overall Slopes
Structure
Partial Slopes
ANALYSIS Strength Stability
Analysis Overall Slopes
Groundwater
In Situ Stress Final Risk

Designs Assessment
Blasting Depressurisation
Implementation
IMPLEMENTATION
Movement
Dewatering Monitoring
Closure
Design Model
Figure 3.11 Flowchart for the large open-pit slope design process, from Read and Stacey (2009).
in situ rock mass characterisation has been carried out for the project and a relevant
complete set of data obtained; and (3) the project should be well recognised to have a
common feature for the tunnels driven in similar rock mass classes.” Hence, precedent
type analysis is based on the same principles as rock mass classification, but formal-
ises the process for design.
In Figure 3.9a, Goricki’s flowchart (2003) illustrates a sequential procedure
for characterising the rock mass, using a hierachical procedure for identification of

rock mass behaviour and potential failure modes, and then integrating techniques
for support determination. The Austrian Society for Geomechanics has extended the
Figure 3.9a flowchart to form the updated flowchart shown in Figure 3.9b.
Figure 3.10 shows the design process in rock engineering based on the limit state
approach in which the performance of the whole structure or a part of it is described
with reference to a set of limit states, beyond which the structure fails to satisfy the
fundamental requirements. There are two types of limit state: (1) the Ultimate Limit
State (ULS), its occurrence causing loss of stability, collapse, or other particularly
serious consequence; and (2) Serviceability Limit State (SLS), its occurrence, with a
certain duration or repetition, resulting in a performance decrease, without loss of
stability.
Figure 3.11 illustrates the design process for large open-pit slopes (Read and
Stacey, 2010). It includes risk assessment and failure modes in the design process.
As mentioned earlier, we have not attempted to include all such rock engineering
design flowcharts but to illustrate the variety of types that have already been devel-
oped. The flowchart in Figure 3.1 includes specific guidance on the rock mechanics
approaches to follow. The flowcharts in Figures 3.2–3.6, although helpful, do not
highlight either the rock mechanics mechanisms nor the actual analysis procedures.
The flowcharts in Figure 3.9(a) and (b) follow a somewhat different approach in
that, after establishing the rock mass types and their characteristics, together with
those of the excavation, the behavioural types are identified from a library of behav-
iour types and from this the excavation and support are determined. Figures 3.10
and 3.11 from EUROCODE7 and for large open-pit slopes are somewhat more
extensive.
Because of the significant developments in numerical modelling and site investiga-
tion techniques, it is topical now to consider an updated approach to both the rock
mechanics modelling and the rock engineering design procedure which builds on the
previous flowcharts but also takes advantage of all the recent developments in theory,
numerical modelling and construction experience. Thus, based on the previous work
and in line with providing more complete guidance for rock engineering design, in
this Chapter we present one further flowchart in the next Section. This is our ‘rock
engineering design flowchart’ which highlights the design process in a series of seven
main steps and utilises the modelling flowchart already presented in Figure 2.1.
3.2 THE ROCK ENGINEERING MODELLING

AND DESIGN PROCESS
3.2.1 Updated rock engineering flowchart

We will use two flowcharts for the rock engineering design process. The first is
the summary of modelling/analysis procedures already presented in Figure 2.1.
This is to be used in conjunction with the updated rock engineering flowchart in
Figure 3.12, which is similar in concept to Bieniawski’s 1992 flowchart (Figure 3.6)
but concentrates on the analysis methods and the initial-to-final design work in
seven steps.

The rock engineering design flowchart
DESIGN CONTENTS OF THE DESIGN
Establish the objective and

1 Project sub-objectives of the project
2 Key features
Identify the features and constraints
of the site, rock
of the site
mass and project
OVERALL
Develop the overall design approach ASSESSMENT
3 Design strategy based on the options in
approach strategy Methods A to D in Figure 2.1 flowchart
Utilise the principles Utilise the principles

4 Choose of code
modelling method of modelling,
choose method(s) implementation,
and appropriate choose method(s)
code INITIAL
DESIGN
Establish initial design, conduct hazard

5 Establish assessment, and initiate construction,
Initial design with monitoring
6 Integrated Consider the Consider construction

modelling and integration of the feedback information
feedback modelling methods via Figure 2.1, to
information in Figure 2.1 closed-loop design
FINAL
DESIGN
7 Final design Establish final design and verify by
and verification monitoring
Figure 3.12 Updated flowchart for the rock engineering design process.
3.2.2 Steps in the rock engineering design process

The content of the individual steps in Figure 3.12 is outlined in Table 3.1 below.
There will be many variations on the seven step theme described here, but it is useful
to bear the structure of this upgraded flowchart in mind throughout the design and
construction project. For example, if a tunnel is passing through sandstone, limestone
and mudstone, the flowchart can be considered to apply to each of the geological
domains.

Table 3.1 Notes on the steps in the rock engineering design process.
1 Project purpose: There can be many engineering objectives and sub-objectives that need to be
firmly established at the top of the flowchart. Different project objectives imply that different rock
properties and analyses are required for the different purposes. Unless this is firmly established
before the design work commences, the work cannot be optimally conducted.
2 Key features of the site, rock mass and project: Different sites, rock masses and projects
indicate that there will be different emphases in the design, implying that it will be rarely that two
projects are identical.Thus, each rock engineering design is likely to be a ‘one-off’ occurrence.This
is why the application of the principles is so important.
3 Design approach strategy: Given the identification of the features in Step 2, a modelling
design approach strategy is now provisionally established by the choice of modelling methods in
Figure 3.12 as determined by the options in Figure 2.1. There are many aspects to be considered,
such as the resources available for the work, the consequences of design failure, possible modes
of failure, spatial variations in the rock mass properties, whether there is any need to consider
time dependent effects, some kind of remediation and/or foreseeing contingency plans, etc.
4 Choose modelling method and appropriate code: In this step, the overall approach is
now made specific through the exact choice of methods and codes. It is wise to go through the
principles outlined later in this Chapter in order to ensure that correct choices are made.
5 Establish initial design: This step crystallises the initial design so that construction can begin.
We are anticipating that this may not be the final design, but it is the best that can be achieved
before monitoring of results and back analysis are possible.
6 Integrated modelling and feedback information: In this step, we change from a forward
analysis to a back analysis (see Figure 2.1) by directly using the monitoring results, an observational
method, engineering judgement or the integrated intelligent methods, to improve the design
through enhanced integration of the rock property information, modelling methods, monitoring
information and back analysis. In other words, the initial construction is a full-scale experiment
enabling the final design to be established.
7 Final design and verification: Finally, the monitoring is continued, so that the criteria associated
with the engineering objective are confirmed to be satisfied.
3.2.3 Project purpose, constraints and key features

of the site, rock mass and project
In Figure 3.12, the rock engineering design process is outlined. It is of crucial impor-
tance to have a clear understanding of the purpose of the project, plus any constraints
on the design. For example, the design considerations and the site investigation param-
eters required for a short-term mining rock slope and for a long-term radioactive waste
repository will be different. The project purpose naturally affects the design because of
the different criteria associated with the purpose. In the case of a high pressure water
tunnel, the main design parameter could be the minimum in situ principal stress value.
For an underground transportation tunnel, the main design issue is maintaining the long-
term displacements within acceptable values. The constraints of the site may involve
issues related to land restrictions, topographic mapping, local knowledge, site history,
etc. The constraints of the project may include function, size, shape, layout, method of
excavation. Thus, there can be no fixed site investigation or standard design because
both depend on the project purpose and the constraints involved. This is why we have
placed these two related boxes at the beginning of the flowchart in Figure 3.12.

3.2.4 Establishing the design approach strategy via

the modelling options
In order to design a rock engineering structure, it is necessary to be able to evaluate
the consequences of different design options, i.e., to be able to predict what will hap-
pen if a structure with a certain design is constructed in a given rock mass. In order
to do this, some form of predictive capability is required—through modelling. So, in
the overall assessment and establishment of the design approach strategy, the type of
modelling has to be chosen from a combination of the eight individual methods out-
lined in Figure 2.1. The choice will depend on the nature of the project and the ‘risk’
involved, i.e., to what extent any failure can be tolerated. As an example, consider the
design of a simple cavern in sedimentary rock with a design life of 120 years. If there
are no complicating features, a design strategy can be based on (see the shaded boxes
in Figure 3.13):
• consideration of pre-existing standard designs (Method A1);

• via precedent type analysis, consideration of the type of standard design best
suited to the conditions (Method A2);
• use of analytical methods for ‘first pass’ study of stress concentrations and dis-
placements (Method B1);
• use of rock mass classifications, RMR, Q, GSI, BQ and/or potential failure modes
to indicate required support (Method B2); and
• use of ‘standard’ numerical methods, e.g., Examine, FLAC, UDEC, 3DEC, to
provide more detailed study (Method C1).
Design of a simple cavern in

sedimentary rock

Use of analytical Use of standard Not required
Consideration methods, stress- numerical Extended
of pre-existing based for methods, to numerical
standard guidance on stress account for 3-D methods, Level 1
1:1 mapping
Lab and field tests
methods concentrations shape, fully-coupled

Site investigation
and displacements fractures, etc. models
Use of rock Not required Not required

Consideration
mass Database expert Integrated
of guidance Level 2
classification, systems, & systems
from precedent Not 1:1 mapping
RMR, Q, GSI, other systems approaches,
type analysis
BQ approaches internet-based
Figure 3.13 Example of the modelling methods used in the design of a ‘simple’ cavern in sedimentary
rock.

Rather than jump directly to the last bullet point (Method C1), it is better to
utilise the methods in this order, to check that the different approaches are indicat-
ing similar designs. This provides the overall assessment as indicated in Step 3 in
Figure 3.12.
In the more complex case of designing an underground repository for radioactive
waste disposal, it is necessary to ensure not only the practicality of construction and
the long-term stability of openings, but also the over-arching project purpose: that an
unacceptable quantity of radionuclides should not escape from the repository to the
biosphere over a period of many thousands of years. In this case, much more complex
modelling is required, as highlighted in Figure 3.14.
We do not have space here to describe the manifold aspects of designing such
a repository; suffice it to say that all the modelling tools at our disposal including
rock mass classification plus the basic and extended numerical models, and systems
approaches, i.e., boxes B2, C1 and D1, and C2 are required. Boxes D1 and D2 have
a lighter shade in Figure 3.14 because their full capability has not yet been developed;
but we do anticipate their use in due course.
3.2.5 Utilising the principles of modelling and code

implementation
To lead into the initial design in Figure 3.12 having decided on a modelling strategy, it
is important to consider whether the modelling can indeed capture the relevant char-
acteristics of the site, rock mass and project. For example, if long-term displacements
Design of a radioactive
waste repository

Not possible Extended
Inadequate Basic numerical
Use of pre- numerical
Analytical methods, Level 1
existing methods,
FEM, BEM, 1:1 mapping
Lab and field tests
methods,
Site investigation
standard fully-coupled
stress-based DEM, hybrid
methods models
Not possible Database

Rock mass Integrated Level 2
expert
Precedent type classification systems Not 1:1
systems, &
analyses and RMR, Q, approaches, mapping
other systems
modifications GSI, BQ internet-based
approaches
Figure 3.14 Example of the modelling methods used in the design of a radioactive waste repository.

are a key issue, then an elastic analysis is, by definition, inappropriate. Ideally, there
should be a protocol established to ensure that the modelling is appropriate (e.g.,
Hudson et al., 2005). In Table 3.2, we outline nine principles for good modelling
practice. These are expressed fairly strictly and, for various reasons, it may not be
possible to ensure that they are all completely followed. However and conversely, the
modelling is likely to be ineffective if, for example, a key variable is missing in the
modelling.
Similarly, it is all too easy to use an off-the-shelf computer program and hope that
it is sufficient for the purpose. In fact, an effort should be made, going back to the code
distributor if necessary, to ensure that it is fit for the modelling purpose. In Table 3.3,
we provide a further seven principles, in this case for code implementation.
This then leads to Step 5 in Figure 3.12 in which the initial design is established
and construction can begin. It is anticipated that there will be feedback from monitor-
ing information, enabling Steps 6 and 7 in Figure 3.12 to be completed. If this is not
anticipated, then naturally the initial design will be the final design and care must be
taken to ensure that it has been sufficiently well established.
Table 3.2 Suggested modelling principles to ensure that the modelling does indeed represent the rock
reality (developed with Professor J.P. Harrison of the University of Toronto).
Principles for modelling
1 All relevant processes (e.g., gradients, failure modes and mechanisms) should be incorporated in
the analysis.
2 All relevant properties, including any variability, should be incorporated in the analysis.
3 The necessary spatial dimensionality of the analysis should be captured in the modelling.
4 Temporal effects should be captured in the modelling.
5 Any computer code used should be checked for correctness.
6 Any code considered should be able to incorporate the processes and properties in the context
of the geometry and time frame being modelled.
7 The algorithms incorporated in the code should be appropriate in content and execution.
8 The output should be commensurate with the engineering objective.
9 The code should not use properties that are ill defined or significantly subjective.
Table 3.3 Principles of numerical code implementation.
Principles of code implementation
1 The engineering objective, i.e., reasons for requiring the modelling, should be clearly defined,
together with the required output information.
2 All relevant properties should be available for inclusion.
3 Only realistic values of properties should be utilised.
4 The modelling domain should be of appropriate size and resolution to provide sufficiently accurate
results.
5 Recognising that it might not be possible for all the other principles to be fully satisfied, an
assessment should be made of the errors introduced by any deviations and assumptions made.
6 A criterion should be established for determining when the modelling has satisfied the modelling
objective.
7 If required, a modelling protocol should be established by producing a reasoned narrative regarding
each of the code selection and code implementation principles.

3.2.6 Establishing and verifying/validating the design

Steps 6 and 7 in Figure 3.12 represent the modified design in which the monitoring
information has been utilised, together with an improved integration of the modelling
methods. We provide a specific example of how this is done in the Shuibuya hydro-
power case example following. Also, given the closed-loop operation between Steps 6
and 7, there could be several iterations depending on the complexity and variability
of the project and rock mass.
3.3 USE OF THE PROCEDURE IN THREE ILLUSTRATIVE

CASE EXAMPLES
We now illustrate how the updated rock engineering design flowchart in Figure 3.12
(supported by the rock mechanics flowchart in Figure 2.1) is utilised by presenting
three case examples:
1 the design of an expressway tunnel in China;

2 the design of the powerhouse cavern for the Shuibuya project, Hubei Province,
China, where there are alternating weak and strong sedimentary strata; and
3 the design of a radioactive waste repository in a crystalline rock mass.
In the presentation of these illustrative case examples, we are highlighting the key
issues related to the design approach; we are not able to include all the details of the
projects.
3.3.1 Illustrative Example 1: The design of a

conventional tunnel—Design of the Qiaotou
tunnel, Yuanmo Expressway, China
3.3.1.1 Overview of the project
The 280 m long Qiaotou tunnel, forming part of the Yuanmo Expressway in China is
a double span tunnel with a united arch architecture and a central wall (Zhou et al.,
2002). The tunnel has single spans of 10.53 m, a net height of 7.2 m and the side wall
is curved. The central wall is rectilinear with thickness 2 m. The tunnel has an overall
width of 23.05 m and excavation height of 24.65 m (Figure 3.15). The surrounding
rock is Class III and IV in the Chinese rock quality system with a maximum overbur-
den of 74 m. It belongs to the geological sub-segment of the Xiatongjingxing group
of the Baier series (K1J1). The lithology is ash and sandstone with inter-layered clay-
stone. The maximum thickness of the strongly weathered strata is 17.9 m. The weakly
weathered strata are relatively intact with some big blocks. The support system was
designed using WID25 rockbolts with length of 3 m, spacing of 1 × 1 m, C25 shot-
crete with a thickness of 200 mm, reinforcing net 200 × 200 mm, and the secondary
support is armoured concrete, 500 mm thick.
The construction sequence was that the central wall was constructed first, then
excavation of the upper and lower benches for the left side and right side tunnels.
When the upper part of the left side of the tunnel was excavated and the secondary

Figure 3.15 Section of the Qiaotou double highway tunnel, part of the Yuanmo Expressway, China
(Zhou et al., 2002).
support was installed and was 30 m distance from the working face of the right side
of the tunnel, the working face excavation of the left side tunnel was continued. Finite
element simulation analysis, together with monitoring of field displacements during
and after the construction, enabled verification of the design.
3.3.1.2 Steps in the Figure 3.12 design flowchart

The modelling procedure used to support the design of this tunnel was as illustrated
in Figure 3.13 for the design of a ‘simple’ cavern in sedimentary rock. The steps in the
Figure 3.12 design flowchart were straightforward and as follows.
Step 1: Objective. To design the conventional double highway tunnel in the

mainly weak sandstone rock.
Step 2: Features. No overburden problem, no water problem, sandstone with
weak layers.
Step 3: Design approach strategy. Use conventional design adapted to the local
circumstances.
Step 4: Modelling methods. Rock mass classification and finite element simula-
tion with feedback from monitored displacements.
Step 5: Initial design. Established via the rock mass classification approach plus
the Precedent Type Analysis (Li et al., 1998).
Step 6: Integration and feedback. The initial design was considered in the light
of the finite element analysis of the specific ground conditions and the
monitored displacements.
Step 7: Final design and verification. The final design was confirmed on the
basis of the Step 6 study.
3.3.1.3 Example 1 summary

The Qiaotou double highway tunnel was chosen as a conventional tunnel. There
were no outstanding design difficulties and the design could be established using the

Precedent Type Analysis approach through a knowledge of the ground conditions and
confirming the design by finite element analyses supported by monitored displace-
ments. Thus the design pathway is as illustrated in Figure 3.13, noting that the design
elements form a pathway through the analysis options.
3.3.2 Illustrative Example 2: The design of the

powerhouse cavern for the Shuibuya project,
Hubei Province, China
Following the case of the conventional tunnel in Illustrative Example 1, we now present
a case example of intermediate difficulty. The Shuibuya powerhouse cavern, having
four 460 MW turbine units, is part of a hydroelectric project which has a 233 m high
concrete faced rockfill dam (the tallest such dam in the world), Carboniferous geology
with hard and soft strata, in which three layers of soft strata are about one third the
height of the sidewall of the main powerhouse. Intelligent rock mechanics analyses with
back analysis and associated design modifications were used. The mechanical rock mass
parameters were recognised by using an integrated method of neural networks with
numerical analysis. The soft rock replacement scheme was firstly optimised by using an
integration of neural network modelling, genetic algorithm and numerical calculation.
The support scheme and parameters for the arch and sidewall of the powerhouse were
then optimised by using the same method. Because of the more detailed approach we
are presenting, the descriptive text for this second case example is more extensive.
3.3.2.1 Overview of the project and geological conditions

The Shuibuya underground hydropower house is located in the Shuibuya village in
Badong county, Hubei province in the middle reaches of Qingjiang river, China, see
Figure 3.16a.
The Shuibuya power plant is positioned in the mountainous rocks of the right
bank of the Qingjiang river. The elevation of the crest of the bank is 540–550 m., and
the strike and dip of the strata are 245∠8–15°. The angle between the main plant axis
and the strata strike is 39°; the powerhouse has dimensions 168.5 × 23 × 65.5 m; and
the main powerhouse axis is at 296°. The elevation of the main powerhouse roof is
233 m and that of the floor 165 m. The depth of the cavern crest is 100–180 m. The
minimum distance between the north-west end of the powerhouse to the right bank
of the Qingjiang river is about 80 m. The rock strata from the top downwards consist
of the Maokou group (P1m), Qixia group (1–15 sections of P1q) and Maan group of
the Permian system and the Huanglongqun group of the Carboniferous system, as
well as the Xiejingshi group (D3x), Huangjiadeng group and Yuntaiguan group of the
Devonian system (Figure 3.17).
The exposed strata in the powerhouse from the top downwards consist of the Qixia
group P14q P 3q P 2q P11q, as well as the Maan group P1ma and Huanglong group (Note that
these strata names are not mathematical variables.). The strata strike is almost orthogo-
nal to the river direction, with the strata dipping slightly towards the left bank at 8–20°.
The rock strata consist of alternating soft and hard layers. The Qixia group mainly con-
sists of weak rock, such as carboniferous biogenic detrital limestone, lime mud, clayish
limestone and chalky clay. The cumulative thickness is 18% of the total thickness.

Harbin
Urumqi
Shenyang
Hohhot
er Beijing
Riv
w
llo
r
Ye
ve
Ri
Lanzhou Yellow
Ya
ng Xi'an Nanjing
zt Shanghai
e
Ri Wuhan
ve Chengdu
r
Lhasa er
Riv
zte Chengqing
g
Yan
Taiwan
Kunming Guangzhou
Shuibuya Project Nanning
Haikou
Figure 3.16a Location of the Shuibuya hydroelectric project on the Qingjiang river in China.
Shuibuya Project
Figure 3.16b The Qingjiang river gorge location of the Shuibuya hydroelectric project in China. The
powerhouse location is inside the left-hand rock mass (which is the right-hand bank of
the river). (See colour plate section).

Figure 3.17 Geological map and section of the Shuibuya powerhouse. P1m2 : upper layer of the Maokou
group, thick layer limestone; P11m : lower layer of the Maokou group, thick layer limestone;
P115q , P114q , P113q , P112q − 4 , P112q − 3, P112q − 2 , P1q12 −1, P111q , P110q , P1q9 , P1q8 , P1q7 , P1q6 , P1q5, P1q4, P1q3, P1q2 , P11q as the different segments
of the Xixia group limestone; P1ma: Maan group quartz sandstone and powdery sandstone,
Permian system; C2h: limestone and quartz sandstone of the Huanglong group, Carbonifer-
ous system.
The main faults are F2 and F3 (not shown in Figure 3.17). The distance between
F2 and F3 at the elevation 165 m is 330 m. The shortest distance from the east end of
the main powerhouse to F2 is 160 m, while that from the west end to F3 is 25 m. The
layout of the powerhouse avoids the influence of the larger faults F2 and F3 with its
long axis being almost perpendicular to the main fault orientations.
The hard intact rock in the crown of the main powerhouse consists of lime-
stone of the 4th section (P14q), Qixia group. The mean uniaxial saturated compressive
strength of rock specimens is 60–65 MPa and the deformation modulus is 15–20
GPa. The rock belongs to the Class II type of surrounding rocks, i.e., strong, so the
crown rock of the main powerhouse is stable in general. The strata in section P14q of
the main powerhouse are interspersed with weak layers, such as thin and extra-thin
chalky clays and carboniferous chalky clay. There are altogether 21 weak layers in
the sidewall of thicknesses 20–120 mm. The thinnest is only 5 mm and the thickest
reaches 180 mm. The weak layers are embedded between harder limestones and can
be weathered and damaged easily. There exist eight prominent shear zones between
the layers. There are 15 embedded weak layers in the P14q stratum above the crown of

the main powerhouse, among them seven layers have experienced prominent shear-
ing. The existence of such embedded weak layers and shearing zones weakens the
rock continuity, decreases the rock mass stiffness, and has an influence on the stabil-
ity of the crown.
A crane beam was installed on the two side walls of the main plant. The rail
elevation is 220 m and the elevation of the concrete base is 216.8 m. Part of the crane
beam reaches the lower part of the P14q rock and the other part is in the P13q rock mass.
The cumulative thickness of the weak rock here is 3.75 m, which consists of 56% of
the 6.7 m rock mass in the P13q upper part of the main plant. There are also four shear
zones in this location. Two of them have a thickness of about 1 m, while the total
thickness of the four shear zones is 2.9 m. Therefore, it can be seen that the weak
rock proportion in the P13q upper rock mass is significant. There are many shear zones
with a large thickness. In addition, due to the faults and fractures in the rock mass, its
overall strength is low. The safety of the crane beam will be affected in the operational
period by the plastic deformation and creep deformation due to secondary stresses
and the crane beam loading.
The height of the sidewalls of the powerhouse is 46.5 m. The strata seen from the top
down are P14q P 3q P 2q P11q,P1ma, etc. Among them, P12q and P14q belong to the Class II category
of strong surrounding rocks. These represent 63.3% of the sidewall area. P13q, P11q and P1ma
mainly belong to the Class IV- to IV category of surrounding rocks. The proportion of
their sidewall area is 36.7%.
Problems arose because of the following set of circumstances. The rock hosting the
four outlets in the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse consists of P11q, P12q, whilst the rock
hosting the four inlets in the lower stream side wall consists of P12q, P13q, and the arch rock
mainly consists of P13q. The rock hosting the inlet of the water-out tunnel in the machine
niche consists of P11q, P1ma and C2h, and that of the arch consists of P11q and P1ma. The sur-
rounding rock at the intersection is mainly of the Class IV category. The stress state at the
intersection is complex and there are high stress concentrations. The strata have potential
free faces along the dip direction. The rock mass mainly belongs to the Class IV category
of host rock which has developed shear zones. At the inlet mouth, there is a developed
shear zone, while at the mouth of the inlet tunnel there are four shear zones. At the inlet
mouth of the water-out tunnel, there are three shear zones. In addition, the faults and
cracks further exacerbate the situation making the construction of the cavern at the inter-
sections difficult due to caving and sidewall sliding during excavation.
The bottom of the sidewall of the main powerhouse consists of P11q and P1ma rock
mass, which belongs to the Class IV or V category of host rock. The proportion of
soft rock in the rock mass is also higher. There are two shear zones in this soft rock
of larger scale and inferior properties. The stress concentration at the side wall base is
higher. Therefore, this is a region where plastic deformation can occur and problems
such as sliding between layers and creep deformation may also occur. Reinforcement
measures must be utilised in the design.
The surrounding rock at the machine niche of the main plant consists mainly of
strata P11q, P1ma and C2h, which belong to the Class IV–V category of host rock. There
are low shear strength shear zones in the surrounding rock with very low cohesion
and friction angle of 0.2–0.25. Usually, the Huanglong shear zone is thicker in this
location and exhibits fractured rock and low cohesion. The overall strength of the
rock mass is low. About one half of the strata in the excavation face of the machine

niche exhibit a free face along the dip direction. In addition, the faults and cracks will
further exacerbate the rock mass condition causing unstable blocks or free faces along
the dip direction. The surrounding rock of the machine niche has comparably high
secondary stress concentration and this, together with the loading of the machines
and other auxiliary equipment, will result in the surrounding rock at the machine
niche being less stable.
In order to ensure the safety of the arch and sidewalls of the main powerhouse, as
well as the wall crane beam and machine niche, it was necessary to replace the upper
part of the soft rock of the Qixia 3rd section (P13q) and the lower part of the soft rock of
the Qixia 1st section and Maan group (P1ma) by concrete.
3.3.2.2 Optimal design of the soft rock replacement scheme at

the design stage using intelligent and FEM methods
As a result of the circumstances described above, the soft strata had to be replaced by
concrete in order to ensure the stability of the underground powerhouse. The optimal
soft rock replacement scheme was established by using a genetic algorithm, neural
network and finite element method. The result was the alteration of the depth of the
water-out tunnel by 1 m, and the replacement sequence of the cavern peripheral rock
was firstly the left lower and right lower and then the left upper and right upper areas.
The replacement height of the three strata P13q, P11q and P1ma was the whole height with
a replacement width of one gallery. The replacement depths were 3 m, 6 m and 6 m,
respectively, see Figure 3.18.
3.3.2.3 Feedback design at construction stage

Determination of in situ stress: Before the design, the in situ stress was established
by using the hydraulic fracturing method as: σ1 = 5.6 MPa with trend SW 253° and
plunge 59°; σ2 = 3.0 MPa with trend SE108° and plunge 26°; σ3 = 2.1 MPa with trend
NE10° and plunge 15°. However, the stress ratios were also estimated by the overcor-
ing method as kx = 1.0–1.4, kz = 0.8–1.0 (for hard rock) and kx = 0.7–0.9, kz = 0.5–0.7
(for soft rock), in which k is the ratio of the stress value in the direction indicated
with respect to the vertical stress, x being perpendicular to the axis of the powerhouse
and z is along the axis of the powerhouse (see Figure 3.18a for the orientations of the
axes). Unfortunately, the results from two stress measurement methods were quite
different.
Because the actual behaviour of the surrounding rock and associated geologi-
cal conditions revealed after the excavation were different to the estimation before
construction, feedback analysis based on the monitored displacements needed to be
undertaken for the large caverns. The computed displacement field at the shoulder of
the underground powerhouse after finishing the first construction step (Figure 3.19)
using a gravitational in situ stress field has vectorial directions and values in line with
the monitored displacements (Figure 3.20). The direction of the displacement was an
expansion of the powerhouse—which is contrary to the convergence displacements
which would be associated with a major principal stress acting perpendicular to the
powerhouse. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the in situ stress field at the
Shuibuya underground powerhouse is mainly caused by the overburden.

A-A
x
z B-B
(a)
4
P1q
Right-upper
Left-upper 3
P1q
1 B 2
P1q
Bus-bar gallery
Main power 1
P1q
Headrace tunnel house 2 C
P1ma
3 D
C2h
Tailrace tunnel
Left-bottom
Replacement area with 3 m depth
(b) A-A section
Main Main
powerhouse powerhouse
Possible access tunnels

Replacement area with 3 m depth
(c) B-B section
Figure 3.18 Replacement of the soft strata. (a) Main power house system. (b) Depth of replacement
for soft strata P1q3 , P1q , P1ma : B, C, D shown in vertical section A-A of main powerhouse.
(c) Two possible access tunnels in horizontal section B-B of main powerhouse.
In fact, the conclusion is compatible with a tectonically de-stressed stress state

at the underground powerhouse—which is located at the east wing of the wide and
slightly dipping Sanyouping syncline and between extension faults F2 and F3. The
strata are slightly dipping and there are soft layers, such as shear zones among the
layers; moreover, the deep gorge face is adjacent to the project.

Figure 3.19 Cross-section of the Shuibuya underground powerhouse excavation (dimensions in m).
3.3.2.4 Intelligent back analysis of the rock mass parameters

The monitored displacements of the sections 508A–508B, 509A–509B, s2–1, s3–1
and s2–3 after finishing the excavation of the 1st to 6th steps were used to estimate
P1ma, P12q, P13q and P1q4 (see Figures 3.20–3.24).
Young’s moduli of the strata, such as P11q,P
The back analysis method is based on a genetic algorithm, support vector machine
and FLAC3D (Feng et al., 2004). The calculated displacements using the Young’s mod-
ulus values listed in Table 3.4 for these five strata are in good agreement with the
monitored values shown in Figure 3.24.
3.3.2.5 Design of the optimal support system

for the underground powerhouse
Based on experience and the numerical modelling, the designer drew up the initial
design for the underground powerhouse. The design was then to be verified and modi-
fied according to the monitored displacement and re-determined in situ stress field.
3.3.2.5.1 Design of the optimal support system for the 1st excavation
step of the underground powerhouse
According to analysis of the monitored displacements, the conclusions were drawn
as follows. (1) The entire underground powerhouse is stable; therefore the density

3.0 Calculated using non self-gravity in situ stress
2.5 Calculated using self-gravity in situ stress
The convergence displacement (mm)

2.0 Monitored
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4
–0.5
–1.0
Monitoring section nos.
–1.5
Figure 3.20 Comparison of the computed and monitored convergent displacements at the shoulder of
the underground powerhouse at the monitoring section Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 after completion
of the first construction layer shown in Figure 3.19.The monitoring section Nos. 1, 2, 3, and
4 are 60 m, 80 m, 110 m and 150 m respectively from the beginning of the main powerhouse
from the mountain.
P1q4
P1q3 Pre-stressed anchors
Rockbolts
L1-L6 Monitoring lines

P1q2
1- 8 Excavation steps
P1q1
P1ma
C 2h
Figure 3.21 Geological cross-section and the positions of the monitored displacements.
of the cable anchor system can be reduced. (2) Some local areas of the underground
powerhouse should be reinforced by rockbolts; the engineering geologist suggested that
No. 1-1 block and No. 2-1 blocks are potentially unstable, but No. 3 block is stable.
(3) The key to the support is monitoring the displacement velocity development.

23 m
166.5 m
f545
f671
f580
Bus tunnel
65.47 m
y
Replacement of soft rock 3# Set
Tailrace 1# Set
z x
(b) Underground powerhouse area for
(a) The simulated volume, calculation, scale 1:3500
scale 1:8400
Figure 3.22 (a) The model mesh for the overall simulation region and (b) The underground power-
house cavern group.
Figure 3.23 Sketch of the layout of the displacement monitoring lines used in the feedback analysis of
the rock mass parameters.
3.3.2.5.2 Design of the optimal support system for the 2nd to

3rd excavation steps (see Figure 3.21) of the underground
powerhouse
Because the rockbolted crane beam is located in the region of the 2nd to 3rd exca-
vation steps and the soft strata are also replaced by concrete, there is no need for

Figure 3.24 Comparison between the calculated displacements (using the back-analysed mechanical
parameters) with the monitored values.
Table 3.4 The recognised Young’s moduli values (in GPa) for different strata using the monitored
displacements after finishing the excavation from the 1st to 6th steps.
Stratum P11q P1ma 2

P1q P31q 4
P1q
Young’s modulus 8.1 1.4 19.3 5.1 20.3
modification of the support system design. However, the cumulative vertical displace-
ments at the crown and shoulder of the underground powerhouse after completion
of excavation of the 1st to 3rd steps were calculated using FLAC3D with input of the
recommended rock mass mechanical parameters. The results were compared with the
monitored values (Tables 3.5 and 3.6).
The differences arise from the fact that the suggested mechanical parameters are
higher than the actual ones. Therefore, back analysis of the mechanical parameters
based on the monitored displacement is required.
3.3.2.5.3 Design of the optimal support system for the 4th to

8th excavation steps of the underground powerhouse
The support system for the 4th to 8th excavation steps of the underground power-
house was modified by a study based on a combination of genetic algorithm, support
vector machine and FLAC3D. The algorithm is described by Feng and An (2004) and
Feng et al. (2004). Key values, such as the mean settlement at the crown, the mean

Table 3.5. Comparison of the calculated cumulative vertical displacement at the crown of the
underground powerhouse (after finishing excavation of the 1st to 3rd steps) with the
monitored values (negative values refer to downward displacement).
Cross section No. (XCF)0 + 140.00 (XCF)0 + 120.00 (XCF)0 + 086.00 (XCF)0 + 055.00
The monitored −2.0 −2.2 −2.9 −4.5

settlement at
the crown (mm)
The calculated −2.4 −2.6 −2.8 −3.6
settlement at
the crown (mm)
Table 3.6 Comparison of the calculated convergence at the shoulder of the underground powerhouse
(after finishing excavation of the 1st to 3rd steps) with the monitored values (negative
values refer to inward displacement).
Cross section No. (XCF)0 + 140.00 (XCF)0 + 120.00 (XCF)0 + 086.00 (XCF)0 + 055.00
The monitored −3.0 −2.1 −3.0 −4.1

convergence at
the shoulder (mm)
The calculated −1.3 −1.9 −1.9 −5.2
convergence at
the shoulder (mm)
convergence of the side wall, the volume of the yielding regions and the volume of
the tensile zone of the surrounding rock mass, the locations of the side wall where
displacements are larger than 10 mm, plus the support expense, are used to judge the
applicability of the support system.
Accordingly, the optimal support designs retain the thickness of concrete, as in
the initial design at 150 mm. The three rows of pre-stressed cable anchors for the
upstream and downstream side walls in the original design can be reduced to two
rows, because two rows of the cable anchors in the upper area can be combined into
one, and the inter-cavern cable anchor in the lowest row can be kept. Meanwhile, the
spacing of the cable anchors can be increased from the original design of 4.5 m to 7 m.
The spacing and row distance of the rockbolt system can be increased to 3 × 3 m, and
the length of the primary and secondary rockbolts can be changed to 6 m and 8 m,
respectively.
Using the optimal support system as an input to FLAC3D, the calculated results
show that the maximal displacement at the crown is 4.3 mm. The maximal conver-
gence displacement at the side wall is 12.0 mm, with a mean value of 8.8 mm and
mean settlement of 3.4 mm. The volume of the tensile area is 110 m3 and the plastic
zone 10,368 m3. The tensile stress around the powerhouse is less than the tensile
strength. Therefore, the underground powerhouse is entirely stable. These results
were verified by the field monitored displacements, indicating that the assumed opti-
mal support system is adequate (Figures 3.25 and 3.26).

Figure 3.25 The initial design of the support system provided by the designer.
1 2 3 4
Figure 3.26 Sketch of the key points in the model for calculating the displacements (see Table 3.8).
3.3.2.6 Design of the excavation procedure for

the generator foundation
The generator foundation socket is excavated starting from the 7th step. The issues are
that the surrounding rock mass is weak and there is a secondary stress concentration.

Therefore, an optimal excavation procedure and support system needed to be devel-

oped including enhancing the stability of the peripheral rock mass. With the recognised
mechanical parameters listed in Table 3.4, the excavation procedure and support system
of the generator socket design was optimised using a combination of genetic algorithm,
support vector machine and FLAC3D. The following five options were considered.
Scheme 1: When full sectional powerhouse excavation is carried out to the level
179 m, the rock mass below the bench should be reinforced using a
rockbolt and bolt-pile system and then the rock mass bench at the level
179 m should be reinforced by using armoured concrete of 20 mm
thickness with concrete grouting. The sidewall of the rock mass bench
is then reinforced by using pre-stressed cable anchors and system rock-
bolts during the excavation process of the water-out tunnel. The Maanxi
group coal and the exposed rock mass are replaced with concrete.
Scheme 2: When full sectional excavation is carried out to the level 169 m
(i.e., the base of the powerhouse), the Maanxi group coal and the
exposed rock mass are replaced with concrete to form a generator
foundation.
Scheme 3: There is no rockbolt-pile; otherwise the design is the same as Scheme 1.
Scheme 4: The Maanxi group coal and rock mass exposed are replaced with
concrete, and the remaining design is the same as Scheme 1.
Scheme 5: When full sectional excavation is carried out to the level 179 m, the
generator socket foundation is not supported
It can be seen from Tables 3.7 and 3.8 that Scheme 1 is the most reasonable for
the stability of the generator-socket foundation.
Table 3.7 The calculated sidewall displacements (mm) for Schemes 1 and 2.
Central section Central section Central section Central section

of generator 1 of generator 2 of generator 3 of generator 4
L5 Scheme 1 10.0 11.2 9.5 9.0

Scheme 2 11.8 16.2 14.8 10.9
L6 Scheme 1 12.6 11.3 9.5 5.2
Scheme 2 16.3 17.5 14.7 9.0
Table 3.8 The calculated displacements and yielding regions of the different foundation excavation
schemes.
Volume of
Key point 1 in Key point 2 in Key point 3 in Key point 4 in yielding
Figure 3.26 Figure 3.26 Figure 3.26 Figure 3.26 region
Scheme No. (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (m3)
1 18.4 21.8 12.9 6.5 7427

3 20.2 24.0 14.8 7.9 7496
4 21.3 24.1 15.3 8.3 7478
5 22.6 26.5 16.9 10.2 7564


With reference to the design flowchart in Figure 3.12, we have the design steps for this
case example as follows.
Step 1: Objective. To provide a suitable design for the Shuibuya powerhouse

under the conditions known and with particular reference to the soft
rocks present.
Step 2: Features. The main feature to be taken into account was the presence of
the weak strata inter-bedded with the harder strata in the sedimentary
formation, plus the fact that the host rock in the region was likely to be
destressed because of the proximate faults and gorge walls.
Step 3: Design approach strategy. The approach strategy included rock mass
classification, experience in this type of rock mass, plus FEM analyses
leading to an initial design which was to be adapted according to calcu-
lations and monitored observations.
Step 4: Modelling methods. The modelling methods are shown in Figures 3.27
and 3.28.
Step 5: Initial design. The method for establishing the initial design is illustrated
in Figure 3.27, which is our basic modelling flowchart of Figure 2.1,
but with shaded boxes to show the methods used. Note that the meth-
ods used in the initial design were Method A Levels 1 and 2, Method B
Level 2, and Method C Level 1. These were forward analyses.
Step 6: Integration and feedback. This design was used for construction. Dis-
placements were monitored and back analysis conducted to estimate the
rock stress and rock mechanics parameters.
Step 7: Final design and verification. Given the construction experience and
the back analysis of the rock stress and mechanical parameters, it was
possible to re-analyse the powerhouse circumstances by enhancing the
modelling methods, as shown in Figure 3.28. Note that now, and in
comparison with Figure 3.27, the modelling methods used were Method
C Levels 1 and 2 and Method D Level 2—as linked to back analysis.
This example demonstrates the way in which an initial design is converted into a
final design using monitored data during construction for further modelling based on
back analysis. So, although the circumstances could have appeared daunting initially,
the systematic use of a procedure as in Figure 3.12, backed up by the modelling meth-
ods as structured in Figure 2.1, enabled the final design to be established and the pow-
erhouse to be safely built in this sedimentary rock mass with difficult soft and weak
layers. The initial and final design methods are highlighted in Figures 3.27 and 3.28.
3.3.3 Illustrative Example 3: The design of an

underground radioactive waste repository
in crystalline rock
The disposal of radioactive waste is a design problem unprecedented in rock engi-
neering, and involves many issues: technical, radiological, social and political.
Here we simply summarise the general principles of the modelling and design based

Shuibuya Powerhouse
Basic Extended
Use of
standard 1:1 mapping
Lab and field tests

Site investigation
methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database Integrated
Precedent Rock mass expert systems Level 2
type classification systems, & approaches, Not 1:1
analyses and RMR, Q, other internet- mapping
modifications GSI, BQ systems based
approaches
Figure 3.27 Modelling methods used to support the initial design.
Shuibuya Powerhouse
Basic Extended
Use of
stress-based fully-coupled
Lab and field tests
FEM, BEM,
Site investigation
methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database
Integrated
Precedent Rock mass expert
systems Level 2
type classification systems, &
approaches, Not 1:1
analyses and RMR, Q, other
internet- mapping
modifications GSI, BQ systems
based
approaches
Figure 3.28 Modelling methods used to support the final design.

on the structured approach provided by Figures 2.1 and 3.12. An example layout for
an underground radioactive waste repository is shown in Figure 3.29.
There are three primary aspects influencing the design of a repository for the
disposal of radioactive waste.
1 From the technical point of view, and apart from political considerations, there is
a wide choice for the location of such a repository—as compared to a civil engi-
neering tunnel which must run from Point A to Point B or a mine which must be
located at the coal seam or orebody.
2 The design life of the repository is much longer than that of a civil or mining
underground structure. The life of a particular mine excavation can be anything
from a few days to a hundred years. Civil engineering structures are usually
designed for a life of about 120 years. However, a radioactive waste repository
must be designed for thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years—
depending on the regulator’s requirement in the country concerned.
3 The function of the repository is that the waste should be contained so that unac-
ceptable radionuclide migration to the biosphere does not occur. The repository is
totally successful if nothing happens—which is effectively a non-functional facil-
ity, as compared to a civil and mining engineering facility.
Despite this extraordinary combination of factors, the design procedure still

follows the outline in Figure 3.12 and is supported by the modelling techniques
highlighted in Figure 2.1 and as specifically shown in Figure 3.30. However, the rock
engineering design cannot be conducted in isolation because there are other relevant
subject disciplines, such as geology, hydrogeology, hydrogeochemistry and envi-
ronmental issues. The interactions between all the disciplines have to be taken into
account (Hudson et al., 2005).
Figure 3.29 Layout of an underground repository for radioactive waste disposal (from Posiva, 2009).

Because of the importance and complexity of a repository for radioactive waste

(Figure 3.29), the initial design can be additionally supported by the use of an Under-
ground Research Laboratory, as has been done in several countries.
3.3.3.1 Steps in the flowchart

The steps in the rock engineering design flowchart in Figure 3.12 are as follows for
this case example.
Step 1: Objective. To design an underground repository for the disposal of radi-

oactive waste such that unacceptable quantities of radionuclides do not
escape to the biosphere.
Step 2: Features. The three main features listed at the beginning of this third case
example, plus the many FEPs (features, events and processes) identified
during elicitation workshops.
Step 3: Design approach strategy. The design approach is based on a hazard
avoidance strategy, i.e., on finding a location where the rock stresses
are not too high, brittle deformation zones are not too close, water flow
through proximate fractures is acceptable, chemical effects are not safe-
ty-critical issues, etc.
Step 4: Modelling methods. With reference to Figure 2.1, we cannot use the
Method A techniques because there is no adequate precedent experience.
Also, the Method B Level 1 techniques are too simple. All other meth-
ods can then be used, especially to provide cross-checking of the results,
Figure 3.30. Moreover, the use of an extensive site investigation and an
Underground Research Laboratory provides the in situ ability to meas-
Radioactive waste repository

Basic Extended
Use of
Lab and field tests
Site investigation

methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database expert
Precedent Rock mass Integrated
systems, & Level 2
type classification systems
other Not 1:1
analyses and RMR, Q, approaches,
systems mapping
modifications GSI, BQ internet-based
approaches
Figure 3.30 Modelling techniques used for the final design with further in situ data provided through
the use of an underground research laboratory plus the repository construction itself.

ure the rock parameters directly and to use both forward and backward
analyses. A variety of full-scale experiments can be conducted, including
prototype repository construction, to provide monitored values.
Step 5: Initial design. The initial design is then based on the hazard avoidance
strategy backed up by the modelling and in situ field work.
Step 6: Integration and feedback. There is considerable feedback through Steps
5, 6 and 7 in Figure 3.12. Additionally, there has to be inter-disciplinary
interaction and feedback to ensure that the repository design is harmoni-
ous with all aspects.
Step 7: Final design and verification. The final design cannot be validated (in the
sense that validation means full confirmation that the design is adequate)
because the repository function cannot be tested for hundreds of thou-
sands of years, but it can be verified through monitoring of key param-
eter values.

Although the design of a radioactive waste repository is the most complex rock engi-
neering design task, the modelling and design principles still follow the flowchart
outlines in Figures 2.1 and 3.12. Further detailed information on this particular rock
engineering application can be found at, inter alia, www.skb.se and www.posiva.fi.
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
We have reviewed earlier rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design flow-
charts and concluded that there is a need for updates to be provided, as has been done
via the two flowcharts in Figures 2.1 and 3.12. The use of the two flowcharts has
been illustrated by three case examples covering a conventional highway tunnel, an
underground powerhouse in sedimentary rock with weak layers, and a repository for
radioactive waste. Despite the wide range of engineering functions, scales and design
lives, the new flowcharts provide the necessary systematic framework for approach-
ing the modelling and design in all these cases.
The first and third case examples have been presented briefly: the first because of
its relative simplicity; the third because of its relative complexity. The second case of
the Chinese Shuibuya powerhouse design and construction was presented at greater
length because it illustrates the flowchart application so clearly. We described the
Shuibuya project, geology, rock mechanics setting and special features, initial design
of the underground powerhouse, monitoring and design feedback, and the modified
design and design verification.
Thus, the flowcharts in Figures 2.1 and 3.12 can be used for the full spectrum of
rock engineering design—from the simplest conventional type of tunnel right through
to the much wider analyses required for more complex projects culminating in an
underground repository for radioactive waste which is the most complex.

Chapter 4
Specifying the information

required for rock mechanics
modelling and rock engineering
design
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In the two previous Chapters, we discussed the ways ahead for rock engineering
design methodologies and we presented two updated flowcharts for rock mechanics
modelling and rock engineering design, together with three case example illustrations
of their use. In this follow-on Chapter, we now discuss how the necessary quality and
quantity of the supporting information can be established. We discuss the principles
and provide two rock slope case examples illustrating the different types of informa-
tion that may be required.
A fundamental question that arises in rock mechanics modelling and rock engi-
neering design is “How much information is required to support modelling and
design?”. How do we know when the supporting information is adequate? Have
all the necessary parameters been included in the modelling? Are the values of these
parameters sufficiently accurate and precise? And, given that each modelling exercise
and each rock project is different, to what extent can this information be specified?
The purpose of this Chapter within the context of our design methodology approach
is to explore these questions and to provide some answers.
The most relevant report in the literature concerning this subject is by Andersson
et al. (2004) entitled “When is there sufficient information from the site investiga-
tions?” This report was written in the context of the Example 3 subject of the last
Chapter, i.e., conducting site investigations for a radioactive waste repository, and
in this case for candidate sites in Sweden, but the authors’ conclusions can be para-
phrased as follows in a more general form: “Site investigations should be discontinued
when the reliability of the site description has reached such a level that the body of
data for design is sufficient, or until the body of data shows that the rock does not
satisfy the project requirements. The site investigations should stop when the expected
net gain of further investigations is zero or negative. All issues need not be resolved
during the initial site investigation; some may be better handled later, e.g., via moni-
toring during construction.”
In many rock engineering projects, the money allocated for the site investigation
is fixed at some level and the site investigation is simply continued until the money
runs out. The project is then designed as well as it can be, given the then available
information. More often than not, the money allocated for the site investigation is
insufficient, but no doubt there have been cases where too much money has been
allocated and unnecessary tests carried out. Thus, it would be useful to have a check

system in place to establish the level of information actually required for a project so
that the site investigation content can be more suitably meshed with the information
required. Also, the point made by Andersson et al. (2004) (that all issues need not
be resolved during the initial site investigation and some may be better handled later,
e.g., during construction) can be more coherently addressed.
In the earlier two Chapters, we used the flowchart in Figure 2.1 to outline the
eight possible rock mechanics modelling methods—and we shall continue to use this
flowchart in the current Chapter because the information required is a function of the
modelling methods chosen for the initial and final design, see the rock engineering
design flowchart in Figure 3.12. Note that in the Figure 2.1 flowchart, the Methods
A to D represent an increase in methodological complexity. The four methods in the
upper row (Level 1) are methods in which there is an explicit attempt to represent
the geometry and mechanisms directly, i.e., through 1:1 mapping; whereas, the four
methods in the lower row (Level 2) are indirect methods in which the geometry and
mechanisms are not explicitly represented, i.e., not through 1:1 mapping.
This Chapter is organised in four further sections.
• The different types of information required by the different modelling methods in

Figure 2.1 are outlined in Section 4.2.
• Acquiring the required information and the relation with site investigation and
in situ monitoring are described in Section 4.3, together with a five step procedure
to establish the required information.
• Two illustrative case examples of the acquisition and use of such information are
given in Section 4.4.
• Finally, the Chapter conclusions are presented in Section 4.5.
4.2 THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION

REQUIRED BY THE DIFFERENT MODELLING
METHODS
4.2.1 Forward analysis and the eight basic

modelling methods
The term ‘forward analysis’ in Figure 2.1 and in the heading to this sub-Section refers
to modelling before construction starts and is based on site investigation data; whereas
‘back analysis’ is based on data obtained from construction monitoring. Note that for-
ward analysis takes place in Steps 4 and 5 in Figure 3.12, whereas back analysis takes
place in Steps 6 and 7. However, before we discuss the different types of information
required by the forward analysis method using the eight basic methods in Figure 2.1,
the operations of these methods are briefly highlighted in Table 4.1. We can see from
this Table that different methods utilise different techniques. Therefore, the informa-
tion required for these methods differs from method to method. Additionally, some
information is qualitative whilst some information is quantitative.
For the analytical methods and both the basic and extended numerical methods,
there are direct quantitative relations between the information input and the solutions.
For example, the displacements may be linearly related to the elastic or deformation

Table 4.1 Descriptions of the eight basic modelling methods in Figure 2.1 in terms of their operational
mode (note that the explanation of the increasing method complexity and the meanings of
Levels 1 and 2 is given in the Introduction).
Methods Mode of operation
Figure 2.1 from Objective

Chapter 2
Basic Extended
Use of
Lab and field tests methods, methods, methods,
Site investigation
Standard 1:1 mapping

methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database Integrated
Precedent Rock mass
type classification
modifications GSI, BQ
approaches based
A: Level 1 Establish the appropriate pre-existing design method using data for the given
Pre-existing site based on overall considerations, some site investigation results plus
standard tables and/or flowcharts.
methods
B: Level 1 Perform calculations, e.g., relating to the stresses and displacements with math-
Analytical ematical equations using input data on, e.g., project geometry, in situ stresses,
methods rock moduli, rock strength.
C & D: Level 1 Use numerical models based on continua or discontinua representations so the
Basic and rock mass region with its contained excavations is explicitly modelled. Data
extended for the numerical model and its given constitutive models and failure criteria
numerical from site investigation results are input to obtain the stress and strain fields,
methods displacement, failure/yielding zones, etc. In Method D, coupled models may be
used incorporating thermo-hydro-mechanical coupled processes.
A: Level 2 The basis of this method is to establish which previous projects are similar to
Precedent Type the one in hand. However, the use of PTA can be the basis for linkage with
Analysis (PTA) the other methods. For example, the in situ rock characterisation data for the
project in hand can be used as input and the output results then compared
with displacement data from ‘typical’ tunnel projects.
B: Level 2 Input data for the site and project are entered into tables for, e.g., RMR, Q, GSI,
Rock BQ, to produce index values and then conclusions concerning rock quality,
classification support and hence design are generated via empirical relations.
C: Level 2 Use overall systems approach, e.g., Rock Engineering Systems (Hudson, 1992), to
Basic system establish the most interactive and dominant variables/parameters in the sys-
methods tem. Use expert systems to implement reasoning in the face of uncertainty—
based on experiential knowledge as represented by rules, frames, semantic
networks—with information input for the specific problem to be solved.
Use artificial intelligence models, such as neural networks, support vector
machines leading to the learned non-linear relations between the data and
analysis and design solutions.
D: Level 2 Not yet fully developed: an ambitious integration which combines the systems
Integrated information at a high level using techniques such as CCTV data, the internet,
systems multiple use of parallel computing, etc. The problem solving mechanism fol-
approaches, lows the architecture of the method integration.
possibly
internet-based

modulus. However, the information required for the quantitative methods does vary
with the methods and their complexity: the analytical methods, Method B Level 1 in
Figure 2.1, are relatively simple, so the information required is less; on the other hand,
the extended numerical methods, Method D Level 1 in Figure 2.1, especially coupled
numerical methods, are relatively more complicated. The information required for
these latter methods is correspondingly extensive due to consideration of the effects
of joints, temperature, chemistry, water, etc. Also, in many cases, there are non-linear
relations between the input information and the output—which cannot be determined
as simply as with the analytical methods.
So, the amount of site investigation information required for the modelling
approach and the methods used depends on the nature and complexity of any given
design problem. Following the method descriptions in Table 4.1, we indicate in
Table 4.2 the types of information required for all eight basic Figure 2.1 methods.
Table 4.2 The type of information required for the eight basic modelling methods in Figure 2.1. (Note
that the Table contains illustrative representative input information required by the different
methods, but the content should not be regarded as comprehensive or complete.)
Level 1 Methods Illustrative representative information required for each method

A: Pre-existing • In situ stress; project information regarding geometry, such as depth, shape,
standard size and orientation of excavation cross-sections; rock mechanics param-
methods eters such as density, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, friction angle, cohe-
sion, uniaxial compressive strength.
B: Analytical • As above, but only those parameters that can be used in the analytical
methods formulae.
C: Basic numerical • Excavation type: tunnel, slope, foundation, etc., project information: depth,
methods shape, size and orientation of excavation cross-sections.
• Boundary and structure of the rock mass: in situ stress values, density of
rock types, groundwater level, etc.
• Mechanical parameters of intact rock: Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio,
cohesion, friction angle, specific gravity, tensile strength, uniaxial compres-
sive strength, failure criteria.
• The geometry and mechanical parameters of faults/joints: specific faults,
number of joint sets, their orientation, frequency, trace length, aperture,
normal and tangential stiffness, cohesion, friction angle, failure criteria. Fur-
ther information, such as joint roughness coefficient, joint wall compressive
strength, initial aperture, residual friction, etc., are required for a discrete
element analysis.
• Information concerning micro- and macro-inhomogeneity distribution type
(such as Weibull’s distribution, etc.) is required for uncertainty analysis.
D: Extended In addition to the information above, there will be further data required in
numerical extended analyses such as:
methods
• Information on inhomogeneity, anisotropy, structural domains, etc.
• Information related to thermal parameters, such as dry thermal conductiv-
ity, saturated thermal conductivity, solid phase specific heat, thermal expan-
sion coefficient, dilation angle, critical shear displacement for dilation is also
required for thermal analysis.
(Continued )

• Information on hydrogeological parameters, such as initial permeability,

permeability, intrinsic permeability, secondary permeability, Biot coefficient,
pre-peak permeability; porosity is required for hydro-analysis.
• The information for hydrogeochemical parameters, such as pH values, ionic
concentration, minerals, rates of transport, diffusion ratio, rate of propaga-
tion of reaction, etc.
Level 2 Methods Illustrative representative information required for each method

Precedent type • The information required is both qualitative and quantitative. In utilising
analysis (PTA) other methods to support PTA, the information required is: rock mass clas-
sification, such as the Q-system and its values; rock mechanics parameters
such as density, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion, friction angle,
uniaxial compressive strength, maximum principal stress; minimum principal
stress; material constants m and s of the Hoek-Brown criterion; overbur-
den, rock mass structure and weathered degree; tunnel geometry, such as
shape, size and orientation of section and function.
Rock mass • The information required is both qualitative and quantitative and varies for
classification different rock classification methods. For example, for three of the most
widely used methods:
• Q-system: RQD, joint set number, joint roughness number, joint alteration
number (related to friction angle), joint water reduction number, stress
reduction factor.
• RMR: Rating for intact rock strength using point load test index and UCS
data from laboratory test results, RQD, fracture spacing (spacing <60 mm
to >2 m), fracture weathering condition, fracture length, fracture aperture
(width), fracture roughness, fracture in-filling condition, groundwater inflow
rate (from 0 to 125 l/m) and pressure (from 0 to 0.5 of pressure/major
principal stress ratio), very unfavourable to very favourable fracture orien-
tation relative to tunnel orientation. Needs tunnel orientation for definite
rating.
• GSI: Structure of the rock mass such as blocky (very well interlocked
undisturbed rock mass consisting of cubical shape formed by three orthog-
onal discontinuity sets), very blocky (interlocked partially disturbed rock
mass with multi-faceted angular blocks formed by four or more discontinu-
ity sets), blocky/disturbed (folded and/or faults with angular blocks formed
by many intersecting discontinuity sets), disintegrated (poorly interlocked,
heavily broken rock mass with a mixture or angular and rounded rock
pieces); surface conditions of the rock mass describing roughness and
weathered degree.
• BQ: Chinese Basic Quality system: see Appendix B of the book.
Basic systems • The information required is both qualitative and/or quantitative and var-
approaches ies with different rock engineering designs and analysis. There are two fac-
tors affecting information required by artificial intelligent methods, such as
expert systems, neural networks, and support vector machines, etc. One is
that the information required should be sufficiently sensitive to the problem
solutions. Another is that the information data should be easily acquired
and included in case histories for learning. Rock engineering systems also
need information that is sensitive to the problem solutions.
Integrated systems • Extensive qualitative and quantitative information required.

approaches

4.2.2 Back analysis and the feedback information
4.2.2.1 Choosing the feedback information

The feedback information required in back analysis varies with different projects,
such as an hydraulic tunnel, underground powerhouse, transport tunnel, mining
stope and entry, nuclear waste repository, slope, etc., and the different objectives,
e.g., calibration of the design, parameter back analysis, hazard prediction, re-
design, further analysis, etc. Therefore, the feedback information should be chosen
for the modelling and design of the given rock engineering project and the associ-
ated objective. For example, there is less need for any feedback information from
a small, conventional tunnel constructed in a shallow region. By the same token,
the monitored deformation may be sufficient to check the reliability of design for
a large, conventional tunnel. However, for an underground powerhouse, the feed-
back information relating to newly revealed geological and underground water
conditions, monitored deformation and stress, observed deformation and failure
phenomena of the rock mass and/or support system should be chosen for calibra-
tion of design, parameter back analysis, disaster prediction and prevention, re-
design, and further analysis.
4.2.2.2 Utilising the feedback information

There are several ways to utilise such feedback information.
• The deformation monitored at the tested tunnels or elsewhere can be used to back
analyse rock mechanics parameters (e.g., in situ stress field, rock mass modulus)
or rheological parameters (e.g., visco-elastic values) for input to rock engineering
modelling and design at this location.
• The geological and underground water conditions revealed after excavation are
used to verify/calibrate the accuracy of the geological survey and for input to the
modelling methods in the previous stage and used as input for further analysis
and design.
• The monitored displacement and stress due to the excavation/support of the rock
construction can be used to verify the appropriateness of the excavation and
support design. The derived values can be used to modify the design of excavation
and support schemes for the next steps and to estimate the rock engineering
stability of the construction with the given design.
• The monitored information, such as continual deformation velocity, acoustic
emission, seismic velocity, etc. can be used as a forecast of disaster occurrence,
e.g., a landslide, rockburst, coal burst, collapse, etc.
• The monitoring results for underground water can be used to verify the efficiency
of waterproofing measures and to determine whether remediation measures
should be adopted or not.
• The monitored deformation during the project lifetime can also be used to check
the accuracy of the design and construction, the previous stability analysis,
to determine whether enhanced support design is needed or not, and to perform

Specifying the information required for rock mechanics modelling 91
a back analysis of time dependent parameters for further estimation of the rheo-
logical behaviour of the rock mass and the rock engineering structure.
For a comprehensive approach, the implications of the feedback information

mentioned above can be integrated into the assessment scheme. For example, the
wide range of the monitoring information can be utilised to verify the accuracy of
design and construction, prediction of problems, parameter back analysis, re-analysis
and re-design (Sakurai, 1993).
4.3 OBTAINING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION

AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SITE
INVESTIGATION AND IN SITU MONITORING
4.3.1 The site investigation

For obtaining the required information for rock mechanics modelling and rock engi-
neering design, there are many different direct (e.g., borehole samples) and indirect
approaches (e.g., geophysical interrogation). Finer and finer resolution of data can be
obtained for the requirements of the modelling from the field geological investigation,
the site exploration, the initial design and the final design to the construction itself.
During the field geological investigation, aerial photography may be used to obtain
information on the topography and morphology of the site region. Geophysical explo-
ration methods can be used to detect larger features such as lineaments, faults, open-
ings, etc. Trenches, boreholes and exploration tunnels are used to detect the lithology,
geological structure, distribution of faults and joints, underground water character-
istics, and deformational behaviour of the rock mass and the excavation-peripheral
rocks through monitoring displacements after excavation. The stress and deformation
fields of the surrounding rock mass after excavation and as modified by grouting and
support can be monitored in situ.
4.3.2 An information theory approach

The information required as presented earlier in this Chapter has been identified
through the necessary support for the different modelling methods. One can also adopt
an approach based more directly on information theory, as illustrated in Figure 4.1
which is from Mazzoccola et al. (1997). This approach enables an information audit
to be conducted before and after the site investigation and provides a technique for
answering the question raised in the report title mentioned earlier: “When is there
sufficient information from the site investigation?”
Once the information required for different modelling and design methods has
been established, two questions are raised when choosing the modelling and design
methods for rock engineering projects: 1) how can the information for input to the
different methods be obtained; and 2) can sufficient information be obtained for
input to the methods? There can also be a site investigation management problem as
discussed in the next Section.

The Engineering Objective
Selection of relevant
geotechnical variables on the Design of the geotechnical
basis of the engineering site investigation
objective
Use information theory to

assess the information
content that the selected
variables should have to
support engineering design

conduct an a priori information
audit through simulation of the
geotechnical site investigation
On the basis of the a priori

NO information audit, is the YES
geotechnical site investigation
design likely to yield information
that will facilitate design?
Before implementation Implement the geotechnical
After implementation site investigation strategy
conduct an a posteriori
NO
information audit of the
Is the cost of obtaining information obtained from the
more information site investigation
too high?
YES Does the information obtained

YES
match the information
expected?
Are we prepared to/can NO
we accept the risk
involved in terminating Does the information obtained YES
the site investigation match the information
strategy now? NO required?
YES Terminate the site

investigation programme
INFORMATIC APPROACH STANDARD APPROACH
Figure 4.1 Information-based approach to site investigation (Mazzaccola et al., 1997).
4.3.3 Potential lack of communication

between designer, site investigation
personnel, construction personnel
and monitoring—and the remedy
There can be a fundamental problem relating to obtaining information from a
site investigation and from in situ monitoring because of the potential lack of

communication between designer, site investigation personnel, construction

personnel and monitoring personnel. The different personnel will put emphasis
on different information aspects. For example, the designer wants to collect all
information required to execute his or her design; the site investigation person-
nel may wish to conduct a ‘standard’ site investigation, following a standard site
investigation contract, and may not have been told that the designer needs specific
types of information. Sometimes, it is not convenient to obtain the required infor-
mation. For example, performing convergence monitoring in a large underground
powerhouse may well disturb construction operations even though some advanced
methods such as a laser convergence indicator can be ultilised during construc-
tion. Therefore, it is important to ensure effective communication between all the
parties involved. All personnel should understand what the exact purposes are in
requiring the different kinds of information, what the key issues are, etc. All tasks
related to rock engineering projects should be managed in an integrated way and
all information required should be specified in the contracts, at the necessary level
of detail. There should also be Method Descriptions for obtaining the information.
Given this potential communication problem, which all too often occurs on site,
a recommended procedure for establishing the required information is outlined in
the next Section.
4.3.4 Recommended procedure for establishing

the required information
The stepwise overview procedure in Table 4.3 is recommended to ensure that the
necessary information for rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design is
actually obtained.
To demonstrate the procedure for obtaining and using the required information,
in the next Section we illustrate two rock slope case histories: a simple case and a
complicated case.
Table 4.3 Recommended overview procedure for establishing the required information.
Step no. Contents
Step 1 Choose the modelling methods according to the objectives and sub-objectives of
the project, the identified features and constraints of the site, rock mass and
project and applicability ranges of the modelling methods in Figure 2.1 (which
is reproduced at the top of Table 4.1).
Step 2 Identify the information required for the chosen modelling methods, following
the Table 4.2 outline and ensuring that the information/data specification is
comprehensive.
Step 3 Choose the methods for obtaining the data required for the selected modelling
methods from the site investigation techniques, e.g., aerial-photography, geo-
logical surveys, laboratory testing, field testing, in situ monitoring, etc.
Step 4 Interpolate/extrapolate any missing information by using engineering experience,
back analysis, data mining for knowledge and/or perform sensitivity analyses on
the parameters to provide probabilistic data.
Step 5 Undertake rock engineering modelling and design and record all steps in the proc-
ess so that there is a transparent audit trail for future reference.

4.4 ILLUSTRATIVE CASE EXAMPLES
The first case history is a rock slope in Scotland, UK, alongside a highway. Here
a basic knowledge of the joint sets in crystalline rock can enable the rock slope
angle to be adjusted for safety by avoiding plane, wedge and toppling failure as the
road, and hence adjacent slope, changed in azimuth. The second is a 400 m high
rock slope as part of a hydroelectric power project in China where the avoidance
of short and long-term instability is crucial for the engineering integrity of the
project.
4.4.1 Basic rock slope: potential wedge failure,

Rubha Mor, Loch Lomond, Scotland, UK
This first illustrative case example concerns a hard crystalline rock slope alongside
a road in Scotland. Although the presented data were obtained after the slope was
created, i.e., as a back analysis exercise to establish the safe slope angles that are
appropriate as the road azimuth changes, the data could equally well have been
obtained in a forward analysis and are so treated here for the purposes of the
Chapter.
4.4.1.1 Background
The analysis study involved the case of a large pre-split rock slope adjacent to the major
A82 highway at Rubha Mor, Loch Lomond, in the West of Scotland (Figure 4.2a).
The highway follows a curve at this location, which means that, although the dip
angle of the slope is constant throughout, the slope possesses a range of dip direc-
tions. After construction, wedge instability became apparent at the southern end of
the slope (Figure 4.2b), and it is instructive to see how this instability is related to the
local orientation of the slope relative to the fracture orientations.
Figure 4.2 a) Rubha Mor rock slope, looking north, by the A82 road alongside Loch Lomond in
Scotland, UK. b) Wedge failure caused by the adverse conjunction of two joints. Note the
half-barrel lineations of the pre-split blastholes.

4.4.1.2 Modelling and design methods

Figure 4.3 (left) shows the results of a fracture survey conducted after construc-
tion, the fractures being plotted as normals (Harrison, personal communication).
The range of slope orientations (plotted in terms of the downward directed nor-
mal to the slope) is also shown in Figure 4.3 (left). This comprehensive data set is
shown in simplified form in Figure 4.3 (right), where only those fractures deemed
to be significant in terms of slope instability (e.g., natural fractures of substantial
extent) are included. It is this simplified data set, comprising 79 and 39 fractures
in each of sets 1 and 2, respectively, that has been used in the analysis of wedge
instability.
In the plot shown in Figure 4.4(a), the results for the mean factor of safety have
been grouped into six categories, as shown by the legend to the right of the hemispher-
ical projection. The legend also indicates how tinting has been used on the projection
to highlight the most critical slope orientations through the use of the darker shades.
In this way, we can see immediately from Figure 4.4 why slopes that are almost verti-
cal and with dip directions in the range of north-east through to east have the lowest
factors of safety. All combinations of fracture pairs have been used in the analysis (i.e.,
a total of 3,081 combinations, resulting from 79 fractures in set 1 and 39 fractures
in set 2).
4.4.1.3 Information obtained and used

For this case of a friction-only wedge, stability is controlled just by the orientations
of the slope face and the two fractures defining the wedge, together with the friction
angle of the fractures themselves. If we wish to compute the maximum volume of a
wedge, then the orientation of the slope top and the height of the slope face are also
required.
Figure 4.3 Fracture orientation data for Rubha Mor rock slope, lower hemisphere stereographic
projection, north to the top of the page (from Harrison, personal communication).

lower than 0.7 greater than 75 m3
0.7 to 0.8 60 m3 to 75 m3
0.8 to 0.9 wedges 45 m3 to 60 m3

wedges
kinematically kinematically 30 m3 to 45 m3
0.9 to 1.0
unfeasible in unfeasible in
uncoloured 1.0 to 1.1 uncoloured 15 m3 to 30 m3
region region
above 1.1 smaller than 15 m3
locus of slope
locus of slope
orientation
orientation
(a) (b)
Figure 4.4 a) Factor of safety for Rubba Mor slope stability plotted on lower hemisphere stereographic
projection, north to the top of the page. b) Associated plot of wedge volumes (both plots
from Harrison, personal communication).
Objective

Use of Basic Extended
Standard 1:1 mapping
Lab and field tests

Site investigation
methods
DEM, hybrid models
Precedent Rock mass Database Integrated

type classification expert systems Level 2
analyses and systems, & approaches, Not 1:1
RMR, Q,
approaches based
Figure 4.5 Representation of the Rhuba Mor slope stability assessment within the context of the
Figure 2.1 (see also Table 4.1) rock mechanics modelling methods.
4.4.1.4 Conclusions
Thus, the relatively simple slope stability assessment for the Rhuba Mor slope can
be represented in Figure 4.5 by the shaded boxes, assuming a forward analysis. The
objective was the study of potential wedge instability, and the stereographic overlay
method (which is a 1:1 mapping method) indicated the regions of potential instability.

Figure 4.6 The high rock slope at the Longtan Hydroelectric Power Station, China.
The only information necessary for this assessment was the orientations of the slope
and fracture sets and the fracture friction angle.
4.4.2 High rock slope at the Longtan Hydropower

project, China
The second illustrative case example in this Chapter concerns the back analysis of a
much more complex rock engineering problem relating to the slope stability at the
Longtan Hydropower project site in China.
4.4.2.1 Background
The left bank slope is the example being considered at the Longtan Hydropower project
located on the Hongshui river, Guangxi Province, China (Figure 4.6). The strata dip
inwards toward the mountain, and consist of sandstone, shale and inter-layers of sand-
stone and shale. The slope is a typically layered sedimentary rock mass, with these
inter-layers of soft and hard rocks. The maximum height of the slope is about 400 m.
There are more than 50 large developed faults in this area. The in situ stress measure-
ments obtained using both overcoring and hydraulic fracturing methods indicate that
the maximum principal stress is 6–9 MPa in the N30°–38°E direction and is primarily
controlled by tectonics, but secondarily also influenced by topography. Moreover, the
in situ stress field is complicated due to the influence of the several faults.

4.4.2.2 Modelling and design methods

Given the construction experience and the back analysis of the rock stress and the
elastic and viscous parameters, it was possible to re-analyse the slope circumstances
by enhancing the previously used modelling methods, as shown in Figure 4.7. Note
that the modelling methods used here were a mixture of the 1:1 mapping and non-
1:1 mapping and are the more detailed methods, i.e., Methods C and D, as linked to
back analysis in this case.
4.4.2.3 Regression analysis of the in situ stress field

The in situ stress field is important for an accurate analysis via the rock mass visco-
elastic model. For the study of the creep mechanism of the highly layered slope with
its inwardly dipping direction, an overall in situ stress field is regressed by fitting the
field tested stress values at selected points/holes plus consideration of the tectonic
effect. A larger geological model, shown in Figure 4.8, is established for numerical
simulation. The model included the sandstone group consisting of T214b − 17, T225b , T228b − 30
and T238b − 47, inter-layered with sandstone and shale such as the T27b 13, T219b − 24, T226b − 27,
T231b − 37, T248b and T250b components, and the shale group consisting of T21b 2, T23b 8, T218b and
T252b . Some larger faults (see Figure 4.9) are also included in the geological model,
which are all simulated by body elements.
The material parameters of the strata listed in Table 4.4 were input to a FLAC3D
calculation. Table 4.5 shows a comparison of the measured principal stresses and the
regressions at selected testing points.
Objective

Basic Extended
Use of
Lab and field tests

Site investigation

methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database Integrated
Precedent Rock mass
type classification
approaches based
Figure 4.7 Modelling methods used to support the final design for the high slope at the Longtan
Hydroelectric Power Station, China.

B creep zone
A section of
creep zone
B1 creep zone
C
A No. 72
780 m test No. 21 test
A creep
zone tunnel tunnel
calculation calculation
range range
B
Dam
979 m
Figure 4.8 Calculation ranges and relative positions of the A, B, C models of the left bank slope at
Longtan Hydroelectric Power Station, China.
Figure 4.9 The positions of monitoring sections in a longitudinal section of No. 72 test tunnel.

Table 4.4 The material parameters for the strata.
Uniaxial Shearing strength

compressive Elastic
Unit weight strength φ c modulus Poisson’s
Strata (kN ⋅ m−3) (MPa) (°) (MPa) (GPa) ratio
Strongly weathered layer 25.5 0.08 0.75/36.9 0.49 1.75 0.34

Weakly weathered layer 26.5 0.8 1.2/50.2 1.18 7.0 0.28
Slightly fresh sandstone 27 1.5 1.5/56.3 2.45 17.5 0.24
Slightly fresh shale 26.8 0.8 1.1/47.7 1.48 12.5 0.26
Inter-layers of slightly 26.9 1.3 1.3/52.4 1.96 15.5 0.25
fresh sandstone and
shale
Fault 21 0 0.32/18 0.04 0.5 0.34
Table 4.5 Comparison of the measured principal stresses and the regressions for selected testing
points.
Principal stresses Plunge Trend

Testing (MPa, tension positive) (° ) (° )
points
No. σ1 σ2 σ3 α1 α2 α3 β1 β2 β3
4–1 Measured −8.65 −1.76 −0.44 −10.83 0.45 79.16 327.50 237.42 325.09
Regressed −6.98 −2.40 −1.07 −11.22 2.46 78.50 324.43 234.91 337.10
1–1 Measured −3.28 −1.89 −1.24 18.70 10.20 68.50 19.80 286.30 169.20
Regressed −2.70 −1.97 −1.56 23.86 4.42 65.68 19.79 287.84 187.99
1–2 Measured −5.41 −3.61 −2.89 24.60 10.70 62.90 52.40 317.40 205.80
Regressed −5.03 −3.15 −3.12 29.35 12.55 57.58 46.06 308.87 198.36
1–3 Measured −5.80 −3.20 −2.60 22.50 66.10 7.60 41.40 200.60 308.30
Regressed −4.64 −3.37 −2.31 35.75 52.88 8.69 41.04 203.10 304.72
13–4 Measured −11.68 −4.09 −2.86 −4.16 77.27 −11.98 275.00 203.85 184.14
Regressed −10.55 −5.27 −3.25 −10.47 65.41 −21.98 278.66 212.48 184.38
2–1 Measured −10.08 −9.08 −4.68 19.10 1.80 70.80 334.70 65.40 160.60
Regressed −10.10 −8.24 −4.27 14.64 8.65 72.89 295.90 28.12 147.80
2–2 Measured −12.08 −7.12 −3.62 31.10 25.80 47.50 344.60 91.50 213.40
Regressed −9.97 −8.42 −3.36 25.31 21.60 58.07 335.74 75.09 204.55
2–3 Measured −10.98 −6.33 −2.02 20.80 13.90 64.60 329.90 65.30 186.60
Regressed −10.58 −7.03 −3.03 20.40 10.90 66.60 319.70 53.80 170.10
4.4.2.4 Back analysis of the visco-elasto-plastic models

for the shale and sandstone
The visco-elasto-plastic models for the shale and sandstone slope were established using
back analysis based on an evolutionary neural network with FLAC3D. The methodol-
ogy is described in Feng and An (2004). It was found from the previous testing results
that the modified Burgers’ model, including a plastic element connected in series, is
suitable for describing the rheological behaviour of shale. The monitored displacement
of No. 72 testing tunnel, which has a 180 m length with the main host rock being shale,
was used to back analyse the viscous and elastic coefficients in the modified Burgers’

model. The monitored displacement was divided into two parts. The monitored dis-
placements at sections I and III (see Figure 4.9) were used to teach the non-linear neu-
ral network model, the samples being calculated using FLAC3D with the mechanical
parameters shown in Table 4.4 and the established in situ stress field in Table 4.5. The
monitored displacements at section VI (see Figure 4.9) were used to test the applicabil-
ity of the taught non-linear neural network model through calculation of FLAC3D. The
back analysis results are shown in Table 4.6. It can be seen from Figure 4.10 that the
calculated displacements are in acceptable agreement with the monitored values.
According to previous research results, the rheological behaviour of this sand-
stone can be described by a generalised Kelvin body. The monitored displacement in
No. 21 testing tunnel (Fig. 4.10(b)), for which the host rock is sandstone, was used
for back analysis of viscous and elastic coefficients in the generalised Kelvin body. The
monitored displacement at line 1 at the convergence monitoring section I and at the
point 1 of the multi-point displacement meter hole 1, (Figure 4.11) was used to teach
the neural network model—whose samples were calculated using FLAC3D with the
mechanical parameters shown in Table 4.6 and the recognised in situ stress field.
The monitored displacements at the convergence sections II and III (see Figure 4.10(b))
were used to test the applicability of the obtained neural network model through calcu-
lation with FLAC3D. The back analysis results are shown in Figure 4.12 and again the
calculated displacements are in acceptable agreement with the monitored values.
4.4.2.5 Analysis of the long term stability of the high slope

A 3D model, shown in Figure 4.13, was established for studying the long term stabil-
ity of the high slope by numerical simulation based on FLAC3D. It included a sand-
−17 28− 30 − 47
stone group consisting of Τ14 2b , Τ 25
2 b, Τ 2 b , Τ 38
2b , inter-layered between sandstone
19 − 24 26 − 27 31− 37
and shale with Τ 2b , Τ 2b , Τ 2b , Τ 2b , Τ 2b, Τ 50
7 13 48
2 b, and shale of Τ 2 b , Τ 2 b , Τ 2 b and
1 2 3 8 18
Τ 2b. Some larger faults, such as F63, F69, F1 and F4, were included in the model and
52
simulated by the special elements.

The design parameters of the support system emplaced were given as: a sys-
tem of rockbolts 12 m and 15 m in length with advance rockbolts; 15 m length of
rockbolts with higher strength; 1000 kN or 2000 kN pre-stressed anchor cables
with lengths of 35 m, 40 m or 50 m; 3000 kN pre-stressed cross anchor cables with
Table 4.6 The viscous and elastic coefficients for the transversely isotropic shale and sandstone from
back analysis.
Weakly weathered shale Slightly fresh shale
E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) η1 (GPa • d) η2 (GPa • d) E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) η1 (GPa • d) η2 (GPa • d)
5.2 32.8 9.9 562.2 14.6 91.5 77.6 3375.7
Weakly weathered sandstone Slightly fresh sandstone
E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) η (GPa • d) E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) η (GPa • d)
7.3 43.6 837.4 19.2 126.9 2915.3

4.0 CD tested value CD calculation value

AD tested value AD calculation value
BD tested value BD calculation value
3.5
C
3.0
Displacement (mm)
2.5 1.5 m
3m
A B
2.0
1.8 m
1.5
D
1.0 2m
(b)
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (d)
(a)
Line 3
Exploration
tunnel D21
Convergence
Line 1 measurement
section III
Line 2 Convergence
measurement
section II Testing tunnel
Testing tunnel
Monitoring section
(b)
Figure 4.10 Comparison of the monitored displacements for one section (a) in No. 72 testing tunnel
with the calculation using the back analysed parameters and (b) the location of the moni-
toring sections.
lengths of 60 m or 70 m. The system of rockbolts was arranged between the anchor

cables and the cross anchor cables. One anchor cable row was installed at each
step in the slope when the altitude was over 406.5 m. A row of cross anchor cables
was installed in the slope at altitudes of 480 m, 460 m and 425 m using the drain-
age tunnels. There were three rows of anchor cables installed in the slope between
altitudes of 406.5 m to 382 m. There were four rows of anchor cables installed in
the slope for altitudes of 382 m to 365 m and 365 m to 325 m. There were another

4
3
5
2 6
Borehole arrangement for multi-displacement meter measurement
Figure 4.11 The arrangement of displacement measurement points in the D21 tunnel (see
Fig. 4.10(b)).
1.4
1.2
1.0
Displacement (mm)
0.8
0.6 Monitored
Calculated
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (d)
Figure 4.12 Comparison of the monitored displacements for one section at No. 21 testing tunnel with
the calculation using the back analysed parameters.
five anchor cables at 345 m to 325 m altitude of the slope and little support at the
level below 325 m above the dam foundation slope (see Figure 4.14). The mate-
rial parameters relating to the support system input to the calculation are listed in
Table 4.7.
With the established in situ stress field and rheological models for shale and sand-
stone, the different conditions listed in Table 4.8 were used for calculation in the slope

Boundary of rock stratum
Fault F63
The
excavated
slope
Fault F1
Fault F4
The weathered zones
Figure 4.13 3D calculation model for the slope at Longtan hydroelectric power station, China.
Cross anchor cables

The original surface
Drainage
Reinforce-
Pre-stressed
ment pile
anchor cables
In advance
rockbolt
Rockbolt
Pre-stressed
rockbolts
Rockbolts
having higher
strength
Figure 4.14 The support for a section of the left bank slope.

Table 4.7 The parameters for concrete and rockbolts used in the calculation.
Uniaxial
Unit Elastic compressive Tensile
weight modulus Poisson’s Friction Cohesion c strength strength
No. Materials (kN ⋅ m−3) (GPa) ratio φ (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 Dam concrete 24.0 25.5 0.167 1.25 10 0

2 Rockbolt 200 0.25 290 290
3 Rockbolt with 200 0.25 464 300
higher
strength
4 Concrete lining 24.0 28.5 0.167 12.5 1.3
5 Shotcrete 24.0 21.0 0.167 1.0 1.0 10.0 1.1
Table 4.8 The different calculation conditions.
Material Load
Calculation Water parameter Rheological
condition level attenuation Water Self gravity Tectonic time
No. (m) ratio % load stress stress (years)
1 0 0 × × 50
2 375 0 × × × 100
3 375 5 × × × 30
4 375 10 × × × 100
5* 330 10 × × × 30
6 375 50 × × × 100
7 400 0 × × × 100
8 400 10 × × × 100
9 400 50 × × × 100
* No. 5, water level at 375 m downward to 330 m.
stability analysis. The stability of the high rock slope was estimated using the threshold
for displacement velocity v of 0.5 mm/d. If v is greater than 0.5 mm/d and continues
for more than five days, the rock mass would manifest local sliding. If v is between 0 to
0.04 mm/d and tends to stabilise, the rock mass will also tend to stabilise. The results
indicated that the excavated and supported slope is entirely stable. Even though the
shale strata and soft faults produced a plastic zone, locally the volume of the plastic
zone has insufficient expansion tendency and the deformation velocity decreased. How-
ever, the rise of the reservoir water level has an influence on the stability of the slope.
The calculation results show that the deformation of the slope is in direct propor-
tion to the attenuation percentage of the material parameters if the parameters reduce
by 5% or 10%. The displacement of some points on the slope after 30 years might
have 20–30 cm displacement if the material parameters reduce by 5%.
From comparison of the calculated and monitored displacement at the monitor-
ing points shown in Figure 4.15, the calculated results were mainly verified by the
monitored displacement. An example, for the monitoring point 60006, is shown in
Figure 4.16.

60006
I
13817 56005
21654
48005
38003
Dam
8277
Section I-I
I
Figure 4.15 Location of displacement points.
90
80
70
Displacement (mm)
60
Calculated for Z direction
50
Calculated
40 Monitored for Z direction
30 Monitored
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (days)
Figure 4.16 Comparison of the measured displacement for the monitoring point 60006, shown in
Figure 4.15, with the calculated values representing the creep behaviour of the high rock
slope.

4.4.2.6 Information obtained and used

The information obtained in this illustrative case example and used for the study
of the left bank slope at Longtan Hydropower Project, China, is given in Table 4.9.
It demonstrates, especially in comparison to that used for the first case example for
the slope in Scotland, how the amount of information required for slope stability can
vary, depending on the nature of the site and the degree of complexity of the rock
behaviour. This, in turn, indicates that there can be no such thing as a ‘standard’ site
investigation, nor a ‘standard’ method of slope stability analysis.
4.4.2.7 Case example conclusions

This case example demonstrates how more complex modelling methods have been
used compared to the first case example, plus the information which needed to be
obtained and used for the back analysis of the high rock slope stability based on the
monitored displacement and the measured in situ stress in three dimensions at key
boreholes/points. It is due to recognition of the in situ stress and the viscous and elas-
tic parameters that reasonable creep analysis could be performed for the stability of
the high rock slope. It was necessary in this case to use the more advanced analysis
methods, as illustrated in Figure 4.7.
Table 4.9 The information obtained and used for back analysis of the left bank slope stability of
Longtan Hydropower project, China.
Methods used The information obtained and used
Regression method and finite difference method, The geometrical boundary and altitude of strata,
FLAC3D, for back analysis of in situ stress field orientation and extension of faults, which were
obtained by geological survey
The mechanical parameters obtained by testing in
the laboratory and field
The measured in situ stresses in three dimensions
and their orientation at some testing points/
holes, noting the main characteristics of the
geo-stress field in this region
Genetic algorithm, neural network and finite dif- The geometrical boundary and altitude of strata,
ference method (FLAC3D) for the recognition orientation and extension of faults, which can
of visco-elasto-plastic model for shale and sand- be obtained by geological survey
stone based on the field testing displacement The mechanical parameters obtained by testing in
the laboratory and field; the in situ stress field
in three dimensions as recognised above
The creep and stress relaxation test results in the
laboratory and field
The monitored displacement in several sections
of the testing tunnels
3D
Finite difference method, FLAC , for analysis The geometrical boundary and altitude of strata,
of long term stability of the high slope. Effect orientation and extension of faults, which can
of water was simplified through attenuation of be obtained by geological survey
the mechanical parameters. The mechanical parameters obtained by testing in
the laboratory and field
(Continued )

Methods used The information obtained and used
The in situ stress field in three dimensions and the

visco-elasto-plastic models for rocks recog-
nised above and attenuation of the mechanical
parameters due to the weakening effect
The material parameters of the support systems,
such as the concrete and rockbolts shown in
Table 4.7
Rainfall, underground water level, reservoir water
level
Location, shape and size of the hydropower struc-
tures, such as the dam, underground power-
house, etc.
4.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Following the two updated flowcharts for rock engineering modelling and design
(as presented in Figure 2.1 and Figure 3.12), we have discussed how to establish the
necessary quality and quantity of the information required for a given rock engineer-
ing design and the associated modelling. The information types that each of the eight
different modelling methods require have been summarised. The potential ways to
obtain the necessary information for the modelling methods chosen for the given rock
engineering design have also been discussed. A five step procedure is recommended
for establishing the required information. It has also been noted that a key aspect is
ensuring good communication between the site investigation personnel and the rock
mechanics modellers and rock engineering designers.
The variation in the information required for rock engineering modelling has
been demonstrated by the two case examples of a basic rock slope in a strong rock
mass and a high rock slope in a weaker rock mass having more complex mechanical
behaviour. However, despite the wide range of scales and assumed behaviour, the
associated analyses can be based on a common information basis, thus providing
the necessary systematic framework for approaching modelling and design. Indeed,
the method of specifying the information required through the flowcharts and tables
in this Chapter can be used for the full spectrum of rock engineering design—from
the analysis of the simplest conventional type of rock structure right through to the
much wider analyses required for more complex projects. Also, if the rock engineering
design is primarily based on generating sufficient information to avoid hazards, the
same procedure can be adopted.
Finally, the methodology described here provides automatic support for an
information-dedicated auditing procedure. Currently, there is no international proce-
dure for checking the suitability of rock engineering designs, but it is likely that such
a procedure will be implemented in the future. Information auditing as a component
of the overall technical auditing will then be a key element of rock engineering design
validation, as described in the next Chapter.

Chapter 5
Technical auditing of rock

mechanics modelling and
rock engineering design
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1.1 Purpose and principles of technical auditing

Within the context of the rock engineering design methodology, it is of benefit to
be able to formally audit the content of the rock mechanics modelling and rock
engineering design of a project in order to ensure that all the necessary factors are
included and that the technical work is correct. The term ‘Technical Auditing’ is used
to describe this process and the overall purposes of a Technical Audit (TA) are as
follows:
1 to evaluate the logic of the work based on the stated objective;

2 to establish whether all the necessary physical mechanisms, variables, and param-
eters have been included in the relevant analyses;
3 to show that the supporting analyses are technically correct;
4 to consider whether conclusions are justified in terms of the project objectives and
the work conducted; and
5 to provide an information, analysis and decision audit trail.
The key principles of an audit in general (Dunn, 2004) are that it is made
according to evidence, known criteria and the current scientific framework.
Auditing involves verification by evidence and the result is an opinion based on
persuasive evidence. The audit should have an independent status, be free from
investigatory and reporting constraints, produce a benefit, and result in a report.
The audit result will always be an opinion and so the auditing must carry author-
ity. These principles directly apply to the specific case of technical auditing for
rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design and have therefore been
adopted here.
5.1.2 Information supporting the technical audit

One of the key aspects of the auditing is that it will depend on the information avail-
able and potentially available. In the previous Chapter, we have noted that the overall
procedure for obtaining the necessary information follows the steps below.

1 Carry out site investigation to understand the geological and rock conditions,
in situ stress features, water conditions and to identify features and constraints of
the site, rock mass and project.
2 Choose the modelling methods according to the objectives and sub-objectives
of the project, the identified features and constraints of the site, rock mass and
project, and applicability ranges of the modelling methods.
3 Identify the information required for the chosen modelling methods.
4 Choose the methods for obtaining the data required for the selected modelling
methods from the site investigation techniques, e.g., aerial-photography, geologi-
cal surveys, laboratory testing, field testing, in situ monitoring, etc.
5 Interpolate/extrapolate any missing information by using engineering experience,
back analysis, data mining for knowledge and/or perform sensitivity analyses on
the parameters to provide probabilistic data.
6 Undertake rock engineering modelling and design and record all steps in the
process.
This procedure was also presented within the context of the two key flowcharts:
one illustrating the eight basic modelling methods (Figure 2.1); and the other illustrat-
ing the seven basic steps in the rock engineering design process (Figure 3.12). All the
aspects of Figure 2.1 can be subject to technical auditing, i.e., obtaining the site and
rock mass information from site investigation, use of the eight types of modelling
methods (whether used singly, in combination or in sequence), development of the ini-
tial design, construction monitoring, and back analysis, leading to the final design.
5.1.3 ‘Soft’, ‘semi-hard’ and ‘hard’ technical audits

and the audit evaluation
Note that the technical auditing can be ‘soft’, ‘semi-hard’ or ‘hard’, with the charac-
teristics as indicated in Figure 5.1. For modelling, i.e., using one or more of the eight
main types of modelling methods shown in Figure 2.1, any of the auditing types can
be utilised, depending on the purpose of the auditing. The soft audit can be used
initially to support the development of the modelling programme. However, the hard
audit is necessary for the total audit evaluation and ability to state whether the model-
ling is adequate for the purpose.
The two demonstration auditing examples that follow in this Chapter are:
1 the procedure for auditing a site investigation measurement, in situ rock stress
(Soft Audit); and
2 auditing the modelling for the design of hydropower caverns at the Laxiwa site on
the Yellow River in China (Semi-Hard Audit).
Whether a soft, semi-hard or hard audit is appropriate in any given circumstances

will depend on the requirement and according to the descriptions in Figure 5.1. The
type illustrated for the second demonstration audit for the hydropower caverns in
China is termed ‘semi-hard’ because it is not possible to include the full details for a
hard audit—as it would take too much information for this publication.

Technical auditing of rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design 111
Soft Audit Semi-Hard Audit Hard Audit
Checking that the basic

Checking that the approach to the design Checking that all
basic approach to the problem and the aspects with all the
design problem and associated modelling, relevant details have
the associated plus the key details, been appropriately
modelling follow follow appropriate implemented
appropriate principles principles
AUDIT EVALUATION
The evaluation will depend on the type of auditing used,
‘soft’, ‘semi-hard’, or ’hard’, and whether a single audit has been used
or a progression through the three auditing types
Figure 5.1 The ‘soft’, ‘semi-soft’ and ‘hard’ audits and the audit evaluation.
5.2 DEMONSTRATION EXAMPLE 1: THE PROCEDURE

FOR TECHNICALLY AUDITING A SITE
INVESTIGATION MEASUREMENT—
IN SITU ROCK STRESS (SOFT AUDIT)
5.2.1 Background
The validity of the modelling and design of a rock engineering project will depend on
the accuracy of the supporting information concerning the rock mass properties—
which comes from site investigation and back analysis. Thus, technical auditing proce-
dures checking the correct implementation of method descriptions must be developed
for the different elements of the site investigation. The first demonstration example
presented here is the soft audit procedure for in situ rock stress estimation, chosen
because rock stress is a particularly elusive and difficult parameter, yet one that is cru-
cial as the boundary conditions for modelling. Moreover, the technical audit for this
parameter indicates the style of soft auditing for all site investigation parameters.
It is noted in the first of the ISRM Suggested Methods on stress estimation
(Hudson et al., 2003; Ulusay and Hudson, 2007) that the objective of the stress esti-
mation campaign must be established, plus the ramifications of the objective. What
information is required? Principal stress directions? The magnitude of one or more
principal stress components? The complete stress tensor? The variation of the stress
state across the site? Are general estimates required, or determination via actual meas-
urements? Are the values required with an interpretation of the site context? What
accuracy is required? How are uncertainty and spatial variability to be assessed? Is
a confirmatory procedure required? Is a multiple complementary approach required
with a final quantitative harmonisation (Zang and Stephansson, 2010)? Do the results
need to be supported by subsequent numerical modelling? How are the results to be
presented? Is strict quality control required, or is an informal approach satisfactory?

All these questions should be answered, both for the site investigation and via the
audit. Thus, the auditing itself, if carried out concurrently with the site investigation,
can assist in planning the work.
The second and third ISRM Suggested Methods concern the specifics of the over-
coring and hydraulic fracturing procedures and, in the fourth of the ISRM Suggested
Methods for stress estimation (Christiansson and Hudson, 2003; Ulusay and Hudson,
2007), a procedure is outlined for in situ stress measurement. A condensed version of
this procedure is presented here as the first example of technical auditing.
5.2.2 Auditing rock stress measurements

The following Table 5.1 is condensed from (Christiansson and Hudson, 2003) and has
10 subject areas with 26 audit questions. This is a ‘soft audit’ because the audit questions
are orientated towards ensuring that the overall conditions for a successful stress estima-
tion campaign are achieved, rather than the complete detail required for a hard audit.
Table 5.1 List of technical auditing subjects to be addressed in the development of a stress estimation/
measurement programme.
Audit Subject Area 1: Stress measurement objective and background

1 Statement of the measurement objective:
What is the purpose of the measurements?
What is the accuracy expected?
What confirmatory procedures are to be adopted?
2 Statement of the stress measurement background:
Have the problems with in situ rock stress measurements been identified?
Has a list of the problems been made?
Have the most relevant literature references been identified and studied?
Has the project been discussed with someone who has practical experience of measuring
stresses, and with the specific method to be used?
Audit Subject Area 2: Stress measurement method
3 Specification of the stress measurement method:
What stress measurement method is to be used?
What are the physical processes involved?
What influence might site conditions have on the results from the method to be used?
What problems have been identified in the past?
4 Confirmation of method adequacy:
Given the statements produced so far, is the stress measurement procedure capable of
measuring the required rock stress?
5 Availability of a Quality Assurance (QA) procedure:
Is a QA procedure available for the stress measurement method?
If so, has the QA procedure been checked—for both theoretical and practical experience
aspects—to ensure that it is adequate, given the objective and the known problems with stress
measurements?
Is the existing QA procedure adequate?
If a suitable QA procedure is not available, can an adequate one be generated?
(Continued )

6 Stress measurement protocol:

Is a protocol being developed for the use of the stress measurement method that incorporates
the TA and QA aspects?
Audit Subject Area 3: Contractual aspects
7 Schedule and required resources:
What time is available for the stress measurement works?
Requirements on the field crew? Need for on-site auditing?
8 Auditing requirements and strategy:
Conclude auditing requirements based on Subject Areas 1 and 2. Establish auditing strategy.
Establish auditing resources.
9 Roles for Client and Contractor:
Responsibilities on site.
Resources provided by the Client.
Review and evaluation tasks.
Audit Subject Area 4: Establishing QA procedures
10 Adaptation to the quality system of the organisation:
Level of detail?
Compatibility/coincidence with any overall QA system for the organisation?
11 Manufacturing or assembling of equipment:
Are the parts used suitable for use?
Are stress magnitudes, water pressure and water quality issues considered?
Are the parts used of sufficient quality for their purpose?
Will spare parts be available?
Are the critical activities that may influence the quality of test results understood and sufficient
procedures and quality control established?
12 Routines for storage and maintenance of equipment for stress measurements:
Are maintenance procedures of the critical equipment components established?
Is equipment stored in a safe way when not in use?
13 Quality control of data acquisition systems:
Are calibration routines established?
Are the lifetimes of the components understood?
Is the software validated?
14 Establishment and maintenance of QA procedures:
Is there a system to follow up on the routines and procedures applied?
Are there established and maintained procedures to identify training needs, as well as to
provide the training, of personnel carrying out and evaluating the stress measurements?
Audit Subject Area 5: Quality aspects for establishing the viability of stress measurements at a given
location/depth
15 Decision on the test location/depth:
Is the most recent geological information being used for judgment of the suitability of a test
location/depth?
(Continued )

Is the proposed test location/depth representative for the site/the planned project?
For overcoring: are there specifications on required rock quality in the actual formation stated
in advance of the measurements?
For hydraulic fracturing: is the influence of any anisotropy on test results understood, and could
the least anisotropic sections be chosen?
For HTPF: are there suitable closed fractures available?
16 Functional testing of installation tools, etc.:
Are procedures followed and checklists used?
17 Procedures to install equipment at the suitable location/depth:
For overcoring: what procedures are in place for drilling the pilot hole and accepting
the test level?
For hydraulic fracturing: what procedures are in place for controlling that the packers are
placed at the chosen test level, and are relevant procedures followed and documented?
Audit Subject Area 6: Measurement procedures
18 Down-hole installations and measurements:
What procedures are in place to ensure that the down-hole operations are fully traceable?
What procedures are in place to check the actual geological conditions at the test level
(e.g., inspection of overcored sample, checking impression packer result)?
19 Data acquisition
What procedures are in place to check or calibrate gauges used?
What procedures are in place to check hardware and software?
What procedures are in place for data storage and backup?
Audit Subject Area 7: Stress data reduction and interpretation
20 Data recording, reliability and reduction:
What procedures are in place to ensure that the data will be recorded accurately and safely?
Have all the hazards with stress measurements (see Audit Subject Areas 1 and 2) been
addressed? What procedures are in place to ensure that the raw data obtained are reliable?
How will the data be reduced?
What procedures are in place to ensure that mistakes will not occur during data reduction?
Is there a protocol with a case example available for this?
21 Data interpretation:
How are the data to be interpreted and the trends identified?
Audit Subject Area 8: Continuous evaluation process
22 Procedures for on-site evaluation and draft reporting:
What procedures are in place for a gradually updating understanding of the results during the
measurement process?
What procedures are in place for a decision on continuation or termination of field works (see
Subject Area 2)?
(Continued )

Audit Subject Area 9:Validation and presentation

23 Data validation:
Are results compatible with existing relevant data and trends at the site?
Are the site conditions within the assumptions for the method used? Are the determined elastic
properties of the rock realistic?
24 Presentation of stress measurement results:
How are the stress measurements to be presented in a clear form?
Discussion of the process for uncertainty evaluation
How is the uncertainty to be presented?
Audit Subject Area 10:Technical Auditing conclusions
25 Stress measurement adequacy:
Have the stress measurements been conducted adequately, given the objective (Audit Subject
Area 1) and the existing scientific, practical and site knowledge?
Is the documentation of the quality control during measurement, data reduction and data
interpretation reliable (Subject Areas 5–9)?
26 Overall Technical Auditing statement:
What are the overall TA conclusions given the individual conclusions in Items 1–25 above?
What recommendations are to be made concerning the work?
5.2.3 Discussion and conclusions relating

to Demonstration Example 1
Naturally, the audit subject areas and procedural questions in Table 5.1 are specific
to rock stress estimation and represent a soft audit, but similar questions should be
asked for all the site investigation measurements. It is easy to make mistakes when
obtaining site data—for a variety of reasons: e.g., incomplete understanding of the
subject matter, numerical errors, malfunctioning equipment, lack of communication
on site, etc. Thus, being systematically alerted to the potential pitfalls when making
site investigation measurements, as illustrated for the case of in situ stress estimation,
through addressing the types of questions listed in Table 5.1, will prove useful to all
parties involved: the site investigation contractor, the modeller, the designer and the
auditor. Such auditing, or its equivalent, should be implemented for all site investiga-
tion measurements relating to a project in order to support the efficacy of the rock
mechanics modelling and rock engineering design.

5.3 DEMONSTRATION EXAMPLE 2: TECHNICAL

AUDIT OF MODELLING FOR THE DESIGN
OF HYDROPOWER CAVERNS AT THE LAXIWA
YELLOW RIVER SITE IN CHINA (SEMI-HARD AUDIT)
In order to present the auditing procedure for this second demonstration example, it
is first necessary to describe the Laxiwa conditions and caverns in some detail. The
auditing tables then follow in Section 5.3.3.
5.3.1 The Laxiwa hydropower project

on the Yellow River
The Laxiwa hydropower station is located on the Yellow River at the boundary of
Guide County and Guinan County in Qinghai Province, China (Figure 5.2). There is
a large cavern group for the underground powerhouse excavated in granite in moun-
tainous terrain (Figure 5.3). The project consists of the main powerhouse, auxiliary
Figure 5.2 Location of the Laxiwa hydropower project in China.

Figure 5.3 Overview of the topography at the Laxiwa hydropower project site on the Yellow River in
China (also see the book cover).
powerhouse, transformer chamber, pressure adjustment shaft, draft tube gate cham-
ber, and tailwater tunnel. The main powerhouse is 312 × 30 × 75 m in length, width
and height with the azimuth of the axis being NE25°. The auxiliary powerhouse,
being coaxial with the main powerhouse, is 32 × 27.8 × 42.0 m in excavation size.
The transformer chamber, excavation size of 232.60 × 29.0 × 53.0 m, is on the down-
stream side of and parallel to the main powerhouse and connected to the main power-
house through the busbar channel. There are two circular pressure adjustment shafts
with excavation size of 32 m in diameter and 69.3 m in height. The underground
powerhouse is located in a mountainous area with steep slopes and a deep gorge
(Figure 5.3). The right bank slope is at a 65–70° angle from the riverbed to the alti-
tude 2452 m, the normal water sluice level has a slope of 45°above altitude 2452–
2500 m, a slope 30–35° at the altitude 2500–2600 m, and a slope of 60–65° at the
altitude above 2600 m to the top.
In terms of the distances to the ground surface, the main and auxiliary power-
houses have an overburden of 225–447 m. The outside wall of the auxiliary power-
house has a horizontal distance of 150 m from the bank slope. The inner sidewall and
outer sidewall of the main installation cavern are at distances of 460 m and 440 m,
respectively, from the bank slope. The transformer chamber has a vertical depth of
282–429 m and it is 216 m from the outer side wall to the bank slope. The operational

tunnel has a vertical depth of 384–459 m. No.1 pressure adjustment shaft has a verti-
cal depth of 459–509 m and No. 2 is 505–551 m in depth.
The underground powerhouse cavern group is located in a high stress region.
The three dimensional geo-stress measurements indicate that the maximum principal
stress is 22 to 29 MPa and dipping to the gorge of the river; the intermediate principal
stress is about 15 MPa and dipping into the mountain; the minimum principal stress
is almost vertical with a magnitude of about 10 MPa.
There is granite in the area of the underground powerhouse, grey to grey white,
of middle coarseness size, with a blocky structure and having mineral components of
mainly feldspar, quartz and biotite. The granite rock mass is hard, brittle and com-
pact. The rock mass at the ground surface in the area of the underground power-
house is weakly weathered. The rock mass in the two bank slopes has a weathered
depth: 10–25 m at altitude below 2400 m, 30–40 m at altitude of 2400–2500 m, and
40–60 m for the local area at the altitude of 2415–2430 m. The underground power-
house is located in little weathered and fresh granite. According to a series of triaxial
compressive tests of rock samples, the suggested values of the mechanical parameters
of the rock mass are listed in Table 5.2.
It is known from the geological exploration tunnel that the orientations of the
joints and faults are almost the same with most of them having a steep dip angle.
They are developed in three groups of NNW, NNE, and NE, these being 24.7%,
26%, and 20% respectively of the total joints. The joints with an intermediately
steep dip angle are in a group locally with large spacing, although about 0.5 m for
the concentrated joints, the smallest in the range 0.2–0.5 m, but 1 m generally and the
maximum spacing is greater than 1 m. The mean joint intensity is 0.87/m. In addi-
tion to fault Hf8, there are some other large faults, such as HL2, HF2, F7, F3, f11
and L28, etc., which intersect sections of the underground powerhouse, as indicated
in Figure 5.4. Their mechanical parameters and orientations are listed in Tables 5.3
and 5.4 respectively.
Rockbursts, rock spalling and rock slabbing often occurred in the hard and brittle
rock masses during excavation of the geological exploration tunnels for the under-
ground powerhouse. Some challenging problems arose as a result, such as how to
assess the risk of rockburst and rock spalling/slabbing during the excavation of this
cavern group and tunnels under high stress conditions. How could one provide rea-
sonable designs and construction schemes for an underground cavern and tunnels
in high stress conditions? How can one reduce the risk of brittle failures such as
Table 5.2 Values of mechanical parameters of the surrounding rock mass for the large cavern group.
Depth of Tensile strength Young’s Shear strength

Surrounding surrounding rock of rock mass modulus
rock category (m) (MPa) (GPa) tg (φ ′) c′(MPa)
II 0.0–5.0 0.5 10.0–15.0 1.2 1.5

5.0–10.0 1.0 15.0–20.0 1.3 2.0
More than 10.0 1.5 20.0–25.0 1.4 2.5
III 0.0–5.0 0.4 8.0–10.0 1.0 1.0
5.0–10.0 0.8 10.0–15.0 1.1 1.2
More than 10.0 1.2 15.0–20.0 1.2 1.5

F7 F3
Hf8
HL2
HF2
(a)
F7
HF2 Hf8
HL2
f11 F3
L28
(b)
Figure 5.4 Fault distribution at (a) the Engine Unit 2 section and (b) the Engine Unit 5 section
(the letters are the names of the faults).
Table 5.3 Mechanical parameters of the geological

structures.
Friction
Cohesion angle
Structures (MPa) (°)
Faults 0.035 24.0

Joints 12.5 32.5
rockbursts, rock spalling and slabbing, etc.? In order to answer these questions, the
following strategies are required.
• A suitable constitutive model and its parameters are needed for theoretical and
numerical analyses to represent accurately the non-linear behaviour of these hard
and brittle rock masses subjected to a high stress field. This supports the analysis

Table 5.4 Orientations of important geological structures.
Orientation
Dip angle Width

Faults Strike Dip (°) (mm)
Hf8 NW295 SW 17 20
HL2 NW275 SW 27 5
HF 2 NW330 NE 25 20–50
F7 NE20 SE 76 50–300
F3 SN NE 67 30–100
f11 NW340 NE 60 50–100
L28 EW S 82 1
of the stability of the surrounding rocks, both during the excavation process and
in the long term. However, it is difficult to establish the correct constitutive model
and its parameters.
• Some suitable methods or indices are required to assess the risk of rockburst and
rock spalling/slabbing during the excavation of the cavern group and tunnels
under the high stress conditions.
• A global optimal excavation procedure should be found for the given cavern
group and tunnels in the high stress field taking into account the fact that the
excavation of the cavern group induces a redistribution of the stress field causing
stress concentrations in some areas.
• In addition to these, a global optimal support scheme and reasonable support
time are needed for the given cavern group and tunnels.
Therefore, systemic and integrated intelligent methods have been proposed to

carry out the aims mentioned above (Figure 5.5). Information and data can be pro-
vided for every task in the design and construction stages of the project. For the
design stage of the project, most of the indirect information, data from the explora-
tion tunnels and boreholes at the site and the laboratory data are used. During the
construction stage of the project, information and data obtained during excavation
of the caverns at the upper levels or previous steps can be used for analysis of the
stability and re-design of the caverns for the excavation of the lower levels and the
remaining steps. This is similar to the Shuibuya hydroproject example in Chapter 3.
The actual strata, geological and stress conditions will be revealed after excava-
tion of the cavern group. Based on the fact that the large cavern group is excavated
step-by-step from top to bottom, the constitutive model and its parameters for the
rock mass may be established using back analysis with the new information revealed
during the excavation of the caverns at the upper levels. The updated results can be
input to analyse behaviour and the failure risk of the surrounding rocks due to further
excavation at the lower levels and hence enable development of the optimal excava-
tion procedure and support scheme for the excavation of caverns at the lower levels.

Design stage of the project

Methods
Intelligent recognition
Tasks algorithm of model
Information and data parameters
Recognition of constitutive
Investigation of geological model and its parameters for Intelligent recognition
conditions, stress rock masses algorithm of the structure of
measurement, in situ test the model and its parameters
and failure phenomena at
boreholes and the A new index representing the
exploration tunnels, etc. Stability analysis and failure risk failure risk of brittle rocks
assessment of surrounding under high stress conditions
Triaxial and true triaxial rocks during and after
compressive experiments, Integrated intelligent risk
excavation of entire caverns
shear and tensile tests on assessment methods
rock samples to investigate
deformation and fracturing A new integrated appraisal
Global optimisation of
mechanism index
excavation procedure and
Further information support scheme and time Global optimisation algorithm
Construction stage of the project with intelligent feedback analysis

Methods
Tasks algorithm of model
Information and data
Re-recognition of constitutive parameters
Revealing geological model and its parameters for Intelligent recognition
conditions and failure the surrounding rocks algorithm of the structure of
phenomena after excavation the model and its parameters
at upper levels, etc.
Stability analysis and failure risk A new index representing the
Measurement and assessment of surrounding failure risk of brittle rocks
observation of failure zone rocks during and after under high stress conditions
and displacement, stress, excavation at the lower levels
Integrated intelligent risk
etc., of caverns due to assessment and stability
excavation at upper levels or Global re-optimisation of analysis methods
previous steps excavation procedure and
support scheme and time for A new integrated appraisal
Further observations
excavation of caverns at lower index
levels and the remaining steps Global optimisation algorithm
Figure 5.5 ‘Intelligent’ methodology for studying the stability at the design and construction stages of
the large cavern group excavated in brittle rocks under high stress conditions.
5.3.2 Integrated intelligent recognition of model

parameters for brittle rock masses in high
stress fields
A new methodology, shown in Figure 5.6, is proposed in this Chapter for parameter
recognition for the model for this brittle rock mass in the high stress conditions.

Understanding the intrinsic character of

the deformation and failure of the rocks
True triaxial compressive and triaxial Understanding the intrinsic
compressive, shear and tensile tests characteristics of the deformation and
on rock samples failure of rock masses due to stress
In situ tests and monitoring concentration and change of stress paths
Phenomena and mechanism analysis as affected by the excavation of the
cavern group
Stress vs. strain relation for rock

samples Recognition of parameters for the
Deformation vs. load relations for rock given structure of the rock model
samples
Measured deformation of surrounding

rocks of the exploration tunnels, wells
or boreholes, etc. Recognition of parameters for the
given structure of the model for
Measured failure zone of the rock masses
surrounding rocks in the exploration
tunnels, boreholes, etc.
Genetic algorithm (or particle swarm

optimisation, etc.) and numerical analysis
Genetic algorithm (or particle swarm
optimisation, etc.), genetic programming
and numerical analysis
Figure 5.6 Intelligent recognition of constitutive model and its parameters for the hard and brittle
rock mass under high stress conditions.
5.3.2.1 Recognition of the model parameters

for rock samples
The mechanism of the deformation and failure of rock is understood via triaxial com-
pressive, polyaxial compressive, shear and tensile tests on rock samples. There are two
cases for the intact rock.
• If the intrinsic deformation and failure mechanism characteristics of brittle rocks,

e.g., brittle strength reduction, frictional strengthening, cohesion weakening, and
transforming from brittle to ductile at high confining pressure, etc., are adequately
understood, the structure of the model for brittle rocks can be mechanically deter-
mined. And then, the parameters for the given model structures can be recognised
by using a combination of intelligent parameter search algorithms and numeri-
cal analysis, with input using the tested applied load vs. deformation relation or
stress vs. strain relation for the rock samples.

• If the intrinsic deformation and failure mechanism characteristics of the rocks are
not fully understood, the structure of the model for the rock samples has to be
first recognised by using intelligent methods, e.g., a combination of genetic pro-
gramming and genetic algorithm (Feng and Yang, 2001; Feng and Yang, 2004).
The tentative model structures have to undergo examination of the mechanism
of deformation and failure of the rock samples, and then the parameters for the
proposed model structures are recognised by using intelligent algorithms for the
parameter searching (e.g. Feng et al., 2002).
A model with its associated parameters also needs to be developed for the rock
mass. The mechanisms of deformation and failure of rock masses due to stress con-
centration and change of stress paths as affected by the excavation of the cavern group
are understood by observing the failure phenomena and analysing the measured con-
vergence deformation and/or failure zones of the rocks surrounding the exploration
tunnels and boreholes, etc. As for the intact rock, if the mechanism is adequately
understood, the structure of the model for brittle rocks can be mechanically deter-
mined with the parameters for the given structures of the model being recognised
using a combination of the particle swarm optimisation technique and numerical
analysis. Otherwise, the structure of the model for the rock mass has to be recognised
by using intelligent algorithms with the parameters for the tentative model structures
being determined by also using intelligent algorithms for parameter search by learning
the measured deformation and/or the measured failure zones of the exploration tun-
nels and boreholes. The established model should be checked through analysis of the
mechanism of the deformation and failure of rock masses.
5.3.2.2 Experiments and mechanism analysis

for granite under high stress
A series of triaxial compressive tests was conducted to investigate the effect of high
confining pressure on the strength and failure characteristics of the granite spec-
imens. The specimens were cylindrical, 100 mm in height and 50 mm in diam-
eter. The results, for example in Figure 5.7, indicated that granite samples have
elastic-plastic or elastic-brittle-plastic behaviour. When the confining pressure was
greater than 90 MPa, it was revealed that ductile behaviour took over from brit-
tle behaviour with volumetric strain about 3.7% and 2.9% at confining pressures
90 MPa and 120 MPa, respectively. The specimens have clear plastic behaviour
after the peak strength. It can be seen that there is volumetric dilation when the
stress reaches about 50% of the strength of the specimen. It can also be seen from
the monitored acoustic emission activities (Figure 5.7) that the acoustic emission
activity depends on the values of the confining pressure. When the confining pres-
sure was less than 50 MPa, the acoustic emission was considerably active when σ1
approached the peak strength, and reached a peak itself after the peak strength, until
sudden failure of the specimens (Figure 5.7a). At a confining pressure of greater
than 90 MPa, the acoustic emission became similarly active when σ1 approached
the peak strength and increased slowly with the approach to the failure of the speci-
mens (Figure 5.7c). Young’s modulus decreased significantly, as was apparent during
the unloading process, but did not change so much with repeated unloading and

4.0 500
3.5 AE counts
Axial stress (MPa)

AE counts (x105)
Axial stress 400
3.0
2.5 300
2.0
1.5 200
1.0
100
0.5
0.0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (s)
(a)
1.2 600
1.0
Axial stress (MPa)

AE counts (x105)
500
0.8 400
0.6 300
0.4 200
0.2 AE counts 100
Axial stress
0.0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Time (s)
(b)
3.5 800
700
Axial stress (MPa)
3.0
AE counts (x105)
2.5 600
500
2.0
400
1.5
300
1.0 200
0.5 AE counts 100
Axial stress
0.0 0
0 700 1400 2100 2800 3500
Time (s)
(c)
Figure 5.7 Stress–acoustic emission (AE) counts vs. time curves for granite under triaxial compressive
confining pressure (a) 35 MPa, (b) 60 MPa and (c) 120 MPa.
loading, see Figure 5.8. The acoustic emission activity was somewhat reduced dur-
ing the unloading reloading cycles due to the Kaiser effect, but increased during the
approach to failure of the specimens, e.g., in Figure 5.9. The strength of the granite
increased with increase of confining pressure. Inspection of the macro-failure modes
for the granite samples under triaxial compression showed that some finally failed
in shear and some in tension.
The excavation of a tunnel or cavern results in a new stress path, leading to
the local final state of stress, which can affect the failure characteristics of the sur-
rounding rock. Also, the stress field may change from a three to a two dimensional
plane stress state in the surrounding rock with a loading process in one direction

σ1 (MPa)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150 Axial strain
100 Tangential strain
50 Volumetric strain
0
–0.01 –0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Strain
(a)
σ1 (MPa)
600
500
400
300
200
Axial strain
100 Tangential strain
Volumetric strain
0
–0.015 –0.01 –0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain
(b)
Figure 5.8 Stress–strain curves for granite under a loading and unloading process in triaxial compression
with different confining pressures of (a) 40 MPa and (b) 60 MPa.
and an unloading process in another direction. Therefore, a series of true triaxial

compressive tests was also conducted on more than 100 granite specimens of size
50 × 50 × 100 mm to investigate the effect of the loading and unloading stress paths
induced by the excavation of caverns. During the testing, three different loading-
unloading paths were investigated.
• In the first loading-unloading mode, the specimens were loaded to the initial stress
levels for σ1, σ2, σ3 shown in Table 5.5, which included the actual stress levels of
the cavern, then unloaded by taking σ3 to zero, then keeping σ2 and σ3 constant
but increasing σ1 to specimen failure.

12.0 500
10.0 400
Axial stress (MPa)

AE counts (×105)
8.0
300
6.0
AE counts 200
4.0
Axial stress
2.0 100
0.0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Time (s)
(a)
7.0 AE counts 600

6.0 Axial stress
500
Axial stress (MPa)

AE counts (×105)
5.0
400
4.0
300
3.0
200
2.0
1.0 100
0.0 0
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000
Time (s)
(b)
Figure 5.9 Stress–AE counts vs. time curves for granite under a loading and unloading process in triaxial
compression with confining pressures of (a) 40 MPa and (b) 60 MPa.
Table 5.5 Initial stress levels for true triaxial compressive tests
during the first loading and unloading path.
σ1 σ2 σ3
Sample No. (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 20 15 10
2 30 20 10
3 40 30 10
4 50 40 10
5 60 50 10
6 70 60 30
7 80 70 30
8 90 80 30
9 100 90 50
10 120 100 50
11 140 120 50

• The second loading-unloading mode was that the specimens were loaded to the
initial stress levels for σ1, σ2, σ3 shown in Table 5.6, the σ2 and σ1 levels were
maintained and then σ3 unloaded to failure of the specimens.
• The third type of loading-unloading mode was that the specimens were loaded
to the initial stress levels for σ1, σ2, σ3 shown in Table 5.7, unloaded taking σ3 to
zero, maintaining the σ2 and σ1 levels, keeping the σ2 and σ1 levels for some time,
then loading σ3 to 2.0 MPa, while maintaining σ2 and σ3, and finally loaded σ1 to
specimen failure.
During the true triaxial compressive testing, acoustic emissions were monitored.
It can be seen from typical results of the true triaxial compressive tests that the effect
of the intermediate and minimum principal stress on the strength of the granite
specimens (Figure 5.10) and acoustic emissions were significant when the speci-
men failure approached (Figure 5.11). The specimens had less compressive strength
when the intermediate principal stress was relatively smaller or much larger, for the
same minimum principal stress. The acoustic emission count rate increased with
the intermediate principal stress. Most of the specimens exhibited brittle failure
(Figure 5.11, Figure 5.12). For higher initial levels of the principal stress, more
tensile failure of the specimens occurred after the minimum principal stress was
unloaded to zero.
Table 5.6 Initial stress levels for true triaxial compressive tests
for the second loading and unloading path.
σ1 σ2 σ3
12 270 60 40
13 270 70 40
14 270 80 40
15 270 90 60
16 270 100 60
17 270 120 60
Table 5.7 Initial stress level for true triaxial compressive tests
for the third loading and unloading path.
σ1 σ2 σ3
18 30 15 10
19 45 30 10
20 60 45 10
21 75 60 30
22 90 75 30
23 100 90 30
24 140 120 50
25 180 150 50

σ3 = 2 MPa
300
250 σ3 = 0 MPa
Strength (MPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Intermediate principal stress (MPa)
Figure 5.10 Strength-intermediate principal stress curves for granite under true triaxial compression.
7.0 AE counts 250

σ1
σ1 (MPa)
250 6.0
σ2 200
AE counts (×106)
5.0 σ3
Stress (MPa)
200
4.0 150
150
3.0 100
ε1 100
2.0
ε2
50 50
ε3 1.0
0 0.0 0
–6000 –4000 –2000 0 2000 4000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Strain (×10–6) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 5.11 (a) Typical stress–strain curves; (b) acoustic emission counts–stress–time curves, for gran-
ite specimen under true triaxial compressive conditions.
Observations of brittle failure of the specimens on the laboratory scale, based

on acoustic emission monitoring, indicated that the brittle failure process of granite
involved the initiation, growth, and accumulation of micro-cracks. The peak value
of the acoustic emission count rate depended on the stress state, and the number
of acoustic emission peak values relates to the macro-cracks after failure (Tang and
Hudson, 2010). The nature of the stress path has a strong influence on the frac-
turing behaviour of the granite specimens; for example, the acoustic emission count
rate increased significantly when the minimum principal stress was unloaded. The
peak acoustic emission count rate was, however, related to the maximum principal
stress level: when the maximum principal stress reached about 30–50% of the peak
strength of the specimen, the acoustic emission started to become active, indicating
the generation of some large cracks. When the maximum principal stress reached

(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
(g) (h)
Figure 5.12 Typical failure modes of the specimens after true triaxial compression tests. (a)–(h)
correspond to the testing conditions for specimen Nos. 1–8 in Table 5.5.

about 80–95% of the peak strength of the specimen, the acoustic emission count rate
reached its peak, representing the generation of major cracks in the specimen.
5.3.2.3 Constitutive models for hard and brittle granite

Hajiabdolmajid et al. (2002) and Hajiabdolmajid and Kaiser (2003) proposed a cohe-
sion weakening and frictional strengthening (CWFS) model for brittle rocks to predict
the depth and extent of failed rock in deep underground openings in hard rocks. The
applicability of the CWFS model to describe the behaviour of hard and brittle granite at
the large cavern group site studied in this Chapter was investigated. The CWFS model is
established on the basis of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion and the character of cohesion
softening and frictional enhancing during the brittle failure process of the rock mass.
The model considers cohesion, c, and friction angle, φ, of the rock mass to be a function
of plastic strain, as shown in Figure 5.13, following Hajiabdolmajid et al. (2002):
τ = c(ε p) + σn tanφ(ε p) (5.1)

in which, τ is the shear strength of the rock mass, σn is the normal stress at the failure
face of the rock mass, and ε p is the effective plastic strain.
2
εp ∫ 3
( ε 1p d ε 1p ε 2p d ε 2p ε 3p d ε 3p)dt
(5.2)
where d ε1p , d ε 2p and d ε 2p are increments of principal plastic strain.

In order to establish a convenient calculation in FLAC, ε p can be calculated as
1
εp
2
∫ ( ε 1p − dε mp )2 (dε mp )2 ( ε 3p − dε mp)2 dt, (5.3)
where
1
d ε mp (d ε 1p + d ε 3p)
3
Maximum
frictional
Initial
strength
cohesion
Cohesion
Frictional strength
Residual
cohesion
εcp Plastic strain εfp
Figure 5.13 Relations pamong cohesion, frictional strength and plastic strain in the CWFS model.
ε cp and ε f represent the plastic strain components when the frictional and cohesive
strength components have reached these ultimate values, Hajiabdolmajid et al. (2002) and
Hajiabdolmajid and Kaiser (2003).

There are two important parameters for the CWFS model, ε cp and ε fp as shown in
Figure 5.13. Because ε cp and ε fp for the rock mass model are difficult to obtain directly
by laboratory experiment, they are usually recognised by the inverse analysis method
based on in situ observed data. However, the results of the laboratory experiment are
helpful in understanding the mechanism and character of the deformation and failure
of granite under high confining pressure and with the changing stress paths.
The CWFS model was implemented into FLAC using its internal FISH functions.
The CWFS model is based on the Mohr–Coulomb model with non-associated shear
and associated tension flow rules. The flow rule is given a unique definition by the
application of a function h(σ1, σ3) = 0, which is represented by the diagonal between
the representation of the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, fs = 0, and the tension fail-
ure criterion, ft = 0, in the (σ1, σ3)-plane.
5.3.2.4 Intelligent recognition algorithm in models

for hard and brittle rocks
The particle swarm optimisation (PSO) algorithm was used to recognise the param-
eters ε cp and ε fp of the model combined with FLAC. The particle swarm optimisation
(PSO) algorithm is an evolutionary computational technique motivated by the simu-
lation of social behaviour. PSO was developed by Kennedy and Eberhart (1995) to
solve a continuous global optimisation problem with a non-linear objective. The
method is based on simulating the social behaviour of a bird flock or a school of
fish. The key idea is that in the flock, or school of fish, any agent of the group can
profit from the discoveries and previous experiences of all members of the group in
the search for food. This advantage can become decisive, outweighing the inconven-
ience of competition for food items, whenever the resource is unpredictably distrib-
uted in patches. This means that information is socially shared by the bird flock or
fish school and provides an evolutionary advantage. The main idea in the model is
to generate particles randomly and assign to them a motion law, Elegbede (2005).
In the PSO algorithm, the birds are abstractly represented as particles which are
mass-less and volume-less and extended to D dimensional space. The position of the
particle i in the D dimensional space is represented by a vector X i (Xi1 , Xi 2 XiD ),
and
the flying velocity is
represented by a vector Vi (Vi1 , Vi ViD ) . The vectors
Pi (Pi1 , Pi PiD ) and Pg (Pg1 , Pg 2 , gD )
are the optimal position of the particle
i recognised so far and the optimal position of the entire particle swarm recognised
so far, respectively. The position of each particle in the D dimensional space, Xi , is a
tentative solution in the problem space. The fitness of the model, representing appli-
cability of the Xi , can be obtained by substituting Xi to the target function. Therefore,
the search procedure of the PSO algorithm depends on interaction among particles.
The position and velocity of the particle i can be updated as Equation (5.4) and (5.5)
(Kennedy & Eberhart, 1995; Shi & Eberhart, 1998).
Vid = wVid + c1r1(Pid – Xid) + c2r2(Pgd – Xid) (5.4)

Xid = Xid + Vid (5.5)
in which, w is inertia weight; c1 and c2 are constants for learning, c1 > 0, c2 > 0; r1 and
r2 are random numbers in [0,1]; d = 1, 2, …, D.

The PSO algorithm is here used to recognise parameters for the given structure of
the model, i.e., the CWFS model, in searching for the global optimal parameters. This
is due to its ability to explore the search domain with a ‘jump’ from a local solution
to another local solution and therefore utilise a step-by-step method to reach the glo-
bal optimum. The algorithm for recognition of the parameters for the given structure
of the model by using the particle swarm optimisation and numerical analysis with
input of the measured depth of failed zone of the surrounding rocks can be described
through the following steps.
Step 1: Consider the ε cp and ε fp of the CWFS model to be parameters to be rec-

ognised and presented as the co-ordinates of the location of particles.
Several particles are considered as a group. The locations of particles
and their velocity can initially be given some values in the given value
range according to empirical knowledge and distributed uniformly in the
problem solving space.
Step 2: Setting up the numerical simulation model for the given problem.
Step 3: Replacing every tentative value pair of ε cp and ε fp in the CWFS model for
the given problem.
Step 4: Performing numerical calculations with FLAC with input of the tentative
pair value to obtain fitness of each particle as
p( p
c
p
f ) N* N1 (ε cp , p
f ) N 2 ( cp , ε fp ) (5.6)
in which, N* is the expected number of elements located at the observed

failure zone; N1 ( cp, ε fp) is the calculated number of failed elements located
at the observed failure zone; and N 2 ( cp, ε fp) is the calculated number of
failed elements outside the observed failure zone.
Step 5: Comparing current fitness, p, of the particle with its previous best, Pid: if
p is better than Pid, then Pid = p.
Step 6: Comparing the best fitness, p, of each particle with the best fitness of all
particles, Pgd If p is better than Pgd, then Pgd = p.
Step 7: Using the following formulae to modify the locations of the particles and
their velocity
vi d = wvi d + c1r1 (pi d − xid ) + c2 r2 (pgd − xid )⎫

⎬ (5.7)
xid = xid + vid ⎭
in which vid is the velocity of the ith particle at the d dimension space;
xid is the location of the ith particle at the d dimension; r1 and r2 are
random numbers distributed uniformly in (0, 1); c1 and c2 are learning
factors, usually c1 = c2 = [1.8, 2]; w is the inertial weight and may linearly
decrease from 0.9 to 0.4 during the iterative process:
t
w = 0 .9 − *0 5 (5.8)
tmax
where, t is the current iterative step and tmax is maximum iterative step.

Step 8: If the fitness of the particles or evolutionary generations has reached the
given values, the above evolutionary process of the model parameters
ends. It provides the optimal locations of particles, i.e., the best ε cp and
ε fp of the CWFS model. Otherwise, go to Step 3.
5.3.2.5 Intelligent recognition of model parameters

for Laxiwa granite
The algorithm proposed above enables recognition of the peak cohesion cmax of the
Laxiwa granitic rock mass and the two parameters ε cp and ε fp of the CWFS model.
Ranges for these parameters to be recognised were selected to be cmax = 20 MPa,
ε cp = 0.0%–0.6%, ε fp = 0.2%–0.8%, respectively. Parameters for the PSO recognition
were set to be c1 = c2 = 2.0, and number of particles i = 5. A numerical calculation
model was set up. The boundary of the model was five times the tunnel sizes and far
away from the exploration tunnel. The measured rock stress was added to the bound-
ary of the model.
The measured depths of the failed zone, see Figure 5.14(a) at the exploration
tunnel section, were used to perform back analysis. The established results were
cmax = 12 MPa, ε cp = 0.2%, ε fp = 0.5%. The recognised parameters were input to
FLAC with the same numerical model to analyse the brittle failure zone induced
by excavation of the tunnel (Figure 5.14(b) and (c)). The analysis results were
compared with simulation of the Mohr–Coulomb model with input cohesion of
2.5 MPa and friction angle of 53°. The result, through using the recognised param-
eters for the CWFS model, indicated that failure depth reached nearly 0.4–0.5 m at
the sidewall and 0.8 m at the crown, which agrees with the observed failed zone.
However, the result of the Mohr–Coulomb simulations indicated that the failure
depth was nearly 1.0 m at the sidewall and only 0.2 m at the crown, which does not
agree with the observed failed zone. This indicates that the CWFS model with the
recognised parameters has a better performance than that of the Mohr-Coulomb
model.
5.3.2.6 An index to estimate the brittle failure of rocks

Unstable failure of brittle rocks occurs due to sudden release of energy with high
intensity under high stress conditions when the stress in the surrounding rock reaches
its strength. Rockbursts in most of the caverns and tunnels under high rock stress con-
ditions in China may be of the ‘self-excitation’ type or ‘induced far away’ type. The
former refers to the condition when the strength of a rock mass decreases suddenly
when the stress state is changed from essentially three dimensions to two dimensions
due to excavation of the underground projects and the elastic strain energy stored in
the rock mass is greater than its maximum energy storage capability. This results in
sudden release of the energy stored in the rock mass. The released energy not only
induces continuous failure of the rock mass but also generates dynamic energy within
the broken rock. Even so, it is still difficult to understand clearly the release and dis-
sipation rules of energy stored in a brittle rock mass after the peak load under high
stress conditions. However, the greater the release of elastic energy in the local rock
mass, the greater is the possibility of rockburst/brittle failure occurrence and a larger
rock failure extent with dynamic energy.

Observed
0.8 m
failed zone
0.5 m 0.5 m
σ3
6.7 m
σ2
0.4 m 0.4 m
2.5 m
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 5.14 Comparison of the observed failed zone (a) of an exploration tunnel at Laxiwa hydro-
power project in granite under high stress conditions (σ1 is parallel to the cavern axis)
with simulated results by using (b) the recognised parameters for the CWFS model using
the particle swarm optimisation algorithm and (c) the Mohr–Coulomb model.

The ‘induced far away’ type of rockburst refers to a brittle rock mass hosting
a higher stress concentration and, when approaching a limit equilibrium state, it
absorbs dynamic energy induced by seismic waves from some distance—and fails. So,
a sudden release of energy in a local rock mass considered as a seismic event supplies
the energy to cause the neighbouring rock mass which, being close to the limit equilib-
rium state, fractures and fails. Therefore, for a larger energy release from a local rock
mass volume, there is a larger possibility of a rockburst/brittle failure occurrence.
In order to quantitatively analyse the intensity of strain-type rockbursts, based on
the understanding that a rockburst is a brittle failure phenomenon having the intrinsic
character of energy release, an index, the local energy release rate (LERR), is used in
this Chapter. The index is an approximate representation of energy released from the
rock mass per volume at brittle failure and can be considered as a quantitative index
of rockburst risk assessment. The index can be calculated using numerical analysis
through tracing the entire release process of elastic energy intensity of rock masses
using an elastic-brittle-plastic model with characteristics such as cohesion weakening
and frictional strengthening (CWFS) model. It records the difference in energy stored
in the rock mass before and after brittle failure, i.e., the LERR of the elements. It
ignores any small energy release from the elements generated due to non-brittle fail-
ure. The sum of the elastic energy release of the all elements is the total elastic energy
release of the surrounding rock which occurs during one excavation step. The formula
can be written as
LERRi = Ui max – Ui min (5.9)

n
ERE = ∑ LERR
i =1
i Vi (5.10)
in which LERRi is the local energy release rate of the ith element; Ui max and Ui min are
the peak and the lowest values of the elastic strain energy intensity before and after
brittle failure occurrence at the ith element, ERE is the Elastic Release Energy, n is the
number of elements and Vi is the volume of the ith element.
U i max [ 1
2 2
2 3
2
(σ 1σ 2 σ 2σ 3 σ 1σ 3 )] / 2E (5.11)
U i min [ 1′2 ′
2
2
′
3
2
(σ 1′ σ 2′ σ 2′ σ 3′ σ 2′ σ 3′ )] / 2E (5.12)
in which σ1, σ2, σ3 are the three principal stresses corresponding to the peak strain
energy intensity of the element, σ 1′, σ 2′ , σ 3′ are the three principal stresses corresponding
to the lowest strain energy intensity of the element, ν is Poisson’s ratio, and E is
Young’s modulus.
Calculation of the LERR is carried out by tracing the dynamic evolutionary process
of energy in the elements exhibiting elastic-brittle-plastic behaviour, such as, concentra-
tion, release, transfer and dissipation of energy. This then accommodates the influence
of the stress path and its change induced by excavation in terms of the energy concen-
tration and release process. Therefore, the index can directly reflect the conditions of
different limited energy storage capacity of the rock mass having different stress states
in the rock mass.

5.3.2.7 A comprehensive algorithm for global optimisation

of excavation procedures and support schemes
In order to obtain a global optimisation solution for excavation procedures and sup-
port schemes for the large cavern group in brittle rocks under high stress conditions, a
comprehensive intelligent algorithm has been proposed in this Chapter. It has utilised
the advantages of particle swarm optimisation (PSO) in finding global solutions, sup-
port vector machines for the learning of small sample sets, and a numerical method
for solving large scale complex mechanics problems. There is often a complex non-
linear relation between different excavation procedures and support schemes and
their use in the appraisal indices for a large cavern group in brittle rocks under high
rock stress conditions. However, the support vector machines can be used to learn and
represent this non-linear relation. In order to reduce inaccuracy when determining the
parameters for the support vector machines (SVMs) and to improve the generalisa-
tion capability of the SVMs, the PSO algorithm was used to search parameters for
the SVMs by using particle swarm optimisation. The SVMs are usually established
using the learning sample set and tested with the testing sample set. The quality and
representativeness of the learning and testing sample sets are important in obtaining
the applicable SVMs. These sample sets can be set up by using numerical analysis.
After the SVMs are established, using the particle swarm optimisation search in glo-
bal space, they can be used to establish optimal excavation procedures and support
schemes for the cavern group.
5.3.2.8 Support Vector Machine (SVM)

The SVM is a novel machine learning method to train non-linear relations based on the
structural risk minimisation principle that seeks to minimise an upper bound for the
generalisation error, rather than minimise the empirical error implemented in neural
networks (Vapnik et al., 1996). This induction principle is based on the fact that the
generalisation error is bounded by the sum of the empirical error and a confidence
interval term that depends on the Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension. Established
on this principle, SVMs will achieve an optimal model structure by striking the right bal-
ance between the empirical error and the VC-confidence interval, eventually resulting in
better generalisation performance than neural networks. Another merit of SVMs is that
training SVMs is a uniquely solvable quadratic optimisation problem, and the complex-
ity of the solution in SVMs depends on the complexity of the desired solution, rather
than on the dimensionality of the input space. SVMs use non-linear mapping based on
an internal integral function to transform an input space to a high dimension space and
then look for a non-linear relation between inputs and outputs in the high dimension
space. SVMs not only have strictly theoretical support but also can find global optimum
solutions for problems with small training samples, high dimension, non-linear and
local optima. A wide variety of applications, such as pattern recognition and non-linear
regression, have empirically shown the good generalisation performance of SVMs.
5.3.2.9 A comprehensive appraisal index

Based on a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the factors involved, indices for
appraising the applicability of different excavation procedures and support schemes

for the large cavern group in brittle rocks under high stress conditions were deter-
mined. The results are listed as the mean ERE, volume of the plastic zone, mean
roof subsidence of the main powerhouse, the mean maximum displacement of the
upstream sidewall of the main powerhouse at the central cross-sections of six genera-
tor units, the mean roof subsidence of the transformer chamber, the mean maximum
displacement of the downstream sidewall of the main transformer cavern at the cen-
tral cross-sections of six generator units, excavation and support expense. Weights for
each index were also determined according to their contribution.
5.3.2.10 The SVM training algorithm using the PSO algorithm

The PSO training algorithm is described via the following steps.
Step 1: Initialise the learning parameters of the support vector machines, includ-
ing the number of evolutionary generations, the population number, the
maximum velocity, kernel parameters and their valuing ranges, etc.
Step 2: Generate randomly a set of values for kernel parameters of SVMs in the
given value range. Each set of kernel parameters represents a tentative
SVM and as co-ordinates for the location of particles. Several particles are
considered as a group. The locations of particles and their velocity can be
initially given some values in the given value range according to empirical
knowledge and distributed uniformly in problem solving space.
Step 3: Train each tentative SVM using learning sample sets and test the trained
SVMs using the testing sample sets. The fitness, p(x), representing the
generalisation capability of tentative SVMs, is calculated as
⎛ ⎛ ⎧⎪ xi xi′ ⎫⎪ ⎞⎞
p(x) = min ⎜ max ⎜ ⎨ ⎬, i 1, 2, , n⎟ ⎟ (5.13)
⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ ⎪ xi′ ⎪⎭ ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
⎩
in which, xi and xi′ are the predicted and the observed data for the ith
testing sample, respectively, i = 1, 2, …, n where n is the number of the
testing samples.
Step 4: Compare the current fitness, p, of the particle with its previous best one
pid. If p is better than pid, then pid = p.
Step 5: Compare the best fitness, p, of each particle with the best fitness of all
particles, pgd. If p is better than pgd, then pgd = p.
Step 6: Use the following formula to modify the locations of particles and their
velocity
vi d = wvi d + c1r1 (pi d − xid ) + c2 r2 (pg d − xid )⎫

⎬
xid = xid + vid ⎭ (5.14)
in which vid is the velocity of the ith particle in the d dimensions; xid is
the location of the ith particle in the d dimensions; r1 and r2 are random
numbers distributed uniformly in (0, 1); c1 and c2 are learning factors,

usually c1 = c2 = [1.8, 2]; w is the inertial weight, It is suggested that w

linearly decreases from 0.9 to 0.4 during the iterative process as
t
w = 0 .9 − *0 5 (5.15)
tmax
where, t is the current iterative step and tmax is the maximum iterative step.
Step 7: If the fitness of particles or evolutionary generations has reached the
given values, the above evolutionary process of the SVMs parameters
ends. It provides the optimal locations of particles, i.e., the best kernel
parameters of SVMs. Otherwise, replace every tentative value pair of
kernel parameters of SVMs and go to Step 3.
5.3.2.11 The algorithm for establishment of SVMs

The algorithm to establish the SVMs representing a non-linear relation between poten-
tial excavation procedures and stability appraisal indices is described as follows.
Step 1: Determine the indices of stability appraisal and the restricted conditions
of excavation procedure optimisation for the cavern group in brittle rocks
under the high geo-stress conditions. The restricted conditions for this opti-
misation problem include the mechanics principles of deformation harmo-
nisation, entire and local stability of the surrounding rock, the feasibility of
the cavern group arrangement in their function, excavation stepping and
blocking, height of excavation benches, feasibility of excavation and sup-
port construction, and capability of support structures and expense, etc.
Step 2: Determine possible excavation steps, i.e., height of the excavation bench,
for each cavern and randomly generate a set of tentative excavation pro-
cedures by using every design method for the possible excavation steps for
each cavern. Each tentative excavation procedure must follow the deter-
mined restricted conditions and be coded in a decimal or binary system.
Step 3: Perform the numerical simulation process on every tentative excavation
procedure to obtain the value for each index of stability appraisal. Each
tentative excavation procedure and the corresponding values of stability
appraisal indices were formed as a sample pair for training or testing the
SVMs. There would then be generated a total of n learning sample sets
and m testing sample sets.
Step 4: Train the SVMs using the learning sample sets and test the trained SVMs
using the the testing sample sets to obtain the fitness of each tentative
excavation procedure. Use the SVM training algorithm based on the
PSO algorithm to obtain the best kernel parameters for the SVMs. Thus,
the SVMs were established to represent the non-linear relation between
any tentative excavation procedure and the stability appraisal indices.
5.3.2.12 Algorithm for excavation procedure and support

scheme optimisation
By using the SVM models obtained by the above mentioned method, the correct map-
ping relation among the tentative excavation procedures and stability appraisal indices

can be established. The optimal excavation procedure solution can be obtained by

using the improved particle swarm optimisation to search within the global space of
the scheme. The main steps are described as follows:
Step 1: Consider several tentative excavation procedures to be recognised and

presented as co-ordinates for the location of particles. Several particles are
considered as a group. The locations of particles and their velocity can be
initially given some values in the given value range according to empirical
knowledge and distributed uniformly in problem solving space.
Step 2: Generate randomly, by obeying the restricted conditions, the candidate
excavation procedure schemes for the given cavern group, i.e., in the possi-
ble given excavation sequence as well as support parameters and schemes.
Step 3: Input every tentative value pair of excavation procedure to the trained
SVMs and output value of each stability appraisal index.
Step 4: If the scheme corresponding to the minimum values of stability appraisal
indices has been found using the following formula, stop the optimisa-
tion process, otherwise go to Step 5.
n
min p(x), where f (x) = ∑ wi pi , pi i /s,
1
⎛ 1 n 2
⎞ 1 n
S=⎜ ∑(
⎝ n − 1 i =1
i ) ⎟,
⎠
x= ∑ xi
n 1
(5.16)
in which, wi is the weight of the ith index xi, which is determined by

group decision. pi are normalised data.
Step 5: Compare the current fitness, p, of the particle with its previous best one,
pid. If p is better than pid, then pid = p.
Step 6: Compare the best fitness, p, of each particle with the best fitness of all
particles, pgd. If p is better than pgd, then pgd = p.
Step 7: Use the following formula to modify locations of particles and their
velocity
vid = wvid + c1r1 (pi d − xid ) + c2 r2 (pgd − xid )⎫

⎬ (5.17)
xid = xid + vid ⎭
Step 8: If the fitness of particles or evolutionary generations reached the given
values, the above evolutionary process of the excavation procedures
ends. It provides the optimal locations of particles, i.e., the best excava-
tion procedure for the given cavern group. Otherwise, go to Step 3.
In the same way as the excavation procedures, the support schemes and param-
eters can be optimised.
5.3.2.13 Optimisation of height of excavation benches

of Laxiwa underground powerhouse
In order to study the influence of bench height, three possible bench heights such as 15,
11 and 8 m, corresponding to the 5, 7 and 9 excavation steps respectively, for the main

powerhouse of Laxiwa power station were firstly analysed using the proposed method
above. There are two excavation procedures for the same bench height (Figure 5.15).
Thus, there is a total of six excavation procedures i.e., termed excavation procedures
5a, 5b, 7a, 7b, 9a, and 9b (Figure 5.15). The stability of the large cavern group exca-
vated using these six tentative procedures and without support installation were ana-
lysed and compared. The numerical analysis zone and model are shown in Figures 5.16
and 5.17 respectively. All the rock surrounding the main cavern was considered to be a
category II rock mass according to the results of the geological survey. The mechanical
parameters used for numerical calculation are listed in Tables 5.2 to 5.4.
The calculated results shown in Table 5.8 indicated the following.
1 Mean ERR (Energy Release Rate) values, which are based on elastic theory and
a linear elastic constitutive model, were reduced with reduction of the excavation
bench heights. Among these, the mean ERR was largest at an excavation bench
height of 15 m (i.e., excavation procedures 5a and 5b) and the smallest at an
excavation bench height of 8 m (i.e., excavation procedures 9a and 9b). For the
same excavation bench height, the mean ERR was the same, even for different
excavation procedures. Actually, even with the same excavation bench height,
different excavation procedures should have different influences on the stability
of a large cavern group under high stress conditions.
2 Elastic release energy (ERE) was also reduced commensurate with a reduction of exca-
vation bench heights. Among these, the elastic release energy was greatest at excava-
tion bench height 15 m with excavation procedures 5a and the smallest at excavation
bench height 8 m with excavation procedure 9b. Compared with the mean ERR, for
the same excavation bench height, the elastic release energies were not the same for
different excavation procedures; but these are in good agreement with actual ones.
3 The plastic zone volume was not strictly proportional to excavation bench heights,
being the smallest for an excavation bench height of 8 m, i.e., excavation proce-
dure 9b. Both bench height and the procedures of excavation have an influence
on the stability of the large cavern group in granite under high stress conditions.
4 The deformation characteristics for key points in the caverns were not changed
too much with the six excavation procedures and three bench heights for category
II brittle granite under high stress conditions. However, it was still recognised that
the smallest deformation occurred for the case of excavation procedure 9b.
Therefore, it can be comprehensively concluded from the analysis above that the
excavation bench height of 8 m, i.e., excavation procedure 9b, was the best. This
means that excavation with a small bench height favours stability of the large cavern
group in granite under high stress conditions. The ERE is a suitable index for analys-
ing the influence of excavation bench height and procedure on the stability of the
large cavern group in these conditions.
5.3.2.14 Optimisation of excavation procedure and support

parameters for the Laxiwa underground powerhouse
Since the smaller bench height was the most favourable for stability of the large
cavern group, the excavation bench heights were determined using the optimisation

Excavation scheme 9a
Excavation Main Transformer Pressure Draft tube

layers powerhouse chamber adjustment shaft gate chamber Others
Layer 1 C1 J1 T1
Layer 2 C2 B1 J2 T2
Layer 3 C3 B2 J3 T3
Layer 4 C4 B3 J4 T4 M
Layer 5 C5 B4 J5 T5
Layer 6 C6 B5 J6 T6
Layer 7 C7 B6 J7 T7
Layer 8 C8 J8 T8 G1
Layer 9 C9 J9 G2
Excavation scheme 9b

Layer 1 C1 B1 J1 T1
Layer 2 C2 B2 J2 T2
Layer 3 C3 B3 J3 T3
Layer 5 C5 B5 J5 T5
Layer 6 C6 B6 J6 T6
Layer 7 C7 J7 T7
Layer 8 C8 J8 T8 G1
Layer 9 C9 J9 G2
Figure 5.15 (Continued ).


Layer 1 C1 J1 T1
Layer 2 C2 B1 J2 T2
Layer 3 C3 B2 J3 T3
Layer 5 C5 B4 J5 T5
Layer 6 C6 B5 J6
Layer 7 C7 B6 J7 G

Layer 1 C1 B1 J1 T1
Layer 2 C2 B2 J2 T2
Layer 3 C3 B3 J3 T3
Layer 5 C5 B5 J5 T5
Layer 6 C6 B6 J6
Layer 7 C7 J7 G


Layer 1 C1 J1 T1
Layer 2 C2 B1 J2 T2
Layer 3 C3 B2 J3 T3
Layer 4 C4 B3 J4 M
Layer 5 C5 B4 J5 G

Layer 1 C1 B1 J1 T1
Layer 2 C2 B2 J2 T2
Layer 3 C3 B3 J3 T3
Layer 4 C4 B4 J4 M
Layer 5 C5 J5 G
Figure 5.15 Three tentative excavation procedures for the cavern group (heights in metres).
algorithm for the scheme, shown in Figure 5.15(Scheme 9a), i.e., the main power-
house and pressure adjustment shaft would be excavated in a total of nine steps and
the transformer chamber and draft tube gate chamber would be excavated in six and
eight steps respectively. However, the excavation procedure within the determined
excavation steps for the large cavern group should be optimised in terms of the details.
The method discussed above was used for this purpose.

River
Yellow
X
Cavern
group
Figure 5.16 Location and zone for numerical analysis.
In order to be conveniently represented by SVMs, the excavation procedure

has to be coded in a binary or decimal system. Here, the coding scheme shown
in Figure 5.18 was used for this study. For example, the excavation procedure
described as C1B1J1T1 → C2B2J2T2 → C3B3J3T3 → C4B4J4T4M → C5B5J5T5
→ C6B6J6T6 → C7J7T7 → C8J8T8G1 → C9J9G2 can be coded into 11110 22220
33330 44441 55550 66660 70770 80881 90902. There can be many potential
excavation procedures which could follow the construction restricting conditions
generated from combinations of these excavation steps for the cavern group con-
struction. A design method was thus used to generate 32 tentative excavation pro-
cedures from them. Each tentative excavation procedure was input to numerical
analysis to obtain the corresponding values of key indices representing stability of
the larger cavern group. A correlation analysis was conduced on all key indices.
It is seen from Table 5.9 that these key indices can be used to appraise the appli-
cability of each excavation procedure. The key indices were determined to be the
ERE, plastic zone volume, and mean downward movement of the main powerhouse
roof, average maximum displacement of the sidewall of the main powerhouse, mean
subsidence of the transformer chamber, and mean maximum displacement of the
sidewall of the transformer chamber. Every tentative excavation procedure and each
data set of key indices consists of a pair of the learning or testing sample set. Three
different methods were used for optimisation of the excavation procedure and sup-
port scheme.

Figure 5.17 (a) 3D model for numerical analysis. (b) Calculation model for excavation of the cavern
group.

Table 5.8 The results of different excavation schemes.
Mean
Mean Mean maximum
subsidence maximum Mean displacement
Elastic of main displacement of subsidence of sidewall of
release Plastic Number of powerhouse sidewall of main of transformer transformer
Excavation Mean ERR energy volume nodes having roof powerhouse chamber chamber
scheme No. (kJ ⋅ m−3) (×109 J) (×104 m3) large deformation* (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
5a 13.3 5.66 86.3 9563 19.3 44.8 18.9 30.1

5b 13.3 5.61 85.6 9532 19.0 44.6 18.8 30.8
7a 12.9 5.59 86.0 9528 18.7 43.5 18.7 31.1
7b 12.9 5.57 85.7 9442 18.8 43.4 19.0 30.8
9a 11.8 5.39 85.4 9402 17.8 43.3 18.7 29.8
9b 11.8 5.27 84.2 9391 16.0 43.2 18.8 29.9
* ‘nodes having large deformation’ refers to those nodes whose displacement exceeds 25 mm.
5/24/2011 6:19:41 PM
Excavation layers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11110 22220 33330 44441 55550 66660 70770 80881 90902
C9J9G2
C8J8T8G1
C7J7T7
C6B6J6T6
C5B5J5T5
C4B4J4T4M
C3B3J3T3
C2B2J2T2
C1B1J1T1
Figure 5.18 Coding of the potential excavation procedures of the cavern group without support.
Table 5.9 Correlation of the optimisation indices in a symmetrical matrix.
Mean Mean
Mean maximum maximum
subsidence displacement Mean displacement
Elastic Plastic of main of sidewall subsidence of sidewall
release zone powerhouse of main of transformer of transformer
energy volume roof powerhouse chamber chamber
Elastic release energy 1.00 0.45 0.56 −0.08 −0.12 −0.39

Plastic zone volume 0.45 1.00 0.50 0.60 0.13 −0.35
Mean subsidence of 0.56 0.50 1.00 0.22 −0.30 −0.63
main powerhouse
roof
Mean maximum −0.08 0.60 0.22 1.00 −0.28 0.00
displacement of
sidewall of main
powerhouse
Mean subsidence −0.12 0.13 −0.30 −0.28 1.00 −0.07
of transformer
chamber
Mean maximum −0.39 −0.35 −0.63 0.00 −0.07 1.00
displacement of
sidewall of
transformer
chamber
Firstly, only the excavation procedure for the large cavern group without support
installation was optimised using the proposed comprehensive intelligent algorithm
above. It assumes that (1) the excavation of the main powerhouse, transformer cham-
ber, pressure adjustment shaft, draft tube gate chamber and the bus tunnel is finished
in 9 steps, 6 steps, 9 steps, 8 steps, and 1 step respectively. (2) The caverns are all

excavated step-by-step from top to bottom. According to the advice from the con-
structors, designers, managers, and investors of Laxiwa hydropower station project,
the weights were assigned as 0.28, 0.27, 0.1, 0.15, 0.1, and 0.1, respectively for each
index such as the ERE, plastic zone volume, and mean subsidence of the main pow-
erhouse roof, mean maximum displacement of the sidewall of the main powerhouse,
mean subsidence of the transformer chamber, and mean maximum displacement of the
sidewall of the transformer chamber. The 26 sample sets, obtained by using FLAC3D
with input of 26 tentative excavation procedures for the large cavern group, were
used to train SVMs; and the other six sample sets, also obtained by using FLAC3D
with input for the other six tentative excavation procedures of the large cavern group,
were then used to test the trained SVMs. The parameters for the PSO search were
set to be c1 = c2 = 2.0, number of particle seed i = 8, and the maximum generation
tmax = 500. The global optimum solution under the given restrained conditions was
thus established as 11110 22220 30330 43441 54551 65662 76770 80880 90900,
i.e., the excavation procedure recognised by C1B1J1T1 → C2B2J2T2 → C3J3T3 →
C4B3J4T4M → C5B4J5T5G1 → C6B5J6T6G2 → C7B6J7T7 → C8J8T8 → C9J9.
This was succinctly termed excavation scheme 9c.
With input of the recognised excavation procedure, the trained SVMs can rapidly
provide an output for values of the indices. In order to appraise the generalisation
capability of the trained SVMs, the stability of the large cavern group with excava-
tion procedure 9c was also analysed. The numerical calculation conditions were the
same as the above. The results from these two methods were compared in Table 5.10.
It can be seen that the relative error was not larger than 2.5%. This indicated that
the trained SVMs are useful for this problem. Also, Table 5.11 lists a comparison of
behaviour of the excavation procedure 9c and the local worst excavation procedure.
With the construction using the optimal excavation procedure 9c, the stability of the
large cavern group without support installation was improved.
Also, the excavation procedure for the large cavern group was initially searched
and then three support schemes were compared for the recognised excavation proce-
dure. According to the advice from constructors, designers, managers, and investors
of Laxiwa hydropower station project, the weights were this time assigned to be 0.22,
0.21, 0.05, 0.15, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.22, respectively for each index, the elastic release
energy, plastic zone volume, and mean subsidence of the main powerhouse roof, mean
maximum displacement of the sidewall of the main powerhouse, mean subsidence of
the transformer chamber, and the mean maximum displacement of the sidewall of the
transformer chamber, support expense index. Three support schemes were described
as the following.
Support scheme 1: Rockbolts with diameter 32 mm, spacing 1.5 × 1.5 m, length
4.8/9.0 m for the roofs of the main cavern and transformer chamber and diameter
32 mm, spacing 1.5 × 1.5 m, 4.5/9 m length for their sidewalls; cable anchors with
length of 20 m, spacing of 4.5 × 6.0 m and 200 t for roof and sidewalls of the main
cavern and sidewalls of the transformer chamber; rockbolts with length 4.5/9 m,
diameter 32 mm and spacing 1.5 × 1.5 m for the pressure adjustment shaft; rock-
bolts with length 4/6 m, diameter 28 mm and spacing 3.0 × 3.0 m for the draft tube
tunnel and busbar tunnel; rockbolts with length 4 m, diameter 25 mm and spacing
2.0 × 2.0 m for the draft tube gate chamber; shotcrete with thickness of 150 mm will
be added to the surface of the cavern wall.

Table 5.10 Comparison of the results of the SVMs prediction and the numerical calculation.
Mean Mean maximum

subsidence Mean maximum displacement
of main displacement of Mean subsidence of sidewall
Elastic Plastic powerhouse sidewall of main of transformer of transformer
release energy zone volume roof powerhouse chamber chamber
Methods (×109 J) (×104 m3) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Prediction using 5.42 83.70 14.96 43.52 19.21 30.12

SVMs
Numerical 5.34 82.60 15.94 42.26 18.81 29.87
calculation
Relative error (%) 1.46 1.34 –6.17 2.98 2.13 0.85
5/24/2011 6:19:42 PM
Table 5.11 Comparison of the results of the optimal excavation scheme 9c with the local worst excavation scheme.
Mean maximum
Mean maximum displacement of
Mean subsidence displacement of Mean subsidence sidewall of
Elastic Plastic zone of main sidewall of main of transformer transformer
release energy volume powerhouse roof powerhouse chamber chamber Comprehensive
Schemes (×109 J) (×104 m3) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) index
Optimal 5.34 82.6 15.9 42.3 18.8 29.8 115.1

excavation
procedure
Local worst 5.53 85.9 20.8 43.6 18.8 29.6 119.3
excavation
procedure
Relative −3.6 −4.0 −30.8 −3.1 0.0 0.7 −3.6
error (%)
5/24/2011 6:19:42 PM
4.8/9.0 m for the roofs of the main cavern and transformer chamber and diameter
32 mm, spacing 2.0 × 2.0 m, 4.5/9 m length for their sidewalls; cable anchors with
length 20 m, spacing 5.5 × 5.5 m and 200 t for roof and sidewalls of the main cavern
and sidewalls of the transformer chamber; rockbolts with length 6/8 m, diameter
32 mm and spacing 2.0 × 2.0 m for the pressure adjustment shaft; rockbolts with
length 4/6 m, diameter 28 mm and spacing 2.0 × 2.0 m for the draft tube tunnel and
busbar tunnel; rockbolts with length 3 m, diameter 25 mm and spacing 1.5 × 1.5 m
for the draft tube gate chamber; shotcrete with thickness of 150 mm will be added to
the surface of the cavern wall.
4.8/9.0 m for roofs of main cavern and transformer chamber and diameter 32 mm, spac-
ing 2.5 × 2.5 m, 6/8 m length for their sidewalls; cable anchors with length 20 m, spac-
ing of 6.0 × 6.0 m and 200 t for roof and sidewalls of the main cavern and sidewalls
of the transformer chamber; rockbolts with length 6/8 m, diameter 32 mm and spacing
2.0 × 2.0 m for the pressure adjustment shaft; rockbolts with length 4/6 m, diameter
28 mm and spacing 2.5 × 2.5 m for the draft tube tunnel and busbar tunnel; rockbolts
with length 5 m, diameter 25 mm and spacing 2.5 × 2.5 m for the draft tube gate cham-
ber; shotcrete with thickness of 150 mm will be added to the surface of the cavern wall.
The results are found in Table 5.12 and the optimal excavation procedure was
again the excavation scheme 9c, and the support scheme 1 was the best for the large
cavern group (values of the comprehensive appraisal index for a combination of the
excavation scheme 9c and the support scheme 1, scheme 2, and scheme 3 are 5.50,
5.80, 6.59, respectively).
Next, the excavation procedures and support schemes were together optimised
using the proposed algorithm above. Again, according to the advice of the construc-
tors, designers, managers, and investors of Laxiwa hydropower station project,
weights were assigned to be 0.22, 0.21, 0.05, 0.15, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.22, respectively,
for each index, the elastic release energy, plastic zone volume, and mean subsidence
of the main powerhouse roof, mean maximum displacement of the sidewall of the
main powerhouse, mean subsidence of the transformer chamber, and mean maximum
displacement of the sidewall of the transformer chamber, and the support expense
index. The code scheme listed in Figure 5.18 was extended by adding one bit of sup-
port scheme code at the end: support schemes 1, 2 and 3 were coded to be 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. The 30 sample sets were used to train the SVMs, and the other six sample
sets were used to test the trained SVMs. The parameters for the PSO search were set
to be c1 = c2 = 2.0, number of particles i = 8, and the maximum generation tmax = 500.
A global optimal solution was found as excavation scheme 9b, i.e., C1B1J1T1 →
C2B2J2T2 → C3J3B3T3 → C4B4J4T4M → C5B5J5T5 → C6B6J6T6 → C7J7T7 →
C8J8T8G1 → C9J9G2 and support scheme 1.
5.3.2.15 Analysis of influence of the ‘bulgy bench’

on the stability of the main powerhouse
Two schemes with and without a ‘bulgy bench’ were analysed with input of the recog-
nised parameters obtained above, other mechanical parameters for the rock mass and

Table 5.12 Comparison of the results of optimal excavation scheme with different support schemes.
Mean maximum
Mean Mean maximum displacement of
subsidence of displacement of Mean subsidence sidewall of
Elastic Plastic zone main powerhouse sidewall of of transformer transformer Support
Support release energy volume roof main powerhouse chamber chamber expense
schemes (×109 J) (×104 m3) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) index
1 2.83 34.60 5.56 31.00 5.23 19.90 1.00

2 3.14 39.50 10.60 33.80 6.56 22.30 0.73
3 3.73 45.06 11.80 36.70 19.70 27.50 0.56
5/24/2011 6:19:42 PM
joints shown in Tables 5.2–5.4, and the calculated model shown in Figures 5.16–5.17.
For the calculation without the ‘bulgy bench’, the ‘bulgy bench’ in Figure 5.19 was
removed. It can be seen that most of the ‘bulgy bench’ suffered plastic strain, shown in
Figure 5.19(a). If the ‘bulgy bench’ is excavated, the displacement of the downstream
sidewall of the main cavern increased 3–5 mm, see Figure 5.19 (b) for comparison
Bulgy bench
(a)
2270
2260
2250
Altitude (m)
With bulgy bench

2240
Without bulgy bench
2230
2220
2210
10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (m)
(b)
Figure 5.19 Influence of the bulgy bench on the downstream sidewall of the main cavern. (a) Plastic
zone distribution at engine unit 2 section. (b) Comparison of displacement of downstream
sidewall of the main cavern at different altitudes of engine unit 2 section, with and without
the ‘bulgy bench’.

with the case of having the ‘bulgy bench’. This indicated that the ‘bulgy bench’ has
some restraining function on the deformation of the downstream sidewall of the
main cavern. Figure 5.20 also shows the distribution of local energy release with and
without the ‘bulgy bench’. Therefore, a better way of coping with the ‘bulgy bench’
is that the part of bulgy bench having fractures can be excavated to avoid failure in
(a) (d)
(b) (e)
(c) (f)
Figure 5.20 (a) to (c) local energy release rate distribution of the central cross-sections of generator
unit 1 to 3 of the large cavern group under the actual excavation procedure with a ‘bulgy
bench’ and (d) to (f) without a ‘bulgy bench’.

this area and the rest of the ‘bulgy bench’ can be kept to enhance the stability of the
downstream sidewall of the main cavern.
5.3.2.16 Behavioural analysis of the underground powerhouse

due to excavation at lower levels
Given the restrictive conditions of construction, the actual excavation procedure had
to be slightly modified from the optimal excavation procedure obtained using the
method mentioned in the previous Sub-section. The modified excavation procedure
for the underground powerhouse is shown in Figure 5.21. Therefore, the behaviour
of the powerhouse due to excavation at lower levels had to be analysed again. The
analysis for the modified excavation procedure started with determination of the
mechanical parameters discussed in the next Sub-section and led to the results shown
in the following Sub-section, which were then compared with the actual cases in the
Sub-section after that.
The excavation scheme

Layer 1 C1 J1
Layer 2 C2 B1 J2 T1 M1.3, M1.4, M1.6
Layer 3 C3 B2 J3 T2 M1.1, M1.2, M1.5
Layer 4 C4 B3 J4 T3
Layer 5 C5 J5 T4 M2.2, M2.3, M2.5, M2.6
Layer 6 C6 B4 J6 T5 M2.1, M2.4
Layer 7 C7 B5 J7 T6
Layer 8 C8 J8 T7 G1
Layer 9 C9 B6 J9 T8 G2
Figure 5.21 Actual excavation procedure of the large cavern group.

5.3.2.17 The recognition of some mechanical parameters used

for the numerical analysis
Some mechanical parameters used for input for the numerical calculation can be fur-
ther recognised and calibrated by the displacement increases induced by excavation
at different levels. The selected monitoring points and data listed in Table 5.13 and
Figure 5.22 were used. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to choose which param-
eters should be back analysed. Errors of −30%, −15%, 0, 15%, and 30% respectively
were given to the parameters to be analysed. The results indicated that parameters,
such as Young’s modulus, peak cohesion, plastic strain for cohesive strength reduc-
tion, plastic strain required for the full frictional strength mobilisation, friction angle
of the rock mass, are sensitive to the monitored displacement and excavation dam-
aged zone and could be recognised by using values of the monitored variables. The
established results were then listed in Table 5.14.
A grey correlation degree was used to inspect the applicability of the recognised
parameters. Suppose the measured and calculated displacement series are, x0 = {x0(1),
x0(2), …, x0(n) and x1 = {x1(1), x1(2), …, x1(n)}, then the grey correlation degree for
these two series can be calculated by
1 min x0 k) − x1 (k) + ρ max x0 k) − x1 (k)

ζ= (5.18)
N x0 k) − x1 (k) + ρ max x0 k) − x1 (k)
The calculated displacement increase for the cavern excavated at Layer 7, between
two points 30 m apart along a multi-point displacement meter, was in good agreement
with the measurement, both for these monitoring points used and for those not used
for back analysis, see Table 5.15. It can be seen from Table 5.15 that it has a good grey
correlation. When ρ = 1, the grey correlation degree for the measured and calculated
Main ZBA-2
A1-7 ZBA-5
powerhouse
ZBA
A1 P3 P4
A2
A4
A5
A2-5
A2-7
A5-1 Transformer
chamber
P1 A4-7 A5-6
P2
Figure 5.22 Location of the monitoring points.

Table 5.13 The measured displacement and excavation damaged zone for back analysing the model
parameters.
Monitored Monitoring Excavation Measurement

information points layers Location value
Displacement A5-1 Layers 2–5 Roof of main cavern at engine unit −0.16
increase (mm) section 5
A5-6 Layers 3–6 Reinforced rock beam at upstream of 4.32
main cavern at engine unit section 5
A4-7 Layers 2–5 Reinforced rock beam downstream of 11.87
A2-5 Layers 2–5 Skewback downstream of main cavern 3.19
at engine unit section 2
A2-7 Layers 2–5 Reinforced rock beam downstream of 17.40
A1-4 Layers 3–6 Skewback at upstream of main cavern 2.55
at engine unit section 1
ZBA-2 Layers 3–6 Skewback at downstream of 1.12
transformer chamber at engine unit
section 2
ZBA-5 Layers 3–6 Middle arch at upstream of transformer 4.65
chamber at engine unit section 2
Depth of excavation P1 Layer 6 At engine unit section 2 of main cavern 1.7
damaged zone (m) at level of EL2225
P2 Layer 6 At engine unit section 5 of main cavern 1.6
at level of EL2225
P3 Layer 5 At engine unit section 2 of transformer 1.9
chamber at altitude of L2259
P4 Layer 5 At engine unit section 5 of transformer 2.4
chamber at altitude of L2259
Table 5.14 Rock mass mechanical parameters established.
Plastic strain
for cohesive Plastic strain required
Young’s Peak cohesion strength for the full frictional
modulus strength destruction Friction strength mobilisation
Parameters (GPa) (MPa) (×10–3) angle (ο) (×10–3)
The established 26.4 12.6 3.0 50.1 4.1

value
displacement series can be calculated. The calculated displacement time series after
excavation of the first seven layers of the main underground powerhouse using the
recognised mechanical parameters is in good agreement with the measurement, for
both the monitoring points A4-7 and A5-4. The measured displacement increase dur-
ing excavation layers 2-5 for A4-7 has been used for back analysis of the parameters.
The measured displacement increase during all excavation layers for A5-4 was not

Table 5.15 Comparison of measured displacement of several monitoring points in the surrounding
rocks after the 7th layer excavation of the main powerhouse with the calculated ones for
the recognised parameters by using the monitored displacement and excavation damaged
zone after excavation of the previous layers 2–5 or 3–6.
The monitored
displacements of points
The monitored displacements of points were not used for back
were used for back analysis analysis
Monitoring
points A5-1 A5-6 A4-7 A2-5 A2-7 A1-4 ZBA-2 ZBA-5 A5-4 A4-2 ZBC-1 ZBA-5
Measured −0.19 5.94 24.29 8.01 17.71 7.92 1.31 5.03 2.02 8.14 0.19 7.13
displacement
increase (mm)
Calculated −0.35 5.53 23.55 7.52 17.77 7.54 1.32 5.52 1.91 7.95 0.14 6.40
displacement
increase (mm)
Grey correlation 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.87 0.65 0.79 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.76 0.63 0.64
degree
used for back analysis of the parameters. The grey correlation degree for these cases
was ξ = 0.73 and ξ = 0.68 respectively. The calculated depths of the excavation dam-
aged zone at another four boreholes at different sections, whose measurements were
not used for parameter recognition, were also in good agreement with the measure-
ments, see Table 5.16. These agreements indicated that the recognised parameters are
useful for the stability analysis of the large cavern group in this granite under the high
stress conditions.
The calculated and analysis results on the characteristics of displacement, stress,
local energy release rate and plastic zones were mostly verified by the post-monitoring
results and observation. For example, comparison of some typical cases is given in
Tables 5.17–5.19.
5.3.2.18 Numerical analysis of the behaviour of the

powerhouse due to excavation at the lower levels
The recognised mechanical parameters were then used to analyse the stability of the
large cavern group after excavation at the lower levels, for example, at excavation lay-
ers 7–9 of the main powerhouse as shown in Figure 5.23. A 3-D numerical calculation
using FLAC3D was conducted with input of the recognised parameters obtained for the
strain-dependent ‘cohesion weakening’–‘frictional strengthening’ model CWFS, plus
other mechanical parameters for the rock mass and joints, as shown in Tables 5.13–
5.15, and the calculated model shown in Figures 5.17 and 5.19 but without the ‘bulgy
bench’.
The calculated results indicated that the largest displacement, 55–62 mm, at the
downstream sidewall of the main cavern occurred at the upper and lower locations of
the bus tunnel, and was larger than that at the upstream sidewall of the main cavern.
The displacement at the roof of the main cavern was generally about 12–21 mm,

Table 5.16 Comparison of the measured excavation damaged zone of

four monitoring boreholes, which were used for back analysis,
in the surrounding rocks after the 6th layer excavation of
the main powerhouse with the ones calculated using the
recognised parameters.
Monitoring boreholes P5 P6 P7 P8
Measured depth (m) 1.60 1.50 1.90 2.40

Calculated depth (m) 1.71 1.70 2.15 2.26
Table 5.17 Comparison of the calculated and measured displacements of engine unit section 3 of the
main powerhouse cavern.
Monitoring
points M401-A3 M402-A3 M403-A3 M404-A3 M405-A3 M406-A3 M407-A3 M408-A3 M409-A3
Measured 25.91 19.07 12.71 5.55 5.94 35.79 10.46 13.58 5.07
(mm)
Calculated 22.91 15.81 12.42 16.25 3.11 29.65 18.55 19.83 13.20
(mm)
Table 5.18 Comparison of the calculated and measured depths of the excavation damaged zone after
excavation of layer 4 or 6 of the main powerhouse cavern.
After excavation of layer 4 of the main After excavation of layer 6 of the main
powerhouse cavern powerhouse cavern
Up- Up- Down- Down- Up- Up- Down- Down-

stream stream stream stream stream stream stream stream
sidewall sidewall sidewall sidewall sidewall sidewall sidewall sidewall
at at at at at at at at
cavern- cavern- cavern- cavern- cavern- cavern- cavern- cavern-
right right right right right right right right
Location 0 + 63.6 0 + 119 0 + 71 0 + 179 0 + 97 0 + 165 0 + 65 0 + 199
Measured (m) 2.2 1.6 3.0 2.6 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.4
Calculated (m) 2.4 2.3 3.6 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.0 3.0
Table 5.19 Comparison of calculated and measured excavation damaged zone extent after excavation
of layer 6 of the transformer chamber in the cavern group.
Upstream sidewall at Upstream sidewall at Upstream sidewall at Upstream sidewall at

Location cavern-right 0 + 32 cavern-right 0 + 98 cavern-right 0 + 62.7 cavern-right 0 + 198
Measured (m) 1.6 1.6 2.4 1.4

Calculated (m) 1.9 2.5 2.6 1.7

Figure 5.23 (a) Distribution of maximum principal stress (compression is negative) at the engine
5 section. (b) Strain distribution at the section of the cavern-right 0 + 96 of the main
powerhouse cavern after complete excavation. (c) Strain distribution at the section of the
cavern-right 0 + 95 of the transformer chamber after complete excavation. Large tensile
strain occurred at the roof of both caverns.
but 33.1 mm and 25.5 mm at the central cross-sections of generator units 3 and 4.
Displacement at the downstream side of the reinforced rock beam was 34–42 mm. The
maximum displacement at the upstream sidewall of the main cavern at all generator
unit central cross-sections was 40–45 mm. For the transformer chamber, the displace-
ment was 14–20 mm at the roof, 24–26 mm at the upstream skewback, 17–23 mm
at the downstream skewback, 26–30 mm at the upstream sidewall EL2263, and
21–24 mm at the downstream sidewall.
The calculation results also indicated that there exists a compressive stress concen-
tration with a depth of 2–3 m and maximum values of 32 to 36 MPa (e.g., at the roof
of the main powerhouse shown in Figure 5.23a). At the upstream sidewall of the main
cavern is the stress relaxation area, with compressive stress 10–16 MPa and tensile
stress of 2 MPa at EL2235–EL2245 and especially at the down location of the bus tun-

nel. There also exists a stress concentration area at the roof of the transformer cham-
ber, with maximum principal compressive stress of 32 MPa, and at the upstream and
downstream sidewalls with minimum principal stress 0–2 MPa. A large tensile strain
occurred in the roof of the main cavern and transformer chamber, see Figure 5.23.
There exists a large tangential stress and small vertical stress in the roof of the main
cavern and transformer chamber after excavation of layers 4–6. There was generally
a large energy release rate for all excavation layers. However, there was a larger local
energy release rate at the roof of the main cavern and transformer chamber, generator
unit pits, floor of the bus tunnel near the main cavern, the roof of the tailwater tunnel,
cross-sections of the caverns, and at the faults F7 and HL2 zones at the roof of the main
cavern at the section of generator unit 2. It is possible for tensile strain failure to occur
in these areas, such as a light rockburst, rock block fall, etc. There is also the occurrence
of a stress relaxation area at the down location of the bus tunnel with a local tensile
stress having a maximum value of 2 MPa, which is adjacent to the downstream side-
wall of the main powerhouse. However, the tensile strength of the rock mass is about
1.5 MPa at its maximum value, so it is possible to have tensile failure in this area, see
Figure 5.24(a). Therefore, enhanced support is suggested as shown in Figure 5.24(b).
After the enhanced support, further numerical analysis indicated that the stability was
improved, as shown in Figure 5.24(c). The results also indicated that all the rock divid-
ing piers at the bottom of the main cavern were in a plastic state, see Figure 5.25.
Thus, it can be concluded from the analysis above that the entire cavern group
with the suitable support installation is stable. However, special locations with high
stress concentration and relaxation, high local energy release rates, and large plastic
zones, such as the roof of the main cavern and transformer chamber, the down loca-
tion of the bus tunnel near the main cavern, the cross-sections of the caverns, and
the areas with faults and fractures going through them had to have attention paid to
them. Local strengthening reinforcement was needed for those regions.
5.3.2.19 Actual cases in the powerhouse

Special locations with high stress concentration and relaxation (see Table 5.20), high
local energy release rate, and large plastic zones, such as the roof of the main cavern
and transformer chamber, the down location of the bus tunnel near the main cavern,
the cross sections of the caverns, and areas in proximity to the faults and fractures,
as indicated by the analyses above, warranted attention with regard to their stabil-
ity and safety. For example, several rock pieces together with fibre shotcrete, hav-
ing thicknesses of 100–200 mm, fell down from the right 0+96 section of the roof
of the main cavern on January 13, 2006, see Figure 5.26. Other larger rock pieces,
together with fibre shotcrete, having thicknesses of 150–300 mm, fell down from the
cavern-right 0+93 section and cavern-right 0+95 section in the roof of the transformer
chamber on May 7, 2006. This was due to high stress concentrations and faults and
joints L12, L20, L50 and F7 passing through the area of the main cavern, plus the
faults and joints F2, F7 and L21 with large dip angles passing through the area of the
transformer chamber. The high stress concentration resulted in tensile strain failure
of the surrounding rock producing rock pieces, but these were still connected to the
rock mass and the faults/joints generated a boundary for the failure. However, these
finally fell down as isolated rock pieces. The monitored displacement in the near field
is shown in Table 5.21.

Figure 5.24 (a) Stress relaxation distribution of the central section of bus tunnel 5. (b) The suggested
enhanced support at the down location of the bus tunnel at the downstream sidewall
of the main powerhouse cavern. (c) Stress relaxation distribution of the central section of
bus tunnel 5 after the enhanced reinforcing support was installed at the down location of
the bus tunnel at the downstream sidewall of the main powerhouse cavern.

Figure 5.25 Distribution of the plastic zone for an axial section of the main cavern.
Table 5.20 Locations with high stress concentration and local energy release rates.
Maximum Stress ratio (compressive

compression stress stress/uniaxial compressive Plastic
(–ve) or maximum strength of the rock; tensile Local energy zone
tensile stress (+ve) stress/tensile strength of release rate depth
Location (MPa) the rock) (×103 J ⋅ m−3) (m)
Roof of main −36 0.33 30–35 4–5

powerhouse cavern
Roof of transformer chamber −32 0.29 25–30 2–4
Middle part of upstream 1–1.5 0.67–1.0 12–15 2–4
sidewall at main
powerhouse cavern
Middle part of downstream 2 1.0–1.33 15–18 3–5
sidewall at main
powerhouse cavern
Floor of machine socket −34 0.31 28–30 2–3
Sidewall of transformer 1 0.67 10–15 2–3
chamber
Joints Not much stress 20 5–6
concentration
Note: Rockburst occurred in the surrounding rock with local energy release rate larger than 21 × 103 J ⋅ m−3.
Several cracks occurred in the shotcrete on the rock pillar between the two bus
tunnels 10 m from the downstream sidewall of the main cavern, see Figure 5.27. These
cracks were open in places. In order to prevent further cracking, strengthened rein-
forcement with pre-stressed cable anchors and piles reinforced with steel bars were
installed at the down locations of the bus tunnel close to the downstream sidewall of
the main cavern, as suggested in Figure 5.24(b). This effectively controlled the propa-
gation of cracks and improved the stability in this area. There were also some cracks
visible on the downstream side wall of the draft tube gate chamber (e.g., Figure 5.28).
The actual cases that occurred as described above indicated the accuracy of the ‘intel-
ligent’ analysis results.

Figure 5.26 100–200 mm thickness of local rockfall at 0+96 roof of the main powerhouse.
Table 5.21 The monitored displacement at the roof for different cavern sections.
The measured
displacement of multi-point The measured stress in
displacement meter the rockbolt
Locations Date (mm) (MPa)
Cavern-right 0 + 96 at 2 January 2006 12.42 401

roof of main cavern 13 January 2006 12.84 411
14 August 2006 25.91 Beyond the range of the
meter
Cavern-right 0 + 97 at 22 March 2006 21.41 200
roof of transformer 12 May 2006 21.46 204
chamber 14 August 2006 21.60 Beyond the range of the
meter
5.3.3 Auditing the modelling for the

Laxiwa project design
The technical auditing of the modelling for the Laxiwa Project is termed ‘semi-hard’
because, given the constraints on the Chapter length, it is not possible to include all
the relevant detail here for the full hard audit. As the reader will have noticed, even
the information which is necessary for the ‘semi-hard’ audit and which has already

Figure 5.27 Cracks in the downstream sidewall of the main powerhouse, close to the bus tunnel.
Figure 5.28 Cracks in the downstream sidewall of the draft tube gate chamber.

been presented in this Chapter has been quite extensive. Recalling that the main design
issue was establishing a suitable cavern excavation sequence and associated support
in the highly stressed granitic rock mass, the technical audit was conducted within the
11 subjects listed in Table 5.22. The auditing answers are listed in Table 5.23.
5.3.4 Conclusions from the Laxiwa case example

As just noted, the technical auditing of this case example has been termed ‘semi-hard’
because it is has not been possible to include all the relevant detail in the Chapter.
However, the audit, via the 11 subject areas and 38 questions with their detailed
answers, illustrates the style of the ‘hard’ audit and how the answers reveal the pro-
cedures used and their suitability in determining the cavern excavation sequence and
appropriate support. To demonstrate this example as a truly hard audit would require
a more penetrating investigation of the correctness of the supporting data, numerical
analyses, etc. However, it is hoped that this second case example has demonstrated
how the technical audit serves not only to communicate what has been done in the
analysis, design and excavation, but also has enabled an independent check on the
procedures implemented.
Table 5.22 The 11 subject headings for the ‘semi-hard’ technical audit of the rock mechanics modelling
supporting the cavern excavation design for the Laxiwa project on the Yellow River, China.
1 THE MODELLING OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the modelling?
2 CONCEPTUALISATION OF THE PROCESSES BEING MODELLED
The sub-system(s) being isolated for study. The physical processes involved.
3 SPECIFICATION OF THE MODELLING CONTENT
What are the physical variables, connecting relations, parameters, boundary conditions, initial
conditions, etc.?
4 MODELLING SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS
What type of model output is required, given the stated modelling purpose?
5 MODELLING SOLUTION TECHNIQUE
How is the required model output to be obtained?
6 NUMERICAL CODE UTILISED
Which numerical code is to be used? How do we know that the code is operating correctly?
7 SUPPORTING MODEL DATA & DATA INPUT METHOD
Which are the necessary supporting data? How are they to be obtained?
How are they to be input?
8 MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
How does the model output depend on the model input in terms of whether a sensitivity
analysis is required?
9 PRESENTATION OF MODELLING RESULTS
Is it possible to demonstrate that the numerical code is operating correctly? Are the modelling
results clearly presented?
10 SOURCES OF ERRORS
What are the main sources of errors?
11 MODELLING ADEQUACY
Does the modelling seem adequate for the purpose? Are there any problem areas? Is any
corrective action required?

Table 5.23 Answers to the ‘semi-hard’ auditing questions for the ‘semi-hard’ auditing of the modelling for the design of the cavern excavation sequence at
the Laxiwa hydropower site on the Yellow River in China.
Auditing Component Associated Questions Answers
Subject Area 1: Modelling Objective—Establishing the purpose of the work

1 The Modelling Objective 1–1 Has the modelling The modelling objective for comprehensive analysis of the stability of the large cavern
objective been clearly group in granite under high in situ stresses has been established. It focuses on:
The purpose of the established?
modelling? 1 estimating the stability of the cavern group, including deformation values and their
distribution, plastic zone depth, stress concentration zones, etc.;
2 assessing failure risks induced by excavation of the cavern group at lower levels;
3 optimising the excavation procedure of the cavern group;
4 establishing the necessary strengthening reinforcement locally for the large cav-
ern group. The monitored displacement increase and excavation damaged zone
induced by excavation at the upper levels can be used to recognise model param-
eters for input to the analysis.
1–2 How will it be known The stability of the large cavern group in granite under high in situ stresses was ana-
when the modelling lysed and verified layer-by-layer from top to bottom. At the design stage of the
work is completed? project, the stability of the cavern group was analysed for the designed excava-
tion procedure and support parameters using the obtained information and veri-
fied by observation after excavation of the first level. The observed and measured
deformation and damaged zones were used to establish the parameters of the
model. The recognised parameters were used to analyse the stability of the cavern
group as a result of the removal of the remaining excavation layers (i.e., excava-
tion at the lower levels). The stability estimation for the large cavern group after
excavation at all levels (layers) using the recognised parameters should be in good
agreement with the observations.
(Continued )
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
Subject Area 2: Modelling Concept—Describing the modelling concept and content
2 Conceptualisation of the 2–1 What rock mass systems The rock mass system is intact, massive granite with some faults and joints.
Processes Being Modelled are being considered?
The sub-system(s) being 2–2 What are the main physical The physical process of damage evolution of the surrounding rocks induced by exca-
isolated for study. The processes being modelled? vation subject to high in situ stresses. The character of the deformation and failure
physical processes in the brittle rock during excavation and ductility at high confining pressure in the
involved. long term are considered during the analysis. The effects of fractures, faults and
joints are considered. The effectiveness of the support is also simulated.
2–3 What is the changing Essentially, the removal of the rock during cavern excavation, i.e., incremental m3 of
independent variable? excavation.
2–4 How is the system As in 2–3 above. The damaged zone of the surrounding rock induced by the current
perturbed so that the excavation layer would be affected by further excavation of the cavern group at
mechanisms are lower levels. Higher and higher sidewalls of the caverns will be formed gradually
initiated? layer-by-layer from top to bottom. The stability of a cavern or tunnel would also be
affected by excavation of adjacent caverns or tunnels.
3 Specification of the 3–1 Listing of the physical Displacement, stress, local energy release rate, plastic zone, Young’s modulus, Pois-
Modelling Content variables/parameters son’s ratio, tensile strength, shear strength, compressive strength, peak cohesive
strength, residual cohesion, plastic strain for cohesive strength degradation, plas-
What are the physical tic strain required for the full frictional strength mobilisation, friction angle.
variables, connecting
relations, parameters, 3–2 Listing of the THM The analysis only includes the M component: the deformation and fracturing process
boundary conditions, coupling of granite subject to high in situ stresses. There are no significant thermal or water
initial conditions, etc.? flow processes at the site.
3–3 Is the model 1-D, 2-D, 3-D 3D simulation for the whole rock mass body, combined with 2D simulations for local
or some combination? key sections.
3–4 Are you modelling The rock mass is treated as a continuum.
a continuum or a
discontinuum?
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
3–5 Specification of the 1 The axes system is indicated in Figure 5.16.
boundary conditions 2 The calculation area includes a boundary of 210 m from left, right, downstream
and upstream of the boundary of the main powerhouse, 280 m from the bottom
of the main powerhouse and the top surface of the ground, (Figure 5.17a).
3 Excavated cavern group (Figure 5.17b).
4 Excavation restrictive conditions: layer-by-layer from top to bottom. Excavation
procedure was optimised to ensure minimal damage of the surrounding rock
induced by excavation.
5 Support installation: will be finished when the surrounding rock has sufficient
deformation, but has not failed, and it is convenient to implement the support.
3–6 Specification of the initial 1 In situ stresses: the measured values from borehole measurements with estimated
conditions orientations.
2 Geography and topography obtained from geological survey. Geological condi-
tions: F7, F3, HF2, HF8, HL2, L28, f11 (Chinese system), shown in Figure 5.4, are
included in the calculation model.
3 The cavern-peripheral rock is all considered as category II granite.
4 The laboratory tests and engineering analogies indicated a strain-dependent
(cohesion weakening)–(friction strengthening) model can be used as the constitu-
tive model for granite subjected to high in situ stresses.
5 Three tentative excavation bench heights, 8, 11, 15 m, with the tentative excavation
procedures, shown in Figure 5.15.
6 Three tentative support schemes 1, 2, 3.
7 The measured excavation damaged zone at an exploration tunnel which is adja-
cent to the main cavern, shown in Figure 5.14.
8 Mechanical parameters for rock masses and joints obtained at the design stage,
shown in Tables 5.2–5.4.
3–7 How is the final condition 1 The parameters of the strain-dependent (cohesion weakening)–(friction strength-
established? ening) model were recognised with input from the measured excavation damaged
zone and deformation induced by excavation at several upper levels using the
genetic algorithm–support vector machines–FLAC algorithm.
2 The strata conditions with the categories for the surrounding rocks were input for
stability analysis of the cavern group induced by excavation at lower levels.
3 Height of the excavation bench for the cavern group is firstly optimised using the
obtained model parameters and FLAC analysis.
(Continued )
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
4 Excavation procedure with nine layers for the main cavern was optimised together
with the support scheme using the proposed PSO-FLAC algorithm.
5 Stability analysis of the cavern group after finishing excavation was conducted with
input from the actual excavation procedure and the resulting rock response.
4 Modelling Solution 4–1 What is the required It includes:
Requirements model output?
1 displacement, stress, strain, local energy release rate, plastic zone of the surround-
What type of model output ing rocks, from numerical analysis;
is required, given the stated 2 the optimal excavation procedure and support parameters, distribution of the
modelling purpose? deformation field, stress and plastic zone distributions, and local energy release
rate of the surrounding rocks;
3 appraisal of the overall and local stability of the cavern group and estimation of
potential failure risks, depth and locations in the surrounding rocks and their
causes; and
4 suggestions for local enhancing reinforcement and an effectiveness appraisal.
4–2 Does the model output Yes
match the modelling
objectives?
5 Modelling Solution 5–1 In principle, how is the The rock mass was in equilibrium in a state of three dimensional stress and this was
Technique model output to be changed at the cavern surfaces by excavation to a state of essentially two dimen-
obtained: one code, one sional stresses (stress component perpendicular to the unsupported cavern wall
How is the required model set of data, one run? has a magnitude of zero). The excavation results in concentrations of stress, release
output to be obtained? —or a suite of numerical of some stored energy and potentially fracture initiation and propagation to the
experiments? final state of the surrounding rock. At each excavation layer, the calculation is car-
ried out iteratively and reaches a new balance. Then the calculation for the next
excavation layer is performed.
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
5–2 Are any quality control Yes. The iterative calculation is convergent. The output results, such as displacement,
checks in place? stress, local energy release rate, plastic zone, are understood from the mechanisms
involved, experience of similar projects and verified/validated by measurement
afterwards. Input of parameters is checked before the calculation by back analysis
of the previous monitored results. The software is verified by using known case
study examples.
5–3 Checking the input data Grey correlation analysis was used to check the applicability of the recognised param-
have been entered eters. The calculated depths of the excavation damaged zone at another four bore-
correctly, validation holes in different sections, whose measurements were not used for parameter
against known solutions, recognition, agreed well with the measurements. The calculated displacement–time
independent duplication series, after excavation of the first seven layers of the main underground power-
of runs? house using the recognised mechanical parameters, are in good agreement with the
measurements, both for the monitoring point A4–7 (whose monitored displace-
ment was used for back analysis) and A5–4 (whose monitored displacement was
not used for back analysis).
Subject Area 3: Modelling Technique
6 Numerical Code Utilised 6–1 Which numerical code A software code using the FISH programming language has a function to calculate
is to be used? the local energy release rate for a strain-dependent ‘cohesion weakening–friction
Which numerical code strengthening’ model, genetic algorithm search, and back analysis. The program is
is to be used? How combined with FLAC3D
do we know that the
code is operating 6–2 Why is that code being FLAC3D is a popular numerical analysis program in rock engineering but a new feature
correctly? used? was developed, i.e., the strain-dependent ‘cohesion weakening–friction strengthening’
model, genetic algorithm search, and back analysis. The new functions are coded using
the FISH programming language and combined with FLAC3D
6–3 Where did the code FLAC3D originates from ITASCA, Minneapolis, USA. The new functions were coded
originate from? using the procedure suggested by the code developers.
6–4 How has the code been The new functions, such as the new appraisal index and new constitutive model, were
validated? validated by using two existing case studies: the AECL mine-by tunnel in Canada;
and the Taipingyi hydraulic tunnel in China. The back analysis function was validated
by performing back analysis of mechanical parameters for the permanent shiplock
slope at the Three Gorges Project, and Shuibuya hydraulic underground power-
house, China.
(Continued )
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
7 Supporting Model 7–1 Listing of type and 1 In situ stress, back analysis based on measured values at boreholes.
Data & Data Input justification of boundary 2 Deformation and damage zone measured at exploration tunnel and cavern at
Method conditions justification of upper levels.
boundary conditions 3 Geometry, faults, joints, and strata layers measured from geological survey.
What are the necessary 4 Layout of cavern group from the designer.
supporting data? 5 Observation of failure and deformation phenomena of surrounding rocks from
How are they to be the construction monitoring.
obtained? How are
they to be input? 7–2 Listing of input data with 1 Layout of project and location from the designer.
source of the data and 2 Distribution of strata and faults/joints, contour lines for topography, from geologi-
justification source of cal survey report.
the data and justification. 3 In situ stresses: the underground powerhouse cavern group is located in a high
in situ stress field. The three dimensional geo-stress measurements indicated that
the maximal principal stress was −22 to −29 MPa (compression negative) and
dipping towards the Yellow River gorge, the intermediate principal stress is about
−15 MPa and dipping towards the mountain.The minimal principal stress is almost
vertical with a value of about −10 MPa. The overall geo-stress field from the geo-
stress measurement report and the directions of the three principal stresses
were plotted on a stereographic projection to check whether they are mutually
orthogonal.
4 The characteristics of the rock surrounding the cavern were revealed during
construction.
5 The monitored displacement and excavation damaged zone of an exploration tun-
nel were obtained from the designer for recognition of model parameters for the
design stage.
6 The monitored displacement and excavation damaged zone of the main cavern at
the upper levels was obtained from the designer (Table 5.13) for recognition of
model parameters for the construction stage.
7 The optimal excavation procedure 9b and support scheme 1, shown in Figure 5.15,
were used for the stability analysis of the cavern group for the design stage.
8 The actual excavation procedure was altered slightly due to small changes as a
result of construction constraint conditions, and support scheme 1, shown in Fig-
ure 5.21, with the recognised model parameters in Table 5.14, for the stability
analysis of the cavern group after excavating all excavation layers
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
7–3 Do the data have to be Yes. The the surrounding rock at the downstream sidewall of the main cavern was
adjusted before being considered as category II, but was revealed to be category III after the first layer
input? excavation. The corresponding mechanical parameters such as Young’s modulus,
tensile strength and shear strength had to be changed according to different dam-
aged zones from the wall to the inside of the surrounding rock. The calculated
results were different for the downstream sidewall of the main cavern. Another
small data adjustment relates to the mechanical parameters for the strain-depend-
ent cohesion weakening–friction strengthening model. During the design stage of
the project, the parameters were established by using the monitored excavation
damaged zone at an exploration tunnel which is adjacent to the main cavern. How-
ever, the parameters of the model were established again using the monitored dis-
placement and excavation damaged zone induced by excavation of the main cavern
at upper levels and used to analyse stability of the cavern group for excavation at
the lower levels.
8 Model Sensitivity Analysis 8–1 How does the model The deformation of the surrounding rocks depends on their mechanical parameters.
output depend on the For example, deformation at the downstream sidewall of the main cavern was gen-
How does the model output input parameter values? erally smaller than that of the upstream sidewall of the main cavern when the sur-
depend on the model input in rounding rocks are considered as category II from data in the design stage of the
terms of whether a sensitivity project. When data from the construction stage was used, the surrounding rock at
analysis is required? the downstream sidewall of the main cavern was changed to category III and the
results were reversed.
8–2 Is a sensitivity analysis Yes. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to choose which parameters should be back-
being conducted? If so, analysed. Ranges of -30%, -15%, 0, 15%, and 30% were given to the parameters to
what type of analysis? be analysed.
Processes, mechanisms,
parameters, boundary
conditions, couplings, etc.
8–3 How are the results of The results indicated that parameters such as Young’s modulus, peak cohesion, plas-
the sensitivity analysis to tic strain for cohesive strength failure, plastic strain required for the full frictional
be summarised? strength mobilisation, friction angle of the rock mass are sensitive to the monitored
displacement and excavation damaged zone and could be recognised by using val-
ues of the monitored variables.
(Continued )
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
9 Presentation of Modelling 9–1 Is it possible to Yes. It can be demonstrated in several ways. One is comparison of the predictions
Results demonstrate that the using the established parameters for the model with measurements not used to
numerical code is recognise the parameters. Another is the analysis results at locations having stress
Is it possible to demonstrate operating correctly? concentration, large stress relaxation, high local energy release rate, large tensile
that the numerical code is strain, potential failure, etc., for the excavation of the cavern group at the lower
operating correctly? Are levels were verified by observation afterwards.
the modelling results clearly
presented? 9–2 Is it possible to show Yes. The predictions from the strain-dependent ‘cohesion weakening–friction strength-
that the supporting data ening’ model and Mohr–Coulomb criterion were compared with the measured
are reasonable excavation damaged zone, indicating that the model used was correct.
assumptions for a rock The correctness of the updated data for Young’s modulus, tensile and shear strength
mass? for the downstream sidewall of the surrounding rock was verified by comparing
their predictions with the measurement afterwards.
9–3 How are the modelling The distribution of displacement, local energy release rate, plastic zone, and stresses
results to be presented? were plotted for the central cross-sections of every generator unit, horizontal and
axial vertical sections of the cavern group. The differences in displacement, local
energy release rate, plastic zone, and stresses at key locations were compared in
graphical mode and tables were constructed for different excavation procedures,
support schemes, with and without locally strengthening support, and with and
without the ‘bulgy bench’.
9–4 Does the presentation Yes. For example, tensile strain plots show where there would be tensile failure and
of the modelling results slabbing failure.The local energy release rate figures indicate the location and depth
link with the modelling of brittle failure of the surrounding rock.The plastic zone Figures show where there
objective? are tensile and shear failure elements with different shadings in the rock mass.
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
Subject Area 4: Modelling Adequacy
10 Sources of Errors 10–1 Have you already Yes. The category of the surrounding rock on the downstream sidewall of the main
corrected any errors? cavern was corrected from category II to category III.
What are the main
sources of errors? 10–2 List the sources of 1 Geological conditions, strata, joints and fractures, etc., to be simulated
potentially significant 2 Zoning of damage to surrounding rock induced by excavation
errors. 3 Difference between simulated and actual excavation procedure
4 Difference between simulated and actual support time
10–3 Do any of the No, but changes were necessitated in
potentially significant
errors invalidate the 1 Characterising the categories of the surrounding rocks, and
modelling objective, 2 Support time and effectiveness.
concept and conclusions?
11 Modelling Adequacy 11–1 Do all the previous Yes.

questions indicate that
Does the modelling seem in principle the model is
adequate for the purpose? adequate for the purpose.
Are there any problem
areas? Is any corrective 11–2 If not, list the problem N/A
action required? areas.
11–3 What corrective None.
action is required?
11–4 Does this semi-hard No.
audit have to be
repeated after
corrective action has
been taken?
5/24/2011 6:19:49 PM
This example has also demonstrated that the extensive description of the analyses
performed has been clarified through the audit answers. In other words, the answers
to the semi-hard audit provide the context for the more penetrating questions that
should be asked in the hard audit. Also, and noting that the manner in which the
answers to the auditing questions are given has been left open, to make the audit more
efficient the form of the answers should be specified in greater detail, e.g., whether a
narrative or numerical answer is required to a particular question.
5.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In order to ensure that the procedures used in rock mechanics modelling and rock
engineering design are appropriate for the purpose, the technique of technical auditing
can be used. There is a requirement for a technical audit if there is a need to establish
the reliability and credibility of information, or if there is a public interest dimension
requiring public accountability. Greater client and public confidence is achieved if the
supporting studies are presented in a transparent and traceable manner with a full
audit trail of work done and decisions made.
The key principles of a technical audit are that it is made according to evidence,
known criteria and the current scientific framework. Technical auditing involves veri-
fication by evidence. The result is an opinion based on persuasive evidence. It should
have an independent status, be free from investigatory and reporting constraints, pro-
duce a benefit, and result in a report. The audit result will always be an opinion—thus
the auditing must carry authority.
The technical audit can be conducted in a ‘soft’, ‘semi-hard’ or ‘hard’ mode. The
soft audit obtains the overall information and concludes with a presentation of what
is being done. The ‘semi-hard’ audit goes further, as has been demonstrated by the
Laxiwa case example reported in this Chapter. The hard audit requires more detailed
information on all the procedures being used, sufficient to establish whether these pro-
cedures are adequate to meet the objective. All aspects of the modelling and design can
be technically audited, from establishing the objective, the site investigation, modelling
methods, initial design, construction monitoring, back analysis and final design.
The technical auditing procedure can be applied ‘before and during the event’ to
plan and guide the work; it can also be used ‘after the event’ to audit a modelling or
design exercise that has already been completed. In both cases, the work is rendered
more transparent. The ‘before and during the event’ auditing is preferred because
this enables the identification of problems in the on-going work and hence suitable
changes to be made, resulting in a greater chance of the modelling and design work
being correct.
The first technical auditing demonstration was a soft audit example—the pro-
cedure for technically auditing the estimation of the in situ stress state during a site
investigation. Although the audit questions presented in this demonstration are spe-
cific to rock stress estimation, the audit could easily be adapted to other site investiga-
tion measurements. Being systematically alerted to the potential pitfalls when making
site investigation measurements, through addressing the types of questions listed, will
prove useful to all parties involved: the site investigation contractor, the modeller, and
the designer.

The second technical auditing demonstration was a ‘semi-hard’ audit—the pro-

cedure for technically auditing the design of the excavation sequence for a series of
hydropower caverns in highly stressed granite at the Laxiwa site on the Yellow River
in China. The 11 subject areas and 38 questions, with their detailed answers, illus-
trated the style of the audit and how the answers reveal the procedures used and their
suitability in determining the cavern excavation sequence and appropriate support.
An auditing conclusion was that, to make the audit more efficient, the form of the
answers should be specified in more detail, e.g., whether a narrative or numerical
answer is required to a particular question.
From the technical auditing descriptive text and the two demonstration examples
presented in this Chapter, the benefits of auditing rock mechanics data, modelling and
rock engineering design are apparent: interacting with the technical audit provides
guidance, a check on procedures and supporting data, identification of problems, and
an independent assessment of the work.
It will have been noted that the two demonstration auditing tables in the Chapter
contain different subject headings and different detailed questions—because they have
been tailored to the type of work being audited. Future work will be directed towards
the development of technical auditing frameworks that can be used for the full range
of rock mechanics modelling and design activities with the context of the future rock
engineering design methodologies.
Finally, we mention that, although the technical auditing procedures will go a
long way towards eliminating mistakes and improving the analysis and design pro-
cedures, we will probably never be able to eliminate all human mistakes: i.e., “… all
those subtle essences of humanity which will elude the utmost cunning of algebra…”
as described by the British author Charles Dickens in his 1854 novel “Hard Times”.

Chapter 6
Case example of the design

and construction of a rock slope
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In the last Chapter, we introduced the idea of technical auditing of rock engineering
projects and provided an illustration in which the procedure was applied to the design
and construction of a rock cavern group, noting that the modelling procedures used in
that case included new types of methods. In this Chapter, we continue by demonstrat-
ing how to apply the more modern design methodology for the design of large rock
slopes, in this case as related to hydropower station projects, noting that the design of
open pit slopes for mining is well covered in Read and Stacey (2010). Firstly, the types
and features of large rock slopes at hydropower stations are mentioned. Secondly, the
tasks included in the updated flowchart for modelling and design are detailed as they
apply to the design requirement for large rock slopes. And then the design process,
based on the updated flowchart and the related tasks, is illustrated in detail for the
design of the high rock slope at a hydropower station in China.
6.2 TYPES AND FEATURES OF LARGE ROCK SLOPES

AT HYDROPOWER STATIONS
Large rock slopes at hydropower stations include, inlet slopes, outlet slopes, plunge
pool slopes and dam shoulder slopes, as seen in Figure 6.1. The common feature of
large rock slopes associated with hydropower stations is that they are excavated step
by step from top to bottom. The large rock slopes at hydropower stations in China
typically have excavated heights in the range 300–700 m. The design aspects of these
rock slopes include the angle of the complete slope, heights of benches, excavation
sequences, water drainage measures, and support systems. The designed rock slopes
must satisfy the requirements of the hydropower station function and be stable when
subjected to eroding processes of different types.
6.3 FLOWCHART FOR THE DESIGN OF LARGE ROCK

SLOPES FOR HYDROPOWER STATIONS
By considering the design requirement and features of such large and high rock slopes at
hydropower stations, an updated flowchart, shown in Figure 6.2, is proposed by following

(a)
Spill way
Plunge pool
Spill way
Plunge pool
slope
(b)
(c)
Figure 6.1 Large hydropower station rock slopes. (a) Outlet slope and inlet slope. (b) Plunge pool and
slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003). (c) Dam shoulder slope. (See colour plate section).
the flowcharts already presented in Figures 2.1 and 3.12. The design of these slopes at
hydropower stations includes the initial design, dynamic feedback, and final design.
Before the initial design, site investigation is performed to establish the site
geological conditions. Tests in the laboratory and exploration tunnels are used to
understand the deformation and failure mechanisms of the rock mass slope, together
with the associated rock mechanics parameters. The in situ stresses are measured
to understand the key magnitudes and orientations of the principal stresses. Based
on the understanding and information obtained, intelligent recognition algorithms
are proposed to characterise and recognise the structure of the mechanical models
and parameters. Additionally, algorithms are proposed for outlining the 3D in situ
stress field. Further work on understanding the tectonic processes which led to the
formation of the current rock mass structure is also considered if required.

Determine mechanical Determine design tasks Initial design
model
Global optimisation
algorithm for excavation
procedure and support
Site
design
geological Appraise methods of Long term stability
investigation stability analysis
algorithms of mechanical
Measure- rock mass parameters
ment of geo- Optimise entire slope Design parameters
stress angle, height and Entire slope angle
In situ tests Understand failure width of bench of Height and width of
Monitoring large rock slope bench
mechanism of slope
and tests in Determine the Estimate high slope Number of benches
structure of the mechanical behaviour
exploration and entire safety and procedure of
tunnels mechanical model factor
Recognise excavation
Laboratory mechanical rock mass Recognise probable System support
tests parameters failure modes parameters
Recognition of 3D in Optimise support Support parameters
situ stress field parameters and
drainage measures for key locations
Safety control
standard
Algorithm for Recognition algorithm
recognising 3D in for failure modes of the
situ stress field high slope
Failure approach index
Safety factor estimation
i =1
Dynamic feedback analysis

and final design Excavation of high
slope at the ith step
Calibration of geo- Monitoring and Recognition of

logical conditions data analysis failure modes
algorithm of mechanical rock
mass parameters Back analysis of rock mass
Global optimisation algorithm parameters based on the monitored
for excavation and support information after the ith step
design
Appraise slope stability at the current
Slope stability analysis excavation step
methods
Method of deformation Control of local unstable rock mass
management classification
i=i+1
Yes
Modelling and Long term Finish
analysis method stability analysis excavation?
No
Analysis method Prediction of rock mass behaviour after

excavation of the i + 1 step
Analysis components Build deformation management
classification for excavation of the i + 1 step
Design parameters
Dynamic optimisation of design parameters

Bench height adjustment Excavation optimisation
Dynamic design of support Local support design
system parameters adjustment
Figure 6.2 Design flowchart for large and high rock slope design at hydropower stations.

The following design tasks are conducted for the initial design of such large and
high rock slopes for hydropower stations:
• optimise the entire slope angle, plus the heights and widths of the slope benches,
• estimate the mechanical behaviour of the high slope and the safety factor,
• recognise possible failure modes, and
• optimise support parameters and drainage measures.
The following actions/methods can be used for the design tasks:
• global optimisation algorithm for the excavation procedure and support design of
the slope(s),
• appraise the methods of slope stability,
• a recognition algorithm for the potential failure modes of the high slope,
• provide a failure approach index for the rock mass slope, and
• a safety factor estimation for the slope.
And then the design parameters for the slope can be given as:
• entire slope angle,

• height and width of benches,
• numerical analysis of the excavation benches and associated procedure,
• system support parameters,
• support parameters for key locations, and the
• safety control standard.
Long term stability analysis for the designed rock slope should be performed to check
and calibrate the initial design.
According to the initial design, the slope is excavated from Step 1 at the top
and reinforced as needed. After excavation, the geological conditions are further
revealed and calibrated in the analysis; the monitoring data indicate the slope defor-
mation characteristics; and the potential failure modes are recognised based on the
revealed geological conditions. The following dynamic feedback and design process
is performed.
• The predicted behaviour of the slope before excavation is compared with the
monitored data. Back analysis is needed to characterise the mechanical rock mass
parameters of the slope based on the monitored information after each current
excavation step. Intelligent recognition algorithms can be used to characterise the
mechanical parameters of the slope rock mass.
• With the calibrated mechanical parameters, the stability of the slope at the current
excavation step is analysed. The limit equilibrium method, numerical methods
and intelligent methods can be used for this purpose.
• Further measures can be suggested to control local unstable portions of the
rock mass.
• A global optimisation algorithm is used to perform re-design of the excavation
and support if needed.

Case example of the design and construction of a rock slope 183
Depending on the circumstances, more detailed tasks may be carried out.
• A method of deformation management classification for the excavation of the

slope at each step can be established.
• The mechanical behaviour of the slope after each excavation step can be analysed.
• The excavation and height of the slope bench can be adjusted if needed.
• The dynamic design of the support system parameters is revised as necessary.
• Local support design can be adjusted if needed.
The above dynamic design process is performed until the complete excavation of the
slope. The final design has then been established.
*****
The plunge pool slope at the Nuozhadu hydropower station is the subject of our
illustrative case example in this Chapter. It is located on the Lancang (Mekong) river
in Yunnan Province, south-west China. The dam is 261.5 m high and the project has
nine generators, each with a capacity of 650 MW ≅ 6 GW in total.
6.4 THE FEATURES AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE PLUNGE

POOL SLOPE
6.4.1 The features and constraints of the slope
6.4.1.1 Geological conditions of the slope

The slope regions, shown in Figures 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 for the Nuozhadu hydropower
station, consist of late Hualixi-Yinzhi granite(γ 14 − γ 15), mudstone of the lower segment
of the Manghuai group in the Trias (T 12m), and a loose accumulation horizon of the
Quaternary system.1 The main structures in the region are faults and joints with squeez-
ing and dislocation at inter-layers. There are fully or strongly weathered and unloaded
rock masses at the surface of the slope with vertical depths of 12–48 m, then a slightly
weathered rock mass leading to fresh rock mass conditions as the depth increases.
There is class IV–V rock mass at the surface of the slope, and then there are middling
and thickly layered argillaceous siltstone, T1−12m
− T1−32m
, silty lutite (consolidated clay),
mudstone, silt-fine sandstone, rudite (consolidated coarse fragments), and breccia,
with thickness of about 135 m, as class III mainly and class II partly. The slope sta-
bility is controlled by the rock mass structures because there are developed bedding,
inter-layered squeezed zones and joints. There is potential toppling and falling failure
due to tensile, open, steep joints. In the lower region of these strata, there is granite
(class II mainly and class I partly). The slope stability in this region is controlled
1 In the site descriptions here, the Chinese geological nomenclature system is used. It is beyond the scope
of this book to provide a complete explanation of this nomenclature, but hopefully the general sense
of the descriptions will be understood. Note, however, that the Chinese Basic Quality (BQ) rock mass
classification system is explained in Appendix B of the book.

3 1 F5 F9
4 5
Zoning boundary of Zoning number of Faults Boundary of rock

engineering geology engineering geology stratum
Figure 6.3 Regional geological conditions of the plunge pool slope (Lu, 2007).
by structures because there is the presence of faults F44 and F45, squeezed zones
widths of 50–200 mm, the squeezed zones in class IV with dip angles lower than the
slope angle.
6.4.1.2 The features of the in situ stress field at the site

1 The measured data
The in situ stresses at the slope region were measured in two boreholes, ZK448 and
ZK450, see Figure 6.6, and in two exploration tunnels, PD 204 and PD 412, also

820 Fully weathered layer 820

dl
Q Heavily weathered layer
Slightly weathered upper layer
780 Fully weathered layer 780
Qdl Slightly weathered lower layer
Heavily weathered layer
10 ¡ ã dl
ã ,NE
N33 ¡ W Q
11 ¡ -ã15
¡ ã Slightly weathered upper layer
740 ã ,NE
20 ¡ W
740
N10 ¡ ã~ Slightly weathered lower layer
N2
N5
2 ¡ ãW
¡
,S
ã,S W
700 W 700
N2
N1
0
30
¡ ã~
¡ ã~ 0
62
¡ ãE
3
5
0¡
¡ ã
dl
SN
0¡
ã
, NW Slightly weathered upper layer Q
ãW
,S
N5 40
660 660
W
W
¡ ã ,
W ¡ã
N0
SW 50
50
72¡
¡
29 ¡ã
¡ã
ã~1
¡ ã
0¡
dl
Q
60
N4 0 ¡
ãW
¡ã
N1 0¡ ã~38
620 620
,S
W
ã~5 0 ¡
45
Slightly
¡ ã~
Fresh layer
ãE ,NW
¡ ãE ,NW
6
0¡
580 Fresh layer weathered 580
ã
lower layer
7 5 ¡ ã~
75 ¡ ã~90 ¡
85¡
540 540
ã
Fresh layer
500 500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Figure 6.4 Geological conditions at section 2-2, shown at Figure 6.5, of the plunge pool slope
(Hydro China Kunming Engineering Corporation, 2006).
750
2
0
0
80
1
70
800
80
0
75
750
0
3
75
1:0 .5
725.00
710.00
72
695.00
5
70
70
680.00
655.00 65 0
0
725.00 665.00
0
655.00
1:0.7
1 :0
710.00
.7
2
2 695.00
1:0.9
1:0.7
69 5.0 0 680 .00 2 608.00
665.00
710.00
600
1:0.9
1:0.7
1:0.7
635.00
85.5
113
575.00
675
650
0
5 .0
66
N
5
3
62
2
1
Figure 6.5 Ichnographic plan of the plunge pool slope with sections for numerical analysis and
observation (Hydro China Kunming Engineering Corporation, 2006).

River
Dam
ZK448
1P 2P
Pow ZK450
erh 3P 4P
PD204 ous 7P
8S 11S e A 5P
625.21 rea 6P
Dam PD412
9S 12S
River
654.58
14S
10S 13S
15S
Legend
1P Number of 2-D in situ stress test point
8S Number of 3-D in situ stress test point
PD204 Number of adit
ZK448 Number of borehole
Figure 6.6 Measurement locations for in situ stress at the slope site (Hydro China Kunming Engineering
Corporation, 2006).
indicated in Figure 6.6, using the hydraulic fracturing and overcoring methods. The
testing results for boreholes ZK448 and ZK450 are shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2
respectively. Table 6.3 presents typical testing results from the boreholes ZK448 and
450 and the exploration tunnels PD 204 and PD 412. See also Figure 6.7.
The testing results indicated that the magnitudes and directions of the major and
minor principal stresses are σ1: 6.55–15.82 MPa at N8°W–N56°E, but N8°E–N36°E
mainly, dip angle 1°–68°; σ3: −0.8–6.95 MPa; σ1/σ3: 1.89− −9.64 (for the measure-
ment point Nos. 11, 12, and 14) and 1.89–3.2 (for the others). The testing results
were checked by using the ISRM Suggested Methods for stress estimation (Ulusay and
Hudson, 2007) and the stereographic projections shown in Figure 6.7.; only the test-
ing results that were passed by the technical auditing procedure were used for charac-
terisation of the three dimensional in situ stress field at the site (cf. Section 5.2).
2 Determination of the three dimensional in situ stress field in the slope region
The testing results for in situ stress as presented above indicated the influence of the
deep valley in Figure 6.8 and the tectonic stress. Given the geological setting and the
test results, it is considered that at the slope region
1 The ancient surface was a planation surface without obvious fluctuant,

2 The ancient in situ stress field included not only gravitational stress but also tectonic
stress induced by regional tectonics,

Table 6.1 Testing results for in situ stress at borehole ZK448 using the hydraulic fracturing method
(Hydro China Kunming Engineering Corporation, 2006), compression positive.
Depth of testing point σH σh σy

No. Lithology (m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 Siltstone 36.12–23.77 5.30 3.55 1.05

2 Siltstone 14.25–46.90 7.90 4.95 1.33
3 Siltstone 55.49–56.14 6.58 4.04 1.60
4 Siltstone 67.59–68.24 5.82 4.16 1.94
5 Granite 95.89–96.54 9.88 5.94 2.74
6 Granite 112.00–112.65 11.20 6.60 3.20
7 Granite 133.45–134.10 12.09 6.31 3.80
8 Granite 141.15–141.80 12.40 6.63 4.30
9 Granite 159.60–160.25 12.40 6.75 4.55
10 Granite 167.11–167.76 12.92 7.14 4.77
11 Granite 178.76–179.41 12.52 8.25 5.10
12 Granite 201.41–202.06 13.74 8.47 5.74
13 Granite 212.00–212.65 14.34 8.07 6.04
14 Granite 226.50–227.15 12.97 7.21 6.46
15 Granite 235.40–236.05 14.07 8.30 6.70
16 Granite 242.21–242.86 15.44 9.87 6.90
17 Granite 245.33–245.98 12.70 7.90 7.00
Table 6.2 Testing results for in situ stress at borehole ZK450 using the hydraulic fracturing method
(Hydro China Kunming Engineering Corporation, 2006).
Depth of testing point σ1 σ2 σ3

No. Lithology (m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 Siltstone 40.35–41.00 5.30 3.40 1.16

2 Siltstone 56.44–57.09 6.10 3.55 1.62
3 Siltstone 70.67–71.82 8.88 4.69 2.04
4 Siltstone 84.71–85.36 7.66 4.33 2.43
5 Siltstone 105.46–106.11 6.96 4.53 3.02
6 Siltstone 122.40–123.05 7.63 5.20 3.51
7 Granite 137.68–138.33 10.79 5.85 3.93
8 Granite 148.22–148.87 12.37 7.45 4.23
9 Granite 164.76–165.41 15.04 8.61 4.70
10 Granite 188.32–188.97 13.79 7.85 5.37
11 Granite 199.70–200.35 13.39 7.46 5.69
12 Granite 216.74–217.39 14.05 8.12 6.18
13 Granite 225.58–226.23 16.14 9.21 6.43
14 Granite 234.30–234.95 13.72 7.79 6.68
15 Granite 243.85–244.50 15.82 8.89 6.95

Table 6.3 The results of in situ stress measurements at the slope site (Hydro China Kunming Engineering Corporation, 2006).
Principal stress
σ1 σ2 σ3
Location of the measuring Plunge Plunge Plunge
7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_CH06.indd 188
No. points MPa Trend (°) MPa Trend (°) MPa Trend (°) Testing method
1 At 201.7 m depth 13.74 N7°E 0 8.47 S83°E 0 5.74 90 Hydraulic fracturing

in borehole ZK448
2 At 235.7 m depth 14.07 N4°W 0 8.30 N86°E 0 6.70 90 Hydraulic fracturing
in borehole ZK448
in borehole ZK448
in borehole ZK448
5 At 165.1 m depth 15.04 N8°W 0 8.61 N82°E 0 4.70 90 Hydraulic fracturing
in borehole ZK450
in borehole ZK450
in borehole ZK450
8 At 302 m in exploration 7.37 N8°E 4 4.46 S89°E 59 3.13 N80°W 30 Hydraulic fracturing
tunnel PD204
9 At 502 m in exploration 11.36 N13°E 16 7.02 N48°W 60 6.00 S84°E 25 Hydraulic fracturing
tunnel PD204
10 At 685 m in exploration 10.42 N8°E 1 6.10 N87°W 79 4.55 S82°E 11 Hydraulic fracturing
tunnel PD204
11 At 302 m in exploration 8.27 N51.9°E 38.5 2.29 S76.2°E −37.9 1.21 S11.9°E 29.1 Overcoring
tunnel PD204
12 At 502 m in exploration 6.98 N55.8°E 35.8 2.66 S84.8°E −46.9 1.13 S18.6°E 20.6 Overcoring
tunnel PD204
13 At 685 m in exploration 6.55 N50.1°E 23.9 3.68 S32.6°E 15.9 2.55 N87.9°E −60.7 Overcoring
tunnel PD204
14 At 380 m in exploration 7.71 N28.9°E 68.5 2.67 N64.0°E −17.9 −0.80 S29.8°E 11.6 Overcoring
tunnel PD412
5/25/2011 12:26:51 PM
3 The current in situ stress field is conditioned by surface erosion and undercutting
and regressive erosion by the river, and
4 The formation process of the deep valley can be simulated by modelling a six
layer excavation process as shown in Figure 6.9, with the location ranges of each
layer forming the deep valley being listed in Table 6.4.
The non-linear relation between the deep valley formation process and the stress can
be represented via a neural network as
⎧ (n, h1 , , hp , m) : Rn → Rm
⎪
⎨ D NNN(n, h1 , , hp , m)(P)
⎪ P (p , p , p ) D (d d , dm )
⎩ 1 2 n 1 2
N N
0 0
330 30 330 30
300 60 300 60
σ1 σ1
σ2 σ2
W 270 90 E W 270 90 E
σ3
240 120 240
σ3 120
210 150 210 150
180 180
S S
(a) (b)
N N
0 0
330 30 330 30
300 300 60
σ1
60
σ1
W 270 90 E W 270 90 E
σ3 σ3
240
σ2
120 240 120
σ2
210 150 210 150

180 180
S S
(c) (d)
Figure 6.7 (Continued).

N N
0 0
330 30 330 σ1 30
300 60 300 60
σ1 σ2
W 270 90 E W 270 90 E
σ2 σ3
240 120 240 120
σ3
210 150 210 150
180 180
S S
(e) (f)
N N
0 0
330 30 330 σ1 30
σ1
300 60 300 60
σ3 σ3
W 270 90 E W 270 90 E
σ2 σ2
240 120 240 120
210 150 210 150
180 180
S S
(g) (h)
Figure 6.7 Stereographic projections with the principal stress orientations at the various measurement
points: (a) S204–302, (b) S204–502, (c) S204–685, (d) S412–215, (e) S412–380, (f) S204–1, (g) S204–3, (h) S412.
where P = (p1, p2, …, pn) is the input for thickness of layers for the surface erosion
and valley cutting, D = (d1, d2, …, dm) is the output of the stress value at the measure-
ment points, NN(n, h1, …, hp, m) is the neural network, in which n is the number of
input nodes of the neural network and m is the number of output nodes of the neural
network.
The learning samples used to train the neural network mentioned above are
obtained from the uniform design within four value levels listed in Tables 6.5 and 6.6.

Figure 6.8 Deep valley at the slope site with the location of the dam indicated by the gray trapezium.
(See colour plate section)
The neural network model is obtained by using an improved genetic algorithm with
the learning samples and tested with the samples listed in Table 6.7.
The improved genetic algorithm is again used to search for the optimal thick-
ness of each layer for forming the deep valley in global space in the obtained neural
network. The results are listed in Table 6.8.
3 Recognition of the three dimensional in situ stress field for the slope region
A three dimensional calculation region, shown in Figures 6.10 and 6.11, is determined
for recognition of the in situ stress field by considering the regional tectonics and physi-
ognomy of the location. The displacement boundary conditions, such as compression
in directions x and y, horizontal shearing, vertical shearing and gravity are used to
simulate the tectonics processes in the region. Their values are obtained by using neural
network modelling within the value ranges in Table 6.9. The samples for training and
testing of the neural networks are listed in Tables 6.10 and 6.11. With input of the
measured stress data for the measuring points 8 and 14, the results of the displacement
boundary conditions were recognised as in Table 6.12. By comparing the prediction
with the values of the in situ stresses at the measuring points, the displacement bound-
ary conditions can be verified as applicable. Therefore, with the input of the recognised

displacement boundary conditions to the three dimensional calculation model, the

in situ stress field for the slope is obtained, as shown in Figures 6.12 and 6.13.
6.4.2 The features and constraints of the rock mass

After a series of laboratory and field tests and observation in exploration tunnels,
the mechanical parameters for the main faults and rock masses were obtained,
see Table 6.13.
Planation surface
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
er
lay
e r ed r XXXX
h e
XXX
Layer 4
eat d lay
XX
lw e
Ful ather
XX
XXXX
e
ly w
XXX X
XX XXX
XXX
X
XX
XX
avi
X
XXX
XX
X
XX
X
XXX
X
X
XXX
T2m1-1
He
XXX XX
XXX
layer
XXX
XX XXX
X
XX
X
X XXX
Fresh Slightly w
X
XX
XX
XXX
XXX
X
XX
XX
eathered XXX
XX
d
XX
athere upper laye

X
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
we r
X
XX
Slightly yer
XX
XX
X
XX
XX XX
XXX
XX
Slightly w
XX
XXX
X
XX XX
XX
la
X
XX XX
r eathered
XX
e
X
XX
X
low
X
XXX
X XX
X
X
XXX
XXX
Layer 5 lower laye

X
XXX
X
X
yer r
X X
X
XXX X X
XXX XX
XXX
XX X X
la
XXX
X
X
X
X
XX
XXX
sh
X
XXX X X
XXX
X
er
XXX
XX X
Fre
XX
X
Layer 6
XXX
lay F 11
XX
X
XX XXX X
X
X X
F 14 sh
XXX
X
XX
er e
X
y F r
h la
XX
s F 13
Fre F 12 F5
3 F 15 F 16
F9
Legend
XXXX XXXX
XXX
XX
X
XXX
XX
X
Weathered boundaries
T 1-1
2m
Triassic, the Middle, manghuailang1-1:
siltstone, argillaceous siltstone,mud stone
Late caledonian- Indosinian: granite
Granite porphyry dyke
0.00m
1186m
(a)

Figure 6.9 (a) Geological conditions at the calculation region and (b) Mesh model of the simulation
profile.
Table 6.4 Depth range of the layers simulated for the deep valley formation process.
Depth of each layer

Layers (m) Basis for obtaining the depth of the eroding and cutting layers
1 250–500 Larger than the depth of the weathered layer (130 m)

2 130–250 Depth of full heavily weathered layer 30 m + maximum vertical depth
of slightly weathered upper layer 50 m + maximum vertical depth
of slightly weathered lower layer 50 m
3 110–130 Depth of full heavily weathered layer 30 m + maximum vertical depth
of slightly weathered upper layer 50 m + minimum vertical depth
of slightly weathered lower layer 30 m
4 80–110 Depth of fully heavily weathered layer 30 m + maximum vertical
depth of slightly weathered upper layer 50 m
5 40–80 Depth of fully heavily weathered layer 30 m + minimum vertical
depth of slightly weathered upper layer 10 m
6 30–40 Vertical depth of fully weathered layer 10 m + vertical depth
of heavily weathered layer 20 m

Table 6.5 Levels values for the depth of the various layers simulated for the deep valley formation.
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6

Levels (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
1 250 130 110 80 40 30

2 350 170 115 90 55 33
3 450 210 120 100 70 36
4 500 250 130 110 80 40
Table 6.6 Training samples based on uniform design U32(46).
Calculation results for different

measuring points
(MPa)
Depth of different layers
(m) No. 4 No. 7
No. Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 σx σy σx σy
1 250 250 115 100 80 40 12.42 3.62 15.44 5.95

2 250 170 110 100 55 33 14.71 4.29 18.29 7.05
3 450 250 110 80 70 33 9.32 3.72 11.58 6.47
4 350 130 110 90 70 30 13.50 3.94 16.78 6.47
5 500 170 115 80 80 30 9.67 3.82 12.02 6.63
6 250 130 120 80 55 30 15.75 4.59 19.58 7.55
7 250 170 130 90 70 40 14.09 4.11 17.51 6.75
8 500 250 120 90 80 36 7.69 3.94 9.56 6.69
9 500 130 110 90 55 40 10.65 3.81 13.24 6.10
10 500 250 115 100 40 30 8.49 3.88 10.56 6.07
11 450 130 115 110 40 33 11.57 3.68 14.39 6.55
12 250 210 110 80 40 36 14.56 4.25 18.10 6.98
13 450 210 115 90 55 36 10.04 3.93 12.49 6.81
14 250 250 120 90 40 33 13.44 3.92 16.71 6.44
15 500 210 110 100 70 40 8.59 3.91 10.68 6.12
16 350 170 120 100 55 36 12.50 3.64 15.53 5.99
17 450 130 120 80 80 40 11.14 3.85 13.85 6.34
18 350 250 130 80 70 36 10.83 3.76 13.46 6.19
19 350 250 110 110 55 30 11.05 3.92 13.73 6.29
20 450 250 130 110 55 40 8.49 3.68 10.56 6.07
21 500 130 130 100 40 36 10.44 3.74 12.97 6.00
22 450 170 110 110 80 36 10.04 3.93 12.49 6.81
23 250 130 115 110 70 36 14.85 4.33 18.46 7.12
24 500 210 130 80 55 33 9.02 2.63 11.22 6.32
25 500 170 120 110 70 33 9.12 3.96 11.34 6.37
26 250 210 130 110 80 30 12.91 3.77 16.05 6.19
27 450 170 130 90 40 30 10.95 3.99 13.61 6.25
28 350 210 120 110 40 40 11.73 3.72 14.58 6.62
29 350 170 115 80 40 40 13.20 3.85 16.41 6.33
30 350 130 130 100 80 33 12.65 3.79 15.73 6.06
31 350 210 115 90 80 33 11.57 3.88 14.39 5.95
32 450 210 120 100 70 30 9.57 3.79 11.90 6.19

Table 6.7 Test samples based on uniform design U12(46).

measurement points
(MPa)
Depth of different layers
(m) No. 4 No. 7
No. Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 σx σy σx σy
1 250 170 115 80 40 36 15.24 4.45 18.95 7.30

2 350 210 110 110 70 40 11.34 4.31 14.10 6.43
3 350 250 130 100 40 36 11.03 4.22 13.71 6.28
4 450 210 130 80 55 30 10.06 4.94 12.51 6.82
5 350 130 110 90 70 30 13.50 3.94 16.78 6.47
6 250 250 120 90 80 33 12.65 3.69 15.73 6.06
7 500 170 130 100 80 36 8.87 4.59 11.02 6.25
8 450 130 120 80 70 40 11.34 4.31 14.10 6.43
9 500 170 110 100 40 33 10.10 4.95 12.56 6.84
10 450 210 115 110 80 30 9.28 4.71 11.54 6.45
11 250 130 120 110 55 33 15.11 4.41 18.78 7.24
12 500 250 115 90 55 40 8.20 4.39 10.19 5.93
Table 6.8 Recognised results for each layer depth simulated for deep valley formation (m).
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6
265 182 118 89 46 34
6.5 INITIAL DESIGN OF THE PLUNGE POOL SLOPE
6.5.1 Slope angle, height and width of bench,

for the plunge pool slope
The plunge pool is designed as a trapezium in section, 401.5 m in length although
310 m at the lower part, and 151.5–178.62 m width at the lower part. The design
slope angle and height for each bench are given in Table 6.14. The plunge pool slope
is excavated bench by bench from the top downwards. The width of the benches is
mainly about 15 m and sometimes 20 m. There is a berm for each bench with width
3 m mainly and sometimes 5 m. A typical section of the designed slope is shown in
Figure 6.14.
6.5.2 Support design of the plunge pool slope

According to the slope geometry, rock mass classification, limit equilibrium analysis
and numerical analysis, the support system is recommended as in Table 6.15 and
Figure 6.15.

x N
Y
2500 m
2000 m
Figure 6.10 The dimensions of the simulation model for back analysis of in situ stress field.
6.5.3 Water drainage system design for the plunge

pool slope
A water drainage system is designed for the plunge pool slope which includes a series
of water drainage galleries and drainage ditches, see the typical design in Figure 6.16.
It includes the following:
1 drainage at ground surface: drainage ditch at the top of the slope and inside the berm;
2 drainage at the slope surface: drainage holes, φ50 mm, length 5 m horizontally
upward at 5°, and spacing 4 m; a row of drainage holes at 1 m intervals from the
berm region: φ110 mm, length 12 m, horizontally upward 5°, and spacing 4 m;
3 waterproofing of slope surface: sprayed concrete C20 with width 0.15 m on sur-
face of slope region and sprayed concrete C20 with thickness 0.15 m and steel
fabric at the surface of the slope region; and
4 drainage inside the slope: three drainage galleries at elevation 655–755 m.

Z(m)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
–200
–400
(a)
(b)

(c)
Figure 6.11 Three dimensional simulation model for in situ stress field recognition. (a) Calculation
range, (b) 3D mesh model, and (c) displacement boundary condition. (See colour plate
section).
Table 6.9 Range values and levels of boundary displacement and load.
Boundary displacement Txx Tyy Txy Txz G

and gravitational load (×10–2 m) (×10–2 m) (×10–2 m) (×10–2 m) (N/kg)
Range value 2.0–6.0 1.5–3.5 0.2–0.6 0.6–1.8 9.0–11.0

Value level 1 2.0 1.5 0.2 0.6 9.0
Value level 2 3.0 2.0 0.3 0.9 9.5
Value level 3 4.0 2.5 0.4 1.2 10.0
Value level 4 5.0 3.0 0.5 1.5 10.5
Valuing level 5 6.0 3.5 0.6 1.8 11.0
Recognised value 5.1 2.7 0.4 1.3 9.9
6.5.4 The monitoring system design for the plunge

pool slope
By considering geological conditions, the slope ratio and height of benches of the
plunge pool slope, a monitoring system is designed to monitor the displacement of the
surface and inside the rock mass, underground water, and stress in the cable anchors,

Table 6.10 Training samples constructed by using uniform design U30 (55).

measurement points
(MPa)
Boundary displacements and gravitational load No. 8 No. 14
Txx Tyy Txy Txz G

Schemes (×10−2 m) (×10−2 m) (×10−2 m) (×10−2 m) (N/kg) σ1 σ2 σ3 σ1 σ2 σ3
1 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 11.0 7.23 3.52 3.48 8.35 2.10 1.51
2 4.0 1.5 0.4 1.8 10.0 5.78 3.42 2.48 6.27 1.99 1.08
3 5.0 3.0 0.5 1.8 9.0 7.02 4.96 2.85 7.95 2.89 1.25
4 6.0 3.0 0.3 0.6 10.5 8.67 5.07 3.32 9.84 2.94 1.45
5 3.0 2.5 0.2 1.5 9.0 4.34 4.01 2.76 4.69 2.36 1.17
6 3.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 9.5 4.58 3.24 2.88 5.08 1.87 1.22
7 4.0 1.5 0.2 0.6 10.0 5.66 3.25 2.52 6.25 1.85 1.07
8 2.0 2.0 0.3 1.8 10.5 3.44 3.30 2.89 3.89 1.94 1.27
9 6.0 3.5 0.6 0.9 9.5 8.32 5.78 2.95 9.43 3.32 1.25
10 6.0 2.5 0.5 1.2 10.5 8.97 4.13 2.87 10.25 2.38 1.28
11 5.0 1.5 0.3 1.2 9.5 6.94 2.95 2.25 7.75 1.64 0.98
12 6.0 1.5 0.4 1.5 11.0 9.03 3.86 2.61 10.12 2.37 1.14
13 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 9.0 2.59 2.54 2.22 2.95 1.39 0.92
14 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.8 10.0 8.55 4.36 3.16 9.73 2.58 1.37
15 2.0 3.0 0.2 0.9 9.5 5.19 2.95 2.74 5.84 1.68 1.19
16 3.0 1.5 0.6 0.9 10.5 4.62 2.66 2.43 5.21 1.54 1.04
17 2.0 3.5 0.5 0.6 10.0 5.89 3.49 2.77 6.34 2.13 1.16
18 3.0 3.5 0.3 1.8 9.5 4.46 5.67 3.13 5.43 3.34 1.37
19 4.0 3.5 0.3 0.9 11.0 6.03 5.99 3.98 6.73 3.54 1.74
20 3.0 3.0 0.5 1.5 10.5 5.28 4.59 3.41 5.95 2.34 1.49
21 6.0 2.0 0.3 0.9 9.0 8.31 2.94 2.54 9.36 1.64 1.11
22 3.0 2.0 0.2 1.2 11.0 4.70 3.49 3.39 5.34 2.12 1.46
23 5.0 3.0 0.4 1.2 10.0 7.06 5.07 3.08 7.84 2.91 1.34
24 4.0 2.5 0.6 0.6 9.0 5.42 3.87 2.73 6.12 2.13 1.19
25 2.0 2.5 0.4 0.9 11.0 4.39 3.92 3.05 4.35 2.26 1.35
26 5.0 3.5 0.2 1.5 10.5 6.98 5.97 3.44 7.73 3.51 1.49
27 4.0 3.0 0.6 1.8 11.0 6.12 5.33 3.78 6.82 3.12 1.64
28 2.0 2.5 0.6 1.2 10.0 4.35 3.25 2.74 4.86 1.89 1.21
29 4.0 3.5 0.4 1.2 9.0 5.69 5.62 3.35 6.74 3.16 1.34
30 5.0 2.0 0.6 1.5 9.5 6.95 3.28 2.64 7.92 1.90 1.16
see the representative design in Figure 6.17. The monitoring system included the
following.
1 System of rockbolts of φ25 mm at 2.5 × 2.5 m spacing and length 4.5 m in an

interlaced arrangement; if needed rockbolts of φ28 mm, length 9 m, reinforce-
ment mesh of φ6.5 mm at 200 × 200 mm and cable anchors 1000 kN and length
35–40 m installed as required.

2 At the elevation of 635 m of the slope region which is strongly weathered, 0.6 m
anchor pile φ25 mm at 2.5 × 2.5 m spacing, length 9 m installed at EL.635–EL.655 m;
0.6 m anchor piles with row spacing 1.5 m at lower part of EL.588 and row spac-
ing 2.5 m at lower part of EL.588; if needed, rockbolts φ28 mm and length 9 m
and/or cable anchors of 1000 kN with length 35–40 m are installed as required.
6.5.5 Safety control standard for the plunge pool slope

Safety control standards for the designed plunge pool slope during both the construc-
tion period and running period are needed and developed by considering normal
cases, earthquake cases and water pressure cases. Some existing slopes in China and
other countries, as seen in Tables 6.16 and 6.17, are used as analogues. The conditions,
such as permanent, temporary and occasional cases in Table 6.18 are considered. The
results are recommended for each case, as seen in Table 6.19.
Table 6.11 Testing samples constructed by using uniform design U10 (55).
Calculation results of different

measurement points
(MPa)
Boundary displacement and gravitational load No. 8 No. 14
Txx Tyy Txy Txz G

Schemes (×10−2 m) (×10−2 m) (×10−2 m) (×10−2 m) (N/kg) σ1 σ2 σ3 σ1 σ2 σ3
1 6.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 10.0 8.71 2.52 2.49 9.84 1.54 1.04
2 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 11.0 5.96 3.64 3.54 6.82 2.21 1.51
3 3.0 2.5 0.3 1.8 11.0 4.49 4.58 3.99 5.12 2.83 1.73
4 4.0 2.0 0.2 1.5 9.0 5.38 3.07 2.66 6.09 1.76 1.13
5 2.0 3.0 0.6 1.2 10.5 5.01 3.57 3.25 5.64 2.16 1.42
6 6.0 3.0 0.2 1.2 10.5 8.93 4.99 3.01 10.04 2.94 1.38
7 5.0 3.5 0.4 1.8 9.5 7.17 5.54 4.01 8.26 3.31 1.75
8 3.0 3.5 0.3 0.6 10.0 5.96 4.36 3.25 6.54 2.61 1.42
9 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.9 9.5 2.83 2.35 2.13 3.14 1.45 0.94
10 5.0 2.5 0.6 0.9 9.0 7.11 4.05 2.67 7.95 2.42 1.12
Table 6.12 Comparison of the calculated in situ stress and the measurements (MPa, compression –ve).
No. of measurement point σx σy σz τxy τyz τxz
8 Measured −5.81 −1.60 −4.36 −0.10 0.58 −3.09

Calculated −4.29 −1.63 −5.04 −0.13 −0.31 −2.86
9 Measured −5.39 −1.43 −3.95 −0.41 0.45 −2.19
Calculated −5.15 −2.01 −4.06 −0.26 −0.01 −2.36
10 Measured −5.87 −3.62 −3.29 0.33 −0.17 −1.46
Calculated −5.39 −3.76 −3.56 0.23 −0.15 −1.68
11 Measured −3.98 −2.89 −5.40 0.81 0.84 −3.26
Calculated −2.99 −2.54 −4.98 −0.15 −0.27 −3.09


Figure 6.12 Distribution of the three principal stresses for the calculation region.
(a) σ1, (b) σ2, (c) σ3.

Figure 6.13 Distribution of in situ stresses in (a) X direction, σx, (b) Y direction, σY, (c) Z direction, σZ.

Table 6.13 The suggested mechanical parameters for the rock mass (Wang et al. 2005).
E ν C φ Rt γ
Rock mass (GPa) (MPa) (°) (MPa) (kN/m3)
F5,F9,F14,F16 0.8 0.32 0.10 20.0 – 20.0

F10,F11,F12,F13,F15 0.5 0.32 0.05 16.0 – 20.0
F418-1, F458-3, F556-1 1.0 0.32 0.015 16.7 – 20.0
F8, F44, F45 0.6 0.33 0.01 14.0 – 20.0
G222-1, G556-1 0.4 0.35 0.005 11.3 – 23.0
Fully weathered mudstone 0.2 0.30 0.10 27.0 – 21.0
Heavily weathered mudstone 0.5 0.29 0.12 29.0 – 21.0
Slightly weathered mudstone 3.0 0.29 0.40 35.0 0.68 25.2
Fresh mudstone 8.0 0.26 0.90 45.0 2.10 25.6
Fully weathered granite 0.8 0.28 0.13 30.0 – 22.0
Heavily weathered granite 1.5 0.27 0.15 35.0 – 22.0
Slightly weathered granite in upper layer 6.0 0.28 0.60 39.0 3.25 24.0
Slightly weathered granite in lower layer 20.0 0.25 1.10 48.0 3.85 25.5
Fresh granite 25.0 0.20 2.00 52.0 4.80 26.1
Note: E is Young’s modulus, ν is Poisson’s ratio, c is cohesion, φ is friction angle, Rt is the uniaxial compressive
strength, and γ is the unit weight.
Table 6.14 Initial design of plunge pool slope ratio (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
Upper portion on the left Lower portion on the left Right portion
Rock mass Rock mass Rock mass

classification* Slope ratio classification* Slope ratio classification* Slope ratio
V 1:1.2 V 1:1.2 V 1:1.2

IV 1:1.0 IV 1:1.0 IV 1:1.0
III 1:0.8 III 1:0.8 III 1:0.7
II 1:0.7 II 1:0.8 II 1:0.3
*Chinese rock classification system was used (Appendix B of this book).
6.5.6 Stability analysis and failure mode recognition

There are adverse structures in the upper part of the slope area, including
1 N36°–63°W, SW∠61°–73°, structures of class V;

3 N0°–30°E, NW∠73°–85°, structures of class V; and
4 N39°–51°W, NE∠12°–15°, structures of class IV and squeezed fractures.
These result in unstable blocks, see Figure 6.18.

820 820
dl
Q
3
780 3 780
Qdl
3
10 dl
N33 ¡ã W,NE 3 Q
-15
740 ,NE 11 740
7
~20¡ãW
N10¡ã
N 3
22
N5
¡ ãW
¡ã
3
,SW
,SW
700 700
N2
0 ¡ã
30 3 N
10
62
~3
~5 ¡ã
E,N
0¡
dl
SN
0 3
Q
ãW
W
, SW
N5 40
660 660
W
3
¡ã W
,SW
N0
3
50
72
50
¡ã
29
~1
0¡
dl
Q
60
ãW
7 3 16
N40 ¡ã
N10¡ã ~3
620 620
,SW
3 3
~50 ¡ã
45
3 3
Slightly
8 ¡ãE
Fresh layer
E,N
~6
0
Fresh layer weathered
,NW
3 3
W
580 580
lower layer
75
75
~85
~90
540 540
Fresh layer
500 500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Figure 6.14 The designed slope ratio and height of the benches for the plunge pool slope (Zhang
and Liu, 2003).
Table 6.15 Support design for the plunge pool slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
Support schemes Rock mass Remarks
Random support Rock mass in class II Partial shotcreting support with

C20 concrete and random
bolting
Bolt/shotcreting support Rock mass in class III Shotcreting with C20 concrete
and anchor bars
Bolt-shotcrete-mesh-anchor Rock mass in class IV Wire mesh, shotcreting support
support with C20 concrete and anchor
bars
Net support of reinforced Rock mass in class V Beams net with C20 reinforcement
concrete beams concrete
Reinforced concrete lining Slope of permanent Support parameters obtained
concrete building according to permanent building
made of concrete structure
Double layer wire netting Surface of fault zone Double layer wire mesh, shotcreting
sprayed concrete, at slope surface support with C20 concrete and
lengthened mortar bolt lengthened mortar bolts to cross
the fault band

dl
Q
Qdl
Qdl
Slightly
lower layer
Fresh layer
Figure 6.15 Support design for cross section 2-2 of the plunge pool slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
dl
Q
Qdl
Qdl
Slightly
lower layer
Fresh layer
Figure 6.16 Water drainage system design for cross section 2-2 of the plunge pool slope Zhang
and Liu, 2003).

Qdl
Slightly
Fresh layer withered
lower layer
Figure 6.17 Layout of the monitoring instruments at cross-section 2-2 of the plunge pool slope (Zhang
and Liu, 2003).
There are also adverse structures in the lower granitic portion of the slope, including
1 N15°–30°W, SW∠50°–60°, structures of class IV and squeezed fractures;

2 N0–15°E, NW∠55°–65°, structures of class IV and squeezed fractures;
4 N32°E, NW∠83°, structures of class V;
5 N63°E, SE∠85°, structures of class V; and
6 N10°–40°W, SW∠55°–80°, structures of class V, steep joints.
These also result in unstable wedge blocks, as shown in Figure 6.19.

The results of limit equilibrium analysis, shown in Table 6.20, indicate that the
entire plunge pool slope is stable but that there is potential for local sliding in the
class IV–V rock mass.
The results of finite element analysis indicated that for the slope sections 0 + 980
and 1 + 275 during both the construction and operational time the safety factors are
larger than 1.5.
6.6 FEEDBACK ANALYSIS AND FINAL DESIGN

OF THE PLUNGE POOL SLOPE
6.6.1 Back analysis of the deformation modulus

of the plunge pool slope
6.6.1.1 Back analysis of the deformation modulus

of the plunge pool slope at elevation 770–755 m
The plunge pool slope at elevation of 770–755 m was excavated from March to June
2007. The monitored displacement increases during this excavation at the points Nos.

Table 6.16 Safety control standards for several slope projects in China (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
Factor of safety
Height of slope Slope angle
No. Project and its slope Lithology (m) (°) Construction period Running period
1 Permanent shiplock Porphyritic granite 130 1.3 without 1.5 without earthquake,
high rock slope earthquake, 1.1 with earthquake 1.1
1.1 with earthquake
2 Powerhouse slope Sinian phyllite 200 1.05
of a hydropower station
3 Right tailwater bank slope Sinian phyllite >100 1.15
4 Left spillway bank slope Sinian phyllite 74–149 1.05–1.1 1.2
5 Little Huangya dangerous Permian limestone, 145 1.3 normally, 1.1 with earthquake
rock mass, hydropower Leping series
station
6 Spillway slope of a Dolomite, limestone 1.5 for gravity, 1.2 for gravity
hydropower station plus water pressure
7 Tailwater slope of a Basalt, volcaniclastic 144 63 1.25 normally, 1.1 when
hydropower station rock, rubble rock abnormal
8 Left abutment downstream Presinian ancient 150 63–76 1.0 at surface,
slope of a hydropower metamorphite 1.05 at hanging wall
station
9 Left bank slope Liparite 170–340 50 1.05 1.25 normally, 1.05 with
of a hydropower station earthquake
10 Lianzi Cliff dangerous rock Limestone ∼100 1.25–1.3 normally, 1.15–1.2
mass by Yangtze River under special circumstances
11 Powerhouse high slope Middle Trias dolomite, 380 25–35 1.2
of a hydropower station sandstone with
mudstone and shale
12 Excavated slope Medium and coarse 50–70 70 1.5 for gravity, 1.2 for gravity
of a hydropower station biotite granite and water pressure
5/24/2011 6:20:13 PM
13 Shiplock slope of a 80 70 1.3
hydropower atation
14 Up-stream high slope Diabase, marble, 75–150 1.3
of diversion channel limestone Maximum
of a hydropower station 210
15 Left bank high slope of a Presinian slightly 1.56 normally, 1.14 abnormal
hydropower station metamorphic conditions
phyllitic slate, slate,
sandstone, quartz
sandstone
16 The creeping rock Alternate thin and Maximum 30–45 ≥1.2 for gravity with drainage
slope B on the left bank thick slate and 435 ≥1.05 for gravity and with drain
of a hydropower station sandstone failure or earthquake
17 Slopes of a hydropower 1.3 ≥1.5 normally
station ≥1.3 for special circumstances
(e.g., earthquake)
18 Slopes of a hydropower 1.05 ≥1.20 for running period,
station ≥1.10 for rapid drop down
of tailwater level, ≥1.10
for rapid drop down of
reservoir level, ≥1.10 for
earthquake
19 Transmission field slope 1.1 1.25 normally, 1.05 with
of a hydropower station earthquake, 1.1 with
exceptional flood level
20 Maya high slope of a ≥1.2 at gravity and ≥1.5 for gravity plus
hydropower station underground water underground water, ≥1.1 for
gravity with underground
water plus earthquake
21 #2 diversion tunnel outlet Permanently 1.2, occasionally
slope of a hydropower (earthquake) 1.01
Station
5/24/2011 6:20:13 PM
Table 6.17 Safety control standards for several slope projects in non-Chinese countries (Zhang
and Liu, 2003).
Height Slope Standard factor

Project and of slope angle of safety k1/ Factor
No. its slope Lithology (m) (°) of safety k2*
1 Diversion channel Lower proterozoic 38 70 1.25/1.25

slope of granite, igneous
rock and gneiss
multi-purpose project
2 Powerhouse foundation Lower proterozoic 65 61 1.25/1.27
ditch slope of Tasheleike granite
pumped storage
power station
3 Powerhouse foundation Coarse basalt, 70 62 1.14/1.32
ditch slope of the siltite, black lead
Kulieyisike hydropower at foundation,
station coarse basalt,
breccia granite
4 Left dam linking slope Lower cretaceous 90 64 1.25/1.41
of the limestone,
hydropower station dolomite
5 Natural slope of the Limestone, dolomite, 123 56 1.19/1.61
Tuoketuoguer shale rock,
hydropower station sandstone
6 Slope near Tiancuan dam Tuff breccia 80 50 1.2 normally, 1.1 at
surface, 1.2 for
drop down of
reservoir level
7 Open-pit mine slope 300 1.3
8 Left dam abutment slope Quartz with thin About 70 63.5 >2.0 normally,
of the Gedeng arch dam chlorite and mica 1.0 for most
disadvantageous
condition
* k1 is the required factor of safety for slope stability; k2 is the calculated factor of safety for the slope.
YHP1-TP-03 and YHP1-TP-09 were used to establish the deformation moduli for the
rock slope masses. The evolved neural network with integrated genetic algorithms
was used for this task as follows.
1 Construction of learning samples and testing samples. Twenty-five learning

samples were constructed within the value levels shown in Table 6.21 for
learning by the neural network, as seen in Table 6.22. The mesh model, lat-
eral pressure coefficient distribution and faults in Figure 6.20 were used for
the numerical calculation. By using the same method, the ten testing samples
were constructed, Table 6.23, to test the applicability of the obtained neural
network.

Table 6.18 Assemblage of loads for slope stability evaluation of the plunge pool slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
Types of loads
Pore water
pressure
Design Conditions of Work Water High humidity/ External Earthquake

conditions load assemblies conditions Gravity pressure Normal rain/storm load load Reference
Permanent Basic assembly Running period √ √ √ √

and maintaining
reservoir’s normal
water level
Temporary Special Construction √ √ √
assembly I period
Occasional Special Flood/drop down √ √ √ √
assembly II of reservoir
water level
Water pressure and
Special pore water pressure
Earthquake √ √ √ √ √
assembly III with reservoir’s
normal water level
5/24/2011 6:20:13 PM
Table 6.19 Safety control standards for the spillway plunge pool slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003; Power
Industry Standard of the People’s Republic of China, 2007).
Permanent condition Temporary conditions Occasional condition

Category (for example, running period) (for example, construction period) (for example, earthquake)
Safety 1.30–1.25 1.20–1.15 1.10–1.05

factor
Project type: up hemispherical calculation mode:nonweight Comprehensive analysis
Number Dip Dip angle
Structure surface 1 220 67

+3m
x 3/4
x 2/4+4m +0m Structure surface 4 45 13
W x 1/4 E
Slope surface
251 63
+2m
x 2/3 Friction angle 30˚
x 1/3
+1m
x 1/2
+ means the pole point of structure
surface
S x means the pole point of structure
Serial number 953002 surface assemble intersection
Project name:NZD Data: 03/3/20
Figure 6.18 Kinematic stability analysis of the assemblage of sedimentary rock structure surfaces in
the upper portion of the slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
2 Learning of the neural network. A genetic algorithm was used to train the
neural network by using the learning samples mentioned above. The obtained
neural network has a structure of 5 input nodes, 32 nodes at the first hidden
layer, 17 nodes at the second hidden layer, and two output nodes.
3 Search for the deformation modulus for various rock masses in the slope region
in global space. The genetic algorithm was used for the search on the obtained
neural network. The results, shown in Table 6.24, were verified by compari-
son with the calculated deformation increase at the monitoring points YHP1-
TP-03 and YHP1-TP-05 using the determined deformation modulus from the
measurements, as seen in Figure 6.21.

Project type: up hemispherical calculation mode:nonweight Comprehensive analysis
N
Number Dip Dip angle

+4m
x 2/6 x 1/3
x 2/3 Structure surface 4 302 83
+ 2m x 1/6 +0m
W x 3/6 E Structure surface 5 153 85
+ 1m Structure surface 6 245 67
x 1/2
+ 6m x 2/5x 2/4
+3mx 1/5x 1/4 Slope surface 251 63
x 2/6
Friction angle 30°
+5m
S + means the pole point of structure

surface
Serial number 953002
x means the pole point of structure
surface assemble intersection
Project name:NZD Data: 03/3/20
Figure 6.19 Kinematic stability analysis of the assemblage of granite structure surfaces in the lower
portion of the slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
6.6.1.2 Back analysis of the deformation modulus at elevation

755–680 m of the plunge pool slope
After excavation at the elevations 755–740 m, 740–725 m, 725–710 m, 710–695 m,
and 695–680 m, displacements at the monitoring points, shown in Table 6.25, were
compared with the calculated deformation increases induced by the excavation at
each bench slope—which are in good agreement with the monitored results, as also
seen in Table 6.25. The results were used to establish the rock mass deformation
modulus for the excavation of the spillway and plunge pool slope from elevation
755–680 m, as shown in Table 6.26.
6.6.2 Establishment of dynamic warning system

6.6.2.1 The methodology for establishing a dynamic warning

system for the excavation of the plunge pool slope
The methodology for establishing the dynamic warning system is illustrated by the
flowchart in Figure 6.22 and is described in narrative form as follows:
Step 1: The safety factor for the rock plunge pool slope is determined by considering
slope types, slope classification, and the actual cases of slope movement/failure.

Table 6.20 Limit equilibrium slope stability calculation results (Zhang and Liu, 2003).
Sliding Work Factor Allowable

Location types condition of safety factor of safety Reference
Cross section Left part Local slope Permanent 1.55 1.25 Sliding from class V rock mass
0+785.00 Rainstorm 1.50 1.05 at the top of the slope
Earthquake 1.38 1.05
Entire slope Permanent 3.08 1.25
Rainstorm 2.83 1.05
0+850.00 (before reinforcement) Rainstorm 0.94 1.05
Local slope Permanent 1.26 1.25 Sliding from class V rock mass,
(after reinforcement) Rainstorm 1.21 1.05 anchoring force 1200 kN/m
Cross section Left part Local slope Permanent 1.26 1.25 Sliding from class V rock mass,
0+915.00 (after reinforcement) Rainstorm 1.18 1.05 cable anchoring force
Earthquake 1.09 1.05 6300 kN/m
5/24/2011 6:20:14 PM
(after reinforcement) Rainstorm 1.19 1.05 cable anchoring force
Cross section Left part Local slope 1 Permanent 1.39 1.25 Sliding from class IV rock mass
1+027.40 Rainstorm 1.29 1.05
Local slope 2 Permanent 1.70 1.25 Sliding from class III rock mass
Rainstorm 1.65 1.05
(after reinforcement) Rainstorm 1.20 1.05 cable anchoring force
Local slope 2 Permanent 2.25 1.25 Sliding from class III rock mass
Rainstorm 2.11 1.05
Cross section Left part Local slope 1 Humidity due to 1.29 1.05 Sliding from class V rock mass
1+362.00 rapid flood (calculated by IWHR)
Local slope 2 Humidity due to 2.25 1.05 Sliding from class IV rock mass
rapid flood (calculated by IWHR)
5/24/2011 6:20:14 PM
Table 6.21 Value levels and rock mass deformation modulus estimation for the plunge pool slope (GPa).
Slightly weathered Fresh Slightly weathered Slightly weathered Fresh

Levels mudstone mudstone granite at upper layer granite at lower layer granite
1 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 15.0

2 2.5 7.0 2.5 7.0 18.0
3 3.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 20.0
4 3.5 13.0 3.5 13.0 23.0
5 4.0 15.0 4.0 15.0 25.0
The range of the safety factor for slope warning is then determined according
to the slope design guideline. The first bench of the plunge pool slope is then
excavated.
Step 2: The engineering geology characteristics are re-evaluated according to the
revealed information and the potential failure modes are established.
Step 3: Two methods, the engineering geology method and deformation warning sys-
tem, are used for dynamic warning of the slope during excavation. If there
is a warning, recommendation is given for adjustment of the excavation and
support design.
Step 4: Perform the excavation of the next slope bench, go to step 2, and continue to
refine the system as the excavation of the benches proceeds.
The engineering geological warning method, shown in Figure 6.23 includes analy-
sis of unfavourable joints and fractures to determine using stereographic projection
whether they could form potentially unstable blocks, plus calculation of the safety
factor using limit equilibrium methods and finite element methods.
The deformation warning system for the excavation of a rock slope is established
dynamically as follows (Figure 6.24):
Step 1: Obtain information on engineering geology/rock mechanics characteristics,
in situ stress field, excavation zones and the benches of the slope, and mechan-
ical parameters of the slope rock mass.
Step 2: Construct a slope excavation numerical model considering the excavation-
induced unloading effect.
Step 3: Establish a non-linear relation between the mechanical parameters and the
safety factor for the current excavation step of the slope by using the PSO-SVM
algorithm together with the calculation of the safety factor considering the
excavation unloading effect.
Step 4: Calculate the deformation of the slope excavated at the current bench for
different mechanical parameters.
Step 5: Establish the non-linear relation between the safety factor and the slope
deformation at the current excavation step.
Step 6: Perform sensitivity analysis for the displacement, including velocity and
magnitude, for the safety factor.
Step 7: Recognise the potential failure mode of the slope.

Table 6.22 Training samples by using uniform design U25 (55) for the value levels in Table 6.21.
Calculated vertical displacement

Deformation modulus (elastic) increment
E (GPa) (mm)
Slightly weathered Fresh Slightly weathered Slightly weathered Fresh
No. mudstone mudstone granite, upper layer granite, lower layer granite YHP1-TP-03 YHP1-TP-05
1 3.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 18.0

2 3.5 13.0 4.0 13.0 15.0 7.49 8.44
3 3.0 15.0 3.5 15.0 25.0 5.09 5.92
4 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 23.0 7.04 8.54
5 2.5 4.0 3.5 13.0 18.0 7.89 9.40
6 2.0 13.0 2.0 15.0 18.0 6.63 7.65
7 3.5 10.0 2.0 4.0 25.0 5.41 6.31
8 2.0 10.0 3.5 10.0 15.0 7.73 8.89
9 4.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 23.0 5.37 6.16
10 3.5 15.0 3.0 10.0 18.0 6.49 7.35
11 2.0 7.0 2.5 13.0 25.0 5.75 6.91
12 3.5 7.0 3.5 7.0 23.0 5.99 7.02
13 4.0 10.0 2.5 7.0 18.0 6.66 7.60
14 3.0 13.0 2.5 10.0 23.0 5.53 6.41
15 4.0 13.0 3.5 4.0 20.0 6.22 7.10
16 2.5 13.0 3.0 7.0 25.0 5.29 6.91
17 3.5 4.0 2.5 15.0 20.0 7.56 8.91
18 4.0 7.0 3.0 15.0 15.0 7.82 8.90
19 3.0 10.0 3.0 13.0 20.0 6.17 7.09
20 2.0 15.0 4.0 7.0 20.0 6.21 7.19
21 2.5 7.0 2.0 10.0 20.0 6.55 7.70
22 2.5 10.0 4.0 15.0 23.0 5.65 6.64
23 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 25.0 6.71 7.92
24 3.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 15.0 8.86 10.33
25 2.5 15.0 2.5 4.0 15.0 7.71 8.73
5/24/2011 6:20:14 PM
dl Ditch
Q
Qdl
,NE 10
N33¡ã W Qdl
11 -15
,NE
~20 ¡ãW
N10¡ã
N
22
N5
¡ã W
¡ã ,S
,SW
N2
W
N
0 ¡ã
30 10 Slightly weathered upper layer

62
~3
~5 ¡ã
E,N
0 ¡ã
Qdl
SN
0 W
W
,SW
N5 40
W
¡ã W
,SW
N0
50
72
¡ã ~
29
10
Qdl
¡ã W
60
N40 ¡ã
N10¡ã ~38
,SW
~50 ¡ã
45
Fresh layer Slightly

E,NW
¡ãE,NW
~6
0

lower layer
75
75
~85
~90
Fresh layer
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
(b)
Figure 6.20 (a) Mesh model for numerical simulation. (b) Layout and faults for the plunge pool slope.
Step 8: Establish a displacement warning index and values for each warning
classification.
Step 9: Use the revealed geological condition, the monitored displacement and
slope stability case after excavation of each current bench to calibrate the
applicability of the geological condition prediction and the established
displacement warning index. If needed, update the geological condition and
displacement warning index. If this is not necessary, go to Step 12.
Step 10: Use the established displacement warning classification to evaluate the
stability of the slope and provide advice for slope design and adjust the
excavation accordingly.

Table 6.23 Testing samples by using uniform design U10 (55) for the value levels in Table 6.21.
Calculated vertical displacement

Deformation modulus (Elastic) E increment
(GPa) (mm)
Slightly weathered Fresh Slightly weathered Slightly weathered

No. mudstone mudstone granite, upper layer granite, lower layer Fresh granite YHP1-TP-03 YHP1-TP-05
1 4.0 4.0 3.5 13.0 20.0 7.60 8.86

2 3.0 7.0 3.5 4.0 25.0 5.73 6.78
3 2.5 10.0 2.5 15.0 25.0 5.36 6.33
4 3.0 7.0 2.0 13.0 15.0 7.87 9.04
5 2.0 13.0 4.0 10.0 23.0 5.61 6.57
6 4.0 13.0 2.0 10.0 23.0 5.45 6.27
7 3.5 15.0 3.0 15.0 18.0 6.48 7.35
8 2.5 15.0 2.5 4.0 20.0 6.21 7.16
9 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 18.0 8.02 9.59
10 3.5 10.0 4.0 7.0 15.0 7.73 8.75
5/24/2011 6:20:16 PM
Table 6.24 The recognised rock mass elastic modulus for the plunge pool slope (GPa).
Slightly weathered Slightly weathered Slightly weathered

mudstone Fresh mudstone granite, upper layer granite lower layer Fresh granite
2.5 5.7 3.4 13.2 19.8
Figure 6.21 Comparison of the calculated and measured vertical displacement increments for two
slope monitoring points.
Table 6.25 Comparison of the measured vertical displacement increment at several monitoring points
with the calculation.
Excavation Mean
elevation Vertical displacement increment of monitoring absolute error
No. Excavation time (m) points (mm), upwards is positive (mm)
1 July 2007– 755–740 Monitoring YHP1-TP-03 YHP1-TP-05 0.6

October 2007 points
Measured 2.8 3.2
Calculated 3.4 3.8
2 March 2008– 740–725 Monitoring YHP1-TP-03 YHP1-TP-05 0.8
August 2008 points
Measured 3.3 3.8
Calculated 4.3 4.5
3 August 2008– 725–710 Monitoring YHP1-TP-05 YHP1-TP-09 0.5
December 2008 points
Measured 3.3 8.0
Calculated 3.6 7.2
4 December 2008– 710–695 Monitoring YHP1-TP-05 YHP1-TP-09 1.6
Feburary 2009 points
Measured −1.3 −1.2
Calculated 0.2 0.5
5 February 2009– 695–680 Monitoring YHP1-TP-09 YHP2-TP-02 0.7
June 2009 points
Measured −1.5 2.8
Calculated −2.3 3.4

Table 6.26 The established rock mass deformation moduli during the excavation of the spillway and
plunge pool slope, elevation 755–680 m (GPa).
Excavation Slightly weathered Slightly weathered

elevation Slightly weathered Fresh granite in granite in Fresh
No. (m) mudstone mudstone upper layer lower layer granite
1 755–740 2.8 6.3 3.5 14.4 20.7

2 740–725 3.7 8.9 2.8 13.2 20.8
3 725–710 3.1 7.4 3.6 13.9 22.5
4 710–695 3.3 7.8 3.2 13.6 21.8
5 695–680 3.8 8.2 3.0 13.7 20.6
Slope type Slope classification Slope state
Determination of slope design safety factor
Determination of slope safety factor for warning Design guideline
i=1
Slope engineering geology character analysis
Slope failure mode analysis
Engineering
Dynamic
i=i+1 geology Warning of Warning of slope monitoring
analysis potential instability deformation warning
method blocks method
Evaluation of slope
stability after excavation
Excavation
finished?
End
Figure 6.22 Flowchart route to establish the dynamic warning system for the slope excavation.

Unfavourable set of Stereographic

structures in the slope projection
Calculate SF of Limit equilibrium

unstable blocks analysis
If the calculated safety factor is Warning of

smaller than the warning safety unstable blocks
factor, then…
Figure 6.23 Engineering geological method for dynamic warning during slope excavation.
Engineering In situ stress field

Excavation Rock mass mechanical parameters
geology features for rock slope
zones of slope obtained by field and laboratory tests
and zone mass
Establishment of slope excavation

numerical model considering unloading effect
Rock mass deformation Intelligent

modulus by displacement
displacement back back analysis
analysis method
PSO-SVM
method
Establish the relation between factor of
safety in the i+1 excavation step and
Calculation rock mass mechanical parameters
method for
safety factor with Calculate different deformations for
unloading effect different mechanical parameters after
the i+1excavation step
Modify the
geological Establish the relations between safety i=i+1
model factor and displacement after i+1
excavation step
Sensitivity analysis of deformation

(displacement, velocity, etc.) with
variation of the factor of safety
Search for whole
sliding surface Obtain deformation monitoring warning
indices and their values
Consistency with engineering geology

No features recognised before and after Obtain
the i+1 excavation step? deform-
Yes ation
Result of slope deformation monitoring modulus
after i+1
excavation
Dynamic Judgement of slope stability state step
feedback and
adjustment
Is the judgement of slope stability from
the deformation monitoring warning
No method correct?
Yes
No
Slope finished?
Yes
End
Figure 6.24 Flowchart route to establish the dynamic deformation warning system for the excavation
of the rock slope.

Step 11: If the excavation of the slope is not complete, establish the mechanical param-
eters as required by using the intelligent back analysis algorithms, such as the
evolved neural network–genetic algorithm. Go to Step 3.
Step 12: On completion of slope excavation, the dynamic warning process is completed.
6.6.2.2 Establishment of the dynamic warning system

for the excavation of the plunge pool slope
The establishment of the dynamic warning system for the excavation of the plunge
pool slope is completed via the following steps, illustrated by excavation of the plunge
pool slope at the elevation of 755–740 m.
1 Establishment of the non-linear relation between cohesion, friction and safety factor
of the slope. The support vector machines are used to represent this relation. The
learning samples and testing samples are obtained at the value ranges in Table 6.27.
According to the study by Sun (1999), only cohesion of the rock mass is changed after
excavation; therefore, the safety factors corresponding to the tentative cohesions are
obtained by using numerical calculation for excavation of the slope at the elevation
range 755–740 m. The first 30 samples in Table 6.28 are used to train the support
vector machines by using the Particle Swarm Optimisation method. The remaining
five samples are used to test the obtained support vector machines.
2 Recognition of potential failure mode. The established mechanical parameters
are input to the numerical model. The results indicated that there is a potential
circular sliding mode, as shown in Figure 6.25.
3 Sensitivity analysis of the warning index on safety factor of slope. Use different
safety factors to input the established support vector machines above to obtain
the safety factors of the slope, as shown in Table 6.29. Considering that the
warning safety factor of the plunge pool slope is 1.15–1.00, the samples with
Nos. 5 to 15 in Table 6.29 are selected for numerical analysis. Their cohesions, in
Table 6.29, and other mechanical parameters for the various rock masses are input
to the numerical analysis to obtain the horizontal displacement increase induced
by excavation at the elevation 755–740 m. The relation between the horizontal
displacement increase and the safety factor of the slope is shown in Figure 6.26.
4 Establishment of displacement warning system for the plunge pool slope. Accord-
ing to the warning requirement for the slope, the points marked A, B and C
represent “Orange warning”, “Red warning”, and “Dangerous”, respectively,
in Table 6.30. The corresponding horizontal displacement increases are recog-
nised for each warning classification. For example, the suggested warning clas-
sifications for the monitoring points YHP1-TP-03 and YHP1-TP-05 are listed in
Table 6.31.
Table 6.27 Value ranges for rock mass cohesion in the excavation disturbed zone (kPa).
Fully weathered Heavily weathered Slightly weathered rock Slightly weathered rock Fresh rock
rock mass rock mass mass in the upper layer mass in the lower layer mass
2.0–25.0 25.0–50.0 50.0–100.0 100.0–350.0 350.0–550.0

Table 6.28 Training and testing samples using uniform design for the value ranges in Table 6.27.
Cohesion of fully Cohesion of heavily Cohesion of slightly weathered Cohesion of slightly weathered Cohesion of fresh
Sample weathered rock mass weathered rock mass rock mass in upper layer rock mass in lower layer rock mass Factor of
Nos. (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) safety
1 0.014 0.025 0.08 0.35 0.50 0.98

2 0.008 0.050 0.06 0.28 0.35 1.34
3 0.014 0.025 0.06 0.22 0.40 0.97
4 0.025 0.031 0.10 0.16 0.50 1.21
5 0.014 0.037 0.07 0.22 0.45 1.31
6 0.025 0.037 0.06 0.16 0.35 1.29
7 0.008 0.037 0.07 0.35 0.50 1.29
8 0.020 0.025 0.08 0.10 0.40 0.97
9 0.002 0.050 0.05 0.22 0.50 1.37
10 0.025 0.042 0.06 0.10 0.45 1.33
11 0.020 0.025 0.06 0.28 0.55 0.97
12 0.025 0.050 0.08 0.35 0.40 1.40
13 0.025 0.031 0.08 0.22 0.55 1.29
14 0.014 0.050 0.10 0.10 0.50 1.38
15 0.002 0.031 0.06 0.10 0.50 1.11
16 0.020 0.050 0.07 0.16 0.55 1.38
5/24/2011 6:20:17 PM
17 0.014 0.042 0.06 0.35 0.55 1.35
18 0.025 0.025 0.07 0.28 0.35 0.97
19 0.002 0.037 0.05 0.35 0.40 1.29
20 0.020 0.031 0.05 0.35 0.45 1.19
21 0.002 0.031 0.07 0.28 0.40 1.24
22 0.008 0.031 0.10 0.35 0.35 1.24
23 0.002 0.042 0.10 0.28 0.55 1.37
24 0.020 0.042 0.10 0.22 0.35 1.35
25 0.020 0.037 0.10 0.28 0.45 1.30
26 0.002 0.042 0.08 0.16 0.35 1.36
27 0.008 0.037 0.08 0.10 0.55 1.31
28 0.008 0.050 0.08 0.22 0.45 1.38
29 0.020 0.050 0.05 0.16 0.40 1.39
30 0.014 0.031 0.05 0.10 0.35 1.23
31 0.008 0.042 0.07 0.10 0.40 1.36
32 0.002 0.025 0.10 0.16 0.45 1.01
33 0.025 0.042 0.05 0.28 0.50 1.36
34 0.014 0.037 0.07 0.22 0.45 1.32
35 0.008 0.025 0.05 0.16 0.55 1.36
5/24/2011 6:20:17 PM
Figure 6.25 Failure mode of cross-section 2-2 at the plunge pool slope during excavation from eleva-
tion 755 m to 740 m.
The actual case of the plunge pool slope after excavation at elevation 755–740 m
verified the applicability of the established displacement warning system, as seen in
the monitored horizontal displacement increase in Table 6.31, see also the photograph
in Figure 6.27.
Using the method described above, the displacement warning system was estab-
lished for each excavation step of the slope, i.e., for the elevation ranges of 740–725 m,
725–710 m, 710–695 m, 695–680 m, 680–665 m, 665–655 m, 655–644.4 m, 644.4–618 m,
618–603 m, and 603–588 m. See also, Figures 6.28–6.30 and Tables 6.32–6.33.
6.6.3 Dynamic design of the excavation procedure and

support parameters for the plunge pool slope
After excavation of a slope bench, the mechanical parameters of the rock mass are
calibrated by using the monitored displacement increase. The established mechani-
cal parameters described in Section 6.6.1 are used in numerical analysis to pre-
dict the stability of the slope after excavation of the next bench. The analysis
results were used to guide excavation and support design for the next benches. For
example, the analysis results indicated that, without support below an elevation
of 740 m, there will be potential unstable blocks due to the faults G222-2, G418-1 and
f554-3, as seen in Figure 6.31(a). It was suggested that cable anchors with horizon-
tal spacing of 4 m and vertical spacing of 5 m, and 2000 kN capacity should be
installed at the elevation range 740–710 m after excavation. Another suggestion
was that the cable anchors should be installed at the elevation range 590–635 m, as
seen in Figure 6.31(b). The suggestions were adopted and the stability of the slope
was controlled.
By using this dynamic design and feedback analysis, the plunge pool slope was exca-
vated safely, as seen in Tables 6.33 and 6.34 and Figure 6.32. The prediction of hori-
zontal and vertical displacement resulting from the excavation of each slope bench was

Table 6.29 Calculated safety factors for the plunge pool slope.
Cohesion of fully Cohesion of heavily Cohesion of slightly weathered Cohesion of slightly weathered Cohesion of fresh
Sample weathered rock mass weathered rock mass rock mass in upper layer rock mass in lower layer rock mass Factor of
Nos. (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) safety
1 2.00 25 50 100 350 0.979
2 2.92 26 52 110 358 0.985
3 3.84 27 54 120 366 0.992
4 4.76 28 56 130 374 0.998
5 5.68 29 58 140 382 1.001
6 6.60 30 60 150 390 1.003
7 7.52 31 62 160 398 1.005
8 8.44 32 64 170 406 1.016
9 9.36 33 66 180 414 1.022
10 10.28 34 68 190 422 1.034
11 11.20 35 70 200 430 1.045
12 12.12 36 72 210 438 1.087
13 13.04 37 74 220 446 1.104
14 13.96 38 76 230 454 1.127
15 14.88 39 78 240 462 1.149
16 15.80 40 80 250 470 1.186
17 16.72 41 82 260 478 1.229
18 17.64 42 84 270 486 1.256
19 18.56 43 86 280 494 1.312
20 19.48 44 88 290 502 1.343
21 20.40 45 90 300 510 1.351
22 21.32 46 92 310 518 1.372
23 22.24 47 94 320 526 1.386
24 23.16 48 96 330 534 1.396
25 24.08 49 98 340 542 1.423
26 25.00 50 100 350 550 1.449
5/24/2011 6:20:17 PM
12.5
12.0 Calculation value

A: Start point of orange warning
Horizontal displacement increment(mm)
B: Start point of red warning Fit curve

11.5 C: Start point of failure
11.0 C
10.5 ↓
• B
10.0
↓
9.5 • A
↓
9.0 •
8.5
y = –9E-05x 6 + 0.0034x 5 – 0.0462x 4 + 0.2679x 3 – 0.4585x 2 – 1.3428x + 13.763
8.0
R2 = 0.9818
7.5
1.002 1.004 1.006 1.018 1.023 1.032 1.047 1.089 1.103 1.129 1.147 1.188
Factor of safety
13.0
y = –8E-05x6 + 0.0027x5 – 0.0333x4 + 0.1597x3 + 0.0139x2 – 2.3396x + 14.692
12.5 R2 = 0.985

12.0
B: Start point of red warning Calculation value
11.5 C: Start point of failure
Fit curve
11.0 C
↓
10.5 • B
10.0 ↓
• A
9.5 ↓
9.0
•
8.5
8.0
1.002 1.004 1.006 1.018 1.023 1.032 1.047 1.089 1.103 1.129 1.147 1.188
Factor of safety
(b)
Figure 6.26 (a) Curve of horizontal displacement at monitoring point YHP1-TP-03 vs. factor of safety.
(b) Curve of horizontal displacement at monitoring point YHP1-TP-05 vs. factor of safety
after excavation in the elevation range 755–548 m.
Table 6.30 Boundary factor of safety and its corresponding horizontal displacement increment induced
by excavation at the plunge pool slope at elevation 755–740 m.
Horizontal displacement increment

(mm) Boundary factor of safety
Monitoring
point number A B C A B C
YHP1-TP-03 8.9 9.6 10.2 1.150 1.017 1.005

YHP1-TP-05 9.1 9.8 10.4 1.150 1.017 1.005

Table 6.31 The suggested warning classifications for the monitoring points YHP1-TP-03 and
YHP1-TP-05 induced by excavation of the plunge pool slope at elevation 755–740 m with
the actual cases.
YHP1-TP-03 YHP1-TP-05
Suggested horizontal Measured horizontal Suggested horizontal Measured horizontal

displacement displacement displacement displacement
increment for warning increment increment for warning increment Warning
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) classes
<8.9 2.1 <9.1 1.5 Safe

8.9–9.6 9.1–9.8 Orange
warning
9.6–10.2 9.8–10.2 Red
warning
>10.2 >10.2 Dangerous
755.0
740.0
Figure 6.27 The spillway and plunge pool slope after excavation from elevation 755 m to 740 m.
(See colour plate section).

10.5
Calculation value
10.0
Fit curve
9.5 A: Start point of orange warning

B: Start point of red warning
C: Start point of failure
9.0
C
8.5
B
8.0
7.5 A
7.0
6.5 y = –1E-04x6 + 0.0035x5 – 0.0471x4 + 0.2743x3 – 0.4807x2 – 1.3097x + 11.751

R2 = 0.9817
6.0
1.002 1.004 1.006 1.018 1.023 1.032 1.047 1.089 1.103 1.129 1.147 1.188
Factor of safety
(a)
24
A: Start point of orange warning Calculation value
23 B: Start point of red warning
Fit curve

22
21 C
20 B
19 A
18
17
16
15
y = –0.0001x6 + 0.005x5 – 0.0656x4 + 0.3525x3 – 0.3828x2 – 2.876x + 25.519
14 R2 = 0.9886
13
1.002 1.004 1.006 1.018 1.023 1.032 1.047 1.089 1.103 1.129 1.147 1.188
Factor of safety
(b)
Figure 6.28 (a) Curve of horizontal displacement increments for monitoring point YHP1-TP-03 vs.
factor of safety after excavation in the elevation range of 740–725 m. (b) Curve of hori-
zontal displacement increment at monitoring point YHP1-TP-09 vs. factor of safety after
excavation in the elevation range 740–725 m.

740.0
725.0
Figure 6.29 The plunge pool slope after excavation in the elevation range 740–725 m.
17.0
Calclulation value
16.0 B: Start point of red warning Fit curve

15.0
C
14.0
B
13.0
A
12.0
11.0
y = –0.0001x6 + 0.0054x5 – 0.0725x4 + 0.4178x3 – 0.6884x2 – 2.2486x + 19.142
R2 = 0.987
10.0
1.002 1.004 1.006 1.018 1.023 1.032 1.047 1.089 1.103 1.129 1.147 1.188
Factor of safety
Figure 6.30 Curve of horizontal displacement increment of monitoring point YHP1-TP-09 vs. factor
of safety after excavation in the elevation range 725–710 m.

Table 6.32 Suggested warning classification for the plunge pool slope compared with the monitored
displacement some time after excavation in the elevation range 740–725 m.
YHP1-TP-03 YHP1-TP-09
Suggested horizontal Measured horizontal Suggested horizontal Measured horizontal

displacement displacement displacement displacement
increment for warning increment increment for warning increment Warning
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) class
<6.8 3.3 <18.0 6.5 Safe

6.8–7.8 18.0–19.0 Orange
warning
7.8–9.0 19.0–20.8 Red
warning
>9.0 >20.8 Dangerous
Table 6.33 Suggested warning classes for the monitoring point YHP1-TP-09 according to the
horizontal displacement increment after excavation in the elevation range 725–710 m.
The measured horizontal

Warning value displacement increment
(mm) Warning class (mm)
<11.8 Safe 8.0

11.8–13.0 Orange warning
13.0–14.7 Red warning
>14.7 Dangerous
verified by the monitored results, as evidenced in Figure 6.33. There were large jumps
in the displacement increase at the monitoring points YHP1-TP-03, YHP1-TP-05, and
YHP1-TP-09 during excavation in the elevation range 655–634.5 m; these were due to
the influence of wedge sliding caused by faults G222-2, G418-1, G554-8.
6.7 MODELLING METHODS AND CODES USED FOR THE

DESIGN AND STABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE PLUNGE
POOL SLOPE
Based on the flowchart for the design of a large rock slope in Figure 6.2, the various
different methods have been used as described and as seen for the initial design in
Figure 6.34, for the feedback and final design in Figure 6.35 and with the main tasks
in Table 6.35.
6.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The rock engineering design methodology outlined in the earlier chapters can be used
as a guide for the initial and final design of large rock slopes. The initial design,

G222-2 and G418-1
f554-3
665m
(a) Contour of X-Displacement

Magfac = 0.000e+000
–2.3397e–001 to 0.0000e+000
0.0000e+000 to 1.0000e+001
G222-2 and G418-1
1.0000e+001 to 2.0000e+001
2.0000e+001 to 3.0000e+001
3.0000e+001 to 4.0000e+001
4.0000e+001 to 5.0000e+001
5.0000e+001 to 5.8687e+001
655.0m Interval = 1.0e+001
634.4m
G554-8
590m
(b)
Figure 6.31 (a) Failure prediction for cross-section 2-2 with no support during excavation in the eleva-
tion range 740-725 m. (b) Failure prediction for cross-section 2-2 with no support during
excavation in the elevation range 680–590 m.

Table 6.34 The progress in excavating the plunge pool slope (Hydro China Kunming Engineering
Corporation, 2007–2010).
Excavation
step 1 2 3 4 5 6
Excavation ∇770–755 ∇755–740 ∇740–725 ∇725–710 ∇710–695 ∇695–680

elevation (m)
Excavation 2007.05.01– 2007.06.20– 2008.05.01– 2008.09.01– 2008.12.01– 2009.03.01–
date 2007.06.20 2007.09.30 2008.08.31 2008.11.31 2009.02.31 2009.06.31
Excavation 7 8 9 10 11 12
step
Excavation ∇680–665 ∇665–655 ∇655–634.4 ∇634.4–618 ∇618–603 ∇603–588
elevation (m)
Excavation 2009.06.01– 2009.08.01– 2009.10.01– – – –
date 2009.08.31 2009.09.31 2010.01.31
feedback and final design for a large Chinese rock slope, which was excavated layer
by layer from the top to the bottom, has been presented as an illustrative example.
The following are the key points.
1 According to the design requirement for large rock slopes, the Figure 2.1 flow-
chart for rock engineering modelling and design has been adequately specific and
sufficient. The tasks relating to initial design, feedback and final design for such
large rock slopes excavated in multi-steps have been detailed and verified—and
abstracted in Figures 6.34 and 6.35.
2 Establishment of the initial design includes the entire slope angle, height and width
of benches, excavation procedure for the benches, the system support scheme and
associated parameters, and the safety control standard. These design components
are established according to the geological condition, slope function and stability,
potential failure modes, rain and river fluctuation conditions. The factor of safety
and the potential risk are assessed.
3 Establishment of the feedback and final design includes the tasks for the bench
currently being excavated, such as the calibration of geological conditions, cali-
bration of the in situ stress field, recognition of potential failure modes, monitor-
ing and data analysis, recognition of the rock mass parameters using back analysis
for prediction of the deformation and potential failure induced by the next exca-
vation step, establishment of the safety control standard and the dynamic warn-
ing system for the next excavation step, and adjustment of the design involving
the bench height and support parameters.
4 The applicability of the method to recognise the 3D in situ stress field by consid-
ering the tectonic and topographical circumstances has been verified by compar-
ing the deformation scheme and failure modes of the slope. The tectonic history
and valley cutting process were simulated using an elasto-plastic analysis with
loading in different directions and erosion proceeding from top to bottom. The
measured rock stress data are used for back analysis of the 3D in situ stress field
for the rock slope region.



Figure 6.32 Photographs of the plunge pool slope after excavation at various elevations: (a) after exca-
vation in the elevation range 755–740 m (photo taken in November 2007); (b) after exca-
vation in the elevation range 740–725 m (photo taken in August 2008); (c) after excavation
in the elevation range 725–710 m (photo taken in February 2009); (d) after excavation in
the elevation range 710–695 m (photo taken in March 2009); (e) after excavation in the
elevation range 695–680 m (photo taken in June 2009); (f) after excavation in the eleva-
tion range 680–665 m (photo taken in August 2009); (g) after excavation in the elevation
range 665–655 m (photo taken in September 2009); (h) after excavation in the elevation
range 655–634.4 m (photo taken in January 2010). Courtesy of the Hydro China Kunming
Engineering Corporation, 2007–2010. (See colour plate section).

32.0
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Measured
28.0
Calculated
24.0
20.0
16.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
2007-4- 2007-8- 2007- 2008-2- 2008-6- 2008-9- 2008- 2009-3- 2009-7- 2009- 2010-1- 2010-5- 2010-8-
28 6 11-14 22 1 9 12-18 28 6 10-14 22 2 10
Time (day)
(a)
28.0
24.0 Measured
Vertical displacement (mm)
Calculated
20.0
16.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
-8.0
2007- 2007- 2007- 2008- 2008- 2008- 2008- 2009- 2009- 2009- 2010- 2010- 2010-
4-28 8-6 11-14 2-22 6-1 9-9 12-18 3-28 7-6 10-14 1-22 5-2 8-10
Time (day)
(b)
40.0
36.0
Measured
32.0 Calculated
28.0
24.0
20.0
16.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
2007- 2007- 2007- 2008- 2008- 2008- 2008- 2009- 2009- 2009- 2010- 2010- 2010-
4-28 8-6 11-14 2-22 6-1 9-9 12-18 3-28 7-6 10-14 1-22 5-2 8-10
Time (day)
(c)

30.0
Measured
25.0
Calculated
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
2007- 2007- 2007- 2008- 2008- 2008- 2008- 2009- 2009- 2009- 2010- 2010- 2010-
4-28 8-6 11-14 2-22 6-1 9-9 12-18 3-28 7-6 10-14 1-22 5-2 8-10
Time (day)
(d)
36.0
32.0
Measured
28.0 Calculated
24.0
20.0
16.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
2007-9- 2008-1-3 2008-4- 2008-7- 2008-10- 2009-2-6 2009-5- 2009-8- 2009-12- 2010-3- 2010-6-
25 12 21 29 17 25 3 13 21
Time (day)
(e)
20.0
16.0 Measured
12.0
Calculated
8.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
-8.0
-12.0
-16.0
-20.0
-24.0
-28.0
2008-1-3 2008-4- 2008-7- 2008-10- 2009-2-6 2009-5- 2009-8- 2009-12- 2010-3- 2010-6-
12 21 29 17 25 3 13 21
Time (day)
(f)
Figure 6.33 Comparison of the measured horizontal and vertical displacements with the calculated
values for the monitoring points: (a) and (b) for YHP1-TP-03; (c) and (d) for YHP1-TP-05;
and (e) and (f) for YHP1-TP-09.

Objective

Lab and field tests

Site investigation
methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database Integrated
type classification systems Level 2
systems, & approaches,
analyses and RMR, Q, other Not 1:1
systems internet- mapping
approaches based
Figure 6.34 Approaches to the modelling and design used for the initial design of the large rock slope.
Objective

Use of Extended
Basic
Lab and field tests
standard
Site investigation
stress-based FEM, BEM, fully-coupled 1:1 mapping

methods DEM,hybrid models
Precedent Database Integrated

Rock
type mass expert systems Level 2
classification systems,& approaches,
analyses and other Not 1:1
RMR, Q, internet- mapping
approaches based
Design based on forward Design based on back

analysis analysis
Figure 6.35 Approaches to modelling and design used in the feedback analysis and final design of the
large rock slope.

Table 6.35 Main tasks and their methods used for the initial and dynamic design of the large rock slope.
Tasks Determination methods
Recognition of geological conditions Geophysics, geological investigation

Recognition of 3D stress field Back analysis of measured results taking into
account tectonics
Classification of the rock mass RMR, Q, and BQ (see Appendix B for the Chinese
BQ system)
Recognition of the mechanical model Site investigation, lab and field tests, back analysis
and rock mass parameters
Optimisation of the excavation procedure 1 Global optimisation algorithms, such as genetic
and bench height for the rock slope algorithm, particle swarm optimisation
2 ‘Intelligent’ modelling, such as neural networks,
support vector machines
3 Numerical analysis
Optimisation of support parameters 1 Global optimisation algorithms, such as genetic
for the rock slope algorithm, particle swarm optimisation
2 ‘Intelligent’ modelling, such as neural networks,
support vector machines
3 Numerical analysis
Estimation of mechanical behaviour of rock Expert systems, neural networks, limit equilibrium
and finite element analysis
Estimation of safety factor for the slope Strength reduction method, limit equilibrium, finite
element analysis
Recognition of potential failure modes Engineering geological estimation, limit equilibrium,
finite element analysis
Determination of deformation warning Empirical analogy, laboratory and field tests, and
classification numerical analysis
Prediction of deformation and mechanical Numerical analysis based on plastic zone, failure
behaviour of slope approach index, local energy release rate, neural
networks based
5 The potential failure modes for large rock slopes have been summarised and the
support design for each failure mode has been suggested. Water drainage meas-
ures have also been recommended.
6 The rock slope stability itself was estimated using limit equilibrium analysis,
numerical analysis, an expert system, and neural networks. The key mechanical
parameters of the rock mass were established using the monitored displacement
increase. The failure approach index and plastic zone are used as indices for esti-
mating rock slope stability in the numerical analysis.
7 The estimation results for the mechanical parameters of the rock mass indicated
that it is necessary to use the updated monitored deformation increase and exca-
vation damaged zone after the excavation of each layer. Some non-linear models,
such as neural networks and support vector machines, are suitable to represent
the non-linear relations between the mechanical parameters and the monitored
information used for back analysis. These relations can be obtained by self-learn-
ing algorithms. Sensitivity analysis can be used to select the parameters to be
back-established by using the monitored information.

8 The resultant dynamic deformation warning system was established. It was

based on the relation between the factor of safety and the displacement data.
The warning classifications were determined: these include orange warning, red
warning and dangerous. This system has also been used as a design guide for the
adjustment of the excavation and support parameters.
There is a similarity between the rock engineering design approaches used for the
caverns at the Laxiwa Yellow river site used in the Demonstration Example 2 in
Chapter 5 and the slope at the Nuozhadu Lancang (Mekong) river site just described
in this Chapter: i.e., the modelling feedback loops repeatedly updating perception of
the ground conditions and the effects of excavation. We shall follow this theme in the
next Chapter in relation to the construction of the cavern complex at the Jinping II
site on the Yalong river.

Chapter 7
Case example of the design and

construction of a large underground
hydroelectric powerhouse in a deep
valley region
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous Chapter describes a case example of the application of the rock
engineering methodology to the design and construction of a large rock slope. In
this Chapter we will illustrate its application to the design and construction of a
large cavern group. Firstly, the tasks mentioned in the updated flowchart for rock
engineering modelling and design will be detailed according to the design require-
ment for a large cavern group. Then, the design process, based on the two flowcharts
(Figures 2.1 and 3.12) together with the related detailed tasks, will be illustrated with
the case example of the Jinping II underground powerhouse.
7.2 THE UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE
The functions of an underground powerhouse for a hydropower station are (1) to host
the main and auxiliary power generation devices plus their connection cables, wires
and arrangement of pipes, and enable their successful installation, (2) to guarantee
the quality of the power generation, and (3) to provide suitable working conditions
for the personnel. In order to carry out these functions, the underground power-
house complex for the hydropower station includes the main powerhouse, auxiliary
powerhouse, transformer chamber, draft tube gate chamber, pressure adjustment
shaft, draft tube tunnels, erection bay, tailrace tunnels, and bus tunnels. Depending
on the water head and the hydraulic process, the underground powerhouse may have
different layouts, examples being shown in Figure 7.1. Usually, there is one penstock,
bus tunnel, and draft tube tunnel for each generator. There may be one headrace
tunnel for two generators and, sometimes, there may be one tailrace tunnel for three
generators.
The underground powerhouse for the Jinping II hydropower station, located on
the Yalong river, has a total generation capability of 4.8 GW (eight generators), each
generator having a 600 MW capacity for a water head of 288 m from four head-
race tunnels traversing the Jinping mountain, Figure 7.2. The Jinping II underground
powerhouse dimensions are shown in Figure 7.3.

Draft tube
Transformer gate Pressure
chamber chamber adjustment
Main shaft
Tailrace
powerhouse tunnel
Bus Pressure
tunnel adjustment
shaft
Tailrace
tunnel
Bus
tunnel
Headrace
tunnels
(a)
Bus Transformer
Main tunnel chamber Wire outlet
powerhouse shaft
Draft tube
gate
chamber
Headrace
tunnels
Tailrace
tunnel
(b)
Figure 7.1 Powerhouse layouts: (a) A large underground powerhouse having a cavern group;
(b) Example cavern in another scheme, 439 m × 34 m × 87 m; transformer chamber,
399 m × 21 m × 39 m; draft tube gate chamber, 311 m × 26 m × 105 m.
7.3 THE FEATURES AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE

JINPING II UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE
7.3.1 The features and constraints of the site
7.3.1.1 Geological conditions at the site

Regional tectonic characteristics. The site is located in the south-east region of
the Songfan-ganzi fold system; since the Mesozoic era, it underwent the Yinzhi and

Case example of the design and construction 245
Yalong
river
4193m Jinping
mountain
Jinping mountain
4488m
Jinping I Yalong
river
4309m
Ganhaizi Jinping II
Powerhouse
Four
headrace Yalong
tunnels river
Underground powerhouse
Figure 7.2 Location and schematic of the Jinping II hydropower station underground powerhouse.
Figure 7.3 Geometry of the underground powerhouse of Jinping II hydropower station. 1: main pow-
erhouse 352.4 m × 72.2 m × 28.5 m; 2: transformer chamber 374.6 m × 31.4 m × 19.8 m;
3: draft tube gate chamber 351 m × 65.6 m × 13 m; 7: access tunnel; 8: access tunnel to
draft tube gate chamber; 9: ventilation tunnel to transformer chamber; 10: GIL electric
wire outlet passageway; 11: ventilation and safety tunnel; 12: air tunnel for transformer
chamber; 14: shaft for ventilation; 15: pump cavern; 16: bus tunnel; 17: transportation tunnel
for transformer chamber; 18: transportation electric wire passageway; 19: transportation
walls; G1–G8: high pressure head conduits Nos. 1–8; P1–P4: 1–4# water drainage galleries;
W1–W8: tailrace tunnels Nos. 1–8; Z1–Z2: air tunnels Nos. 1–2 for draft tube gate cham-
ber; S1–S8: construction galleries Nos. 1–8.

Yanshan movements, and especially the Himalayan movement, and formed a series
of thrust faults, overturned strata, recumbent folds, and mountain peaks, as seen in
Figure 7.4.
Topography and geomorphology. The north side of the site has a high, steep
slope. The slope is at an angle of 50–70° at an altitude of 1330–1600 m, and is at
the intersection of steep bedding-parallel joints and NWW steep and gentle joints.
At the altitude range 1600–1700 m, the slope has an angle of 35–45° and a steep
bank at altitude 1700 m. Above an altitude of 1700 m, the slope angle is around 35°.
A general view of the topography can be seen in Figure 7.5.
Strata lithology. The sedimentary strata are part of the middle Triassic Yan-
tang formation (T2y) and Quaternary system (Q), Figure 7.6(a). T2y4 is a greyish-green,
striped, micaceous marble with thickness of about 400 m, Figure 7.6(b). T2y5-(1) is an
ash black, fine marble and a white coarse grained marble, Figure 7.6(c). T2y5-(2) is a
gray-white coarse grained marble containing H2S with thickness of about 400 m,
Figure 7.6(d). T2y6 is an ash black, moderately thin, layered, argillaceous limestone,
Figure 7.6(e), at altitudes 1870 m and above with a thickness of 350 m. The Quater-
nary system (Q) deposits consist of slope wash and associated accumulations.
Geological structure in the engineering region. The geological structure at the site is
similar to the regional structure, has developed NNE structures and is subject to a NWW–
SEE in situ stress field. The strata strike is about NNE. Meanwhile, the site has also been
subjected to ancient in situ stress fields, resulting in other structures, see Table 7.1.
There are five sets of fractures: (1) N10°W–N30°E, NE–NW∠73–85°;
(2) N60–80°W, SW∠20–40°, ∠70–90°; (3) N40–60°E, SE∠20–40°; (4) EW, S∠20–40°;
and (5) N70–85°E, SE∠60–80°.
Scale: 1:25000
N64°E
3550
3300
3050
2800 T2y6
Altitude (m)
2550 Underground
2300
powerhouse
2050
1800 Yalong
1550
river
1300 5 T
5 T2
4 5 5 T2y4 T2y
T2y T 2y T2y6 T2y Syncline
1050 Anticline Anticline
Syncline
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Depth
(m)
Figure 7.4 Geological section indicating the folding of strata at the site. (‘Altitude’ refers to the height
above sea level; ‘Depth’ refers to the horizontal distance into the mountain).

Figure 7.5 Topography of the Jinping II site.
Hydrogeology. The site belongs to the eastern solution hydrogeology element (III)
which has width 2.5–4.5 km and occurs in the middle Triassic Yantang formation.
Shallow underground water occurs after rain, with a large flow during the rainy
season. Deep underground water is mainly fracture or karst water, has a large head of
200–250 m, and there is little change with the seasons.
7.3.1.2 The current in situ stress field at the site

Measurements of the in situ stress indicate that the Jinping II underground power-
house is located in a highly tectonically stressed region, Table 7.2. The results indi-
cate that the maximum principal stress is in the range 10.1–22.9 MPa with variable
orientation, but essentially in agreement with the direction of the regional major
principal stress.
The technical auditing for the stress measurements was firstly performed on the
measured in situ stress data using the ISRM Suggested Methods (2007), as discussed
in Chapter 5. In addition, the stereographic projection presentation method was used
to double check that the measured three principal stresses are orthogonal, as shown in
Figure 7.7. Only once the measured data passed the technical auditing tests could they
be selected for specification of the in situ stress field and for the back analysis studies.
Also, the location and depth of the measurement points for the in situ stress estima-
tion and their relation to the Jinping II underground power station caverns needed to
be considered for this selection. The shaded six data rows in Table 7.2 and the related
locations given in Figure 7.8 were finally selected for this purpose.
The regional tectonics and the measured in situ stress data indicate that the in situ
stress field at the Jinping II hydropower station site results from, not only the regional
stress field, but also as perturbed by the deep valley. Therefore, the influence of the
tectonic sequence and the formation of the current topography on the stress field
should be considered. The evolution of the stress path leading to the current in situ
stress field can be simulated using elastic-plastic modelling, using step-loading on
the deformation boundary to simulate the sequence of tectonic phases and natural

Qcol+dl
T2y5-(1)
T2y6 T2y5-(2) T2y4

Qcol+dl
(a)
(b) T2y4 (c) T2y5-(1)
(d) T2y5-(2) (e) T2y6
Figure 7.6 Lithology of the site strata.
excavation to simulate the process of strata erosion. The calculation model for the
three dimensional stress field is shown in Figure 7.9, in which key faults, e.g. F7, F17,
F16, and F32 in Figure 7.8, are included.
The main factors which are considered to affect the in situ stress field in the Jinping
II underground powerhouse region are gravity, extension in horizontal directions

Table 7.1 Faults occurring at the site.
Width
No. Fault classification Orientation (mm) Properties
F7 Class II plane structure N0–3°E, NW∠70–86° 300–1500 Normal fault

F8 Class III-1 plane structure N37°W, SW∠72° 500–1000 Reverse fault
F9 Class III-1 plane structure N40°W, NE∠85° 40–500 Strike slip fault
F14 Class III-1 plane structure N55°W, NE∠85° 600 Strike slip fault
F16 Class III-1 plane structure N20–50°E, SE∠50–61° 20–500 Reverse fault
F27 Class III-2 plane structure N80°E, SE∠82° 20–200 Reverse fault
F21 Class III-2 plane structure Near EW, S∠30–39° 50–300 Reverse fault
F35 Class III-2 plane structure N80°W, SW∠68–80° 400–500 Reverse fault
F56 Class III-2 plane structure N85°W, SW∠80° 100–150 Reverse fault
F65 Class III-2 plane structure N25°E, SE∠56° 50–100 Reverse fault
F68 Class III-2 plane structure N30°E, NW∠80–85° 200–300, Reverse fault
500–600 locally
Table 7.2 The measured in situ stresses at the underground powerhouse site (from Chen et al., 2007).
Principal stresses
Depth σ1 σ2 σ3
below
surface Value Trend Plunge Value Trend Plunge Value Trend Plunge Measurement
Location (m) (MPa) (°) (°) (MPa) (°) (°) (MPa) (°) (°) method
PD1 463 14.4 47 −6 10.0 152 −66 5.7 135 23 Hydraulic
PD2 425 22.0 161 41 15.5 7 12 13.5 84 −46 fracturing
PD4-1 152.4 11.7 126 56 6.4 42 −4 4.9 134 −33
215.8 11.2 144 37 7.4 146 −40 6.0 56 −1
CR1 439.6 10.1 9 −35 6.8 129 −36 6.5 70 35
22.9 112 16 19.8 12 29 14.1 48 −56
380.3 22.3 113 5 18.2 19 36 13.9 210 53
21.4 108 −5 18.8 22 40 14.3 192 49 Overcoring
304.9 15.5 169 46 8.9 20 39 7.5 84 −16 Hydraulic
CR2 250.4 16.8 74 −11 10.9 170 −28 8.9 144 60 fracturing
285.6 11.4 153 −20 11.1 30 −62 9.9 80 19
CR3 163.09 12.5 139 18 11.1 39 29 7.9 77 −55
10.9 157 3 7.2 70 −50 6.5 64 40
183.11 11.2 148 −5 8.9 65 50 7.2 234 39 Overcoring
10.6 150 −15 7.8 79 50 6.9 2 35
X and Y, and shear in directions X and Y. The ranges for these factors, shown in
Table 7.3, are used to construct the data sets used for back analysis of the in situ stress
field.
The tectonic process of gravity action → extension in direction Y and shear in
the horizontal direction X → extension in direction X and shear in the horizon-
tal direction Y was added to the displacement boundary to perform the balance

σ σ2
3
σ1
σ2 σ1
σ3
Figure 7.7 Orientation and orthogonality of the in situ principal stresses (lower hemisphere stere-
ographic projection). (a) and (b) show the measured data from the two points PD4-1 in
Table 7.2.
5-2 5-1
T2y T2y
CR3(183.11) F17
6 F49
T2y
F51 4
F33 PD4-1(215.8) F47 T2y
F14 F27
F8 PD4-1(152.4)
F29 CR2(250.4)
F32 F59
F35
F65
CR1(304.9) F21
F7
6 F61 F60 F37
T2y
Yalong river
5-2 F62 CR2(285.6)
T2y
F63
F16
5-1
T2y
4
T2y
F24
Figure 7.8 Distribution of the faults and the locations of the in situ stress measurement points, ( ),
in the Jinping II hydropower station region. The long thin rectangles are the main power-
house and transformer chamber.

Main powerhouse O
Transformer chamber
Draft tube gate chamber

X
Figure 7.9 Sketch map of the calculation area for the back analysis of the in situ stress field.The lengths
in the X-direction and Y-direction are 860 m and 840 m, respectively. The Z range is from
the altitude 800 m to the top of the mountain. The origin is at the intersection of the axis
of the main powerhouse and the central line of generator No. 8.
calculation, as shown in Figure 7.10(a). Then, the strata erosion process is simulated
as in Figure 7.10(b) → Figure 7.10(c) to establish the current topography, shown
in Figure 7.10(d). Each set of factors in Table 7.3 was input to the model to calcu-
late the in situ stress values. The orientations of the principal stress components for
each of the measurement points shown in Figure 7.8 and the five factors shown in
Table 7.3 are the input and output of the neural network. Thus, there was a total of
30 samples for training the neural networks with a topology of 36-45-9-5 to obtain
the connection weights. Another ten samples, also shown in Table 7.3, were used to
test the obtained neural networks. The obtained neural networks, giving good out-
puts for both for the training and testing samples shown in Table 7.3, could be used
for back analysis. With the input of the measured stress data to the obtained neural
networks, the actual values for the five factors are established, as shown in the last
line of Table 7.3. These established factors are input to the model to calculate the
three dimensional in situ stress field. The final results for the values at the measuring
points are in good agreement with the measurements (Table 7.4).
It can be seen from the back analysis results that the three dimensional in situ
stress field at the site has the following features, shown in Figure 7.11.
1 In the region of the underground powerhouse, the magnitudes of the three

principal stresses, major, intermediate, and minor, are (compression negative)

Table 7.3 Range of values for the factors relating to the in situ stress field for uniform design of
samples. G is a parameter related to gravity and used as a boundary condition.
G Tyy Txx Txy Tyx

Factors (m⋅s−2) (10−2) m (10−2) m (10−2) m (10−2) m
Value ranges 9–11 1.5–3.5 3.5–5.5 3.0–5.0 2.0–4.0

Samples for training neural networks
1 10 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.5
2 11 2.5 4.0 5.0 3.0
3 10 2.0 4.5 5.0 2.0

30 10 2.0 5.5 3.0 2.5
Samples for testing neural networks
31 10.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.0

40 9.5 2.5 5.5 3.5 2.0
Established results 4.32 1.84 17.10 12.28 9.9
Note: G: parameter related to gravity; Tyy: extension in direction Y; Txx: extension in direction X; Txy: shear in the
horizontal direction X; and Tyx: shear in the horizontal direction Y.
−14 to −17 MPa, −9 to −11 MPa, and −5 to −8 MPa, respectively, as seen in

Figure 7.12. The normal stresses in the directions X, Y, Z are in the ranges −10 to
−14 MPa, −9 to −10 MPa and −9 to −11 MPa, respectively.
2 The orientation of the in situ stress in the underground powerhouse region is
characterised by the dip angle of the maximum principal stress in the shallow
strata being almost consistent with the ground slope angle and increases with the
overburden (Figure 7.13).
3 The coefficient of horizontal stress (λx = σx/σz and λy = σy/σz): λx is in the range
0.60–1.12 and λy varies from 0.57 in the deeper area to 1.50 in the shallow area
(Figure 7.14).
The features of the in situ stress field in the region of the undergound powerhouse were
verified by the failure that occurred in the exploration tunnels and after excavation of
the first layer of the undergound powerhouse, Figure 7.15(a), (b).
7.3.2 The features and constraints of the rock masses

For marbles T2y4 and T2y5-1, the RMR is in the range 30–50, the Q value is in the
range 5–40, and the deformation modulus is in the range 8–20 GPa. Based on the
results of laboratory tests, field tests and rock classification, the designer suggested
basic mechanical parameters for the main rock types and joints at the Jinping II
underground powerhouse (Table 7.5).
The results of triaxial compressive tests indicated that the marble T2y4 samples
exhibited ductile behaviour when the confining pressure was at and above 20 MPa
(Figures 7.16 and 7.17). After the peak stress, the cohesion, internal friction angle and

(a)
(b)
Yalong
River
Figure 7.10 Illustration of ground surface erosion and valley formation in the numerical simulation.
(a) original topography; (b) strata erosion for levels and ; (c) strata erosion for levels
, and ; (d) current topography.

Table 7.4 Comparison between measured and numerically determined magnitudes of the in situ normal
stress components (compression negative).
Measured points σx σy σz τxy τyz τxz
PD4-1(152.4) Measured −6.91 −6.56 −9.53 −0.38 −0.90 −3.03

Calculated −6.41 −8.55 −8.00 0.10 0.42 −2.99
PD4-1(215.8) Measured −11.48 −6.00 −7.12 −0.15 −0.05 −1.74
Calculated −8.46 −9.35 −9.55 0.12 0.37 −3.16
CR1 (304.9) Measured −9.64 −10.15 −12.12 2.37 1.32 −3.62
Calculated −9.43 −9.55 −9.36 0.17 0.41 −3.92
CR2 (250.4) Measured −11.25 −15.66 −9.69 −2.03 1.28 1.36
Calculated −10.24 −9.74 −10.36 0.24 0.44 −3.49
CR2 (285.6) Measured −11.89 −9.47 −11.04 −1.07 0.90 0.40
Calculated −11.10 −9.99 −8.95 0.23 0.28 −4.50
CR3 (183.11) Measured −10.69 −6.97 −6.94 0.88 0.38 −0.14
Calculated −9.16 −8.99 −8.33 0.41 0.69 −5.23
2000
2000 2000
1500
1500
Z(m)
1500
Z(m)
Z(m)
1000
1000 1000
-400
-200 -400 -400
0 -200 -200 -200
0 0 0 -200 0 -200
200 200 0
Y(m) 400 X(m) 200 200 200 200
400 Y(m) 400 X(m) Y(m) 400 X(m)
400 400
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7.11 General characters of the geostress distribution (compression negative) in the Jinping II
hydropower station region: (a) major principal stress; (b) intermediate principal stress; and
(c) minor principal stress.
deformation modulus values reflected the damage that had occurred to the specimen,
as seen in Figures 7.18, 7.19 and 7.20.
Under site excavation conditions, the stress concentrations and unloading as rock
is excavated create a new adverse stress condition which leads to the fracturing and
breakage of the marble, referred to by Jiang et al. (2010) as ‘deterioration’. Rockbursts
can occur (explosive failure caused by the release of strain energy in the rock) which
are brittle rock failure, and an elastic-brittle-plastic model is needed to model the out-
burst activity of the surrounding rock. In addition, the unloading (i.e., reduction to
zero of the stress component normal to an excavation surface) causes a concentration
of stress which induces incipient fractures which assist in the surface splitting effect
(Fairhurst and Cook, 1966). The deterioration caused to the rock changes its mechan-
ical parameters, including the elastic modulus (E), the cohesion (c) and the friction

-5
-6
-1
-7
-2
-7
-8
-5 -4 -3
-9 -8
-10
-11 -9
-12 -6
-13 -10
-14 z -7
z z -11 -8
-15
-23 x
-16
-15
-17
-18
-19
x -12 -9
-14
x
-20
-21
-13 -10
-11
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7.12 Magnitudes of the in situ stress in the cross-section at Engine Section 4 of the powerhouse:
(a) major principal stress; (b) intermediate principal stress; and (c) minor principal stress.
Note the small rectangles representing the hydropower station caverns.
Figure 7.13 In situ stress vectors in a cross-section through Generator Section 4 of the Jinping II
underground powerhouse.
angle φ. As the general plastic strain ε–p given by Equation 7.1 is a suitable index to
represent the degree of damage of a material (Owen and Hinton, 1980; Chakrabarty,
1987), it is proposed that the deterioration of the rock, expressed through the change
in material mechanical parameters, can be characterised as in Equation 7.2.
2 p p
εp (ε1 ⋅ ε1 + ε 2p ⋅ ε 2p + ε 3p ⋅ ε 3p ) (7.1)
3
⎧ Ed ( p ) E0 fE ( p )
⎪ p p
⎨Cd ( ) C0 fC ( ) (7.2)
⎪ φ (ε p ) = φ f (ε p )
⎩ d 0 φ

Lateral pressure coefficient

0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6
1800
λx λy
1600
1400
Altitude (m)
1200
1000
800
Figure 7.14 The coefficient of horizontal stress with depth at the position of the hydropower caverns.
(a) (b)
Figure 7.15 Relation between the position of the damaged cavern-peripheral rock and the direction
of the secondary stress. (a) Failure in the upstream sidewall of the main powerhouse, and
(b) the local maximum principal stress.

Table 7.5 The basic mechanical parameters for the main rock types and joints, as suggested by the designer (Chen et al., 2007).
Dry compressive Wet compressive

strength strength Elastic modulus c′
Classification Rock type (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) Poisson’s ratio tanφ′ (MPa)
II Marble T2y4 85–90 55–62 10.0–15.0 0.21 1.30–1.35 1.10–1.20

Marble T2y5-(1) 90–95 80–85 12.0–16.0 0.21
III Marble T2y4 70–85 50–60 7.0–11.0 0.23–0.26 0.90–1.20 0.70–1.00
Marble T2y5-(1) 80–90 65–80 6.0–11.0 0.23–0.26
IV Rock mass affected 45–55 40–45 0.4–1.5 0.35 0.70–0.80 0.40–0.50
by joints and faults
Faults F7, F21, F65 0.25–0.30 0.03–0.04
F35, F36, F37 0.38–0.42 0.07–0.08
F16, F17, F28, F41, F38 0.45–0.50 0.15–0.20
Joints No fill and closed 0.45–0.50 0
Filled 0.3–0.35 0
Slightly open 0.15–0.2 0
5/24/2011 6:20:39 PM
40 MPa
30 MPa
20 MPa
15 MPa
10 MPa
5 MPa
0 MPa
Figure 7.16 Stress (y-axis in MPa) vs. strain (x-axis) curves for T2y4 marble samples tests at different
confining pressures.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e) (f) (g)
Figure 7.17 Typical failure modes in triaxial compression for the marble T2y4 specimens tested with
different confining pressures. (a) 0 MPa, (b) 5 MPa, (c) 10 MPa, (d) 15 MPa, (e) 20 MPa,
(f) 30 MPa, and (g) 40 MPa.

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
c/c0
φ/φ0
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Friction angle
0.4 0.4
Cohesion
0.3 0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ω/ωmax
Figure 7.18 The evolution of the strength parameters after the peak stress for the T2y4 marble. ω0 is
the plastic strain when the rock reaches a stable residual strength. ω is the plastic strain
of the rock between peak strength and residual strength ω0. c0 is the cohesion of the rock
at peak strength. c is the cohesion of the rock after the peak stress. φd is the internal fric-
tion angle of the rock at peak strength. φ is the internal friction angle of the rock after
the peak strength.
Figure 7.19 The Young’s modulus after the peak stress during the testing of the marble T2y4.

160 E 1> E 2> E 3

E1
140
E2
120 E3
Stress (MPa)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Strain
Figure 7.20 Typical stress–strain curves during the cyclical loading and unloading.
where E0, C0, and φ0 are the elastic modulus, cohesive strength and internal friction
angle, respectively, for the elastic state of the rock. Ed ( p ) , Cd ( p ) and φd (ε p ) are the
altered elastic modulus, cohesive strength and internal friction angle, respectively, in
the post-peak state of the rock, while fE ( p ) , fC ( p ) and fφ (ε p ) are the functions deter-
mining the changing trends of the parameters. Taking Mohr–Coulomb as the strength
criterion, and using the elastic and plastic coupling method, the model is built up
based on plasticity mechanics.
Before the initial design of the underground powerhouse, the designer had exca-
vated several testing tunnels in the region of the underground powerhouse (Figure 7.21).
The geometry of the excavation damaged zones (EDZ) around these tunnels was
studied. The resultant test data are used to establish the relevant mechanical rock mass
parameters. However, a sensitivity analysis was conducted before the back analysis of
the parameters; this indicated that parameters, in particular the cohesion and internal
friction angle, are sensitive to the measured EDZ. Therefore, these two parameters
were established from back analysis of the measured EDZ—with the results being
listed in the first two columns in Table 7.6. The numerical calculation using the estab-
lished parameters shows good agreement with the measurements (Figure 7.22).
7.3.3 The failure modes for large underground

powerhouses (cavern groups)
Because of the redistribution of the stress field caused by the excavation, some failures
occur in the surrounding rock. Typical failure modes, with the conditions of their

A1 A2
A16 A3
1.50 1.40 A4
A15
Exploration 1.40
tunnel
A14 1.60 1.40 A5
A13 A6
Cz-1 tunnel
1.30 1.80
Cz-2 tunnel A12 1.60 A7
A11 A8
A10 A9
(a) (b)
Figure 7.21 (a) Location of the exploration tunnels and (b) the measured excavation damaged zone
(EDZ) at a section of the Cz-1 tunnel, section size 3.2 × 2.6 m. The measured EDZ is in
the range 1.3–1.8 m. The vertical and horizontal stress components at the tested section
are 14.5 MPa and 13.5 MPa, respectively.
Table 7.6 Parameters used in the RDM model for back analysis from the Cz-1 exploration tunnel
information.
Parameters established
by back analysis Values suggested based on tests and analogy
Enhanced
Initial Initial Reduced friction
friction Initial elastic elastic angle Reduced
angle φo cohesion Co modulus Eo modulus Ed Poisson’s φd cohesion Cd ε–φp ε–cp
(°) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa) ratio ν (°) (MPa) (10−3) (10−3)
25 7.8 12 6 0.22 50 0.5 5 2
Note: ε–cp, ε–φp are the critical plastic strains to reach the reduced cohesion and increased friction angle, respectively.
occurrence, the engineering analysis methods, and excavation and support strategies
are listed in Table 7.7 based on a summary of the larger such caverns in China. This
information can be used as a guide for the stability analysis and design optimisa-
tion for underground powerhouses. In the case of the excavation of the Jinping II
underground powerhouse, there is a small angle between the strike of the strata and
the axis of the main powerhouse, and a large angle between the maximum principal
stress and the axis of the main powerhouse, resulting in a high risk of local instability
(for example, collapse, fracturing from unloading, instability of rock blocks, buckling
of strata, structural plane sliding, rock spalling, etc.).

A1
4
A15
4
0
0
A13 A5
4 0 0 4
(a)
Elastic velocity (km/s)
0 1 2 3 4
Distance (m)
(b) (c)
7
Elastic velocity (km/s)
5
0 1 2 3 4
Distance (m)
(d) (e)
Figure 7.22 Comparison of measured and calculated results. (a) Calculated EDZ. (b) and (c) are the
measured elastic wave velocity and calculated elastic modulus at the A5 monitoring point.
(d) and (e) are the measured elastic wave velocity and calculated deformation modulus for
the A15 monitoring point, see Figure 7.21.

Table 7.7 Typical failure modes of large underground caverns and related tunnels.
Failure modes
Main type Secondary Specific Engineering analysis Excavation and support
type types Conditions Sketches of the failure mode Photo illustration methods strategies
Energy release rate Optimal excavation scheme,
analysis, local energy such as short advance
release rate analysis, rate, weak blasting, small
Initial
rockburst tendency section to reduce high stress
Stress High stress, boundary index, expert system, concentration, stress release
induced Rockburst Strain hard/brittle Final neural networks before main excavation
failure rockburst boundary
rock Support: high energy
Crack Split Shooting absorbing rockbolt, support
initiating out
Moderate rockburst in water in advance, shotcrete and
drainage tunnel of an underground meshing immediately
powerhouse
Excess shear stress Excavation: voiding of large
analysis, expert fault during cavern excavation,
High stress Stiff fault system, neural recognising location of fault or
and hard networks geological structure adequately,
rock with Excavation stress release at the high stress
Fault
a stiff fault direction concentration, etc.
rockburst
ahead of
the working Support: high energy
Potential absorbing rockbolts
face rockburst area
Severe rockburst in the busbar tun-
nel of an underground powerhouse
Energy release rate Optimal excavation scheme,
Stiff structure analysis, local energy such as short advance rate,
High stress release rate analysis, weak blasting, small section
concentra- Stress
rockburst tendency to reduce high stress
Initial
Structure tion at the concen- boundary
index, expert system, concentration, stress release
tration neural networks before main excavation
rockburst location of
a geological Boundary Support: high energy
structure after
rockburst Severe structural plane—rock- absorbing rockbolts, support
burst occurred after several strain in advance, shotcrete and
rockbursts in a deep tunnel meshing immediately
(Continued)
5/24/2011 6:20:45 PM
σ1 Fracture mechanics Excavation: reasonable

analysis, calculating cavern location to avoid
High stress the tendency for affecting the stress, controlled
concentra- rock spalling and blasting to avoid high stress
tion at the the depth from rock concentration at rock surface
Spalling spalling mechanism
sidewall of a Support: shotcrete with
and Spalling analysis, disconti-
strong and steel fibres and meshing
slabbing nuous deformation
brittle rock immediately, pre-stressed
mass after analysis accounting rockbolts to improve the
excavation for the rock spalling stress state
mechanism
Spalling at the sidewall of an
σ1
underground powerhouse cavern
Calculating the Excavation: reasonable cavern
tendency for rock location to avoid high stress
spalling and the depth Support: shotcrete plus
1
σ from rock spalling steel fibres and meshing
mechanism analysis,
High stress, immediately, pre-stressed
further analysis
V-shaped strong rockbolts to improve the
based on the brittle
failure and brittle stress state
rock constitutive
rockmass model considering
the principal stress
V-shaped failure which occurred
1
σ effect, failure
in the access tunnel of an hydrau- approach index
lic power station analysis
Analysis considering Excavation: reasonable blasting
the tensile cracking method and excavation
mechanism using a parameters and sequence
High sidewall cellular automaton to reduce the tensile stress
of intact σ concentration
rock mass
Unloading Tensile Support: Pre-stressed rockbolts
subject to
fracturing` crack or cable anchors at a suitable
sudden
stress σ1 angle to improve the stress
relaxation Tensile cracks in the sidewall of an state in the surrounding rock
Tensile
crack installation chamber of an under- mass. Rockbolts and reinforced
ground powerhouse bar pile to control cracks at
the ‘bulgy’ rock bench
5/24/2011 6:20:48 PM
Analysis considering Excavation: Control of
Unloading the splitting cracking excavation cavern layer
in various mechanism using a sequence and the excavation
High sidewall
directions cellular automaton, intervals
Splitting discontinuous
of a high Support: reasonable and rapid
crack methods
excavation support of the cross tunnels
in high
sidewall in and systematic support of
sidewall
an intact the high sidewalls, with pre-
and brittle Cross cavern
Splitting cracks in the upstream stressed rockbolts or cable
rock mass sidewall of a transformer chamber anchors locally
of an underground powerhouse
Physical experiment Excavation: Control of
and numerical excavation cavern layer
analysis considering sequence and the excavation
Severe Crack
Circum- the circumferential intervals plus the timing of
unloading cracking mechanism the cross cavern excavation
ferential
of the high under a severe
cracks in Support: reasonable and on
sidewall unloading effect and
tunnels Cross time support of the cross
of an the associated stress
intersecting cavern tunnels and systematic
intact rock path evolution
high cavern support of the high sidewall,
mass after
sidewalls Portion of circumferential crack with pre-stressed rockbolts
excavation High
sidewall
in the sidewall of a busbar tunnel or cable anchors locally
near the transformer chamber of
an underground powerhouse
Distinct element Excavation: pilot tunnel

method, such excavation first, and then
as the discrete enlarge the sidewall,
Developed element method, controlled blasting to reduce
Rock discontinuous the adverse effect of blasting
Collapse in geological
structure deformation
Collapse the crown structures, Support: shotcrete and mesh
controlled analysis, DDA, finite
arch induced by immediately, steel arches,
failure element analysis
blasting grouting in advance, pre-
with weakening
Collapse in the crown arch arch at properties of the stressed
an underground powerhouse rockbolts, rockbolts in
rock mass locally advance for horizontal strata
(Continued)
5/24/2011 6:20:50 PM
Discrete element Excavation: excavating the

method; physical cavern first and then the
experiment sidewall, weak blasting to
Several considering the reduce the failure inducing
free faces, unloading effect effect
Collapse at developed and the stress path
several free structures, Support: support installation,
Cross evolution
faces support e.g., stiff-framed arch, in the
cavern
installation cross tunnels immediately
not on time Collapse at the cross-section and system reinforcement of
High of a transformer chamber and the upper sidewall, grouting
sidewall busbar tunnel of an underground the fractured rock mass in
powerhouse advance
Collapse Developed Discrete element Excavation: reasonable axis
at a fault fault method, DDA, location and excavation
and/or containing continuous media direction to ensure a large
fractured joints analysis with angle to the fault/fractured
zone with weak reduction of zone, weak blasting to reduce
properties the mechanical the disturbance
parameters of the Support: shotcrete and mesh
weak strata immediately, grouting or
Collapse at an underground pow- rockbolts in advance, or pre-
erhouse induced by the presence stressed rockbolts
of a fault
Instability Rock falling Rock blocks Keyblock theory, Excavation: weak blasting to
of rock in the roof limit equilibrium, reduce the disturbance to
blocks of an arch— hemispherical structures
formed projection to Support: shotcrete and mesh
by the Block recognise potential immediately, pre-stressed
excavation Excavation
falling or sliding rock rockbolts or reinforcement in
surface Boundary blocks advance
and three
or more
fractures Rockfall in the roof of the arch of
an underground powerhouse
5/24/2011 6:20:52 PM
Rock sliding Rock blocks Excavation: weak blasting to
in the reduce the disturbance to
sidewall— structures
formed Excavation Support: shotcrete and mesh
by the boundary immediately, pre-stressed
excavation Block rockbolts or cable anchor
surface
reinforcement in advance,
and three
anchor piles to resist the
or more
Wedge sliding at an underground sliding of large rock blocks
fractures
powerhouse
Stress-rock Buckling Buckling High Bending analysis Excavation: reasonable axis

(2) Horizontal bedding
structurally deforma- tangential based on beam or location of cavern to avoid
controlled tion by stress thin plate theory, this type of failure, weak
failure strata concentra- discontinuous blasting
bending tion and Gravity
deformation
sudden (e.g., discrete Support: reinforcement
unloading element) analysis immediately after excavation
Tangential
inwards, or continuous to enhance the rigidity of the
squeezing
thin strata method considering strata against buckling, e.g.,
Buckling deformation by strata anisotropy as rockbolts at small spacings,
(1) Vertical bedding

bending in the exploration tunnel necessary rockbolt and steel bar piles,
of an underground powerhouse steel frames, or grouting
Buckling Plastic Granular media Excavation: excavate the weak
deforma- inter-layered theory analysis, or strata first with weak blasting
Tangential squeezing
tion by strata, such analysis based on to reduce the disturbance
weak as strong equivalent weakening
stratum squeezed or parameters if the Support: reinforcement
squeezing weathered inter-layered strata immediately with pre-stressed
zone, soft Boundary is small rockbolts or cable anchors,
strata locally, after failure replacing the weak strata
or inter- Excavation with concrete, steel frames
layered clay, boundary
Buckling deformation by weak plus grouting or rockbolts in
high stress stratum squeezing of the fractured advance
concentra- zone in the arch of an under-
tion ground powerhouse
(Continued)
5/24/2011 6:20:54 PM
Structural Fault sliding Small angle Analysis considering Excavation: suitable axis
plane between structural shearing, of cavern and excavation
sliding strike of discontinuous direction to have a large
fault and deformation or using angle with the strike of the
axis of a continuous method structure
cavern incorporating
structural sliding Support: pre-stressed
rockbolts or cable anchors,
anchor piles with high rigidity
Fault sliding in the upstream side- to resist shearing, grouting
wall of a tail lock chamber of an the fault/fractured zone
underground powerhouse
Joint or Moderate Continuous method Excavation: reasonable
bedding or steep incorporating direction of axis of cavern and
slipping bedding Bedding structure sliding, excavation direction to have a
plane or plane discontinuous large angle with the strike of
joints after deformation method structure
unloading
and a free Borehole Support: pre-stressed
face rockbolts or cable anchors
to increase the resistance to
Strata sliding in the sidewall of an sliding of the structural plane,
underground powerhouse grouting the fault/fractured
zone
5/24/2011 6:20:56 PM
Structural Joint or High stress Continuous Excavation: reasonable axis
opening bedding concentra- method considering of cavern and excavation
plane tion on the structural sliding direction to ensure a large
splitting steep joints and anisotropy angle with the strike of
having a model, discontinuous structure
small angle Stress deformation method
with the concentration Support: reinforcement with
axis of the pre-stressed
cavern rockbolts immediately
Bedding splitting
Joint or Severe Discontinuous Excavation: weak blasting to

bedding stress deformation method, reduce the disturbance
plane relaxation, continuous method
opening structures considering tensile Support: pre-stressed
developed failure or weakening rockbolt reinforcement
Normal
having a unloading
of mechanical perpendicular to the
large angle and parameters structure, rockbolts in
with the tensile failure advance or grouting for
unloading Opening of joints in the sidewall of developed structures
direction a transformer chamber in an
Note: In the Table boxes above, our intention has been to indicate the key aspects of the failure modes and the related information in a concise way; the information should
not be regarded as complete, especially with regard to the analysis, excavation and support strategies (for the latter, we recommend Hoek et al., 1995).
5/24/2011 6:20:57 PM
7.4 THE APPROACH USED IN THE DESIGN AND STABILITY

ANALYSIS FOR THE JINPING II UNDERGROUND
POWERHOUSE
A methodology is developed for the initial and final design of the excavation pro-
cedure for large underground powerhouses—which is an expanded variation of the
design flowchart previously presented (in Figure 3.12) and also satisfies the require-
ments of safety and economy, see Figure 7.23.
Determine mechanical Determine design Initial design

model component
Global optimisation
algorithm for excavation Long term
procedure and support stability analysis
Intelligent recognition design
algorithm of mechanical Appraise method of
rock mass parameters stability
Site Design parameters
geological Axis of powerhouse
investigation Optimisation of axis
Understand failure Excavation
location for powerhouse
mechanism of rock procedure and
Measure- Optimisation of excav-
Determine the bench height in
ment of geo- Labor- ation procedure and
structure of the powerhouse
stress atory test bench height of
mechanical model
powerhouse System support
In situ tests Recognise the
Estimation of rock mass parameters
Monitoring of mechanical rock mass
mechanical behaviour Support parameters
exploration parameters
Estimation of safety factor of key locations
tunnels Back analysis of 3D
in situ stress field Recognition of probable Deformation
failure modes management
classification
Recognition algorithm for
Recognition algorithm failure modes for cavern
for 3D in situ stress group
Failure approach index,
local energy release rate
i=1
Dynamic feedback analysis

and final design Excavation of the
powerhouse at the ith
step
Calibration of geo- Monitoring and Recognition of

logical conditions data analysis failure modes
Intelligent recognition algorithm for

mechanical rock mass parameters
Back analysis of mechanical rock
Global optimisation algorithm for mass parameters based on monitored
excavation procedure and support information after the ith step
design Appraise stability of the current
Appraise method of stability excavation step
Method of deformation management Control of locally unstable rock mass
classification i=i+1
Model and Long term Finish

analysis stability analysis
Analysis method Prediction of rock mass mechanical

behaviour after excavation of i+1 step
Analysis component Build deformation management
classification for excavation of i +1 step
Design parameters
Dynamic optimisation of design parameters
Bench height adjustment Excavation procedure

Dynamic design of support optimisation
system parameters Local support design adjustment
Figure 7.23 Initial and dynamic design of large cavern group (underground powerhouse).

7.5 MODELLING METHODS AND COMPUTER CODES

USED IN THE DESIGN AND STABILITY ANALYSIS
FOR THE JINPING II UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE
Based on the updated flowchart the for design of large underground powerhouses
given in Figure 7.23, different methods have been used—as seen for the initial design
in Figure 7.24, for the dynamic (using feedback from construction) design, and for the
final design in Figure 7.25, together with the main tasks in Table 7.8.
Initial Design

Basic Extended
Use of
Lab and field tests

Site investigation
methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database
Integrated
systems
type classification systems, & Level 2
approaches,
analyses and RMR, Q, other Not 1:1 mapping
internet-
based
approaches
Figure 7.24 Approaches for rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design used in the initial
design of a large underground powerhouse.
Final Design

Basic Extended
Use of
Lab and field tests

Site investigation
methods
DEM, hybrid models
Database
Integrated
systems
type classification systems, & Level 2
approaches,
analyses and RMR, Q, other Not 1:1 mapping
internet-
based
approaches
Figure 7.25 Approaches to rock mechanics modelling and rock engineering design used in the feedback
analysis and final design of a large underground powerhouse.

Table 7.8 Main tasks and their determination methods used for the initial and dynamic design of
a large underground powerhouse.
Tasks Determination methods
Recognition of geological conditions Geophysics, geological and site investigation

Recognition of the 3D stress field Back analysis of measured results considering
tectonics
Classification of the rock mass RMR, Q, GSI and BQ
Recognition of the mechanical model Site investigation, laboratory and field tests,
and parameters for the rock mass back analysis
Selection of the location and axis of the Empirically via analogues from existing
powerhouse powerhouses
Optimisation of the excavation procedure Global optimisation algorithms, such as genetic
and bench height for the powerhouse algorithms, particle swam optimisation
Intelligent modelling such as neural networks,
support vector machines, numerical analysis
Optimisation of the support parameters Global optimisation algorithms, such as genetic
for the powerhouse algorithms, particle swam optimisation;
Intelligent modelling, such as neural networks,
support vector machines, numerical analysis
Estimation of the rock’s mechanical behaviour Expert systems, neural networks, numerical
analysis
Estimation of the entire safety of the Over-loading method, numerical analysis
powerhouse
Recognition of potential failure modes Empirical analogues, numerical analysis
Determination of deformation management Empirical analogues, laboratory and field tests,
classification and numerical analysis
Prediction of the deformation and mechanical Numerical analysis based on plastic zone, failure
behaviour of the surrounding rocks approach index, local energy release rate,
neural network based
7.6 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INITIAL DESIGN
7.6.1 Selection of the orientation of the axis of the

There are three principles for selection of the axis orientation of the main under-
ground powerhouse, as follows.
1 The axis of the underground powerhouse should be perpendicular to or have a

large angle with the major structural planes (bedding planes and major fractures)
to avoid failure due to the unloading of the high sidewall after excavation. Also,
other related factors, such as the number, dip angle, and shearing properties of
unfavourable structural planes, should be considered.
2 The axis of of the underground powerhouse should be at a low angle to the maxi-
mum horizontal principal stress to reduce the influence of the stress concentra-
tions on the stability of the high sidewall of the underground powerhouse.

3 The axis of the underground powerhouse should be in harmony with the whole
project scheme and satisfy not only the hydraulic and power generation needs but
also also the complete scheme.
In addition, for selecting the location of the main undergound powerhouse, there are
other factors relating to adjacent caverns, the drainage system, the generators, the
economics, etc.
According to the many considerations involved, the location of the Jinping II
underground powerhouse was determined as follows: the limited safe length of the
tailrace tunnels is about 275 m and the distance of the upper sidewall of the main
powerhouse to the slope is about 330 m. In this constrained region, there is also a
fault, F16 (Figure 7.8), striking N20°E, which is about 250 m from the slope bank.
Therefore, the main and auxiliary powerhouses are located in the footwall of F16.
After economic considerations, the powerhouse location was chosen to be 300 m
from the slope bank.
However, because the measured in situ major principal stress is parallel to the slope
trending at S41°E, and bearing in mind the topography, geological conditions, and scale
and the harmony of the whole layout, it was difficult to have the axis of the main pow-
erhouse at a small angle to the major principal stress direction. Fortunately, the ratio of
the strength of the rock to the major principal stress magnitude is in the range 4.75–5.84,
indicating that the rock can withstand considerable stress concentration. Accordingly,
it was possible to orientate the axis of the main powerhouse at N30°E–N60°E, this
being at a large angle to the major principal stress, but being at a small angle with the
flow direction of the Yalong river. Also, appropriate excavation sequences and support
plans can be implemented to mitigate any concentrated stress effects. Two schemes were
considered for the powerhouse orientation: N35°E and N55°E, Figure 7.26. These two
potential axis orientations were compared.
The strata strike is at about 35° with the main structural planes in the rock mass.
The N55°E axis has an angle of 35.5° with F16, and the N35°E axis layout has an
angle of 15.5° with F16. Also, the N55°E axis layout, has an angle of about 30° with
the joints (Figure 7.27), compared with 10° in the N35°E axis layout. Therefore, in
terms of the relation of the axis with the strata, faults and joints, the N55°E layout
is better than the N35°E layout. Even so, the influence of the faults and joints on the
stability of the caverns has to be considered.
If the N55°E layout is used because of limitations on the vacuum degree of the
draft tube, the transformer chamber and tailgate have to be combined together to sat-
isfy the needs of the general layout. The disadvantages for the layout are as follows.
(1) If the transformer chamber and tailgate are combined together, the span of the
transformer chamber has to be increased to 29.5 m, which is larger than the crown
span of the main powerhouse at 28.3 m. The stability of these two large caverns is of
particular concern because a quarter of the main powerhouse and half the transformer
chamber would be excavated in the marble T2y4, which is weaker than the marble T2y5-(1).
(2) Even though the main powerhouse and transformer chamber are at a larger angle,
of about 35°, with fault F16, the fault would still pass through both caverns. There-
fore, there are increasing difficulties with waterproofing and the reinforcement and
support costs of the main powerhouse.

T2y5-2 T2y4
T2y5-1
N35°E
Yalong river
N55°E
Figure 7.26 Two potential axis locations and orientations for the main powerhouse.
N
0°
30° 30°
N35°E
60° 60°
W 90° 90°E
Figure 7.27 Rose diagram of the joint orientations and the powerhouse orientation.
If the N35°E axis layout is adopted, the main powerhouse is almost unaffected by
fault F16 and only the transformer chamber is affected, which is favourable for the
stability of the main powerhouse. Moreover, the transformer chamber and the tailgate
chamber can be excavated separately and the span of the transformer chamber can be
reduced to 19.8 m, which is favourable not only for its stability but also to ensure a
compact layout for the entire power generation system.

In conclusion, the N35°E axis layout was judged more favourable than the N55°E
axis layout but the influence of unfavourable joints must be controlled through
optimisation of the excavation process and the rock reinforcement/support.
7.6.2 Optimisation of the excavation procedure and

bench height for the underground powerhouse
and transformer chamber
The Jinping II underground powerhouse consists of a large cavern group comprised
of the main powerhouse, transformer chamber and tailrace tunnels, etc. Generally,
the stability of a large cavern group is affected by the height of the excavation
benches, i.e., the number of excavation layers, and the sequences of the excavation
of the underground powerhouse and transformer chamber. A smaller bench height
for the excavation layer is associated with a smaller excavation disturbance of the
surrounding rock. From the point view of economics, construction convenience and
time limitations of the project, a reasonable excavation bench height is required for
excavation. Therefore, optimisation of the bench heights and excavation sequences
of such a large cavern group is required to satisfy the requirements of both safety
and economics.
7.6.2.1 Number of excavation layers for the main powerhouse

and transformer chamber
The basic bench heights and excavation sequences for the Jinping II underground
powerhouse are established by experience with the existing large underground pow-
erhouses in China (Table 7.9), plus considerations of the project objective and the
constraints of the geological conditions, rock mass and site. The main underground
powerhouse at the Jinping II power station is expected to be excavated in nine layers,
and the transformer chamber in four layers, as shown in Figure 7.28.
Table 7.9 Excavation of layers (benches) for typical large underground powerhouses in China.
Number of excavation
Powerhouse Transformer
layers
size chamber
Underground (height × (height × Main Transformer
powerhouse width, m) width, m) Rock type powerhouse chamber
Laxiwa hydropower 74.9 × 30 51.5 × 29 Granite 9 6
station
Nuozhadu hydropower 81.6 × 31 22.6 × 19 Granite 7 3
station
Ertan hydropower 65.4 × 30.7 25 × 18.3 Syenite, 10 4
station Gabbro
Right bank at Three 87.2 × 32.6 − Plagioclase granite, 9 −
Gorges Project Diorite
Right bank of Xiluodu 75.6 × 31.9 33.2 × 19.8 Basalt 12 4
hydropower station

1357.8 I
1354.6 I
II
1348.3
II
1343.3 III
1341.3
III
1334.3 IV
IV
1326.8
V
1320.8
VI
1313.5
VII
1301.1 VIII
1294.6 IX
Figure 7.28 Recommended excavation layers for the Jinping II underground powerhouse (by the
designer).
7.6.2.2 Excavation sequences for the cavern group

Two kinds of extreme excavation sequences are analysed.
Scheme 1: Firstly, the transformer chamber is fully excavated and the main power-
house is then fully excavated.
Scheme 2: Alternatively, the main powerhouse is fully excavated and then the trans-
former chamber is fully excavated.
It could be seen from the results of the numerical calculation with input of the param-
eters in the Section above that the displacement of the downstream sidewall of the main
powerhouse for Scheme 2 is 1–4 mm larger than Scheme 1 (Figure 7.29a). The displace-
ment of the upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber for Scheme 1 is 1–4 mm
greater than for Scheme 2 (Figure 7.29b). However, using the method mentioned in
Chapter 5, the excavation sequences of the main powerhouse and transformer chamber
were optimised. The results are shown in Table 7.10.
7.6.2.3 Bench height of key excavation layers

of main powerhouse
The bench heights of some of the key layers of the main powerhouse are further
analysed, for example, to establish whether it is helpful to have two excavation sub-
layers for layers Nos. III and IV of the main powerhouse. The calculated results
indicated that, if the bench heights of excavation layers Nos. III and IV are half
the designed bench height, the displacement of the upstream sidewall of the main
powerhouse can be reduced by up to 10%, compared to the higher bench excavation
(Figure 7.30).

1356 1364
1360
1352
1356
Altitude (m)
1348
Altitude (m)
1352
1344 1348
Main powerhouse 1344

excavation firstly Main powerhouse
1340 excavation first
Transformer chamber 1340
excavation firstly Transformer chamber
excavation first
1336 1336
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 7.29 The differences in the surrounding deformations for the two different excavation
sequences of the main powerhouse and transformer chamber. (a) Displacements of the
downstream sidewall of the main powerhouse. (b) Displacements of the upstream side-
wall of the transformer chamber.
Table 7.10 Excavation sequences for the cavern group as recommended by the designer.
Excavation Excavation layers of Excavation layers of the Other

stage Nos. the main powerhouse transformer chamber excavations
1 I
2 II I
3 III II Bus tunnel
4 IV III
5 IV, VIII Upper layer of tailrace
tunnel
6 V, IX Lower layer of tailrace
tunnel
7 VI IV
8 VII, IX IV
7.6.3 Determination of support parameters

from experience
Based on experience from Table 7.11 and preliminary numerical analysis, the support
requirements for the Jinping II underground powerhouse are recommended as follows.
1 Crown: Pre-stressed rockbolts: T = 120 kN; φ28 mm, L = 5 m; φ32 mm, L = 7 m;

@ 1.5 × 1.5 m; steel fibre reinforced shotcrete with mesh reinforcement, thickness
150 mm.

1356
1354.6 I
1352
II
1343.3
III-a 1348
III-b 1334.3 III
Altitude (m)
IV-a
1344
IV-b 1326.8 IV
1320.8 V
1340
VI
1313.5
8 layers
1336
VII 10 layers
1301.1
1332
1294.6 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 7.30 Influence of bench height of the excavation layers on the displacement of the upstream
sidewall of the main powerhouse. (a) number of excavation layers and (b) displacement
of the upstream sidewall of the main powerhouse at different altitudes if the excavation
layers Nos. III and IV are excavated in one layer or two layers.
2 Upstream sidewall: Pre-stressed cable anchors: T = 2000 kN; L = 45 m;

@ 4.5 × 4.5 m; rockbolts: mortared rockbolts: φ28 mm, L = 5 m; grouted
rockbolts: φ32 mm, L = 5 m; @ 1.5 × 1.5 m; steel fibre reinforced shotcrete with
mesh reinforcement: thickness 120 mm.
3 Downstream sidewall: mortared rockbolt: φ28 mm, L = 5 m; grouted rockbolts:
φ32 mm, L = 7 m; @1.5 × 1.5 m; steel fibre reinforced shotcrete with mesh
reinforcement: thickness 120 mm.
7.6.4 Analysis of the deformation and failure

characteristics of the surrounding rock
In order to investigate the behaviour of the surrounding rock after the stage by stage
excavation plus the acceptability of the initial design, a three dimensional numerical
analysis was performed. The origin of the co-ordinate axes of the calculation model
is at the intersection of the axis of the powerhouse and the central line of generator
unit No. 8: X0 = 343300.6, Y0 = 3514900.8, where Z0 is at sea level. The calcula-
tion ranges for the axis X and the axis Y are 860 m and 840 m, respectively, from
800 m altitude to the surface in the Z direction. The orientations for axis X, Y, and Z
are S55°E, N35°E, vertical, respectively (Figures 7.9, 7.31(a)). The three dimensional
model of the cavern group includes the main powerhouse, auxiliary powerhouse, gen-
erator housing room, transformer chamber, bus tunnels, tailrace tunnels, draft tube

Table 7.11 Support parameters of typical underground powerhouses in China.
Underground Measured maximum

powerhouse principal in situ stress
Underground (Height × Rock magnitude
powerhouse width, m) type (MPa) Support parameters
Laxiwa 74.9 × 30 Granite 22–29 Crown: rockbolts: φ32 mm/φ28 mm, @1.5 × 1.5 m, length 4.5/9 m, or
alternative arrangement, pre-stressed rockbolts: 9.0 m and 100 kN.
Upstream sidewall: EL 2213.7 m: φ32 mm/φ28 mm@1.5 × 1.5 m,
L = 4.5/9 m or alternative arrangement, EL2213.7 m: φ28 mm
@2.0 × 2.0 m, L = 6 m; pre-stressed rockbolts: 9.0 m length
with 100 kN; cable anchor: T = 150 t, L = 20 m, @4.5x6.0 m.
Downstream sidewall: EL2213.7 m: φ32/φ28 mm @1.5 × 1.5 m,
L = 4.5/9 m, or alternative arrangement EL2213.7 m: φ28 mm
@2.0 × 2.0 m, L = 6 m; pre-stressed rockbolts: 9.0 m with
100 kN; cable anchor: T = 200 t, @4.5x6.0 m, L = 50 m.
Ertan 65.4 × 30.7 Syenite, 18–26 Crown: rockbolts: φ30 mm @1.5 × 1.5 m, L = 6 m/8 m, steel fibre
gabbro reinforced shotcrete with mesh: 100–150 mm.
Upstream sidewall: pre-stressed cable anchors: 175 t with spacing
3.0 m; rockbolts: φ25 mm @1.5 × 1.5 m, L = 5 m/7 m; steel fibre
reinforced shotcrete: 80–100 mm.
Downstream sidewall: pre-stressed cable anchors: 175 t, spacing:
3.0 m; rockbolts: φ25 mm @1.5 × 1.5 m, L = 5 m/7 m; steel fibre
reinforced shotcrete: 100–150 mm.
Shuibuya 65.5 × 23 Shale, sandstone 5.6 Crown: pre-stressed cable anchors: 150 t @4.2 m; tensile
and limestone rockbolts: φ25 (32) mm @1.5 × 1.5 m or 3 × 3 m, L = 6/8 m;
steel fibre reinforced shotcrete:150 mm.
Upstream sidewall: tensile rockbolts: φ25 (32) mm @1.5 × 1.5 m or
3 × 3 m, L = 6/8/9.3 m; steel fibre reinforced shotcrete: 150 mm.
Downstream sidewall: tensile rockbolts: φ25 (32) mm
@1.5 × 1.5 m or 3 × 3 m, L = 6/10/11.3 m, two rows of cable
anchors, P = 150 t @ 3 m.
Longtan 77.3 × 30.7 Sandstone and 8.5–12 Crown: rockbolt: φ28 (32)mm @1.5 × 1.5 m, L = 6.5/8 m; steel
argillite fibre reinforced shotcrete 200 mm.
(Continued)
5/24/2011 6:21:02 PM
Underground Measured maximum

powerhouse principal in situ stress
Underground (Height × Rock magnitude
powerhouse width, m) type (MPa) Support parameters
Upstream sidewall: cable anchor P = 200 t, L = 20 m @

4.5 m × 4.5 m; rockbolts: φ28 (32) mm @1.5 × 1.5 m,
L = 6/9.5 m, steel fibre reinforced shotcrete: 200 mm.
Downstream sidewall: cable anchors: P = 200 t, L = 20 m,
4.5 m × 6 m; rockbolts: φ28 (32) mm @1.5 × 1.5 m, L = 6/9.5 m,
steel fibre reinforced shotcrete: 200 mm.
Xiaowan 82.0 × 30.6 Granitic gneiss 16.4–26.7 Crown: rockbolts: φ28 (36) mm @1.5 × 1.5 m, L = 6/9 m; steel
mesh reinforcement and shotcrete: 150 mm.
Upstream sidewall: cable anchors: P = 180/300 t @ 5 × 5 m,
L = 20/30 m; rockbolts: φ28 mm @ 2.5 × 2.5 m, L = 4.5/6 m;
steel mesh reinforcement and shotcrete: 150 mm.
Downstream sidewall: cable anchors at upper level: P = 180 t
@ 5 × 5 m, L = 35 m; cable anchors at lower level: P = 300 t
@5 × 5 m, L = 20 m; cable anchors at upper level:150 mm.
5/24/2011 6:21:02 PM
gate chamber, high-pressure tube, Figure 7.31(a). The main faults, such as F16, F21,
F24, F25, F36, F65, and F68, and strata, such as T2y4, T2y5-1, and T2y5-2, are all included in
the model. The support design is simulated by using cable and shell elements.
The excavation sequences listed in Table 7.10 were simulated using the mechani-
cal parameters in Table 7.12. The results for the underground powerhouse indicated
the following.
1 When excavation of the entire powerhouse and transformer chamber is complete,

the displacements at key locations of the powerhouse are 20–40 mm at the
arch crown, 75–80 mm at the upstream rock anchorage beam, and 60–80 mm
at EL1320 of the downstream sidewall. There is a larger displacement at the
(i) Strata.
(ii) Cavern group.
Figure 7.31(a) Three dimensional simulation model for (i) strata and (ii) cavern group.

Projecting
part
Figure 7.31(b) Displacement distribution for a typical section of the powerhouse and transformer
chamber.
Table 7.12 Mechanical parameter values used in the simulation.

_ _
Mechanical Eo Ed ν φo φd co cd ε φp ε φc
parameters (GPa) (GPa) (°) (°) (MPa) (MPa) (10−3) (10−3)
T2y4 10 5 0.23 22 45 10.5 0.5 6.0 4.0

T2y51 12 6 0.23 18 52 12.0 0.5 5.0 4.0
projecting part of the downstream side of the powerhouse, as seen in typical

cases in Table 7.13 and Figure 7.31(b). The displacement at key locations in the
transformer chamber is 20–25 mm at the arch crown, 50–60 mm at the upstream
foot of the arch, 20 mm at the downstream foot of the arch, and 40–50 mm in the
sidewall, Figure7.31(b).
2 It can be seen from the displacement evolution that, as excavation proceeds
(Figure 7.32), the displacement increases stage by stage, from top to bottom.
The excavation at each layer has a large influence on the displacement of the
surrounding rock. But, whilst the excavations at Stages 7 and 8, near the bottom
of the powerhouse, have a small influence on the deformation at the arch crown
and the rock anchorage beam, the excavation of Stages 4–6, the middle part of
high sidewall, has a large influence on the deformation of the cavern, Figures 7.32
and 7.33.
3 There is an expected change to the surrounding stress field, not only because of
the direct influence of excavation, but also due to the influence of faults. There
is a large stress concentration at the downstream side of the powerhouse arch in
the range −30 to −35 MPa (compression negative), and stress relaxation on the

Table 7.13 Displacement increase at key points in the powerhouse after complete excavation.
Displacement Displacement
increase increase
Key locations (mm) Key locations (mm)
Arch crown 20–40 Downstream foot of arch 18–26

Upstream foot of arch 75 Downstream rock 25–30
anchorage beam
Rock anchorage beam 75–80 EL1336 downstream 45–57
at upstream
EL1334 of upstream sidewall 60–70 EL1326 downstream 60–80
EL1322 of upstream sidewall 50–60 Projecting upper part of 65–70
downstream machine stable
90 Arch crown
Foot of arch at upstream
80 Rock anchorage beam at upstream
EL1334 of upstream sidewall
70 EL1322 of upstream sidewall
Rock shoulder at upstream
60
Displacement (mm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Excavation stages
(a)
80
Foor of arch at downstream
Rock anchorage beam of downstream
70
EL1336 of downstream sidewall
60 EL1326 of dowmstream sidewall
Rock shoulder at downstream
Displacement (mm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Excavation stages
(b)
Figure 7.32 Evolution of displacement for (a) upstream and (b) downstream as excavation progresses
for the monitoring section S3 of the powerhouse.

60
Arch crown
Foot of arch at upstream
50
Upstream sidewall
Foot of arch at downstream
Displacement (mm)
40
Downstream sidewall
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Excavation stages
Figure 7.33 Displacement evolution as excavation progresses for key points at generator unit No. 3
position in the transformer chamber.
upstream side of the arch in the range −2 to 0 MPa. There is also a large stress
concentration at the machine housing region of the powerhouse of −30 MPa.
Additionally, there is a high stress concentration at the downstream side of the
arch in the transformer chamber, with a maximum of −36 MPa, and a large
stress relaxation in the sidewall of the transformer chamber (Figure 7.34 (a)
and (b). There is expected stress relaxation in the isolated rock mass between the
powerhouse and transformer chamber, the junction of the powerhouse and bus
tunnels, the connection of the head conduit and powerhouse, and the projecting
part of the machine housing.
4 After complete excavation of the cavern, the ‘plastic’ zone is generally about 2–3 m
in depth, but this increases to 2–4 m depth at the downstream side of the power-
house arch, and 3–5 m depth on the upstream sidewall of the bus tunnels near the
powerhouse, and the projecting portion of the machine housing (Figure 7.34 c).
In terms of the stability during construction, attention should be paid to these
locations having high stress concentration, significant stress relaxation, and a
deeper plastic zone. There is generally about 2 m depth of plastic zone in the
transformer chamber, a larger shearing plastic zone of 3–4 m depth at the down-
stream side of the transformer chamber arch, and a tensile plastic zone in the
sidewalls and the upstream side of the transformer chamber arch.
7.6.5 Optimisation of the surrounding rock support

design at key points
According to the analysis above, optimal reinforcement design is recommended for
the key locations having stress concentrations and/or large deformation relaxations.

Figure 7.34 Distribution of (a) major principal stress, (b) minor principal stress, and (c) ‘plastic’ zone
for a typical section of the powerhouse.

1 The spacing of cable anchors is increased to 3 m at the altitude range

EL1320–EL1340 in the sidewall of the powerhouse.
2 The type and spacing of rockbolts in the powerhouse arch are changed to
pre-stressed hollow grouted rockbolts @ 1.0 × 1.0 m, L = 9 m, φ32 mm.
3 Two rows of pre-stressed hollow grouted rockbolts @ 1.0 × 1.0 m, L = 9 m,
φ32 mm are recommended for the mouth of the bus tunnels, with the direction of
the rockbolts being at 10° to the axis of the bus tunnel.
4 At the head conduit, two rows of pre-stressed hollow grouted rockbolts
@ 1.0 × 1.0 m, L = 9 m, φ32 mm are recommended.
5 Shotcrete reinforcement is used at the intersections of the tailrace tunnels and the
machine housings, and then pre-stressed hollow grouted rockbolts @ 1.0 × 1.0 m,
L = 9 m, φ32 mm are recommended to be installed in the projecting part of the
rock mass.
7.6.6 Design of the monitoring sections

and components for the underground
powerhouse and transformer chamber
The following principles for design of the monitoring sections for the large under-
ground powerhouse should be followed.
1 Provide enough information for location of the stress concentrations, large relaxa-
tion deformations and potential failure occurring in the surrounding rocks during
the construction process of the large cavern and in other locations.
2 Provide sufficient information to evaluate the adequacy of the support system
installed.
3 Provide enough data for back analysis of the mechanical parameters of the sur-
rounding rock, including the deformation behaviour, excavation damaged zones,
support stress, etc. The back analysed parameters are important for use in the
re-design of the excavation sequence and support system during subsequent
construction.
According to the potential deformation and failure characteristics of the Jinping II

underground powerhouse described above and the principles for monitoring design,
the monitoring sections and components for the underground powerhouse and trans-
former chamber of the Jinping II hydraulic power station are given as follows.
1 The monitoring components include displacement based on the multi-point dis-

placement meter, rockbolt stress meters, cable anchor stress meters, crack meters
on the surrounding rock and concrete, stress meters for the steel reinforcing bar
in the rock anchorage beams, and measurement of the relaxation depth of the
surrounding rock, i.e., the excavation damaged zone, by monitoring the elastic
P-wave velocity.
2 There are seven monitoring sections, S1–S7, for observing the behaviour of the
underground powerhouse and transformer chamber induced by excavation. This
was done using multi-point displacement meters installed in the central section
of generator Nos. 1, 3, 7, between generator Nos. 4 and 5, between generator

Nos. 5 and 6, and in the generator housing room, and in the auxiliary power-
house shown in Figure 7.35. The multi-point displacement meters and rockbolt
stress meters are installed at these sections with intervals of 1–2 m.
3 For each monitoring section, the installation of the multi-point displacement
meters is shown in Figure 7.36a. Three monitoring points, A-1–A-3, were installed
in the crown of the powerhouse and the other three points, B-1–B-3 were installed
at the crown of the transformer chamber. The monitoring points A-4 and A-5
were installed at the top and bottom of the rock anchorage beams. The monitor-
ing points A-6 and A-7 were installed in the middle part of the powerhouse side-
wall. The bottom of the bus tunnel is monitored using the point A-9. The machine
housing is monitored by using the points A-8 and A-10. The points B-4 and B-5
are installed in the sidewall of the transformer chamber.
4 Rockbolt and cable anchor stress meters, points Nos. MS 1, 3, 5 and 6, are installed
respectively upstream and in the rock anchorage beams of the powerhouse, i.e,
at EL1350, EL1343.5, EL1334.5, EL1325.5. The 45 m thickness of the rock
wall between the powerhouse and transformer chamber is monitored by install-
ing rockbolt and cable anchor stress meters at EL1335 and EL1339, the points
Nos. MS 2 and MS 4. The bottom of the bus tunnels is monitored by the point
MS 7 with rockbolt and cable anchor stress meters, as seen in Figure 7.36(b).
5 The relaxation depth of the surrounding rocks is measured by using the elastic P-wave
velocity. The boreholes for this monitoring activity are shown in Figure 7.36(c).
6 Crack meters are installed to monitor the opening and propagation of cracks as
required.
S5 S4 S7 S3 S2 S1 S6
8# 7# 6# 5# 4# 3# 2# 1#
Auxiliary
Clipping room
powerhouse
CR0+263 CR0+140 CL0+25 Transformer

chamber
CR0+192 CR0+108 CR0+62 CR0+0
Figure 7.35 Location of the suggested monitoring sections for the Jinping II underground powerhouse
and transformer chamber. 1#–8# are the generator units at the main powerhouse and
S1–S7 are the monitoring sections. S1–S5 were installed before excavation of the power-
house. S6 and S7 were installed according to the behaviour of the surrounding rock after
excavation of Layer III of the powerhouse. CR indicates to the right of the powerhouse,
starting from generator No. 1 to the generator housing room. CR0+62 indicates 62 m
from generator No. 1. CL indicates to the left of the powerhouse starting from generator
No. 1 to the auxiliary powerhouse. CL0+25 indicates 25 m from generator No. 1. (The ‘left’
and ‘right’ terms used in this Figure caption apply when the diagram is viewed from the top
of the page downwards. Also, the ‘clipping room’ is the generator housing room.)

A-1 D1-2 D1-3
D1-1 A-2 A-3 B-1
B-3
B-2
D2-2
D2-1 B-5
A-4
B-4
D3-1 A-5
A-6
A-7
A-9
Headrace tunnel
A-10
A-8
D4-1
(a)
Rock bolt
stress meter I
1357.8
1354.6 I II
MS-1 II 1348.3
MS-3 MS-2
1343.3 III
1341.3
III
MS-5 1334.3 MS-4 IV
MS-6 1326.8 IV
1320.8 V
MS-7
1313.5 VI
VII
1301.1 VIII
1294.6 IX
(b)
EDZ monitoring
points
I
1357.8
1354.6 I
II
II 1348.3
1343.3 III
1341.3
III
1334.3 IV
1326.8 IV
1320.8 V
VI
1313.5
VII
1301.1 VIII
1294.6 IX
(c)
Figure 7.36 (a) The monitoring sections where multi-point displacement meters are installed.
(b) The monitoring sections where rockbolt stress meters are installed. (c) The monitoring
sections for the excavation damaged zone (EDZ).

7.6.7 Safety evaluation of the rocks surrounding

the large cavern group
From the monitoring as discussed, information can be obtained, inter alia, on the
rockbolt and cable anchor loads, crack initiation and propagation, deformations, and
the elastic wave velocities of the surrounding rock. The question then arises: how is
the safety evaluated for the large cavern group consisting of the underground power-
house, transformer chamber, tailrace tunnels, etc., from the monitored information?
The following three aspects were incorporated into a criterion to evaluate the safety
of the Jinping II underground powerhouse.
1 Over-loading of rockbolts and cable anchors. If the monitored loads in the rock-
bolts and cable anchors are greater than the allowable design loads, this is termed
‘over-loading’. Continuous observation is focussed on the increase in the loading
and the percentage of over-loading. Further reinforcement and other measures are
adopted accordingly.
2 Cracking occurrences in the surrounding rock, including the increase in length and
width of the cracks and their velocities are observed. Special attention is taken if
there are large and continuous increases in the crack lengths, widths and velocities.
Adjustment of the excavation procedure and reinforcement is then required.
3 The deformation characteristics of the rock surrounding the high sidewall of
the large cavern, including the deformation increase and velocity, are impor-
tant aspects for evaluating the safety of the large cavern group. A deformation
management classification can be established, divided into three categories, safe,
warning, and dangerous, according to the deformation increase and its velocity.
Since the deformation characteristics vary with the location, e.g., arch crown,
upstream sidewall and downstream sidewall of the powerhouse and transformer
chamber, due to the influence of the in situ stress, strata types, and cavern shape
and size, the deformation management classification has to be established for the
different locations in the cavern complex.
The key issue is the establishment of a reasonable deformation management classifi-

cation for the various key locations in the large cavern group. The methods used can
be by comparison with existing projects, dynamic clustering analysis (Lin, 1994), and
numerical analysis integrated with empirical information. By starting with the estab-
lishment of a baseline from information on similar large underground powerhouses
already excavated in China, the next step was to use the results of rock mechanics tests
on marble in the laboratory and at the site, together with numerical analysis, to investi-
gate the deformation characteristics and limiting deformation of the rock surrounding
the Jinping II underground powerhouse. Then, the deformation management classifi-
cation for the arch crown, upstream sidewall and downstream sidewall of the power-
house and transformer chamber of the Jinping II power station was established.
Excavation will induce deformations around the cavern group which will stabi-
lise gradually after the excavation process. The time to stability will depend on the
time dependent behaviour of the surrounding rock, although subsequent construction
will induce further changes in the deformation of the surrounding rock (as seen in
Figure 7.37). If there has been a continuous increase or large increase in the velocity of

100 1050
80 1040
1030
Excavation altitude(m)
Excavation process
60
Displacement(mm)
1020
40 1010
1000
20
990
0
980
–20 970
0 100 200 300 400
Time(d)
Figure 7.37 Example curves of the deformation of the rock surrounding the cavern as excavation
proceeded.
deformation in excess of the tolerance value, there should be a warning. It can be seen
from Table 7.14 that the deformation of a cavern depends on the rock conditions, the
stress field, and the cavern geometry. As a rule, the maximum deformation, δmax, and
the deformation in general, δave, can be estimated (Equation 7.3) as
h
δ = k⋅ (7.3)
UCS / σ 1
where UCS is the uniaxial compressive strength, σ1 is the major principal stress, h is
the height of the powerhouse sidewall, and k is a coefficient.
For the case examples listed in Table 7.14, the coefficients, k, in Equation 7.3 for
the deformation in general and the maximum value can be calculated and are shown
in Figure 7.38. Using the coefficients, these deformations for complete excavation
of the Jinping II underground powerhouse are estimated as δmax = 81 mm. The three
dimensional calculation indicated that the maximum displacement induced by exca-
vation of Layer I is about 30% of the maximum displacement induced by complete
excavation of the powerhouse (Figures 7.39 and 7.40). Accordingly, the ‘warning’
value for displacement induced by excavation of Layer I of the powerhouse is recom-
mended as 24 mm (i.e., 30% of 81 mm). The ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ values of this dis-
placement are conservatively 18 mm and 28 mm using a safety factor of 1.25 and 1.2
of the ‘warning’ value respectively. The displacement velocities can be determined for
the three classes of ‘safe’, ‘warning’ and ‘dangerous’. The results for the deformation
management classification are listed in Table 7.15 as recommended for excavation of
Layer I of the underground powerhouse.

Table 7.14 Statistical deformation characteristics of typical underground caverns in China.
Uniaxial compressive Major principal Width of Height of General Maximum

Rock classification strength stress cavern cavern displacement displacement
Cavern based on BQ (MPa) (MPa) (m) (m) (mm) (mm)
Ertan II 136 25 30.7 65.4 50 124

Pupugou II 100 20 26.8 70.1 14 104
Laxiwa II 110 22 30 73.8 40 69
Tianhuangping I 120 7 21 48.0 10 29
Xiaolangdi III 88 5 26.2 61.4 10 24
Xiaowan II 105 20 30.6 79.4 60 115
Baise III 80 6 20 49.0 5 10
Manwan I 96 8 22 69.4 10 32
Shisanling III 70 13 23 46.6 10 40
Mianhuatan III 120 7 21.9 52.8 5 17
5/24/2011 6:21:08 PM
Figure 7.38 The deformation coefficient k in Equation 7.3 established from data relating to the com-
plete excavation of ten powerhouses.
Figure 7.39 The maximum displacements induced at each excavation stage as a percentage of the
maximum displacement induced by complete excavation of the powerhouse.
7.6.8 Estimation of the entire safe factor for the

underground powerhouse using the over-loading
method
When a cavern is excavated in a rock mass, the mechanical response of the cavern,
{U}, with rock mass properties, {k}, and in situ stress, {σ}, satisfies the basic relation,
(Pan, 1994),
{U} ⋅ {k} = {σ} (7.4)

100%
80%
Displacement release rate
60% Arch crown
Upstream sidearch
40%
Upstream arch foot
Downstream sidearch
20%
Downstream arch foot
0%
–150 –120 –90 –60 –30 0 30 60 90 120 150
Distance from working face(m)
Figure 7.40 Displacement release rate of powerhouse after excavation of Layer I.
Table 7.15 Deformation management classification for the excavation of Layer I of the Jinping II
powerhouse.
Safety classification of surrounding rock based on deformation values
Safe Warning Dangerous

Excavation
of Layer I Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation
of power increase velocity increase velocity increase velocity
house (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
Arch crown 18 0.2 23 0.3 28 0.5

Upstream 12 0.2 18 0.3 24 0.5
sidewall
Downstream 8 0.2 15 0.3 20 0.5
sidewall
For analysis of the entire stability of the underground powerhouse, and with a virtual
stress coefficient, k, the safety margin of the cavern can be estimated using the in situ
stress field as
f 0
{ } k{ }
= k( 0
xx , σ yy
0
, σ zz0 , σ xy
0
, σ yz
0
, σ xz
0
) (7.5)
Since a rock mass in a limiting equilibrium state cannot sustain any over-loading
(Figure 7.41), the plastic strain zone can be used as the critical criterion for the cavern,
in particular, the plastic strain zone in the isolated rock mass between the main
powerhouse and the transformer chamber.
2 p p
εp (ε1 ε1 ε 2p ε 2p ε 3p ε 3p ) (7.6)
3

Fracture
a
b
Figure 7.41 Fracturing characteristics of a double tunnel model in overload testing (Sterpi and
Cividini, 2004).
where ε–p is the equivalent plastic strain and ε 1p, ε 2p, ε 3p are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plastic
strains, respectively.
The distribution of the plastic strain zone around the Jinping II underground pow-
erhouse for different k values (Figure 7.42) shows that there exists a zone between the
main powerhouse and the transformer chamber when k = 1.2, which indicates insta-
bility of the caverns. Also, large plastic strains occur on the right sides of the arches of
the main powerhouse and transformer chamber, which were confirmed by the occur-
rence of cracking, rockfall, and over-loading of cable anchors in these areas during the
excavation (see Figure 7.43 (a) and (b)).
7.7 STABILITY APPRAISAL OF THE UNDERGROUND

POWERHOUSE AFTER EXCAVATION OF LAYER II
During the excavation of the Jinping II underground powerhouse, feedback analysis

and dynamic design were studied for six stages (Table 7.16), in the order from top
to bottom, corresponding to the separate layer excavations of the main powerhouse
and transformer chamber shown in Figure 7.44. Before excavation of each layer, the
following tasks were undertaken.
1 Bench height and procedure for excavation, support parameters, and monitoring
were determined.
2 Geological conditions were predicted based on the geological investigation.
3 The in situ stress field was estimated using back analysis of the measured data,
and the mechanical behaviour of the surrounding rock was estimated.
During the excavation of each layer, the following tasks were undertaken.
1 Geological conditions and the stress field were verified.

2 The safety of the cavern was appraised using the deformation management clas-
sification from the monitored deformation and the status of the surrounding rock
and support.

Figure 7.42 The evolution of plastic strain in the rock mass between the main powerhouse (left) and
transformer chamber (right) at different virtual stress coefficients: (a) 1.16; (b) 1.2; (c) 1.27.

(a) (b)
2500
2000
Load (kN)
Loading of installation
Inspecting
1500 instrument
1000
09-3-22 09-4-26 09-5-31 09-7-5 09-8-9 09-9-13 09-10-180 9-11-220 9-12-27
Date (y-m-d)
(c)
Figure 7.43 Local failure and loading of the cable anchor during the excavation of powerhouse.
(a) Cracking at the right side of the main powerhouse arch. (b) Rockfall on the right
side of the transformer chamber arch. (c) Over-loading of cable anchor in the upstream
sidewall of the transformer chamber.
Table 7.16 Stages evaluated in the dynamic feedback design for Jinping II underground powerhouse.
Stages for Excavation Excavation layers

feedback layers of the main of the transformer
analysis powerhouse chamber Others
1 I Layer I of draft tube gate chamber

2 II I Layer II of draft tube gate chamber
3 III II Upper half of bus tunnel, upper half of layer III
of draft tube gate chamber
4 IV, upper III, IV Bottom half of bus tunnel, upper half of
half of V tailrace tunnel, bottom half of head conduit,
bottom half of layer III of draft tube gate
chamber
5 Bottom Layer IV of draft tube gate chamber, upper half
half of V, VI of tailrace tunnel
6 VII, VIII Bottom half of tailrace tunnel, tailgate wall

I
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V-a
V-b Complete excavation Subsequent
VI
Current excavation
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
Figure 7.44 Layers in the excavation procedure used for feedback analysis and design optimisation for
the Jinping II underground powerhouse.
3 The excavation and support design were adjusted according to the actual state of
the surrounding rock.
4 The mechanical parameters of the surrounding rock were evaluated and back
analysed using the monitored deformation and excavation damaged zone.
5 The mechanical behaviour and potential local failures of the surrounding rock
were predicted for excavation of the next layer.
6 The excavation and support design for the next layer was refined and recommended.
7 The deformation management classification for excavation of the next layer was
established.
As an example, the feedback analysis and dynamic design of Stages 3 and 4 are firstly
given and then there is a summary of the dynamic design for all the stages.
7.7.1 Prediction of the behaviour of the surrounding

rock during excavation of Layer III of the
powerhouse and Layer II of the transformer
chamber
The numerical calculation indicated the following.
1 There is a distinct stress concentration at the foot of the upstream wall and down-
stream side of the arch, a maximum principal stress of 30 MPa, and relaxation in
the rock anchorage beam of the powerhouse (Figure 7.45).
2 The maximum deformation occurred at the upstream side of the arch and the
rock anchorage beam of the powerhouse, 40 mm. Deformation at the down-
stream sidewall is smaller, 10–20 mm.

Figure 7.45 (a) Distribution of the maximum and minimum principal stresses, and (b) deformation
(mm) at the monitoring section S3 of the powerhouse after excavation of Layer III.
3 Plastic zone: about 3 m in the upstream sidewall and about 2 m in the upstream
sidewall of the powerhouse; 2–3 m in the rock surrounding the transformer
chamber; a tensile plastic zone occurred in a larger relaxation zone of the upstream
sidewall of the powerhouse and transformer chamber and a thicker shear plastic
zone at the downstream foot of the arch; a larger plastic zone at the fault, shown
in Figure 7.46. The failure mode of the surrounding rock can be splitting at joints
or bedding planes, collapse at faults and fractured zones, Figure 7.46(b).
Therefore, the support design is recommended as:-
a Mortared bolts shall be replaced by pre-stressed rockbolts with backing board to

form a strong shell of 8–9 m thickness (Figure 7.47).
b Reduce the spacing of the rockbolts in regions with unfavourable bedding planes.
c The support design does not need to be modified for good condition of the strata.
d A strengthening reinforcement is needed for faults and fractures, e.g., pre-stressed
rockbolts or pre-stressed cable anchors.

Bedding
planes
Slightly
inclined
joints
(a) (b)
Figure 7.46 Plastic zone in the monitoring section S1 of the powerhouse after excavation Layer III and
(b) sliding along bedding planes and joints.
Figure 7.47 Installation of pre-stressed cable anchors.
Based on the geological conditions revealed after excavation Stages 1 and 2, there is
verification of the numerical results for excavation of the Stages 1 and 2, and numeri-
cal results for the excavation of Stage 3. A deformation management classification is
recommended, as shown in Table 7.17.
7.7.2 Verification of the basic information

and mechanical behaviour after excavation
of Stage 3
7.7.2.1 Revelation of the geological conditions

According to the geological conditions revealed after excavation of Stage 3, the
rock type in the third layer of the powerhouse and second layer of the transformer
chamber is still the same as the preceding layers: marble types T2y4 and T2y5-1 mainly in
class III but partially in class II. No new faults were revealed, although there are some

Table 7.17 Deformation management classification for excavation Stage 3 of the Jinping II underground powerhouse.
Safety classification for the surrounding rock
Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation

Excavation increase velocity increase velocity increase velocity
stage Layer Location (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
3 Layer III of Upstream 18 0.20 25 0.30 35 0.60

powerhouse sidewall
Downstream 12 0.20 18 0.30 25 0.50
sidewall
Layer II of Upstream 15 0.15 20 0.25 30 0.40
transformer sidewall
chamber
Downstream 10 0.15 15 0.25 20 0.40
sidewall
5/24/2011 6:21:14 PM
fractured zones less than 200 mm thick. The conditions at the transformer chamber
are a little poorer than those at the powerhouse, with developed joints and several
squeezed fractured zones. Faults F65 and F68 have an influence on the stability of the
powerhouse and transformer chamber: fault F65 is revealed in the drainage gallery
D3–6 of the third layer, with orientation N30°E, ∠45–50°, distributed in the range of
generators No. 7 to No. 2, and with a width of 200 mm. There are developed joints
on both sides of the fault F65 (Figure 7.48). It is also predicted that fault F65 will
intersect Layer IV and V of the main powerhouse according to its appearance at D3–6
and D3–7. The orientation of F68 at the downstream sidewall of the powerhouse has
a larger change than estimated before, which is mainly inclined downstream, with a
width of 30–50 mm, interlayered with squeezed schist. There are some parallel devel-
oped joints with spacings of 30–80 mm. F68 caused a large collapse during excava-
tion at the second layer of the powerhouse. Therefore, the influence of faults F65 and
F68 should be considered in the current and subsequent numerical analysis.
7.7.2.2 Verification of the typical predicted failure mode,

the adopted mechanical model, and the estimated
in situ stress field
After excavation of the third layer, the downstream sidewall of the powerhouse was
stable, as expected. There was only local failure and concrete cracking induced by
F68 due to unfavourable joints, in situ stress, and because the reinforcement was not
installed in time. The upstream sidewall of the powerhouse experienced large relaxa-
tion and local failure. Typical failure modes occurred, as shown in Figure 7.49, which
are all in agreement with the prediction before the excavation.
The calculated results, obtained before construction of the third layer of the pow-
erhouse, showed that there are stress concentrations at the foot of the downstream
side and the corner of the upstream side of the powerhouse arch after the excavation
of the third layer—with shearing failure mainly. There was a stress relaxation zone in
the upstream sidewall caused mainly by tensile failure (Figure 7.45). After excavation
of the third layer, the bedding planes were open due to stress relaxation (Figure 7.49).
There was splitting and spalling of the surrounding rock and concrete near monitor-
ing section S1 on the downstream side of the arch, shearing failure in the surround-
ing rock at the junction of the powerhouse with D3–6, and spalling at the foot of
the downstream side of the arch at the drainage gallery of the second layer, which is
parallel to the axis of the powerhouse (Figure 7.50). The analysis at the above section
indicated good agreement between the calculated and measured deformation modes.
These all indicated that the adopted mechanical mode and in situ stress data are
reasonable.
7.7.2.3 Verification of the excavation damaged zone (EDZ) extent

The measured results in Table 7.18 indicate that the EDZ is about 1.0–3.6 m around
the powerhouse and 1.6–3.2 m around the transformer chamber after the excava-
tion of Stage 3. The extents of the zone agree with the calculation results shown in
Figure 7.46, although there are some differences in the deformation magnitude in
some locations. The reason for the differences is because the mechanical parameters

1332.00 1334.00
D3-1'(N35 E)
D3-6
N30 ESE 45 50
D3-5
D3-7
1334.10 f65 1334.10
8# 7# 6# 5# 4# 3# 2# 1#
Generator Nos. Auxiliary

powerhouse
(a)
CS0+040.50 D3-1 axis

CS0+040.50 D3-1 axis
CS0+010.50
CS0+010.50
Upstream sidewall of powerhouse
Upstream sidewall of powerhouse
Drainage gallery D3-6 Drainage gallery D3-7

EL1344.10 EL1344.10
EL1340.00 EL1340.00
F65
F65
EL1330.00 EL1330.00
S55°E S55°E
(b)
Central line of Main

arch crown powerhouse
(c)
Figure 7.48 (a) Occurrence of F65 at the powerhouse. (b) Occurrence of F65 at the drainage galleries
D3-6 and D3-7. (c) Geological sketches of D3-6.

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 7.49 Typical failure modes occurred locally after the excavation of Stage 3. (a) Rock block
sliding at the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse. (b) Opening of bedding planes at the
upstream sidewall of the powerhouse. (c) Relaxation of the rock surrounding the upper
sidewall of the powerhouse as affected by fault F65. (d) Collapse of the upstream side-
wall of the powerhouse as affected by fault F68. (e) Collapse of the upstream sidewall of
the transformer chamber as affected by fault F16. (f) Collapse of the upstream sidewall
of the transformer chamber as affected by fault F35. (See colour plate section).

Figure 7.50 Local failure which occurred during the excavation. (a) Splitting and spalling of the
surrounding rock and concrete near monitoring section S1 in the downstream side of
the arch. (b) Shearing failure in the rock surrounding the junction of the powerhouse
with D3-6. (c) Spalling at the foot of the downstream side of the arch at the drainage
gallery of the second layer.
Table 7.18 The measured depth of the EDZ, m.
Monitoring section S1 Monitoring section S2 Section at CR0+124 Section at

(Powerhouse/ (Powerhouse/ (Powerhouse/transformer CR0+186
Location transformer chamber) transformer chamber) chamber) (Powerhouse)
Arch crown 2.8–3.0 2.0–3.0 1.6–3.0 1.4

Arch support 2.0–1.8 1.8–1.8 2.2–2.0 3.0
upstream
Arch support 3.0–2.6 1.0–2.8 3.2–3.0 2.8
downstream
Sidewall 2.4–2.0 2.4–3.2 2.8–2.2 2.4
upstream
Sidewall 1.4–1.6 1.0–2.4 1.6–3.2 3.6
downstream

were established only by using the monitored deformation increase after excavation
of the second layer, and there were no EDZ values for the strength parameters, such
as c and φ.
7.7.2.4 Application of the deformation management

classification
After excavation of the third layer of the powerhouse, the deformation of the side-
wall was almost in agreement with the prediction made before construction. The
deformation increase was in the range 1–5 mm at the arch crown of the powerhouse,
Figure 7.51(a), 5–12 mm at the upstream sidewall, Figure 7.51(b), and 4–10 mm

Figure 7.51 Deformation curves for (a) monitoring section S1 at the upstream sidewall of the
powerhouse, (b) monitoring section S2 at the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse,
(c) monitoring section S3 at the downstream sidewall of the powerhouse, (d) deformation
velocity of monitoring section S4 at the downstream side of the arch.

at the downstream sidewall, Figure 7.51(c). The measured increases and velocities
were generally below the ‘safe’ values in the deformation management classifications,
except for a temporary small jump after major blasting, Figure 7.51(d). The clear pat-
tern indicates that the powerhouse is entirely stable, Figure 7.52. Thus, the established
deformation management classifications are acceptable.
However, at some monitoring points the deformation velocity and increase were
both larger than the ‘warning’ value in the deformation management classification
(Figure 7.53). This was due to the occurrence of unpredicted joints and faults which
caused local instabilities. Observation showed that there was collapse and cracking
of the concrete above and below the rock anchorage beam (Figure 7.54), and the
pre-stressed cable anchors reached their design load (e.g., Figure 7.55). These events
Arch crown
Sidewall
Sidewall
Figure 7.52 The Jingping II powerhouse cavern after excavation of Layer III.
Figure 7.53 Deformation velocity at the monitoring point Mcf0+000-1. (The lower dashed line repre-
sents the ‘safe’ value; the upper dashed line represents the ‘dangerous’ value.)

Figure 7.54 Collapse of the upstream sidewall of the underground powerhouse.
2500
Load (kN)
2100
Locked load:1505.2 kN
1700
1300
08-4-2 08-5-2 08-6-1 08-7-1 08-7-31
Date (y-m-d)
(a)
2400
2100
Load (kN)
1800 Locked load:1477.2 kN
1500
1200
07-11-29 07-12-29 08-1-28 08-2-27 08-3-28 08-4-27 08-5-27 08-6-26 08-7-26
Date (y-m-d)
(b)
Figure 7.55 (a) Loading curve at the cable anchor stress monitoring point Dpcf0+000-3 at altitude
1350.0, upstream sidewall of the powerhouse, CR0+002.682. (b) Loading curve at the
cable anchor stress monitoring point Dpcf0+009.5-1 at altitude 1354.5, upstream sidewall
of the powerhouse, CR0+009.5.

are captured by the monitoring and adaptively controlled by using the established
deformation management classification. Accordingly, the procedures adopted were:
(1) clean out the loosened rock and concrete; (2) install rockbolts, shotcrete and
support; and (3) increase the pre-stressed rockbolts to 9 m length. In this way, the
surrounding rock was controlled.
7.7.2.5 Verification of the support design proposed

before construction
During the excavation of the third layer of the powerhouse and the second layer of
the transformer chamber, it was found that the differences in the rock conditions were
less than predicted, so the original support system design was adopted, although some
reinforcement was recommended for the surrounding rock which was locally unstable
because of the presence of joints and faults. At these particular locations, pre-stressed
rockbolts and pre-stressed cable anchors were installed. Some examples are given as
follows.
1 Increased reinforcement using pre-stressed cable anchors and pre-stressed rock-

bolts in the zone affected by fault F65 at the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse.
The details are discussed in the section below.
2 Increased number of pre-stressed rockbolts and reduced spacing, to 3 m, of the
pre-stressed cable anchors in the zone affected by the fault at CR0+263 in the
upstream sidewall of the powerhouse. The adaptive design of the reinforcement is
discussed in the following section.
3 Strengthen the reinforcement at the joint zone at CR0+192 in the upstream side-
wall of the powerhouse by increasing the number of pre-stressed rockbolts.
4 Strengthen the reinforcement at the affected bedding planes at EL1344.8– EL1342
of the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse by increasing the number of pre-
stressed rockbolts.
5 Strengthen the reinforcement in the zone affected by fault F68 in the downstream
sidewall of the powerhouse by reducing the spacing of rockbolts and increasing
the number of pre-stressed cable anchors.
6 Strengthen the reinforcement in the zone affected by fault F16 in the transformer
chamber by increasing the number of pre-stressed rockbolts and filling the
over-excavation zones with concrete in the upstream sidewall and increasing the
mortared rockbolts in the downstream sidewall.
7 Increase the number of pre-stressed rockbolts in regions affected by spalling and
buckling in the surrounding rock and install concrete in the upstream sidewall.
7.7.2.6 Dynamic control of locally unstable surrounding rock

during the excavation of Stage 3
There was an example of dynamic control of the locally unstable rock as affected by
fault F65 during excavation of Stage 3. From the geological conditions revealed dur-
ing the excavation of the third layer of the powerhouse, it was clear that the fault F65
had a significant influence on the stability of the powerhouse sidewall (Figure 7.48).
Some rock blocks were formed, Figure 7.56, and two kinds of failure mode occurred,

Figure 7.56 Rock blocks in the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse, as affected by fault F65 after
excavation of Layer III.
Stress
concentration
(a) (b)
Figure 7.57 Two typical failure modes which occurred in the surrounding rock as affected by the fault
F65. (a) sliding of joints and (b) rock splitting induced by steep joints.
Figure 7.57. These resulted in larger deformations at the sidewall of the powerhouse,
Figure 7.58, which exceeded the ‘Dangerous’ value in the deformation management
classification shown in Table 7.17.
The three dimensional calculation results indicated that a larger stress concentra-
tion and deeper shearing plastic zone occurred in the middle and lower parts of the
upstream sidewall. Fault F65 has caused a deep plastic zone (Figure 7.59) requiring
further reinforcement.
Therefore, consolidation grouting through the drainage gallery was recommended
to increase the strength of the surrounding rock (Figure 7.60). Numerical analysis

Figure 7.58 (a) Deformation velocity of the monitoring point Mcf0+000-1 in the upstream sidewall
of the powerhouse during excavation of Stage 3. (b) The same for monitoring point
Mcf0+108.5-1. (In both the plots above, the three horizontal lines represent ‘safe’, ‘warn-
ing’ and ‘dangerous’ in ascending order.)
indicated that this should have a distinct strengthening effect on the stability of the
surrounding rock, but there was weak shear sliding of joints in the vicinity of the fault
(Figure 7.61) after the excavation of the fourth layer of the powerhouse. The monitor-
ing results indicated that the deformation measured by all the multi-point displacement
meters in the upstream sidewall at EL1348 reduced to the ‘safe’ value in the deforma-
tion management classification, except for a small jump during blasting (Figure 7.62).
The result confirmed the value of the grouting.

Figure 7.59 (a) Plastic zone in the surrounding rock at the EL1332.3 level after excavation of the third
layer of the powerhouse and (b) Plastic zone in the surrounding rock after excavation of
the fifth layer of the powerhouse.
CR0+099.20
CR0+109.00
CR0+060.20
CR0+148.00
3900 980
Area A(13 300) Area B(13 300)
Drainage gallery D3-1'

Consolidation grouting Consolidation grouting
hole @300 hole @300
Cinquefoil Cinquefoil
arrangement arrangement
45 50
CS0+010.50
Drainage gallery D3-6
Upstream sidewall
of powerhouse
Figure 7.60 Consolidation grouting in the area affected by fault F65.
7.7.2.7 Stability appraisal of the surrounding rock

after excavation of Stage 3
Since there are different geological conditions in the developed joints and fractures
revealed after the excavation of the third stage (the third layer of powerhouse and the
second layer of the transformer chamber), additional reinforcement was installed at
some locally unstable regions and so the stability of the cavern group after excavation

Figure 7.61 Good quality powerhouse sidewall in the region of fault F65 after excavation of the fourth
layer.
sidewall
Warning
(a)
(b)
Figure 7.62 (a) Deformation plot for monitoring point Mcf0+000-1 in the upstream sidewall of the
powerhouse during excavation of Stage 4. (b) Deformation plot for the nearby monitoring
point Mcf0+108.5-1.

of the third stage needed to be re-evaluated by using the updated mechanical

parameter values for the surrounding rock. According to the sensitivity analysis of the
parameters, the initial deformation modulus, residual deformation modulus, initial
cohesion and initial friction angle, such as E0_51, E0_4, Ed_51, Ed_4, c0_51, c0_4, φ0_51, φ0_4 for
the T2y4 and T2y5-1 strata needed to be re-established by using back analysis for the moni-
tored displacement and depth of the excavation damaged zone which occurred after
excavation of the third stage. For the re-recognition of the parameters, the following
steps were completed.
1 Selection of the monitoring sections and points according to the differences in

strata and monitored data. Four monitoring sections, S1, S2, S3, and S4, were
selected (Figure 7.63). The monitored data at some key points for each of the
monitoring sections were further selected for the back analysis (the monitored
displacement in Figure 7.64 and Table 7.19, and the monitored depth of the
excavation damaged zone in Table 7.20).
2 Each parameter to be re-established has five value levels. An even design is used
to create a set of samples of the parameters to be recognised (Table 7.21).
3 With the input of each preliminary set of parameters to be recognised, listed in
Table 7.21, numerical analysis is used to calculate the displacement and depth of
the excavation damaged zone for Sections S1, S2, S3, and S4, as induced by the
excavation of the third stage. The numerical models are shown in Figure 7.65. Some
parameters which are not back analysed and are used directly as input to the numeri-
cal calculation are listed in Table 7.22. These created a set of samples, i.e., a pair of
a set of the tentative values of the parameters to be recognised with the calculated
displacement and depth of excavation damaged zone for each monitoring section.
4 A neural network model was constructed for each monitoring section using the
40 training samples in Table 7.21 and then tested by the other ten testing samples
in Table 7.21.
5 A search in global space was performed to obtain the mechanical parameters by
using genetic algorithms. This ensured that the outputs of the established neural
(a)

(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 7.63 Arrangement of multi-point displacement meters at (a) Section S1, (b) Section S2,
(c) Section S3, and (d) Section S4.

(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)
(e)
Figure 7.64 The monitored deformation curves of multi-point displacement meters at (a) Mcf0+000-1,
(b) Mcf0+000-2, (c) Mcf0+000-7, (d) Mzb0+000-1, and (e) Mzb0+000-3.
network for a given monitoring section were close to the monitored values of
displacement increase and depth of the excavation damaged zone within the
allowable error range. Tables 7.19 and 7.20 show the established results for the
monitoring sections S1, S2, S3, and S4. Figure 7.66A indicates good applicability
of the recognised parameters by comparing the calculated displacement increase
and depth of the excavation damaged zone with the monitored results.
A three dimensional calculation using the numerical model shown in Figure 7.65e,
was performed for re-evaluation of the cavern group stability after excavation of
Stage 3 by using the established mechanical parameters of the surrounding rock, as
listed in Table 7.23. The results (as seen in Figure 7.66B typically) indicated that
the deformation was in the ranges 40–45 mm at the arch side and sidewall on the
upstream side of the powerhouse, 20–35 mm on the downstream sidewall of the
powerhouse, 30–35 mm at the upstream side of the arch of the transformer chamber,
and 15–25 mm at the both sidewalls of the transformer chamber, Figure 7.66B(a).
There was a larger stress concentration at the foot of the wall on both the upstream
and downstream sides of the powerhouse arch: −30 to −35 MPa and −25 to −30 MPa

Table 7.19 The monitored displacements at Sections S1, S2, S3, and S4.
The layer preceding Current

The the current excavation
monitoring Monitoring excavation layer layer Increase Data
section Nos. points (mm) (mm) (mm) application
S1 Point 4 at Mcf0+000-1 2.09 7.54 5.45 For back analysis

Point 3 at Mcf0+000-2 3.52 5.45 1.93 For back analysis
Point 1 at Mcf0+000-7 0 7.89 7.89 For back analysis
Point 4 at Mzb0+000-1 0.17 2.15 1.98 For back analysis
Point 1 at Mzb0+000-3 −0.04 11.54 11.58 For back analysis
Point 1 at Mcf0+000-1 5.16 24.34 19.18 For testing
Point 1 at Mzb0+000-2 0.94 3.82 2.88 For testing
Point 4 at Mzb0+062-1 −0.08 1.00 1.08 For testing
S3 Point 1 at Mcf0+108.5-2 29.9 31.92 2.02 For back analysis
Point 3 at Mcf0+108.5-2 8.34 9.87 1.53 For back analysis
Point 4 at Mcf0+108.5-2 5.09 6.21 1.12 For back analysis
Point 1 at Mzb0+108.5-3 1.62 3.03 1.41 For back analysis
Point 4 at Mcf0+108.5-1 1.76 8.45 6.69 For testing
Point 3 at Mzb0+108.5-3 2.03 2.90 0.87 For testing
Point 3 at Mzb0+108.5-4 0.30 3.73 3.43 For testing
respectively (compression negative). There was a large stress relaxation over most of
the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse with a tensile stress. The maximum stress
concentration was located at the corner of the upstream sidewall and the downstream
side of the arch of the transformer chamber, about −26 MPa. There was a stress
relaxation zone in the arch side and upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber,
Figure 7.66B(b) and (c). There was also a tensile plastic zone in the arch side upstream
and a tensile-shear plastic zone in the sidewall of the powerhouse with depth in the
range 2–3 m, and a shear plastic zone in the arch side downstream and a tensile plastic
zone in the downstream sidewall, with a depth ∼2 m, Figure 7.66B(d).

Table 7.20 The measured maximum depth of the excavation damaged zone at the monitoring sections: the data in bold italics were used for back
analysis; and others were used for testing the models.
Monitoring Depth Depth

section Nos. Location (m) Location (m)
S1 Powerhouse Arch crown 2.8 Transformer chamber Arch crown 3.0
Foot of arch upstream 2.0 Foot of arch at upstream 1.8
Foot of arch downstream 3.0 Foot of arch downstream 2.6
Rock anchorage 2.4 Upstream sidewall, 2.0
beam upstream second layer
Rock anchorage 1.4 Downstream sidewall, 1.6
beam downstream second layer
Foot of arch upstream 1.8 Foot of arch upstream 1.8
Foot of arch upstream 2.2 Foot of arch upstream 2.0
S4 Powerhouse Arch crown 1.4
Foot of arch upstream 3.0
Foot of arch downstream 2.8
Rock anchorage 2.4
beam upstream
Rock anchorage 3.6
beam downstream
5/24/2011 6:21:34 PM
Table 7.21 Value levels of the parameters, training samples, and testing samples for the monitoring
section S1.
Sample E0_51 E0_4 Ed_51 Ed_4 c0_51 c0_4 φ0_51 φ0_4

Nos. (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (°) (°)
Value levels 1 7.5 6.5 5.0 4.5 7.5 7.0 18 16

2 8.0 7.0 5.5 5.0 8.0 7.5 20 18
3 8.5 7.5 6.0 5.5 8.5 8.0 22 20
4 9.0 8.0 6.5 6.0 9.0 8.5 24 22
5 9.5 8.5 7.0 6.5 9.5 9.0 26 24
Training 1 8.0 6.5 6.5 4.5 9.5 7.0 22 22
samples 2 9.0 6.5 5.5 4.5 8.0 8.0 22 18
3 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 9.5 8.5 20 20
4 7.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 8.5 7.5 18 20
5 7.5 7.0 6.0 4.5 8.0 8.5 20 24

40 9.0 6.5 7.0 5.5 7.5 8.0 20 24
Testing 41 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 8.0 7.0 26 16
samples 42 8.5 7.0 5.0 4.5 9.5 8.5 22 16
43 7.5 6.5 7.0 5.0 8.5 8.0 22 24
44 9.0 8.0 5.5 4.5 7.5 7.5 24 22
45 8.0 7.5 5.5 6.5 9.0 9.0 26 22

50 7.5 8.5 5.0 6.0 8.5 7.5 20 20
(a)

(b)
(c)
(d)

(e)
Figure 7.65 Calculation models for the current excavation layer for (a) the monitoring section S1,
(b) the monitoring section S2, (c) the monitoring section S3, (d) the monitoring section
S4, and (e) the complete three dimensional model.
Table 7.22 The mechanical parameters to be used directly for calculation.
Poisson’s Degenerated Degenerated _ _

Section Rock ratio friction angle cohesion cd ε φp ε cp
Nos. types ν φd (°) (MPa) (10−3) (10−3)
S1 T2y4 0.23 45 0.5 6.0 4.0

T2y51 0.23 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
S2 T2y4 0.23 45 0.5 6.0 4.0
T2y51 0.23 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
S3 T2y4 0.23 45 0.5 6.0 4.0
T2y51 0.23 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
S4 T2y51 0.23 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
20
18
Measured
16 Calculated by using the recognised parameters
14 Predicted
Displacement(mm)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Mcf0+000- Mcf0+000- Mcf0+000- Mzb0+000- Mzb0+000- Mzb0+000- Mcf0+000- Mcf0+000- Mcf0+000- Mzb0+000-
1 Point 4 2 Point 3 7 Point 1 1 Point 4 3 Point 1 3 Point 2 1 Point 1 1 Point 3 2 Point 2 2 Point 1
(a)
Figure 7.66A (Continued).

4.0
Measured
Calculated by using the recognised parameters
3.0 Predicted
Depth (m)
2.0
1.0
0.0
Rock Foot of arch Foot of arch at Upstream Foot of arch at Foot of arch at
anchorage at downstream downstream of sidewall of upstream of upstream of
beam at of powerhouse powerhouse of transformer powerhouse transformer
upstream transformer chamber chamber
of powerhouse chamber
(b)
10
Measured
8 Calculated by using recognised
Displacement(mm)
parameters
6
Predicted
4
0
Mcf0+062- Mcf0+062- Mcf0+062- Mzb0+062- Mzb0+062- Mzb0+062- Mcf0+062- Mcf0+062- Mcf0+062- Mzb0+062-
2 Point 1 2 Point 2 2 Point 3 3 Point 1 3 Point 2 3 Point 3 1 Point 4 2 Point 4 3 Point 1 1 Point 4
(c)
4.0 Measured
Calculated by using
recognised parameters
3.0
Predicted
Depth (m)
2.0
1.0
0.0
Rock Rock Upstream Foot of arch at Arch crown of Foot of arch at
anchorage anchorage sidewall of downstream powerhouse upstream of
beam at beam at transformer of transformer transformer
upstream of downstream of chamber chamber chamber
powerhouse powerhouse
(d)
Figure 7.66A (Continued).

7
6
Displacement (mm)
5 Measured
Calculated by using recognised value
4 Predicted
0
Mcf0+108.5-2 Mcf0+108.5-2 Mcf0+108.5-2 Mzb0+108.5-3 Mcf0+108.5-1 Mzb0+108.5-3 Mzb0+108.5-4
Point 1 Point 3 Point 4 Point 1 Point 4 Point 3 Point 3
(e)
Measured
3.5
Calculated by using recognised
3 parameters
2.5 Predicted
Depth (m)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Foot of arch at Rock anchorage Foot of arch at Foot of arch at Arch crown Rock anchorage
downstream of beam at upstream upstream of downstream of beam at downstream
powerhouse of powerhouse transformer transformer of powerhouse
chamber chamber
(f)
Measured displacement
12 6
Calculated displacement by using recognised parameters
10 Predicted displacement 5
Predicted excavation damaged zone
Displacement (mm)
8 4
Measured excavation damaged zone
Depth (m)
6 3
4 2
2 1
0 0
Mcf0+192-1 Mcf0+192-2 Rock Foot of arch at Mcf0+192-1 Mcf0+192-2 Arch crown
Point 3 Point 1 anchorage downstream Point 4 Point 2
beam at
upstream
(g)
Figure 7.66A Comparison of the calculation results using the recognised parameters in Tables 7.19
and 7.20 with the measured data for (a) displacements at different locations and (b) the
depth of the excavation damaged zone at different locations for Section S1, (c) the
displacements at different locations and (d) the depth of the excavation damaged zone
of different locations for Section S2, (e) the displacements at different locations and
(f) the depth of the excavation damaged zone for different locations at Section S3, and
(g) the displacements at different locations and the depth of the excavation damaged
zone at different locations for Section S4.

Table 7.23 Established mechanical parameters for various monitoring sections.
The monitoring E0_51 E0_4 Ed_51 Ed_4 c0_51 c0_4 φ0_51 φ0_4
section nos. (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (°) (°)
S1 8.2 7.1 5.1 4.6 7.7 7.4 18.4 22.4

S2 8.7 7.3 5.5 4.4 7.4 7.3 22.2 17.5
S3 8.5 8.1 6.3 5.1 7.6 7.5 20.0 23.0
S4 7.7 5.5 7.5 20.8
Note: E0_51 is the initial deformation modulus of the stratum T5-1 2y

; E0_4 is initial deformation modulus of the
stratum T42y; Ed_51 is the degenerated deformation modulus of the stratum T5-1 2y
; Ed_4 is the degenerated deformation
modulus of the stratum T42y; C0_51 is the initial cohesion of the stratum T5-1 2y
; C0_4 is the initial cohesion of the stratum
T42y; φ0_51 is the initial friction angle of the stratum T5–1
2y
; φ0_4 is the initial friction angle of the stratum T42y.
(a)
(b)
Figure 7.66B (Continued).

(c)
(d)
Figure 7.66B Numerically calculated (a) displacement (mm), (b) maximum principal stress (MPa),
(c) minimum principal stress (MPa), and (d) plastic zone distribution of the section of
Generator No. 5 after excavation of Stage 3.
7.7.2.8 Stability prediction and design optimisation of the

underground powerhouse for excavation of Layer IV
Stability prediction of the underground powerhouse after excavation of Layer IV. Using
the same numerical model shown in Figure 7.65e, with the designed height of Layer IV,
the calculated results for the underground powerhouse showed: (1) that the maximum
deformation was in the range 50–55 mm in the upstream sidewall and about 45 mm in
the downstream sidewall; (2) the plastic zone was about 3 m in the upstream sidewall
and about 2 m in the downstream sidewall; and (3) there was obvious stress relaxation
in the upstream sidewall, and across the mouth of the cavern there was projecting rock
and a fractured zone. The results for the transformer chamber indicated: (1) that the
maximum deformation was about 45 mm in the upstream sidewall and about 35 mm

in the downstream sidewall; (2) the plastic zone was in the range 2–3 m in the upstream
sidewall and about 2 m in the downstream sidewall; and (3) there was obvious stress
relaxation in the upstream sidewall. There would be a higher stress concentration and
associated failure at the downstream sidewall due to excavation of Layer IV of the
powerhouse and Layer III of the transformer chamber (Figure 7.67). The calculated
results also indicated that the typical failure modes induced by excavation of Layer IV
of the powerhouse and Layer III of the transformer chamber would be opening of bed-
ding planes in the upstream sidewall, rock falls induced by steep bedding planes, plus
collapse related to faults and fractured zones. There would be a large stress relaxation
in the downstream sidewall of the powerhouse near the bus tunnels and a large risk of
cracking and opening in the surrounding rock and concrete.
(a)
(b)

(c)
(d)
Figure 7.67 The numerically calculated (a) displacement (mm), (b) maximum principal stress (MPa),
(c) minimum principal stress (MPa), and (d) plastic zone distribution in the section at Gen-
erator No. 5 after excavation of Layer IV of the powerhouse at the initially designed height.
Further optimal design of the underground powerhouse for Layer IV and

subsequent excavation.
According to the actual stability state of the cavern group after excavation of
Layer III of the powerhouse and Layer II of the transformer chamber and the predic-
tion for the stability of the caverns after excavation of Layer IV of the powerhouse and
Layer III of the transformer chamber, re-optimisation was implemented.
1 Re-optimisation of the blasting design. The areas affected by faults F65 and
F16 were fractured and unstable after excavation. Therefore, it was important to

reduce the influence of blasting vibration. It was suggested that there was a need
to adopt the pre-splitting blasting technique using a protective layer 1 m thick,
plus a small explosive load to reduce the blasting vibration. At the zone affected
by the fault, the designed layers should be excavated in two sub-layers.
2 Re-optimisation of the excavation bench height. After excavation of Layer III
of the powerhouse, the main caverns of the powerhouse system were excavated
smoothly, and excavation of the generator installation room was complete; the
excavation of the upper part of the turbine pit was finished to half the height;
the excavation of the pilot drift was also complete. Apart from faults F65 and
F16, there were no other unfavourable geological conditions. The monitored
results showed that the deformations and plastic zones of the cavern group
were all in control. In order to complete the construction of the cavern group
as soon as possible, the subsequent excavation of the powerhouse and trans-
former chamber could be further optimised. Table 7.24 and Figure 7.68 list the
bench heights and time schedule for Layer IV and subsequent excavation of the
powerhouse was re-optimised and the procedure recommended. The numeri-
cal analysis results for the updated Layer IV and subsequent excavation of the
powerhouse indicated that there were little differences in the deformations and
plastic zones induced by excavation in the initial and updated design, except
for the excavation of Layer VI in the updated design which was thicker than in
the initial design, Figure 7.69 (a), (b), (c), (d). Also, there was not much differ-
ence in the extents of the excavation damaged zones between the updated and
initial designs, Figure 7.69 (g). This indicated that the updated design should be
accepted.
3 Re-optimisation of support design for the updated subsequent excavation. It was
indicated from numerical analysis that there would be more stress relaxation in
the upstream sidewalls of the powerhouse and transformer chamber and more
stress concentration in the downstream sidewall of the powerhouse due to further
excavation of Layer IV of the powerhouse. There would be a deeper plastic zone.
Also, there would be a high risk of cracking in the bus tunnel. Therefore, the
Table 7.24 The initial and re-optimised excavation bench height for Layer IV and the sub-sequence
for the powerhouse.
Optimal excavation layers

Initial obtained after excavation of
design Layer III of the powerhouse
Difference of Difference in
Altitude bench height Altitude bench height
Layers (m) (m) (m) (m) Remarks
IV 1334.3–1326.8 7.5 1332.3–1327.8 4.5

V 1326.8–1320.8 6.0 1327.8–1323.3 4.5
VI 1320.8–1313.5 7.3 1323.3–1314.3 9.0
VII 1313.5–1301.1 12.4 1314.3–1302.1 12.2 Pilot shaft method
of drilling
VIII 1301.1–1294.6 6.5 1302.1–1294.1 8.0
IX 1294.6–1292.1 2.5 1294.1–1292.1 2.0 Bottom of foundation

Second half of 2008 First half of 2009 Second half of 2009
Widening and reinforcement at Layer III

Slot excavation at Layer IV
Widening and reinforcement at Layer IV

Excavation at Layer V from Nos.8 and 1 head conduit
Slot excavation at Layer V

Widening and reinforcement at Layer V
Slot excavation at Layer VI
Widening and reinforcement at Layer VI

Widening and reinforcement at Layer VI
Excavation and reinforcement at
Layers VIII and IX, sump
Figure 7.68 Re-optimisation of the excavation procedure for the powerhouse after Layer IV.
60 60
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
40 40
Updated design Updated design

20 20
Initial design Initial design
0 0
II III IV V VI VII VIII IX V VI VII VIII IX
No. of excavation layers No. of excavation layers
(a) (d)
75 60
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
60
45 40
Updated design
30 Updated design 20 Initial design
15 Initial design
0
0 IV V VI VII VIII IX
III IV V VI VII VIII IX
(b) (e)
60
60
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
40 40
Updated design Updated design
20 20
Initial design
Initial design
0
0 IV V VI VII VIII IX
IV V VI VII VIII IX
(c) (f)

Figure 7.69 Comparison of deformations induced by excavation in the initial and updated designs at
(a) upstream EL1349.5, (b) upstream EL1345.4, (c) upstream EL1330, (d) upstream side-
wall EL1321.5, (e) downstream EL1326, (f) downstream EL 1317, and (g) plastic zones at
various excavation layers.
spacing of rockbolts and cable anchors was reduced at these locations. An addi-
tional row of cable anchors with spacing 3 m and length 20 m was recommended
at the altitude EL1321 and the grouted 6 m rockbolts in the lower part of the bus
tunnels were replaced by anchor piles 15 m long.
4 Increased number of monitoring sections. Due to the influence of fault F65,
section Nos. S6 and S7 were added, Figure 7.35.
5 Establishment of the deformation management classification for Layer IV and
the subsequent excavation of the underground powerhouse. Since there are dif-
ferent deformation characteristics in the upstream and downstream sidewalls of
the powerhouse and transformer chamber, deformation management classifica-
tions for the locations were established. Using the same method as before, a set
of deformation management classifications were established for Layer IV and
subsequent excavation of underground powerhouse, as listed in Table 7.25.

7.7.3 Dynamic design of the underground powerhouse

for the excavation in Stage 4
7.7.3.1 Calibration of geological conditions
The geological conditions revealed after excavation of Layer IV and the upper half of
Layer V of the powerhouse and Layers III and IV of the transformer chamber were
as follows.
1 The rock type was the same as for Layer III of the powerhouse, mainly in class III.
2 There were no large scale faults, but developed fractured zones, bedding planes
and steep joints accompanying F65.
3 The surrounding rock on the downstream side was good. There was only one
small horizontal fault through the bus tunnels Nos. 4–6 which was unfavourable
to the stability of the cavern (Figure 7.70).
4 The rock around the transformer chamber was mainly located in T2y4, with devel-
oped joints, and poorer than in the powerhouse, and where collapse occurred
(Figure 7.71).
7.7.3.2 Verification of local failure modes

The stability of the cavern was generally good after the Stage 4 excavation. However,
due to the influence of F68 and reinforcement not being installed in time, there were
several local failures during excavation of the powerhouse and transformer chamber, as
shown in Figures 7.72 and 7.73, which agree with the pre-construction prediction.
7.7.3.3 Verification of the in situ stress field

The local failure modes which occurred during the construction of the cavern indi-
cated that the orientation of the maximum principal stress is nearly parallel to the axis
of the powerhouse with a plunge angle in the range 35–50° (Figure 7.74) which is in
agreement with the assumption before construction.
7.7.3.4 Application of the established deformation

management classification
The monitoring results from the multi-point displacement meter Mzb0+000-3 at the
monitoring section S1 indicated that the deformation increase induced by the exca-
vation of Layer IV in the transformer chamber reached 17.18 mm on 15 September
2008 (Figure 7.75) which was greater than the ‘warning’ of 15 mm in the established
deformation classification for excavation of Layer IV of the transformer chamber as
listed in Table 7.26. In fact, there was cracking in that region (Figure 7.76). On adding
9 m lengths of pre-stressed cable anchors, the transformer chamber was then stable.
This indicated the utility of the established deformation management classification.

Table 7.25 Deformation management classifications for the powerhouse and transformer chamber before excavation of Stage 4 (Layer III of the
powerhouse and Layer II of the transformer chamber).
Deformation-based safety classification for the surrounding rock

increase velocity increase velocity increase velocity
Locations (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
Upstream sidewall of the powerhouse for 15.0 0.3 25.0 0.5 35.0 0.8
excavation of Layer IV of the powerhouse
Downstream sidewall of the powerhouse for 12.0 0.2 18.0 0.4 25.0 0.7
excavation of Layer IV of the powerhouse
excavation of the upper half of Layer V
of the powerhouse
Downstream sidewall of the powerhouse 12.0 0.2 18.0 0.4 25.0 0.7
for excavation of the upper half of Layer V
of the powerhouse
excavation of Layer III of the transformer
chamber
Downstream sidewall of the powerhouse for 10.0 0.3 18.0 0.5 25.0 0.7
excavation of Layer III of the transformer
chamber
Upstream sidewall of transformer chamber for 10.0 0.3 15.0 0.5 25.0 0.7
excavation of Layer IV
Downstream sidewall of transformer chamber 10.0 0.3 18.0 0.5 25.0 0.7
for excavation of Layer IV
5/24/2011 6:21:48 PM
Figure 7.70 Geological sketch of CR0+065 to 0+135 for the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse.
Figure 7.71 The rock surrounding the transformer chamber after excavation of Layer IV.
7.7.3.5 Dynamic control of the locally unstable surrounding

rock during excavation of Stage 4
After excavation of the electric cable gallery, a collapse occurred in the upstream
sidewall of the transformer chamber where it intersected with the bus tunnel No. 3
(Figure 7.77). It can be seen from the geological sketch (Figure 7.78a) that developed
bedding planes existed in this region, together with the occurrence of faults F16, F21,
and the fractured zone P16–18. The 3-D stress simulation indicated there was a larger
stress relaxation in the upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber after excavation
of the electric-line gallery (Figure 7.78b). Therefore, reinforcement in the upstream
sidewall of the transformer chamber near the bus tunnels was recommended. Two rows
of pre-stressed cable anchors were used to improve the stability of the surrounding
rock which had been subject to significant stress relaxation. The collapse was repaired
by using a lining and then pre-stressed grouted rockbolts, Figure 7.79(a); stability in
this region was then achieved, Figure 7.79(b).

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 7.72 Typical local failures which occurred in the powerhouse after excavation of Layer IV.
(a) rock instability induced by joints, (b) opening of joints caused by unloading, (c) sliding
due to the fault, (d) rock falling at the cross-location of the head conduit and powerhouse,
(e) concrete failure at the downstream foot of the arch, and (f) cracking in the bus tunnel.

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 7.73 Typical local failure modes which occurred in the transformer chamber after excavation
of Layers III and IV. (a) Rock falling from the downstream sidewall, (b) Eroded strata at
the upstream sidewall, (c) Fault F16 in the upstream side, and (d) Circular cracking in the
fourth bus tunnel.
Maximum
principal
Maximum stress
principal
stress Maximum
principal
stress
Cracking of
shotcrete
Spalling
Figure 7.74 Location of typical local failures at Jinping II powerhouse after the excavation of Stage 4.

Figure 7.75 The deformation curve of the multi-point displacement meter at the point Mzb0+000–3.
Table 7.26 The deformation management classification for excavation of Layer IV of the transformer
chamber.
Safety classification for the rock surrounding the cavern using deformation values

Layer Location (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
IV Upstream 10 0.3 15 0.5 25 0.7

sidewall
Figure 7.76 Cracking which occurred in the downstream arch side of the transformer chamber.

High sidewall ∇1367.80
∇1360.77
Transformer
chamber
∇1348.30
Bus tunnel
∇1333.70
∇1326.70 Electric cable gallery
Figure 7.77 Collapse in the upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber at the intersection with
bus tunnel No. 3.
(a) (b)
Figure 7.78 (a) Geological sketch and (b) minimum principal stress at the intersection of the bus tun-
nel and upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber after excavation of Layer IV.

1341.7
1340.6
1335.80
71 φ22@20 65 φ22@20
26 φ22@20 26 φ22@20
1328.6
Pre-stressed grouted
Pre-stressed grouted 1326.7 rockbolts, φ32 mm
rockbolts, φ32 mm
CR 0+055.00
@100x240, T = 120 kN, L = 800
CR 0+065.90
@100x240,T = 120kN, L = 800

@100x240, T = 120kN, L = 800
@25x25
(a)
(b)
Figure 7.79 (a) Designed and (b) actual reinforcement for collapse in the upstream sidewall of the
transformer chamber where it intersected with bus tunnel No. 3.
7.7.3.6 Stability appraisal of the surrounding rock

after excavation of Stage 4
By using the same method, the initial deformation modulus and initial cohesion were
determined through the monitored increase in deformation and the excavation dam-
aged zone after the excavation of Layer IV. Other mechanical parameters were deter-
mined by using classification and equivalence. The results are listed in Table 7.27.

Table 7.27 Mechanical parameters of the surrounding rock after excavation of Stage 4.
Established by
back analysis Determined by classification and equivalence
_ _
Rock E0 c0 Ed ν φ0 φd cd εφp εcp
Sections types (GPa) (MPa) (GPa) (°) (°) (MPa) (10−3) (10−3)
S1 T42y 6.8 7.1 4.6 0.23 45 45 0.5 6.0 4.0

5-1
T2y 8.2 7.8 5.1 0.23 52 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
S2 T42y 7.5 7.0 4.4 0.23 45 45 0.5 6.0 4.0
5-1
T2y 8.3 7.5 5.5 0.23 52 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
S3 T42y 7.9 7.0 5.1 0.23 45 45 0.5 6.0 4.0
5-1
T2y 8.6 7.7 6.3 0.23 52 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
S4 T42y 7.4 7.3 5.5 0.23 52 52 0.5 5.0 4.0
Note: E0 is the initial elastic modulus; c0 is the initial cohesion; Ed is the degraded deformation modulus; _ _ ν is
Poisson’s ratio; φ0 is the initial friction angle; φd is the degraded friction angle; cd is the degraded cohesion; εcp, εφp are
the critical plastic strains to reach the degraded cohesion and enhanced friction angle, respectively.
The mechanical behaviour of the surrounding rock after the excavation of Stage
4 was re-analysed using the mechanical parameters listed in Table 7.27. The results
indicated the following.
1 There are large deformations in the arch side and sidewall in the upstream side of
the powerhouse, of 50–58 mm and 45–50 mm, respectively. The largest deforma-
tion occurred in the downstream sidewall of the powerhouse at its intersection
with the bus tunnel: 30–45 mm. In the transformer chamber, there were also large
deformations in the upstream arch side and sidewall of 55 mm maximum and
30–40 mm in the downstream sidewall, Figure 7.80(a).
2 The stress concentration which occurred at the downstream arch foot and upstream
sidewall foot of the powerhouse, had a maximum value of −30 to −35 MPa (com-
pression negative). There was a clear stress relaxation in the sidewall of the pow-
erhouse, with 0 to 0.5 MPa tensile stress locally, Figure 7.80(b), (c).
3 There were different plastic zone distributions around the powerhouse after exca-
vation of Layer IV, i.e., a tensile plastic zone in the upstream arch side and a
tensile-shearing plastic zone in the sidewall, of extent 2–3 m generally, and 3–4 m
for the fault zone. There was a shearing plastic zone/tensile plastic zone in the
downstream sidewall, with a depth of about 2–3 m and, for the transformer
chamber, the plastic zone was generally about 2 m, but 4 m for the fault zones
(F16, F35 and F21) and fractured zones, Figure 7.80(d).
7.7.3.7 Stability prediction for the underground powerhouse

and design optimisation for excavation of Stage 5
Using the same numerical model shown in Figure 7.65(e), with the updated height of
Layer VI in Table 7.24, the calculated results (Figure 7.81) for the underground pow-
erhouse after excavation of Layer VI indicated the following.

(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)
Figure 7.80 (a) Displacement distribution, (b) maximum principal stress, (c) minimum principal stress,
and (d) plastic zone in the central section of the generator unit No. 5 after excavation of
Layer IV of the powerhouse.
1 The maximum deformation is 55–60 mm at the upstream arch side, about 55 mm

at the upstream sidewall, 50–55 mm at the bus tunnel near the downstream side-
wall of the powerhouse.
2 The plastic zone is about 2–3 m in the upper sidewall with tensile-shearing, 3–4 m
in the fault affected zone, and plastic shearing at the downstream arch side of
about 2–3 m depth.
3 The stress concentration at the downstream foot of the arch has a maximum princi-
pal stress value in the range −30 to −35 MPa. There is stress relaxation in the middle
part of the upstream sidewall and lower central part of the downstream sidewall,
with local tensile stress of 0.5 MPa. There would be further high stress relaxation in
the region of the bus tunnels which would result in cracking of the bus tunnels.
The results (Figure 7.81) for the transformer chamber after excavation of the electric
line gallery indicated the following.
1 The maximum deformation is 40–55 mm in the upstream sidewall and 30–42 mm

in the downstream sidewall.
2 The plastic zone is about 2 m generally for the entire transformer chamber, but
about 4 m in the zones affected by faults, such as F16, F35, F21 and the fractured
zone. There is a 3–4 m plastic zone at the bus tunnel region of the powerhouse
and the intersection of the head conduit and powerhouse.
7.7.3.8 Re-optimisation of the Stage 5 excavation and support

design for the underground powerhouse
1 Re-optimisation of the excavation scheme for the sump. Due to the unfavourable
geological conditions shown in Figure 7.82, the excavation and support design

(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)
Figure 7.81 The calculated (a) displacement, (b) maximum principal stress, (c) minimum principal
stress, (d) plastic zone in the central section of generator No. 5 of the powerhouse after
excavation of Layer VI. (See colour plate section).
(a) (b)
Figure 7.82 Unfavourable geological conditions that occurred at the upstream and downstream side-
walls of the sump. (a) The counter-inclined bedding plane in the upstream sidewall of the
sump. (b) Fault F68 on the downstream sidewall of the sump.
scheme for the sump had to be re-optimised. There were two potential schemes
for excavation of the sumps: the top-down scheme and the cross scheme listed in
Table 7.28. The former term represents the top to bottom excavation procedure, i.e.,
Layer VII ⇒ Layer VIII ⇒ Layer IX; at each layer, turbine pits for generator Nos. 1,
3, 5, and 7 were firstly excavated, then the turbine pits for generator Nos. 2, 4, 6,
and 8, and then the isolated bodies between these turbine pits were excavated.
The three calculation results indicated that there would be increases of
5.9–22%, 7.6–22%, and 7.4–8.9% for the plastic zone volume, brittle failure
volume and cumulative elastic energy release at the cross-excavation scheme,
compared with the top-down scheme (see Figure 7.83). Therefore, the top-down
excavation scheme was recommended and adopted.

Table 7.28 The cross excavation scheme for the sump and turbine pits of generator Nos. 1 and 2.
2008 2009
Excavation item Period Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Excavation of pilot shaft at Layer VII of 3.1–3.15
generator No.1
Widening at Layer VII of generator No.1 3.15–3.25
Widening and reinforcement at Layer VII 3.26–5.5
of generator No.1
Excavation and reinforcement of downstream 12.1–12.31
part at Layer VIII of generator No.1
Excavation and reinforcement of upstream 5.6–5.20
Reinforcement of protective Layer at Layer IX 5.21–6.5
of generator No.1
Excavation of protective Layer above EL1310.8 4.1–8.15
Excavation and reinforcement of construction 1.1–2.10
passage of collecting well
Excavation and reinforcement at Layer VII of 5.6–5.31
collecting well
Excavation and reinforcement of rock pillar at 6.1–6.15
Layer VIII of collecting well
Excavation and reinforcement at Layer IX of 6.16–7.31
collecting well
Excavation of pilot shaft at Layer VII of 4.1–4.15
generator No.2
Widening at Layer VII of generator No.2 4.16–4.25
Widening and reinforcement at Layer VII of 4.26–5.30
generator No.2
Excavation and reinforcement of downstream 12.21–1.20
Excavation and reinforcement of upstream 6.1–6.15
Reinforcement of protective Layer at Layer IX 6.16–6.30
of generator No.2
5/24/2011 6:22:05 PM
Top-down 2
1
scheme
Cross 0
0
scheme
0
3 2 2 3
1
2 1
3 2
3
(a)
80000
Cross scheme Top-down scheme
60000
40000
20000
0
Volume of plastic zone (m3) Volume of brittle failure (m3) Elastic energy release (×1e4J)
(b)
15000
Cross scheme Top-down scheme
12000
9000
6000
3000
0
Volume of plastic zone (m3) Volume of brittle failure (m3) Elastic energy release (×1e4J)
(c)
Figure 7.83 Comparison of the calculated results for two excavation schemes of the sump. (a) mini-
mum principal stress, (b) plastic zone volume, brittle failure volume and elastic energy
release in the area of the auxiliary powerhouse and generator unit 2, (c) plastic zone
volume, brittle failure volume and elastic energy release at Layer VI and below for the
auxiliary powerhouse and generator unit 2.

2 Re-optimisation of the support design. In order to ensure the cavern safety during
subsequent excavation, the support design was re-optimised as follows. Two rows
of cable anchors and water drainage boreholes were added on the downstream
sidewall of the powerhouse where there was high stress concentration. There
were high stresses at the generator housing room and a rockburst occurred dur-
ing its excavation. Also circumferential cracking occurred after the excavation of
Layer IV. The numerical calculation indicated there was a strong unloading effect
(Figure 7.84). Therefore, three rows of cable anchors were recommended in the
end-wall of the generator housing room.
3 Increase of observation boreholes. Since cracking occurred in the downstream
and upstream sidewalls, drainage gallery, and end-wall of the generator housing
room, plus the increase of the monitored deformation in the surrounding rock and
the support loading at some locations, the series of boreholes listed in Table 7.29
were added to observe changes in the elastic wave velocity and cracking.
4 Establishment of the underground powerhouse deformation management clas-
sification system for excavation Layer VI. According to the layers of excavation
used for feedback analysis and design optimisation shown in Table 7.16, it is
only required to establish the deformation management classifications for the
upstream and downstream sidewalls of the powerhouse for excavation of Layer
VI. The results are listed in Table 7.30.
7.7.4 Dynamic design for the control measures

of the local unstable surrounding rock induced
by excavation of the multi-layers
In the sections above, the dynamic design for control measures relating to the locally
unstable surrounding rocks induced by the excavation of one layer has been dis-
cussed, and which indicates the applicability of the established deformation manage-
ment classification. Here, we give an example to illustrate how to perform dynamic
design of the control measures.
Figure 7.84 Plastic zone evolution at the end-wall of the generator housing room.

Table 7.29 Recommended observations by digital borehole camera and of the elastic wave velocity
around the underground powerhouse.
Location of Altitude of the

Location monitoring boreholes monitoring boreholes Monitoring frequency
Upstream CR0+005 – CR0+010 At altitude EL1338 m Measured before and

sidewall About CR0+065 At altitude EL1330 m (middle after the blasting:
of upstream sidewall) immediately, 1, 3,
About CR0+200 At EL1320 m (upper part of 7 days interval
pressure pipe) after that and then
Downstream About CR0+005 At about altitude EL1337 m one or two weeks’
sidewall (upper part of bus tunnel) intervals
Area of the bus At altitude EL1326 m (lower
tunnel Nos. 4 or 5 part of bottom of bus
tunnel)
Area of the bus At altitude EL1313 m
tunnel Nos. 7 or 8 (upper part of the
projecting rock mass)
End-wall End-wall of the The monitoring boreholes
installation room at the end-wall of the
installation room are
between the entry tunnel
and No. 1 construction
subtunnel, e.g., at altitude
EL1350 m
End-wall of The observational boreholes
the auxiliary at the end-wall of auxiliary
powerhouse powerhouse are at altitudes
EL1343, EL1332, and
EL1320 m
Notes
1 The locations and altitudes of the observation sections can be slightly modified according to the actual geological
conditions.
2 The observational frequency and time can be determined to satisfy adequate observation of the stress adjustment
and weakening of the surrounding rock.
3 The blasting affected range should be limited to 30–50 m and modified according to the blasting vibration
levels.
Table 7.30 The deformation management classification for excavation of Layer VI of the powerhouse.
Safety classification for the surrounding rock using the deformation magnitude

Locations (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
Upstream 15.0 0.3 20.0 0.5 30.0 0.7

sidewall
Downstream 15.0 0.3 20.0 0.5 30.0 0.7
sidewall

7.7.4.1 The first feedback analysis and optimal design

of reinforcement for excavation of Layer II
of the generator housing room
The monitored results of the Mcf0+263-1 (see Figure 7.85) indicated that there was
a rapid increase in deformation during the excavation of Layer II of the powerhouse,
indicated by point ‘a’ in Figure 7.86. The deformation at this point increased from
12.76 mm on 24 February 2008 to 20.89 mm on 28 February 2008, which gave a
deformation velocity of 1.1–3.4 mm/d. The monitored deformation magnitude and
velocity were both beyond the ‘warning’ values in the deformation management clas-
sification listed in Table 7.31.
Firstly, the geological conditions in this area were analysed. The results indi-
cated that there was a set of developed step joints at N5°E, SE88°, and a set of
lesser developed joints at N80°W, SW45°, (Figure 7.87). These two sets of joints,
Steep joints
Drainage gallery at Layer II

∇1356.0
∇1353.1 Layer I
Mcf0+263–1 ∇1348.2
Layer II
σ1 ∇1343.3
Downstream
Upstream
sidewall
sidewall
σ3 ∇1333.9 Layer III
Figure 7.85 Location of the multipoint displacement meter Mcf0+263.6-1 at the generator housing
room, m.
35
b
30 1.01m from sidewall 3.51m from sidewall
a
Displacement(mm)
25 8.51m from sidewall 15.51m from sidewall
20
15
10
0
07-11-14 07-12-4 07-12-24 08-1-13 08-2-2 08-2-22 08-3-13
Date(y-m-d)
Figure 7.86 Deformation curve of Mcf0+263.6-1during excavation of Layer II and III of the generator
housing room.

Table 7.31 The deformation management classification for the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse
for excavation of Layer II.
Safety classification for surrounding rock by using deformation magnitudes

increase increase increase increase increase increase
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
15.0 0.15 20.0 0.25 30.0 0.4
CR0+265 CR0+260
1355 m
(1)N5°ESE,dip88° (2)N80°WSWdip45°
1345 m
Figure 7.87 Joints at CR0+263.6 in the upstream sidewall of the generator housing room.
even with the excavation face, cannot form unstable blocks because the minimum
number of faces required for a block is four, i.e., for a tetrahedral block. This means
that the rapid increase in the deformation is not due to the slipping of joints and/or
slipping of potential rock blocks formed by joints. However, it can be seen from
Figure 7.85 that the steep bedding planes dip towards the upstream side of the cav-
ern and the maximum principal stress is almost in the same direction. The bedding
planes and stress hence cause a larger adjustment of stress during the excavation,
i.e., an increase in stress in the vertical direction. The adjustment of the stress field,
verified by the following numerical analysis, and the disturbance during construc-
tion would result in splitting and buckling of steep joints to reveal a larger increase
of deformation.
Using the monitored deformation at section S5 of CR0+263.6 (Figure 7.88), the
established parameters in this area, E0 and c0, are lower than in other sections (as seen
by comparison of Tables 7.32 and 7.33). This indicated that there were unfavour-
able geological conditions. Further numerical calculation using the parameters listed
in Table 7.32 indicated that the maximum principal stress in the upstream sidewall
is nearly vertical with the minimum principal stress being nearly horizontal after the
excavation of Layer II (Figure 7.89).

Figure 7.88 The numerical calculation model for monitoring section S5.
Accordingly, the following control measures were recommended and adopted.
1 Immediately stop excavation of the remaining part of Layer II at the generator

housing room CR0+263.
2 Increase the frequency of displacement monitoring at this area.
3 Immediately install a system of rockbolts (spacing 1.5 × 1.5 m, lengths 6 m or 9 m)
and pre-stressed cable anchors (spacing 4.5 × 4.5 m at 1750 kN) at EL1345.
The deformations tended to stabilise after reinforcement (see Figure 7.90).
7.7.4.2 The second feedback analysis and optimal design

for the reinforcement during excavation of Layer II
of the generator housing room
The excavation of the upper part of Layer III in the generator housing room started on
6 March 2008 after implemention of the above measures. The deformation increased
rapidly to 29.2 mm on 17 March 2008 (point ‘b’ in Figure 7.86). Subsequent exca-
vation will result in further increase in the deformation, so reinforcement was rec-
ommended to be implemented immediately. The deformation in the reinforced
surrounding rock was gently increasing, but not beyond the established deformation
management classification level (after point ‘b’ in Figure 7.85).
During the excavation of the lower half of Layer III, the deformation increased rap-
idly again (Figure 7.90). Further numerical analysis indicated that there was clear stress
relaxation in the upstream sidewall which caused opening of the bedding (Figure 7.91).
Therefore, strengthening reinforcement design was recommended and adopted
(Figure 7.92). Since the depth of relaxation was about 4 m, known from the moni-
tored deformation, the 9 m length of the pre-stressed grouted rockbolts was adequate.

Table 7.32 Parameters for the numerical calculations. The emboldened data were established from back analysis of the monitored displacement
increase and the depth of the excavation damaged zone as induced by excavation.
_ _
Stratum Initial Reduced Poisson’s Initial Enhanced Initial Reduced ε φp ε cp Tensile
deformation deformation ratio friction angle friction angle cohesion cohesion (10−3) (10−3) strength
modulus E0 modulus ν φ0 φd c0 cd (MPa)
(GPa) Ed (GPa) (°) (°) (MPa) (MPa)
5-1
T2y 7.04 5.0 0.23 25 52 8.03 0.5 1.5 3.0 1.5
_ _
Note: ε cp, ε φp are the critical plastic strains required to reach the reduced cohesion and enhanced friction angle, respectively.
5/24/2011 6:22:08 PM
Table 7.33 The deformation modulus (in GPa) at the

various monitoring sections established
by using back analysis.
Values Stratum S1 S3 S4 S5
5-1
Initial T2y 8.78 9.01 8.2 7.05
4
T2y 7.94 8.0
5-1
Residual T2y 6.59 7.00 5.4 5.0
4
T2y 5.96 6.0
∇1364.3 m
σ1
Downstream
Upstream
σ3
∇1343.3m
Figure 7.89 Stress distribution around the generator housing room after excavation Layer II.
40 1.01m from sidewall

3.51m from sidewall
30 8.51m from sidewall
Displacement
15.51m from sidewall

20
10
0
07-12-14 08-1-3 08-1-23 08-2-12 08-3-3 08-3-23 08-4-12 08-5-2 08-5-22
Date (y-m-d)
Figure 7.90 Evolution of displacement monitored at Mcf0+263-1 with excavation and adjustment of
reinforcement. Increase of deformation during excavation Layer II of generator housing
room. The first feedback analysis and optimisation of support design. Excavation and
support of the upper half of Layer III. The second feedback analysis and optimisation
of the support design. Excavation and support of the lower half of Layer III. The
surrounding rock tends to stability.

Downstream sidewall
SIG1(MPa)
Upstream sidewall
Downstream sidewall
0
-4
-8
Upstream sidewall
-12
-16
-20
-28
-32
-36
-40
(a) (b)
Figure 7.91 (a) Maximum principal stress distribution and (b) plastic zone at CR0+263 after excavation
of Layer III of the generator housing room.
Common grouted bolts are changed

to pre-stressed grouted bolts
T=120 kN, L = 9 m, @150×150
1350.0 m
1349.5 m
1348.9 m
2 rows of pre-stressed grouted
bolts(φ32 mm) are added
T = 120 kN, L = 9 m, @150×150
Figure 7.92 Reinforcement with rockbolts in the upstream sidewall of the generator housing room.
After reinforcement of the area, the deformation of 36.0 mm on 3 April 2008 for
Mcf0+263-1 was only increased to 36.6 mm on 17 April 2008 (Figure 7.90). This
meant that the surrounding rock tended to be stable.
Why was a double feedback analysis and design optimisation required for exca-
vation of the generator housing room? The answer is that the exact geological condi-
tions were not known before the excavation of Layers II and III. It can be seen that
there was a fractured zone of 3–4 m width in this area which was revealed after
excavation of Layer III (Figure 7.93). The fractured zone had poor properties and was
strengthened by reinforcement (Table 7.34).

Figure 7.93 The fractured zone located at CR0+263 in the generator housing room.
Table 7.34 Comparison of the rock’s mechanical parameters before and after reinforcement.
The parameters were established by using the monitored displacement after 17 April, 2008.
Parameters Before reinforcement After reinforcement Increase by %
E0 (GPa) 7.04 8.13 15.5

c0 (MPa) 8.03 8.74 8.8
7.7.5 Summary of dynamic feedback analysis

and design optimisation for the underground
powerhouse considering the entire excavation
procedure
7.7.5.1 Recognition of the mechanical parameters

of the surrounding rock
Using geophysical methods and site investigation, we can identify the rock types and
main geological structures before excavation of a large cavern group with a large span
and high sidewalls, but it is more difficult to characterise the joints and fractured
zones. Therefore, establishing the characteristics of the rock surrounding the Jinping II
underground powerhouse cavern complex involved the following procedure.
1 The mechanical behaviour of the marble strata T25-1 4

y and T2y at the powerhouse
location was found through laboratory tests for rock cores/samples and field tests
in the test tunnels.
2 The engineering character of these rocks was also established using classification
methods, i.e., the Q, RMR, and BQ, systems.
3 The data monitored in the exploration tunnels near the powerhouse area were
used to recognise the key parameters of the surrounding rock. Sensitivity analysis

Table 7.35 Summary of the mechanical parameters of the surrounding rock. Underlined parameters
were established by back analysis of the monitored displacement increase and depth of
the excavation damaged zone as induced by each excavation layer. Other parameters were
determined using rock mass classification and nominal values.
_ _
Rock E0 Ed ν φ0 φd c0 cd ε φp ε cp T
Stage Section type (GPa) (GPa) (°) (°) (MPa) (MPa) (10 ) (10−3) (MPa)
−3
1 S3 T 2y5-1 7.41 5.9 0.23 18 52 8.17 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5

T 2y4 8.0 6.0 0.23 22 45 10.5 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
2 S1 T 2y5-1 8.78 6.59 0.23 18 52 8.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.94 5.96 0.23 22 45 7.5 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S2 T 2y5-1 8.9 6.2 0.23 18 52 7.7 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.65 5.4 0.23 22 45 7.5 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S3 T 2y5-1 9.01 7.00 0.23 25.0 52 7.40 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 8.0 6.0 0.23 22 45 7.0 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S4 T 2y5-1 8.2 5.4 0.23 22.5 52 7.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
S5 T 2y5-1 7.05 5.0 0.23 24 52 8.03 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
3 S1 T 2y5-1 8.2 5.1 0.23 18.4 52 7.7 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.1 4.6 0.23 22.4 45 7.4 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
S2 T 2y5-1 8.7 5.5 0.23 22.2 52 7.4 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.3 4.4 0.23 17.5 45 7.3 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S3 T 2y5-1 8.5 6.3 0.23 20 52 7.6 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 8.1 5.1 0.23 23 45 7.5 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S4 T 2y5-1 7.7 5.5 0.23 20.8 52 7.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
4 S1 T 2y5-1 8.2 5.1 0.23 18.4 52 7.8 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 6.8 4.6 0.23 22.4 45 7.1 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
S2 T 2y5-1 8.3 5.5 0.23 22.2 52 7.5 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.5 4.4 0.23 17.5 45 7.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
S3 T 2y5-1 8.6 6.3 0.23 20 52 7.7 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.9 5.1 0.23 23 45 7.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
S4 T 2y5-1 7.4 5.5 0.23 20.8 52 7.3 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
5 S1 T 2y5-1 7.7 4.6 0.23 22.6 52 7.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 6.8 4.6 0.23 22.4 45 7.1 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S2 T 2y5-1 8.5 4.7 0.23 23.8 52 7.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.5 4.4 0.23 17.5 45 7.0 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S3 T 2y5-1 8.7 6.9 0.23 23.3 52 7.8 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.9 5.1 0.23 23 45 7.0 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S4 T 2y5-1 7.3 5.8 0.23 18.0 52 7.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
6 S1 T 2y5-1 8.0 4.1 0.23 19.6 52 7.8 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 6.8 4.6 0.23 22.4 45 7.1 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S2 T 2y5-1 8.1 4.7 0.23 21.3 52 7.8 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.5 4.4 0.23 17.5 45 7.0 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S3 T 2y5-1 8.6 5.9 0.23 20.1 52 7.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5
T 2y4 7.9 5.1 0.23 23 45 7.0 0.5 6.0 4.0 1.5
S4 T 2y5-1 7.7 5.8 0.23 220 52 7.3 0.5 5.0 4.0 1.5

12.0 Measured displacement for the monitoring point(17.16m from sidewall) 1382
Calculated displacement by using the recognised parameters
10.0 Excavation layer 1367
Excavation elevation(m)
Layer II
Displacement(mm)
8.0 1352
6.0 1337
Layer I
Layers VII,VIII
4.0 1322
Layer III Layer V

2.0 Layer IV Layer VI 1307
0.0 1292
07-8-20 07-12-20 08-4-20 08-8-20 08-12-20 09-4-20 09-8-20 09-12-20
Date(y-m-d)
(a)
Measured displacement for of monitoring point(8.93m from sidewall) 1352

55.0 Calculated displacement by using the recognised parameters
Excavation layer
45.0
Excavation elevation (m)

1337
Displacement(mm)
Layer II
35.0 Layer V
Layer VI
Layer III 1322
25.0
15.0 Layer IV
1307
Layers
5.0
VII,VIII
-5.0 1292
07-11-12 08-3-11 08-7-9 08-11-6 09-3-6 09-7-4 09-11-1
Date(y-m-d)
Measured displacement for monitoring point(8.75m from sidewall)

Calculated displacement by using the recognised parameters
40.0
Excavation layer
Layer II Layer IV
30.0
Displacement(mm)
Layer III
20.0
Layers VII,VIII
Layer V
10.0 Layer VI
0.0
-10.0
07-11-16 08-2-24 08-6-3 08-9-11 08-12-20 09-3-30 09-7-8 09-10-16
Date(y-m-d)

Measured displacement for monitoring point(15m from sidewall)

55.0 Calculated displacement by using the recognised parameters 1342
Layer III
Excavation layer

45.0 1332
Displacement(mm)
35.0
Layer VI 1322
Layers VII,VIII
25.0 Layer VI
1312
15.0 Layer V
5.0 1302
-5.0 1292
08-4-29 08-8-29 08-12-29 09-4-29 09-12-29 09-8-29
Date(y-m-d)
(d)
30.0 Measured displacement for monitoring point(8.39m from sidewall)

Calculated displacement by using the recognised parameters 1362
25.0 Excavation layer

Displacement(mm)
20.0 1354
Layer I
15.0
10.0 1346
Layer II
Layer
5.0 Widening tailrace
1338
Layer III
0.0
-5.0 1330
07-12-12 08-3-1 08-5-20 08-8-8 08-10-27 09-1-15 09-4-5 09-6-24 09-9-12 09-12-1
Date(y-m-d)
(e)
Figure 7.94 Comparison of the calculated and measured displacements for (a) Point 4 of the moni-
toring location Mcf0+108.5-2 in the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse, (b) Point
3 of the monitoring location Mcf0+000-1 in the upper portion of the rock anchorage
beam in the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse, (c) Point 3 of the monitoring loca-
tion Mcf0+108.5-1 in the lower portion of the rock anchorage beam in the upstream
sidewall of the powerhouse, (d) Point 4 of the monitoring location Mcf0+062-6 in the
upper portion of the rock anchorage beam in the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse,
and (e) Point 3 of the monitoring location Mcf0+062-3 in the downstream sidewall of the
transformer chamber.
was performed to select the key parameters which can be determined by back
analysis.
4 These key mechanical parameters were further established by using back analy-
sis of the monitored information for every excavation layer. Depending on the
parameters to be established, the monitored information could be deformation
(e.g., for deformation modulus) or depth of plastic zone (excavation damaged
zone) (e.g., for determination of the strength parameters). Totally, six stages of
excavation were back analysed from the top to the bottom of the powerhouse.

Table 7.36 Dynamic design recommendation for the excavation of each layer of the underground powerhouse at the Jinping II hydroproject.
Dynamic adjustment of the design

Stage
Nos. Excavation Support system Monitoring
1 Reduce spacing of rock bolts at the F68 Strengthen the specification of the
zone of the auxiliary powerhouse monitoring tasks
2 Reduce excavation speed and control 1) Add steel rib at the F16 zone of the Increase monitoring frequency where
blasting quality transformer chamber the deformation accelerates
2) Add pre-stressed rockbolts at the
fractured zone
3) Replace the pre-stressed fully grouted cable
anchors by stress-dispersive anchors
3 1) Control blasting quality, smooth 1) Reduce the distance between cable Add monitoring of F16
blasting, keep a protection layer, anchor rows to 3 m Add elastic wave velocity tests
excavation of upper and lower 2) Clear collapsed concrete and add
half of layer pre-stressed rockbolts
2) Practicability evaluation of 3) Add pre-stressed cable anchors if over-loading
re-optimising excavation sequence 4) Grouting at the F65-joints zone in the
for Layers IV–VIII upstream sidewall
4 1) Control construction quality of the 1) Add cable anchors at the intersection 1) Add a monitoring section at
crossing locations in the high sidewalls, areas of the bus tunnels and high sidewall CR0+140
excavation of the electric cable slot to 2) Add three rows of pre-stressed cable anchors 2) Add multi-point displacement
reduce disturbance at the end-wall of the generator housing room meters at section S1
2) Practicability evaluation of the updated 3) Add pre-stressed cable anchors at the 3) Increase the measurements of the
excavation scheme for the sump downstream sidewall of the transformer excavation damaged zone
chamber where there is a large deformation
5 Reduce excavation speed, avoid Strengthen support in the lower horizontal Increase monitoring of displacement in
simultaneous excavation of the section of the high pressure head conduit; the vicinity of the low-angle dipping
bottom of the powerhouse and the increase the length and reduce spacing of faults in the downstream sidewall
connecting part of the tailrace tunnels rockbolts, add steel arches near the powerhouse
6 Excavate the isolated body between the Add two rows of cable anchors in the 1) Add monitoring devices at the four
machine housings, control the blasting downstream arch side of the powerhouse sidewalls of the sump
quality at the junction of the and transformer chamber, and in the lower 2) Add multi-point displacement
downstream sidewall of the part of the downstream sidewall of meters at two sections
powerhouse and the tailrace tunnels the transformer chamber
5/24/2011 6:22:13 PM
Table 7.37 The established deformation management classifications for the excavation of each layer
of the powerhouse.
Safety classification for the surrounding rock using deformation

values
Safe Warning
Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation

increase velocity increase velocity
Stage Layer Location (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
1 I Arch crown 10 0.10 15 0.20

Upstream 8 0.15 12 0.25
sidewall
Downstream 5 0.15 8 0.25
sidewall
2 II Arch crown 4 0.10 6 0.20
Upstream 15 0.15 20 0.25
sidewall
Downstream 8 0.10 12 0.25
sidewall
3 III Upstream 18 0.20 25 0.30
sidewall
Downstream 12 0.20 18 0.30

sidewall
4 IV Upstream 15 0.30 25 0.50
sidewall
Downstream 12 0.20 18 0.40
sidewall
Upper half Upstream 15 0.30 25 0.50
of Layer V sidewall
Downstream 12 0.20 18 0.40
sidewall
5 Lower half Upstream 15 0.30 20 0.50
of Layer V sidewall
Downstream 15 0.30 20 0.50
sidewall
VI Upstream 15 0.30 20 0.50

sidewall
Downstream 15 0.30 20 0.50

sidewall
6 VII Upstream 12 0.30 18 0.50
sidewall
Downstream 15 0.30 20 0.50
sidewall
VIII Upstream 10 0.30 15 0.50

sidewall
Downstream 12 0.30 18 0.50
sidewall

Dangerous
Deformation Deformation
increase velocity
(mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) Excess ‘warning’ value Actual cases
20 0.30
16 0.40
13 0.40
10 0.30
30 0.40 Deformation increase of Collapse at developed joints
20 mm at Mcf0+192-1
20 0.40 Deformation increase of Cracking of 10–12 m region
15 mm at Mcf0+000-4 i
35 0.60 Deformation increase of Fractured zone
29.2 mm and velocity of
1.1–3.4 mm/d at Mcf0+263.6-1
25 0.50
35 0.80 Blasting velocity ∼ Cracking of concrete and over-

0.4 mm/d at Mcf0+000-1 loading of cable anchors
25 0.70
35 0.80 Several meters at EL1334.5 Several circumferential cracks in

exceeded the ‘warning’ value drainage gallery at Layer III
25 0.70
30 0.70
30 0.70 Clear increase of displacement Circumferential cracking at the

in lower part of rock bus tunnels, over-loading of
anchorage beam, mean cable anchors at lower part of
0.3 mm/d at Section 4 rock anchorage beam
30 0.70 Several meters at EL1322 Serious over-excavation, poor
exceeded the ‘warning’ value shaping of sidewall, over-
loading of some cable anchors
30 0.70
24 0.70
25 0.70 Displacement increase of 20 Over-loading of several cable

and 35 mm at several meters anchors
in sections S2 and S3
20 0.70
24 0.70

Table 7.38 The deformation management classification for each layer of the transformer chamber.
Safety classification for the surrounding rock using deformation

values
Safe Warning
Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation

increase velocity increase velocity
Stage Layer Location (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) (mm) (mm ⋅ d−1)
2 I Arch crown 15 0.15 20 0.25

Upstream 18 0.15 25 0.25
sidewall
Downstream 18 0.15 25 0.25
sidewall
3 II Upstream 15 0.15 20 0.25
sidewall
Downstream 10 0.15 15 0.25
sidewall
4 III Upstream 10 0.30 15 0.50
sidewall
Downstream 10 0.30 18 0.50
sidewall
IV Upstream 10 0.30 15 0.50

sidewall
Downstream 10 0.30 18 0.50

sidewall
It can be seen from the results listed in Table 7.35 that the values for these
key parameters are similar. This means that the procedure for determining the
parameters had captured the essence of their values. Also, the predictions of
displacement in the rock surrounding the excavation at various stages using
the established parameters were generally verified by the monitored results, as
shown in Figure 7.94.
7.7.5.2 Stability evaluation and establishment of the final

design for excavation of the various layers
of the cavern group
The established parameters were used to numerically estimate the stability of the sur-
rounding rock during the excavation of the current and subsequent layers. In line
with the calculated distribution of principal stresses and plastic zones indicated by the

Dangerous
Deformation Deformation
increase velocity
(mm) (mm ⋅ d−1) Excess ‘warning’ value Actual cases
25 0.40
35 0.40
35 0.40
30 0.40 Serious over excavation, poor

shaping
20 0.40 Increase of Cracking over 4 m length
17.2 mm at Mzb0+000–3
25 0.70 Circumferential cracking at the
bus tunnels
25 0.70 Displacement increase at Cracking at the drainage gallery
Sections S1 and S3 in intersection with sidewall
downstream sidewall
larger than 25 mm
25 0.70 Splitting and over loading of the
cable anchors in the middle
and lower parts of the sidewall
25 0.70 Displacement increase at Buckling and spalling of the arch

the foot of the arch at side and the sidewall, over-
Section S2 larger than loading of the cable anchors in
35 mm the arch side
numerical analysis and the established management classification for deformation,

plus the actual observation of cable anchor loading and rock cracking, the stabil-
ity of the surrounding rock was comprehensively evaluated. On the basis of the
initial design, the final designs for the excavation procedure, monitoring and sup-
port were dynamically established by modifying and/or expanding the initial design.
The dynamic adjustment of the design established for excavation of the Jinping II
underground powerhouse is indicated in Table 7.36.
7.7.5.3 Deformation management classifications for the main

powerhouse and transformer chambers
Since there were different deformation characteristics in the upstream and down-
stream sidewalls of the powerhouse and transformer chambers, the deformation man-
agement classifications for these locations were established for the excavation of each

layer (Tables 7.37 and 7.38). They were useful for adjusting the excavation procedure
and for adaptive control of stability during excavation.
7.8 CONCLUSIONS
The rock engineering design methodology described in this book has been used as a
guide for the initial design, feedback and final design of the Jinping II underground
powerhouse, which was successfully completed in September 2009. The following
conclusions can be drawn.
1 According to the design requirements for the large underground powerhouse,

which is a large cavern group, the Figure 2.1 updated flowchart for rock engi-
neering modelling and the Figure 3.12 flowchart for design have been sufficiently
specific and adequate. The tasks relating to the initial design, feedback and final
design for the excavation and support of the cavern group as excavated in multi-
ple layers have been detailed and have been verified.
2 Establishment of the initial design included selection of the orientation of the pow-
erhouse, optimisation of the excavation procedure and associated bench height,
optimisation of the support scheme, design of the monitoring system, establish-
ment of the deformation management classification, recognition of the rock mass
mechanical models and parameters, prediction of the behaviour of the surround-
ing rock after the layer-by-layer excavation, estimation of the entire safety factor,
recognition of the potential failure modes and their control, and risk assessment
both during excavation and in the facility’s working lifetime.
3 Establishment of the feedback and final design included tasks relating to each
excavation layer, such as the calibration of the geological conditions, in situ stress
field, mechanical models and surrounding rock parameters using the updated
monitored information. The work also involved dynamic adjustment of the exca-
vation and support procedure using the deformation management classification
system, numerical analysis and empirical approaches. It also included tasks for
excavation of each next layer, such as re-optimisation of the excavation proce-
dure and bench height, re-optimisation of the support scheme, re-design of the
monitoring system, prediction of the behaviour of the surrounding rock, recogni-
tion of the potential failure modes and their control, and risk assessment during
the excavation.
4 The applicability of the method to identify the three-dimensional in situ stress
field in a deep valley area by considering the tectonic circumstances has been
verified by comparing the predicted deformation modes and failure modes within
the large cavern group with the results obtained during construction. Only the
measured stress data which passed the technical auditing procedure could be used
for back analysis of the three-dimensional in situ stress field.
5 The deformation and failure mechanisms of rock can be understood from the
laboratory and field tests. For example, testing results for the rock unloading
process during excavation indicated that the elastic modulus, cohesion and inter-
nal friction angle of the marble samples evolve according to the degree of damage.

The evolution specification of these mechanical parameters as damage occurred

was established.
6 The results for the mechanical rock mass parameters indicated that it is neces-
sary to use the updated deformation increase and excavation damaged zone after
the excavation of each layer. Some non-linear models, such as neural networks
and support vector machines, are suitable to represent the non-linear relations
between the mechanical parameters and the monitored information. Sensitivity
analysis can be employed to select the parameters to be back-established using the
monitored information.
7 The behaviour of the rock surrounding large caverns can be predicted using numer-
ical analysis, assuming the correct use of mechanical models and parameters. The
geological conditions revealed after excavation are needed to update the calcula-
tion model. Also, the updated monitored deformation values and depth of the
excavation damaged zone are needed to calibrate the mechanical parameters.
8 The expected failure modes for the large cavern group were verified during exca-
vation of the Jinping II underground powerhouse. The analysis methods and
measures to control the instability of the surrounding rock were used as a guide
to establish the initial design, feedback and final design of the Jinping II under-
ground powerhouse and to avoid the occurrence of some local failures.
9 The established deformation management classification system using the defor-
mation increase and deformation velocity has been a practical guide for dynamic
stability control of the surrounding rock during the excavation of the caverns
layer-by-layer.
*****
The following Chapter 8 presents the questions asked in the Protocol Sheets used to
implement the technical auditing outlined in Chapter 5. Then, in Chapter 9, we use
the Jinping II experience just described in this Chapter 7 to illustrate the content of a
set of completed Protocol Sheets.

Chapter 8
Protocol Sheets
The purpose of this Chapter is to explain and present the Protocol Sheets to be used
for recording the information relevant to the complete process of modelling and design
and hence support the technical auditing for a rock engineering project, the word
‘Protocol’ being used here to indicate a pre-defined written procedural method. The
Protocol Sheets follow the philosophy outlined in the first five chapters of the book.
Seven such sets of Protocol Sheets are suitable to provide the necessary information
recording the data and decisions leading to the rock engineering design, including the
during and post-construction feedback for back analysis. These seven sets of Protocol
Sheets cover the following subjects:
– Objectives and overall approach to the project

– Geological setting and site investigation
– Modelling
– Design
– Technical auditing
– Feedback and back analysis
– Summary and conclusions
Currently, there is no international procedure for checking whether rock engineer-

ing modelling and design are adequate for the purpose. In other areas of engineering
constructions, e.g., the manufacture of aeroplanes, there can be highly detailed checks
on all aspects of the construction process. It is not the intention here to reproduce such
detailed quality assurance procedures but to provide an overview auditing method to
ensure that the modelling and design operations are suitable for the purpose. The term
‘technical auditing’ means the examination of the technical content of a rock mechan-
ics model or rock engineering design to establish if it is adequate for the purpose—
given the difficulties with some of the rock mechanics factors and the idiosyncrasies of
the different engineering projects. Key overview technical auditing questions are:
– What is the work/project objective?

– Have the relevant variables and mechanisms been identified?
– Is the model/code adequate?
– Are the data adequate?
– Has the model been implemented properly?
– What are the prediction/back analysis protocols?

The technical auditing procedure ensures transparency of the methods used,

traceability of analysis methods and associated decisions, and confirms that investiga-
tion of the key factors has been implemented. In particular, hazard scenarios can be
investigated. Note that technical auditing can be used concurrently with the work or
subsequently when the work is completed. Naturally, it is preferable if the Protocol
Sheets are completed and the technical auditing applied on a continuous basis during
the operation of the modelling and design work. In rock mechanics and rock engineer-
ing, there are still many unresolved issues, such as the most appropriate failure crite-
rion, the best way to characterise fractures, etc., so the technical auditing is conducted
within the current scientific framework with a consensus approach being the best way
to deal with such unresolved issues.
The sets of Protocol Sheets 1–5 can be used before construction. The set, Protocol
Sheet 6, is used as the construction starts with feedback information being received
and back analysis being possible. Finally, the result of completing and auditing the
work as described in the Protocol Sheets is summarised in Protocol Sheet 7. The sets
of Protocol Sheets are included in the following pages, followed in Chapter 9 by the
Jinping II illustrative cavern example with all of the Protocol sheets completed.
8.1 PROTOCOL SHEET 1: OBJECTIVE AND OVERALL

APPROACH TO THE PROJECT
It is necessary at the outset to establish the objective and overall approach to the
project. This is because there can be quite different philosophies and requirements
for the different types of project. For example, in civil engineering projects there is a
requirement to avoid significant rock failure. Conversely, in the block caving method
of metal mining, the whole procedure depends on successfully achieving progressive
failure of a large rock mass.
Protocol Sheet 1 Objectives and Overall Approach to the Project (see Table 3.1, Item 1)
Have the project, modelling and design
objectives been discussed?
List the main personnel (with their
affiliation) who have discussed
the project
What were the dates of the discussions?
Have the objectives been clearly stated?
State the project objective
State the modelling objective
State the design objective
Are there any supplementary objectives?

Protocol Sheets 369
Have any difficulties been encountered

in specifying the objectives?
Give the name of the person completing
this sheet
Give the name of the person checking
the contents of the completed sheet
Date of completion of this sheet
Location of electronic storage of this
Protocol Sheet
Location of back-up electronic
storage of this Protocol Sheet
8.2 PROTOCOL SHEETS 2: GEOLOGICAL SETTING

AND SITE INVESTIGATION
The purpose of this overview Protocol Sheet is to record the information concerning
the details of the geological setting and site investigation. There are then seven sub-
sheets numbered as follows.
2.1 Geological setting

2.2 In situ rock stress
2.3 Intact rock
2.4 Fractures and faults
2.5 Rock mass properties
2.6 Hydrogeological properties
2.7 Other special characteristics/parameters required, e.g., temperature
In each of these sub-sheets, overview data are requested, together with reference
to the full information contained in reports, electronic databases, photographs, etc.
If necessary, the user should provide an associated data sheet/document containing
the detailed information.
Protocol Sheet 2 Geological Setting and Site Investigation (Overview sheet with example
data contained in sub-sheets 2.1 to 2.7)
Has a structural geologist visited the site
and provided a report on the geological
setting?
Has the in situ rock stress been measured?
Is there information on the intact rock
properties?

Have the fractures been characterised,

including large features such as brittle
deformation zones?
Have the rock mass properties been
estimated?
Have the hydrogeological properties
been estimated?
Are there any other key rock mass
parameters involved in the project?
in establishing the information above?
this sheet
Protocol Sheet
8.2.1 Protocol Sheet 2.1: Information on the

Geological Setting
In modelling and designing a project to be located on or in a rock mass, it is essential
to have an understanding of the geological setting. This provides crucial information
on the configuration of the rock masses and their likely content—which is required
for model construction and hazard analysis.
Protocol Sheet 2.1 Information on the Geological Setting

How has the information on the
geological setting been established?
What are the ages of the rocks?
What rock units are present?
To what extent has the rock been
tectonically deformed?

Protocol Sheets 371
Are there any faults (or more generally

brittle deformation zones) evident from
the geological setting?
Has the area been subject to glaciations
in the past?
Is the rock susceptible to weathering?
Is there currently a Quaternary soil cover?
Are there any special features associated
with the geological setting?
in establishing the geological setting?
Where is the full information on the
geological setting currently held?
this sheet
Protocol Sheet
Location of back-up electronic storage
of this Protocol Sheet
8.2.2 Protocol Sheet 2.2: In Situ Stress

Knowledge of the in situ stress is required both for basic considerations of the possibil-
ity of rock failure and as a required boundary condition input for numerical models.
Protocol Sheet 2.2 In Situ Stress

Have the regional stress circumstances
at the site been established from stress
maps or other sources?
Has the rock stress been measured at the
site?

What type of method has been used

for in situ measurement?
How many locations were measured
for in situ stress?
Is the major principal stress orientated
vertically, horizontally, or at some other
orientation?
In what azimuth direction is the major
horizontal stress?
What are the magnitudes and
orientations of the three principal
stresses? Include a stereogram.
What are the principal stress ratios:
σ1 /σ2, σ1/σ3, σ2 /σ3?
Does the rock overburden vary above
the anticipated project location?
Is there any reason to expect that the
stress values may vary across the site
because of, e.g., varying surface topog-
raphy, effect of major faults, etc.?
Have the four ISRM Suggested Methods
on rock stress estimation been studied
and used?
Give the location of the report on the
complete rock stress estimation for the
project site
in estimating the in situ stress?
this sheet
Date of completing this sheet
Protocol Sheet

Protocol Sheets 373
8.2.3 Protocol Sheet 2.3: Intact Rock

The nature of the intact rock is crucial for many aspects of project modelling and
design.
Protocol Sheet 2.3 Intact Rock

Have the intact rock properties been
considered within the geological setting,
Protocol Sheet 2.1?
How many distinct types of intact rock
are present at the site?
Has the rock been metamorphosed/
altered in any way by geological
processes?
Have the intact rock properties been
measured?
Which tests established the intact rock
properties?
Which standards or suggested methods
have been employed in the determination
of intact rock properties?
What are the mean Young’s moduli
and Poisson’s ratios of the intact rocks
at the site?
What are the mean compressive
strengths of the intact rocks present
at the site?
What are the mean tensile strengths
of the intact rocks present at the site?
Have complete stress–strain curves
been obtained, i.e., the post-peak
characteristic in addition to the
pre-peak characteristic?
Any other intact rock data available,
e.g., spalling strength, fracture
toughness, etc.?
Is the intact rock susceptible to
weathering?

Are there any issues connected with

intact rock anisotropy, inhomogeneity
or time dependence?
in estimating the intact rock properties?
Where is the borehole rock core located?
Where are the intact rock data located?
this sheet
Protocol Sheet
8.2.4 Protocol Sheet 2.4: Fractures and Faults

Knowledge of the presence of fractures and faults is essential to avoid major problems
and as input to computer programs.
Protocol Sheet 2.4 Fractures and Faults

What information can the knowledge
of the geological setting provide about
the rock fracturing and faulting?
Are any major faults (or brittle
deformation zones) present?
Have such faults been characterised in
terms of their location, geometry (dip/
dip direction) and other features such
as zone thickness?
Have the faults been intersected by
boreholes, or have they been visible at
outcrops or in underground excavations?

Protocol Sheets 375
Have the fractures been measured?

Which method has been utilised to
determine rock mass (discontinuity)
characteristics (e.g., scanline survey,
window mapping, and measurements
along the sidewalls of an underground
opening or geotechnical logging along
borehole cores)?
If borehole cores have been used, has a
comparison been carried out between
the measurements obtained from cores
and surface techniques?
How many fracture sets are present?
What are the orientations of the
fractures (supply one or more
stereograms)?
What other information concerning the
fractures is available, e.g., tracelength,
roughness, aperture, etc.?
Do the fracture characteristics vary
across the site, so that structural frac-
ture domains may be necessary?
in estimating the fracture properties?
Where is the fault and fracture
information held?
Give the name of the person
completing this sheet
Protocol Sheet

8.2.5 Protocol Sheet 2.5: Rock Mass Properties

The rock mass properties are a function of the combined effects of the intact rock and
the fractures, and possible external effects such as the applied stress.
Protocol Sheet 2.5 Rock Mass Properties

What information can the knowledge
of the geological setting provide about
the rock mass properties?
Have the main mechanical proper-
ties of the rock masses present been
established?
Have the rock mass properties been
measured directly?
Have empirical methods been used
to estimate the rock mass properties,
e.g., via RMR, Q, GSI, BQ ratings?
Have numerical methods been used
to estimate the rock mass proper-
ties, e.g., through the use of the 3DEC
program with the intact rock and
fracture properties input to the model?
What are the rock mass deformation
and strength properties?
in estimating the rock mass properties?
Where is the rock mass
information held?
this sheet
Location of electronic storage

Protocol Sheets 377
8.2.6 Protocol Sheet 2.6: Hydrogeological

Properties
For many projects, knowledge of the rock mass permeability/hydraulic conductivity
and other characteristics of water flow through the rock mass is crucial for the success
of the project and for avoiding/mitigating water hazards.
Protocol Sheet 2.6 Hydrogeological Properties

What information can the knowl-
edge of the geological setting provide
about the rock mass hydrogeological
properties?
Is water flow through the rock mass
occurring mainly through the intact
rock or through the rock fractures?
Have the rock mass hydraulic conduc-
tivity and/or rock fracture transmissivi-
ties been estimated by any means?
Have the rock mass hydraulic conduc-
tivity and/or rock fracture transmissivi-
ties been measured directly?
What are the likely water head pressures
to be encountered in the project?
What are the likely fracture
transmissivity values?
Are high water pressures likely to
be present when faults are intersected
by the rock excavation?
Have any difficulties been encoun-
tered in specifying the rock mass
hydrogeological characteristics?
Where is the hydrogeological
information held?
this sheet


Protocol Sheet
8.2.7 Protocol Sheet 2.7: Other Special

Parameters
Depending on the purpose and nature of the rock engineering project, information on
a variety of extra rock mass characteristics may be required, e.g., likely TBM excava-
tion rates, temperature of the rock, degree of foliation, etc.
Protocol Sheet 2.7 Other Special Characteristics/Parameters Required

Is information on any ‘non-standard’
rock characteristic required for
modelling and designing the project?
Which extra characteristics are required?
Have these been estimated?
Have these been measured?
Which methods (standard or sug-
gested) have been employed for the
determination of extra characteristics?
tered in establishing the values of these
characteristics/parameters?
Give the values of the these characteristics/
parameters
Where is the information on these
extra parameters held?
this sheet

Protocol Sheets 379

Protocol Sheet
8.3 PROTOCOL SHEETS 3: MODELLING
This Protocol Sheet and the associated sub-sheets follow the same pattern as for
Protocol Sheet 2 but the subject is now modelling. In Chapter 2 we showed the
Figure 2.1 diagram of the eight main modelling methods; this diagram is reproduced
below as Figure 8.1 with the Protocol Sheet subjects indicated.
Protocol Sheet 1 covers the overall objectives and approach to the rock engi-
neering project, including the modelling objective. Protocol Sheets 2 cover the geo-
logical setting and the site investigation aspects. Now Protocol Sheets 3 cover the
eight main modelling aspects. The roles of these three Protocol Sheets are indicated
in Figure 8.1.
Accordingly, there are ten Protocol Sheet 3 sub-sheets as listed on the next page.
These follow the eight main modelling methods in the order of Method A through to
Method D in Figure 8.1 with, in each case, the Level 1 procedure taken firstly and the
Level 2 procedure taken secondly. The ninth Protocol Sheet 3 sub-sheet covers the even-
tuality that another type of modelling is additionally being conducted, e.g., physical
modelling. The tenth Protocol Sheet 3 sub-sheet covers the use of the different methods
in combination or sequence—because more than one method is usually used.
Protocol Protocol Sheet 1 Objective Protocol Sheet 3

Sheet 2

pre-existing Analytical numerical numerical Level 1
Lab and field tests

Site investigation

methods
DEM, hybrid models
Precedent Database Integrated

Rock mass
type analyses expert systems Level 2
classification,
and systems, & approaches, Not 1:1
RMR,
modifications other systems internet- mapping
Q, GSI, BQ
approaches based
Figure 8.1 The eight main types of modelling to support rock engineering design (following Figure 2.1).

3.1 Pre-existing standard methods

3.2 Precedent type analyses
3.3 Analytical methods
3.4 Rock mass classification
3.5 Basic numerical models
3.6 Database and systems approaches
3.7 Extended numerical models
3.8 Advanced systems approaches
3.9 Alternative type(s) of modelling
3.10 Use of the different methods in combination or sequence
Protocol Sheet 3 Modelling (Overview sheet with associated sub-sheets

3.1 to 3.10 following)
What is the purpose of the completed
or anticipated modelling?
Is the type of modelling being used
covered by one or more of the eight
methods shown in Figure 8.1?
If so, state which of the eight main
modelling methods is/are being used?
If the modelling method being used
is not one of the eight methods shown
in Figure 2.1 or 8.1 (Feng and Hudson,
2011), specify the type(s) of modelling
being used.
Is the modelling being conducted as one
exercise or is the modelling sequential in
some way?
Have all the input parameters for the
modelling method(s) been satisfactorily
obtained?
Has it been possible to verify the model-
ling in any way, i.e., has there been any
check of the results obtained by two or
more modelling methods?
Has it been possible to validate
the model in any way, i.e., check
that the modelling results correspond
with the rock reality?

Protocol Sheets 381
Has the modelling method raised any

unforeseen difficulties?
this sheet
Protocol Sheet
8.3.1 Protocol Sheet 3.1: Pre-existing Standard

Methods
The simplest design approach is to use a pre-existing standard method, e.g., a standard
type of tunnel lining, without any further consideration. Although most projects now
require more design than the direct application of a pre-existing method, it is possible
that some circumstances will allow this, particularly if there is specific experience of
the method at an adjacent location in the same rock mass.
Protocol Sheet 3.1 Pre-existing Standard Methods

Why is it possible to use a pre-existing
standard method?
What is the pre-existing standard method
that is to be used?
Have any supporting modelling methods
been used to confirm the applicability
of the standard method?
Is the rock mass consistent over the area/
volume of the rock mass involved?
Is it anticipated that in places the ground
conditions may locally not be suitable for
the pre-existing standard method?
Have any difficulties been encountered in
ensuring that the pre-existing method is
suitable?

Where is the full information on the

pre-existing method being applied for
the project currently held?
this sheet
Give the name of the person checking the
contents of the completed sheet
Protocol Sheet
8.3.2 Protocol Sheet 3.2: Precedent Type

Analysis (PTA)
A sophisticated extension of the pre-existing standard method is to use the Prec-
edent Type Analysis method pioneered in China which allows tailoring precedent
construction to the ground conditions for assessing rock stability in tunnels. It is a
‘semi-analytic’ method that applies the geological conditions and relevant construc-
tion conditions of a so-called ‘typical’ project to a new tunnelling project for stability
analysis (Li et al., 1998). Briefly, the method uses rock mass classification and numeri-
cal analysis to compare the new site with the data for past ‘typical’ projects. It is an
analogue reasoning method.
Note: In Figure 8.1, Methods A to D represent an increase in complexity, so the
PTA method should really be further to the right—because it incorporates both rock
mass classification and numerical analyses; however, it is convenient to retain PTA’s
position in Figure 8.1 because its basis is the use of site data from previous typical
projects.
Protocol Sheet 3.2 Precedent Type Analysis (PTA)

Why is the PTA approach being used?
Has the exact Li Shihui et al.
(1998, IJRMMS, 35, 6, 787–795)
PTA been used?
If not, what modifications have been
introduced?

Protocol Sheets 383
What type of rock mass classification

was used in the approach?
Which data from previous typical
projects were used?
What type of numerical analysis was
used?
Was the flowchart in Figure 3
of Li Shihui et al. (1998), used to
guide the modelling work?
Did the use of PTA essentially follow
the same procedure as that used for the
construction of the Ertan hydroelectric
station (see Li Shihui et al., 1998,
IJRMMS, 35, 6, 787–795)?
Were any difficulties encountered
in the application of PTA?
Give the location of the report on
the use of PTA
Date of completing this sheet
8.3.3 Protocol Sheet 3.3: Analytical Methods

The term ‘analytical methods’ here refers mainly to elastic solutions which provide the
distributions of stresses and strains for relatively simple geometries, with the assump-
tions of continuity, homogeneity, isotropy and linear elasticity. An example is the
Kirsch solution which provides the stresses around a circular hole given the applied
boundary stresses. Although these solutions are for a highly idealised material, they
can provide helpful guidance.

Protocol Sheet 3.3 Analytical Methods

Why was an analytical method
approach used?
Was the use of the analytical method
supported by any other methods?
Which particular analytical solution
was used?
Are the strict CHILE conditions
(continuity, homogeneity, isotropy,
linear elasticity) for an elastic solu-
tion applicable for the rock mass being
considered?
Was the solution in 2-D or 3-D?
If rock mass parameters were used (e.g.,
not required for stresses in the Kirsch
solution but are required for displace-
ment), where did the parameter values
come from?
Were any difficulties encountered in
finding and applying the appropriate
analytical solution?
this sheet
8.3.4 Protocol Sheet 3.4: Rock Mass

Classification
The analytical methods considered in Protocol Sheet 3.3 are in the top row in
Figure 8.1, i.e., 1:1 mapping, because there is an attempt to model the exact geom-
etry in question—a circular opening in the case of the Kirsch solution. However, in

Protocol Sheets 385
the case of rock mass classification, the values of several rock mass parameters are
reduced to index values from which an overall rock mass classification value is estab-
lished. This value then indicates the quality of the rock from which decisions can
be made regarding excavation and support. Thus, rock mass classification is a non
1:1 mapping method because there is no direct attempt to incorporate the engineering
geometry into the rock mass classification value.
Protocol Sheet 3.4 Rock Mass Classification

Why was the rock mass classification
approach used?
Which type of rock mass classification
method is being used?
Is the method(s) a standard one or is it
a new one specially developed for the
project, or a modification of a standard
method?
If it is not a standard rock mass classi-
fication method, explain the motivation
for its use and its content
How is/are the rock mass classification
value(s) to be used?
Have the engineers been trained in
obtaining the rock mass classification
values? If so, how?
Has there been any check on the vari-
ability of the rock mass classification
values, e.g., the standard deviation of
values?
Is there any check on the rock mass
classification results and implica-
tions using another modelling method,
e.g., numerical modelling?
Since the rock mass classification method
is not 1:1 mapping, how have you incor-
porated other factors, e.g., the presence
of a nearby fault?
in using the rock mass classification
method?

Where is the rock mass classification

information held?
this sheet
Protocol Sheet
8.3.5 Protocol Sheet 3.5: Basic Numerical

Models
The basic numerical methods include the Finite Element Method, Boundary Element
Method, and Discrete/Distinct Element Method. These are classed as 1:1 methods
because there is an attempt to simulate the engineering geometry. Usually, the known
larger fractures, e.g., faults can be input into the mesh geometry as deterministic fea-
tures but the smaller fractures are simulated statistically via probability distribution
functions. This Protocol Sheet 3.5 covers the general use of numerical models; those
with more advanced features, such as thermo-hydro-mechanical couplings, are dealt
with in Protocol Sheet 3.7.
Protocol Sheet 3.5 Basic Numerical Models

Why was a numerical model used?
Which type of numerical model
was used?
Why was that type of numerical
model chosen?
How were the values of input
parameters chosen?
Were the results from two different
codes compared to check if similar
results were obtained?

Protocol Sheets 387
Was a sensitivity study conducted,

i.e., how variations in the input param-
eters affected the output parameters?
How were the factors of rock discontinui-
ties, inhomogeneity, anisotropy and time
dependency taken into account?
in estimating the rock mass properties?
How was the presence of faults taken
into account?
Has there been any way of validating
the numerical output, i.e., being able
to check that the model correctly repre-
sents the behaviour of the real rock?
Location of the numerical modelling
information?
this sheet
Protocol Sheet
8.3.6 Protocol Sheet 3.6: Database and Systems

Approaches
This approach is a more extensive version of the Precedent Type Analysis and Rock
Mass Classification, but is still a non 1:1 mapping method because the exact geometry
of the project is not mapped directly. The many variables in the system are studied,
together with their interactions, so that the most important components can then be
identified, both with regard to their importance and their hazard significance. Deci-
sions on design can then be made on the basis of this information, often supported by
database information on rock engineering projects.

Protocol Sheet 3.6 Database and Systems Approaches

Why was a database/systems
approach used?
Which type of database/systems
approach was used?
How were the key project
components identified?
Were these components ranked in terms
of their importance for the project?
Was a hazard analysis conducted based
on the identification of the most impor-
tant parameters?
Was the significance of changes in
parameters studied, i.e., parameter
A affects parameter B which affects
Parameter C, etc.?
Which specific database was used?
in using the database/systems approach?
Where is the database/systems
information held?
Protocol Sheet
8.3.7 Protocol Sheet 3.7: Extended Numerical

Models
This subject covers extensions to the ‘conventional’ numerical methods, especially the use
of coupling algorithms to incorporate interactions between the primary variables, e.g.,
thermo-mechanical coupling and hydro-mechanical coupling. More advanced exten-
sions, such as full thermo-hydro-mechanico-chemical (THMC) coupling are included
and other features that make the method advanced or specialised in some way.

Protocol Sheets 389
Protocol Sheet 3.7 Extended Numerical Models

Which type of extended numerical
model has been used?
Has this extended model been obtained
‘off the shelf’, or has it been developed
‘in house’?
What are the special features of the
extended model being used?
How have the necessary input
parameters been obtained?
Has it been possible to check the output
with another modelling method, numer-
ical or otherwise?
Has it been possible to validate the
output of the model, i.e., check that
it correctly represents the real rock
behaviour?
Where is the information on the model-
ling parameters and use of the extended
numerical model held?
Give the name of the per-
son checking the contents of the
completed sheet
Protocol Sheet

8.3.8 Protocol Sheet 3.8: Advanced Systems

Approaches
This Protocol Sheet covers methods more advanced than those covered in Protocol
Sheet 3.6 and includes advanced systems approaches, internet-based systems
approaches, virtual computing platforms, use of real-time site data from instruments,
TV images, etc.
Protocol Sheet 3.8 Advanced Systems Approaches

Why is an advanced systems
approach being used?
What type of advanced systems
approach is being used?
Explain how the data are being obtained
Explain how the data are being
processed
Explain how the modelling output
is being generated
Has it been possible to compare
the results of the advanced systems
approach with any other modelling
method?
tered in establishing the values of
these characteristics/parameters and
processing the data?
Where is the information on the use
of the advanced systems approach
being held?

Protocol Sheets 391
8.3.9 Protocol Sheet 3.9: Alternative Type(s)

of Modelling
The previous eight Protocol Sheets have covered the eight basic modelling methods
shown within the Protocol Sheet 3 rectangle in Figure 8.1. It is possible that some
other type of modelling method may be considered or have been used, e.g., physical
modelling. This Protocol Sheet 3.9 covers that eventuality.
Protocol Sheet 3.9 Alternative Type(s) of Modelling

Why was an alternative
modelling method used?
What type of alternative
modelling method was used?
Was it a 1:1 mapping or
non-1:1 mapping model?
If it was a physical model, what type
of physical model was used?
Has total dimensional similarity
been achieved?
If it was not a physical model, what
type of alternative model was used?
Explain the mode of operation of this
alternative model
Has it been possible to check the results
of the alternative model with any of the
other methods outlined in the Protocol
Sheet 3 rectangle in Figure 8.1 in this
book (Feng and Hudson, 2011)?
in the use of the alternative model?
Where is the information on the
use of the alternative model held?


Protocol Sheet
8.3.10 Protocol Sheet 3.10: Use of Different

Modelling Methods in Combination or
Sequence
Often more than one modelling method is used to support the design of a rock engi-
neering project, i.e., two or more of the eight methods shown within the Protocol
Sheet 3 rectangle in Figure 8.1 may be used. These methods could be used in combina-
tion, e.g., the analytical and rock mass classification approaches used together so that
the results can be compared. Alternatively, the methods could be used in sequence,
e.g., an analytical method solution is used to calibrate a basic numerical method,
which is then extended to account for a particular feature of the rock engineering
project, such as the elevated temperature.
Protocol Sheet 3.10 Use of Different Methods in Combination or Sequence

Why was it necessary to use more than
one of the modelling methods?
Which modelling methods were used?
Were these methods used in
combination for comparison of results
or were they used in sequence for a
particular purpose?
Explain the overall results of using
more than two methods
in using two or more or the modelling
approaches?
Where is the information on the
multiple use of modelling methods held?
this sheet

Protocol Sheets 393

Protocol Sheet
8.4 PROTOCOL SHEETS 4: DESIGN
Figure 8.2 below is the flowchart for design which was presented in Chapter 3,
Figure 3.12, (and is the companion to Figure 8.1 for modelling already included in
Chapter 2, Figure 2.1). The location in the Figure of Protocol Sheets 1–4 is indicated.
DESIGN STEP CONTENTS OF THE DESIGN
Establish the objective and Protocol

1. Project
sub-objectives of the project Sheet 1
2. Key features of
Identify the features and Protocol
the site, rock mass
constraints of the site Sheets 2
and project
Protocol
Develop the overall design approach strategy Sheets 3
3. Design based on the options in the Methods A to D
approach strategy in the Figure 2.1 flowchart
Protocol
Sheets 4
Utilise the principles
4. Choose Utilise the principles of
of modelling, choose
modelling method code implementation,
method(s)
and appropriate choose method(s)
code INITIAL
DESIGN
Establish initial design, conduct hazard

5. Establish assessment, and initiate construction,
initial design with monitoring
6. Integrated Consider feedback

Consider the information from
modelling and integration of the
feedback construction, as in
modelling methods Figure 2.1, leading to
information in Figure 2.1 closed-loop design FINAL
DESIGN
7. Final design Establish final design and verify

and verification by monitoring
Figure 8.2 The seven steps in the design process and the related Protocol Sheets.

Now we consider the Protocol Sheets 4.1 and 4.2 dealing with the initial design and
the final design, respectively. Note that Protocol Sheet 4.2 also includes integration of
all the modelling results, feedback obtained during the construction process and the
associated back-analysis.
It is possible to go directly from Step 5 to Step 7 in Figure 8.2, i.e., taking the
initial design (Protocol Sheet 4.1) as being the final design, but the inclusion of
Protocol Sheet 4.2 allows for the feedback loop accounting for information from
construction—which may be traversed several times as successively more and more
construction related information becomes available.
8.4.1 Protocol Sheet 4.1: Initial Design

This Protocol Sheet covers Step 5 in Figure 8.2: the initial design. The decision may
be taken that the initial design is the final design; alternatively, Steps 6 and 7 may also
be implemented, leading to the final design which means that Protocol Sheet 4.2 is
also required.
Protocol Sheet 4.1 Initial Design

Has an initial design been established?
If so, what has been the main
information leading to the initial
design?
Has there been appropriate integration
of the objective, the geological and site
information and the modelling?
What have been the key project factors
affecting the initial design?
What have been the key features
of the site affecting the initial design?
What have been the key modelling
conclusions affecting the initial design?
Has a hazard assessment been conducted
and, if so, what type?
Has monitoring been installed so that
feedback information will be available
and back analysis then possible?
Is the initial design flexible in the sense
that changes can be made?
Were any problems encountered in
establishing the initial design?

Protocol Sheets 395
If it is decided that the initial design

is the final design, for what reasons
was that decision made?
Protocol Sheet
8.4.2 Protocol Sheet 4.2: Final Design

This Protocol Sheet 4.2 is used if modifications to the initial design lead to the final
design.
Protocol Sheet 4.2 Final Design

Why was the initial design modified
to the final design?
What has been the main type of infor-
mation causing the change to the final
design?
If monitoring information during
construction has caused alteration
to the initial design, which specific data
caused the change?
Has new modelling (via a back
analysis) been conducted as a result
of the information obtained during
construction?
How many iterations of the loop
indicated in Figure 8.2 (i.e., Steps 6
to 7 and 7 to 6 forming a feedback
loop) have been carried out?

How did you know when to stop the

Steps 6 to 7 and 7 to 6 feedback loop
and establish the final design?
Has a new hazard assessment been
conducted as a result of the monitored
information and, if so, of what type?
Were any problems encountered in
establishing the final design?
Protocol Sheet
8.5 PROTOCOL SHEET 5: AUDITING EVALUATION
As mentioned earlier, the technical auditing requirement is
– to evaluate the logic of the work based on the stated objective,

– to establish whether all the necessary physical mechanisms, variables, and param-
eters have been included in the relevant analyses,
– to show that the supporting analyses are technically correct,
– to consider whether conclusions are justified in terms of the project objectives and
the work conducted, and
– to provide an information, analysis and decision audit trail.
The purpose of the Protocol Sheets 1–4, together with their sub-sheets, now
becomes apparent: there is an audit trail explaining how and why all the major activi-
ties have been conducted. From this, all the required items 1–5 in the list above have
been satisfied.
Additionally, in Chapter 5 it was explained that the auditing can be ‘soft’, ‘semi-
hard’ or ‘hard’, as indicated in Figure 8.3. The Protocol Sheets included so far cer-
tainly provide the basic information necessary for establishing the essence of the
problem in the ‘soft’ audit and, if the necessary supporting information is included
or referenced with the completed Protocol Sheets, also satisfy the requirement for the
‘hard’ audit.

Protocol Sheets 397
Soft Audit Semi-Hard Audit Hard Audit

Checking that the basic
Checking that the
approach to the design Checking that all
basic approach to the
problem and the aspects with all the
design problem and
associated modelling, relevant details have
the associated
plus the key details, been appropriately
modelling follow
follow appropriate implemented
appropriate principles
principles
AUDIT EVALUATION
The evaluation will depend on the type of auditing used,
‘soft’, ‘semi-hard’, or ’hard’, and whether a single audit has been used
or a progression through the three auditing types
Protocol
Sheets 5
Figure 8.3 The ‘soft’, ‘semi-hard’ and ‘hard’ audits, and the audit evaluation.
What remains now is to evaluate this audit information to ensure that the
information gathered, the modelling work and the initial/final rock design are ade-
quate for the purpose, see the final box in Figure 8.3.
Protocol Sheet 5 Auditing Evaluation

Is this auditing evaluation being made
as a ‘soft’, ‘semi-soft’ or ‘hard’ audit
(see Figure 8.3)
Has it been assured that all the informa-
tion in all the completed Protocol Sheets is
correct?
Is the quantity of information in all
the Protocol Sheets acceptable* —
in the sense that there is sufficient
information (either directly or through
the referenced material) for the audit
evaluation to be completed? If not,
specify where there is insufficient
information.
*This refers to the information itself, not to the
evaluation of the information.

Can you recommend how this lack of

sufficient information can be overcome?
Does this auditing evaluation indicate
that all aspects of the work (as described
in the Protocol Sheets) are acceptable?
If not, indicate where there are problems
Can you recommend how these
problems should be overcome?
Were any difficulties encountered in
undertaking this auditing evaluation?
Is this Auditing Evaluation Protocol
Sheet being completed by a person who
has an independent status, and is free of
investigatory and reporting constraints?
If not, explain where there could be a
conflict of interest
Protocol Sheet
8.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this Chapter, we have presented the Protocol Sheets used for technically auditing
the approach, geological and rock mechanics supporting information, modelling and
design for a rock engineering project. These Sheets follow the content of the two main
diagrams in the book, Figures 2.1 and 3.12. There is also a Sheet covering the techni-
cal auditing evaluation.
In Chapter 9 following, we present example completed Protocol Sheets for the
Jinping II project described in detail in Chapter 7.

Chapter 9
Illustrative example of the

Protocol Sheets use
In the last Chapter, we presented the contents of the Protocol Sheets to indicate their
technical auditing content and how the content relates to the Figure 2.1 modelling
flowchart and the Figure 3.12 design flowchart. In this Chapter, we use the initial and
final designs of the Jinping II underground powerhouse, as presented in Chapter 7, to
illustrate how the auditing Protocol Sheets can be completed. The completed Sheets
follow.
9.1 EXAMPLE COMPLETION OF PROTOCOL SHEET 1
Protocol Sheet 1 Objectives and Overall Approach to the Subject.

Have the project, modelling and design Yes.
objectives been discussed?
List the main personnel The designers: Profs. Zhang Chunsheng,
(with their affiliation) who have Hou Jing, Cheng Xiangrong, Chen
discussed the project Jianlin, Wan Xiangbing.
The modellers: Prof. Feng Xia-Ting,
Dr. Jiang Quan, Mr. Xiang Tianbing,
and Prof. Zhou Hui.
What were the dates of the discussions? 8 October 2006, 26 June 2007,
28 September 2007.
Have the objectives been clearly stated? Yes.
State the project objective To design and construct the underground
powerhouse of Jinping II hydropower
station, located on the Yalong river, with
a total generation capability of 4.8 GW
(eight generators, each generator 600
MW for a waterhead of 288 m from four
headrace tunnels through the Jinping
mountain).

State the modelling objective To appraise and predict the stability of

the cavern group during and after cavern
excavation layer-by-layer.
To recognise potential failure modes
To establish a deformation management
classification system for excavation of the
cavern group layer-by-layer.
To evaluate and optimise support design
To optimise the excavation procedure
including the bench heights.
State the design objective Selection of the axis orientation for the
main powerhouse.
Procedure and bench height for
excavation of the cavern group and make
any modifications as necessary.
Establish the support scheme and
associated parameters and make any
modifications as necessary.
Establish appropriate monitoring sections
and components for the main powerhouse
and transformer chamber.
Are there any supplementary objectives? During construction:
– Confirmation of the 3D in situ stress

field
– Calibration of the mechanical model
and the established parameters
– Adjustment of the excavation
procedure and bench heights and
support parameters according to the
feedback analysis.
Have any difficulties been encountered Not directly, but there have been some
in specifying the objectives? difficulties in specifying the sub-objectives
due to the partially unknown geological
and in situ stress conditions before
construction of the high sidewalls of the
cavern group. So, feedback analysis and
dynamic design are required.
Give the name of the person completing Dr. Jiang Quan and Mr. Xiang Tianbing.
this sheet

Illustrative example of the Protocol Sheets use 401
Give the name of the person checking Prof. Feng Xia-Ting.

Date of completion of this form 30 May 2010.
Location of electronic storage of this Personal computer and USB at the Insti-
Protocol Sheet tute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China.
Location of back-up electronic storage Scientific archives at the Institute of Rock
of this Protocol Sheet and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Wuhan, China.
9.2 EXAMPLE COMPLETION OF PROTOCOL SHEETS 2
Protocol Sheet 2 Geological Setting and Site Investigation (overview sheet with example
data contained in sub-sheets 2.1 to 2.7)
Has a structural geologist visited Yes. Stratum lithology such as the marble
4
the site and provided a report on the strata T2y , T2y5-(1), T2y5-(2), T2y
6
were predicted
geological setting? before construction. The geological
structure at the site is in general agree-
ment with the regional structure, which is
subject to a NWW–SEE in situ principal
stress field and developed NNE struc-
tures. The strata strike is about NNE.
The site also has NE and NW structures
[see Table 7.1 in this book].
Has the in situ rock stress been Yes. It has been measured by using the
measured? overcoring and hydraulic fracturing meth-
ods. The procedures were technically
audited using the ISRM Suggested
Methods for Stress Measurement.
4 5-(1)
Is there information on the intact Yes. The marble strata T2y , T2y were
rock properties? examined after excavation of the power-
house. The tests included colour, mineral
components, strength and unloading
characterisation of rock samples.
Have the fractures been characterised, Yes.
including large features such as brittle
deformation zones?

Have the rock mass properties been Yes. Several exploration tunnels were
estimated? excavated for testing the deformation and
failure properties. Furthermore, the defor-
mation modulus and strength parameters
of the rock mass were established based
on the testing results. Also, the rock
masses are classified by using the Chinese
BQ system, plus the RMR and Q systems.
Have the hydrogeological properties Yes. The results indicated that the rock
been estimated? mass belongs to the eastern solution
fractured hydrogeology element (III),
which has width 2.5–4.5 km and occurs
in the middle Triassic Yantang formation.
Shallow underground water develops
with large flow in the rainy season. Deep
underground water is mainly fracture
water or karst water, there is little change
in the deep underground water with the
seasons.
Are there any other key rock mass The unloading behaviour of the rock
parameters involved in the project? and rock mass was investigated by using
loading and unloading tests in both the
laboratory and the field.
Have any difficulties been encountered The prediction of the unloading
in establishing the information above? behaviour of the rock mass during
excavation of the high sidewall layer-
by-layer from top to bottom needs
confirmation during construction.
this sheet
Date of completion of this sheet 30 May 2010.
Location of back-up electronic storage Scientific archives of the Institute of Rock

9.2.1 Example completion of Protocol Sheet 2.1
Protocol Sheet 2.1 Information on the Geological Setting

How has the information on the geologi- Geophysics exploration, geological
cal setting been established? investigation at tunnels, outcrops and
boreholes, and geological reports after
excavation.
What is the age of the rocks? 182 million years, Triassic formation.
What rock units are present? Marble: T2y4 , T2y5-(1), T2y5-(2), T2y
6
and Q strata
[see Figure 7.6 of this book].
To what extent has the rock been The project site is located in the south-
tectonically deformed? east region of the Songfan-ganzi fold
system. Since the Mesozoic era, the rock
mass has been subjected to the Yinzhi
and Yanshan movement, and especially
Himalaya movement, resulting in a series
of thrust faults, overturning of strata,
‘A’ type recumbent folds, and mountain
peaks [see Figure 7.4 in this book]. There
also exist deep valleys.
Are there any faults (or more generally Five sets of fractures exist: (1) N10°
brittle deformation zones) evident W–N30°E, ∠73–85°, (2) N60–80°W,
from the geological setting? ∠70–90°, (3) N40–60°E ∠20–40°,
(4) EW, ∠20–40°, (5) N70–85°E
∠60–80°. The main faults are F7, F8, F9,
F14, F16, F27, F21, F35, F56, F65, F68.
Has the area been subject to glaciations No.
in the past?
Is the rock susceptible to weathering? The surface rock is susceptible to weak
weathering.
Is there currently a Quaternary soil cover? No.
Are there any special features associated No.
with the geological setting?
Have any difficulties been encountered Yes. Recognition of the local soft lay-
in establishing the geological setting? ers/structures which would affect the
unloading deformation behaviour of
the high cavern sidewalls. The strata are
almost vertical, which is unfavourable
for the stability of these high walls.

Where is the full information on the At the East China Investigation and
geological setting currently held? Design Institute under CHECC,
Hangzhou, China.
Give the name of the person Dr. Jiang Quan and Mr. Xiang Tianbing.
Protocol Sheet 2.2 In Situ Stress

Have the regional stress circumstances Yes.
at the site been established from stress
maps or other sources?
Has the rock stress been measured Yes.
at the site?
What type of method has been used The overcoring and hydraulic fracturing
for in situ measurement? methods.
How many locations are measured for 14 locations at depth of 163 m to 463 m
in situ stress? respectively [see Table 7.2 in this book].
Is the major principal stress orientated The major principal stress is orientated
vertically or horizontally? horizontally due to the tectonic setting.
In what azimuth direction is the major S50–75°E.
horizontal stress?
What are the magnitudes and [See Figure 7.7 in this book]
orientations of the three principal
stresses? —show stereogram
What are the principal stress ratios: The measured principal stress ratios,
σ1/σ2, σ1/σ3, σ2/σ3? σ1/σ2, σ1/σ3, σ2/σ3, are 1.2–1.8, 1.5–2.5,
and 1.1–1.7 respectively.

Does the rock overburden vary above Yes.

the anticipated project location?
Is there any reason to expect that Yes, because of the surface topography,
the stress values may vary across the faults and a tectonically stressed region.
site because of, e.g., varying surface
topography, effect of major faults, etc.?
Have the four ISRM Suggested Methods Yes.
on rock stress estimation been studied?
Give the location of the complete rock [See Table 7.2 of this book]
stress estimation for the project site
Have any difficulties been encountered Yes, due to high tectonic stress and the
in estimating the in situ stress? deep valley terrain.
this sheet
Date of completing this sheet 30 May 2010.
Protocol Sheet 2.3 Intact Rock

Have the intact rock properties been Yes.
considered within the geological setting,
Protocol Sheet 2.1?
How many distinct types of intact rock The different marble formations: T2y4 ,
are present at the site? T2y5-(1), T2y5-(2), T2y6 and Q, see Figure 7.6.
Has the rock been metamorphosed/ Yes.
altered in any way by geological
processes?
Have the intact rock properties been Yes.
measured?

Which tests established the intact rock Uniaxial compressive tests, triaxial
properties? compressive tests, creep tests, and loading
and unloading tests under triaxial
compression.
Which standards or suggested meth- ISRM Suggested Methods.
ods have been employed in the
determination of intact rock properties?
What are the mean Young’s moduli These are: 10.0–15.0 GPa and 0.21 for
and Poisson’s ratios of the intact rock marble T2y4 in class II; 12.0–16.0 GPa and
at the site? 0.21 for marble T2y5-(1) in class II; 7.0–11.0
GPa and 0.23–0.26 for marble T2y4 in
class III; 6.0–11.0 GPa and 0.23–0.26
for marble T2y5- (1) in class III. [Also, see
Table 7.5 in this book.]
What are the mean compressive Wet strength: 55–62 MPa for marble T2y4
strengths of the intact rock present in class II; 80–85 MPa for marble T2y5-(1) in
4
at the site? class II; 50–60 GPa for marble T2y in class
III; 65–80 MPa for marble T2y5-(1) in class
III. [Also, see Table 7.5.]
What are the mean tensile strengths No data at hand for the mean tensile
of the intact rock present at the site? strengths.
Have complete stress–strain curves Yes.
been obtained, i.e., the post–peak
characteristic in addition to the
pre-peak characteristic?
Any other intact rock data avail- No.
able, e.g., spalling strength, fracture
toughness, etc.?
Is the intact rock susceptible to There is no weathering of the intact rock
weathering? at the powerhouse location.
Are there any issues connected with No.
intact rock anisotropy, inhomogeneity
or time dependence?
Have any difficulties been encountered The time dependency of the marble at
in estimating the intact rock properties? high stress and behaviour during the
sudden unloading process.
Where is the borehole rock core At the Jinping II hydropower station site.
located?
Where is the intact rock data located? At the East China Investigation and
Design Institute under CHECC.

this sheet
Sciences, China
Protocol Sheet 2.4 Fractures and Faults

What information can the knowledge The orientation and basic mechanical
of the geological setting provide about properties of the fracturing and faulting.
the rock fracturing and faulting?
Are any major faults (or brittle There exist faults such as F7, F8, F9, F14,
deformation zones) present? F16, F27, F21, F35, F56, F65, F68.
Have such faults been characterised Yes.
in terms of their location, geometry
(dip/dip direction) and other features
such as zone thickness?
Have the faults been intersected by Both.
boreholes, or have they been visible
at outcrops or in underground
excavations?
Have the fractures been measured? Yes.
Which method has been utilised to Scanline survey, window mapping, and
determine rock mass (discontinuity) measurements along the sidewalls of an
characteristics (e.g., scanline survey, underground opening and geotechnical
window mapping, and measurements logging along borehole cores.
along the sidewalls of an underground
opening or geotechnical logging along
borehole cores)?

If borehole cores have been used, has Yes.

a comparison been carried out between
the measurements obtained from cores
and surface techniques?
How many fracture sets are present? Five sets of fractures.
What are the orientations of the frac- Five sets of fractures are present:
tures? (supply one or more stereograms.) (1) N10°W–N30°E, ∠73–85°;
(2) N60–80°W, ∠70–90°; (3) N40–60°E,
∠20–40°; (4) EW, ∠20–40°;
(5) N70–85°E, ∠60–80°.
What other information concerning Further data have been obtained.
the fractures is available, e.g.,
tracelength, roughness, aperture, etc.?
Do the fracture characteristics vary Yes.
across the site, so that structural
fracture domains may be necessary?
Have any difficulties been encountered High tectonic activity in different
in estimating the fracture properties? directions has caused variable fracture
domains.
Where is the fault and fracture informa- East China Investigation and Design
tion held? Institute under CHECC.
this sheet
Location of electronic storage of this Pro- Personal computer and USB at the
tocol Sheet Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan,
China.

Protocol Sheet 2.5 Rock Mass Properties

What information can the knowledge Assists in developing the uniaxial com-
of the geological setting provide about pressive strength, Young’s moduli, defor-
the rock mass properties? mation moduli, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion,
and internal friction angle values.
Have the main mechanical proper- Yes.
ties of the rock masses present been
established?
Have the rock mass properties been Yes.
measured directly?
Have empirical methods been used to Yes, the Chinese rock mass classification
estimate the rock mass properties, e.g., BQ, plus the RMR and Q systems.
via RMR, Q or GSI ratings?
Have numerical methods been used to Yes, using a continuous method with
estimate the rock mass properties, e.g., mechanical parameters being weakened.
through the use of 3DEC with the The back analysis is based on the
intact rock and fracture properties measured deformation at the exploration
input to the model? tunnels before the excavation, and on the
measured deformation and excavation
damaged zone data at seven monitored
sections of the main powerhouse during
construction.
What are the rock mass deformation [See Table 7.35 in this book.]
and strength properties?
Have any difficulties been encountered Yes. For the unloading properties in the
in estimating the rock mass properties? rock surrounding the cavern at the high
sidewalls.
Where is the rock mass information East China Investigation and Design
held? Institute under CHECC and the Institute
of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences.
this sheet

Location of electronic storage of this Personal computer and USB at the

Protocol Sheet Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
China.
Protocol Sheet 2.6 Hydrogeological Properties

What information can the knowledge Permeability, and water flow on the
of the geological setting provide about surface of the rocks.
the rock mass hydrogeological
properties?
Is water flow through the rock mass Water flows through the rock fractures.
occurring mainly through the intact
rock or through the rock fractures?
Have the rock mass hydraulic There was large water flow in the
conductivity and/or rock fracture fractured zone of the exploration tunnels,
transmissivities been estimated by e.g., water flow of 20 l/s at the working
any means? face at 136.5 m chainage in exploration
tunnel No.1.
In situ borehole water pressure tests.
Have the rock mass hydraulic The results of in situ water pressure tests
conductivity and/or rock fracture indicate that the permeability at 6 MPa
transmissivities been measured pressure was less than 1 Lu.
directly?
What are the likely water head 200–300 m.
pressures to be encountered in the
project?
What are the likely fracture Not estimated.
transmissivity values?
Are high water pressures likely to be Yes. For example, during the excavation
present when faults are intersected by of f30 in the exploration tunnels Nos. 1–2,
the rock excavation? the fault on the left side was closed but
the fault on the right side was open about
100–200 mm, with initial water flow
of 80 l/s.

Have any difficulties been encountered The large differences in the development
in specifying the rock mass of fractures has resulted in differences of
hydrogeological characteristics? permeability.
Where is the hydrogeological East China Investigation and Design
information held? Institute under CHECC.
this sheet
China.
Protocol Sheet 2.7 Other Special Characteristics/Parameters Required

Is information on any ‘non-standard’ Yes.
rock characteristics required for
modelling and designing the project?
Which extra characteristics are required? Geo-temperature, radioactivity of the
rock mass.
Have these been estimated? Yes.
Have these been measured? Yes
Which methods (standard or suggested) Temperature meter. Special radioactivity
have been employed for the monitor.
determination of the extra characteristics?
Have any difficulties been encountered No.
in establishing the values of these

Give the values of the these The measured temperature varied between
characteristics/parameters 15.28 and 17.68°C.
For poor air ventilation, in the
exploration tunnel No.1, the mean accept-
able yearly effective radioactivity was
141.92 mSv and the maximum accept-
able yearly effective radioactivity was
300.8 mSv. However, for exploration
tunnel No.3, the mean acceptable yearly
effective radioactivity was 62.53 mSv and
the maximum acceptable yearly effective
radioactivity was 95.02 mSv.
Where is the information on these extra East China Investigation and Design
parameters held? Institute under CHECC.
this sheet
China.
Protocol sheet 3 Modelling (Overview sheet with associated sub-sheets

3.1 to 3.10 following)
What is the purpose of the completed – To appraise and predict the stability
or anticipated modelling? of the cavern group during and after
excavation layer-by-layer
– To recognise potential failure modes
– To establish a deformation
management classification for excava-
tion of the cavern group layer-by-layer
– To optimise and evaluate support
design
– To optimise the sequence procedure
and bench height for excavation.

Is the type of modelling being used Yes.

covered by one or more of the eight
methods shown in Figure 8.1 of
Feng and Hudson (2011)?
If so, state which of the eight main Level 1 Methods:
modelling methods are being used? Method C: Numerical analysis, i.e., finite
element method.
Forward analysis and feedback analysis

are used [see Table 7.8 in this book].
Level 2 Methods:
Method B: Rock mass classification: BQ,
RMR, Q systems.
Method C: Empirical analogy and expert
system, global optimisation algorithms
such as genetic algorithm, particle swarm
optimisation, intelligent modelling, i.e.,
neural networks, support vector machine.
If the modelling method being used is N/A*
not one of the eight methods shown in
Figure 2.1 or 8.1 (Feng and Hudson,
2011), specify the type(s) of modelling
being used.
Is the modelling being conducted as one The modelling is sequential.
event or is the modelling sequential in
some way?
Have all the input parameters for the Yes. Some input parameters for the
modelling method(s) been satisfactorily modelling methods are obtained from
obtained? rock mass classification, laboratory
tests and field tests. Others are obtained
from back analysis from the exploration
tunnels and during the excavation.
Has it been possible to verify the The results from expert systems, neural
modelling in any way, e.g., has there networks, and support vector machines
been any check of the results obtained are checked by numerical analysis.
by two or more modelling methods?
Has it been possible to validate the The modelling results are verified by the
model in any way, i.e., check that the monitored deformations and measured
modelling results correspond with the excavation damaged zones.
rock reality?
Has the modelling method raised any Numerical analysis depends on the
unforeseen difficulties? parameter inputs, especially the damage
evolution of the rock mass.

this sheet
*N/A ≡ Not Applicable.
Protocol sheet 3.1 Pre-existing Standard Methods

Why is it possible to use a pre-existing No pre-existing standard method was
standard method? used.
What is the pre-existing standard N/A
method that is to be used?
Have any supporting modelling N/A
methods been used to confirm the
applicability of the standard method?
Is the rock mass consistent over the N/A
area/volume of the rock mass involved?
Is it anticipated that in places the N/A
ground conditions may locally not be
suitable for the pre-existing standard
method?
Have any difficulties been encoun- N/A
tered in ensuring that the pre-existing
method is suitable?
Where is the full information on the N/A
pre-existing method being applied
for the project currently held?
this sheet


China.
Protocol sheet 3.2 Precedent Type Analysis (PTA)

Why is the PTA approach being used? The PTA approach was not used.
Has the exact Li Shihui et al. (1998, N/A
IJRMMS, 35, 6, 787–795) PTA been
used?
If not, what modifications have been N/A
introduced?
What type of rock mass classification N/A
was used in the approach?
Which data from previous typical N/A
projects were used?
What type of numerical analysis was N/A
used?
Was the flowchart in Figure 3 N/A
of Li Shihui et al. (1998), used to guide
the modelling work?
Did the use of PTA essentially follow N/A
the same procedure as that used for the
construction of the Ertan hydroelectric
station ( see Li Shihui et al., 1998,
IJRMMS, 35, 6, 787–795)?
Were any difficulties encountered in N/A
the application of PTA?

Give the location of the report on N/A

the use of PTA
Date of completing this sheet 30 May 2010.
Location of electronic storage Personal computer and USB at the Insti-
of this Protocol Sheet tute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Location of back-up electronic Scientific archives at the Institute of Rock
storage of this Protocol Sheet and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Protocol Sheet 3.3 Analytical Methods

Why was an analytical method The analytical method was not used.
approach used?
Was the use of the analytical method N/A
supported by any other methods?
Which particular analytical solution N/A
was used?
Are the strict CHILE conditions N/A
(continuity, homogeneity, isotropy,
linear elasticity) for an elastic
solution applicable for the rock mass
being considered?
Was the solution in 2-D or 3-D? N/A
If rock mass parameters were used (e.g., N/A
not required for stresses in the Kirsch
solution but are required for displace-
ment), where did the parameters come
from?
Were any difficulties encountered in N/A
finding and applying the appropriate
analytical solution?

this sheet
Protocol Sheet 3.4 Rock Mass Classification

Why was the rock mass classification There are some qualitative variables.
approach used?
Which type of rock mass classification The BQ, RMR and Q systems.
method is being used?
Is the method(s) a standard one or is it They are standard methods.
a new one specially developed for the
project, or a modification of a standard
method?
If it is not a standard rock mass N/A
classification method, explain the
motivation for its use and its content
How is/are the rock mass classification In correlations with key engineering
value(s) to be used? modelling and activities.
Have the engineers been trained in Yes, by taking courses and lectures.
obtaining the rock mass classification
values? If so, how?
Has there been any check on the The results of three classification methods
variability of the rock mass have been compared and the differences
classification values, e.g., the analysed.
standard deviation of values?

Is there any check on the rock mass clas- The rock mass classification results and
sification results and implications using implications have been cross checked by
another modelling method, e.g., numeri- the expert system, neural networks and
cal modelling? numerical analysis.
Since the rock mass classification According to rock mass classification
method is not 1:1 mapping, how have methods and extensions thereof.
you incorporated other factors, e.g.,
the presence of a nearby fault?
in using the rock mass classification
method?
Where is the rock mass classification East China Investigation and Design
information held? Institute under CHECC.
this sheet
Location of electronic storage of this Personal computer and USB at Institute
Protocol Sheet of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Protocol Sheet 3.5 Basic Numerical Models

Why was a numerical model used? To predict the deformation and
excavation damaged zone induced by
cavern excavation layer-by-layer.
Which type of numerical model Continuum medium method
was used? (Finite difference program).
Why was that type of numerical Most suitable, with the mechanical
model chosen? parameters corresponding to the damage
degree of the surrounding rock and with
the evolution as induced by excavation
layer-by-layer.

How were the values of input Before construction of the cavern group,
parameters chosen? the parameters were chosen from labora-
tory tests, rock mass classification and
back analysis of the exploration tunnels.
During construction, some parameters
were back analysed from the monitored
deformation and excavation damaged
zones.
Were the results from two different No.
codes compared to check if similar
results were obtained?
Was a sensitivity study conducted, i.e., A sensitivity study was conducted to
how variations in the input parameters choose which parameters could be back
affected the output parameters? analysed from the monitored deformation
and excavation damaged zones.
How were the factors of rock Weakening parameters were adopted.
discontinuities, inhomogeneity,
anisotropy and time dependency
taken into account?
Have any difficulties been encountered Yes, the difficulty was how should the
in estimating the rock mass properties? input parameters be determined that cor-
respond to the damage degree and its evo-
lution with the layer-by-layer excavation.
How was the presence of faults taken Faults are included in the numerical
into account? models.
Has there been any way of validat- The numerical results were validated
ing the numerical output, i.e., being by the monitored deformation and
able to check that the model correctly excavation damaged zones after
represents the behaviour of the excavation layer-by-layer.
real rock?
Location of the numerical modelling East China Investigation and Design
information? Institute under CHECC; Ertan
Hydropower Development Company;
Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.


Protocol Sheet 3.6 Database and Systems Approaches

Why was a database/systems At the beginning, it was difficult
approach used? to understand well the mechanical
behaviour of the marbles. A database
(the 3D strata information storage system)
was needed to store the rock mechanics
data, the monitoring information, and the
engineering construction information.
Which type of database/systems The 3D strata information system.
approach was used? Also, neural networks were used to
represent non-linear relations between the
monitored variables and the mechanical
parameters to be established.
How were the key project Stability of the cavern group and the
components identified? hydraulic properties.
Were these components ranked in Yes
terms of their importance for the
project?
Was a hazard analysis conducted Yes
based on the identification of the
most important parameters?
Was the significance of changes in The significance of changes in parameters
parameters studied, i.e., parameter A was studied by using correlation analysis
affects parameter B which affects and sensitivity analysis, but not by all the
parameter C, etc.? potential mechanism pathways.
Which specific database was used? The database and 3D strata information
system used the SQL Server and VC++.

Have any difficulties been encountered No

in using the database/systems
approach?
Where is the database/systems informa- Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
tion held? Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan,
China.
Protocol Sheet 3.7 Extended Numerical Models

Which type of extended numerical No extended numerical model was used
model has been used? because the methods mentioned above
were sufficient.
Has this extended model been obtained N/A
‘off the shelf’, or has it been developed
‘in house’?
What are the special features of the N/A
extended model being used?
How have the necessary input N/A
parameters been obtained?
Have any difficulties been encoun- N/A
Has it been possible to check the out- N/A
put with another modelling method,
numerical or otherwise?

Has it been possible to validate the N/A

output of the model, i.e., check that
it correctly represents the real rock
behaviour?
Where is the information on the N/A
modelling parameters and use of the
extended numerical model held?
Location of back-up electronic storage Scientific archives at Institute of Rock
Protocol Sheet 3.8 Advanced Systems Approaches

Why is an advanced systems approach To observe real time behaviour of the
being used? surrounding rock after excavation
layer-by-layer.
What type of advanced data/systems Combined use of digital borehole camera,
approach is being used? elastic wave velocity and deformation
evolution.
Explain how the data are being Several boreholes were drilled and the
obtained cracks in the borehole sidewalls were
digitally recorded using a digital borehole
camera before the excavation of the
cavern group. The development of further
cracks in the sidewalls of the boreholes
was then recorded again during and after
the cavern excavation layer-by-layer. The
results were compared to evaluate the
evolution of cracks, including closure,
opening and propagation.

Explain how the data are being The apertures, traces and orientations of
processed cracks were calculated automatically by
using the system.
Explain how the modelling output Digital images.
is being generated
Has it been possible to compare Yes.
the results of the advanced systems
approach with any other modelling
method?
in establishing the values of these
characteristics/parameters and
processing the data?
Where is the information on the use East China Investigation and Design
of the advanced systems approach Institute under CHECC; Institute of Rock
being held? and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Location of electronic storage Personal computer and USB at the
of this Protocol Sheet Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
China.
Location of back-up electronic Scientific archives at Institute of Rock

Protocol Sheet 3.9 Alternative Type(s) of Modelling

Why was an alternative modelling No alternative modelling method
method used? was used.
What type of alternative modelling N/A
method was used?
Was it a 1:1 mapping or N/A
non-1:1 mapping model?
If it was a physical model, what type N/A
of physical model was used?
Has total dimensional similarity been N/A
achieved?
If it was not a physical model, what N/A
type of alternative model was used?
Explain the mode of operation of this N/A
alternative model
Has it been possible to check the results N/A
of the alternative model with any of the
other methods outlined in the heavy
black rectangle in Figure 8.1 of Feng
and Hudson (2011)?
Were any difficulties encountered in the N/A
use of the alternative model?
Where is the information on the use N/A
of the alternative model held?
Location of electronic storage Personal computer and USB at the Insti-
of this Protocol Sheet tute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Location of back-up electronic Scientific archives at Institute of Rock
storage of this Protocol Sheet and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Wuhan, China.

Protocol Sheet 3.10 Use of Different Methods in Combination or Sequence

Why was it necessary to use more To increase the accuracy of the modelling
than one of the modelling methods? results.
Which modelling methods were used? Expert system, empirical analogy, rock
mass classification, neural network, and
numerical analysis.
Were these methods used in – Neural networks and numerical
combination for comparison analysis were combined to predict
of results or were they used in typical failure modes, deformation
sequence for a particular purpose? and the excavation damaged zone
after excavation of the cavern group
layer-by-layer.
– Rock classification and empirical
analogy were used in sequence for
evaluating the stability of the cavern
group and for estimation of the
mechanical parameters.
Explain the overall results of using A comprehensive evaluation method was
more than two methods developed to compare and explain the
overall results of using more than two
methods.
Were any difficulties encountered in No.
using two or more or the modelling
approaches?
Where is the information on the Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
multiple use of modelling Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan,
methods held? China.
Give the name of the person Prof. Feng Xia-Ting.
checking the contents of the
completed sheet

Protocol Sheet 4.1 Initial Design

Has an initial design been established? Yes.
If so, what has been the main Geological conditions, hydraulic
information leading to the initial design? information and powerhouse purpose.
Has there been appropriate integration Yes.
of the objective, the geological and site
information and the modelling?
What have been the key project factors Hydraulic and power generation
affecting the initial design? requirement.
What have been the key features of the In situ stress, rock mass, geological
site affecting the initial design? conditions.
What have been the key modelling Potential failure modes, deformation
conclusions affecting the initial design? magnitude and velocity, and depth of
the excavation damaged zone induced
by excavation of the cavern group
layer-by-layer.
Has a hazard assessment been Yes. The deformation management
conducted and, if so, what type? classification system and failure modes.
Has monitoring been installed so that Yes.
feedback information will be available
and back analysis then possible?
Is the initial design flexible in the sense Yes.
that changes can be made?
Were any problems encountered in No.
establishing the initial design?
If it is decided that the initial design The initial design was not the final design.
is the final design, for what reasons
was that decision made?


Protocol Sheet 4.2 Final Design

Why was the initial design modified – It was not possible to accurately estab-
to the final design? lish the geological conditions before
excavation of the large cavern group.
– Sometimes, the construction did
not follow the design as strictly as
required: this meant that the results
were not as expected.
– It was difficult to predict accurately
the behaviour of the high sidewalls in
the cavern group.
What has been the main type of infor- Geological conditions, construction
mation causing the change to the final results, differences in the actual behaviour
design? of the surrounding rock compared with
the prediction.
If monitoring information during con- The monitored deformation magnitude
struction has caused alteration to and velocity, over-loading of the cable
the initial design, which specific data anchors, and the measured damage depths
caused the change? in the surrounding rock.
Has new modelling (via a back Yes.
analysis) been conducted as a result
of the information obtained during
construction?
How many iterations of the loop indi- In total, six feedback loops have been
cated in Figure 8.2 in Feng and carried out.
Hudson (2011), i.e., Steps 6–7 and
7–6 forming a feedback loop, have
been carried out?

How did you know when to stop the When the prediction of the behaviour
Steps 6–7 and 7–6 feedback loop and of the surrounding rock agreed with the
establish the final design? actual case.
Has a new hazard assessment been The deformation management
conducted as a result of the monitored classification system.
information and, if so, what type?
Were any problems encountered in estab- No.
lishing the final design?
9.5 EXAMPLE COMPLETION OF PROTOCOL SHEET 5
Protocol Sheet 5 Auditing Evaluation

Is this auditing evaluation being made ‘Semi-hard’ auditing.
as a ‘soft’ audit, ‘semi-hard’ or as a
‘hard’ audit (see Figure 8.3 in Feng and
Hudson (2011), i.e., this book)
Has it been assured that all the Yes.
information in all the completed
Protocol Sheets is correct?
Is the quantity of information in all the Yes, although more information on the
Protocol Sheets acceptable* —in the geological conditions would have been
sense that there is sufficient helpful.
information (either directly or through
the referenced material) for the audit
evaluation to be completed? If not,
specify where there is insufficient
information.
* This refers to the information itself,
not to the evaluation of the information.

Can you recommend how this lack Fast feedback analysis and dynamic
of sufficient information can be design during construction.
overcome?
Does this auditing evaluation indicate Yes.
that all aspects of the work (as described
in the Protocol Sheets) are acceptable?
If not, indicate where there are problems
Can you recommend how these N/A
problems can be overcome?
Were any difficulties encountered in No.
undertaking this auditing evaluation?
Is this Auditing Evaluation Yes.
Protocol Sheet being completed by a
person who has an independent
status, and is free of investigatory and
reporting constraints? If not, explain
where there could be a conflict of
interest
9.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this Chapter we have seen how a ‘semi-hard’ audit can be conducted through
completion of the Protocol Sheets, in this case for the design and construction of the
Jinping II underground powerhouse cavern complex in marble strata. Extensive detail
on the project has already been presented in Chapter 7 and so the answers to the
auditing questions are clearer in the light of this background information.
On one hand, the completion of the Protocol Sheets for this ‘semi-hard’ after-the-
event audit example does provide the necessary information for an overview of the

project; on the other hand, many of the answers do raise further questions in the audi-
tor’s mind. But the intention of the Protocol Sheets is to provide the practical auditing
framework enabling the auditor to follow the philosophy and procedures outlined in
Chapter 5—and so the ‘semi-hard’ audit naturally leads to the ‘hard’ audit in which
more penetrating questions are asked, often following up the answers in the ‘semi-
hard’ audit. Of course, the truly ‘hard’ audit will involve considerably more detailed
penetration of the procedures, techniques and operations used, including confirma-
tion of correct inputs to the numerical modelling, checks on the monitoring equip-
ment, etc.
Although the auditing can be done either contemporaneously or after construc-
tion, whichever type of auditing is used, it is best undertaken at the same time as the
design and construction—so that any errors identified can be corrected rapidly.

Chapter 10
Concluding remarks
This book contains a great deal about the past and the present in rock engineer-
ing, especially the modelling and design techniques used to support the construction
of hydroelectric projects in China. In Chapter 1, we included an overview of the
literature and we explained the background to the Chinese rock engineering which
has led up to the spectacular rock engineering projects currently underway. The next
four chapters, Chapters 2–5, outlined our ideas relating to the ways ahead, the suite
of flowcharts, the information required, and technical auditing. Chapters 6 and 7
provided detailed accounts of the construction of a large slope and an underground
cavern complex. Chapters 8 and 9 illustrated auditing protocol sheets and their com-
pletion for one project.
Although these Chapters have been about the past and the present, the over-
arching theme of the book concerns our journey along the ‘long learning curve’, as
described in the quotation from Steedman in Chapter 1, and the implications for
the future of rock engineering modelling and design. We also used the term ‘para-
digm shift’ to characterise the major change that we foresee will take place in rock
mechanics and rock engineering design in the years to come. Although the term ‘para-
digm shift’ has been rather over-used since its introduction half a century ago (Kuhn,
1962), we continue to use it, not only because its introduction coincides with the year
that the International Society for Rock Mechanics was formed, but because it exactly
describes the major changes we anticipate in the move towards ‘intelligent’ analysis
and design.
The term ‘intelligent’ in this context refers to design in which computer modelling
can mimic the ways in which the human brain processes information. One of the keys
to this change will be to use modelling and design tools that have a memory and are
capable of perception. The computer codes that are conventionally used now do not
have a memory in the sense that a human being has a memory, except in the restricted
sense that the codes are continually evolving as they become more adept at accurately
representing the rock behaviour. However, once we start using the type of ‘intelligent’
computer tools illustrated in previous chapters of this book, we do include a memory
and a type of perception. In fact, the neural network examples demonstrate this well:
by teaching the network to learn from a training set of data and to adjust its internal
weights accordingly, the computer is beginning to have a memory similar to human
memory. This is the way that we analyse what we see and perceive: as the British
painter David Hockney has said, “We always see with memory”.

Also, the computer programs should retain the memory of their earlier modelling
exercises. For example, during the successive downward excavation of the layers of
the Jinping II underground powerhouse as described in Chapter 7, the simulations can
be incrementally re-calibrated based on the monitored data—which can be automati-
cally input into the simulations in real time. Indeed, it is not beyond today’s technol-
ogy for different types of rock deformation, such as those examples clearly visible in
Figures 7.49 and 7.50, to be automatically interpreted by the computer program from
a TV monitored image. We do not have to undertake a series of mathematical calcula-
tions to decide where to put our hands when catching a ball because we are “seeing
with our memory”. The incorporation of memory into our modelling techniques is
one of the major foundations for the future of rock mechanics modelling and rock
engineering design.
*****
We hope that you have enjoyed the journey through this book as much as we have
enjoyed writing it. These are exciting times for rock engineering construction in a
world where, as we said in the Preface, computing capability will continue to increase
rapidly with all the attendant advantages, there will be more emphasis on the use
of the Earth’s resources and their sustainability, and greater accountability of engi-
neers’ decisions. We also hope that you will experience rock engineering, either as a
researcher or practitioner, and help to speed us along the ‘long learning curve’.
*****
In closing, we should like to express our profound thanks to Carol Hudson for her
meticulous checking of all the details of not only the original manuscript but also both
the initial and final proofs of the book. We may not have eliminated all the errors but
through Carol’s help there are far fewer.

Appendix A
List of all the ISRM suggested

methods (in chronological order)
The International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) produces Suggested Methods
(SMs) which contain guidance for procedures relating to rock characterisation, test-
ing and monitoring. All the SMs produced up to 2006, as listed below, are included
in the ‘blue book’: The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterisa-
tion, Testing and Monitoring: 1974–2006 (Ulusay and Hudson, 2007). This book is
obtainable at a relatively modest price from either:
the ISRM Secretariat (secretariat.isrm@lnec.pt); or

the ISRM Turkish National Group (abilgin@metu.edu.tr).
ISRM Members can also download individual SMs from the ISRM website
(www.isrm.net)
1 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Shear Strength, 1974

2 ISRM Suggested Method for Rockbolt Testing, 1974
3 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Water Content, Porosity, Density,
Absorption and Related Properties and Swelling and Slake-Durability Index
Properties, 1977
4 ISRM Suggested Method for Monitoring Rock Movements Using Inclinometers
and Tiltmeters, 1977
5 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Sound Velocity, 1978
6 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Tensile Strength of Rock Materials, 1978
7 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Hardness and Abrasiveness of Rocks,
1978
8 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Strength of Rock Materials in
Triaxial Compression, 1978
9 ISRM Suggested Method for Monitoring Rock Movements Using Borehole Exten-
someters, 1978
10 ISRM Suggested Method for Petrographic Description of Rocks, 1978
11 ISRM Suggested Method for Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in Rock
Masses, 1978
12 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining In Situ Deformability of Rock, 1979
13 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Uniaxial Compressive Strength and
Deformability of Rock Materials, 1979

14 ISRM Suggested Method for Pressure Monitoring Using Hydraulic Cells, 1980
15 ISRM Suggested Method for Geophysical Logging of Boreholes, 1981
16 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Strength of Rock Materials in Triaxial
Compression: Revised Version, 1983
17 ISRM Suggested Method for Surface Monitoring of Movements across Discontinui-
ties, 1984
18 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Point Load Strength, 1985
19 ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Anchorage Testing, 1985
20 ISRM Suggested Method for Deformability Determination Using a Large Flat
Jack Technique, 1986
21 ISRM Suggested Method for Deformability Determination Using a Flexible Dilatom-
eter, 1987
22 ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress Determination, 1987
23 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Fracture Toughness of Rock, 1988
24 ISRM Suggested Method for Seismic Testing Within and Between Boreholes,
1988
25 ISRM Suggested Method for Laboratory Testing of Argillaceous Swelling Rocks,
1989
26 ISRM Suggested Method for Large Scale Sampling and Triaxial Testing of Jointed
Rock, 1989
27 ISRM Suggested Method for Blast Vibration Monitoring, 1992
28 ISRM Suggested Method for Rapid Field Identification of Swelling and Slaking
Rocks, 1994
29 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Mode I Fracture Toughness Using
Cracked Chevron Notched Brazilian Disc, 1995
30 ISRM Suggested Method for Deformability Determination Using a Stiff Dilatom-
eter, 1996
31 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Indentation Hardness Index of
Rock Materials, 1998
32 ISRM Suggested Method for Complete Stress–Strain Curve for Intact Rock in
Uniaxial Compression, 1999
33 ISRM Suggested Method for In Situ Stress Measurement Using the Compact
Conical-Ended Borehole Overcoring (CCBO) Technique, 1999
34 ISRM Suggested Method for Laboratory Testing of Swelling Rocks, 1999
35 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining Block Punch Strength Index, 2001
36 ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress Estimation, Part 1: Strategy for Rock
Stress Estimation, 2003
37 ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress Estimation, Part 2: Overcoring Methods,
2003
38 ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress Estimation, Part 3: Hydraulic Fracturing
(HF) and/or Hydraulic Testing of Pre-Existing Fractures (HTPF), 2003
39 ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress Estimation, Part 4: Quality Control of
Rock Stress Estimation, 2003
40 ISRM Suggested Method for Land Geophysics in Rock Engineering, 2004

List of all the ISRM suggested methods (in chronological order) 435
41 ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Shore Hardness Value for Rock,
2006 (updated version)
42 ISRM Suggested Method for Determination of the Schmidt Hammer Rebound
Hardness, 2008 (updated version)
Following the 2007 publication of the ISRM ‘blue book’ containing SMs 1–40 in
the list above, an ‘orange book’ will be published in 2012 containing the most recent
SMs and other documents produced by the ISRM (contact Sofia Meess at secretariat.
isrm@lnec.pt).

Appendix B
The Chinese ‘Basic Quality’

(BQ) system for rock mass
classification
B1 INTRODUCTION
This Chinese BQ unified rock classification system1 has been developed to aid in the
evaluation of the stability of engineering rock masses and to provide rock charac-
terisation assistance for design and construction in rock engineering. This Standard
is applicable to rock mass classification for all kinds of rock engineering. The engi-
neering classification of a rock mass should be conducted in a way in which qualita-
tive and quantitative evaluations are combined together, and in two steps: firstly, the
determination of the basic rock mass quality; and, secondly, to determine rock mass
classes according to the requirements of different kinds of rock engineering.
B2 TERMINOLOGY AND SYMBOLS
B2.1 Terminology
Rock engineering: The kinds of surface and underground engineering in which
the rock mass serves as a foundation or environment for the construction project.
Engineering rock mass: The rock mass in the area influenced by rock engineering,
including underground engineering, the foundations for industrial and civil construc-
tion, dam foundations and rock slopes.
Rock mass basic quality: Includes the basic properties inherent in a rock mass
and on which the stability of the engineering rock mass depends. The rock mass basic
quality is defined by the rock solidity and rock mass integrity.
Structural plane (discontinuity): Fracture plane or plane in a rock mass that is
liable to fracture, such as a bedding plane, joint, fault, schistosity, etc. —also called
discontinuity.
Rock mass volumetric joint count (Jv): The number of joints (structural planes) in
a unit volume of rock mass.
1 This BQ Chinese Standard has been translated from the original Chinese language so some of the nuances
in the rock descriptions may have been lost. Thus, if necessary for detailed use of the BQ system, we rec-
ommend referring to the original Chinese text. This English version has been included to give the reader
an impression of the BQ system because it has been referred to in several chapters of this book. (“Stand-
ard for Engineering Classification of Rock Masses”, The National Department of Technical Monitorial
Affairs and The Ministry of Construction, PRC, GB 50218-94.) See also Section B11.

B2.2 Symbols
Table B1 List of symbols and their meaning.
No. Symbol Meaning
1 γ Unit weight of the rock

2 Rc Saturated uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock
3 Is(50) Point load strength index
4 E Elastic modulus of the rock mass
5 ν Poisson’s ratio of rock mass
6 φ Friction angle of a rock mass or structural plane
7 c Cohesion of a rock mass or structural plane
8 Kv Intactness index for a rock mass
9 Jv Volumetric joint count for a rock mass
10 K1 Corrective coefficient for the influence of underground water
11 K2 Corrective coefficient for the influence of the orientation of the main weak
structural planes
12 K3 Corrective coefficient for the influence of the initial stress state
13 f0 Basic value of the bearing capacity of a rock foundation
14 η Reduction coefficient for the influence of the rock foundation configuration
15 BQ Rock mass basic quality index
16 [BQ] Corrected rock mass basic quality index
Point load strength index (Is(50)): Point load strength of a diametrically loaded
cylindrical specimen having a diameter of 50 mm.
Stand-up time for an underground rock mass: The time for a rock mass to with-
stand any kind of failure without support.
Initial stress field: The rock stress field in the natural condition, resulting from
gravity and tectonics, also called the ‘natural stress field’.
B3 CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS FOR THE ROCK

MASS BASIC QUALITY
B3.1 Classification parameters and the method

of their determination
The rock mass basic quality should be determined by two parameters, i.e., rock
solidness and rock mass integrity. Both of these should be determined by two meth-
ods: namely, qualitative classification and quantitative indices.
B3.2 Qualitative classification of rock mass solidity

Rock solidity should be qualitatively classified according to Table B2.
During qualitative classification of the rock solidity, the weathering degree of the
rock should be determined according to Table B3.

Table B2 Qualitative classification of rock solidity.
Class name Qualitative evaluation Representative rock type
Strong Rock Hard Rock When hammered, clear Unweathered and slightly
sound with rebound weathered rock, such as
and shock to hand, granite, syenite, diorite,
difficult to fragment diabase, basalt, andesite,
After being immersed in gneiss, quartz schist, siliceous
water, no significant slate, quartzite, conglomerate
absorption effect with siliceous cement,
noticed quartz sandstone, siliceous
limestone, etc.
Less Hard Rock When hammered, fairly 1 Weakly weathered
clear sound, with slight hard rock
rebound and shock to 2 Unweathered to slightly
hand, fairly difficult to weathered rock, such as
fragment welded tuff, dolomite,
After being immersed marble, slate, limestone,
in water, a slight sandstone with calcareous
absorption effect is cement, etc.
noticed
Weak Rock Less Soft Rock When hammered, unclear 1 Strongly weathered
sound without rebound, hard rock
fairly easy to fragment 2 Weakly weathered, less
After being immersed hard rock
in water, can be 3 Unweathered to slightly
scratched by nail. weathered rocks, such
as: tuff, phyllite, sandy
mudstone, marl,
argillaceous sandstone,
siltstone, shale, etc.
Soft Rock When hammered, dull 1 Strongly weathered
sound without rebound, hard rock
but with surface 2 Weakly to strongly
depression, easy to weathered, less hard rock
fragment 3 Weakly weathered, less
After being immersed soft rock
in water, can be broken 4 Unweathered
off by fingers. mudstone, etc.
Very Soft Rock When hammered, dull 1 Any kind of completely
sound without rebound, weathered rock
but with deep surface 2 Any kind of ‘semi-rock’
depression, can be
crushed by hand
After being immersed in
water, can be kneaded
into a ball

Table B3 Classification of rock weathering degree.
Weathering degree Description of weathered rock texture
Unweathered Unaltered, fresh rock

Slightly weathered Colour and lustre of minerals basically unaltered;
parts of the joint surfaces stained by ferrous and manganese
substances
Weakly weathered Partly decomposed, colour and lustre of minerals clearly altered,
weathered minerals noticed in joints
Strongly weathered Mostly decomposed, colour and lustre of minerals clearly
altered, feldspar, mica etc., weathered into secondary minerals
Completely weathered Completely decomposed, most mineral assemblages,
except quartz, weathered into soils
Table B4 Qualitative classification of rock mass integrity.
Quantitative description
of structural planes
Number Mean Interconnection Type of main Corresponding

Class of joint spacing, degree of the main structural plane structural type of
name sets (m) structural plane sets sets rock mass
Intact 1 to 2 >1.0 Well Joints, fractures, Integral or macro-

interconnected bedding planes. bedded structure
or partially
interconnected
Mostly 1 to 2 >1.0 Poorly Joints, fractures, Massive or thick-
intact interconnected bedding planes. bedded structure
2 to 3 1.0 to 0.4 Well Massive structure
interconnected
or partially
interconnected
Partially 2 to 3 1.0 to 0.4 Poorly Joints, fractures, Cracked-massive
fractured interconnected bedding planes, or thickly-bedded
minor faults. structure
≥3 0.4 to 0.2 Well Mosaic-cataclastic
interconnected
Partially Medium-bedded
interconnected to thin-bedded
structure
Fractured ≥3 0.4 to 0.2 Poorly All kinds of Cracked-massive
interconnected discontinuities structure
≤0.2 Partially Cataclastic structure
interconnected
or poorly
interconnected
Very Many Very low Very poorly All kinds of Loose structure
fractured fractures interconnected discontinuities
Note: The mean spacing refers to the mean spacing of the main structural planes (1 to 2 sets).

The Chinese ‘Basic Quality’ (BQ) system for rock mass classification 441
B3.3 Qualitative classification of rock mass integrity

The rock mass integrity should be qualitatively classified according to Table B4.
The interconnection degree of the structural planes should be determined by the
characteristics of the structural planes according to Table B5.
Table B5 Classification of the degree of interconnectedness of the structural planes.
Interconnection degree Characteristics of the structural planes
Well interconnected Aperture width less than 1 mm, unfilled

Aperture width 1 to 3 mm, with siliceous or ferruginous
cement
Aperture width greater than 3 mm, with rough joint surfaces
and siliceous cement
Partially Aperture width 1 to 3 mm, with calcareous or argillaceous
interconnected cement
Aperture width larger than 3 mm, with rough joint surfaces
and ferriferous or calcareous cement
Poorly Aperture width 1 to 3 mm, with planar surfaces, and argil-
interconnected laceous or argillaceous-calcareous cement
Aperture width larger than 3 mm, mostly filled with
argillaceous material or debris
Very poorly With argillaceous fillings possibly mixed with debris, the
interconnected thickness of which is larger than the undulations of the
structural planes’ surfaces
B3.4 Determination and classification

of quantitative indices
For the quantitative index of rock solidity, the saturated uniaxial compressive strength
of the rock (Rc) should be adopted. Measured data for Rc should be used. In the case
when measured data for Rc cannot be obtained, the value converted from the meas-
ured point load strength index (Is(50)) can be used, via Equation B1:
Rc 22 82 I s0(50
75
) (B1)
The corresponding relation between the saturated uniaxial compressive strength

of the rock (Rc) and the qualitatively classified rock solidness can be determined in
accordance with Table B6.
For the quantitative index of rock mass integrity, the intactness index of the rock
mass (Kv) should be adopted. Measured data of Kv should be used. In the case when
measured data are not available, the value of Kv can be determined through its cor-
respondence to the volumetric joint count for the rock mass (Jv), in accordance with
Table B7.
The corresponding relation between the intactness index for the rock mass (Kv)
and the qualitatively classified rock integrity can be determined in accordance with
Table B8.

Table B6 Relation between Rc and qualitatively classified rock solidity.
Rc (MPa) >60 60–30 30–15 15–5 <5
Rock solidity Hard rock Less Less Soft rock Very soft
hard rock soft rock rock
Table B7 Correspondence of Kv and Jv.
Jv (joint count/m3) <3 3–10 10–20 20–35 >35
Kv >0.75 0.75–0.55 0.55–0.35 0.35–0.15 <0.15
Table B8 Relation between Kv and the qualitatively classified rock integrity.
Kv >0.75 0.75–0.55 0.55–0.35 0.35–0.15 <0.15
Rock mass integrity Intact Mostly intact Partially fractured Fractured Very fractured
The quantitative indices Kv and Jv should be measured in accordance with the

following Section B6.
B4 CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MASS BASIC QUALITY
B4.1 Determination of the rock mass basic

quality class
The class of rock mass basic quality should be determined through a combination of
the qualitative characteristics and the rock mass basic quality index (BQ), in accord-
ance with Table B9.
In the case of inconsistency between the rock mass basic quality class determined
by the qualitative characteristics and the class determined by the basic quality index
(BQ), the class should be re-determined by further analysis of both approaches, with
further tests being conducted if necessary.
B4.2 Qualitative characteristics of the basic quality

and the basic quality index
The qualitative characteristics of the rock mass basic quality should be determined by
a combination of the rock solidity and the rock mass integrity, obtained in accordance
with Tables B2 and B4.
The rock mass basic quality index (BQ) should be calculated using the classifica-
tion parameters Rc in MPa units and Kv via Equation B2.
BQ = 90 + 3Rc + 250 Kv (B2)

Table B9 Classification of the rock mass basic quality.
Basic quality Qualitative characteristics of Rock mass basic

class the rock mass basic quality quality index (BQ)
I Hard rock, intact rock mass >550

II Hard rock, less intact rock mass 550–451
Less hard rock, intact rock mass
III Hard rock, partially fractured rock mass 450–351
Less hard rock or inter-bedding of hard and soft
rock, less intact rock mass
Less soft rock, intact rock mass
IV Hard rock, fractured rock mass; 350–251
Less hard rock, partially fractured to fractured rock mass
Less soft rock or inter-bedding of hard and soft
rock, with predominantly soft rock, less intact to
partially fractured rock mass;
Soft rock, intact to less intact rock mass.
V Less soft rock, fractured rock mass; ≤250
Soft rock, partially fractured to fractured rock mass;
All kinds of very soft rock and all kinds of very
fractured rock mass
Note: The following restrictions should be followed when using Equation B2.
1 If Rc > 90Kv + 30, then let Rc = 90Kv + 30. These values of Rc and Kv should be
substituted into Equation B2 to calculate the value of BQ;
2 If Kv > 0.04Rc + 0.4, then let Kv = 0.04Rc + 0.4. These values of Kv and Rc should
be substituted into Equation B2 to calculate the value of BQ.
B5 ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION FOR A ROCK MASS
B5.1 General rules

The class for the rock mass basic quality, determined in accordance with Table B9,
may be used as the rock mass class in the preliminary engineering classification.
For detailed classification of a rock mass, necessary corrective parameters should
be taken into consideration. Depending on the features of different rock masses, these
are: the state of underground water, the initial rock stress state, the relative orienta-
tion of the project’s structural axis or strike with the occurrences of the main weak
discontinuity sets. For slopes, the influence of surface water should also be taken into
consideration.
When no measured data are available, the initial stress state in the rock mass
may be evaluated according to the thickness of the overburden/depth of exca-
vation, topography and morphology, history of geological tectonic movements,
the main lineaments and any special phenomena which occur during excavation,

such as rockbursting, core discing, etc., in accordance with Section B7 of this

Standard.
The influences of the following factors on the rock mass class should be consid-
ered, if they become significant factors affecting rock mass stability: expandibility and
solubility of the rock mass, and the existence of large weak structural planes with a
fairly high degree of continuity in the rock engineering volume.
In the preliminary classification of the rock mass, the physical and mechanical
parameters of the rock mass may be adopted in accordance with Table B13 placed
in Section B8.2 of this Standard. The peak values of shearing strength of structural
planes may be adopted according to rock solidness and interconnection degree of
structural planes in accordance with Table B.14 in Section B8.2 of this Standard.
B5.2 Engineering rock mass classification

During detailed classification of a rock mass and if one or more of the cases below
should occur, correction should be made to the rock mass basic quality index (BQ)
and the class of rock mass should be determined with the corrected value in accord-
ance with Table B9.
1 The existence of underground water.

2 The stability of the rock mass is affected by weak structural planes, one of which
is dominant.
3 The existence of high initial stress phenomena, as indicated in Table B12 of
Section B7 in this Standard.
The corrected rock mass basic quality index ([BQ]) for the rock mass may be
calculated according to the following Section B9.
For an underground excavation with a span equal to or less than 20 m, the already-
estimated rock mass class should be appropriately adjusted if the actual stand-up time
does not agree with the stand-up time for that class of rock mass, as indicated in
Section B10 of this Standard.
For detailed classification of a rock mass for large or special underground projects,
other Standards can also be used so that the results can be compared in order to deter-
mine the rock mass class more effectively.
The rock mass class for the foundations of civil structures should be determined
in accordance with Table B9.
The bearing capacity of a rock foundation for civil structures can be determined
according to the following rules.
1 The basic value of the bearing capacity on a rock foundation for various classes
of rock mass ( f0 ) can be determined according to Table B10.
Table B10 The basic value of bearing capacity for a rock foundation ( f0 ).
Rock mass class I II III IV V
f0 (MPa) >7.0 7.0–4.0 4.0–2.0 2.0–0.5 <0.5

Table B11 The reduction coefficient for the influence of the specific rock
foundation configuration (η).
Rock foundation Planar Inward Outward Stepwise

configuration type type type type
Slope of rock 0–10 10–20 10–20 Height of

surface (°) steps <5 m
η 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7
Note: The case in which the structural planes are dipping towards the slope surface
of a rock foundation is termed the ‘outward type’ and the opposite case is
termed the ‘inward type’.
2 When the influence of the rock foundation configuration is to be considered, the

standardised value of bearing capacity for rock foundations (fk) can be deter-
mined according to Equation B3:
fk = η f0 (B3)
3 The reduction coefficient for the influence of the specific rock foundation con-
figuration (η) can be adopted according to Table B11.
During detailed classification of a rock mass for a slope, according to different heights
of the slope, correction should be made according to the following factors: underground
water, surface water, initial stress field, spatial combination of structural planes, relation
between the orientations of the structural planes and the slope surfaces.
B6 ESTABLISHING THE K V AND J V INDICES
B6.1 The K v index

For determination of the intactness index for a rock mass (Kv), the longitudinal wave
velocity should be measured at representative points and sections, chosen from the
different rock types. The longitudinal wave velocity in intact rock specimens taken
from the same rock mass should also be measured. The value for the intactness index
of the rock mass should be calculated according to Equation B4:
Ky = (Vpm/Vpr)2 (B4)
in which Vpm is the longitudinal wave velocity of the rock mass in km/s, and Vpr is the
longitudinal wave velocity for the intact rock, also in km/s.
B6.2 The J v index

For the determination of the volumetric joint count for the rock mass (Jv), the number
of joints (discontinuities) should be investigated at representative outcrops or the

excavation face, chosen from the different rock types. Besides the joint sets, joints hav-
ing a length more than 1 m should be counted separately as well. Joints which have
been re-cemented by siliceous, ferrous and calcareous fillings should not be included.
The area of each sampling location should not be less than 2 × 5 m2. The value Jv
should be calculated using Equation B5:
Jv = S1 + S2 + … + Sn + Sk (B5)
where Jv is the volumetric joint count for the rock mass (number of joints/m3), S1 –Sn
are the numbers of joints intersected in a 1 m perpendicular scanline for each joint set,
and Sk is the number of through going joints in a 1 m3 rock mass.
B7 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE ROCK

STRESS FIELD
In the case where there is a lack of in situ test data, a preliminary assessment of the rock
stress field can be made on the basis of geological investigation results by the following
methods.
1 For an isolated mountain area (or butte) with a gentle landform, the vertical stress
for the preliminary rock stress field can be considered as the gravity induced stress.
The horizontal stress should then not be greater than the value of γ Hν/(1 − ν),
Table B12 Main phenomena occurring during rock excavation in a highly stressed region.
Stress
state Main phenomena Rc/σmax
Very high 1 Hard rock: During excavation rockbursts occasionally occur. Rock <4
stress fragments can be expelled. The sidewalls of the excavation peel off.
New fissures and cracks can be seen. The resultant cavity may lose its
intended shape. Similarly, for open pit excavations, rock peeling can
occur affecting the pit shape.
2 Soft rock: Rock discing often occurs. During excavation, the
sidewalls peel and large displacements can occur over a long time
period. It can be difficult to establish the intended cavity shape. For
open pit excavations, there can be upheavals and rock peeling. It may be
difficult to establish the intended pit geometry.
High 1 Hard rock: During excavation, rockbursts may occur. Some peeling- 4–7
stress off from the sidewalls and rock falls may be noted. There will be some
new fracturing. The cavity may be shaped badly. For open pit
excavation, rock peeling may occasionally occur. The pit shape may not
be ideal.
2 Soft rock: Core discing occurs. During excavation, the sidewalls
displace over a prolonged period. The cavity may be shaped badly. For
open pit excavation, upheaval occurs and the pit may be shaped badly.
Note: σmax is the estimated maximum normal stress component in the plane perpendicular to the excavation axis.

where γ is the rock density in kN/m3, H is the depth to the underground location
in m, and ν is Poisson’s ratio.
2 The direction of the maximum principal stress can be assessed on the basis of
tectonics. The most recent tectonic system can be determined according to the
superposition relation of the tectonic events, with emphasis on the first order.
If the vertical stress is a gravity stress and is one of the principal stresses, the
greater horizontal principal stress could be given a value of (0.8–1.2)γ H or
greater.
3 At a depth greater than 1000 m, the preliminary stress field tends to a hydrostatic stress
state. At a depth greater than 1500 m, the stress field can be taken as hydrostatic.
4 In a gorge area, starting from the slope surface to the inner rock mass of the
mountain, the stress field can be divided into three zones, i.e., the stress relief
zone, the stress concentration zone and the zone having a stabilised stress state.
The horizontal extent of the area in which the stress state is influenced by the
gorge landform is generally one to three times the gorge width. The direction of
the maximum principal stress for the rock mass on both sides of the gorge is, in
general, parallel to the valley, but at depth below the valley bottom it tends to be
horizontal and perpendicular to the valley axis.
5 Wherever core discing or a rockburst has occurred, the likelihood of high rock
stress should be considered. Then, the stress state can be assessed in accordance
with Table B12.
B8 PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PARAMETERS OF THE

ROCK MASS AND DISCONTINUITIES
B8.1 Rock mass parameters

The physical and mechanical parameters of the rock mass may be estimated from
Table B13.
Table B13 Physical and mechanical parameters for the rock mass.
Peak value of shear strength
Class of rock Unit weight Internal Elastic Poisson’s

mass: of rock friction Cohesion modulus E ratio
basic quality γ (kN/m3) angle φ (°) c (MPa) (GPa) ν
I >26.5 >60 >2.1 >33 <0.2

II 60–50 2.1–1.5 33–20 0.2–0.25
III 26.5–24.5 50–39 1.5–0.7 20–6 0.25–0.3
IV 24.5–22.5 39–27 0.7–0.2 6–1.3 0.3–0.35
V <22.5 <27 <0.2 <1.3 >0.35
B8.2 Discontinuity parameters

The friction and cohesion of discontinuities may be estimated from Table B14.

Table B14 The shear strengths of discontinuities.
Internal
The solidity of the rock and the friction Cohesion
No. interconnectedness of the discontinuities angle φ (°) c (MPa)
1 Hard rock, well-interconnected >37 >0.15

2 Hard rock to less hard rock, partially interconnected; 37–29 0.15–0.1
Strong soft rock, well-interconnected
3 Hard rock to less hard rock, poorly interconnected; 29–19 0.10–0.06
Stronger soft rock to soft rock, partially
interconnected
4 Softer hard rock to strong soft rock, poorly 19–13 0.06–0.03
interconnected to very poorly interconnected;
Soft rock, poorly interconnected;
Argillaceous interfaces in soft rock
5 Less hard rock and all kinds of soft rock, very <13 <0.03
poorly interconnected;
Argillaceous intercalations in soft rock
Table B15 Correction coefficient for the influence of underground water, K1.
BQ
State of the underground
water outflow >450 450–350 350–250 <250
Wet or dripping 0 0.1 0.2–0.3 0.4–0.6

Pressure ≤0.1 MPa 0.1 0.2–0.3 0.4–0.6 0.7–0.9
or with a run-off ≤10 l/min
Pressure >0.1 MPa 0.2 0.4–0.6 0.7–0.9 1.0
or with a run-off >10 l/min
B9 CORRECTED VALUE OF THE ROCK MASS BASIC

QUALITY INDEX
The corrected rock mass basic quality index, [BQ], may be calculated using Equation B6.
[BQ] = BQ − 100(K1 + K2 + K3) (B6)
where BQ is the rock mass basic quality index, K1 is the correction coefficient for the
influence of underground water, K2 is the correction coefficient for the influence of
the orientation of the main weak structural planes, and K3 is the correction coefficient
for the influence of the initial stress state.
The values of K1, K2, K3 may be determined in accordance with Tables B15 to
B17. In the case when the actual states are not described in these Tables, the cor-
rection coefficient takes the value zero. If the value of [BQ] becomes negative, the
situation should be treated as a special case.

Table B16 Correction coefficient for the influence of the orientation of the main weak structural
planes, K2.
Occurrence of the main Angle between the orientation Angle between the orientation
weak structural planes of the main weak structural of the main weak structural
and the relation with planes and axis of excavation: planes and axis of excavation: Other
the excavation axis <30°, their inclination: 30–75° <60°, their inclination: >75° cases
K2 0.4–0.6 0–0.2 0.2–0.4
Table B17 Correction coefficient for the influence of the initial stress state, K3.
BQ
Initial stress state >550 550–450 450–350 350–250 <250
Very high stress region 1.0 1.0 1.0–1.5 1.0–1.5 1.0

High stress region 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5–1.0 0.5–1.0
Table B18 Stand-up time for an underground rock mass.
Class of
rock mass Stand-up time
I Excavation span ≤20 m will remain in a stable state over the long term, small rock
pieces may fall occasionally, no significant rockfall.
II Excavation span 10–20 m will remain in a stable state on the whole, rock pieces may
fall and/or there could be small rockfalls occurring locally.
Excavation span <10 m will also remain in a stable state over the long term, small
rockfalls may occur occasionally.
III Excavation span 10–20 m will remain stable from several days to a month, small and
medium rockfalls occurring locally.
Excavation span 5–10 m, will remain in a stable state for several months, block dis-
placements and/or small to medium rockfalls occurring locally.
Excavation span <5 m will generally remain in a stable state.
IV Excavation span >5 m is generally not capable of remaining in a stable state. Loos-
ening causing deformation, small rockfalls occurring over several days to several
months, followed by medium to large rockfalls. These are mainly loosening failure
of the roof at shallow depths and plastic flow and squeezing failure at greater
depths.
Excavation span ≤5 m is capable of remaining in a stable state for only several days to
a month.
V Not stable without support and/or reinforcement
Note: Height of small rockfall <3 m, or volume <30 m3; height of medium rockfall 3–6 m, or volume 30–100 m3;
Height of large rockfall >6 m, or volume >100 m3.

B10 STAND-UP TIME FOR AN UNDERGROUND

ROCK MASS
The stand-up time can be estimated from Table B18.
B11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Chief Compiling Institutions for the BQ Standard as reported in this Appen-
dix B were the Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, the Changjiang Water
Resources Committee, and the Ministry of Water Resources. The Compiling Institu-
tions were the Northeastern University, the 4th Design and Research Institute of the
General Staff, the Southwest Department of the China Academy of Railway Sciences,
the Ministry of Railways China Institute of Geotechnical Investigation and Surveying,
and the Ministry of Construction.
The main authors were Dong Xuesheng, Lin Yunmei, Liu Fuzheng, Xing Nianxin,
Wang Shichun, Su Yibing, Li Yunlin, Li Zhaoquan, Zhang Kecheng, and Xu Fu-an.
*****
Note: The original version of this Standard was written in Chinese. It was then trans-
lated into English by Chinese colleagues and that translation was then polished by
John A. Hudson. Thus, it is possible that, in this English version, some of the nuances
of the Chinese Standard may have been ‘lost in translation’.

References and bibliography
AFTES.: Guidelines for Characterisation for Rock Masses Useful for the Design and the Con-
struction of Underground Structures. Version 1, June 2003.
Alejano, L.R., Ferrero, A.M., Ramírez-Oyanguren & Álvarez Fernández, M.I.: Comparison
of Limit-Equilibrium, Numerical and Physical Models of Wall Slope Stability. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 48 (2011), pp. 16–26.
Amadei, B. & Stephansson, O.: Rock Stress and its Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London,
1997, 490 p.
Andersson, J.A., Munier, R., Ström, A., Söderbäck, B., Almén, K.E. & Olsson, L.: When is there
Sufficient Information from the Site Investigations? SKB Report R-04-23, 2004, Stockholm,
Sweden. (Download available from www.skb.se).
Asano, T., Ishihara, M., Kiyota, Y., Kurosawa, H. & Ebisu, S.: An Observational Excavation
Control Method for Adjacent Mountain Tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.Tech.18 (2003),
pp. 291–301.
Austrian Society for Geomechanics.: Guideline for the Geotechnical Design of Underground
Structures with Conventional Excavation. 2010.
Barnatt, C.: A Brief Guide to Cloud Computing. Constable & Robinson Ltd., London, 2010,
274 p.
Barton, N.: Some New Q-Value Correlations to Assist in Site Characterization and Tunnel
Design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39 (2002), pp. 185–216.
Barton, N.: Rock Quality, Seismic Velocity, Attenuation and Anisotropy. Taylor & Francis,
2006, 756 p.
Barton, N. & Grimstad, E.: The Q-System Following Twenty Years of Application in NMT
Support Selection. In: Proc. 43rd Geomechanic Colloquy, Salzburg, Felsbau 6/94 (1994),
pp. 428–436.
Bates, R.L. & Jackson, J.A.(Eds.): Glossary of Geology. 2nd Edn. American Geological Inst.,
Falls Church,Virginia, USA, 1980,749 p.
Beer, G. (Ed.).: Numerical Simulation in Tunneling. Springer, Vienna, 2003, 477 p.
Bieniawski, Z.T.: Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
1984.
Bieniawski, Z.T.: Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers
and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1989, 251 p.
Bieniawski, Z.T.: Design Methodology in Rock Engineering: Theory, Education and Practice.
Taylor & Francis, London, 1992, 205 p.
Bieniawski, Z.T.: Classification of Rock Masses for Engineering: The RMR System and Future
Trends. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed.): Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Vol. 3, Chapter 22,
Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, pp. 553–573.

452 References and bibliography
Bieniawski, Z.T.: Reflections on New Horizons in Rock Mechanics Design: Theory, Education
and Practice. In: Proc. ISRM Int. Symp. 2008 - 5th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium.
Tehran, Iran, 2008, pp. 37–50.
Blyth, F.G.H. & de Freitas, M.H.: A Geology for Engineers. 7th Edn. Edward Arnold (Publish-
ers) Ltd., London, 1984, 325 p.
Bond, A. & Harris, A.: Decoding Eurocode7. Taylor & Francis, London, 2008, 598 p.
Brady, B.H.G. & Brown, E.T.: Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. 3rd Edn., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2004, 628 p.
Brown, E.T.: The Nature and Fundamentals of Rock Engineering. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed): Com-
prehensive Rock Engineering Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, pp. 1–23.
British Tunnelling Society and Institution of Civil Engineers.: Tunnel Lining Design Guide.
Thomas Telford Ltd., 2004.
Burlion, N. & Shao, J.F. (Eds.): Thermo-Hydromechanical and Chemical Coupling in Geoma-
terials and Applications. Proc. 3rd International Symposium GeoProc. Wiley, 2008. 736 p.
Chakrabarty, J.: Theory of Plasticity. Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, New York-Hamburg-
London-Paris-Sydney-Tokyo, 1987, 791 p.
Chen, X.R., Hou, J., & Chen, J.L.: Stability Analysis and Support Design of Jinping II Hydro-
power Station. HydroChina Huadong Engineering Cooperation, 2007.
Chen, Y. (Ed.): Energy Science & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050. (a sub-volume
report of Science & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050 - Strategic General Report
of the Chinese Academy of Sciences). Science Press, Beijing, and Springer, London, 2010,
107 p.
Chen, Z.Y.: Rock Slope Stability Analysis—Principles, Methods and Programs. China Water
Power Press, 2005.
Chijimatsua, M., Fujita, T., Sugita, Y., Amemiya, K. & Kobayashi, A.: Field Experiment,
Results and THM Behavior in the Kamaishi Mine Experiment. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
38 (2001), pp. 67–78.
Christiansson, R. & Hudson, J.A.: ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress Estimation —
Part 4: Quality Control of Rock Stress Estimation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40 (2003),
pp. 1021–1025.
Davis, G.H.: Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984,
492 p.
Davis, J.C.: Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. 3rd Edn., Wiley, New York, 2002,
638 p.
Dunn, J.: Auditing Theory and Practice. Int. Book Dist. 2004, and, 2nd Edn., 2006, Prentice
Hall.
Dunnicliff, J.: Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance. John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New York, 1988, (1993 Paperback), 577 p.
Einstein, H.H., Sousa, R.L., Karam, K., Manzella, I. & Kveldsvik, V.: Rock Slopes from
Mechanics to Decision Making. In: J. Zhao, V. Labiouse, J.-P. Dudt & J-F. Mathier (Eds.):
Rock Mechanics in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Proc. European Rock Mechanics
Symposium (EUROCK) 2010, pp. 3–15.
Elegbede, C.: Structural Reliability Assessment Based on Particles Swarm Optimization. Struct.
Saf. 27 (2005), pp. 171–186.
Environ. Geol.: (Guest Ed. Tsang, C.-F.) Special Issue on the DECOVALEX THMC Project
(Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories). Environ. Geol. 57 (2009).
Eskesen, S.D., Tengborg, P., Kampmann, J. & Veicherts, T.H.: Guidelines for Tunnelling Risk
Management: International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2. Tunn. Undergr.
Sp. Tech. 19 (2004), pp. 217–237.
EUROCODE 7: Geotechnical Design —NF EN1997-1 Eurocode 7, 2005.

Fairhurst, C.: Analysis and Design in Rock Mechanics—the General Context. In: J.A. Hudson
(Ed): Comprehensive Rock Engineering. Vol. 2, Chapter 1, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993,
pp. 1–29.
Fairhurst, C. & Cook, N.G.W.: The Phenomenon of Rock Splitting Parallel to the Direction of
Maximum Compression in the Neighbourhood of a Surface. In: Proc.1st. Congress of the
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, 1966, pp. 687–692.
Feng, X.T.: Introduction of Intelligent Rock Mechanics. Science Press, Beijing, 2000.
Feng, X.T. & An, H.G.: Hybrid Intelligent Methods Optimization of Soft Rock Replacement
Scheme for Large Cavern Excavated in Strata Alternated with Soft and Hard Rocks. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (2004), pp. 655–667.
Feng, X.T. & Hudson, J.A.: The Ways Ahead for Rock Engineering Design Methodologies. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (2004), pp. 255–273.
Feng, X.T. & Hudson, J.A.: Specifying the Required Information for Rock Engineering Model-
ling and Design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47 (2010), pp. 179–194.
Feng, X.T. & Hudson, J.A.: Rock Engineering Design. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, London,
2011.
Feng, X.T. & Lin, Y.M. : Expert Systems in Rock Mechanics and Engineering. Liaoning
Science & Technology Press, China. 1993.
Feng, X.T. & Wang, Y.J.: A Neural Network-Based Expert System for Identifying Probable
Failure Modes for Rock Slopes. In: Proc. of International Symposium on New Develop-
ments in Rock Mechanics and Engineering. Northeastern University Press, China. 1994.
Feng, X.T. & Yang, C.X.: Genetic Evolution of Nonlinear Material Constitutive Models. Com-
put. Method Appl. M. 190 (2001), pp. 5957–5973.
Feng, X.T. & Yang, C.X.: Coupling Recognition of the Structure and Parameters of Non-Linear
Constitutive Material Models Using Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Eng. 59 (2004), pp. 1227–1250.
Feng, X.T., Zhang, Z.Q. & Sheng, Q.: Estimating Mechanical Rock Mass Parameters Relating
to the Three Gorges Project Permanent Shiplock Using an Intelligent Displacement Back
Analysis Method. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37 (2000), pp. 1039–1054.
Feng, X.T., Chen, S.L. & Li, S.J:. Effects of Water Chemistry on Microcracking and Compres-
sive Strength of Granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38 (2001), pp. 557–568.
Feng, X.T., Li, S.J., Zhang, Y.L. &Yang, C.X.: Visual Parallel Computing in Intelligent Rock
and Soil Mechanics. In: Wang Sijing, Fu Bingjun and Li Zhongkui (Eds.): Frontiers of
Rock Mechanics and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century. Proc. 2nd Asian Rock
Mechanics Symp., Beijing, China, September, 2001, Balkema, 2001, pp. 487–490.
Feng, X.T., Zhang, Z.Q. & Bai, S.W.: Intelligent Identification of Deformation Behavior of the
Rock Mass at the Permanent Shiplock Zone of the Three Gorges Project. In: D. Contractor,
C.S. Desai, S. Harpalani & J. Kemeny (Eds.): Proc. of 10th Int. Conference of the Associa-
tion for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
2001, pp. 191–195.
Feng, X.T., Zhang, Z.Q. & Li, T.J.: On Uniqueness of Identification of Rock Mass Mechanical
Parameters Using Inverse Displacement Back Analysis. In: D. Contractor, C.S. Desai,
S. Harpalani & J. Kemeny (Eds.): Proc. of 10th Int. Conference of the Association for
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2001.
Feng, X.T., Li, S.J., Liao, H.J. & Yang, C.X.: Identification of Nonlinear Stress–Strain–Time
Relationship of Soils Using Genetic Algorithm. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.
26 (2002), pp. 815–830.
Feng, X.T., Li, S.J., Zhang, Y.L., Liu, J., Zhao, H.B., & Yin, S.D.: Study on Methodology of
Comprehensive Intelligent Analysis and Optimum Design for Landslide. Chinese J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 22 (2003), pp. 1592–1596.

Feng, X.T., Zhao, H.B. & Li, S.J.: A New Displacement Back Analysis to Identify Mechanical
Geo-Material Parameters Using Integrated Intelligent Methodology. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Meth. Geomech. 28 (2004), pp. 1141–1165.
Feng, X.T., Zhou, H., Li, S.J. & Chen, B.R.: Integrated Intelligent Feedback Analysis of Rock
Mechanics and Engineering Problems and its Applications. Chinese J. Rock Mech. Eng. 26
(2007), pp. 1737–1744.
Feng, X.T., Wang, S. & Lin, Y.: New Development in Rock Mechanics and Engineering and
Sanya Forum for the Plan of City and City Construction. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on New Devel-
opment in Rock Mechanics and Engineering (NDRM’2009), Liberty Culture & Technology
Co., USA, 2009, 514 p.
Finno, R.J. & Calvello, M.: Supported Excavations: Observational Method and Inverse Model-
ling. J.Geotech. Geoenviron. 131 (2005), pp. 826–836.
GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 25 (TGN25): Geotechnical Risk Management for Tunnel
Works. 2009. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Depart-
ment, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Giani, G.P.: Rock Slope Stability Analysis. 1st Edn., Balkema, (Taylor & Francis), Rotterdam,
1992, 374 p.
Giove, F.C.: The Essentials of Auditing. Research & Education Association. New Jersey, USA,
1995.
Goodman, R.E.: Introduction to Rock Mechanics. 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1989, 562 p.
Goricki, A.: Classification of rock mass behaviour based on a hierarchical rock mass charac-
terization for the design of underground structures. PhD thesis, 2003. Graz University of
Technology, Austria, 98 p.
Goricki, A., Schubert, W. & Riedmueller, G.: New Developments for the Design and Con-
struction of Tunnels in Complex Rock Masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (2004),
pp. 497–498.
Hajiabdolmajid, V.R. & Kaiser, P.K.: Brittleness of Rock and Stability Assessment in Hard
Rock Tunneling. Tunn.Undergr. Sp. Tech. 18 (2003), pp. 35–48.
Hajiabdolmajid, V.R., Kaiser, P.K. & Martin, C.D.: Modelling Brittle Failure of Rock. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39 (2002), pp. 731–741.
Hamel, L.: Knowledge Discovery with Support Vector Machines. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2009, 246 p.
Harrison, J.P.: Pragmatism, Fracture Geometry, and Rock Engineering. In: Stiftelsen Svensk
Bergteknisk Forskning: Bergmekanikdag. Stockholm, Sweden, 2002, pp. 1–18.
Harrison, J.P. & Hudson, J.A.: Engineering Rock Mechanics: Illustrative Worked Examples.
Elsevier, Oxford, 2000, 506 p. (Also published in Chinese by Science Press of Beijing,
2009).
Hoek, E.: Big Tunnels in Bad Rock. 36th Karl Terzaghi Lecture. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng.127 (2001), pp. 726–740.
Hoek, E. & Bray, J.: Rock Slope Engineering. (1st & 2nd Edn.). Inst. Min. Metall., London,
1974, 1977.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T.: Underground Excavations in Rock. Inst. Min. Metall., London, 1977,
1980. Revised 1st Edn., 1982, Spon Press, Taylor & Francis, London, 527 p.
Hoek, E. & Moy, D.: Design of Large Powerhouse Caverns in Weak Rock. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed):
Comprehensive Rock Engineering Vol. 5, Chapter 4, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, pp. 85–110.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. & Bawden, W.F.: Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Balkema. Rotterdam, 1995. 215 p.
Hudson, J.A.: Rock Engineering Systems: Theory and Practice. Ellis Horwood, Chichester,
1992, 185 p.
Hudson, J.A. (Ed): Comprehensive Rock Engineering. Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, 4407 p.

Hudson, J.A.: Rock Properties, Testing Methods and Site Characterisation. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed):
Comprehensive Rock Engineering Vol. 3, Chapter 1, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, pp. 1–40.
Hudson, J.A.: Rock Engineering Case Histories: Key Factors, Mechanisms and Problems. In:
P. Särkkä, & P. Eloranta (Eds.): Rock Mechanics—A Challenge for Society. Proc. ISRM
Regional Symposium EUROCK 2001, Espoo, Finland, 2001. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2001,
pp. 13–20.
Hudson, J.A. & Feng, X.T.: Updated Flowcharts for Rock Mechanics Modelling and Rock
Engineering Design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44 (2007), pp. 174–195.
Hudson, J.A. & Feng, X.T.: Technical Auditing of Rock Mechanics Modelling and Rock Engi-
neering Design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47 (2010), pp. 877–886.
Hudson, J.A. & Harrison, J.P.: Engineering Rock Mechanics: An Introduction to the Principles.
Elsevier, Oxford, 1997, 444 p. (Also published in Chinese by Science Press of Beijing,
2009)
Hudson, J.A. & Hudson, J.L.: Rock Mechanics and the Internet. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
34 (1997), p 137, full paper on CD.
Hudson, J.A., Cornet, F.H. & Christiansson, R.: ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Stress
Estimation — Part 1: Strategy for Rock Stress Estimation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40
(2003), pp. 991–998.
Hudson, J.A., Stephansson, O. & Andersson, J.: Guidance on Numerical Modelling of Thermo-
Hydro-Mechanical Coupled Processes for Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste
Repositories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 42 (2005), pp. 850–870.
Hudson, J.A., Bäckström, A., Rutqvist, J., Jing, L., Backers, T., Chijimatsu, M., Christiansson,R.,
Feng, X.T., Kobayashi, A., Koyama, T., Lee, H.S., Neretnieks, I., Pan, P.Z., Rinne, M. & Shen,
B.: Characterization and Modeling the Excavation Damaged Zone (EDZ) in Crystalline Rock
in the Context of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Environ. Geol. 57 (2009), pp. 1275–1297.
HydroChina Kuming Engineering Corporation.: Spillway, Inlet and Metal Structure Engineer-
ing Tender Reference. Kunming. HydroChina Kuming Engineering Corporation, 2006.
HydroChina Kuming Engineering Corporation.: Construction Recorder of Plunge Pool Slope
of Spillway at Nuozhadu Hydropower Station. HydroChina Kuming Engineering Corpora-
tion, 2007–2010.
IJRMMS: (Guest Ed. Stephansson, O.): Special Issue on Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Coupling
in Rock Mechanics. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 32 (1995).
IJRMMS: (Guest Ed. Stephansson, O.): Special Issue on DECOVALEX. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 38 (2001).
IJRMMS: (Guest Eds. Jing, L. & Stephansson, O.): Special Issue on Research Results from the
DECOVALEX III and BENCHPAR Projects. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 42 (2005).
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W. & Zimmerman, R.W.: Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 4th Edn.
Blackwell, Oxford, (1st Edn. Jaeger and Cook, 1969) 2007. 475 p.
Jia, J.(Ed.): State of the Art Dam Construction in China. Chinese National Committee on Large
Dams, Beijing, China, 2008.
Jia, J.(Ed.): Current Activities Dam Construction in China. Chinese National Committee on
Large Dams, Beijing, China, 2009.
Jiang, Y., Li, B. & Yamashita, Y.: Simulation of Cracking Near a Large Underground Cavern
in a Discontinuous Rock Mass Using the Expanded Distinct Element Method. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 46 (2009), pp. 97–106.
Jiang, Q., Feng, X.T., Xiang, T.B. & Su, G. S.: Rockburst Characteristics and Numerical Simu-
lation Based on a New Energy Index: A Case Study of a Tunnel at 2,500 m Depth. B. Eng.
Geol. Environ. 69 (2010), pp. 381–388. (DOI: 10.1007/s10064-010-0275-1).
Jing, L.: A Review of Techniques, Advances and Outstanding Issues in Numerical Mode-
ling for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40 (2003),
pp. 283–354.

Jing, L. & Stephansson, O.: Fundamentals of Discrete Element Methods for Rock Engineering:
Theory and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, 545 p.
Kennedy, J. & Eberhart, R.C.: Particle Swarm Optimization. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Neu-
ral Networks, 1995, Piscataway, NJ. IEEE Press, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.
Kuhn, T.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962.
Kurzweil, R.: The Age of Spiritual Machines. Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1999, 388 p.
Li, S.H.: A New Concept of Tunnel Support Design —Application and Theory of Precedent
Type Analysis. Science Press, Beijing, 1999. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Li, S.H., Wu, X.Y. & Ma, F.S.: Application of Precedent Type Analysis (PTA) in the Construc-
tion of the Ertan Hydro-Electric Station, China. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 35 (1998),
pp. 787–795.
Lin, Y.M.: Theory and practice of rock classification. Metallurgical Industrial Press, Beijing,
1994.
Lu, S.Q.: Systematical Study on Engineering Geology of the Excavation Slopes Stability of
Nuozadu Hydro-Power Station in Lancang River. PhD thesis of Chengdu University of Sci-
ence and Technology, 2007.
Ma, L.C. & Zheng, G.B.: Reinforcement and Control of High Slopes in Water Resources and
Hydropower Engineering. Hydroelectric Power 1 (2000), pp. 34–37.
Magar, K.: Geoenvironmental Protection Today—A Challenge for Engineering Geology.
In: D. Moore & O. Hungr (Eds.): Engineering Geology and the Environment. Proc. 8th
IAEG Intl. Conf., Vancouver, B. C., Canada, Sept., 1998, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998. Vol. 4,
pp. 2279-2285.
Martin, C.D. & Simmons, G.R.: The Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Underground Research
Laboratory: An Overview of Geomechanics Characterization. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed): Com-
prehensive Rock Engineering. Vol. 3, Chapter 38, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, pp. 915–950.
Mazzoccola, D.F., Millar, D.L. & Hudson, J.A.: Information, Uncertainty and Decision Making
in Site Investigation for Rock Engineering. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 15 (1997), pp. 145–180.
Mogi, K.: Experimental Rock Mechanics. Taylor & Francis, London, 2007, 361 p.
NF EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7, 2005. Calcul Géotechnique –Part 1: Règles generals.
Norbury, D.: Soil and Rock Description in Engineering Practice. Taylor & Francis, London,
2010, 288 p.
Owen, D.R.J. & Hinton, E.: Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice. Pineridge Press
Ltd., Swansea, 1980, 450 p.
Pahl, G. & Beitz, W.: Engineering Design., The Design Council, London, 1984. (2nd Edn. 1996
and 3rd Edn., 2007, Springer-Verlag, London).
Palmström, A. & Stille, H.: Ground Behaviour and Rock Engineering Tools for Underground
Excavations. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.Tech. 22 (2007), pp. 363–376.
Palmström, A. & Stille, H.: Rock Engineering. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 2010, 408 p.
Pan, J.: Rock Mechanics and Feedback Design. Design of Hydroelectric Power Station 10
(1994), pp. 3–10.
Pariseau, W.G.: Preliminary Guidelines for Construction of Large, Deep Underground Caverns.
Mining Engineering 59 (2007), and (in Trans. SME, Vol. 320, 2006.)
Pariseau, W.G.: Design Analysis in Rock Mechanics. Taylor and Francis, London, 2007,
558 p.
Peck, R.B.: Advantages and Limitations of the Observational Method in Applied Soil Mechan-
ics. Geotechnique 19 (1969), pp. 171–187.
Planning and Design Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power under Ministry
of Water Resources, and Yellow River Engineering Consulting Co. Ltd.: Waterpower Slope
Design Specification (SL 386-2007) Guideline. China WaterPower Press. 2009.
Posiva: Olkiluoto Site Description 2008. Posiva Report 2009-01, 2009. 714 p. (Download
available from www.posiva.fi).

Power Industry Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Design Specification for Slope of
Hydropower and Water Conservancy Project. China Electric Power Press, Beijing, 2007.
Price, N.J. & Cosgrove, J.W.: Analysis of Geological Structures. Cambridge University Press,
UK, 1990, 502 p.
Priest, S.D.: Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering. Chapman & Hall, London, 1993,
473 p.
Ramamurthy, T., Sharma, K.G., Gupta, A.C. & Baweja, M.L.: Manual on Rock Mechanics.
Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, India, 2010, 585 p.
Read, J. & Stacey, P. (Eds.): Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design. Taylor & Francis, & CSIRO
Publishing, 2010, 512 p.
Richards, L.: Case Examples of Rock Mechanics Principles Used in Rock Engineering. In: J.A.
Hudson (Ed): Comprehensive Rock Engineering Vol. 1, Chapter 28, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993,
pp. 691–718.
Sakurai, S.: Back Analysis in Rock Engineering. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed): Comprehensive Rock
Engineering Vol. 4, Chapter 19, Elsevier, Oxford, 1993, pp. 543–569.
Sakurai, S., Akutagawa, S., Takeuchi, K., Shinji, M. & Shimizu, N.: Back Analysis for Tun-
nel Engineering as a Modern Observational Method. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.Tech.18 (2003),
pp. 185–196.
Schubert, W. & Goricki, A.: Probabilistic Assessment of Rock Mass Behaviour as Basis for Sta-
bility Analyses of Tunnels. In: Proc. Rock Mechanics Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, March
2004, pp. 1–20 (Published by SvBeFo, Swedish Rock Engineering Research). 2004
Schubert, W., Goricki, A. & Riedmüller, G.: Guideline for the Geotechnical Design of Under-
ground Structures with Conventional Excavation. Felsbau 21 (2003) No. 4, pp. 13–18.
Sheorey, P.R.: Empirical Rock Failure Criteria. A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1997,
176 p.
Shi, Y. & Eberhart, R.C.: Parameter Selection in Particle Swarm Optimization. In:
V. William Porto, N. Saravanan, Donald E. Waagen, A.E. Eiben (Eds.): Evolutionary Pro-
gramming VII. Proc. EP 98. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998, pp. 591–600.
Singh, B. & Goel, R.K.: Rock Mass Classification. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1999, 267 p.
Singh, R.N. & Ghose, A.K.: Engineered Rock Structures in Mining and Civil Construction.
Taylor & Francis/Balkema, London, 2006, 520 p.
SKB.: Guidelines for Underground Design, Step D2. Site engineering report Forsmark: Report
R-08-83, 2009, 142 p. (Download available from www.skb.se)
Stacey, T.R.: Presidential Address: Rock Engineering—Good Design or Good Judgement. J.S.
Afr. I. Min. Metall. (2003), pp. 411–421.
Stacey, T.R.: Design — A Strategic Issue. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar on Strategic vs. Tactical
Approaches in Mining. Perth, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 2006, Section 4. 13 p.
Steedman, S.: The Long Learning Curve. Ingenia 44 (2010) (Download available from www.
ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/articles.aspx?Index=614).
Stephansson, O. (Ed.): Special Issue for Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Coupling in Rock Mechan-
ics. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38 (2001).
Stephansson, O., Jing, L. & Tsang, C.-F. (Eds.): Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Processes
of Fractured Media - Mathematical and Experimental Studies. Elsevier, 1996.
Stephansson, O., Hudson, J.A., Tsang, C.F., Jing, L. & Andersson, J.: DECOVALEX II Project.
Coupled THM Issues Related to Repository Design and Performance —Task 4. SKI report:
99:7, 1999.
Stephansson, O., Hudson, J.A. & Jing, L. (Eds.): Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical-Chemical
Processes in Geo-Systems Fundamentals, Modelling, Experiments, and Applications. Geo-
Engineering Book Series, Elsevier Ltd. 2004.
Sterpi, D. & Cividini, A.: A Physical and Numerical Investigation on the Stability of Shallow
Tunnels in Strain Softening Media. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 37 (2004), pp. 277–298.

Sun, J.: Rheology of Rock and Soil Material and its Engineering Application. China Building
Industry Press, Beijing, 1999.
Sun, J. & Wang, S.: Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering in China: Developments and Cur-
rent State-of-the-Art. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37 (2000), pp. 447-465.
Tan, C., Wang, R., Sun, Y., Lei, W., Wu, S., Yang, M. & Sun, W.: Numerical Modelling Estima-
tion of the ‘Tectonic Stress Plane’ (TSP) beneath Topography with Quasi-U-Shaped Valleys.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (2004) pp. 303–310.
Tang C.A. & Hudson, J.A.: Rock Failure Mechanisms—Explained and Illustrated. Taylor &
Francis, London, 2010, 322 p.
Ulusay, R. & Hudson, J.A. (Eds.): The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Char-
acterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974-2006. The compilation prepared by the ISRM
Turkish National group on behalf of the ISRM, 2007.
Vapnik, V.N., Golowich, S.E. & Smola, A.J.: Support Vector Mechanics Method for Function
Approximation, Regression Estimation, and Signal Processing. Adv. Neur. In. 9 (1996),
pp. 281–287.
Waltham, T.: Foundations of Engineering Geology. 3rd Edn. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon,
2009, 98 p.
Wang, S., Zheng, H., Li, C. & Ge, X.: A Finite Element Implementation of Strain-Softening
Rock Mass. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48 (2011), pp. 67–76.
Wang, W.Y., Li, K.D., Zhang, S.H.: Study on Physical and Mechanical Parameters of Rock and
Rockmass in Nuozhadu Hydropower Station Area in Tender Design Stage. 2005.
Windsor, C.R. & Thompson, A.G.: Rock Reinforcement—Technology, Design and Evalua-
tion. In: J.A. Hudson (Ed): Comprehensive Rock Engineering. Vol. 4, Chapter 16, Elsevier,
Oxford, 1993, pp. 451–484.
Wittke, W. (Ed.): Rock Mechanics: Caverns and Pressure Shafts. Proc. ISRM Symposium,
Aachen, Germany, 1982. Published for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erd- und Grundbau by
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1982, 500 p.
Wittke, W.: Rock Mechanics: Theory and Applications with Case Histories Technology &
Engineering. Springer-Verlag Gmbh, Berlin, 1990, 1075 p.
Wyllie, D.C.: Foundations on Rock. 2nd Edn., Chapman & Hall,( E & F.N. Spon), London,
1999, 401 p.
Xie, F. (Ed.): Rock Stress and Earthquakes. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on In-Situ Rock Stress (ISRS-V).
Beijing, China, Taylor & Francis, London, 2010, 877 p.
Xu, W., Tan, X., & Yang, S. (Eds.): Advances in Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical-Chemical
Processes in Geosystems and Engineering. Proc. GeoProc Conference, HoHai University,
Nanjing, China, May 2006. China Science Press, 2006.
Zang, A. & Stephansson, O.: Stress Field of the Earth’s Crust. Springer, 2010, 322 p.
Zhang, Z.H.: Study on Dynamic Warning Method of Bank Slopes in Deep-Cut Valley During
the Course of Excavation. PhD thesis of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
2008.
Zhang, Z.L. & Liu, X.G.: Feasiblility Research Report of Nuozhadu Hydropower Station.
Kunming: HydroChina Kuming Engineering Corporation, 2003.
Zhou, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, C. & Zhi, Q.: The Monitoring and Analysis of Construction of
Qiaotou Tunnel at Yuanmo Express. Underground Space 22 (2002), pp. 115-119.

Subject index
Adaptive modelling 21 Feng, X.T. xix

Algorithm, intelligent recognition 131 Flowcharts 47
Austrian Society for Geomechanics 55
Back analysis 90, 100 Bieniawski 50–52
Bench height 139 EUROCODE7 56
Books, rock engineering 3 Goricki 54
Brittle failure index 133 Hoek & Brown 48
Li et al. 53
CHILE rock mass 17 Pahl & Beitz 49
Classification, Chinese BQ system 437 Read & Stacey 57
Closed loop design 21 rock engineering design 59
Communication, lack of 92 rock mechanics modelling 16
Computer networks 22 slope 181
Core discing 12
Hockney, D. 431
DECOVALEX 16, 24 Hudson, J.A. xix
Design
approach strategy 61 Information required 85
dynamic excavation procedure 226 site investigation 91
initial and dynamic 270 types 86
integrated approach 19 Instability control 309
steps 59 Integrated rock slope design methodology
Dickens, C. 177 case example 39
Intelligent modelling 26, 30
EUROCODE7 5 ISRM 1
Excavation Disturbed Zone (EDZ) ISRM Commission xvii
301, 304 ISRM Suggested Methods 433
Expert system 34
Jinping II hydroelectric station 7, 9, 243
Factor of safety 208 auditing 399
Failure of rock conclusions 364
blocks 266
Lin, Y.M. v
modes 129, 301, 335
Loch Lomond 94
plane sliding 268
Long learning curve 2
slabbing and spalling 264
Longtan hydroelectric project 7, 97
stress induced 263
structurally controlled 265 Monitoring 286
triaxial compression of
intact rock 258 Nuozhadu hydroelectric station 183
unloading 264
Fairhurst, C. v Observational method 21
Feedback, dynamic 355 Overseeing Committee xvii

460 Subject index
Paradigm shift 431 Slope failure modes 31

Parameter recognition 156 Stress, in situ 98, 184, 247
Particle swarm optimisation 136 Support vector machine 136
Principles of modelling/ Support
code implementation 62 optimisation 284
Problems remaining to be solved 10 schemes 148
Protocol sheets 367
auditing evaluation 396 Task Force Committee xvii
design 393 Technical auditing 109
illustrative example 399 case example 116
modelling 379 modelling 164
objectives 368 procedure 111
site investigation 369 purpose & principles 109
‘soft, semi-hard, hard’ 110
Qian, Q. xvii stress 112
Qiaotou tunnel 64 Three Gorges Dam project 7, 8, 39
Radioactive waste repository 79 Virtual rock mechanics facility 25

Rock mechanics, Chinese 6
Rockburst 263 Warning system, dynamic 213, 216, 223
Ways ahead 15
Safety evaluation 289
Shuibuya hydroelectric project 66 Xiangjiaba hydropower station 7
SINOROCK 7 Xiaowan hydropower station 7
Slope design 27, 179
factors of safety 208, 214 Yalong River 213
flowchart 181
methodology case example 39
plunge pool 195

Colour plates
Figure 3.16b The Qingjiang river gorge location of the Shuibuya hydroelectric project in China. The
powerhouse location is inside the left-hand rock mass (which is the right-hand bank of
the river).

462 Colour plates
Figure 6.1 Large rock slopes at hydropower station (a) Outlet slope and inlet slope; (b) Plunge slope
and slope (Zhang and Liu, 2003); (c) Dam shoulder slope.

Colour plates 463
Figure 6.8 Nuozhadu hydropower project on the Lancang (Mekong) river, China. Deep valley at the
slope site with the location of the dam indicated by the red trapezium.
Figure 6.11 Nuozhadu hydropower project on the Lancang (Mekong) river, China. Three dimensional
simulation model for in situ stress field recognition. (Top) Calculation range; (Left) 3D
mesh model; and (Right) Displacement boundary condition.

464 Colour plates
Figure 6.27 Nuozhadu hydropower project on the Lancang (Mekong) river, China. The spillway and
plunge pool slope after excavation from elevation 755 m to 740 m.

Colour plates 465
Figure 6.32 Nuozhadu hydropower project on the Lancang (Mekong) river, China. Photographs of the
plunge pool slope after excavation at various elevations: (a) after excavation in the elevation
range 755–740 m (photo taken in November 2007); (b) after excavation in the elevation range
740–725 m (photo taken in August 2008); (c) after excavation in the elevation range 725–710 m
(photo taken in February 2009); (d) after excavation in the elevation range 710–695 m (photo
taken in March 2009); (e) after excavation in the elevation range 695–680 m (photo taken
in June 2009); (f) after excavation in the elevation range 680–665 m (photo taken in August
2009); (g) after excavation in the elevation range 665 m–655 m (photo taken in September
2009); (h) after excavation in the elevation range 655–634.4 m (photo taken in January 2010).
(courtesy of the Hydro China Kunming Engineering Corporation, 2007–2010).

466 Colour plates
Figure 7.49 The Jinping II hydropower project on the Yalong river, China.Typical failure modes occurred
locally after the excavation of Stage 3. (a) Rock block sliding at the upstream sidewall of
the powerhouse. (b) Opening of bedding planes at the upstream sidewall of the pow-
erhouse. (c) Relaxation of the rock surrounding the upper sidewall of the powerhouse
as affected by fault F65. (d) Collapse of the upstream sidewall of the powerhouse as
affected by fault F68. (e) Collapse of the upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber
as affected by fault F16. (f) Collapse of the upstream sidewall of the transformer chamber
as affected by fault F35.

Colour plates 467
Figure 7.72 The Jinping II hydropower project on the Yalong river, China. Typical local failures which
occurred in the powerhouse after excavation of Layer IV. (a) rock instability induced by
joints, (b) opening of joints caused by unloading, (c) sliding due to the fault, (d) rock fall-
ing at the cross-location of the head conduit and powerhouse, (e) concrete failure at the
downstream foot of the arch, and (f) cracking in the bus tunnel.

468 Colour plates
Maximum
Maximum principal
principal stress
stress
Maximum
principal
stress
Cracking of
shotcrete
Spalling
Figure 7.74 The Jinping II hydropower project on the Yalong river, China. Location of typical local
failures at Jinping II powerhouse after excavation Stage IV.
Figure 7.81 The Jinping II hydropower project on the Yalong river, China. The calculated (a) displace-
ment; (b) maximum principal stress; (c) minimum principal stress; (d) plastic zone of cen-
tral section of generator no. 5 of powerhouse after excavation of Layer VI.

Feng
Hudson

With regard to construction on and in rock masses, the subject
of Rock Engineering Design, in combination with its supporting
subject of rock mechanics, has been experiencing a significant
shift in approach thanks to advances in rock site investiga-
tion techniques, computing, access to information and site
monitoring. The current emphasis on safety, accountability and
sustainability thus requires stricter considerations and greater
reliability than ever before.
With a modern approach and anticipating future developments,

this volume introduces a fresh methodology suitable for the
design of all types of rock engineering projects, both at the
surface and underground. Guidance is provided on the nature
of modelling to support design, on flowcharts, on the informa-
Rock
tion required and on the procedure for the technical auditing of
modelling and design. Moreover, the use of computer programs,
model calibration through site observation, interpretation of
computer results and virtual underground laboratories are de-
scribed and explained. Elaborate case studies on the design and
construction of a rock slope and of a large underground hydro- Xia-Ting Feng & John A. Hudson
Engineering
electric plant, as well as technical auditing protocol sheets with
examples, further facilitate bringing theory into practice.
Written by two eminent authors, this modern and illustrated

guide on Rock Engineering Design will benefit engineers, con-
Design
tractors, clients, researchers, lecturers and advanced students
who are working on rock engineering projects in civil, mining,
geological and construction engineering.
Templates of the protocol sheets can be downloaded from

www.crcpress.com.
an informa business

Feng, Xia-Ting - Hudson, John A - Rock Engineering Design (2011, Chapman and Hall - CRC)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feng, Xia-Ting - Hudson, John A - Rock Engineering Design (2011, Chapman and Hall - CRC)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feng

Rock Engineering Design

With a modern approach and anticipating future developments,

Written by two eminent authors, this modern and illustrated

Templates of the protocol sheets can be downloaded from

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb i 5/24/2011 6:18:20 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb ii 5/24/2011 6:18:22 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb iii 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-203-09337-5 (eBook - PDF)

This book is dedicated to

Professor Lin Yunmei of North-Eastern University, Shenyang, China, who, as Professor

Professor Charles Fairhurst of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA, who,

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb v 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

2 The ways ahead for rock engineering design methodologies 15

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb vii 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

2.7.3 Estimation of the stability of slopes and their safety

3 Flowcharts for rock engineering modelling and design 47

4 Specifying the information required for rock mechanics modelling

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb viii 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

4.3.3 Potential lack of communication between designer, site

5 Technical auditing of rock mechanics modelling and rock

6 Case example of the design and construction of a rock slope 179

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb ix 5/24/2011 6:18:24 PM

7 Case example of the design and construction of a large

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb x 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

7.6.3 Determination of support parameters from experience 277

8 Protocol Sheets 367

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xi 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

8.3.4 Protocol Sheet 3.4: Rock Mass Classification 384

9 Illustrative example of the Protocol Sheets use 399

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xii 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

10 Concluding remarks 431

Appendix A List of all the ISRM suggested methods

Appendix B The Chinese ‘Basic Quality’ (BQ) system

References and bibliography 451

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xiii 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xv 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xvii 5/24/2011 6:18:25 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xviii 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

PROFESSOR XIA-TING FENG

Xia-Ting Feng graduated in 1986 from the Northeast University of Technology

PROFESSOR JOHN A. HUDSON

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xix 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb xx 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

1.1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 1 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

1.2 THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

• C1: Describes the background to the rock engineering design subject

Chapters 6–10: Illustrations of the modern approach to rock engineering design

• C6: Applies the methodology to the design of a large rock slope

1.3 THE ‘LONG LEARNING CURVE’

“The risk of an engineering disaster is increased by the separation of research

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 2 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

1.4 ROCK ENGINEERING DESIGN, RELATED SUBJECTS

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 3 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 4 5/24/2011 6:18:26 PM

Transportation engineering Petroleum engineering

Mining engineering Nuclear waste disposal

Hydraulic power engineering CO2 underground storage

Civil engineering Defence engineering

Tunnelling Caverns Slopes Foundations

7007TS-HUDSON-1102-03_Book.indb 5 5/24/2011 6:18:27 PM