International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering ISRM International Symposium

Norwegian Group for Rock Mechanics Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering
Trondheim, Norway, 14-19 June

Design of flat roof tunnels and caverns by use of the multi-

jointed voussoir beam theory.

P. Yiouta-Mitra, A.I. Sofianos, P.V. Nomikos

National Technical University of Athens, Greece
antipaxos@metal.ntua.gr (email of corresponding author)

Abstract
Underground projects are often designed with a flat roof, mainly due to the geological surroundings.
More specifically, this can be appropriate in the case of a sedimentary formation characterised by
horizontal layering such as limestone or sandstone. Also, metamorphic environment can be characterised
similarly by structural layering of the minerals such as shcists or marble. In these cases, continuum
mechanics is inappropriate for the design.
The theory of the voussoir beam analogue is the most appropriate for flat roofed underground
excavations in bedded formations. Among the methodologies that exist, there is one that
explicitly requires the existence of multiple cross-joints to be present. In this paper, that
methodology is selected to study the design for specific real cases based on selected published
works of mining and civil engineering.
A brief description of the theoretical basis is given. Then the predictions of the multi-jointed
voussoir beam theory are presented for the specific cases that have been selected. The results
are compared to the design that was actually selected as well as to the theoretical predictions.
It is seen that the multi-jointed voussoir beam theory can provide in a very simple manner the
requirements for the bolting system characteristics for flat roof openings in hard rock.

Keywords
multi-jointed, voussoir, flat roof, layered rockmass, design chart
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

1 Introduction
Hard rock sedimentary or metamorphic formations are often the mining environment for the extraction
of certain metals and mineral deposits. They are also often chosen for the construction of caverns for
civil uses such as storage or hydropower plants. In these cases, contrary to common practice, a flat roof
is preferred as opposed to an arched roof, since the pre-existing planes of weakness create a particular
deformation field after the excavation. Typically, the layers of the sediments or metamorphose direction
contain few or multiple cross-joints that create a final appearance of brick-laid roof.

Morphologically, at a single outcrop, three joint systems are found ordinarily. Of these, one is near
horizontal and corresponds to some lithological factor. The other two are near vertical, conjugate to each
other in the sense that they form an angle of 70-90 degrees between them and uncorrelated to lithology
as the cut clear across lithological elements such as pebbles and sedimentary units. Further, outcrops
very near to each other (within a few kilometers) usually show subparallel joint orientations. Outcrops
within a region of 10-20 km radius also show commonly, if treated together, definite, preferential non-
lithological joint orientations, but only 20% agrees within 20-30 degrees. These regional joint systems
usually change their orientations insignificantly over vast distances until some evident boundary is
reached where the orientation boundary changes abruptly. Thanks to these observations it has been
generally deduced that the origin of most hard rock joints is that they are shearing fractures or represent
shear planes in the triaxial neotectonic field stress (Scheidegger, 1995).

Bedding planes are characterized by planar geometry and significant persistence as compared to the
cross-joints. They also have very low tensile and shear strength. The behavior of this rockmass when an
underground excavation takes place, is governed by these geometrical and mechanical characteristics
and differs significantly from that of continuous or even transversely isotropic medium.

This geological factor is so potent that even arched-roof designed underground excavations may become
flat roofed due to the fall of rock wedges that form at the shoulders of the excavation. Characteristic
examples can be found around the world, such as Fig. 1 which depicts the excavation of the Kalydona
twin tunnels, part of Greece’s Ionia Odos (Yiouta-Mitra et al., 2011). The specific case was addressed
by amelioration of the blasting pattern.

Fig. 1 Overexcavation due to geological setting.

2
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

2 Theory Outline
In order to evaluate the stability of flat roof in hard rock formations, a simple approach would be to
consider the flat roof as a plate or, in plain strain equivalence, a beam. By considering a beam sagging
under its own weight and maybe a surplus from its overburden, we are led to the static equivalent of a
clamped beam under distributed load. Elementary beam theory tells us that the tensile strength of the
rockmass would be the limit of stability of this flat roof and breakage would occur at the sides and then
in the middle. However, it has been noticed that maximum displacements in the middle of underground
flat roofs are quite greater than what is predicted by the theory of elasticity and no roof failure takes
place in the sense of caving. This phenomenon can be explained by the formation of a purely
compressive arch within the roof beam that sustains the entire voussoir structure. The voussoir pressure
arch in underground excavations was theoretically developed by Evans, 1940 and Sterling, 1997. Further
developments have been published mainly by (Sofianos 1996, 1998) and (Diederichs & Kaiser 1999).
A fair description is provided by Brady and Brown (2006). The latest analytical approach (Yiouta-Mitra
& Sofianos 2018) considers the multi-jointed aspect of the voussoir beam theory. It is based on the
catenary curve and therefore can foresee larger displacements prior to failure of the voussoir beam. The
basic equations of this latest approach are briefly provided.

2.1 Pressure arch

Assume a multi-jointed flat roof of thickness t, span s, subject to the load of its own weight q=ρgt, where
ρ is the density of the rock beam and g the gravitational acceleration. The internal pressure arch forming
is characterized by the moment arm z and the contact length of the abutment joint divided by the roof
thickness na (Fig. 2)

Fig. 2 Pressure arch formation in flat hard rock roof (Yiouta-Mitra 2018)

The length of the pressure arch can be found as the length of a catenary curve passing through the mean
compressive arch thickness, the abutments and the top middle of the flat roof:

𝐿 = 2𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛 ℎ(𝑠⁄2𝑎) ; 𝐿 = √𝑠 2 + (2𝑧)2 (1;2)

where α is the catenary parameter which depends on the ratio of horizontal to gravity forces.

2.2 Equilibrium
Satisfaction of equilibrium in the horizontal direction requires that the axial force on every joint be the
same. The axial force can be expressed as the product of axial strain ε, modulus of elasticity Ε and
contact length and geometrical parameter. For example, at the abutment, by simplifying to a triangular
distribution we get Eq. 3
1
𝐻 = 𝜀𝑎 𝐸𝑛𝑎 𝑡 (3)
2
where εa is the abutment strain. If we consider the first joint after the abutment, where the pressure arch
takes up the entire section, the horizontal force would be

𝐻 = 𝜀𝑓 𝐸𝑛𝑓 𝑡 = 𝜀𝑓 𝐸𝑡 (4)
since the stress distribution is practically orthogonal and the contact length is the entire beam thickness
(nf=1).

Assume the following characteristic locations along the roof beam: abutment (a) the middle of the roof
(c) the random crack (i) the full section (f) and the mean (m). Due to satisfaction of equilibrium, they
can all be related in the following Eq. 5.
𝑛𝑎 ∙ 𝜀𝛼𝑥 = 𝑛𝑐 ∙ 𝜀𝑐𝑥 = 𝑛𝑖 ∙ 𝜀𝑖𝑥 = 2 ∙ 𝜀𝑓 = 2 ∙ 𝑛𝑚 ∙ 𝜀𝑚 (5)

3
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

2.3 Basic force-displacement equation

In order to evaluate the stability of the flat roof opening a relation between the maximum sag δ, the load
Q and the span s is required. The normalised equivalents of these parameters are defined respectively as
follows:
δ γst s
δz = ; Qn = ; sz = (6;7;8)
z0 tE z0
where z0 is the lever arm in the initial state, just before the commencement of sagging.

The basic relation used to evaluate the stability of the flat roof is given in Eq. 9
1 2
𝑠𝑧 (4 𝑠𝑧 + 1) (2 − 𝜀𝑚 )
δz = 𝑄𝑛 (9)
16𝑛𝑚 (1 − 𝛿 ) (1 − 𝛿𝑧 )
𝑧 2

2.4 Bearing Capacity

There are three main modes of failure for a multi-jointed voussoir roof beam; buckling, crushing and
sliding. The first two modes occur mostly for slender beams i.e. higher s/t ratios while the third for
thicker beams.
Buckling is related to the opening contacts between the separate blocks of the discontinuous beam. It
occurs when the maximum elastic resistance of the beam is exhausted and there is insufficient
development of elastic resisting force. Constant increase in deflection results in constant diminution of
the lever arm z. At the same time, the horizontal force H augments. Buckling is therefore defined as that
state where the increase in H cannot counter the decrease in z and, as a result, the resisting moment i.e.
the product H.z stops augmenting with the deflection. Any further deflections this point forward will
result in buckling and elastic instability.
Crushing occurs when the maximum allowable stress of the rock is surpassed at the abutment and
centerline of the roof. The equivalent maximum strain prior to crushing is expected at the same locations.
The mean strain values can be converted to abutment extreme strain values by use of equations (5).
Finally, slip failure on the discontinuity planes at the abutments occurs when the shear component of
the reaction force surpasses the friction force. The minimum inclination angle θ occurs at buckling and
the maximum at equilibrium in the initial, non-deformed state.
The limit loads from the above three loading cases described have been used to create design charts that
evaluate the stability of any underground flat roof.

3 Design Methodology
In order to evaluate the stability of jointed flat roof, there are two design diagrams that can be used. The
first provides the required roof thickness for a specific opening and can therefore be used to propose an
appropriate bolt system to create it. The second provides a quick way to estimate the span that will stand
unsupported for a given load while at the same time not crushing or sliding. The two diagrams are
calculated based on (Yiouta-Mitra & Sofianos 2018) for a dimensionless distributed load qn and
dimensionless total load Qn in the range of 9.10-8÷10-1 and are depicted in Fig. 4 and Fig. 4 respectively.

In order to use the qn-sn diagram, the average thickness of the rock layers is are required. The distributed
load qn is calculated according to eq. 10
𝛾𝑡
𝑞𝑛 = 𝑘𝑞 (10)
𝐸
where kq is a surcharge factor that includes the weight of any overburden.

In this way, it is possible to determine the maximum span that will ensure adequate stand-up time for
support measures to be installed considering all modes of failure.

In order to use the Qn-sn diagram, the required parameters are both the span and thickness of the hard
rock roof, the load due to self-weight and any other surcharge from the overburden and the deformation
modulus of the rockmass. The parameters Qn and sn are thus calculated and used as co-ordinates in the
diagram to check for the three aforesaid modes of failure. If there is buckling failure, the diagram can
be used to determine the required thickness, hence an appropriate bolting system, that will ensure the
stability of the roof.

4
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

We shall use the chart to design an underground opening of 10 m span in bedded sandstone of bedding
thickness equal to 20 cm and γ=0.024 MN/m3. The immediate roof is loaded by its own weight and by
a thin layer of soil providing an overload kq=1.03, the elasticity modulus of the rockmass is Ε=30 GPa
and the maximum allowable strain is εall = 0.001. Table 1 contains data for this example application of
the chart.

Table 1 Example application for use of Design Chart Qn-sn

Parameter Value
Roof span (s) 10 m
Strata thickness of bedded formation(t) 20 cm
Roof specific weight (γ) 24 kN/m3
Roof Modulus of elasticity (E) 30 GPa
Factor of safety for buckling (FSb) 2
Roof peak allowable strain (εαx) 0.001
Abutment allowable inclination (θ) 20ο

First, we shall assume that the span of the excavation has not been yet decided upon. The Design chart
qn-sn shall be used to that purpose. The distributed load is computed according to eq. 10 and the
respective line is drawn in the diagram. The limiting lines of strain ex=0.001 and θ=20ο are also drawn.
Point K defines the section of qn with the buckling limit, point L defines the section of qn with the
crushing limit and point M defines the lowest acceptable dimensionless span against sliding on the
abutment joints. Obviously, the line MK defines all acceptable spans. Since the average thickness of the
layers is 20 cm, the safe spans are 1.9÷8.5 m.

Fig. 3 Design chart qn-sn for multi-jointed voussoir roof against failure in buckling, compression and sliding. Isolines depict
limits for buckling (FSb=1), compressive strain (ε = 0.01 ÷ 0.0001) and joint friction angle (theta)

The use of the Qn-sn Design chart is quite simple after the above analysis. The values of Qn and sn are
calculated from the data of the problem:
𝑠 𝛾𝑠
𝑠𝑛 = = 50; 𝑄𝑛 = 𝑘𝑞 = 8.24 × 10−6 (11;12)
𝑡 𝐸

The point corresponding to these values is located exactly on the FSb=1 curve, which represents the
buckling failure. But since the required safety factor is 2, this opening is not acceptable. Reinforcement
of the roof is required to create a beam of sufficient thickness to provide safety against buckling, but at
the same time avoiding failure due to sliding and crushing. Taking into consideration the curve of the
maximum allowable strain at 0.001 in combination to the buckling limit curve, the value sn=40 and
therefore t=10/40=0.25 is just sufficient to provide the required safety factor. Obviously, any value

5
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

below sn=40 until the limiting angle against sliding of 20ο i.e. for sn=10 provides safety against all modes
of failure.

Fig. 4 Design chart Qn-sn for multi-jointed voussoir roof against failure in buckling, compression and sliding. Isolines depict
limits for buckling (FSb=1 or 2), compressive strain (ε = 0.01 ÷ 0.00001) and joint friction angle (theta)

4 Application on selected real cases

There are numerous cases where the appearance of flat roof has been stated, either voluntarily or not.
We have selected two case histories to apply the methodology of the multi-jointed voussoir roof. The
first is a very recent stability analysis concerning the excavation of large caverns in low –angled bedded
sedimentary rock masses in Singapore (Winn et al 2019) and the second is the reported historical failure
of a laminated voussoir beam of an ancient water reservoir excavated through horizontally bedded and
vertically jointed chalk in Israel (Hatzor & Benary 1998).

4.1 The Jurong Caverns

The Jurong Rock Caverns Projects (JRC Project) is the first commercial underground rock caverns for
hydrocarbon storage in South East Asia (Winn et al 2019). Geologically, it was excavated in bedded
meta-sedimentary mudstone, pyroclastic rocks and sandstone. Although it was typically designed with
arched roof cross sections for better stability, flat roof profiles tended to form in the sub-horizontal
stratified sedimentary rock mass. There were three cases of flat-roofed tunnels and caverns observed in
the JRC Project.

a. A storage cavern of 340 m length x 20 m width excavated at 135 m below the ground surface in the
Jurong formation with an observed average bed thickness of 0.40 m and dip angle of 0o-10o.

b. A tunnel gallery of 10.2 m wide x 12.3 m high in the first stage excavated at a depth of 100 m and
supported prior to being widened to 16x12.3 m in a second stage to house pumping equipment.

c. An access tunnel excavated at the same depth as the tunnel gallery of 7.9 m span x 9.9 m height and
in similar geological environment.

The above cases are summarised with all required data in Table 2.
Table 2 Properties of the JRC Project for the cases where flat roof appeared during the excavation

Parameter Value
Span s [m] 7.9;10;11;12;20
Bedding thickness ts [m] 0.4

6
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

Overburden [m] 135

Young’s elastic modulus E [GPa] 3;6
Specific weight γ [MN/m3] 0.027
Joint friction angle φj [o] 24
UCS [MPa] 143

The coordinates for the use of the multi-jointed voussoir roof are calculated in Table 3 based on the
values of Table 2.

Table 3 Coordinates sn-Qn for all cases of the JRC Project with flat roof occurences

Case #1a #1b #2a #2b #3a #3b #4a #4b #5a #5b
s 7.9 7.9 10 10 11 11 12 12 20 20
sn 19.75 19.75 25 25 27.5 27.5 30 30 50 50
E 6000 3000 6000 3000 6000 3000 6000 3000 6000 3000
Qn 3.56E-05 7.11E-05 4.50E-05 9.00E-05 4.95E-05 9.90E-05 5.40E-05 1.08E-04 9.00E-05 1.80E-04

All the pairs can be found in Fig. 4 denoted by asterisks. Without considering any surcharge from the
overburden, it is evident that only the cases #1a, #1b and #2a are safe against buckling without support.
Above 10-11 m span there is clear buckling danger.

If surcharge is taken into consideration, then the use of a rockbolting system is required.

4.2 The Tel Beer Sheva underground water storage

In the archaeological site of the ancient city of Tel Beer Sheva (TBS), Israel an underground water
storage reservoir dated back to approximately 1000 B.C. was explored and it was discovered that the
roof of the underground opening had collapsed, probably during the time of the construction. The ancient
engineers had erected a massive support pillar in the middle of the opening to support the remaining
roof (Hatzor & Benary 1998).

The reservoir was excavated in horizontally bedded chalk with vertical joints who formed three basic
sets. The most abundant joint sets were orthogonal with mean spacing of 0.20-0.25 m. The bed thickness
was varied from 30-80 cm and averaged at 50 cm. The chalk, which had an overall thickness of 2.5 m,
was covered by 5 m of well-cemented conglomerate and about 3 m of soil. The unconfined compressive
strength of the chalk was 7 MPa, the elastic modulus 2 GPa and the specific weight 18.1-20.1 kN/m3.
The estimated shear stress of the joints included a residual friction angle of 35o for the joints which were
also clean and tight with planar surfaces.

Although chalk cannot be considered as hard rock, the principles of multi-jointed voussoir rock roof can
still be applied with greater factor of safety requirements with respect to elastic instability. The average
parameters sn and Qn are calculated:
7 0.0187 × 7 0.0187 × 0.5
𝑠𝑛 = = 14; 𝑄𝑛 = = 6.545 × 10−5 ; 𝑞𝑛 = = 4.68 × 10−6 (13)
0.5 2000 2000

The point is marked on the Chart diagram of Fig. 4 and it can be seen that there is no danger from
buckling for this case. It is well below the curve of FSb=2, which means that the factor of safety is much
larger than 2. Further, no crushing failure could occur since the limiting strain is 0.0035. Shearing failure
is also not possible since the friction angle would have to be smaller than 15.

If however we take into consideration the overburden of 2.0 m of chalk and assuming a parabolic
distribution (Diederichs & Kaiser 1999), then the overload factor kq= 4.11 and Qn becomes 2.69.10-4. A
new point is thus defined, which is very close to the limiting curve for buckling failure. Further, the
maximum allowable strain has long been surpassed, which means that the roof may also have failed due
to crushing. The only mode of failure that could not have been the cause of failure, is the sliding mode.

7
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

5 Conclusions
Recent advances in analytical solution for a multi-jointed voussoir beam provide the working engineer
with two Design Charts that quickly estimate the stability of an underground flat roof with multiple
cross-cut joints. The stability is checked against the three basic modes of failure, i.e. buckling or elastic
instability, crushing and sliding on the abutments. The usage of the charts is fast and reliable and can be
used as a first approach to the design of an underground opening in hard rock with a flat roof. It can also
be used to prevent roof failure when flat roof is created due to wedge instabilities in an arched roof
design.

Selected documented cases of flat roof have been examined by use of the chart and correct predictions
have been produced. More specifically, in the case of the JRC Project in Singapore, the results of the
Design Chart application are in complete agreement with the findings of Winn et 2019, who used other
theories to investigate the stability of the various flat roofs that were observed during the construction.
In the case of the ancient underground water storage in Israel, there is complete agreement with the
findings of Hatzor & Benary 1999 as far as the overburden is not taken into account. When the
overburden is considered, the results are differentiated due to the different way in which the overburden
is considered.

References
Scheidegger AE (1995) Geojoints and geostresses. 2nd Int. Conf. on the Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock
Rossmanith (Ed), Balkema Rotterdam.
Brady BHG, Brown ET (2006) Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, Chap. 8.4, pp. 214-222, George Allen
& Unwin, London.
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK (1999) Stability of large excavations in laminated hard rock masses: the Voussoir
analogue revisited. Int. J. Rock Mech. and Min. Sci., 36:97–117.
Evans WH (1941) The strength of undermined strata. Trans. Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, 50:475-532.
Sofianos AI (1996) Analysis and design of underground hard rock Voussoir beam roof. Int. J. Rock Mech. and
Min. Sci., 33(2):153–166.
Sofianos AI, Kapenis AP (1998) Numerical evaluation of the response in bending of an underground hard rock
Voussoir beam roof. Int. J. Rock Mech. and Min. Sci. 35(8):1071–1086.
Sterling RL (1977) Roof design for underground openings in near surface rock formations. Dissertation at
University of Minnesota.
Yiouta-Mitra P, Sofianos AI (2018) Multi-jointed stratified hard rock roof analysis and design, Int. J. Rock
Mech. and Min. Sci. 106:96–108
Yiouta-Mitra P (2018) Analysis of the behavior of layered rock around underground openings. Dissertation at
National Technical University of Athens
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK (1999) Stability of large excavations in laminated hard rock masses: the Voussoir
analogue revisited. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 36:97–117.