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

net/publication/328901847

Tunnel Design and Geological Studies

Article  in  Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · November 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.013

CITATIONS READS

0 1,187

3 authors, including:

Luca Soldo Attilio Eusebio

Pro Iter Geodata
18 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Natural Hazards & Risk Management for Engineering Megaprojects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Attilio Eusebio on 12 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Tunnels design and geological studies T

⁎
L. Soldo , M. Vendramini, A. Eusebio
Geodata Engineering, Corso Bolzano 14, 10121 Torino, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geologic conditions are among the greatest sources of unknowns prior to actual construction of underground
Underground excavations, especially for deep tunnels in rock. These unknowns usually exist in inverse proportional to the
Rock amount, nature and quality of the geotechnical investigations. Nevertheless, the adequacy of a site investigation
Geology program cannot be measured by cost alone. Over the past two decades the authors have analysed the in-
Design
vestigation strategies followed along several projects weighing the cases of success or failure that finally means
Investigation
Modelling
the ratio between foreseen, unforeseen and unforeseeable conditions as experienced after construction. In most
of the cases, also after expensive investigation campaigns, the absence of a rigorous preliminary field survey left
many off-ramps along the diagnostic pathway, leading to a wrong “diagnosis, misdiagnosis or delayed diag-
nosis”. All the collected data must be interpreted inside a robust conceptual framework that in Geology primarily
comes from field surveys, today enhanced by new tools and methodologies for investigating and modelling.

In that Empire the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the
map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City. And the map of
the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those unconscionable
Maps no longer sufficed, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of
the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point
for point with it (Jorge Luis Borges, On Exactitude in Science, from
Collected Fictions, 1944)
1. Recognising the need
Tunnels across mountains (that means tunnels in rock, particularly
including long and deep, base, tunnels) offer an unparalleled con-
tribution for managing the request of sustainable infrastructures, re-
ducing distances and transportation costs, supporting and driving eco-
nomic growth while reducing environmental pressure. Nonethelss
many projects suffer the impact (risks) of various type of adversities
with millions of dollars in cost overruns, delays in design and con-
struction, and operability troubles once finally completed (Merrow,
2011; ITA WG n.2, 2003). The undesired effects can become disastrous
for large-scale megaprojects (those that typically cost US$1 billion or
more), particularly considering that these are increasingly used as the
preferred delivery model for infrastructure (Flyvbjerg, 2014), often in
public-private partnerships (PPPs).
A relevant source of risks comes from an inadequate knowledge of
the geological and geotechnical conditions before construction: several
geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical aspects can remain
unknown, partially or completely, prior to actual construction. We
differentiate between (1) the risk of an event with a known probability,
(2) true uncertainty, a known event with an unknown probability
(known unknowns), or (3) a completely unknown event (unknown
unknowns). Quoting for example the ITA WG17 reports on Long Tun-
nels (2010) “… at great depth … very little is known about the geological,
hydrogeological and geotechnical conditions: the deeper the tunnel, the
larger the uncertainties; the higher the probability of encountering adverse or
unforeseen conditions for tunnelling, the greater the effort and the cost for
site investigations to reduce the uncertainties”. And in the following revi-
sion (2017) “The timely identification of the geotechnical hazards and the
understanding of their consequences are essential … to minimize the risks
during construction”.
The uncertainties that affect the geological model usually exist in
inverse proportional to the effectiveness (amount, nature and quality)
of the geological and geotechnical investigations (U.S. National
Committee on Tunnelling Technology, USNCTT 1984; Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy, 1997; ICE Site Investigation Steering
Group, 1993). Many literature references and rules of procedure un-
derline the importance of a complete and proper investigation cam-
paign (USNCTT, 1984; U.S. UTRC, 1996; ITA Working Group no. 17,
2010; AFTES GT32.R2A1, 2012; ITA Working Group n° 2, 2015). Based
on an analysis of 89 underground projects the USNCTT observed that in
more than 85% of the cases the inadequate level of the investigation
leaded to claims and time/cost overruns. The USNCTT publication
made recommendations as to minimum requirements for any project,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lso@geodata.it (L. Soldo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.013
Received 3 June 2018; Accepted 27 October 2018
0886-7798/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Soldo et al.
especially considering the different order of magnitude (as percentage
of capital cost) between investigation levels (< 1%) and claims levels
(12–20% & upwards). The study “Analysing International Tunnel Costs”
(Efron, 2012) emphasises, again, the key role of the preliminary site
investigations: “We recognize the issues with convincing Clients to spend
more money in the early stages of a project, when the overall viability,
constructability and financing is still unknown, but all of our research sub-
jects described a direct correlation between the amount of Site Investigation
and cost savings”.
It isn’t worthless to observe that the expenditure on site investiga-
tion as a percentage of total project cost is often low, not rarely ranging
from a mere 0.1 to 0.3%. Unfortunately, over the past years (because of
the economic recession?) this budget seems to be forced down in real
terms and investigation today is often based upon “minimum cost and
maximum speed”.
On the other side it is relevant to observe as the explored volume
with a borehole investigation campaign, even extensive (i.e. expensive),
appears disconsolately small compared with the infrastructure dimen-
sions. A density of one borehole each 200 m, for a 10 km long base
tunnel (let’s say with 250 m of average overburden, averaging the outer
sectors with the deeper, central sectors) means 50 boreholes (then,
12.500 m drilled). At the end the sampled volume across the tunnel
section is a mere 2–5 m3 compared with 1.3 M m3 of the tunnel (2 or 3
times more considering the surrounding, influential, volume). Even
including 10 directional boreholes, each with a length of 250 m running
along the alignment, the sampled volume doesn’t exceed 10–15 m3.
Then the question is how to improve the effectiveness of the geo-
logical and geotechnical investigation and studies, providing the way of
identifying project-specific critical engineering geological issues and
parameters (“construction scenarios”).
Around the generic concept of “effectiveness” we can, more pre-
cisely, include several targets, with different priorities. At first the se-
lected investigation approaches and methodologies must consent the
hightest quality and quantity levels of informations (relevant for the
design, compliant with the norms and best practices). Secondarily the
procedure must be reasonable in term of money and time expenditure
(project specific).
The above mentioned targets must be matched also with the project
constraints, particularly with its accessibility and layout (e.g. altitude,
climatic conditions and tunnel overburden), conditioning for example
the borehole and in situ tests feasibility (Fig. 1).
2. The geological reference model
Several authors (Soldo, 1998; Knill, 2002; IAEG Commission C25,
2014; Soldo, 2014, Riella et al., 2015) have progressively proposed the
concept of Geological Reference Model (GRM) as a framework capable
to fulfil these necessities. The GRM is built along further phases, with
Fig. 1. Baralacha-La road base tunnel Project (Himachal Pradesh, India, Border
Road Organisation). The tunnel portals stand near 4.500 m a.s.l. of altitude,
with a layout underpassing 6.000 m high mountains.
83
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
the contribution of different specialties (e.g. geomorphology, structural
geology, etc.), basing on natural laws and applying the similitude ap-
proach (derivying the expected scenario starting from, known, similar
contexts) with experts judgement.
Basing on the GRM it is built the Design Geological and
Geotechnical Model (DGGM), describing the range of engineering
parameters and ground conditions (with their variation and reliability)
that must be considered in the design (Knill, 2002). The DGGM is a
conceptual framework where the collected data are comprehensively
stored (factual data) and interpreted, anticipating and characterizing
the ground conditions with their related risks. Both of these subsequent
phases, even if coming from interpretation, are intended to be as ob-
jective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results.
Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data
and methodology, making them available for any possible reason of
scrutiny by other specialists.
Engineering projects are developed progressively deepening the
design accuracy, with various stages, also up-dated during the con-
struction and through operation. At every stage of the project more data
became available, giving successive, ameliorated modelling.
Simultaneously, the geotechnical model could eventually simplify (also
to meet the requirements of the selected method of mathematical and
physical analysis) the GRM by defining and characterizing volumes of
ground with similar engineering properties, and identifies boundaries
(with their variability, see e.g. AFTES, 2012) at which changes of
geotechnical conditions may occur.
A model is conceived as a tool (built on the base of the available
data; the model itself could then be defined as a tool for store and
process the input data) to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or
simulate a certain aspect of the nature. It requires a selection and
identification of the relevant aspects of natural conditions. Modeling, in
science, generates a physical, conceptual, or mathematical representa-
tion of a real phenomenon that is difficult to observe directly. Although
modeling is a central component of modern science, scientific models at
best are approximations of the objects and systems that they represent,
not exact replicas. Scientific models are used to explain and predict the
behaviour of real objects or systems: (1) conceptual models are in-
tended as tools to better understand the reality, (2) graphical models to
visualize the reality, (3) operational models to define something (e.g. a
variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests)
needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity, (4) mathe-
matical models are intended as tools to quantify (objects or processes).
The model is built following some main steps: do assumptions that
simplify the system to its essential aspects, characterize the descriptive
properties of these aspects, identify initial and/or boundary conditions,
identify and quantify operating processes, identify and quantify any
changes to the system being considered, define the applicability limits
of the model, and define its the reliability.
The result of the geological studies primarily consists in the eva-
luation of the geometry of geological bodies and characteristics at
depth, at various scales. From this it can be derived a design model that
can be focused on some aspects such as lithology, groundwater, geo-
morphology, or rock structure and properties, described in the GRM.
The GRM & DGGM must be focused on the engineering needs of the
project. The provided information must be disclosed and comprehen-
sible for all the specialists inside the design team, and eventually to the
non-specialists (project stakeholders) as much as possible. They must be
suited and fulfil the current laws, norms, standards and procedures,
together, in case, with requirements of the Owner or Third Parties.
There isn’t a universal protocol for their construction. Somewhere the
reliability of the model can be high, e.g., because supported by a good
field mapping, also without many boreholes. It must also be considered
the complexity of the geological context: monotonous sequence of
horizontal, homogeneous, sandstones layers can be effectively studied
also with few boreholes (see Fig. 2). The deep geometry of complex,
multifolded and faulted rock masses remain difficult to be predicted
L. Soldo et al.
Fig. 2. Incremental geological complexity: sub-horizontal, continuos layers,
(above, Coca Codo Sinclair Project, Geodata Engineering); single and multiple
folded layers (below, Manali – Leh Highway, Geodata Engineering).
Fig. 3. Uncertainties in geological modelling. (above) Type 1, ambiguity in the
recognition of the buried structure because of uncertainties of the raw data,
(center) Type 2 Uncertainty of interpolation and extrapolation away from
known points, (below) Type 3 Uncertainty related with uncomplete knowledge
of structures in subsurface (Wellmann et al., 2010, mod.).
84
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
even basing on expensive borehole campaigns (see Fig. 4).
Because of unavoidable limits rising from accuracy and complete-
ness with which subsurface conditions may be known it is also a mean
for identifying their related variability and uncertainties, the related
hazards and risks, providing the basis for plan eventual additional site
investigation and for a correct design procedure. The DGGM can be
then described as the framework in which the expected risks are re-
cognized and characterized. Finally, not in order of importance, the
DGGM includes the assessment of its effectiveness and reliability (with
an estimated reliability degree and evaluation of the related un-
certainties and risks): some approaches consider the quality of the in-
vestigation procedures (e.g. in term of extension of the geological
mapped area, number and length of boreholes) (see Table 2). Others
consider the quality of the input data, still others the entire model itself.
The DGGM visualizes, describes and quantifies for a certain volume
around the project works (whose extension is a property of the DGGM
itself, establishing the extension of the “influence zone”, meaning both
what is influenced by the works and symmetrically what is capable to
influence the works), the following features and properties (with their
time-variation if they could change significantly during the construc-
tion and operation life):
– lithological and petrographical characteristics,
– stratigraphical and sedimentological description for sedimentary
bodies, lithified or not,
– geomorphological characterisation with prediction of the evolution
of active processes or forms (landslide, weathering, erosion, karst,
subsidence),
– tectonic and structural features: fault zones (properties and eva-
luation of their eventual activity), joints at regional and local scale,
folds, natural stress field, sismicity,
– geological bodies structure (geometry) in depth, with their bound-
aries,
– hydrogeological context (underground water and gases), hydro-
dinamical and hydrochemical characteristics.
These features and properties also must be analysed within the
perspective of a Risk Analysis & Management driven Design, con-
sidering the potential related hazards (Table 1, from Soldo 1998, mod.).
Considering these aspects, at the end, the model establishes a divi-
sion of the project influenced space into “homogeneous” sectors/vo-
lumes, associated with different geotechnical behaviours, then with
specific design assumption and solutions. The DGGM then also includes:
– geotechnical (soils) or geomechanical (intact rock and rock masses)
properties, at different scales,
– geotechnical or geomechanical behaviour along the project (i.e. for
certain stress conditions).
Beyond the limits related with the measurements of the physical
quantities, described and managed basing on measurement error
theory, probability and statistics, the creation of the GRM undergoes
well known, peculiar, difficulties, with associated, relevant, un-
certainties, discussed in the following. We can define these un-
certainties as based on the position, orientation, and interpretation of
contextual geological information and data (see also AFTES
Recommendation GT32.R2A1. Appendix 3 - Development of the geo-
logical model and graphical representation of uncertainties).
No matter how extended the knowledge is reached through in-
vestigations even the most thorough “assumptions” do not guarantee all
the complex reactions of the underground are known a priori.
3. The possible knowledge
The field of deterministic knowledge remains confined to identified
subjects that can be analysed with (acceptable) certainty (something
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig. 4. Further steps of construction of a Geological Model, reflecting the amount and accuracy of the collected data.

Table 1
Main geological aspects with the associated potential sources of hazard (Soldo, 1998, mod.).
Geological aspects Potential sources of hazard

Lithology and structure • Mineralogical and textural characteristics Dangerous minerals, weathering, abrasivity, etc.
• Structural
mass
characteristics of intact rock and rock Fracturing degree, orientation of stratification/metamorphic foliation, etc.

Geology, structures and tectonics • Tectonic structures and context Faults and folds (crushed rock masses, active faults, etc.)
• Flows of temperature, thermal gradient Extreme temperature condition at tunnel depths
• Vertical movements at regional scale Differential movements at the project scale
• InCharacteristics
situ stress conditions Adverse natural stresses at tunnel depths
Hydrogeology • of the hydrogeological networks Extension, boundary conditions, sources of recharge, mode of groundwater flow,
pressures, water physico-chemical properties, etc.
• Karst Presence, volume and geometries of cavities, karst water circuits, water temperatures, etc.
• Presence of gases Noxious / explosive gases
Geomorphology • Slope instabilities (around portals, along the
alignment)
Presence, geometry, state of activity of instability phenomena

• Quaternary deposits - bedrock contact geometry Depth and geometry of the contact

Table 2 – complete ignorance, that is when a certain aspect remains com-

Conditioning aspects on investigation effectiveness & reliability (Dematteis and pletely unknown, not identified/predicted (“unknown unknowns”);
Soldo, 2015, mod.). – poor carachterisation (qualitative and/or quantitative) of the iden-
Investigation type Conditioning aspects on investigation effectiveness & tified/foreseen element/property; uncertain location of the identi-
reliability fied/foreseen element (boundary and extension) (something identi-
fied/foreseen with a limited level of knowledge, “known unknown”).
Geological Surveys • Mapping Scale
This classification labels also the “identification” of uncertainties
• Extension of the geological surveys vs scale & complexity of
the geological structures. together with the “level of knowledge” (including the level of
• Outcrop percentage and accessibility knowledge about the “impact” when considering the risk assess-
Boreholes • Number of boreholes ment).
• Type of the boreholes (vertical or curved, recovery/
destruction)
• Depth reached by the boreholes
In this matrix, if the nature of an event is certain, uncertainties can
• Distance of the boreholes from the tunnel layout derive because of our limited knowledge (affecting both what we al-
• Type and number of down-hole tests&logs (OPTV, BHTV,
logs, Natural Stress tests, etc.)
ready know, i.e., known known, or what we don't know yet, i.e., un-
known known). On the opposite (note that things can vary gradually
Geophysics • Type and number of investigation lines
• Investigation depth between these extremes) if the nature of an event is uncertain, the
occurrence can be uncertain, (i.e., probability of occurrence is less than
1) and the impact can be uncertain as well. Obviously uncertatinites
identified and certain, “known known”). due to our limited knowledge persist, more severe.
Out of this field we face with uncertatinites that can be grouped in: Actually the largest source of uncertainty (in the broadest sense, the
recognition that the results of our measurements and observations may
– something not identified/foreseen but knowable, (sometimes called deviate more or less from the natural reality) refers to our imperfect and
untapped knowledge or “unknown known”); inexact knowledge of the world that could arise from the need for

85
L. Soldo et al.
simplifications, heterogeneity, inherent randomness, imperfect inter-
pretative concepts and hypotheses, measurement inaccuracies, sam-
pling limitations, insufficient sample numbers, and others) rises from
our limited capability to predict the geometry of the geological bodies
and their features in depth, at various scales. These prediction limits
may reflect in a variety of possible mistakes of the Model: they span
from completely miss the presence of a geological formation in depth to
overestimate its dimension, then erroneously predicting the passages
from one formation to another. All types of geological data are subject
to several sources of uncertainty (e.g. Wellmann et al., 2010): these
include: (1) imprecision and measurement error, (2) stochasticity and
(3) insufficient and/or imprecise knowledge, model inadequacy. Ty-
pical examples are presented in Fig. 3 (Wellmann et al. 2010, mod.):
Type 1 (error, bias, and imprecision): uncertainty in all types of raw
data that are used for modelling, like the position of a formation
boundary or the orientation of a structure. Type 2 (stochasticity, and
inherent randomness): this commonly shows up as the uncertainty in
interpolation between (and extrapolation from) known data points.
Type 3 (imprecise knowledge): applies to incomplete and imprecise
knowledge of structural existence, general conceptual ambiguities and
the need for generalisations.
Most part of the GRM derives from speculations, only a limited
amount of it can be based on direct factual data. The reliability of the
GM is deeply influenced, among other, by:
– the intrinsic complexity of the natural context,
– the depth and dimension of the investigation zone (with them di-
rectly increase the limits and the costs of the investigation meth-
odologies),
– the technical limits of the investigation methodologies,
– the time and money budget for the investigation [U.S. National
Committee on Tunnelling Technology 1984; Soldo 1998],
– the competence and adequate multidisciplinarity of the geologist
team.
The figure below shows how the most reliable geometrical inter-
pretation of the geological structures can be finally obtained as results
of an accurate stratigraphic and structural (ductile and fragile) analysis.
The Fig. 5 (Grasso et al., 2016) shows a conceptual scheme of the
possible types and degree of knowledge (or “ignorance”) of the avail-
able methodologies for studying the natural properties (e.g., the pro-
ject’s “geological context”) with the associated sources of errors/un-
certainties and of the possible types of impact (risk) to the engineering
project. It is divided into three main fields.
In the upper field there is “nature” with its properties and the as-
sociated degree of complexity.
The ground and the environment are inherently variable, made of
many components and layers of subsystems with multiple non-linear
interconnections that are difficult to recognize and know (middle main
field, left extreme of the bar). Only some contexts show a certain level
of homogeneity (moving at the right extreme). The figure middle field
schematised the theoretical and technical possibilities of understanding
nature and the available methodologies for doing this along with the
main sources of uncertainties. The effectiveness of models increases
when the complexity and variability reduce towards a relative homo-
geneity. We pass from a condition of complete ignorance, with com-
pletely unknown events, through known events with limited knowledge
or information, towards a state of complete knowledge (full under-
standing and complete information). Deterministic modelling tools,
which can be used in the case of “complete knowledge,” must yield to
statistic and probabilistic approaches (the effectiveness of which is
limited because of various sources of uncertainties, ref. bottom,
“Sources of Uncertainties”).
Finally, are classified (lower field) the possible levels of risk related
to different levels of knowledge (both for foreseen and unforeseen
events): the lower field shows that, under a condition of ignorance
86
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
(more probable for higher levels of complexity) or limited knowledge,
the possible risks are always high. The higher the level of knowledge,
the lower the risks.
4. Building the reference model, investigation and structural
geological mapping
Human activities almost entirely develop on continental crust
(continents and continental shelf). Roughly three fourths of the con-
tinental crust are covered by sedimentary rocks and almost all of it is
covered by loose sediments (soil, sand, etc.). The bulk of the continental
crust is made of metamorphic rocks. Igneous rocks (plutonic or volca-
nics) are variously intruded into sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.
From their genesis to the late erosion all these rocks undergo dif-
ferent deformation phases, under different temperature and pressure
conditions.
The addition of the initial rock properties with the overimposition of
fractures, faults and folds (at different scales) forges the materials that
finally host tunnels and caverns, conditioning their spatial asset and
geomechanical properties. Further, from the regional geology and
geodynamic evolutions, derive the hydrogeological context, the stress
conditions, the temperature at depth, the presence of gases, etc.
Understanding this long and complex history made it possible the
creation of the Geological Reference Model, roughly basing on 4 main
steps:
– first phase model, basing on literature, remote (aerial and satellites)
images interpretation,
– (geological and hydrogeological) field mapping,
– basing on the results of the previous two phases, also considering
the project characteristics and the major recognised uncertainties
the investigation can be detailed both with detailed field mapping,
remote sensing (specifically acquired images), boreholes, geo-
physics, in situ and laboratory tests,
– creation of a comprehensive reference DGGM.
In this paper we emphasise the importance of the basic geological
studies, particularly the field surveys, following the rules and meth-
odologies of the Structural Geology and Tectonics. None of the other
investigation methodologies made it possible the collection of a com-
parable amount and quality of data. Neither should be underestimated
its relevance targeting and interpreting (increasing their effectiveness
and reducing their time and cost expenditure) the other investigations.
Even considering these few introductory aspects some relevant
considerations can be immediately made on the engineering applicative
value of the Structural Geology studies.
Most of the time rocks undergo multiple deformation phases (par-
ticularly metamorphic rocks); clues of older structures and fabric can be
locally preserved together with more evident structures (then, prob-
ably, younger). The breaking, bending and flowing of rocks all produce
permanent structures such as faults, fractures, folds that means how
different lithologies are oriented in space and in respect to one another.
Structural geologists can recognise, among these multiple, frequently
scattered clues, which of them dominate, conditioning how the rock
masses are arranged at depth.
The strain-stress analysis can be also an unparallel source of in-
formation on the natural stress field for recently induced structures
(while past structures, obviously, cannot be related with the today
stress field). Furthermore, the existence of faults displacements within
recent soil deposits reveals the existence of active deformations, ex-
tremely relevant for tunnel design.
4.1. The structural geological survey (mapping and processing)
Basing on structural geological surveys (see Fig. 7), coupled with
simple laboratory analysis (petrographic thin sections), it is possible to
L. Soldo et al.
Fig. 5. Further steps of construction of a Geological Model, reflecting the amount and accuracy of the collected data (Grasso et al., 2016).
study most of the geological properties (petrographic composition,
texture and structure) both of intact rocks and rock masses. Most re-
levant is the unparallel amount and quality of collectable information
on the “geometry” (structure) with which the rock masses lie at depth,
as bedrock of plains or building gentle hills and steep mountains.
Geometrical structural models are three dimensional interpretations
of the distribution and orientation of structures in depth, primarily
based on mapping then completed with breohole and geophysical data
and any other observational information we have. They can be pre-
sented as geologic maps and as vertical cross sections along the project
layout. To unravel the deformed geological bodies in depth structural
geologists, observe and record, carefully and systematically, for each of
the available bedrock outcrops, the lithological contacts, the fractures
and faults, the characteristics of the folds, the preferred orientations of
mineral grains. The orientation data acquired during the field studies
provide the framework on which the subsequent analysis of structural
geometry (that is precisely how the geological bodies are oriented in
depth) is built. These observations give the input data and guide the
formulation of models. The models in turn provide predictions that can
be compared with reality using - now effectively done for investigate
specific targets - investigations such as boreholes. Then the cycle can be
started again with some additional surveys. When the observations
converge confirming the model predictions the model is accepted as a
reasonable representation of the geology in depth. Structural Geology
and Tectonics both study the Earth Crust deformations. The first focuses
on the geometry of the rock structures (fractures, faults and folds) (see
87
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
Figs. 8,10 and 11) from centimetric to kilometric scale (see Fig. 12); the
second analyses the crust movements (cinematic) with the corre-
sponding acting forces (dynamic), that creates, eventually, the rock
structures themselves (or, in other words, it describes the processes of
mountain building). At a larger scale Geodynamic deals with the model
of plate tectonics as well as fluid dynamics in the crust, or even con-
vection in the core, describing the displacements at the surface and in
the interior of the earth together with the driving mechanisms of these
displacements) (see Fig. 9). These two branches of geology are con-
cerned with reconstructing the inexorable motions that have shaped the
evolution of the Earth’s outer layers. Leaving aside the academic in-
terest, for Engineering Geology determining the geometry of the rock
structures in depth is an end in itself.
The field studies for a tunnel project mainly remain into the domain
of the Structural Geology, basing on 3 main phases (Ramsay, 1967;
Turner and Weiss, 1963; Ramsay and Huber, 1987). A descriptive
analysis first identifies and describes the structures (both basing on
macroscopic, microscopic and petrographic analysis) also measuring
their geometrical properties (spatial orientation).
The kinematic analysis identifies the relative displacements among
geological bodies, then studying folds attitude, fault movement in-
dicators, rock units relationships (structures overimposition and inter-
section). This phase identifies the relative chronology of the deforma-
tion phases.
The identified structures are finally interpreted searching the re-
lationship between the identified strain (i.e. the structures associated
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig. 6. The three main phases of the geostructural studies.

88
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig. 7. Example of structural geological map, with the identified outcrops,

describing for each of them the lithology and the structural data (faults, folia-
tions, lineations spatial attitude) (from Gosso et al., 1998).

Fig. 9. Conceptual representation of the deformation domains at depth (then

relating with the variable P-T conditions.

Fig. 8. The fold axis (arrow) identify the direction of the intersection between
the folded stratification (St) and foliation (S1).

with past and recent deformation phases) and the causative stress field
(stress and strain analysis) (Fig. 6). The field maps are usually produced Fig. 10. Alternance of extremely crushed and undisturbed rock masses along a
at intermediate or detailed scale (from 1:10.000 to 1:1.000) covering large thrust shear zone (Platta and Margna thrust-nappe complex, Engadin,
the work site but moreover making possible to understand how the rock Switzerland).
masses are placed in depth. This means that for example along deep
base tunnels crossing large regional fault zones it can be necessary to
erosion or non-deposition.
map a width of some kilometers aside of the tunnel layout.
Sometimes many large structures can be directly exposed in the
The first phase of the studies includes the petrographical char-
field. However, such condition is exceptional and because of limited
acterization together with the identification, description and measure
rock exposure the reliability in recognition of structures may be limited
of planar structural elements (lithological layering, bedding planes in
with uncertainties of extrapolation away from known data points.
sediments, unconformities, compositional banding in metamorphic
Geological mapping usually is based only the analysis of few outcrops.
rocks, primary layering in igneous bodies, cleavage and schistosity,
The complementary use of these data with the information collected
planar fabric related with preferred mineral alignments, geometric
along boreholes increase the reliability of the model, adding also re-
planar elements of folds, shear zones, faults and joints).
levant information such as, for example, the thickness of each forma-
Most sedimentary rocks, many metamorphic rocks, and igneous sills
tion bed, its degree of fracturing and other.
and dykes occur as planar bodies. Three features influence the ap-
Obviously, the effectiveness of the model decreases in extremely
pearance of the outcrop of a rock layer: its dip and strike together with
folded terrains with limited outcrops. The prediction reliability is also
the topography form (the layer surface trend results from the inter-
strongly influenced by the structures spatial continuity.
section of these layers with the earth surface).
The structural analysis is then supported by a second step of data
A special type of planar structure are unconformities, along which,
measurement that is the field survey of linear structural elements (fold
generally, series of rocks are separated from the other by a surface of

89
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig. 11. From the left top to the right bottom: a hard milonite, a recrystallised breccia, a milonite further interested by a cataclastic phase, an outcrop of completely
crushed, gouge type, fault rocks: these fault rocks exhibit different engineering behaviours, passing from very hard rocks to completely crushed, clay-type, rocks.

Fig. 12. Structural interpretative map of the regional fault zone among the Zona Piemontese and the Brianzonese (Dora-Maira) tectonic units (the map include two
alternative alignments for a segment of the railway base tunnel Torino – Lyon) (Geodata Engineering). (see following Fig. 14).

axes, kinematic indicators, mineralogic and intersection lineations).
Structural lineations are defined by the preferred orientation of
linear structures within a rock, such as solid elongated objects (fossils,
clasts or other) or “immaterial” results of intersection of foliations,
crenulation hinge lines, etc. mineral lineations consist of preferred or-
ientation of single elongate mineral grains or polycrystalline aggregates
(Twiss and Moores, 2007).
The accurate measurement of these, feeble, structural data at the
outcrop scale can give the necessary clues for understanding the geo-
metry of large scale folds, particularly precious e.g. in regions with
dense vegetation or thick weathering coverage.
Collecting further data, it is eventually possible to recognise the
regional tectonic style, therefore interpreting (along unexplored sec-
tors) the expected type of structures, predicting the presence of folds or
faults, together with their specific characteristics.
The identification and characterization of faults (planes or shear
zones, with thickness variable from decimetres to kilometers) stand
among the most influential aspect for the tunnel design, (see Fig. 13)
conditioning the geomechanical and hydrogeological properties. In
tectonically active regions some of them can also suffer of displace-
ments, sometimes of several meters during a single earthquake episode.
Deformation along shear zones develops characteristic fabrics and mi-
neral assemblages that reflects P-T (pressure-temperature) and fluid
conditions, flow type, movement vector and in general the deformation
history of the shear zone itself.
Ductile shear zones develop usually in higher metamorphic condi-
tions (major shear zones that cross the crust down into the upper
mantle shows both brittle and ductile sectors). The depth of the

90
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

transition between brittle and ductile behaviour depends on many

factors such as strain rate, geothermal gradient, protolite, fluid chem-
istry and pressure, orientation of the stress field: ductile shear zone may
develop in marble at metamorphic conditions where amphibolites de-
form by brittle fracturing, and further different minerals into the rock
volume can show contemporaneous brittle and ductile deformation.
So, faults can be associated to brittle failure of a rock under stress,
whereas shear zones show ductile deformation. Fault surfaces may be
planar or curved, usually changing orientation and geometry passing
through layers of different rock lithology.
Major shear zones can be active for long time and the material into
the shear zone may be transported upwards or downwards; in this case
the rocks show evidence of several overprinting stages of activity at
different metamorphic conditions.
Particularly significant it is the frequent alternance, passing through
large shear zones, of extremely crushed and completely undisturbed
rock masses also with relevant hydrogeological consequences, with
fractured pervious volumes embedded among impervious clay gouges
(completely crushed).
These differences go beyond the academic interest: milonites, cat-
aclasites, recrystallised breccia, breccia, gouges, all of them fault rocks
with different genetic conditions, exhibit dramatically different en-
gineering behaviours, passing from very hard rocks to completely cru-
shed, sometimes comminuted to clay. A further source of complexity
comes for fault systems with a long, multiphase, deformation history,
under different conditions, then with the frequent overimposition of
different types of fault rocks. Also, a single-phase fault zone can include
different rock types (resulting from different deformation degree) e.g.
passing from cataclasites to breccia and eventually clay gouges.
The study of the fragile faults and fractures give insights on the
fractures density and characteristics (orientation, geometry, extension,
etc.) at depth (see Fig. 14). Furthermore, not secondarily, a special
attention must be deserved to this study, recognising and understanding
the presence of active structures that can damage the underground
construction, particularly for long base tunnels and in regions with
large shear zones (e.g. along the San Andreas Fault zone the fault
slippage in the historic period 1848 to 1968 has been equivalent to
about 2.5 cm/yr; similar values has been recorded along the North
Anatolian Fault). This part of the geological surveys and studies is in-
timately associated with those specifically directed to the geomecha-
nical characterization, conducted basing on the International Society of
Rock Mechanics Recommendations (ISRM, 1997, 2014a, 2014b).
Adding together these data the Geological Reference Model passes
through further approximations. The first model drafted in Figs. 15 and
16 (base tunnel, Orte - Falconara railway line, Italy), based on the
available information on the fold structures, it is deeply modified
considering the identified faults and discontinuities (Fig. 17). These
modifications of the geological model cast light on noticeable mod-
ification of the expected geomechanical and hydrogeological condi-
tions.
The identification of original NE vergent antiform-sinform structure
reveals at the tunnel depth the presence of poor claystones. But ad-
ditionally, the fold is broken down by a set of sub-vertical faults and
thrusts, with associated extremely poor fault related rock masses. The
study of the geological structure is well far away from a mere academic
interest. A further view of these structures shows a certain spatial
geometry from which comes a remarkable increase of the tunnel ex-
cavation length in poor to extremely poor rock masses. Considering
these evidences, the structural data have been processed building a 3D
geological model, then moving and re-drafting the alignment reducing
Fig. 13. The design has been improved selecting the best possible alignment,
that is those with the shortest length trought the fault sectors, particularly those
as much as possible the adverse expected excavation length.
with crushed rock masses. The hydroelectric project Coca Codo Sinclair (Ecuador Amazonia),
gives another example of the role of the geological surveys as part of the
design, even under the extreme limits opposed by the impenetrable
vegetation. The search of the limited, hidden, outcrops in the forest has
revealed the existence of a large strike-slip fault. The resulting 3D

91
L. Soldo et al.
Fig. 14. Aerial photos interpretation, statistical analysis of the identified lineaments (hydroelectric project Coca Codo Sinclair, Ecuador, Geodata Engineering).
geological model (see Fig. 18) along the headrace tunnel included:
• the complex pattern of dislocated rock units, and the fault sectors,
together with the characterization of the fault related rocks,
• the distinction of the active fault system, then giving indication on
the existing stress (σ1, σ2, σ3) field orientation.
5. An enduring misunderstanding
The above-mentioned discussion, focused on structural geology
must be extended. The importance of the geological studies (surveys) as
a constitutive part of the design protocol remains true into the immense
variety of existing geological contexts and for each of the different
specialties of geology.
The value of a detailed sedimentological survey recognising from
feeble clues the presence of insidious swelling minerals inside a
harmless flysch can be easely appreciated. The same can be said about
the precious contribution of a detailed geomorphological survey e.g.
understanding the risk to locate a tunnel into a deep landslide, even if
hidden under a bucolic woody slope.
In Fig. 19 (Soldo et al., 2014; Bini et al., 1994) is showed the case of
92
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
a twin lane highway running along the edge of the enchanting Como
Lake, inside a deep tunnel. A detailed structural survey revealed several
fault zones, with weak related rocks, as one of the predisposing factors
of an extremely large, deep seated landslide, disclosing the principal
reasons of a long history of cyclic damages to the lining and pavement
of the road tunnels running inside the slope at depth. The three-di-
mensional interpretations of the fault zones and, with them, of the
geometry of the landslide, has been effectively based on the geos-
tructural field survey measurements, deriving a precise prevision of the
interference zones with the tunnels. The geological model has been
confirmed and enhanced with the geomorphological evidences of the
slope movement, including trenches, creeks water capture, large sectors
of crushed rock masses.
Behind these simple examples stand a simple evidence. Natural
sciences studies follow heuristic procedures. They need multi-
disciplinary, specialistic, teams, working together as “well-oiled ma-
chines”. Behind this concept it is hidden an enduring misunderstanding.
For the design of an underground project we are expecting the con-
tribution of several specialist engineer: geotechnical, structural, hy-
drotechnical, environmental, transportation, surveying and geomatics
engineers and more. The team includes the geologist, sometimes the
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig. 15. Geological profile along a segment of the Orte Falconara railway Base Tunnel tunnel. The patient and accurate measurement of structural data at the outcrop
scale have given the necessary clues for understanding the geometry of large scale folds (Geodata Engineering).

engineering geologist and the hydrogeologist. But, in most of the cases,
it is needed the contribution of more specialists, considering the dif-
ferent geological contexts.
The examples of Fig. 20a and b show the variability of the geolo-
gical contexts, with associated dramatic differences in term of lithology,
geomechanical and hydrogeological properties, potential associated
uncertainties and hazards. Then, only multidisciplinary teams can ad-
dress the study from all the necessary angles, including e.g. sedi-
mentologists, geomorphologists, volcanologists, geochemists, etc. This
necessity is commonly underestimated, generically including in the
design team an engineering geologist. Only simple or uncomplicated
cases may not require this approach. Developing systems and resources
that ensure the team can function effectively is also essential. This is
intimately connected with the nature of the design procedure, that is a
“decision making process (often iterative) in which the basic sciences … and
engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a
stated objective” (ABET). This, ideally, must be based on a design firm
“built in” organisation, with all the specialists daily working together,

Fig. 16. The same geological profile (ref. Fig. 16) corrected and enhanced after the identification of the main faults and regional discontinuities (Geodata En-
gineering).

93
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig 17. Assonometric representation along the reference segment (Val Serra) (ref. Figs. 15 and 16) of the Orte Falconara railway base tunnel. The antiform-synform
structure, further crossed by several faults and a main thrust, determines the lithological sequence at depth (CM-Co = Calcare massiccio - Corniola; CD-Ms = Calcari
Diasprigni - Marne del Serrone; Ma = Maiolica; Mf = Marne a Fucoidi; SB-Sr = Scaglia bianca-Scaglia rossa; Sc = Scaglia Cinerea) (image on left corner, faulted
facies of the Scaglia Cinerea) (Geodata Engineering). The scheme on the upper left corner synthesises the conceptual analysis of the best tunnel alignment, reducing
the mining length along the expected adverse conditions related with the Scaglia Cinerea (Sc) poor rock masses (Geodata Engineering).

actively sharing their contributions during the entire phases of the
design development. On the other end the presence of a permanent,
complete multidisciplinary team is hardly sustainable, even for large
design firms. Nonetheless, the project engineer and engineer geologist,
must be aware of this necessity, summoning with appropriateness all
the necessary specialists and including the specific investigation pos-
sibly requested for the project peculiar context.
6. New methodologies and innovation (data collection, processing
& modelling)
6.1. Surface mapping and remote sensing
Geological mapping, processing and visualisation is a fast-growing
area, basing on new, disruptive, procedures and technologies.
Modern tablets (supported with Global Positioning System (GPS)

Fig. 18. Structural Analysis of the region surrounding the Coca Codo Sinclair headrace hydroelectric tunnel. Conceptual tectonic scheme (left), including the
discovered strike-slip; (right) 3D geological map; 3D geological model (Geodata Engineering).

94
L. Soldo et al.
Fig. 19. Geomorphological evidences of the deep-seated instability of the slope
above the Piona Sound (Como Lake, Italia) (Bini et al., 1994).
Fig. 20. (a and b) Two different geological contexts, asking for different spe-
cialists: (above) folded and faulted sedimentary rock masses along the Terni
Spoleto railway line (Geodata Engineering); complex buried geology with gla-
cial deposits, lacustrine and fluvio deposits, Proterozoic claystone bedrock
(below, Saint Petersbourg Metro, Geodata Engineering).
instruments and Geographic Information System, paired with virtual
globe visualizers, e.g. Google Earth and NASA World Wind or specific
project DTM and images) can support the record of a wide spectrum of
geologic data and facilitate iterative geologic map construction and
evaluation. Spatial data, maps, and interpretations can be viewed in a
variety of formats on virtual visualisation environments.
Remote sensing (including aerial photography and satellite ima-
gery) dramatically enhances the geological mapping, processing and
visualisation procedures. Various types of remotely sensed imagery -
including both optical-infrared and radar sensors, e.g. Landsat,
Radarsat, as well as the Probe hyperspectral system flown by Noranda
Exploration Ltd., and the NASA Aster sensor, characterized by different
spatial and spectral resolutions can be used - especially with good
bedrock exposure - to characterize lithology, structure, and alteration
patterns. It is relevant to note that remote sensing includes innumerable
types of platforms upon which to deploy an instrument (sensors).
Satellites and aircraft collect the majority of base map data and ima-
gery; sensors typically deployed on these platforms include film and
digital cameras, light-detection and ranging (lidar) systems, synthetic
aperture radar (SAR) systems, multispectral and hyperspectral scan-
ners.
Today many of these instruments are progressively used also on
land-based platforms. A first group of application derive from LIDAR
sensors. The result of the terrestrial LIDAR survey is a photo-realistic
point cloud composed of about million points, which represents the
95
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
topographic surface of the studied outcrops. The point cloud provides
the topographic base for higher resolution analysis using orthorectified
photo-mosaics and can be used as the basis for geological analysis (e.g.
fault and joint traces). The spatial resolution of the terrestrial LIDAR
data and the associated photos typically identifies features on the
ground surface larger than 5–10 cm, inadequate for detailed analysis,
even lower for low incidence angles between the LIDAR beam and the
outcrop surface. Then the LIDAR survey can be coupled, capturing high-
resolution images with orthorectified photo-mosaics and close range
photogrammetry, orthorectified and draped on the LIDAR surface. The
rapid and continuous evolution of digital photo-cameras is daily
widening the use of high-resolution close-range orto-photogrammetry.
The initial data point cloud it is directly derived from pairs of photos,
shot from different viewpoints (stereo couples), with draped the or-
thorectified high-resolution photos. The collected data can be registered
and merged with lower resolution LIDAR dataset (e.g coming from
aerial surveys), resulting in a variable-resolution dataset.
6.2. Subsurface investigation
The significance of the surface structural data progressively reduces
at depth, more and more as far as increase the complexity of the geo-
logical context, as above discussed. Deep geophysics and borehole
logging made it possible to collect lithological and structural data, re-
spectively along planar vertical sections and segments.
The effectiveness of borehole drilling and coring has been sig-
nificantly enhanced in the last decades, basing on the oil & gas ex-
perience and technologies, also including directional drilling (using
rotary steerable tools), making it possible the direct exploration along
the tunnel alignment. It must be noted, again, as the availability of a
rigorous geological survey enhance the effectiveness of using these,
expensive and complex, boreholes, identifying primary investigation
targets (shear zones, expected main karst cavities, etc.).
Digital optical borehole camera or Acoustic Televiewer probe
(see Fig. 21) record a continuous, magnetically orientated, digital, 360°
colour image of the borehole wall, making it possible to detect litho-
logical changes and planar structures (diaclase, fractures, faults, layers,
veins, laminations, foliations), that display sinusoidal traces on the log
flattened - North oriented - image, giving their strike and dip.
6.3. Data processing, visualisation and analysis
3D data processing and visualisation (4D including time evolution)
merge the information from a digital terrain model, surface geological
line-elements (geological boundaries, discontinuity and foliations geo-
metry), geophysical and borehole data. The mathematical interpolation
between the nodes along drawn sections and the limits of the units
Fig. 21. Borehole walls acoustic record, penstock Minas - San Francisco y La
Unión Hydro Plant - CELEC EP, Ecuador (Geodata Engineering).
L. Soldo et al.
Fig. 22. Baralacha La Base Tunnel, modelling of the main geological structures (frontal and back thrust) (Leapfrog Geo; Geodata Engineering).
produces a solid model. Each of its element can be described with the
available details, including an estimation of its reliability degree
(quantify the propagation of uncertainty through the modelling chain).
The recent project of the Baralacha La Base Tunnel (Himchal
Pradesh, India, Owner Border Road Organisation) offers a significant
example (see Fig. 22) of the improvements introduced with the use of
the recent releases of 3D geological modellers. The existence complex
regional thrusts (fault) systems, together with the extent of the areas
covered by Quaternary deposits made it difficult the field recognition
and characterisation of the fault zones. The use of 3D analysis (Leapfrog
Geo software) has been found of paramount importance providing a
powerful environment for data integration, cross-section construction
and 3D modeling, making it possible to understand and validate the
tectonic geometries.
Some other recent geological studies for hydroelectric projects in
South America (i.e. Rio Negro Valley - Ecuador) offer a significant ex-
ample (see Fig. 23) of the improvements introduced with the use of 3D
geological modellers.
The existence of several ductile (isoclinal folds) and fragile tectonic
structures (strike slips fault systems) together with the extent of the
areas covered by Quaternary deposits made difficult the field recogni-
tion and characterisation of the fault zones. The 3D modelling (Leapfrog
Geo software) allowed designers to define the most credible scenario
built, step by step, basing on a detailed analysis of the available geo-
logical data and their coherence with the local and regional geody-
namic context.
The capability to simultaneously storage, process and interrogate
multiple sources of input data support geologists along the multiple
phases process of modelling. Not secondarily 3D visualisation systems
enable geoscientists and engineers to communicate with each other and
with end users from diverse disciplines effectively managing complex
and varied datasets.
3D models comprehensively analyse the GGM elements together in
a single, immersive 3D stereoscopic environment.
7. Discussion
Geologic and geotechnical conditions constitute one of the greatest
sources of unknowns prior to actual construction of an engineering
underground project. These unknowns usually exist in inverse propor-
tional to the amount, nature and quality of the geotechnical in-
vestigations. Nevertheless, the adequacy of a site investigation program
cannot be measured by cost and quantities alone. The relevancy of the
96
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
basic geological studies has been progressively forgotten. This paper –
particularly focusing on Structural Geology, with its dominant role
along the design chain of underground works in rock – emphasises the
role of the basic geological surveys as core of the entire investigation
campaign.
In author’s experience the geological complexity can be effectively
recognized from geological mapping (Soldo, 2005). It is thus clear that,
also considered of the latest developments in mapping procedures
(basic principles and available new techniques), the value of the geo-
logical surveying phase should be gradually increased more and more.
The geological survey can be finally thought as the only basis on which
it is possible to work out the interpretation of the results obtained from
the entire investigation campaign.
Unfortunately, several of the most authoritative recommendations
and suggestions have pushed it back to the bottom of their priority lists.
The Code of Practice for Site Investigation (British Standard
Institution, 1999) partially recognize or endorse this perspective by
placing the emphasis on ground investigations using exploratory holes,
geophysics and field and laboratory testing. The Recommendations of
the ICE Site Investigation Steering Group (1993–2007, produced with
the support of, and by representatives of, numerous specialist bodies,
among which the British Geological Society, the British Geotechnical
Society and others) doesn’t explicitly include the geological mapping as
part of the site investigation procedure. Neither the Engineering
Geology Field Manual (U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of
Reclamation (II Edition, Volume II, 2001) includes, along its compre-
hensive field survey and tests description, the geological mapping. The
same happen for the UNI EN ISO 14689-1:2004 Geotechnical in-
vestigation and testing - Identification and classification of rock - Part 1:
Identification and description and for the Eurocode 7 - Geotechnical
design - Part 3: Design assisted by field testing. The ICE Conditions of
Contract – Ground Investigation Version (2003) doesn’t contain any
specific reference to geological mapping. Remarkably a specific men-
tion on field mapping and reconnaissance can be found in the 2015 ITA
Report n°15 - Strategy for Site Investigation of Tunnelling Projects.
Some observations and recommendations arise from these premises.
The quality of a design procedure must be based on the adoption of
holistic procedures, with a constant stress on putting on the table all the
possible influential aspects. This is even more important recently with
the increasing attention to the project sustainability and treating the
uncertainties and risks. The geological mapping made it possible to
build a larger view of some of the most influential aspects of the project,
the framework into which must be interpreted all the others collected
L. Soldo et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98

Fig. 23. Rio Negro Valley - Ecuador, different steps of the 3D modelling processes. (A) (above, left) field data analysis (geological mapping, stratigraphic and surface
geological data interpretation; (B) (above, right) ductile tectonic structures (isoclinal folds) folding the stratigraphic sequence; (C) (below, left) fault systems analysis
based on their geometrical and geocronological characteristics; (D) (below, right) the resulting 3D Geological Reference Model for the geological and geotechnical
zoning (surface and underground works), eventually with the evaluation of the potential risks (Leapfrog Geo; Geodata Engineering).

data, in situ and laboratory.
It should be noted that the necessity of the mentioned holistic ap-
proach is not far away from the common request that we, all, normally
ask in medicine: a comprehensive treatment with specialized medicals
(a team of specialists), nursing staff and medical equipment. Similarly,
for large civil works, we need structural geologists, geomorphologists,
hydrogeologists and more, not generically “a geologist”. This necessity
is well accepted in the normal procedure for risk reduction in several
professions, but it seems sometimes forgotten in our field.
A relevant obstacle to this correct approach seems to be hidden in
the tender and contractual practices. A geological survey can be quite
cheap compared with the overall costs of the investigation campaign.
Furthermore, it can be successfully used in planning and interpreting
further investigations, eventually increasing their effectiveness and re-
ducing their costs. But the story is sometimes seen from a diverse point
of view. A rigorous geological survey (contemporarily collecting the
structural and geomorphological evidences, leaving apart the collection
of hydrogeological data) can require, in average, 1–3 days in the field
each square km of two expert geologists. This amount of time, not
unfrequently, can increase in case of particularly complex geology, at
extreme altitudes or in densely vegetated areas. It means that the
complete survey for a 25 km long base tunnel, for a survey area (con-
sidering a corridor of about 3 km above the alignment) of about 70–80
square km, needs about 180–480 work days, also considering some
necessary additional time because of logistic reasons, adverse (e.g.
climate) conditions. The following processing phase, ordering the col-
lected data as part of a Geographical Information System, finally re-
presented as a multilayer geological map needs other 20–30 desk work
days. The resulting geological map, with a scale 1:5.000 to 1:10.000 can
be represented within 6–3 A1 format drawings, with a final cost vari-
able between 200 and 500 work days. More efforts are asked for a 3D
geological model.
Particularly in Most Economically Advantageous Tenders for en-
gineering consultancy contracts the quantification of the firm’s in-
dustrial costs frequently bases on the drawings (eventually the very
final product of the design) expenditure. By this point of view the
above-mentioned costs for the geological map drawings can be barely
beared by the Design Consultant. Neither comforting examples can be
found in those design contracts paied on deliverables (number of
documents) base. It should be noted that this difficulty also affects the
entire the overall site investigation costs, with the risk of a Consultants
tendency to reduce (both in quantity and quality) the design

97
L. Soldo et al.
investigation and studies to remain competitive. Furthermore, in the
several cases, the basic geological studies are outsourced. This approach
sometimes introduces a certain discontinuity along the design chain,
with the geological specialists not involved daily “in the design room”,
limiting their interaction to some meetings, eventually far away from
the above claimed holistic approach.
Considering the above-mentioned value of the basic studies this
should be the case where the cost analysis approach (price by head)
should be re-considered basing on a “price by value” analysis. This
approach, with reference prices in some countries proposed by relevant
professional organizations, has been progressively abandoned because
of the market tendency to ask for standard, industrialised design
packages and pricing (that can become sometimes, more prosaically, a
service performed to strict technical standards at a minimal cost).
Some relevant conclusions arise from the previous discussion, irre-
spective with the adopted contract for the Design Consultant engage-
ment.
• the Owner must allocate sufficient time and funding for the geolo-
gical, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies. Additionally to the
general tendency for a reduction of resources given to the pre-
liminary investigation (it seems forgotten the 1984 USNCTT pub-
lication “Geotechnical Site Investigations for Underground Projects”
with its recommendations for more investigations, also basing on
the different order of magnitude – as percentage of capital cost -
between investigation levels and claims levels) by considering pro-
fessional references and market trends, it is possible to point out that
in most of the major projects, the expense for geological surveying is
usually a ratio of 1 to 50–100 of the total amount of the whole in-
vestigation campaign (core drilling, geophysical surveying, lab tests,
etc.) (Soldo, 2005).
• as theorised in this paper, the geological survey should be con-
sidered the core of the design investigation, then the basic geolo-
gical surveys must be an explicit part of of the geological, hydro-
geological and geotechnical studies, with its specific quotation and
planning, entrusted with specialists,
• the geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies – divided
in distinct packages, one for each of the design phases, passing
through furthers degree of detail - should remain under the re-
sponsibility of the Owner, preferably excluded from the Design
Consultant’s contract (then basing on a dedicated bid); the Owner
approve and consent their scope, programme, time & cost budgets,
• or, preferably, they can be part of the main Design Consultant’s
contract (ensuring the above described holistic approach, with all
the studies and choices made under the same roof) but basing on a
dedicated bid with an appropriate (lower) limit to the possible of-
fered time & cost budgets,
• the Design Consultant (both engaged by the Owner and the
Contractor) receives and accepts during the Tender phase the geo-
logical, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies from the Owner, if
necessary proposing and pricing additional site investigations (some
of these additional studies may be specifically required for the
specific design of the selected construction approach),
•
the site investigation programme (from which it is derived the fac-
tual report documentation) is part of the geological, hydrogeological
and geotechnical studies that must be conceptually conceived not as
a mere collection of data but as an intimate part of the design; then
the geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies must be
prepared by a consultant with a deep knowledge both of the spe-
cialist items and of the specific project design necessities,
• as a part of the specialist engagement it must be included specific
workshops with the designer consultant and the Owner specialists
(those that have approved and reviewed the investigation studies)
for an adequate transmission of all the relevant information coming
from the geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies.
98
View publication stats
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 84 (2019) 82–98
The above indications apply when the Employer, internally or
supported by an Engineer firm, provides the Design (then the
Contractor only constructs the works on the basis of this Design) but
also for Design and Built (the Contractor design in accordance with the
Employer requirements and specification) or even EPC/Turnkey (the
Contractor provide a fully operational facility in accordance with per-
formance prescription; the legal responsibility for the design, suitability
and performance of the work after completion will be made to rest …
with the contractor).
References
ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (WEB SITE http://www.
abet.org/).
AFTES Recommendation GT32.R2A1, 2012. Recommendations on the characterisation of
geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical uncertainties and risks.
Bini, A., Chinaglia, N., Soldo, L., 1994. Stabilità dei versanti prospicienti la penisola di
Olgiasca (Lago di Como, Italia). Bollettino della Società Ticinese di Scienze Naturali.
CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Comitato per le Scienze Geologiche e Minerarie,
1997. Progetto Strategico Gallerie Rapporto Conclusivo. Coordinatore Nazionale
Prof. Ing. Sebastiano Pelizza.
Dematteis, A., Soldo, L., 2015. Design Geological and Geotechnical Model (DGGM) and
Evaluation of Geological Forecast Reliability using the RIndex Method. Assessment
and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, Georisk. Taylor &
Francis.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2014. What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview.
Project Manage. J.
Gosso, G., Spalla, I., Soldo, L., et al., 1998. Carte geologiche del Basamento Sudalpino
(sponda orientale del Lago di Como); scale 1:25.000 e 1:50.000. Memorie di Scienze
Geologiche Padova.
Grasso, P., Pescara, M., Soldo, L., 2016. Risk management in tunneling: a review of
current practices and needs for future development from the designer's perspective.
In: International Tunnelling Association World Congress, San Francisco.
IAEG commission 25 Parry, S., Baynes, F.J., Culshaw, M.G., Eggers, M., Keaton, J.F.,
Lentfer, K., Novotny, J., Paul, D., 2014. Engineering geological models: an in-
troduction. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 73(3), 689–706.
ICE Institution of Civil Engineering. Site Investigation Steering Group (1993). Site
Investigation in Construction.
ISRM, 1977. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
masses.
ISRM, 2014. A Survey of 3D Laser Scanning Techniques for Application to Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering. The Orange Book “The ISRM Suggested Methods
for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014”, edited by Prof. R.
Ulusay.
ISRM, 2014. Suggested Method for Rock Fractures Observations Using a Borehole Digital
Optical Televiewer. The Orange Book “The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock
Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014”, edited by Prof. R. Ulusay.
ITA Working Group n° 2, 2015. Strategy for Site Investigation.
ITA Working Group n°17 Long Tunnels at Great Depth, 2010. Report n.4.
ITA Working Group n°17 Long Tunnels at Great Depth, 2017. TBM Excavation of Long
and Deep Tunnels Under Difficult Rock Conditions. Report n.19.
ITA Working Group no. 2, 2004. Guidelines for tunnelling risk management. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 19 (2004) 217–237.
Knill, J., 2002. Core values: the first Hans Cloos lecture’. In: 9th Congress of the
International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment, Durban S.
Africa, 45p.
Merrow, E., 2011. Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies & Practices for Success. J.
Wiley & Sons.
Ramsay, J.C., 1967. Folding and Fracturing of Rock. McGraw Hill, New York, pp. 568.
Ramsay, J.C., Huber, M., 1987. Modern Structural Geology, Folds and Fractures - Vol. II.
Academic Press, London.
Riella, A., Vendramini, M., Eusebio, A., Soldo, L., 2015. The Design Geological and
Geotechnical Model (DGGM) for Long and Deep Tunnels. Springer International
Publishing – Engineering Geology for Society and Territory – vol. 6, pp. 991–994.
Soldo, L., 1998. L’importanza delle indagini preliminari nella progettazione di opere in
sotterraneo. PhD Thesis. Politecnico di Torino.
Soldo, L., Eusebio, A., Grasso, P., Pelizza, S., 2005. Preliminary Geological Studies for the
Design of Great Civil Infrastructures. GEOLINE 2005 Lyon, France.
Soldo, L., Vendramini, M., Eusebio, A., 2014. The Design Geological and Geotechnical
Model (DGGM) for major infrastructures. The contribution of Tectonics and
Structural Geology. Lyon, AFTES Congress 2014.
Turner, F.J., Weiss, L.E., 1963. Structural Analysis of Metamorphic Tectonites. McGraw-
Hill 545pp.
Twiss, R.J., Moores, E.M., 2007. Structural Geology. W.H. Fremman and Company.
UNI EN ISO 14689-1:2004 Geotechnical Investigation And Testing - Identification and
Classification of Rock.
U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology, 1984. Geotechnical Site
Investigations for Underground Projects, National Research Council, Washington, D.
C. National Academy Press.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 2001. Engineering Geology Field
Manual II Edition Vol. II.
Wellmann, F.J., Horowitz, F.G., Schill, E., Regenauer-Lieb, K., 2010. Towards in-
corporating uncertainty of structural data in 3D geological inversion. Tectonophysics.