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

net/publication/287048231

Stability analysis and support system design in Gukan tunnel, Iran

Article  in  Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
0 397

3 authors, including:

Rassoul Ajalloeian Leila Fatehi

University of Isfahan Tarbiat Modares University
81 PUBLICATIONS   704 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Evaluating the effects of petrographic properties and rock texture on aggregate shape and fine production View project

A comprehensive engineering geology model for landslide risk assessment (Case study: Latiyan Dam Basin) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leila Fatehi on 21 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Stability Analysis and Support System
Design in Gukan Tunnel, Iran
Ajalloeian, Rassol
Associate Prof. Department of Geology, The University of Isfahan

Fatehi, Leila
M.Sc. of Engineering Geology, The University of Isfahan
e-mail: danesh.sci@gmail.com

Mohammadi, Javad
M.Sc. of Engineering Geology, The University of Isfahan

ABSTRACT
Gukan water convey tunnel is located in west of Isfahan province, central Iran. Tunnel length has
been predicted to reach about 22 km. The main function of the tunnel is to convey the water from
Dez River to Zayanderod River. Main rock formations in this route include limestone, marly
limestone and marl. This paper deals with the study of the limestone behavior which is called
Jahrom formation. This formation is encountered in the entrance and the middle of the tunnel. In
present research, this formation has been classified using different rock classification such as
RMR, Q, and others. Then, rock mass characteristics have been deduced from RMR classification.
Finally, it is possible to select suitable support system for circular tunnel of 4m diameter, which
estimated by using different proposed methods.
KEYWORDS: Stability analysis; supporting system design; tunnel.

INTRODUCTION
The most important factor in tunnel design in an underground space is strength of rocks. The
appropriate design of blocks for avoidance of falls into excavated underground space, during
operation as well as during application, is one of the matters which must be studied in order to
make an underground space safe and functional. The design methods of supporting system or
prediction of necessary blocks of tunnels are classified in 3 groups: Analytical methods;
Observational methods and Empirical methods. In Analytical methods, stress state and
deformation around the tunnel are analyzed. These methods also include closed form solution as
well as numerical methods, simulation (electrical-resistivity and photo-elasticity) and physical
modeling. Observational methods are used based on real measurement of the earth movement in
duration of opening and interaction analysis earth- supporting system which determine
instabilities. These methods are such as new Austrian tunneling (NATM) and the real results with
results that are predicted by other methods. The empirical methods are one according to stable
statistical analysis of underground excavation which constructed in various places. In these

- 1701 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1702

methods, related to the recent results driven from engineering classification of rocks and via a
passive safety factor but conservative, block design is offered. Because skill, experience and time
duration are fully effective to improve the case study.

GEOLOGY OF STUDY AREA

According to the classification of Iran tectonics in aspects of structural –sedimentary by
different researchers, the studying region is placed in northern side of Zagros chain–mountains
and in structural zone of the high port Zagros. Structural situation of Gukan design is placed
mainly on eastern north side of anticline of Fardan, Korbosh-Lakhask Mountains. The water
transferring tunnel rout in the side of ghar and khobeh valleys which are along each other with
western north – eastern south trend mean along with the original structural Zagros are situated. A
part of the mentioned tunnel passing from massive to thick layer limestone to Jahrom formation
ْ
that has a relative soft slope (about 30◌).the Jahrom formation limestone’s are ductile and also
have the karst ability. The joint systems that influence these rocks have had a great role in
accuracy of karst phenomenon. The limestone mass in Jahrom formation includes tunnel rout in 2
sections having 6 main joints set (5 joints set and one being) with random joints which dip and
dip direction of main joints shown in table 1 and their stereographical pictures indicated in
Figures 1 and 2.

Table 1: dips and dips direction of main discontinuity of Jahrom formation rocks
ID DISCONTINUITY DIP DIP DIRECTION
1 Js1(bedding) 22 053
2 Js2 75 197
3 Js3 78 157
4 Js4 74 293
5 Js5 60 246
6 Js6 83 053

Figure 1: stereographical picture of main discontinuity of Jahrom formation rocks

- 1702 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1703

Figure 2: Rose diagram of main discontinuity of Jahrom formation rocks

As observed in rose diagram the line of the most essential discontinuity in parallel with tunnel
trend and also the main structure of the area and trusts of the area with trend of N22W, N37W, 5
and 6 joints are visible. The main stress is vertical on the direction of this discontinuity means
that it is in the direction of NE-SW. the set of joints having NE-SW direction (joints of 2 , 3) is
shearing discontinuity that are placed 30 – 45 degrees with the main stress. With a brief look at
the said matters above, we can find out the compression system dominant on area tectonic and
pay special attention to the situation of rock mass of tunnel rout because excavation and strength.

Stability analysis and supporting system design in Gukan

tunnel in empirical method
In the following it is presented how to use the rock classification methods in supporting
system design.

Rock mass classification

Geotechnical studies on Jahrom formation in the site include joint investigations and
exploration excavation with sampling and determining the physical and mechanical parameters of
the samples. Limestone mass of Jahrom formation has joints with average opening of 29mm,
rough surface, the spacing of discontinuities about 6-200cm and the length of them 1m to 15m
with silt and clay filling and with water content of humid to moist. Due to situated in an active
tectonic area and having numerous fractures the area doesn’t have a good rock quality designation
and the rock mass section 1 has 0<RQD<54 and the rock mass section 2 has 0<RQD<45. The
researches on the effective parameters in the rock mass classification shown that except the factor
of rock quality designation (RQD), the left parameters have small changes in 2 both sections.
Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 had shown parameters and related amounts of RMR and Q classifications to
compare with both sections.

- 1703 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1704

Table 2: RMR classification of Jahrom formation rock mass (section 1)

rate amount parameter
7 74 – 93 MPa UCS
3 - 13 <25 – 54 RQD
5 - 15 6 – 200 cm Joint spacing
rough surface with 1-5
9 - 14 Joint conditions
mm filling, few weathered
7 - 10 dump to moist Water content
-5 fair dip and dip direction effect
RMR = 26 - 54
40

Table 3: Q classification of Jahrom formation rock mass (section 1)

rating amount parameter
20 - 55 %20 – %55 RQD
15 6set joints with random joints Jn
1 - 1 /5 Rough to smooth, planar Jr
no alteration in Joint wall only few stain of iron
1 Ja
oxide can be seen
0/66 Water with medium pressure Jw
Stiff rock, high stress, depth of digging is more
1-2 SRF
than 50m
Q = 0/44 – 3/36
2/035

Table 4: RMR classification of Jahrom formation rock mass (section 2)

rating amount parameters
7 - 12 90 - 170 MPa UCS
3-8 <25 – 45 RQD
5 - 15 6 - 200 cm Joint spacing
Joint surface is rough
9 - 14 thickness of filling 1-5 Joint conditions
mm, slightly weathering
4-7 Wet to water drop Water content
-5 fair dip and dip direction effect
RMR = 23 - 51
37

Table 5: Q classification of Jahrom formation rock mass (section 2)

rating amount parameters
20 - 45 20 - 45 RQD
15 6set joints with random joints Jn
1 - 1 /5 Rough to smooth, planar Jr

- 1704 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1705

no alteration in Joint wall only few stain of iron oxide can

1 Ja
be seen
0/66 Water with medium pressure Jw
1 - 2 /5 Shear zone in stiff rock, high pressure SRF
Q = 0/35 – 2/97
1/66
Due to problems resulted from parameter determination SRF, the number of rock mass (N)
indicates the rock mass quality regardless of the stress reduction factor, were suggested by Kaisar
and et al. (1986) an Goel and et al. (1995). They presented the following equation instead of
Barton equation:
RQD J r
(N = × × Jw)
Jn Ja (1)

RMR, Q and N estimated for Jahrom formation rock mass are shown in table 6.

Table 6: The rock mass classification of Jahrom formation in tunnel rout

N Q RMR
0/88– 3/63 0/44 – 3/63 26 – 54
Section 1
2/255 2/035 40
0/88 – 2/97 0/35 – 2/97 23 – 51
Section 2
1/925 1/66 37

Some researchers with emphasis on the amount of overburden which whether other have
ignored on their classification or indirectly they consider its effect and those classified rocks base
squeezing index such as Singh et al. criteria and Goel et al. criteria. Based on the offered criteria
by Singh et al. the Jahrom formation rock mass condition for excavation a tunnel with 4m span
for minimum, maximum and average amount of overburden has been predicted as follow:

Figure 3: Singh et al. criteria (1992) for predicting ground structure

for section 1 tunneling

- 1705 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1706

Figure 4: Singh et al. criteria (1992) for predicting ground structure

for section 2 tunneling

Table 7: Ground structure prediction for tunneling based on Singh et al. criteria
Ground condition Overburden(m) Q
No squeezed to
280
squeezed
Section1
squeezed to no 0/44 – 3/63
450
squeezed
squeezed 620
No squeezed to
320
squeezed
squeezed to no 0/53 – 7/92 Section2
525
squeezed
squeezed 730

Based on offered criteria of Goel et al. for the Jahrom formation rock mass condition for
excavation a tunnel with 4m span for minimum, maximum and average amount of overburden
has been predicted as follow:

- 1706 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1707

Figure 5: Goel et al. criteria (1995) for predict ground structure for section 1
tunneling

Figure 6: Goel et al. criteria (1995) for predict ground structure for section 2 tunneling

- 1707 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1708

Table 8: ground structure prediction for tunneling based on Goel et al. criteria
Ground condition H .B 0.1 N
Non squeezing to low 322 Section1
low squeezing to medium 517 0/88 – 3/63
medium squeezing to high 712
Slightly squeezing to non 368
Slightly squeezing to
603 0/88 – 2/97 Section2
medium
medium squeezing to high 839

The Retaining prediction and supporting system design

with using of RMR classification
To determine the supporting system for this section Bieniawski method has been used.
Important to say that the offered supporting system by Bieniawski presented for a tunnel 10 m
span which excavation via blasting method and in practice, it is so conservative. So the final
RMR should be adjusted, it’s better to do the higher level supporting system should be used. So
for Jahrom formation 1 and 2 section that based on RMR is placed in weak class, the suggested
supporting systems are;

The suggested supporting system for sections 1 and 2:

Step opening, advance rate of head1.5-3m onward the floor, and support installing after any
blasting. Distance of complete support from face of tunnel is 10m. Regular rock bolt net in roof
and wall of tunnel with 4m length and 1.5 to 2m spacing should be performed. Also it is
necessary to perform shotcrete with wire net, Thickness of shotcrete in roof between 50 to
100mm and 30mm in walls.

The Retaining prediction and supporting system design

with using of Q classification
On the introduced diagram by Grimstad and Barton (1993) shown in figure 7 and based on Q
classification of Jahrom formation limestone in both sections of supporting system, the below one
suggests:

The offered supporting system for section 1

For minimum Q which is equal to 0.44, supporting system with ordered net of rockbolt with
1.5 to 2 m length and 3m spacing with 50mm no reinforcement shotcrete For maximum Q equal
3.63, the mentioned tunnel needs no supporting system.

The offered supporting system for section2

For minimum Q equal 0.35, a supporting system with ordered net of rockbolt with 1.5 -2 m length
and2.5-3 m spacing with 50-90 mm reinforcement shotcrete concerned.
For maximum Q equal 2.97, the tunnel doesn’t need any supporting system.

- 1708 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1709

The Retaining prediction and supporting system design

with using of Goel and Singh method
According to the presented table by Goel et al. and based on the prediction condition, opening
method and supporting system for Jahrom formation rock mass are as follow:

Figure 7: supporting system prediction based on tunneling quality index

(Grimstad and Barton (1993)

Estimation of geomechanical parameters of Jahrom

formation rock mass
To recognize strength and deformation characteristics of rock mass of surrounding the
underground space play a great role in analyze of supporting system. To achieve the aims we’re
able to use the methods, then to estimate geomechanical parameters of rock mass an after that to
mix the information with the gained data of site investigation structure stability to be analyzed
afterward an appropriate supporting system will be assessed.

- 1709 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1710

Table 9: The Retaining prediction and supporting system design with using of Goel
criteria for Jahrom formation rock mass
Ground
cautions Supporting system Opening method
condition
After few days delay, during stand shotcrete support and Complete face
up time, first shotcrete layer has to prestress rock bolt with opening and No squeezing
be performed enough capacity controlled blasting
Support installation has to be
performed after any blasting.
Regular grouted anchor
Circular shape is the best opening. Step opening and Slightly
net and reinforced
Lateral pressure is expectable. Front blasting squeezing
shotcrete
step has not to be high which make
delay in support completion.
After any blasting, support has to be Regular flexible grouted
performed. Circular shape is the best anchor net and reinforced
Step opening and Medium
opening. Lateral pressure is shotcrete and performance
blasting squeezing
expectable. Instrumentation is rock bolt at bottom of
necessary. tunnel

Estimation of geomechanical parameters of Jahrom

formation rock mass based on RMR
Hoek & Brown presented the below equations to estimate unconfined compression and
tensile strength of rock mass:

 RMR − 100 
δ cm = δ ci × exp
 18.75  (2)

 RMR − 100 
δ tm = δ ti × exp  (3)
 27
δ ci = unconfined compression of intact rock
δ ti = tensile strength of intact rock
For determine deformation modulus of rock mass can use of Serafim & Pereira (1983) equation;

( ) = 10( )/ RMR < 50

The results of geomechanical parameters of Jahrom formation limestone based on RMR are
shown in table 10 and 11.

- 1710 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1711

Table 10: geomechanical parameters of Jahrom formation limestone

(section 1) based on RMR
amount parameter
84 MPa unconfined compression of intact rock
8MPa tensile strength of intact rock
3/42 MPa Compressive strength of rock mass
0/86 MPa tensile strength of rock mass
6/5 GPa Elastic modulus of rock mass

Table 11: geomechanical parameters of Jahrom formation limestone

(section 2) based on RMR
amount parameter
MPa unconfined compression of intact rock
9/6 MPa tensile strength of intact rock
6/22 MPa Compressive strength of rock mass
1/16 MPa tensile strength of rock mass
6/7 GPa Elastic modulus of rock mass

CONCLUSION
As it is seen, by getting help of numerical methods this gained geomechanical parameters
from main input data, that’s possible to assess and analyze the stability of underground opening.
With a short look at table 11, being lower geomechanical parameters in section1 comparing
section2 are feasible. So the higher volume of discontinuity an also being higher of maximum
induced stress and displacement surrounded section 1 compared with section 2 seem rational.
With changing overburden, the kind of offered supporting system by Goel changes as well.
And it counts as a preference on either classifications, but Goel introduced supporting system not
in details which is one of its weak points.
The Bieniawski introduce supporting system has presented for a 10m span tunnel with
blasting opening is very conservative.
As it is shown in this research; it’s offered that a balanced, applied supporting system is
chosen. It seems according to conditions and cautions of Bieniawski classification, improving the
level of rock mass classification to the higher level, makes the conditions closer to the reality. As
it is observed, the supporting system of Bieniawski classification even after Barton and
Grimstad’s supporting system looks move conservative.

REFERENCES
1. Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989) Engineering rock mass classification, Wiley, New York,
251p.
2. Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L. And Paithankar, A. G. (1995b) An Empirical Approach for
Predicting Ground Condition for Tunnelling and its Practical Benefits, Proc. 35th
U.S.Sym. Rock Mech., Univ. Of Nevada, Reno, USA, pp. 431-35.

- 1711 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1712

3. Grimstad, E. And Barton, N. (1993) Updating of the Q-system for NMT, Int
Symposium on Sprayed Concrete- Modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for
underground support, Fagernes, (Editors Kompen, Opsahll and Berg. Norwegian
concrete Association, Olso).
4. Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C.T. and Corkum, B. (2002) Hoek-Brown failure
criterion- 2002 edition. Proc. North American Rock Mechanics Society meeting in
Toronto, July 2002.
5. Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980) Unerground Excavaions In rock. London: Instu
Min. Metall.
6. Serafim, J.L., Pereira, J.P. (1983) Consideration of the geomechanical classification
of Bieniawski. Proc. Int. Symp. On Engineering Geology and Underground
Construction, Lisbon, 1 (II), pp.33-44.
7. Singh, Bhawani, Jethwa, J. L.and Dube, A. K. (1995) A Classificatin Systemfor
Support Pressure in tunnels and Caverns, Jr. Rock Mech. & Tunnelling Technology,
India, Vol. 1, No., 1, Junuary, pp.13-24.

© 2012 ejge

- 1712 -

View publication stats