RESEARCH

Correlation between Observed Support

Pressure and Rock Mass Quality
Bhawani Singh, J. L. Jethwa, A. K. Dube and B. Singh

Abstract The correlation between rock muss quality and support
pressure proposed by Barton eta]. (1974) has proven useful, except
in cases of squeezing ground conditions. Field data collected
systematically from 20 tunnel sections indicate a clear need for
correction factors to account for height of overburden and tunnel
closure, which do not seem to be adequately accounted for by the
stress reduction factor. As expected, the support pressure decreases
rapidly with tunnel closure and then increases beyond a limiting
closure. The fact that the observed wall support pressures were
always close to zero except in squeezing ground conditions has been
taken care of by slightly modifying wall factors for Q-wall. A
criterion derived from the field data shows that squeezing ground
conditions would be encountered where the height of the overburden
is greater than 350 Qm. The data reported herein confirm the
earlier findings of Barton et al. (1974) that the support pressure is
independent of the tunnel size.
P ~ s u m A - L a correspondanceentre/aqual/~ de/a masse rocheuseet/a
pression de soutienpropos~par Barton et at (1974)s"est r ~ utile, sauf
dans les cas de terrain entas~. Lee d o n n ~ sur le terrain r~ueillies
s y ~ dans 20 sections de tunnel diff~rentesiadiquent que les
facteurs correctifs doivent tenir compte de la hauteur du surchargement
et de la ferme~re da tunne& lesqueUessemblont pas ~tre suffiswnment
prises en comptepar les facteurs de r~duction de t~nsion. Commepr#vu,
lapreseion de soutien diminue rapidement avec la fermeture du tunneler
puis augmente au-del~ de la fermeture d~limitante. Le fair que les
pressions de soutien de paroi obeero~es~talent constamment proches de
z~ro sauf dans les cond~ns de terrain e n t a ~ a ~ corrig~grdce a une
l~gare m o d ~ des facteurs de la paroi Q (Q-wall). Des c~.res
d,~riv&des donn~essur le terrain indiquent que les conditions de termin
entas~ seraientpr&entes aux endroits of~la hauteur de la surcharge est
sup~rieure a 350 Q. I~s d o n n ~ p u b l i ~ ici confirment les d&ouvertes
p~,c~dentes de Barton et at (1974)selon lesquelles la pression de soutien
est indc~ndante des dimensions du tunnel.

Introduction tion oftlmnel closures, which, in turn, Deep-seated radial displacement

T herellability of a realistic quan-
titative classification system for
estimatingt~nnel support pres-
sure has increasedwith the passage of
time. Ever since its development, the
Q-system of Barton et al. (1974) has
attracted interest oft~mnel engineers,
field geologists and researchers. In
spite of being overly comprehensive
and complicated, this classification
method has now found acceptance.
Jethwa et al. (1982) measured the
support pressure by load cells and con-
tact pressure cells in several steel-rib-
supported t~mnel sections through both
squeezing and elastic ground condi-
tions and compared the measured val-
ues with those estlmsted after Q-sys-
tem. The study brought to light signifi-
cant limitations of Barton's methods
for application to tunnel sections un-
der squeezing ground conditions. For
example, the support pressure is a func-
Present address: Bhawani Singh, Professor,
Dept. of Civil Enffineering, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667, India; J. L.
Jethwa, Asst. Director, C M R S Unit, Q/8,
Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur 440 022, India;
A. I~ Dube, Asst. Director, C M R S Unit,
CBRI, Roorkee - 247 667, India; B. Singh,
Director, Central Minlu~Research Station,
Dhanbad - 826 001, India.
depend on the support stiffness. Fur-
thermore, a t~mnel at a greater depth
is likely to attract higher support pres-
sure. The t~nnel closure and therefore
the support pressure continues to build
up for a considerable time due to creep
of the failed rock mass. Empirical
correlations developed in a effort to
eliminate the above limitations of the
Q-system are discussed herein. Be-
cause the proposed empirical correla-
tions are based on only 24 tunnel sec-
tions, there is scope for refinement.
Recording of Field Data
The following field data w e r e
collected:
a) Radius of tunnel excavation.
b) Depth of tunnel section from
ground level.
c) Unit weight of ground overlying
the tunnel section.
d) Q of the rock mass around the
tunnel section.
e) RMR of the rock mass around the
t~mnel section.
i9 Hoop load in steel ribs by com-
pression load cells.
g) Radial support pressure by con-
tact pressure cells.
h) ~[Mnnel closure by the tape ex-
tensometers and closure meters.
of the rock mass around the tun-
nel opening by single- and mnlti-
point borehole extensometers.
Q and RMR
It is general practice to divide a
tunnel into several rock mass units on
the basis of the variation in the geo-
mining conditions. Each rock mass is
then assigned a Q value, depending on
the values of the size parameters RQD,
Jn, Jr, Ja, Jw, and SRF. It has been
experienced t h a t a single value of some
of these six parameters is sometimes
influenced by personal bias. There-
fore, a range of values is assigned to
these six parameters and a range of Q
is obtained.
The range and average values of Q
obtained fromtnnnel sections are given
in Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix.
The rock mass ratings RMR (after
Bieniawski 1981) were also obtained.
The correlation of RMR and Q provided
the necessary confidence (Jethwa et al.
1981). Whenever Q value was doubt-
ful, the doubt was reflected in a wider
range of Q and the absence of a close
correlation with RMR.
Support Pressure
Compression load ceils of 50-100
tonne capacity and contact pressure

TunneUingand UndergroundSI~ceTechnology,Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 59-74, 1 9 9 2 . 0886-7798/92 $5.00 + .00

Printed in Great Britain. ~) 1992 Pergamon Press plc 59
cells of 5-15 kg/cm2capacity were used
to measure support pressure on steel
ribs. The load cells were inserted into
rib joints, a vertical joint at the tlmnel
crown and two horizontal joints at the
spring level. No load cell was installed
at the bottom.
The vertical support pressure was
obtained as a ratio of the arithmatic
sum of the loads recorded by the two
load cells installed at the spring level
to the product of the excavation width
and the rib spacing. Since no load cell
was installed at the bottom, the hori-
zontal support pressure was taken as a
ratio of the load recorded by the crown
load cell to the product of half the
excavation height and the rib spacing.
The coutactpressm~cellswereinstalled
at the interface of the steel ribs and the
bael.-Rll The load cells and the contact
pressure cellswere installedcloseto the
bmnel face. All ofthese instruments were
protected against directhit during blast~
ing. The blast vibrations did not affect
these ~ o u t s .
Tunnel Closure
Diametral deformations of the tunnel
sections were m e a s u r e d by t a p e
extensometers, closure meters, and
sometimes even by simple invar tapes.
The change in tlmnel diameter was
halved to obtain the radial tunnel
closures.
Type of Rock Masses
The instrumented tunnel sections
covered both hard rock masses such as
quartzites,metabasics, and dolomites;
and c o m m o n l y occurring soft rock
masses such as shales, clays, slates,
and phyllites.
Criterion for Squeezing Ground
Condition
Incompetent or soft rock masses
characterized by low in-situ crushing
strength undergo plastic failure when
overstressed. Such a rock mass around
a t - n n e l opening fails when the tan-
gential stress exceeds its uniaxJal
crushing strength. The failure of the
rock mass is associated with volumet-
ric expansion, which is manifested in
the form ofradialinward displacement
of the t - n n e l periphery called t - n n e l
wall. These deformations are called
tunnel closures. The t - n n e l closures
can be very large (measured closures
have been as large as 17% of the size of
the t-nnel opening). This phenom-
enon is called "squeezing" of the rock
mass. The squeeze can occur not only
from the roof and the sides, but also
from the floor.
~ m n e l closures resulting from the
elastic relaxation of a t - n n e l opening,
on the other hand, are smaller than 1%
of the tlmnel size (see measured values
in Tables A1 and A2, Appendix).
60 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Theoretical Criterion
Theoretically,squeezing conditions
around a t-nnel opening would be en-
countered if
~6 > q~
where ~o is the tangential stress and Cl¢
is the uniaxial crushing strength of the
rock mass.
In the case of a circular tunnel un-
der hydrostatic stress field, Eq. 1 can
be written as
2P > q¢
in which P is the primary stress value.
It follows that a tunnel section expe-
riencing elastic conditions in a given
soft rock mass can encounter squeez-
ing conditions if the prlm~ry stress
level increases due to increase in the
tlmnel depth or any other reason. This
explains why phyllites and shales
squeeze at one place and present elas-
tic conditions at another, as shown in
Tables A1 and A2 (in the Appendix).
Equations I and 2 can thus be used to
predict squeezing conditions in a tun-
nel, provided that P and q~ are known.
Empirical Criterion
Measurement ofp~rnary stress field
and the in-situ crushing strength of
rock masses across a tvnnel for pre-
dicting squeezing conditions is both
expensive and time-cons-mlng. There-
fore, an attempt was made to seek a
simple criterion for predicting squeez-
ing conditions. An empirical criterion
was developed (as shown in Fig. 1) that
gives a log-log plot between the tunnel
depth H in metres and the logarithmic
mean of the reck mass quality Q. Some
of the case histories of Barton et al.
(1974) have also been used in Figure 1.
o -- MANERI BHALI PROJECT
b -- SALtd. PROJECT
2000
c -TEHRI DAM PROJECT
d -- SANJAY VIDYUT PARIYOJNA
• - KOLAR GOLD MINES
f - CHHIBRO - KHOORI T UNNEL
g -- GIRl HYDEL TUNNEL
h - LOKTAK HYDEL TUNNEL
I00C i -- KHARA HYDEL PROJECT
-139-BARTON'S CASE HISTORIES
E
*,
Q: 5 0 0
x
xh
xf
159
2 O0
Xh
100
•001 "01
Figure1. Criteria for predicting squeezing ground condition.
A clear line of demarcation between
the elastic and the squeezing condi-
tions can be seen. The equation forthis
line has been obtained as
H = 350 Q,3 (3)
(1)
Thus, a rock mess m a y undergo
squeezing w h e n the depth of the tun-
nel section exceeds 350 Qm.
Comparison of Measured and
Predicted Roof Support
(2)
Pressure
Barton's correlation, given in Eq. 4
below, was used to obtain predicted
values of short-term roof support pres-
sure p~. As discussed above, measured
roof support pressure values were ob-
tained from instrumented t-nnel sec-
tions. Out of a total of 19 case histories
listed in Tables A1 and A2, 16 cases
have been included in this analysis.
These 16 case histories involve 8 tun-
nel sections under non-squeezing and
8 under squeezing ground conditions.
The measured roof support pressures
have been compared with the predicted
values shown in Figure 2. The com-
parison has not been shown for the
wall support pressure because the num-
ber of measurements is small.
For predictedroofsupport pressures,
the classification methods of Terzaghi
(1946), Deere et al. (1969), Proto-
dyakouov(1963), Wickhamet al. (1974),
Barton et al. (1975), and Bieniawski's
RMR method (supplemented by Unal
1983) have been used. It can be seen
that the predictions are unreliable in
all cases except one. In the case of
Barton's Q-system, the predictions are
reliable for non-squeezing conditions.
The predictions turned out to be un-
safe for squeezing ground. ForexAmple,
,®
• NON-SOUEEZING CONDITION
x SQUEEZING CONDITION
@ R O C K BURST
SQUEEZING
d
x 9 x¢ / "
Xg ®x ~ x^
142 g ~ / 141 v e4a~
- xo/~o ' -- NON- SQUEEZING
/
xf ~ et04 el05
c : y -c eq
xg /~s?9 ~ ec ;~
/ ei @101 OB
/
• b
0.1 1 t0 100
Q
Volume 7, N u m b e r 1, 1992
 e~E
16 "

12
TERZAGHI~ I R ~
12

8
WICKHA~ 1. ~ m n e l depth or thickness of the
overburden.
2. ~ m n e l closure.
3. Time.
4. %mnel size.
If other factors are unchanged, the
t - n n e l closures depend on the support
stiffness. It is difficult to estimate the
support stiffness in the present case,
- 8 since the stiffness of backfill has to be
taken into consideration while esti-
cL 4
x xx mating the overall stiffness of a steel-
• x
rib support system. Therefore, bmnel
closure has been used to replace the
stiffness of a support system (Table 3).
O
0 4 8 1'2 1'6 0 4 8 12
Influence of Overburden on Roof
Probsd kg /crn2 prObSd , ko /crn2
SupportPressure
Barton et al. (1975) suggested the
12 following correlations for support
DEERE pressures:
16
i~= 2Q~/J,

%12- 8
l~w = 2 Q i ~ / J r
in w h i c h
8-
Pi~ = short-term roof support
4
% pressure,
4 x
• x Pi~ = short-term wall support
pressure,
/a_ x x J = Barton's joint roughness
, u , - " * . ~x x
0¥ , Or coefficient,
0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12
short-term roof rock mass
pObSd kg /cm 2 Probsd ko/crn2 quality,
short-term wall rock mass
x SQUEEZING , • NON- SQUEEZING quality.

12' 12 The values of Q~ and Q~, have been

S A R T O ~ taken as 5 times Qr and Q,, where Q,
and Q , are Barton's rock mass quality
for roof and wall rock, respectively (val-
NE ues of Q, and Q~ should be obtained
u 8- e~E 8
separately for the roof and the wall
rock, respectively).
The short-term roof and wall sup-
x x port pressures were estimated from

./
~ I x x
4-
Eqs. 4 and 5. These values were used
to calculate correction factor f for
• ]o( x xx overburden or tunnel depth. The cor-
rection factor f is defined as a ratio of
i i i i measured support pressure to the pre-
4 S 12 0 4 S 12
dicted support pressure. A relation-
~2" , "~¢m a pob,d , kglcm2 ship of f to t - n n e l depth is shown in
Figure 3. Because the elasto-plastic
x SQUEEZING, • NON- SQUEEZING
theory suggests a linear relationship
between the overburden pressure and
Figure2. Comparison of predicted and observed roof support pressures. the support pressure, a linear relation-
ship has been attempted in Figure 3.
According to Figure 3, the correc-
tlon factor f can be given by
the measured support pressures were seen from Table 1 that in the cases of
10.8 and 11.5 kg/cm2when compared to sections 1 and 2, the difference in sup- f = 1 + ( H - 320)/800 > 1 (6)
predicted values of 4.2 and 4.4 kg/cm2 port pressure could be the result of
for t~,n n el sections 2 and 4, respectively. depth, t-nnel closure, t-nnel radius, in w h i c h H is t h e t h i c k n e s s of
Such large differences in the measured and time ofobservatious. Similarly, in overburden or t, mnel depth in metres.
and p r e d i c t e d s u p p o r t p r e s s u r e s t~mnel sections 3 and 4, the difference The data points for squeezing ground
prompted the authors to look for pos- would be related to tlmnel radius and appear to suggest that the line in Fig-
sible reasons. tlmnel closures. It follows that the ure 3 should be much steeper to repre-
Some of the data in Table A2 that are following four factors might have influ- sent a natural trend. In reality, the
related to these four t-nnel sections enced the measured support pressure: difference between observed support
have been shown in Table 1. It can be

Volume 7, Number 1, 1992 TUNNm~n~e ANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY 61

Table I. Details of tunnel sections under squeezing ground conditions (from Table A2).

Support Pressure
(kg/sq. cm)
Tunnel Radial
Tunnel Depth tunnel Observation
T y p e of Rock Radius (m) closure Period
S. No. Mass Q (m) Predicted Measured (%) (months)

1 Crushed red 0.025 to

1.5 280 3.3 3.1 2.8
shales 0.10

2 -do- -do- 4.5 680 4.2 10.8 1..2

Soft and
plastic black 0.016 to
clays within
1.5 280 4.4 3.2 4.5 26
0.03
thrust zone

4 -do- -do - 4.5 -do- 4.4 11.2 1.7 26

pressures and proposed line is mainly wall support pressure, as shown in The observed wall support pressures
the result of excessive tunnel closures, Table 2. The ratio of the wall support from some ofthe squeezing and the non-
which have been taken into account by pressure p, to the roof support pres- squeezing case histories have been plot-
another factor, f', for squeezing ground sure p,, corresponding to Q i , ' , have ted in Figure 4. It can be seen that the
condition. also been shown in col,,mn 3 of~able 2. recommendations ofBarton et al. (1975)
Some m a y doubt that the correla-
tion proposed in Eq. 4 can account for
the method of construction, the type of
supports, the primitive stresses and
x2
tunnel closures. The instrumented 2.5-
tunnels were constructed by conven-
tional means, i.e.,drillingand blasting • NON-SQUEEZING
followed by steel ribs. This practice x SQUEEZING
resulted in significant damage to the
rock mass. Therefore, equation 4 is on
the safe side. In the case of machine
t, mnelling, designers should reduce the 2.0-
support pressures obtained from Eq. 4
by perhaps 20%, as there will be re-
duced damage to the rock mass.
Another valid concern is that the
field data are not sufficient to prove the 3
validity of the proposed correlations. • 11 •
In the opinion of the authors, the Inter- 1.5--
national'l~,nnellingAssociation should 09 012
compile a data bank for observed sup- 511 5x
p o r t pressures from all parts of the x7 x~,
world and should try to improve these
correlations. ob~ .... f
61 J Pr - Pi( '
I.O - ~ f = 1+ (H-320}/SOO
Ratio of Wall Support Pressure xl ~!
• I0
to Roof Support Pressure
0.8 , , l X6 l I
Barton et al. (1975) realized that 0 200 400 600 8uO
the wall support pressure would be OVERBURDEN ( H }~m
smaller than the roof support pressure
and therefore suggested increasing the Figure 3. Correction factor for overburden in Barton's correlation for short-
observed Q values for estimating the term roof support pressure under non.squeezing ground conditions.

62 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY Volume 7, Number 1, 1992

Table2. Wall factor Q~.. .:/ Q~for estimating wall support pressure.

Recommendation of Barton et al. 1975 Authors' Recommendation

Range of Qi Qi-w~u I~ Range of Oi Oj.wat]

1 2 3 4 5 6

<0.1 1.0 1.0 <0.1 1.0 1.0

0.1-10 2.5 0.7 0.1~ 2.5 0.7

>10 5 0.6 >5 >15 0.0-0.4

are overly safe for ~. values greater
than 5. The modified wall factors have
therefore been recommended as shown
in Figure 4 and Table 2.
Correlation Between Support
Pressure and Tunnel Closure in
Squeezing G r o u n d C o n d i t i o n
Variation of the normalized roof
support pressure with the tunnel clo-
sure at the crown is shown in Figure 5.
The ordinate represents f;,which isthe
correction factor for tunnel closure at
the crown. The correction factor f/is
given as
port pressures are higher for low tun-
f:= 1~°b~d nel roof closures. The roof support
(7)
f- pi~ pressures decrease when the t~mnel
closures increase and attain minimum
in which values when the roof closures are ap-
p ~ d = measured roof support pro~qmAtely 5%. The normAHTed roof
pressure, support pressures again rise when the
p~ = predicted short-term roof t~mnel roof closures exceed 5%. Such a
support pressure, and variation is in conformity with the
f = correction factor for ground reaction curve concept.
This trend is repeated in Figure 6,
overburden (Eq. 6).
which shows the variation of the nor-
The data points in Figure 5 are mRllzed wall-support pressure with the
taken from Table A2 and represent measured t~mnel-wall closures. The
eight tunnel sections from four differ- correction factor f~ for t, mnel-wall clo-
ent tunnels. The normalized reef sup- sure is given as

Z m
x SQUEEZING GROUND CONDITION
• NON-SQUEEZING GROUND CONDITION
ACCORDING TO BARTON ET AL ( 1 9 7 5 )
--- SUGGESTED BY AUTHORS

Q i - w o l l : Qi
x x7

i x3 Qi--wall = 2 . 5 Qi
i
I
1I
1 Qi-wall " .5 Qi

XI
I
k
X2

, ,,I , , ,,I l i I 1 I e~L,4., I ,_z~'-~ ,

0-001 0"01 0"t | t0 t00
Qi
Figure 4. Variation of ratio between wall support pressure and roof support pressure with short-term rock mass quality.

Volume 7, Number 1, 1992 TuNN~.r.~ ANDUND~.R~ROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOaY 63

 4
obsd
obsd PW

fPw
f" Pr
pObSd :
MEASURED WALL SUPPORT PRESSURE
w
pObSd : MEASURED ROOF SUPPORT PRESSURE
Pw = PREDICTED WALL SUPPURT PRESSURE
Pr = PRE~CTED ROOF SUPPORT PRESSURE
X4 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR TUNNEL~WALL
f = CORRECTION FACTOR FOR OVERBURDEN CLOSURE
3 tr : CORRECTIOI( FACTOR FOR TUNNEL CLOSURE
CORRECTION FACTOR FOR OVERBURDEN
AT TIlE CROWN

== X4 o.
.=
x7
t~

$
/ o
.=, //
N
=
m
//X B

N
"3
5X6~ / X7

Y~
DATA POINTS PLOTTEO FROM
TABLE ].b
r

I J 0 t ]
0 5 t0 15 0 5 10 t5
OBSEBV.O TU..EL CLOSURE AT CBOWN ~.,.~ OBSE.VEO TU..E~ WALL CLOSU~(~

Figure 5. Correction factor for roof closure under Figure 6. Correction factor for wall closure under
squeezing ground condition (H > 350 Q^ I / 3). squeezing ground condition (H > 350 Q^1/3).

Variation of Support Pressure

f~ _I ~ port pressure, it has been possible to
(8) with Time
l~w study the effect of time on the support
After studying the influence of the pressure. Figure 7 shows the variation
overburden and the tunnel closures of the correction factors t~'over time.
where and incorporating these influences in The correction factors f" for time are
p~= measured wall support the correlations between Q and sup- given as
pressure
f = correction factor for over-
burden, and Table 3. Correction factors for tunnel closures in squeezing ground conditions.
Piw = predicted short-term wall
support pressure. Tunnel
Thus, the correction factors f'r and fw' Support Closure
are the same as the normalized roof S. No. Ground Condition System (%) fworf;
and wall support pressure, respectively.
The recommended values of these cor- Non-squeezing
rection factors are given in Table 3. 1. <1 1,0
(H < 350 Ola)
The validity of Table 3 for squeezing
ground has been questioned, particu-
larly with regard to highly squeezing or Squeezing > 1.80
2. Very stiff 1-2
flowing ground. It is suggested that the (H > 350 ~1/3)
application of Table 3 should be re-
stricted to moderately squeezing ground
by limiting closure to 5%, by strength- 3. Moderately squeezing Stiff 2-4 0.85
ening the support system immediately.
Serious construction problems may arise
if this remedial measure is not followed.
4. -do- Flexible 4-6 0.70
It is recommended that all such tlmnel
sections be instrumented.
Jethwa (1984) concluded that the
wall support pressure may be signifi- Very 6-8 1,15
5. Highly squeezing
cantly higher than the roof support flexible
pressure in the case of parallel tunnels
if the clear spacingis less than the sum Extremely
of the tunnel widths. 6. -do- >8 1.80
flexible

64 T I Y N N E L L I N G AND U N D E R Q R O U N D S P A C E TEcI-INOLOGY Volume 7, Number 1, 1992


X ROOF S U P P O R T
• ROOF S U P P O R T
Combining Eqs. 9, 10, and 11, the
long-term roof and wall support pres-
sures can be given as
P R E S S U R E IN SQUEEZING GROUND CONDITION
p, = p~' f ' f ' " log 9.5 t °'~ (12)
PRESSURE IN NON-SQUEEZING GROUNO C O N D I T I O N

0 WALL SUPPORT PRESSURE IN S Q U E E Z I N G GROUND CONDITION P. = Pl." f ' f ' ' log 9.5 t °'~ (13)

in which p, and p,, are long-term roof

I and wall support pressures.
.1
Barton et al. (1975) suggested that
- 0 5 . ...-.. . I "/
the ratio of the ultimate to the short-
. ....- t e r m support pressure is about (5) ~,
.... I-'-t0 4
f
i.e., 1.7. Equation 11, however, sug-
gests the following relationship:
• t "" x,
p o~ f ' log 9.5 t °'~
i.e.,
•~ 07 ~ ....."-"'''-'""~
91 _f: log 9.5t 0a~
- 4 ~ 1 C - ~ , -~ zx ~ x8 x3_ .~. "
~ i O~ ..... ,~...,. • ~
.....- po f: log 9.5 t~a~

where Pl and Po are support pressures

after t~ and t_ months of excavation.
u . , t
• !.

t 0 In case ofa r ~ d hnmg, f~= fo' so that

the ratio of the ultimate support pres-
2 sure a i ~ r 100 years to that alter one
month is given by (t o = 1 month and t~
A , , '{ , i , ,1 L , , ,
= 100 years or 1220 months)
10 100 t000

t , TIME OF OBSERVATION IN MONTHS

Figure 7. Variation in observed support pressure over time.

f~_ ~.,~,,a (9)

f" f" 1~

- (lO)

f{~w 12-
CMRS
where
f; = correction factor for the
influence of time on the roof
support pressure,
°'1E 8
f~w = correction factor for the
influence of time on the wall
support pressure,
1~b~ = measured roof support
pressure,
a - L .

I~ ~ = measured wall support Q. 4

pressure,
f = correction factor for over-
burden (Eq. 6), and
f' = correction factor for tlm~el
closures (Table 3).
All the data points from Tables A1 0 T" I | 1
and A2, except those for the wall sup- 0 4 8 12
port pressures in the non-squeezing
ground conditions (being negligible),
have been plotted in Figure 7. pobsd , kg/crn 2
According to Figure 7, the correc-
tion factor f " can be given by
x SQUEEZING ~ • NON- SQUEEZING
f" = log 9.5 t °'~ (11)
in which t is the time in months after Figure 8. Comparison of observed roof support pressure with predicted values
excavation of the t - n n e l opening. from authors" Eq. 12 (p, ffi p~. f . f . log 9.5 t^0.25).

Volume 7, Number 1, 1992 TUNN~.LWOANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY 65


pz _ log 9"5t°'as - 1.75
po log 9.5 t~25
In other words, the support pres-
sure will increase in 100 years to 1.75
times the support pressure observed
after 1 month of excavation. The cor-
rected support pressures compare well
with the observed values, as shown in
Figure 8.
This ratio of 1.7 between the ulti-
mate and the short-term support pres-
sure tallies with the (5) ~ suggested by
Barton et al. (1975). However, the
ultimate support pressure for t-nnels
under squeezing reck conditions may
be 2-3 times the short-term support
pressure, according to Jethwa (1984).
The ratio of the ultimate support
pressure to the short-term support pres-
sure, worked out here as 1.7, is rela-
tively small compared to the ratio of 2 -
3 after Jethwa (1984), probably be-
cause the period of observations re-
ported herein is relatively short and
the number of squeezing case histories
is small. Furthermore, in special cases
of soluble or erodible joint fillings and
where seepage is a serious problem,
the long-term support pressure may be
as high as the cover pressure or 6 times
the short-term support pressures,
whichever is smaller. This trend has
been indicated from a 10-year perfor-
mance study of Chhibro-Khodri under -
ground powerhouse complex in India
(Mitra 1991).
For designing a temporary support
system, one m a y assume a unlforin
distributionof the short-term support
pressure, but a factorof safety of 1.75.
However, the permanent support sys-
tem should be designed for the net
ul~mAte support pressures, with a fac-
tor of safety of 1.5.
Effect of Excavation Size on
Support Pressure
According to Terzaghi (1946) and
Unal (1983), the support pressure is
directly proportional to the size of a
tunnel opening. O n the other hand,
Barton et al. (1974), suggest that the
support pressure is independent of the
t - n n e l size.
Colnmns 3 of Tables A1 and A2 (see
Appendix) list support pressures ob-
tained from Terzaghi's method for non-
squeezing as well as squeezing ground
conditions. It may be noted that the
estimated support pressure values
(shown in col-ran 3) do not compare
well with the observed support pres-
sures (in co]-mnR 12 and 13). The
support pressures corrected according
to the proposed correlations (eol, mns
10 and 11) are in better agreement
with the observed support pressures.
Figure 9 shows the variation of
pO~/p/f, f. f, with the diameter of
66 ~ G ANDU~DZRGROUNDSFACZTzcm~oLoGY
tunnel opening (2a). The ordinate rep-
resents the observed roof support pres-
sure corrected for overburden, the tun-
nel closure and the time of excavation.
It may be seen that the corrected sup-
port pressure is independent of the
tunnel size.
The reason for support loading in
non-squeezing conditions may be re-
lated to the dead weight of the loosened
rock blocks which become detached
from the parent rock mass at the tun-
nel roof and rest on the support sys-
tem. This type of support pressure is
called the "loosening pressure".
The loosening pressure has been
attributed to poor blasting practice,
gravity and delayed support in the form
of steel ribs. Excessive tunnel closures
under squeezing ground conditions are
also considered responsible for mobi-
hzing large loosening pressures, even
in t u n n e l sections s u p p o r t e d by
shotcrete immediately on excavation.
The loosening pressure (dead weight of
the loosened or a destressed zone) is
therefore mobilized due to poor blast-
ing practice and is likely to be indepen-
dent of the tunnel size.
In a recent study at the underground
powerhouse complex of Lakhwar dam
project in India (Q = 8-9 and H= 250
m), the observed roof support pres-
sures were nearly the same (i.e., about
0.5 kg/cm2) for the 6-m-wide approach
adit, 14-m-wide expansion surge tank
and 21-m-wide powerhouse cavern, all
excavated through tightlyjointed traps.
These observations should erase all
doubts about size effect in underground
openings.
It may be noted that rock mRss qual-
ity Q estimated from a larger bmnel
would be smaller than that obtained
from small driRsin a similar rock mass.
This isdue to the possibilityofintersect-
ing greater n u m b e r of geological
2-
~,_
*-
w-=
.~_ 61 7
t x
~ 1 ~X
"~
"O h-
o i
O 4
DIAMETER OF OPENING jm
Figure 9. Support pressure virtually independent of tunnel size.
discontinuities in a larger opening.
Thus, the size effect is automatically
accounted for in the est;m.te of Q. The
adverse effects of deteriorating hydro-
geological conditions ( J ) should also be
determined, if possible, after a water
tlmnel is commlssioned. Itwould there-
fore be unsafe to obtain Q from small
drifts and use it to estimate support
requirements for large excavations.
For underground excavations in
non-dialatant rock masses (schists,
slate, etc.) with smooth planes of weak-
ness, it is cautioned that Terzaghi's
concept may still be v a h d
Conclusions
The combined approach of field in-
strumentation and quantitative clas-
sification of Barton et al. has proved
rewarding at this stage of development
of rock mechanics. Despite limited
field data, some practical trends show-
ing the influence of overburden, tnnnel
closures and time of excavation on the
t , nnelling condition and the support
pressures have emerged. It would per-
haps be hasty to draw any definite
conclusions from these trends; how-
ever, some tentative correlations have
been possible. These correlations are
subject to refinement as more field
data is collected. The following tenta-
tive conclusions are possible from these
correlations:
1. Squeezing is likely to occur in a
t~mnel section where the height of
overburden in metres exceeds 350 Q1/8.
2. The s h o r t - t e r m roof support
pressure is given by the following
correlations:
1~ =2.0 (5Q) ~3. f. f
Jr
in which f is the correction factor for
thickness of overburden (H) in metres,
x SQUEEZING
• ' NON- SQUEEZING
,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . -,-
• ~ ~2
Q'7
! ! I i
8 12 16 20
Volume 7, Number 1, 1992
and f ' is t h e correction factor for t ~ n n e l
closure (see Table 3, equal to 1 in non-
squeezing ground conditions). The value
of t h e correction factor f i s given as
f = 1+(H-320)/800 > 1
3. I n squeezing g r o u n d conditions,
t h e s u p p o r t p r e s s u r e is significantly
influenced by t u n n e l closures. The
correction factor f' for t u n n e l closure
v a r i e s from 0.7 to 1.8 in t h e case of a
single t u n n e l . The m i n i m u m s u p p o r t
p r e s s u r e occurs w h e n t h e t u n n e l clo-
s u r e is about 5% of t h e t u n n e l diam-
eter. The s u p p o r t p r e s s u r e i n c r e a s e s
r a p i d l y beyond t h i s limiting closure.
4. The short-term wall support pres-
sure m a y be o b t a i n e d from t h e above
correlation b y s u b s t i t u t i n g Q~n for Q.
I n general, t h e a c t u a l wall s u p p o r t
p r e s s u r e for t h e non-squeezing rock
conditions is likely to be negligible.
The s h o r t - t e r m v a l u e s o f P i / p ~ d e p e n d
on Qi (i.e., 5Q), as given below:
Ptw/P. Qt
1.0 5Q < 0.1
1.0 - 0 . 0 5 < 5 Q < 0.1
0.0 5Q > 5
5. The u l t i m a t e s u p p o r t p r e s s u r e
m a y be 1.75 t i m e s t h e s h o r t - t e r m sup-
p o r t p r e s s u r e for t l m n e l sections u n d e r
non-squeezing g r o u n d conditions, ex-
cept for cases of soluble a n d erodible
j o i n t fillings w i t h seepage.
6. The s u p p o r t p r e s s u r e is indepon-
d e n t of t h e t u n n e l size, provided t h a t Q
is o b t a i n e d from a full-sized opening.
[]
References
Barton, N.; Lien, R.; and Lunde, J. 1974.
Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel
Volume 7, N u m b e r 1, 1992
Support, RockMechanics, Vol. 6, 189-
236. Springer-Verlag.
Barton, N.; Lien, R.; and Lunde, J. 1975.
Estimation of Support Requirements
for Underground Excavations, Proc.
Sixteenth Syrup. on Rock Mechanics,
Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
U.S.A., 163-177.
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1981. Case Studies
Prediction of Rock Masses Behavior by
the Geomechanical Classification,
Second Australia-New Zealand Con-
ference on Geomechanies, Brisbane, 36-
41.
Daemen, J. J. I~L 1975. ~ m n e l support
loading caused by rock failure. Ph.D.
Thesis, UniversityofMinnssota,U.S~.
Deere, D. U.;Peck, R. B.;Monsees, J.E.;and
Sc.hmidt,B. 1969. "Design of Tunnel
Liners and Support System." Highway
Research Record No. 339, U.S.
Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
Dube,~ I~ 1979. Goomechanicalevaluation
of a tunnel stability under FAilingrock
conditions in a Himalayan Tunnel.
Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Roorkee, India.
Dube, A. I~; Jethwa, J. L.; Singh, B.; Singh,
Bhawani; and Mithal, R. S. 1982. Geo-
engineering evaluation of problems of
a large underground cavity for Tehri
Dam Project (India). ISRMSymp. Rock
Mechanics: Caverns and Pressure
Shafts (ed. W. Wittke), 239-244.
Rotterdam: AM. Balkema.
Dube, A. I~;Singh,B.;and Singh, Bhawani.
1986. Study of squeezing pressure
phenomenon in a tnnnel--I and H.
Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 1:35-48.
Jethwa, J. L.; Dube, A. I~; Singh, B.; Singh,
Bhawani; and Viladlc,r, M. N. 1979.
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and Design for
multiple openings in f-illngrock mass.
Int. Syrup. on In-Situ Testing of Soils
and Rocks and Performance of
Underground Structures, Roorkee,
India, Dec. lg--22, 1979, Vol. 1.
Jethwa, J. L.; Dube, A~ K.; Singh, B.; and
Singh, Bhawani. 1981. Rock load
estimation for t~mnels in squeezing
TUNN~.T.n~a AND U~mE~mOUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY 6 7
ground conditions. Proc. of the Rapid
Excavation Tunneling Conference, San
Francisco, Calif., May 3-7, 1981, 766-
783. New York: AIME.
Jethwa, J. L.; Dube, A. IC; Singh, B.; Singh,
Bhawani; and Mithal, R. S. 1982.
Evaluation of classification system for
tunnels in non-squeezing ground
conditions. Proc. of lSRM Syrup. Rock
Mechanics: Caverns and Pressure
Shafts, ed. W. Wittke, 607-612.
Rotterdam: AM. Balkema.
Jethwa, J. L.; Singh, B.; and Singh, Bhawani.
1984. Estimation of ultimate rock
pressure for tnnnel linings under
squeezing rock Conditions--a new
approach. Proc. ISRM Symposium on
Design and Performance of Under-
groundExcavations, Cambridge, U.K.,
Sept. 3-4, 1984.
Mitra, S. 1991. Study of long-term behavior
of underground powerhouse cavities
in soft rocks. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Roorkee (under submission).
Protodyakonov, N . M . 1963. Firmness
coefficient for estimation of rock loads.
Personal communication to Beas
Design Org-ni~ation, New Delhi, India.
Sharma, V.M. 1985. Prediction ofclesure
and rock lo ads for tunnels in squeezing
ground,. Ph.D. Thesis (p. 254), I.I.T.,
Delhi, India.
Terzaghi, K. 1946. Rock defects and load on
t~lnnel supports. In Introduction to Rock
Tunnelling with Steel Support, I t V.
Proctor and T. C. White (Youngstava,
Ohio, U.S ~..: Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Co.).
Unal, E. 1983. Design guidelines and roof
control standards for coal mines roofs.
Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State
University. Refer to p. 113 of Rock
Mechanics in Mining and Tunnelling
(Bieniawski, Z.T., 1984, Rotterdam:
A.A. B-Ikema).
Wickham, G. E.; Tiedmann, H. R.; and
Skinner, E. H. 1974. Ground support
prediction model--RSR concept. Proc.
of North American Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conference, San
Francisco, California, Vol. 1,691-708.
 Appendix
Table A1. Comparison of predicted and observed support pressure from Q-system in non-squeezing ground conditions.

Corrected
Short-term Support Short-term Support Observed Support
Vertical
Pressure Correction Factors for: Pressure: Pressure
Support
Pressure Short-
Geolo- from term
gical Terzaghrs Rock Over- Obser-
S. descrip- Classifi- Mass bur- Tunnel Wall vation
No. tion cation Quality Vert. Horiz. den Closure Vert. Horiz. Vert. Horiz. Period Remarks

Qi
P., f f 1"' f W' p, p. p o= p.O=
= 5Q

from from from = P.~, = P..,,

from Table 4
Eq. 4 Eq. 5 Eq. 6 f . f 'r f - f ,w

kg/sq, kg/sq. kgL~l, kg/sq, kg/sq, kg/sq.

kg/sq, cm month
cm cm cm cm cm cm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Maneri-Bhati Hydro Project

1. Moderately 0.3 to 0.7 15 tO 30 0.5 to 0.1 tO 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 to 0.03 to 0.6 Steel ribs
fractured (0.5) (21) 0.7 (0.6) 0.2 (0.4) 0.7 (0.6) 0.05 stable
< quartzite. (0.04)
0 a = 2.4
y = 2.5
RQD = 75,
Q = 3.6
uh/a =
0.06, H =
225
r (Jethwa et
l.a al. 1982)

¢.D
¢,D
b~
.<
Table A1 (contd.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15

+ Maneri-Bhali I-Ivdel Proiect (contd.)

i.a
p.a 2. Foliated 0.3 to 1 7 t o 34 0.5 to 0.1 to 1.29 1.0 1.0 0.6 to 0.005 0.8 2 Steel
¢.0 metabasics. 0.7 (0.5) (24) O.7 (0.6) 0.20 0.9 (0.8) to 0.05 ribs;
¢.0
bO a = 2.4;y = 2.5g (0.15) (o) stable
RQD = 82,
Q = 3.4-6.8
uh/a = 0.05,
H = 550
(Jethwa et al.
1982)

3. Sheared 0.8 to 1.5 to 0.7 to 0.2 to 1.04 1.0 0.70 to 0.2 tO 2.0 3 Steel
matabasics. 2.6 (1.7) 16.5 (5) 1.8 1.2 (0.7) 1.9 (1.3) 0.5 ribs;
a=2,4,7 =2.5 (1.25) (0.35) stable
RQD = 60
Q = 0.3-3.3
uh/a = 0.4
H = 350
(Jethwa et al.
1982)

Salal Hydel Tunnel

4. Highly jointed 1.7 to 6 to 8.5 1.0 to 0.4 tO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 to 0.14 to 1.1 appears 1.5 Steel
dolomites. 5.5 (3.6) (7) 1.2 (1.1) 0.5 1.2 (1.1) 0.2 negli- ribs;
Q a = 6,~' = 2 . 8 (0.45) (0.17) gible stable
RQD = 30-40
Q =1.2-1.7
H=110

Khara Hydel Proiect

+
5. Grade I phyllites, (25) 0.16 to (0.13) 1.0 1.0 1.0 (0.3) (0.04) 0.25 to appears Steel
massive and 0.45 0.56 negli- ribs;
distinctly jointed (0.3) (0.40) gible stable
a = 7,Y = 2.64
RQD = 75,
RMR = 67
Q =5, H = 320
(Dube et al.
1982)
O~
~D
 =~ ~ :.--&6 A
,e- " - = " ~ -+ Lm _~
GO

[~.-' •
0
O

0 O
IN
~,,uo 0
v O

v0

m-.
o.
v

o. o O

o o O

b-
q q o.
o5

O
~ 8 m---. o

°oO~
t~ ~ V

-.:. .+ ~o
_
K"
>~. ~D E
E ~
o

.8 ~ ~- ~
•- ,, 0~
I-
o
el II e" ¢-
~ ~ . ~ mr ~,~ O E o-Z m O z : ~ o ~ 8 m'-, o
I n
E' :D
O "11"
o
m
t:
i,=
..d O
<,D v' o5

70 TUNN~,T,~G AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY V o l u m e 7, N u m b e r 1, 1992

 Table A1 (contd.).

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 15
1,181
Khara Hydro Proiect (contd.)

9. Chalnage 389 m do do do do do 1.0 (1.7) (1.1) 2.4 1.6 do

~D a = 3 , Q = 0.4
~D H = 150-200
b~
uh = 22.5 mm

Upper Krishna Project

10. Thinly bedded 75 (0.22) (o) 1.0 1.0 1.0 (0.22) (0) 0.2 appears 1.0 do
shales with negli-
calcite bands. gible
Chalnage 761 m
a = 6.5,
uv = 12 mm
Q=15, H=34

11. Chalnage 204 m do do do do do 1.0 (0.22) (o) 0.2 to appears 1.0 do

a = 6 . 5 , Q = 15 0.4 (0.3) negli-
H = 52, gible
uv = 5 mm

Lakhwar Hvdro Proiect

12. Tightly jointed -- 42 0.35 -- 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.35 0.45 to Distribution
basic reck. 0.55 of support
H = 250, pressure is
Q = 8-9 asymmetric
(i) a = 10.5
(ii) a = 7
(iii) a = 3

Notations:
a = average radius of tunnel opening in metres.
RQD = rock quality designation in percent.
Q = rock quality based on classification of Barton et al. (1974).
7 = unit weight or rock material in gm/cc.
uh/a = tunnel wall closure in per cent.
uv/a = closure at crown level in per cent.
H = height of overburden above opening in metres.
( ) = average values, except in column 4, where root mean square value is given.

++ Estimated support capacity.

t~ Table A2. Comparison of predicted and observed support pressure in squeezing ground conditions.

Corrected
Vertical S h o r t - t e r m Support Short-term Support
Support Pressure Correction Factors for: Pressure:
Pre~ure Short-
Geolo- from term
gical Terzaghl's Rock Over- Obser-
Descrip- Classifi- Mass bur- O b s e r v e d Support vation
S. NO. tion cation Quality den T u n n e l Closure Vert, Horlz. Pressure Period Remarks

roof wall

Qi P,~ p~,, f'r fW'

P~ P. P~ pw°b

from from = P~of" = P.=?

= 5Q from from from Table Table
o Eq. 4 Eq. 5 Eq. 6 4 4 f " f'r f " f*'

kg/sq, kg/sq. kg/sq, kg/sq, kg/sq, kg/sq.

kg/sq, cm month
cm cm cm cm cm cm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Chibro-Khodri Tunnel

OR!!==¢1 1.8 to 3.4 0.125 to 2.5 to 4.2 1.8 to 3.0 1.0 (0.85) 1.8 (2.8) (4.3) 3.1 1.7 Circular ribs
(2.7) 0.50 (3.3) (2.4) stable
(0.25)

< a = 1.5,
o
RQD =10-
20
Q = 0.025
-.3
-0.10
7 = 2.73
uh = 2.8
H = 280
(Jethwa et
al. 1982)
tj~
b3
 Table A2 (contd.).

1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Chibro-Khodri Tunnel (contd.)

b.a 2. Crushed red shale, 10.3 0.06 3.3 to 2.4 to 1.45 1.8 0.7 (11) (3.8) 10.8 3++ 8 Heavy circular
~D
CD highly.squeezing to to 5.0 5.0 ribs; severe
~0 a=415, =2.73 22.1 0.25 (4.2) (3.7) buckling due to
RQD = 10-20 (16.2) (0.12) squeezing. Little
Q = 0,012-0.5 closure at crown.
uh/a = 6, H = 680
(Jethwa et al. 1982)

3. Soft plastic black 1.5 to 0.08 4.0 to 3.0 to 1.0 0.70 0.7 (3.1) (2.7) 3.2 2.6 26 Circular ribs were
clays in thrust zone, 3.3 to 4.8 4.8 stable; compress-
moderately (2.4) 0.15 (4.4) (3.9) ible backfill
squeezing. (0.11) behind ribs.
a~'5, = 2.64 Enlargement of
RQD = 10 drift to 9 m size in
Q = 0.016-0.03 close proximity
uh/a = 4.1 delayed stabi-
uv/a = 4.5 lisation.
H = 280
(Jethwa et al. 1982)

4. Soft plastic black do do do do 1.0 1.8 1.8 (7.9) (7.0) 11.5 12.2 26 Circular ribs of
clays within thrust very high capacity
zone, moderately were stable.
squeezing. Consequently,
Y = 2.64, tunnel closures
Q RQD = 10 were likely to be
Q = 0.016-0.03 low, approx.
H -- 280 0-2%.
(Jethwa et al. 1982)

Giri Hydro Tunnel

~2 5. Very blocky and 0.7 to 1.5 to 1.2 to 0.8 to 1.08 1.15 1.15 (1.9) (1.2) 2.0 2.4 12 Roof closure
seamy slates, 2.3 4.1 1.8 1.3 considered equal
moderately (1.2) (2.5) (1.5) (1.0) to wall closure as
squeezing. horseshoe ribs
a = ~ . l , =2.5 with invert struts
uh/a = 7.6 deformed, but not
H = 380 as severe as in
Q - 0.32-0.82 case 6.
(Jethwa et al. 1982)
 Table A2 (contd.).

1 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15

Q Giri Hydro Tunnel (contd.)

6. Crushed phyllites, 2.1 to 0.62 to 1.8 to 1.2 to 1.0 0.7 1.8 (1.5) (2.9) 1.7 4.0 27 Peak
highly squeezing. 4.1 (3.1) 1.6 (1) 2.3 (2.1) 1.9 (1.6) measured
a = 2~1, = 2 . 3 support
RQD = 10-25 pressure of 5
q = 0.124-0.32 k0/sq, cm
uh/a = 12.4 occurred at
uv/a = 5 half total wall
H = 240 closures when
(Jethwa et al 1982) horseshoe ribs
with invert
budded.

L o k t a k Hydro Tunnel

7. Crushed shales, 2.9 to 0.055to 3.5 to 2.5 to 1.0 1.15 1.15 (5.1) (4.6) 5.4++ 5.4++ 15-cm-thick
moderately 5.4 (4.2) 0.22 5.3 (4.4) 5.3 (4.0) shotcrete with
squeezing. (0.11) 4-m-long rock
a = 2~., = 2 . 7 bolts supple-
gm/cc mented with
RQD = 10-20 circular ribs.
Q = 0.011-0.044 Squeezing
uh/a = 7 occurred even
H = 300 at H = 160 m.
(Jethwa et al 1982) Roof closure is
considered
equal to wall
closures.

Maneri Bhali Proiect

0 Highly fractured 2.64 (2.5) 1.6 1.1 1.04 1.15 1.15 (1.9) (1.3) 2.0 14 Supports
8.
quartzites. buckled.
a=23$, =2.5 Vertical and
RQD = 6O, Q = 0.5 horizontal
uh = 190 mm closures
H = 35O appeared
(Sharma 1985) equal.

See footnotes in Table A1 for notations.

~D
b3