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

net/publication/348804022

Approaches for Assessment and Analysis of Squeezing Phenomenon in

Underground Structure

Conference Paper · October 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 572

2 authors:

Ashwani Jain Seshagiri K. Rao

NHPC Limited Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
12 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 293 PUBLICATIONS 3,269 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashwani Jain on 27 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Approaches for Assessment and Analysis of
Squeezing Phenomenon in Underground Structure

Jain, Ashwani
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi
Rao, K. S.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi

Abstract

The Himalaya has undergone various tectonic activities which resulted in variant geology in the region.
In the Himalayan region, due to the high degree of schistocity, fracturing and shearing, weak rocks
such as mudstone, shale, slate, phyllite, schist, highly schistose gneiss and the rock mass of the tec-
tonic fault zones are not capable to withstand the high stresses resulting in the development of plastic
zone around the tunnel which causes excessive deformations. Mountainous topography causes high
overburden stress in tunnels in the Himalayan region, thus a combination of incompetent rock with high
rock stress multiplies the squeezing problem, and hence analysis of squeezing phenomenon to find the
correct deformation values is a challenge for the successful tunneling. The problem is believed to be due
to overstress of rock mass that means rock mass strength is less than induced tangential stress around the
tunnel periphery. Considering squeezing cases around the world, it was observed that the main factors
that control the squeezing phenomenon are rock mass parameters, rock stresses, shape and size of tunnel,
orientation of tunnel and saturated rock mass condition. Therefore, quality of squeezing analysis largely
depends upon the correct estimation of these input parameters. Assessment of squeezing phenomenon,
evaluation of stability of the tunnel and support pressure estimation is very necessary before construc-
tion of any underground structure. The paper highlights various approaches for assessment and analysis
of squeezing phenomenon in underground structures and their applications during the construction of
underground structures.

1. Introduction:

The tunnel under high overburden or tectonic pressure when undergo excavation, the
squeezing occurs where tangential stress (σθ) exceeds the mobilized UCS of rock mass.
A support system after installation restrains the tunnel closure and gets loaded by the
support pressure. The tunnel closure may be both instantaneous and time dependent. It
is the time-dependent displacement which dominates in fragile rock masses under high
overburden, particularly when a broken zone is formed around an opening. Therefore
the support system attempts to curb this time-dependent tunnel closure and in turn at-
tracts higher loads (Jethwa et al., 1980, Dube and Singh 1986).

Terzaghi (1946) advocates that the squeezing takes place at lower overburden depth in
weaker rocks whereas at higher overburden depth in jointed stronger rocks. Thus real
problems are:
(i) Anticipation of squeezing condition and assessment of the degree of squeezing
(ii) Estimation of the short-term and long-term support pressures as well as
allowable tunnel closures and
(iii) Strategy of supporting severe squeezing grounds.

584
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

2. Factors Influencing Squeezing Phenomenon:

Squeezing ground conditions are influenced by many factors which contribute in dif-
ferent degrees. On the basis of analysis and case studies, many authors have identified
and recognized those factors in different ways (Aydan et al., 1993; Kovari 2000 etc.).
These factors are:

2.1 Internal Factors

1. Vertical and horizontal stress condition

2. Mechanical property such as strength and deformability of the rock mass
3. Rock type
4. Water pressure and porosity of rock mass

2.2 External Factors

1. Orientation of the geological structures or choice of position of UG opening

2. Construction procedures and support systems
3. Rock Structure determined by foliation/schistosity or faults

3. Approaches for Assessment and Analysis of Squeezing Phenomenon:

Considering numerous parameters (Table 1), many approaches (Fig.1) for assessment
and support design for squeezing ground condition by researchers have been proposed.

Figure 2 Approaches for assessment of squeezing and support design

585
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Table 1
Parameters considered by various approaches for squeezing phenomenon
Approaches Empirical Semi-empirical Analytical

2000 (tunnel Strain)

Index 1993 ((Ua/a)/
Competency Factor

2013 (Height to Q)
(stress to Strength)

1995 and Jimenez

Hoek and Marinos

Bhasin 1994, Tan-
Singh 1992, Goel

Aydan et al. 1993

Aydan Squeezing

Kovari (1998)
critical strain)
gential Stress
Convergence confine-
Parameters
ment method

LDP GRC SCC

Unit weight Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Height Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compressive
Strength of rock Yes Yes Yes Yes
mass
Q System Yes Yes Yes Yes
Radial displace-
Yes Yes Yes Yes
ment
Distance behind
and ahead of Yes
face
Support Pres-
Yes Yes
sure
Support Dis-
Yes
placement
Radius/Width of
Yes Yes Yes
tunnel
Compressive
Strength of Yes Yes Yes Yes
Intact Rock
Modulus of
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Elasticity
Poisson’s Ratio Yes Yes
RMR Yes Yes
Joint Factor Yes Yes
Horizontal insi-
Yes
tu stress
Tangential
Yes
Stress in tunnel
Tangential
Yes
Strain in tunnel
Axial Stress in
Yes
Lab
Axial Strain in
Yes
Lab
Elastic Strain Yes
Mi values Yes
GSI Yes

586
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Radius of the
Yes Yes Yes
Plastic Zone
Shear Modulus Yes
Dialation angle Yes
Cohesion Yes
Friction angle Yes Yes
Volumetirc
Yes
strain

These approaches have been documented with the help of case histories predicting de-
formation and support requirements for squeezing rock conditions and can be grouped
in the following categories.
1. Empirical approaches
2. Semi analytical approaches
3. Analytical approaches
4. Numerical Modelling approaches

3.1 Empirical Approaches:

Based on case histories comparisons and experience empirical approaches had

further been classified into following groups:-
•• Strength-stress ratio approach
•• Strain approach
•• Rock mass classification approach

3.1.1 Strength-Stress Ratio Approach:

Jethwa (1980), Aydan et al. (1993) and Hoek and Marinos (2000) used competency fac-
tor (Fc), i.e. the ratio of unconfined compressive strength of rock mass and overburden
stress, for determining squeezing condition

For squeezing condition

3.1.2 Strain Estimation Approach:

Tangential strain of tunnel is used as a parameter for defining squeezing conditions. It

is define as the ratio of tunnel closure to tunnel diameter in percentage. For squeezing
condition the tangential strain should be more than 1% given by Aydan et al. (1993),
Hoek and Marinos (2000). A threshold value of 1% was suggested which was supple-
mented by Aydan et al., 1993 and 1996 by proposing squeezing index

SI = Observed or expected strain/critical strain or

ua = tunnel closure in m, a = diameter of tunnel in m and εcr = critical strain

The critical strain can be obtained as correlation between intact rock properties and
modulus of deformation and Q values by Singh et al. (1997) and Barton (2002) correla-

587
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

tion respectively
and

3.1.3 Rock Mass Classification Approach:

The classification approach has further been classified in the following approaches:

a. Singh et al. (1992) approach

Singh et al. (1992) collecting data on rock mass quality Q and overburden depth from
41 tunnel section (17 from case histories in Barton et al. (1974) and 24 tunnel section
data were obtained from tunnels in Himalayan region) has given an equation to differ-
entiate squeezing condition from non-squeezing condition

For squeezing condition, H > 350 Q1/3 in m

For non squeezing condition, H < 350 Q1/3 in m

b. Goel et al.(1995) approach

Goel et al. (1995) developed an empirical approach based (data collected from 99 tun-
nel sections out of which 39 data were taken from Barton’s case histories and 60 from
projects in India) on the rock mass number N, defined as Q with SRF = 1. N was used to
avoid the problems and uncertainties in obtaining the correct rating of parameter SRF.

Considering the overburden depth H, the tunnel span or diameter B, and the rock mass
number N the equation for squeezing and non-squeezing was determined.

For squeezing condition, H > (275 N 0.33) B −0.1

For non squeezing condition, H < (275 N 0.33)B −0.1

c. RMR and Q-system

The RMR classification developed by Bieniawski, 1989 does not provide information
on squeezing condition but on the basis of RMR the support required can be determined
whereas Barton et al., (1974) Q-system updated by Grimstad and Barton in 1993 has
been used by Singh et al. and Goel for predicting squeezing condition in tunnel.

3.2 Semi-Analytical Approaches:

For estimation of the deformation and support pressure required in the squeezing tunnel
few semi-analytical approaches have been proposed. Broadly classified as follows:

3.2.1 Aydan et al. (1993) approach

Aydan et al., (1993) proposed a method based on the analogy between the axial stress-
strain response of rocks in laboratory tests and tangential stress-strain response of sur-
rounding tunnels. It consider σ1 = σθ and σ3 = σr = Pi

588
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Five distinct level of staining were determined and the following relations were estab-
lished between normalized strain levels , , and the strength of intact rock σci
in MPa. (Fig. 2) These were obtained from the ratio of normalised strain levels, ,
, to elastic strain limit

Aydan et al. calculated the values of tangential strain at different conditions using the
following relations

(a) (b)

Figure 2 Plots of normalised strain levels for squeezing rocks and five distinct levels of
staining, Aydan et al. (1993)
where
po = Hydrostatic pressure, pi = Support pressure, Rpb = Radius of residual plastic re-
gion, Rpp = Radius of perfect plastic region f = Ratio of radial to axial strain
Degree of squeezing is determined as shown in Table 2

Table 2
Classification of the degree of squeezing, Aydan et al. (1993)
Class Squeezing Theoretical expres-
Symbol Comments on tunnel behavior
No. degree sion
No- The rock behaves elastically and the tunnel will
1 NS
squeezing be stable as the face effect ceases
The rock exhibits a strain-hardening behavior.
Light-
2 LS Tunnel will be stable and the displacement will
squeezing
converge as the face effect ceases
The rock exhibits a strain-softening behavior,
Fair-
3 FS and the displacement will be large. However, it
squeezing
will converge as the face effect ceases

589
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

The rock exhibits a strain-softening behavior

Heavy- at much higher rate. Subsequently the dis-
4 HS
squeezing placement will be larger and it will not tend to
converge as the face effect ceases
The rock flows which will result in the collapse
Very
of the medium and the displacement will be
5 heavy- VHS
large and it will be necessary to re-excavate the
squeezing
opening and install heavy support

where is peak tangential strain and is elastic strain

This method requires laboratory test to determine compressive strength of intact rock,
Poisson’s ratio for perfectly plastic and residual condition and friction angle for intact
and failed rock mass

3.2.2 The Kovari (1998) Approach:

Kovari (1998) considered a circular opening and assumed isotropic, homogenous and
elasto-plastic material behaviour. He gave the following equation for the displacement
at the boundary of the excavated opening, for a given displacement at the boundary
of the plastic zone Ua = Up (ρ/a)

As we know that a failure state prevails in plastic zone and material will experience a
volumetric strain hence to quantify the amount the volumetric expansion k was taken
into account. The value of k lies between 1 and (1+sinϕ)/ (1-sinϕ) and is evaluated in
reference to ρ/a ratio. Considering the volume change the relation using the parameter
k can be represented by
Ua = Up or or

The stresses and are calculated using following equations and the ground response
curve can be represent mathematically by the following equation

and

where
ρ = radius of plastic zone , a = radius of tunnel, Up = given displacement
k = volumetric expansion, ,
C = cohesion, ϕ = friction angle, E = modulus of elasticity

3.2.3 Hoek and Marinos (2000) Approach:

Hoek and Marinos (2000) have considered a simple closed-form solution for a circular
tunnel with hydrostatic stress field and the support is assumed to act uniformly on the
entire perimeter of the tunnel.

Hoek and Marinos showed that the assessment of tunnelling problems under squeezing

590
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

conditions can be done effectively by drawing a plot of tunnel strain (ε) against the ratio
σcm/po (Fig.3). This curve can be generated using the following equation

The value of support pressure (Pi) will be zero for an unsupported condition in the
equation given above. The value of ‘Pi’ should be increased until the strain reaches an
acceptable range. The rock mass compressive strength (σcm) is estimated by

The size of the plastic zone can be estimated by

(a) (b)
Figure 3 Classification of squeezing behaviour, and Plot of tunnel convergence against
the ratio of rock mass strength to in situ stress in case of unsupported tunnel (Hoek
and Marinos, 2000).

σci = Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock elements

mi = A constant that is defined by the frictional characteristics of the component
materials in these rock elements
GSI = A constant that relates the properties of the intact rock elements to those of
the overall rock mass
σcm = Uniaxial compressive strength of Rock mass, pi = Internal support pressure
po = In situ stress = depth * unit weight, δi = Tunnel sidewall deformation
do = Original tunnel diameter in metres, dp = Plastic zone diameter in meters.

3.3 Analytical Approaches:

The development of the concept of interaction of load-deformation characteristics of

rock mass and support system, results in the convergence confinement method (CCM)
often used in design of support based on idealized uniform stress field and circular
opening.

591
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

3.3.1 Convergence Confinement Method (CCM):

The application of analytical techniques requires a detailed knowledge of rock mass

behavior to obtain realistic results. Most of the tunnels are design on the basis of empir-
ical methods, but some also rely on semi-analytical, analytical techniques and 2D or 3D
numerical models. The CCM is a 2D simplified approach for resolving 3D rock-support
interaction problems associated with the installation of support near a tunnel face in
underground excavations in rock.

Fenner carried out the first major attempt to use elasto-plastic stress analysis for deter-
mining tunnel support pressure by using the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. He demon-
strated, through numerical examples, that the extent of plastic zone required to ensure
tunnel stability without supports was several times larger than the tunnel radius and
concluded that it was desirable to install flexible supports rather than remove large vol-
ume of crushed zone. The short-term support pressure pi determined by Fenner

pi = short term support pressure , P = overburden pressure, α = 2 sin ϕ/(1-sinϕ),

ϕ = friction angle, ,c = cohesion, a = tunnel radius, b = radius of broken zone

The radial displacement may continue after the broken zone has established, as the
failed rock mass have low friction and cohesion and required support for tunnel stabil-
ity.

After (Fenner, 1938) CCM was further developed with time by other researchers, Hoek
and Brown, 1980, Brown et al., 1983, Brady and Brown, 1993, Peila and Oreste, 1995,
Hoek et al., 1995). Kitagawa et al. (1991) applied CCM in squeezing tunnel of Nou
road in Japan and presented agreement between calculated and measured values of the
extent of the plastic zone and final converged displacement, but in twenties it was com-
prehensively reviewed by Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (2000).

There are three basic components of the convergence-confinement method:

The Longitudinal Deformation Profile (LDP) is a diagram, which demonstrates the ra-
dial displacement of the tunnel sections behind and ahead of the tunnel face, and along
the axis of the tunnel.

The Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) is a diagram, which demonstrates the changes in
ground radial displacement with respect to ground/support pressure. This diagram can
be constructed from the elasto-plastic solutions of a circular opening subjected to
uniform far-field stresses.

The Support Characteristic Curve (SCC) is a diagram which demonstrates the rela-
tionship between ground pressure Ps and support displacement Ur for a section in the
direction of the tunnel (Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst 2000), (Fig. 4).

592
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

The CCM is a procedure that enables one to assess the load imposed on a support in-
stalled behind the face of a tunnel. After excavation of face the support so provided
does not carry the full load as the face itself carries a significant portion of load. Once
the face advances the load is redistributed around the excavation. This is known as
“face effect” (Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst, 2000). Once the face is advanced far
away, the support system will be subjected to the full design load.

Basically CCM is used as follows:

• CCM using Hoek-Brown failure criteria
 Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst approach (2000)
• CCM using Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria
 Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst approach (2003)
 Duncan-Fama approach (1993)
• Simplified analytical solution using Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria

Figure 4 Schematic representations of LDP, GRC and SCC,

Carranza- Torres and Fairhurst (2000).

593
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

3.3.2 CCM using Hoek-Brown Failure Criteria by Carranza-Torres and

Fairhurst Approach (2000):

Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (2000) presented a solution based on the ‘general’ form
of the Hoek-Brown criterion. The rock mass is assumed to satisfy the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion defined by

(1)

The variables characterizing the strength of the rock mass are the unconfined compres-
sive strength of intact rock σci, and the rock mass parameters mb and s. Value of the
parameter a is assumed to be 0.5.

The uniform internal pressure pi and far-field stress σo can be scaled, to give the scaled
internal pressure Pi and far-field stress So, respectively,

(2) and (3)

The scaled critical (internal) pressure for which the elastic limit is achieved is given
by the following expression
(4)

The actual (i.e. non-scaled) critical pressure is

(5)

Provided , the relationship between the radial displacements ( and internal

pressure( in the elastic part of the GRC (i.e. segment OE in figure 4 is given by
equation

(6)
For values of internal pressure the extent of the plastic region Rpl that develops
around the tunnel is

(7)
To define the plastic part of the GRC (EM part in the figure), a flow rule for the material
is needed. The flow rule will be characterized by a dilation coefficient Kψ, that is com-
puted from the dilation angle, ψ, according to the expression Kψ = (1+sin ψ) / (1-sin ψ).
Note, for example, that for ψ = 0o, the dilation coefficient is Kψ=1 and for ψ = 30o, the
dilation coefficient is Kψ=3. With the flow rule characterized by the dilation coefficient
Kψ, the plastic part of the GRC- i.e., the segment EM in the figure 4 is given by

(8)

594
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

Hoek and Brown (1997) suggest that for the case of non-dilating rock-masses, charac-
terized by the coefficient Kψ = 1, Equation becomes

(9)

3.3.3 CCM using Mohr-Coulomb Criteria:

A fundamental problem in rock mechanics is that of determining the extent of the plas-
tic zone and radial convergence for a circular tunnel excavated in a Mohr-Coulomb
perfectly plastic material subject to uniform far-field stresses. Closed-form analytical
solutions for radial convergence around the tunnel have been presented by researchers
such as Duncan Fama (1993) and Carranza Torres (2003).

Consider a long circular tunnel of radius a that is subject to far-field stresses σo and
internal pressure pi is excavated in a perfectly-plastic Mohr-Coulomb material (plain
strain conditions are considered) as shown in figure 5.

According to Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the relationship between major and mi-
nor principal stresses, σ1 and σ3 respectively, is given by the following relationship

and

Figure 5 Circular tunnel in a Mohr-Coulomb elasto-plastic material subject to a)

Uniform far-field stresses and internal pressure. b) Mohr-coulomb failure envelope in
terms of principal stresses, Carranza-Torres (2003)

According to analytical solution given by Duncun-Fama (1993), assuming that the rock
mass fails with zero plastic volume change, the critical stress level at which failure
initiates is given by

595
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

(10)

If the support pressure the extent of the plastic region and the inward

deformation of the tunnel wall are given by

(11)

(12)

Carranza-Torres (2003) also presented solution using a scaling rule for Mohr-coulomb
elasto-plastic behaviour discussed by Anagnostou and Kovari (1993). Anagnostou
and Kovari showed that the cohesion c (or alternatively the unconfined compression
strength σci) can be hidden in the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion if the principal stress-
es and are transformed as follows:

With the principal stresses transformed the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is written
as
(15)
Transformed variables So, Pi and that are computed from the variables
respectively, are given by

The transformed critical internal pressure , below which the plastic zone develops,
depends on the value of transformed far-field stress and the parameter as follows

(16)

If the internal pressure , the extent of the plastic region is given by

(17)

And the radial convergence at the tunnel wall is given by

(18)

Constant C is

596
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

If the given value of transformed internal pressure , then the wall convergence
is given by Lame’s classical solution (Jaeger and Cook, 1979)

(19)

3.3.4 Support Characteristic Curve (SCC):

The support characteristic curve (SCC) shown in figure 4 can be constructed from the
elastic relationship between the applied stress ps and the resulting closure for a section
of the support of unit length in the direction of the tunnel. If the elastic stiffness of the
support is denoted by Ks, the elastic part of the SCC – i.e., segment KR in figure 4, can
be computed from the expression,
(20)

The plastic part of the SCC in the figure 4 – i.e., the horizontal segment starting at point
R, is defined by the maximum pressure , and that the support can be accept before
collapse.

In underground construction works during squeezing conditions commonly following

different support systems are used:

 Shotcrete or concrete lining

 Blocked steel sets
 Steel sets embedded in shotcrete
 Ungrouted bolts and cables

To compute the maximum pressure and the elastic stiffness Ks for above men-
tioned support systems, equations can been adapted from Hoek and Brown (1980) and
Brady and Brown (1985).

a) Shotcrete or concrete rings

The maximum support pressure and elastic stiffness provided by shotcrete or concrete rings

and (21)

b) Blocked steel set

Considering steel sets spaced a unit length apart in the direction of the tunnel axis and
tightened against the rock by wood blocks that are equally spaced circumferentially, the
maximum pressure that the system can sustain is

(22)

597
Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

c) Steel sets embedded in shotcrete

and (23)

d) Ungrouted bolts and cables

Assuming that the mechanically anchored bolts installed in the rock- mass surrounding
a circular tunnel of radius R are equally spaced in the circumferential direction than the
maximum support pressure and elastic stiffness provided by this support system is

and (24)

The maximum support pressure and stiffness computed using above equations can be
utilized in analytical and numerical method to determine the support system required to
withhold squeezing.

3.4 Numerical Modelling Approach:

Numerical modelling approaches play a significant role to understand the behavior of

rock mass through sophisticated software’s and high speed computers. This method can
be used to model large scale projects as well as for the physical model studies con-
ducted on jointed rock mass in the laboratory. For the field application such numerical
methods, the geometry of the structure established first, and, then the estimated rock
mass parameters are applied to it. These parameters may then be adjusted so that the
output from the numerical method agrees with the observed behavior of the structure as
construction proceeds. Numerical modelling means discretization of the rock mass into
a large numbers of individual elements and simulate them for analysis.

Many numerical methods have been used for rock mass modelling which utilize contin-
uous and /or discontinuous approach (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Methods of numerical modeling]

The program code is used for a wide range of geotechnical engineering projects in-
cluding complex tunneling problems in weak rock, stress analysis, tunnel design, slope
stability, support design and groundwater seepage analysis etc.

598
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

4. Conclusions:

Various approaches have been proposed by researchers to define squeezing phenome-

non but each one have some limitation. Some approaches defines only prediction and
other provide information about prediction and required support to be installed

•• Strength-stress ratio provides preliminary information of potential squeezing

and does not provide any information on support requirement.
•• RMR does provide any information to assess the squeezing condition but
can be used for support, whereas Q can be used for assessment of squeezing
phenomenon and prescribe support accordingly hence Q system can be used in
preliminary stage for support estimation.
•• Singh et al. and Goel et al. approaches considered rock mass classification along
with depth of overburden and width of tunnel which are available in preliminary
stages hence this approach seems to be suitable empirical tool for prediction
•• Since strain estimation is not simple hence strain approach cannot be used for
preliminary prediction.
•• Semi-analytical and analytical approaches have numerous unknown parameters
and require laboratory rock test, hence these approaches cannot be used for
preliminary prediction of squeezing.

Hence few empirical approaches can be used in the early stages of the project as less
technical data is available during that stage, but once the test results and rock mass
classification values are available empirical, semi-analytical, analytical and numerical
approaches can be applied for correct assessment and estimation of squeezing.

After availability of deformation values and results of rock test the correct assessment
for squeezing and support system required can be done using analytical and numerical
approaches.

References:

1. Aydan O., Akagi T. and Kawamoto T., 1993. The squeezing potential of rocks
around tunnels; theory and prediction, Rock Mech. Rock Engineering, 26(2), pp
137-163.
2. Aydan O., Akagi T. and Kawamoto T., 1996. The squeezing potential of rock
around tunnels: theory and prediction with examples taken from Japan. Rock
Mech. Rock Engineering, 29(3), pp 125-143.
3. Barton N., Lien R. and Lunde J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses
for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, Pages 189-236
4. Basarir H., Genis M. and Ozarslan A., 2010. The analysis of radial displacements
occurring near the face of a circular opening in weak rock mass. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 47, Pages 771–783
5. Bhasin Rajinder, Barton Nick, Grimstad E., Chryssanthakis Panayotis,
December 1995. Engineering geological characterization of low strength
anisotropic rocks in the Himalayan region for assessment of tunnel support.
Engineering Geology, Vol. 40, Issues 3–4, Pages 169-193

599
 Special Publication, J of EG October 2015

6. Bieniawski, Z. T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classifications. John Wiley and

Sons, New York.
7. Brady B.H.G., Brown E.T., 1993. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining,
Third ed.
8. Brown E.T., Bray J.W., Landayi B. and Hoek E., 1983. Ground response curves
for rock tunnels. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol. 109, Issue 1, Pages 15-39
9. Carranza-Torres, C. and Fairhurst, C., 2000. Application of the convergence-
confinement method of tunnel design to rock masses that satisfy the Hoek-
Brown failure criteria. Tunnelling and underground space Technology,15(2),
Pages 187-213
10. Carranza-Torres, C., 2003. Dimensionless graphical representation of the exact
elasto- plastic solution of a circular tunnel in a Mohr-Coulomb material subject
to uniform far- field stresses. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 36(3),
Pages 237-253.
11. Duncan Fama, M. E., 1993. Numerical modelling of yield zones in weak rocks.
In: Hudson, J. A. (ed.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, Vol. 2, Pages 49-75.
12. Dwivedi R.D., Singh M., Viladkar M.N., and Goel R.K., 2013. Prediction of
tunnel deformation in squeezing grounds. Engineering Geology, Vol. 161, pages
55-64
13. Dwivedi R.D., Singh M., Viladkar M.N., Goel R.K. 2014, Estimation of support
pressure during tunnelling through squeezing grounds. Engineering Geology,
Vol. 168, Pages 9-22
14. Goodman R. E., 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. 2nd edition, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
15. Hoek E. and Brown E. T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. London:
The Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
16. Hoek E. and Marinos P., 2000. Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak
heterogeneous rock masses. Tunnels and Tunnelling International part one-
November, 2000, Pages 45-51; part two – December, 2000, Pages 33-36.
17. Jethwa J.L., Singh B., Singh Bhawani, Mithal R.S., November 1980. Influence
of geology on tunnelling conditions and deformational behaviour of supports in
faulted zones — A case history of the Chhibro-Khodri tunnel in India.
Engineering Geology, Vol. 16, Issues 3–4, Pages 291-319
18. Kovari K., 1998. Tunnelling in Squeezing Rock, Tunnel 5/98, Pages 12-31
19. Panthi K.K. and Nilsen B., January 2007. Uncertainty analysis of tunnel
squeezing for two tunnel cases from Nepal Himalaya. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 44, Issue 1, Pages 67-76.
20. Rao K.S., 2009. Ground response and support measures for Pir Panjal tunnel in
the Himalayas. IGC, Guntur, India
21. Singh B., Jethwa J. L., Dube A. K. and Singh M., 1992. Correlation between
observed support pressure and rock mass quality. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, Vol. 7, Pages 59-74.
22. Singh B. and Goel R.K., 1999. Rock mass classification- a practical approach in
civil engineering, Elsevier.
23. Singh M., Singh Bhawani, Choudhari Jaysing, May 2007. Critical strain and
squeezing of rock mass in tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, Vol. 22, Issue 3, Pages 343-350.

600

View publication stats