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

net/publication/275016547

Geological rock face mapping and kinematics analysis for drill and blast
excavation

Conference Paper · September 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 11,972

6 authors, including:

Wanna Phyo Kyi Khin

Asian Institute of Technology PUB Singapore
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 178 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Noth-South Transmission Cable Tunnel Project_Contract NS2 View project

Deep Tunnel Sewerage System DTSS2 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyi Khin on 15 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geological rock face mapping and kinematics analysis for drill
and blast excavation
Wanna Phyo
SP Powergrid Ltd, Singapore

Yew Mun Cheong

SP Powergrid Ltd, Singapore

Kyi Khin
Myanmar Geoscience Society

Aung Khaing
Mott Macdonald Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore

Kyaw Thu Myint

Mott Macdonald Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the geological investigation and observations associated with
drill and blast shaft excavation and mined tunnelling for the construction of a tunnel project in Bukit
Timah Granite formation. Kinematic analysis, Stereonet and 3D Isonet analyses were performed
based on the geological rock mapping and these were enabled for the validation of the safety factors
of potential wedges above the tunnel crown and side walls during excavation. The results of the
analysis and support methods are presented in this paper and aimed to be used as an example for
deep excavation projects in the future.

1 INTRODUCTION

The 18 km long and 6m diameter wide tunnel will be constructed from the North side of Singapore to
Central Singapore. Generally, the single tunnel will be bored at about 60m below the ground level and
linked to deep shafts, the upper part of each shaft (upper shaft) will be constructed with circular
diaphragm wall (ERSS) embedded into the competent insitu rock head and lower shaft will be
constructed with sprayed concrete lining and excavated by the drill-and-blast method. Mined adit and
enlargement tunnels will be constructed to connect the circular shafts and main bored tunnels. The
project is divided into several contracts. The paper will focus on three specific projects referred to as
Projects A, B and C.

In the initial stage during the lower shaft excavation, detailed geological and geotechnical studies were
carried out to determine the engineering geological characteristics of the rock mass using the rock
mass rating (RMR), Q system and rock weathering grade (RWG) systems. Mined tunnel excavation
for drill-and-blast method was then carried out. In addition, to assess the stability of the vertical shaft
and mined tunnels, kinematic analyses were carried out based on available borehole televiewer results.

Engineering geological rock mapping was carried out at both lower rock shafts and adit/enlargement
tunnels and predicted geological model was validated stage by stage, during excavation. Based on the
measured data and information from the rock mapping during lower shaft excavation, 3D Isonet
analysis were performed and unwedge model was calibrated before breaking into the adit tunnel.

2. GEOLOGY

The geology of the site area (Figure 1) is mainly composed with the Bukit Timah Granite, which
consists of moderately to highly weathered Granite, granodiorite and diorite of Early Triassic period
(220 Ma) in age overlain by the Quaternary deposits. Most of the granitic rocks are pinkish to greenish
grey colour, and is moderately weathered to slightly weathered (GIII to GII) associated with localized
andesitic dykes and minor faults.
Petrographic analysis carried out in the initial stage soil/rock investigations described that the granitic
rocks are mainly composed of quartz, plagioclase, microcline, and hornblende as major components
and muscovite, serecite and biotite as minor components and opaque mineral as an accessory. The
overlying Quaternary deposit consisting of Kallang Formation and Old Alluvium Formation (OA) are
varies from clay to pebble size sedimentary deposits (DSTA, 2009).

3
1

Geology of the tunnel project

(1) Bukit Timah Granite: Granite
(2) Old Alluvium: dense muddy sand / gravel
(3) Kallang Formation: soft grey clay, loose brownish muddy sand, loose light grey to white sand, peaty clay.

Figure 1. Geology of Project Area (modified from DSTA, 2009)

2.1 Engineering geology

Field observation, discontinuity surveying, core drilling and laboratory tests were undertaken,
including quantitative description of discontinuities (orientation, spacing, persistence, roughness,
filling and aperture.) following with ISRM, (1981) methods. Quantitative descriptions and statistical
distribution of discontinuities of granitic rocks along the project tunnel alignment are given in Table 1.

Discontinuity analysis was carried out from the core sample. The orientations of discontinuities were
measured by using the borehole televiewer results. Discontinuity orientations were processed using
Rick Allmendinger’s stereonet application. The distinguished dominant discontinuity sets for each
shaft are given in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure.4.

Table 1. Quantitative descriptions and statistical distribution of discontinuities

Sr Range Description Distribution (%)
1 Spacing(mm) Project A Project B Project C
<20 Extremely close 0.94 0 0
20-60 Very close 1.41 55 20
60-200 Close 7.07 35 80
200-600 Moderate 45.75 10 0
>600 Wide Spacing 44.84 0
2 Persistence(m)
<3 Low 4 5 5
3-10 Medium 90 90 90
10-20 High 6 5 5
>20 Very High 0 0 0
3 Aperture(mm)
<0.1 Very Tight 72.5 0 0
0.1-0.25 Tight 24.5 10 20
0.25-0.5 Partly open 3 40 60
0.5-2.5 Open 0 30 20
2.5-10 Moderately open 0 20 0
4 Roughness
Rough 17 13 11
Stepped Smooth 5 0
Slickenside 1 2 2
Rough 25 80 81
Undulating Smooth 13 2 2
Slickenside 7 3 0
Rough 24 0 0
Planar Smooth 8 0 4
Slickenside 0 0 0

Table 2. Summary of the distinguished dominant discontinuity sets

Sr Location
Project A Project B Project C
1 Shaft 1 34°/N94E Shaft 1 59°/ S208W Shaft 1 63°/ N303W
73°/N43E 77°/S160E 20°/ N55E
54°/S170E 55°/N52E 46°/ N345W
72°/N90E
2 Shaft 2 15°/N95E Shaft 2 46°/S194W Shaft 2 33°/ S171E
39°/N33E 69°/N108E 45°/ N272W
62°/S188W 9°/N350W 82°/ N5E
70°/S269W 0°/ N90E 60°/ N43E
3 Shaft 3 69°/N297W Shaft 3 79°/299W
72°/N36E 84°/ 268W
33°/N43E 81°/ S108E
72°/N56E

(i) Project A shaft 1Stereo Net results (ii) Project A Shaft 2 Stereo Net results

(iii) Project A shaft 3 Stereo Net results (iv) Project B shaft 1 Stereo Net results
(v) Project B shaft 2 Stereo Net results (vi) Project B shaft 3 Stereo Net results

(vii) Project C shaft 1 Stereo Net results (viii) Project C shaft 2 Stereo Net results

Figure 4. Dominant Joint sets in stereo net analysis based on borehole televiewer results

From the analysis, it could be summarized that moderately to highly weathered Granite has
discontinuity spacing generally ranging from 20mm to 2000mm with a medium persistence (3-10m)
and showing generally tight to open apertures (.0.1- 2mm) locally filled with chlorite and clayey
materials especially near the dykes and highly jointed zones.

3. ROCK FACE STABILITY STUDIES

In this study, the stability analysis of the shaft excavation and mined tunnel was carried out using
stereonet application based on the data measured from the rock mapping at shaft and tunnel. By
carrying out the rock mapping at each level, predicted geological model was updated and continuous
short term prediction were made based on the joint orientations and structural discontinuities predicted
by the borehole televiewer survey were effectively validated. Unwedge analysis which was carried out
based on the borehole televiewer results was also correlated and verified.

The stability of jointed rock face or opening is mainly controlled by the discontinuities as the failure
occurred at the plane of weakness. The relative orientation with respect to the slope face and the shear
strength parameters of the weakness plane will determine how blocks may fail. In addition to gravity,
the water pressure in the discontinuity/ tension crack and any external forces (e.g overburden pressure)
were determined. In order to determine the stability of underground opening, kinematics analysis was
done as first stage.

The analysis results from the project A shaft and project B shaft which are located about 20m in
distance adjacent to each other, and project C shaft were presented. These shafts have difficult ground
condition associated with deeply weathered zones at the references locations.
4. KINEMATICS ANALYSIS

Kinematics analysis is defined as the analysis of the motion of the bodies without references to the
forces that cause them to move (Goodman, 1989).

4.1 Use of Hemispherical projection (Stereonet)

Stereographic projection methods are of great value in rock mechanics studies because they represent
the structural data in a graphical representation rather than as a numerical abstraction. The human
brain is more skilled at taking in graphical information and is able to remember fairly complex
graphical construction methods.

The effective utilisation of geological data is crucial and incorporated into design stage by collecting
geological information and observation by an experienced geologist. The communication between
geologists and engineers is particularly important for safer construction with the stability of rock mass
surrounding the underground excavation which is likely to be controlled by faults or weak zones. In
such cases, the three dimensional geometrical relationship between structural features and the roof and
walls of excavation is very important since this relationship will controls the potential risk of blocks to
fall or slide. (Priest, 1985)

4.2 Structurally controlled failure

Structurally controlled failure of vertical shaft and rock tunnels can be analysed by means of the
stereographic projection by using data from the orientations of discontinuities such as joints, fractures,
faults and weak zones. Generally, stability problems in blocky jointed rock are associated with the
gravity falls of blocks from the roof and sidewalls. In order for rock fall or wedge failure to occur, it is
necessary that this block or wedge should be separated from the surrounding rock mass by at least
three intersecting structural discontinuities.

A simple example of the application of this method is illustrated in figure 5, which shows a wedge of
rock falling from the roof of an excavation in jointed rock. A vertical line drawn through the apex of
the wedge must fall within the base of wedge for failure to occur without sliding on at least one of the
joint planes.

In a stereographic plot, a vertical line through the apex of the wedge is represented by the centre point
of the net and the conditions stated above are satisfied if the great circles representing the joint planes
form a closed figure which surrounds the centre of the net.

This very simple kinematic check is useful for evaluation of the potential risks of side wall and roof
failure during the preliminary studies of structural geological geology data. It can also be used for
much more detailed evaluation of the shape and volume of potentially unstable wedges described by
Hoek and Brown, 1980 (Figure 5).

4.3 3D Isonet (isometric drawings of structural planes)

When joints and plane of discontinuities are presented in the form of great circles or poles on a
stereographic projection, many engineers find it extremely difficult to visualize the structural features.
Important points are missed frequently when working on the design of an underground excavation
because geologists failed to present his data in a form which can be understood by the engineers.

To overcome this communication and technical problem, isometric drawings were introduced to
present structural geological information and easy to understand with diagrammatic drawings.
Maximum 4 nos. of planes were drawn to present the intersection of planes and their direction of
dipping.
In this paper, analysis data from project A shaft, project B shaft and project C shaft were presented due
to the difficult ground conditions encountered by faults and weathered zone with highly jointed rocks.

Condition of gravity falls of roof wedge Condition of sliding failure for roof wedge Analysis for Shape and Volume of Wedge

Figure 5. Figures showing relationship of discontinuity and possible rock failures with stereo net analysis
(after Hoek and Brown, 1980)

5. ROCK FACE MAPPING

The objectives of geological rock mapping are to update the geological models, assessment of rock
mass types, continuous short-term prediction and supports with interpretation of geotechnical
measurements and documentation.

Mapping of geological structure is an essential work for the design of underground excavations.
Discontinuity planes which are running through the rock mass may divide it into discrete blocks of
rock, and can fall or slide from the excavation boundary, when they are not adequately supported and
when the stress conditions which are favourable for structural failure occur. Data collected from the
mapping of these structures are used to determine the orientation of the major joint sets and to assess
the potential modes of structural failure.

Parameters measured in rock mappings are; type and weathering grade of rock, orientation (dip
amount /dip direction or strike), spacing (m), persistence (mm), roughness, wall strength, aperture
(mm), type of filling, seepage, number of joint sets, block size and shape and type of discontinuity.

Exposed rock face of the shaft and tunnel were mapped by competent Geologists after every stage of
blasting. Combined rock mapping sheet were produced after the shaft excavated down to formation
level before breaking into the mined tunnel to understand the structural geology of the location.

Some combined rock faces mapping of the projects are shown in Figures. 6 to 14.

5.1 Project A shaft 1

After combination of rock face mapping, location of weak zones, discontinuities orientation and
possible location of potential wedges can be easily understood and able to identify the risks.
 Deeply
weathered Deeply
zone weathered
zone

Deeply
weathered
zone
Adit

Figure 6. Combined rock face mapping from reduced level 100mRL to 80mRL

Deeply weathered zone

Deeply weathered zone

Rock Face with deeply weathered zone Face collapsed due to fault slicken side

Figure 7 and Figure 8.Project A Exposed rock face with distinguished features
5.2. Project B shaft 1

Deeply weathered zone

zone

Figure 9 Project B Combined rock face mapping from reduced level 92.9mRL to 73.7mRL

Deeply weathered zone

Deeply weathered zone

Fault Gouge on exposed rock face Fault with clay in-filled appeared on rock Face

Figure 10 and Figure 11. Project B exposed rock face with distinguished features

Deeply weathered zone

Minor fault with breccia in-filled Triangle shape wedge forming at the crown

Figure 12 and Figure 13. Project C exposed rock face with distinguished features
5.3. Project C Shaft 1

Dyke intrusion

Deeply weathered
zone

Adit

Figure 14. Combined rock face mapping from reduced level 83.5mRL to 53.5mRL

Table.3. The distinguished dominant discontinuity sets measured from the rock face
Sr Major joints orientation roughness Joint in-filled seepage
1 Project A Shaft 1 73°/N283W Slicken sided Calcite Clay Dry
56°/S169E
83°/N88E
2 Project B Shaft 1 70°/S130E Smooth /undulating Calcite Clay Damp
55°/S170E
36°/S93E
52°/N310W
3 Project C shaft 1 63°/ N303W Rough/undulating Silica coated Damp
20°/ N55E
46°/ N345W
33°/ S171E

6. STEREONET AND 3D ISONET RESULTS

 Project A shaft 3
3D isometric plane

Figure 15. Stereonet, Wedge analysis and Isonet analysis and results from Project A Shaft 3
Project B shaft 1
3D isometric plane

Figure 16. Stereonet, Wedge analysis and Isonet analysis and results from Project B shaft 1
Project C shaft 1
3D isometric plane Due South
enlargement tunnel
Figure 17. Stereonet, Wedge analysis and Isonet analysis and results from Project C shaft 1
Table.4. interpretation of the results
Location Stereonet
Project A 3 sets of high angle joints
(figure.15) intersecting on top of tunnel
crown and formed wedge
shape imposed risks of failure
on the tunnel face
Project B 4 sets of low angle joints
(figure.16) intersecting on top of tunnel
crown and formed wedge
shape imposed risks of failure
on the tunnel crown
Project C 3 sets of low angle joints
(figure.17) intersecting on top of tunnel
crown and formed wedge
shape imposed risks of failure
on the tunnel crown
Project C shaft 1
3D isometric plane Due NW
enlargement tunnel
Wedge 3D Isonet
Potential wedge Major plane (279/56) dipping towrds
formed at the right side the mined tunnel direction. 2 other
of crown and wall, planes intersecting on the tuneel crown
unfavourable and formed wedge
roughness and in-filled
Potential wedge 2 Major planes (285/55) and (245/70)
formed on top side of dipping towards the mined tunnel
crown, unfavourable direction. 2 other planes intersecting
roughness and in-filled on the tuneel crown and formed a large
wedge
Potential wedge Major plane (016/52) and (272/60)
formed on left side of dipping towrds the mined tunnel
crown for South tunnel direction for due South tunnel and due
and right side for NNW NNW tunnel respecctively. 2 other
tunnel, favourable planes intersecting on the tunnel crown
roughness and in-filled and formed wedge
7. ROCKMASS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

There are 3 different rock mass classification systems used across the projects. Q-system with RMR
was applied by Project A, Project B used only Q system and rock weathering grade for support was
used in Project C.

The RMR rock mass classification system was initially developed at the South African Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research by Bieniawski (1974) on the basics of his experiences in shallow
tunnels on sedimentary rocks.

Barton, Lien and Lunde (1974) originally proposed the Q system of rock mass classification based on
200 cases studies of tunnels and caverns. RQD, joint set number (Jn), joint roughness number (Jr),
joint alteration (Ja), joint water reduction factor (Jw) and stress reduction factor (SRF) are utilized to
calculate the Q value as given in Equation 1:

(1)

where RQD = rock quality designation, Jn = number of joint sets, Jr= joint roughness number,
Jw = joint water reduction factor and SRF = stress reduction factor

Q-values calculated for rock face represents the general structure and highly fractured weak zone were
reported as Q normal and Q weak zone (fractured zone). Hence, 2 different support types were applied on the same
excavation level.

The comparisons between applications of rock mass classification system across the projects are
summarized in Table (5).

In some cases, rock weathering grading for support systems was developed to simplify the rock mass
rating instead of using RMR classification system and Q-system. In this system, support type was
decided based on the weathering grade of the rocks. The functionality of the system was mainly
dependent on the experience of the geologist carrying out the rock mapping.

The Q-system, RMR and RWG values for the Bukit Timah Granite are presented in Table 6. In order
to take some of the uncertainties of the classification systems into account, a range of value was
synthesized, rather than to depend on a single value.

Table 5. Comparison on application of rock mass classification system in Projects

Project A Project B Project C
Classic Q system with additional Weathering
Classic Q system only
factor (α and β) Grade
Q system
X
Q wall factor applied for shaft
Q wall factor does not applied X
excavation
Q-wall Factor of Q rock for vertical shaft
(NGI hand Range of Q rock
book, 2013) Q>10 5.0Q X X
0.1<Q<10 2.3Q
Q<0.1 1.0Q
Intersection and Intersection = 3 x Jn (Q/3)
Portals Portal = 2 x Jn (Q/2) X X
(NGI, 2013)
Rock Mass
Calculated to verify Q value X X
Rating (RMR)
Table 6. Summarized results of rock mass classification systems
Q
Sr Formation RMR Q/3(intersection) Q-weak RWG
normal
Projects A 28 - 88 0.028 - 44 0.084 - 132
Bukit Timah
1 Projects B <1 - 5
Granite
Projects C 3.50-8.50 7.50-20 GIV-GII

8. SPRAYED CONCRETE LINING TUNNEL SUPPORT TYPE

Support types were designed based on the Barton’s Q system table and weathering grade of the
Granite.

Rock mapping was carried out immediate after the blasting works and support type was decided on
site based on rock mass rating or weathering grade results obtained from rock mapping.

On top of the pattern rock bolt support type, additional rock bolts were installed based on observation
of potential blocks and rock fall.

All of the mined tunnels and shafts in the projects are constructed in normal hard rock ground
condition varying very poor to good rock with maximum span of 12m which is where the Q system
works best. The Final support system was jointly agreed between the Design consultant and the
Engineer. Examples of support designs are shown in Table (7), (8) and (9).

Figure18. Q system rock support diagram with limitation (Palmstrom et al., 2002)
Table 7. Rock support type for Project A
Rock Shortcrete/ Allowable
Rock dowel dowel CCA Wire Max
Type Q wall range Remarks
Spacing(m) Length Thickness mesh excavation
(m) (mm) height (m)
Shortcrete(G35), 250mm
1 0 ≤ Q≤0.008 1.1(V & H) 3.5 250 D8 1.5
thick
Fibre reinforced
shotcrete=250mm
0.008<Q<0. and bolting 13.5m length
2 1.2 (V&H) 3.5 250 A142 1.5
1 with 1.2m spacing, SFR,
RRS+B (energy
absorption = 1000 Jules)
Fibre reinforced
shotcrete=150mm
and bolting 13.5m length
3 0.1<Q<0.3 1.4 (V&H) 3.5 150 - 2.0
with 1.4m spacing, SFR,
RRS+B (energy
absorption = 1000 Jules)
Fibre reinforced
shotcrete=150mm
and bolting 13.5m length
4 0.3<Q<1.0 1.6 (V&H) 3.5 120 - 2.0
with 1.6m spacing, SFR,
RRS+B (energy
absorption = 1000 Jules)
Fibre reinforced
shotcrete=150mm
and bolting 13.5m length
5 1.0<Q<4 1.7 (V&H) 3.5 100 - 2.0
with 1.7m spacing, SFR,
RRS+B (energy
absorption = 1000 Jules)
Fibre reinforced
shotcrete=150mm
and bolting 13.5m length
6 4<Q<10 2.5 (V&H) 3.5 50 - 2.0
with 2.0m spacing, SFR,
RRS+B (energy
absorption = 700 Jules)
Systematic bolting, B
7 Q ≥10 2.5 (V&H) 3.5 50 - 2.0 (energy absorption = 700
Jules)

Table 8. Rock support type for Project B

SHAFT
Bolt spacing Rockbolt Shotcrete Round
STRUCTURE Q REMARK
(Radial x length thickness Length
Depth) (m) (mm) (m)
>40 1.8m x 1.8m 4.5 150 SFRS 1.8 See note
10-40 1.8m x 1.5m 4.5 150 SFRS 1.5
SHAFT Expected below
1-10 1.5m x 1.2m 4.5 200 SFRS 1.2
73.2mRL
<1 1.2m x 1.0m 4.5 300 SFRS 1.0
Note: Spot bolting (4.5m long) shall be immediately provided as and when necessary to secure loose pieces of
rocks. This shall be applied over and above the systematic rock support tabulated above.

Table 9. Rock support type for Project C

Support Reinforc- Rock Bolts
Shortcrete RB Spacing c/c Description
class ement (RB)
Zone A = between the
Steel
GIV Zone A 250 T25; L=3m 2.5m (H) x 1.5m (V) highest and deepest DW
fibre
panel
G IV alt. 200 2 layers T25; L=3m 2.5 (H) x 1.5m (V) Same as above, but
Zone A D8 wiremesh instead of SFRC
Steel Very poor fractureness,
G IV 225 T25; L=3m 2.5 (H) x 1.5m (V)
fibre highly weathered G IV
Same as above, but
2 layers
G IV alt 200 T25; L=3m 2.5 (H) x 1.5m (V) alternative wiremesh instead
D8
of SFRC
Steel Poor to fair fractureness,
G III 100 T25; L=3m 3.0 (H) x 1.5m (V)
fibre moderately weathered G III
Same as above, but
1 layer
G III alt 100 T25; L=3m 3.0 (H) x 1.5m (V) alternative wiremesh instead
D7
of SFRC
Good to very good
Steel As
G II/ G I 50 Spot bolting fractureness, slightly
fibre recommended
weathered G II or G III
Same as above, but
1 layer As
G II/ GI alt. 50 Spot bolting alternative wiremesh instead
A7 recommended
of SFRC

9. CONCLUSION

Rock mapping, and rock mass rating combined with kinematics analysis are important for drilled and
blast excavation in rock. Competent geologists should be leading the mapping and sufficient time
would be given. Q value of the exposed rock face should be calculated to represent different strength
sections such as weak zone (Q-weak) and normal zone (Q-normal). Therefore different support types
can be proposed for same rock face depending on the geology encountered. Other methods should be
considered in addition to the Q-system for verification (for example Q system vs RMR). Our
experience was that Q- system is very useful to control the safer construction sequences albeit with
some limitation. This is unlike support design based on rock weathering grade method which is
complicated and the results are difficult to verify.

It is very important to combine the rock mapping results after vertical shaft excavation. Recalculated
with the Unwedge failure analysis using joint orientation parameters measured from the rock face
should be done before breaking into mined tunnel.

Q-system with kinematic analysis and stereographic projection method should be undertaken to
understand the discontinuities orientation which can cause wedge failures. Simple kinematic analysis
can be performed easily on site before trial design check with finite element and discontinuous
deformation analysis software. Potential wedge shape and size prediction from kinematic analysis is
very close to the actual condition if the block and wedge size can be reduced based on discontinuity
spacing measurement from rock face mapping.

In kinematic analysis, 3D isometric drawings are useful to visualize the formation of joint plane above
the tunnel crown and behind the exposed surface and planning for mining can be well organized for
the next stage. But, simple kinematic analysis can be imprecise if not exercised with reasonable care.
However, based on the case studies, results within the +/- 2 degree of the correct orientation can be
obtained consistently. Such precision is usually adequate for rock mechanics studies since natural
discontinuities and other features are rarely planar throughout a rock mass. This means orientation
measurements taken in the field are usually distributed quite widely about a mean value.

Simple models are well suited for rock mechanics problems in gravity driven discontinuity controlled
failure mode, due to various unforeseen challenges and large uncertainty, rather than sophisticated
finite element software with many assumptions resulting in incomplete representation of real world
behaviour. The result may be wrong if it was based on an incorrect assumption. In this case, an
approximate approach using a simplified model can yield good results in the field. Therefore we can
conclude that it is better to be approximately right than to be very wrong if modelling assumptions are
incorrect.
 Acknowledgement: The authors are thankful to all the geologists for providing necessary data. Special thanks go
to Mr Michael Chin and Mr Leslie, Parkianathan for their valuable support.

REFERENCES

Barton, Lien and Lunde. 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock
Mech 4:189-239
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989 Engineering rock mass classifications., New York: Wiley, p 251
DSTA. 2009. Geology of Singapore 2nd Edition, Singapore: Defence Science and Technology Agency
Goodman.R.E.1989. Introduction to rock mechanics. New York: Wiley, p 301, p 562
Hoek, E and Brown, E.T .1980. Underground excavation in rock. London: The Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, 79-84, 185-191
Hammah, R.E and Curran, J.H. 2009. Why simple models work in mining geomechanics. In: special session at
Asheville 2009, the 43rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 4th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium,
held in Asheville,NC June 28th – July 1, 2009.
ISRM. 1981. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. In: Brown, E.T (ed) ISRM suggested methods,
Pergamon Press, New York, p 211
NGI, 2013. Using the Q system handbook, Oslo: Allkopi AS
Palmstrom A., Blindheim O.T. and Broch E., 2002: The Q-system - possibilities and
limitations (in Norwegian). Norwegian National Conference on Tunnelling, 2002, pp. 41.1 –
41.43. Norwegian Tunnelling Association.
Priest, S. D, 1985. Hemispherical projection methods in rock mechanics. London: Allen & Unwin, p124

View publication stats