Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Technical Note

Design considerations for an underground room in a hard rock subjected

to a high horizontal stress eld at Rana Gruber, Norway
Nghia Trinh a,, Kristina Jonsson b
a
b

SINTEF Rock and Soil Mechanics, Rich. Birkeland vei 3, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
Rana Gruber AS, Mo i Rana, Norway

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 January 2012
Received in revised form 18 June 2013
Accepted 1 July 2013
Available online 26 July 2013
Keywords:
High horizontal stress
Hard rock
Numerical model
Phase 2

a b s t r a c t
Rana Gruber AS is an iron mining company in the North of Norway, and it operates Kvannevann mine
30 km east of Mo i Rana. The Kvannevann mine is located in a foliated gneiss host rock, with an ore body
about 70 m wide and more than 300 m deep. The mine has been in operation for many years using sublevel stoping, and is now changing to sublevel caving. Experience from past mining activity in the infrastructure preparation for the new mining method indicates that the mine is located in a hard, brittle rock
mass with high horizontal stresses. Stress measurements have been made from time to time. The measurement results indicate a major principal stress of 20 MPa perpendiculars to the strike of the ore,
and a minor principal stress of 10 MPa parallel to the strike of the ore, which is 1015 times higher than
the theoretical vertical stress caused by gravity at the measured location. In addition to the high horizontal stress, lessons learned regarding failure and rock support during the underground excavation need to
be considered for designing and excavating a new canteen room (B  H = 9  8 m) at the mine. Numerical
modelling is utilised to be able to include all of the adverse conditions for consideration.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Rana Gruber AS operates an iron mine, located about 30 km east
of Mo I Rana, owned by Leonard Nilsen & Sons. The mine has been
in activity for more than 100 years and open pit mining as well as
sublevel stoping have been used. The Kvannevann ore body has
been mined by sublevel stoping, but it has been decided to change
to sublevel caving. The ore body is about 70 m wide, 1 km long and
more than 300 m deep. Due to increasing need of the production,
the owner decided to apply the sub-level caving technique.
To accommodate the sub-level caving mining method, a number of underground works need to be planned, such as a ramp, eld
drifts, drilling drifts, shafts, and crusher hall (Fig. 1). An underground canteen of B  H = 9  6 m is also needed for miners to
have lunch and coffee break during their working shift.
The location of the canteen is near to the crusher hall that have
been analysed and excavated before (Trinh et al., 2010). The whole
area is subjected to high horizontal stresses. Many rock bursting
incidents in the excavating infrastructure suggests that the
planned canteen should be carefully designed. Since the crusher
hall is already analysed and constructed and it has much larger
dimension (14 m wide and 23 m high), experiences during construction of the crusher hall as well as infrastructure development
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 45676548.
E-mail address: nghia.quoc.trinh@sintef.no (N. Trinh).
0886-7798/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.07.006

concerning in situ rock stress, rock mass behaviour, and rock support are collected for the analyses.
2. High horizontal stress and elastic behaviour rock mass
The ramp from the surface down to 250 m a.s.l, (above sea level)
had to be extended down to 123 m a.s.l where the new crusher is
located. There were many observed rock bursts along the ramp,
which convincingly demonstrated the high horizontal stress
problem.
In many locations, where bolting is not sufcient, rock is popping out from the wall bringing with them the bre reinforced
shotcrete. Large rock blocks falling down from the roof challenge
the working condition inside the tunnel. Rock bursting is also
experienced at the excavation face, which requires shotcreting instead of leaving it unsupported. Most of the popped rock blocks
had a typical lensed shape, which indicate rock stress related problem. The problem has not only occurred on wall and roof, but it has
also been observed on the oor. In the workshop at 250 m a.s.l, the
concrete oor has heaved about 20 cm resulting in many visible
cracks. Typical instabilities are presented in Fig. 2.
Furthermore, observed instabilities in the tunnel show that
displacement before failure is rather small, almost unrecognisable
by a normal visual observation. Thus the rock blocks are falling
without noticeable displacement in advance. The occurrence time
varied from few hours to days after excavation. From these

206

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

Canteen
location

Ramp

Crusher hall
Fig. 1. Schematic gure showing the Kvannevann mine orebody and
infrastructure.

observations, it could be argued that the rock failure is likely brittle, and that there is almost no or a very short time that the rock
mass undergoes plastic deformation. The dominant behaviour of
the rock mass in this situation is elastic, so it could be considered
that this rock mass shows elastic behaviour. In numerical modelling, this behaviour can be best described using a perfectly brittle
model, where the rock mass fails very soon after passing its peak
strength (Fig. 3). Based on the presented rock mass behaviour,
the perfectly brittle model will be used for further analysis of
the stability of the cavern.

In order to use the Q-system, the rock mass is inspected and joints
are described for obtaining appropriate value for rock mass parameters in the Q-system. The advantage in this project is that the canteen is located adjacent to an existing ramp as shown in Fig. 1.
Thus, the in situ rock mass condition can easily be observed, due
to no shotcrete on the lower walls of the ramp. Description and
the corresponding value of the rock mass parameters are presented
in Table 1.
It can be noted that SRF is taken relatively high (from 50 to 200).
This is due to the fact that some heavy rock bursts have been experienced during the infrastructure development (the ramp, the eld
drifts). Rock burst appeared very soon after the excavation and initial
installation of the rock support. The rock burst caused damage and
break of the shotcrete, especially at the location where bolts were
not properly installed. As can be seen from Table 1, without negative
impacts from the stress (which means SRF = 1), the rock mass would
be classied as Extremely Good quality with Q-value of more than
100. With the strong impacts from the unfavourable stress condition
(SRF = 50200), the Q-value is reduced to 0.755.33, and the rock
mass quality now is classied as Fair to Poor quality. The recommended rock support measure in this situation is category 4, 5, or 6
as shown in Fig. 4. The rock support category 5 or 6 is:
 Fibre reinforced shotcrete of 912 cm thickness;
 Systematic bolting (L = 3 m, spacing 1.72 m);

3. Excavation and rock support design by the Q-method

4. Excavation and rock support by numerical modelling

The size of the canteen is relatively small, so the excavation

work is planned to be full face blasting. The advanced rate for each
blast is about 4 m, which is standardised for this mine, corresponding to the drilling machine available. The blast is designed as normal blasting for other underground structures in the mine, in
which the charging is less in the periphery blast holes. This means
that there are no particular/special measures in design aiming for
smooth blasting contour.
To dene rock support for the cavern, the rock mass classication method following the Q-system is used (Barton et al., 1974).

Numerical modelling has also been performed to further study

the excavation and rock support for the canteen. The purpose of
the numerical model-ling is to check the stability situation with
the recommended rock support from Q-method. The model will
also recommend improvements if necessary.
4.1. Inputs
A 2D model for the canteen is established using Phase 2 program. The Phase 2 (Rocscience Inc., 2005) is a 2D elasto-plastic

Fig. 2. Instability due to high horizontal stress; (a) rock spalling on a side wall, (b) typical rock spalling shape, (c) rock burst at tunnel face and (d) cracks resulting from oor
heaving.

207

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

Strain hardening

Elastic-plastic

Strain softening

Perfectly brittle

Fig. 3. Simplied types of rock mass behaviours (Hoek and Brown 1997; Alonso et al. 2003).

Table 1
Quality of the rock mass.
Parameters

Descriptions

Value

RQD

Rock mass is observed to be massive with

few joints
Rock mass is observed to be massive with
few joints
Joints are observed to be discontinuous
Joints are tightly healed, hard, without lling
material
Very minor groundwater ow is observed
At some location of the mine, rock noise, slabbing,
and rock burst was observed shortly after
the excavation. Rock is massive
=(RQD/Jn)  (Jr/Ja)  (Jw/SRF)

75

Jn
Jr
Ja
Jw
SRF

1.5
34
0.751
1
50200

0.755.33

nite element stress analysis program commonly used for underground or surface excavations in rock or soil. The model is created
with boundaries extended more than 5 times of the cavern size.
The horizontal displacement of the vertical boundaries is xed,
and the vertical displacement of the horizontal boundaries is xed.
Important inputs for the model are rock mass mechanical properties, in situ stress, excavation and support stages, and mechanical
properties of the support (bolt and shotcrete).
As discussed earlier, observation had been made along the
developed part of the infrastructure and found many indications
of the high stress. Rock burst incidents were also experienced at

some locations when excavating the ramp and eld drifts. In addition to the observations, rock stress measurement has been carried
out for more than 35 years by SINTEF, and the results are presented
in Table 2. The rst stress measurement at this mine has been carried out as early as 1977, and it is continue from time to time in
connection with the development of the mine. The stress measurement techniques are self-developed and highly improved versions
of the originally South African CSIR-2D-doorstopper and 3D-CSIRovercoring cells. Detailed description of the method and development can be found in Myrvang (2006).
The results from the stress measurements conrmed that the
horizontal stress in the area is high. The most recent measurements in the access tunnel show that the major principle stress
is almost horizontal with a value of about 25 MPa, and a minor
principle stress of 1012 MPa, as shown in Fig. 5. The orientation
of the major principal stress, r1, is horizontal and acting almost
NorthSouth. The minor principal stress, r3, is almost vertical,
and the intermediate principal stress is horizontal and acting almost EastWest. The measurement is at 180 m.a.s.l. At the measured point, the vertical gravitational stress calculated from the
overburden is only about 8 MPa. Based on the measured data,
in situ stress input of the canteen model can be taken as 25 MPa
horizontally and 12 MPa vertically.
The next input for the model is the rock mass mechanical properties. The properties are developed by combining laboratory
results with the Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced

Fig. 4. Recommended rock support measure based on updated Q-method (Barton, 2002) with ESR = 1.0.

208

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

Table 2
Results of stress measurements at some locations (SINTEF, 2011).
Location

Method

Year

r1 (MPa)

r2 (MPa)

r3 (MPa)

rtfjell tunnel (1)

rtfjell tunnel (2)
rtfjell tunnel (3)
rtfjell tunnel (4)
rtfjell tunnel (5)
Pilar drift 78, level 320
Under stope 10, level 250
Pilar drift 01, level 320
Pilar drift 12, level 320
Ramp, level 184
Drill drift 5, level 221 (1)
Drill drift 5, level 221 (2)
Workshop, level 250
Drill drift 41, level 221
Shaft, level 221
Canteen, level 130

3D
3D
3D
3D
3D
2D
2D
2D
2D
3D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D

1977
1977
1979
1979
1979
2001
2003
2007
2007
2008
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011

17.2
20.9
8.6
8.9
11.2

12.7
8.8
3.1
3.0
6.9

5.4
5.5
0
1.6
4.6

23.0

17.8

11.3

rH (MPa)

rh (MPa)

16.3
20.9
7.1
8.5
11.2
33.1
50.5
34.6
26.2
22.8
37.1
31.0
35.7
27.6
48.2
28.8

11.5
8.0
2.3
2.3
6.9
15.5
20.7
20.7
12.4
16.9
23.6
11.4
24.7
9.3
35.5
10.5

rv (MPa)

rH from N ()

7.5
6.2
2.2
2.8
4.6

171
155
160
157
152
145180
160
135
158
191
167
165
212
356
137
28

12.8

Fig. 5. Results of the rock stress measurement.

Table 3
Rock properties determined at some locations (SINTEF, 2011).
Locations

Year

Rock type

E-module (GPa)

Poissons ratio

UCS (MPa)

Unit weight (kg/m3)

rtfjellstollen (1)
rtfjellstollen (2)
rtfjellstollen (3)
rtfjellstollen (4)
rtfjellstollen (5)
Testhull 1
Testhull 2
Testhull 3
Pilar str.78, level 320
Strosse 10, level 250
Pilar 01, level 320
Pilar 12, level 320
Ramp, level 184
221, drift 5
221, drift 5
221, shaft 2
221, drift 41
250, workshop
130, Canteen

1979
1979
1977
1977
1979
1979
1979
1993
1993
1993
2001
2003
2007
2007
2008
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011

Dund.-schist
Lime. marble
Limestone
Mica schist
Mica schist
Mica schist
Limestone
Ore
Ore
Ore
Ore
Ore
Ore
Ore
Schist/ore
Mica schist
Hematite
Mica schist
Mica schist
Hematite
Mica schist

18
52
47.8
33.8
18.8
8.3
47.2
12.1
15.3
17.3
34.4
21.9
27.0
34.6
28.9
24.9
20
26.8
26.7
42.4
15.1

0.15
0.17
0.15
0.09
0.04
0.06
0.19
0.23
0.19
0.22
0.22
0.31
0.34
0.32
0.21
0.17
0.23
0.29
0.23
0.36
0.33

66
75
115
105
78.5
106
63.1
59.8
65.3
63.1
71.1
46.2
60.6
79.2
94.8
80.3
78.4
61
87
118.6
65.9

2840
2790

3504
3594
3694
3832
3614
3026
3752
2909
2769
2990
3771
2846
3990
2821

by Hoek and Brown since 1995 (Hoek and Marinos, 2004). The laboratory tests are the mechanical properties of the intact rock, such
as uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Poissons ratio, and
Youngs modulus. The tests have been carried out by SINTEFs laboratory. The results are presented in Table 3. The canteen is located

in the footwall of the mine, and the area is mainly mica-schist.

Thus, the values of the UCS, Poissons ratio, and Youngs modulus
for intact rock are taken as 70 MPa, 0.2, and 20 GPa, respectively.
In order to obtain the GSI value for further calculation, the
estimated Q-values in Section 3 can be used. With the obtained

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

Table 4
Rock mass parameters for the model.
Parameters
Poissons ration m
Intact UCS
Geo. Strength Index GSI
Intact parameter mi
Disturbance factor D
Deformation modulus Ei
Output parameters
Parameters mb
Parameters s
Parameters a
Deformation modulus Em

Units

Value: peak and (residual)

MPa

0.2
70
80 (50)
12 (8)
0.1 (0.2)
20,000

MPa

5.658 (1.1)
0.1004 (0.0026)
0.5006 (0.5057)
16,400

MPa

Q0 -value (where Jw = 1 and SRF = 1), the GSI can be estimated using
GSI = 9  ln(Q0 )+44 (proposed by Hoek et al. (1995)). With the estimated Q0 = 150 and 250, GSI is 89 and 94 respectively. When
accounting for uncertainties in the rock mass, it is decided to
reduce the GSI value to 80.
The obtained GSI value is used together with the laboratory test
results for further calculation of the rock mass properties, such as
deformation modulus, HoekBrown parameters mb, s, and a. Results of the calculation are presented in Table 4. The obtain rock
mass properties were previously used for designing a large crusher
hall of the mine (Trinh et al., 2010), and the hall is functioning well
now. The rock mass properties and information of the in situ stress
were also used for studying a rock bust situation during the excavation of a transportation drift in the mine (Trinh, 2012). Recently,
a major analysis was performed to study advantages and disadvantages of different mining alternative. The analysis was validated
with stress monitoring equipment. The model used similar rock
mass properties and in situ stress, and the results of the model
are comparable to the results recorded by the monitoring equipment. Thus, it can be stated that the rock mass properties and
the information of the in situ stress are well tested.
A set of properties for commonly used shotcrete is used in this
model. The shotcrete is a standard C35 shotcrete in Norway with
peak compressive strength of 35 MPa and tensile strength of
5 MPa. The Youngs modulus of the shotcrete is 30 GPa. The bolt

209

used in the model is standard CT-bolt, 21.7 mm diameter (Vik

Orsta AS). The bolt has tensile capacity of 0.29 MN, and it is pretensioned to 0.15 MN in the model. Bolt spacing is about 1.7 m in
the model.

4.2. Results of the analyses and discussion

The excavation is modelled as one single stage, full face excavation. A rst layer of shotcrete of 5 cm thickness is installed in the
same stage as the excavation. It means in practice that the shotcrete is sprayed when the mucking and scaling are completed.
The rock bolts are also installed in the same stage as the excavation. It means in practice that the bolts are installed as soon as
the excavation is completed.
The model result indicates a maximum upward displacement of
about 15 mm in the oor (oor heave). The oor had been covered
with the excavated material, so it was not possible to observe any
crack or oor heaving during and after the excavation. At the end,
the oor was concreted with 30 cm thickness. There are no observations of cracks in the oor so far. It is anticipated that part of the
displacement already took place before the concrete casting. The
rest of the displacement may take longer and the cracks may
appear much later. Experience from a similar structure (the workshop at level 250) is that the oor cracks appeared a few years after
completion.
The result also indicates a displacement of about 10 mm in the
mid-span of the roof. Result of the displacement and the yielded
area is presented in Fig. 6. In a hard rock environment, 10 mm of
the displacement is considered to be signicant and need some
rock support measure to prevent the rock burst.
The rock support design in the model is as recommended by the
Q-method, which consist of systematic bolting (L = 3 m, spacing
1.7 m) and shotcrete. The shotcrete is divided into two layers.
The rst layer is 5 cm, installed at the same excavation stage in
the model, and the second layer of 5 cm is installed at the end.
The idea to install the second shotcrete layer after some time is
to allow the rock to slightly release their stress. If the shotcrete
is installed too early, the amount of the stress release will exceed
the bearing capacity of the shotcrete causing cracks regardless of

Fig. 6. Displacement and yielded area of the cavern.

210

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

Fig. 7. Over break on the roof of the cavern.

Table 5
Measured stresses at cantina, level 130.
Hole depth (m)

r1 (MPa)

r2 (MPa)

Orientation of sigma h from N ()

2.7
3.2
3.7
Average

7.5
36.2
21.5
21.7

3.0
12.8
8.2
8

27
330
333
350

the thickness of the shotcrete. In general, the Phase 2 model has

some limitations in describing the stress release correctly. It is simply assumed that the stress in the rock mass reaches their nal
condition after each modelling stage. There are modelling techniques of using inner pressure acting on the excavation boundary
to control the stress distribution after each stage. However, it is
not easy (if not impossible) to estimate the appropriate value of
the inner pressure.
Due to the mentioned limitation, the result as shown in Fig. 6
can be regarded as acceptable condition for short term stability,
which is suitable for construction activities. The reason is that even
though the 5 cm shotcrete is shown as failed, this may be the nal
stage of shotcrete, not the immediate stage after the installation. In
addition to that, the bolts do not fail. So, the bolts are expected to
keep all of the failed rock in place, minimising the risk of rock fall.
After a certain time, the rock support should be inspected to nd
local damage for repairing. In some cases, it is necessary to knock
on the shotcrete surface to nd detached area of the shotcrete.

Damaged shotcrete should be removed, and at the end, the whole

cavern should be shotcreted to the nal designed thickness of
10 cm. The model result shows that the axial force in the rock bolt
is slightly more than 0.15 MN. If no pre-tension is applied in the
model, the result indicates the axial force in the bolt is around
0.1 MN. The model result also shows that the maximum axial force
(compressive) in the shotcrete is about 1.6 MN. It means 16 MPa
stress in the 10 cm thickness of the shotcrete.
As can be seen from Fig. 6, the yielded area is shown to be about
22.5 m into the roof of the cavern. In practice, over break of about
11.5 m is observed on the roof, as shown in Fig. 7. The reason may
be that the bolts were not installed right after the excavation, so
rock mass has enough time to release a signicant amount of the
stress leading to rock loosening. In addition to that, the rock may
be over scalled. The use of mechanical scaling work in a high stress
area seems too strong.
It is also noted that the actual installed rock bolts on the roof are
4 m long, and a minimum of 7 cm shotcrete. The length of the installed bolts on the walls was 2.4 m. There are no cracks observed
in the walls. One crack was observed in the mid-span of the cavern,
which was repaired with steel mesh and shotcrete.
These experiences are, in fact, corresponding with the results of
the model. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the depth of the yielded zone is
about 2.3 m in the roof, so if 3 m long bolts are used, the length of
the bolt in the un-yielded zone is only 70 cm. It is reasonable to use
longer bolts, even though 4 m long bolts may be conservative.
There is no yielded zone along the wall, so it is possible to use
shorter bolts than 3 m. A less than 10 cm of shotcrete layer could
perhaps be used to support the walls.
The crack of the shotcrete in the mid-span of the cavern conrms the failure of the shotcrete in the model, as shown in Fig. 6.
The repair with steel mesh and new shotcrete may be conservative.
It would be sufcient to scale the damaged shotcrete and apply the
nal shotcrete layer with a total thickness of 10 cm.
The model also provides a graph of the distribution of the principal stresses. The result of the major principal stress is shown in
Fig. 9, and it is in fair agreement with the stress measurement at
the location, which is described and discussed in the next section.

5. Stress measurement after completion

In October 2011, in connection with the whole program of monitoring work for Rana mine, SINTEF is contacted for instrument
installation. The program included installation of three extensometers in a drill drift, ve long-term stress sensors (doorstoppers) for

Fig. 8. Results of the rock stress measurement in the canteen (SINTEF, 2011).

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

211

Fig. 9. Distribution of the major principal stress Sigma 1.

monitoring of the stress change caused by the mining activities

over time. It is SINTEF standard to perform stress measurements
before installing a long-term doorstopper. During the drilling of
the hole for a doorstopper, the standard doorstopper stress measurements were taken at selected interval to obtain the initial
stress. The last measurement should be as close as possible to
the selected depth (normally within 10 cm).
Installation of the long term doorstopper at the canteen in October 2011 failed due to a malfunction of the sensor during placement. Installation of this long term doorstopper is planned
January 2012. However, the initial measurements were performed
as the same standard as for the other locations. The rock type was
mica schist, and core disking occurred during drilling of the rst
two meters of the hole, indicating high stress. According to our
experience of many stress measurements of different locations in
this mine that the stress is released at the excavation surface,
and it will increased with depth. After passing a peak value at a
certain depth, the stress value will be reduced to its far eld
stress condition. The measured stress values and the orientation
of the major horizontal stress are shown in Table 5 and Fig. 8. It
showed a result of 36.2 MPa at a depth of 3.2 m.
Reason for the stress concentration at a certain distance from
the periphery is the development of a yielded zone around an
opening, which also the boundary between zones of plastic and
elastic condition of the rock mass. The plastic zone is formed as result of the excavation activity. As can be seen in Fig. 9, the result
from the numerical model indicates the stress concentration zone
just slightly outside the yielded boundary. This phenomenon can
also be observed in an analytical method, such as convergence
connement.
A typical result of stress calculation with convergence connement method (a typical analytical method) is presented in Fig. 10.
The analytical method cannot handle a complicated situation, so it
is assumed a constant stress eld with a circular opening. As can be
seen from the gure, the value of the tangential stress is increased
slowly from the opening periphery to the outer boundary of the
plastic zone. At the boundary, the stress value is signicantly increased. After this concentration, the stress value is gradually reduced to the eld stress.

Fig. 10. Stress concentration at the boundary between elastic and plastic zone
convergence connement method (Panthi, 2006).

It is noted in Fig. 8 that even though the numerical model can

capture the high stress concentration at the yielded boundary similar to the results of the stress measurement, the stress value between the model result and measurement are different. There
may be several reasons for this difference:
 The numerical model is a continuous model, whereas the rock
mass in nature has many discontinuities. The model is not able
to include the effect from a random discontinuity that may be at
the location of the installed stress tensor. Phase 2 allows including random or systematic joints in the model. However, including those joints into the model may give more noises to the
results and making it more difcult for interpretation.
 The inputs data of the numerical model may involve lot of
uncertainties, so trying to obtain accurate stress value is not
possible.
Thus, stress result of the numerical modelling should be treated
as qualitative, not absolutely accurate value. The accuracy of the

212

N. Trinh, K. Jonsson / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 205212

stress value in the numerical model should however be enough for

the purpose of designing rock support for the cavern.
6. Conclusions
The canteen is located in a high horizontal stress area where
many rock stress problems have been encountered. The design
of the cavern therefore requires detailed analyses. The design of
the excavation and the rock support for the cavern is carried
out using a classication method (Q-system) as well as numerical
modelling. Both tools indicate that the cavern should be supported with:
 Fibre reinforced shotcrete of 10 cm thickness.
 Systematic bolting (L = 3 m, spacing 1.72 m).
In general, the numerical model conrms the proposed rock
support from the empirical method. In addition, the numerical
model produces much more useful information and providing
much deeper insight in the rock mass behaviour, rock stress distribution, and the rock support installation procedure. It is recommended that the shotcrete should be installed in two layers
with a certain time delay to allow some stress release in the
rock mass.
The results from the model also agree with some experiences
encountered during the construction, regarding the over break
on the roof, longer bolts used for the roof and shorter bolts
for the walls, shotcrete cracks on the roof required repair with
additional shotcreting. It is especially interesting to observe
the qualitatively matching between the model result of the
major principal stress distribution and the in situ stress
measurement.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their thanks to Rana Gruber
AS and Leonard Nilsen & Sons for permission to prepare and
publish this paper.
References
Alonso, E., Alejano, L.R., Varas, F., Fdez-Manin, G., Carranza-Torres, C., 2003. Ground
response curves for rock masses exhibiting strain-softening behaviour.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
27, 11531185.
Barton, N., 2002. Some new Q-value correlation to assist in site characterisation and
tunnel design. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 39,
185216.
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classication of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Journal of Rock Mechanics 6 (4), 189236.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34 (8), 11651186.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P., 2004. A brief history of the development of the HoekBrown
failure criterion. <http://www.rocscience.com>.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995. Support of Underground Excavations in
Hard Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Myrvang, M.A., 2006. Rock stress measurement as a practical rock engineering tool.
Keynote lecture in The International Symposium on In situ Rock Stress,
Trondheim, Norway.
Panthi, K.K., 2006. PhD thesis Analysis of Engineering Geological Uncertainties
Related to Tunnelling in Himalayan Rock Mass Conditions. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Rocscience Inc. 2005. Phase2 Version 6.0 Finite Element Analysis for Excavations
and Slopes. <http://www.rocscience.com>, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
SINTEF, 2011. Project report Extensometer, 2-D stress measurement, and longterm doorstoppers in Rana Gruber, October 2011, Trondheim, Norway.
Trinh, Q.N., Myrvang, A., Sand, N.S., 2010. Rock excavation and support for a crusher
hall at Rana Gruber, Norway. In: The 44th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium,
June 2010, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Trinh, Q.N., 2012. Excavation in hard rock under high in situ stress at Rana Gruber,
Norway. In: The 46th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, June 2012, Chicago,
Illinois, USA.
Vik Orsta AS, 2012. Specications and Prime Advantages of the CT-Bolt.