) ) I \ \ , \

....lo.

r1- I
I
I<l--L
.hear box ~:1
PLANE STRESS .ample. } I
~
T
\

4---i>1
BIAXIAL TESTS I ---L
___ 1

I 1 \
peak otreng.'h!
of Jointed
21: -)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<]--
~
ma.. 3
4
-
1-L
<r ~ I
I
---- 2

2
<l-
<J-
*'~ /
I
I
2 ~
/
<J- /~loading
<i- *':z: ./

i t i ii i
I path In
~ I
I biaxial

~XXXX~L3
I
1 / te.t.
_______ JI /
~ 3
~
.......... ~
4000,1000, or 250 I NORMAL STRESS
discrete "lock.

~ ~
NGI
 .09

.08
'-II.am ~mmd
~< CD :
'!
l :
i
@ ".'1.~
::.~c, ~ /'
.
"'::\"TheOrtlleal
.07
I I/,,\ envelope, from
0 : : /" .021.15 shear tuts on
Q..
~ .06 :
:
:',,/ ~ Indlvtduot joints
.;
:! Shear failures:! V
-
~
0
.05 oIono tndlvldual'--__:
prlmar y joints
11,
~~Il--'
~/'/'
/'
/'
..,-
I

:
:
~ .04 a> :,
I/)

.03

() Direct shear t"ts

.02 eM) 10em
Joint lenoth
[pj3Q m

o .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 09 .10 .11 .12
Normal stress, MPo
Fig. 27. Biaxial shear tests on jointed models with 4000. 1000 or 250 blocks each. Shear strength is hiJhest with the smallest
block. sizes,

Scale Effects on the Shear Behaviour of Rock Joints

TABLE 4. EFfECT Of JOINT LENGTH OR CROSS JOINT SPAONG ON THE VALUE CI JRC BAa-cA1..CUl.AlED
FROM DIRECT SHEAJt AND BIAXIAL TUTS

Joint length or cross joint spacing

r-L~
E3 Joint roughness
Model scale coefficient
Type of test (mm) (JRO

Direct shear
tests on 100 30 Mean of
individual } 20 > 100
jointed 60 18 tests
blocks
41 (250 12.3 21.6
blocks)
Biaxial p = 18 21 (1000 6.4 25.1
tests on blocks)
jointed II (400) 3.3 26.7
models blocks)
p = 45 6.2 (400) 1.8 > 26
blocks) (failure did
not occur)
 (0,-02)
MPa
P M
70 .175
IEm: 18.460MP~ IEm: 13.1 00 MPal tEm: 7.500 MPal

CJ)
CJ) 60
W
.15 .;:r---
--.
----....--~
LOCAL SHEAR
---
___
>
KINK
BAND

ex: 1'=2.10
I' =1.67

CJ) 50 .125 ---=:-=== -LOCALS;EAR
..J
c:( I' = 0.92 "=0.97 ,,= 0.82
.. 40 :,
Z
UJ
ex: r 0.82 1'=0.96 I' =/0.33
UJ
LI..
LL
C 250
/',. 0.29 1000 4000
BLOCKS 1'=0.41 I' =0.02
BLOCKS BLOCKS
[o ,
1, ,0,
/' =: 0 ~~ /'=0
II~' t.'=0.14
II~'
o 0.25 0.5 0.75 o 0.25 0.5 0.75 o 0.25 0.5 0.75

STRAIN (AXIAL OR LATERAL)%

"~---------------------------~ NGI
D. SOME INFLUENCES OF BLOCK SIZE AND CHARACTER OF
JOINT STRUCTURE, ON FAILURE MODES AROUND TUNNELS
AND SLOPES IN JOINTED ROCK

Contrasting stress distributions and displacement distributions and

magnitudes from continuum (FLAC) and discontinuum (UDEC-BB)
modelling of the same tunnelling problem (Backer, NGI 1995).
Contrasting magnitudes of joint shearing when there are about 3, 6, 12 and 24
blocks per tunnel diameter. Model N. 1 is obviously of an entirely different
character and may be unrealistic. Shen and Barton (1997). (UDEC-MC
models).
Shen and Barton (1997) UDEC-MC models of block rotation styles around
tunnels. Lowest figure closely resembles physical model result of Barton and
Hansteen (1979).
Translational, toppling and "circular" failure modes for rock slopes are
determined by a combination of block size and structural (joint) orientation
in relation to the slope face. (Barton, 1973).
Voegele and Cundall (1977) rigid block (pre-UDEC) models of four
structurally identical "complex" rock slopes, which showed widely different
deformation styles depending upon the assumed joint friction angles (20,
30, 37 and 40 = stable).

Deformation styles, in particular the relative amounts of joint shearing,

depend upon the angles between the joint planes and principal stresses.
Bandis et al. (1983) and (1981) normal (N) and shear (S) components, and
their influence on jointed block deformation for type A, Band C rock masses
(Barton, 1976). UDEC-BB models of the same cases (Monsen el al., 1991)
show differing amounts of displacement and shearing depending upon
jointing style.
 Physical model with plane-stress biaxial loading show the potential for very
large pseudo-Poisson's ratios ( 0,5) due to block rotations and shears.
Continuum modelling of this phenomenon is impossible (Barton and
Hansteen 1979).
Some hypothetical deformation styles and shear strength formulatons for
several differently jointed rock masses (Barton, 1987). Distinct element
modelling is need for most cases.
Proposed limitations for UDEC and 3DEC (distinct element) modelling for
rock masses according to Q-values. Hoek-Brown criterion probably relevant
for extreme cases only. (Barton, 1996 and Hoek, 1983 - modified).
Figure 7. Idealised UDEC models of tunnels within 2D
assemblies of 250 to 10,000 blocks. (Shen and Barton, in
preparation)

Figure 8. Extent of joint shearing zones caused by widely.

different block sizes. (Sheri and Barton, in preparation)
5
 290

TRANSLATIONAL
r

TOPPLING

'\ 2

CIRCULAR

Fig.2. Three possible modes of failure for differently jointed rock slopes.
 NGI
II

-- --.
JCS lS1"~J"C :".1

~
... 0
_j
a
.'.1_

:: ..
.,; "
"
': III

..
II:

AV,/ ""
,'
,,,:
..
c:

..
>0

"
, , c:
<

, //)
:I , !!!
~
Z
20 ,'
,
,
a
~, ,','
,,

..it ..;. .... ..;.

NORM L DEFOR TION
..-
,,,'
.12
.v
...
(mm)
. . SHEAR DlSPI. CEMEHT

TYPEA TYPEB TYPEC

11/

lYPEA TYPEB TYPEC

~I_I I .,~__ '

:::=: .~:~::!
 ~ ~Vx~

I
TYPlcaJ ~

;/ 4 15 14 13
I
12
~ \
11 10 joint
~attern

~
~ ~1\O t l2/2!
Deformation
vectors - ~
~

measured by
photogram- b
metry

Test 6 15-20
SOME SHEAR STRENGTH CRITERIA FOR ROCK MASSES

CD INTACT
ELASTIC

BREAKAGE BARTON-BANDIS (scaled)

T= an tan [JRCn log (J~) + 4>r]

BARTON-KJJRNSLI (scaled) BARTON-UEN-LUNDE

T = an tan [R log (~n)] + 4>b T= an [Jrl Ja]

ICD: ~'I THIN

BEDDED
1~lf!i~~~~;~~~~~
I

-.
, I

BUCKLING SQUEEZING

BREAKAGE TRANSLATION ROT A TION BUCKLING

 [lJ
NGI

Pseudo-continuum Discontinuum Continuum

using continuum approach approach
approach

Q = 0.1 Q = 100

Ft::MiFLAC UDEC/3DEC FEM/BEM

Intact rock

Rock mass

. .--.
E. SHEAR STRENGTH OF ROCKFILL AND A LARGE SCALE TEST
METHOD

Compacted rock fill dam (Svartevann, Norway) between glaciated, partly

smoothed rock abutments. Shear strength "across valley" would depend on
relative magnitudes of Rand JRC, and on S compared to JCS. (R and S from
Barton and Kjaemsli (1981).
Marsal (1973) large scale triaxial tests on rockfill show remarkable similarity
to strength envelopes derived by the JRC-JCS model for rock joints.
Leps (1970) review of peak (drained) friction angles from triaxial tests on
rockfills show the same linear ~'- log 0" n behaviour as rock joints with
comparable JRC and JCS values (Barton and Kjaemsli, 1981).
Prototype tilt test for 1m long samples of scaled rockfill gradings (Barton et
al. 1983).

Limitation of tilt testing for rockfill and gravels, unless compaction IS

achieved to same low level of porosity as for the rockfill in practice.

Barton and Kjaemsli (1981) design for large scale tilt test apparatus for
testing full scale rock fill at "in situ" levels of compaction as achieved in the
dam or embankment.
5m long tilt tests of compacted rockfill performed at Italian dam project
(NGI, 1985).
 3 basalt
",
", ",
",
",
./
./

./
",
2 /'
.,--~ granitic - gneiss

granitic - gneiss

-e
0...
~
(j')
(j') 5
W

.-
0::
(j')

0:: basalt
<{ 3
W
I
V)

conglomerate

/
,/
/'
",
1 /'
",
granitic - gneiss plus 30'. schist

O~ __~ ~ L-__~ ~ __~ ~ ~ __~ __~

o 3 5
EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS
 70,-----:-: -~ '~~I-:"..,...,...r-II~---,-I-....,..,---'--'--"-1 --'-', '''''-I-r--i'--~

65r-----------------+------------------+1----------~
I
60~------------~~1----------------~!--------_4

sse
Ii. II
<, Average ........... I Tigtly packed
<, _ rocJdill ""-I / ell-graded,

<p' SO' ~ : I <. strong particles

<, .'. I <,........... I

...............
I
~ <;
45~--------~~~--~~~~~~------~~~------~
I: ..~! <,
,
........
) I~ ~. > .
40'- Loosely packe~
. ~
I: '-.
: ~:.
...
.......

poorly-graded, ' " <, ~ J. I : -:-- '.

..eak particles. ........ ~
35~----------------+-----------------~~~---~~
.
...................

I I I 1 I II 1 1 I
0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 2.0
cr~(MPa)

70
1 I

65
'I
EQUATIONS 8 ..9
o
1
~r =$b=27.s

3~~------------------~------------------~c_--~~

0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 2..0

o'~(MPa)
 70-, I i I I I I I I I I I I' I I f I i Iii Iii I I I I Iii I I

601" ~I <,
I I I
<,
<,
<,
Sse - ~~+----------"""""'~~-----4----~--------------~----------;
,,~ 5......... <, Average ." ~ Tightly packed,
A~"""" rockfill
.... " well- graded,
. ..........." ............ strong particles
~'
SO <, ~

........ ~
<, ................

4S,~~-----------------~---------~~~--~-.~~~-------JL~~-------;
e.
..
." <,

40"
I- ,.
I
1- Loosely pocked,
. .
'=)..."
'-. :.
. ,. <,
poorly - gra ded
weak particle~ <, <, -
<,

351 1 1 r ..... I

0.02 0.06 0.1 Q2 0.6 1JJ 2JJ

o'n (MPa)

Figure 42. Results of low stress tilt shear tests on crushed sandstone ( n = 28.7 - 35.1%), quartzitic gravel
(. n = 30.5 - 33.5%) and poorly graded gravel (. n = 32.8 - 40.4%), showin~ comparison with triaxial
test results assembled by Leps (1970). Heavy lines marked G (gravel) and S (crushed Slndstone) represent
the predicted strength of the backfills during the shaft emptying tests, when higher comoaction WlS Ich1.v.~.
 ,5$# Ii - f --, ...... ,,--

PLACI TILT lOX ON LlVEL ROCK FILL

rn "I REMOVE SHEAR PLANE STIFfENERS AND BEGIN TILTING I

~
a~

FILL AND COMP~CT WITH NIXT LIft

BACK- CALCULATE (R)

w o 0
u- IPb
R= log(S/(J~o)

o
ISOLATE FROM SURROUNDING 'ILL MEASURE TILT ANGLE (a) AT WHICH FAILURE OCCURS
 l J

NGI

o
F. METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE STRESS-DEPENDENT PEAK
DRAINED FRICTION ANGLE (<lLQ) FOR ROCKFILL

Weakest link theory for shear strength of rockfill on rock foundation

interface (Barton and Kjaemsli, 1981).
Empirical equations for the peak frictional strength of rockfill (R, S), rock
joints (JRC, JCS) and interfaces (JRC, S) Barton (1982).
Method for selecting appropriate R-value for rockfill depending on origin,
roundedness and smoothness of particles (Barton and Kjaemsli, 1981). Tilt
test results for 1m tilt apparatus (Barton et al. 1983).
Marachi et al. (1972) large scale triaxial test data for Oroville Dam rockfill
with different grandings. Estimated strength envelopes (R, S model) show
excellent agreement for a' 3> 1 MPa.
Barton and Kjaemsli (1981) method of estimating the frictional strength of
rockfills. Stc, value depends on particle size. Use "plane test" curve for
design. (Note R 0 degrees change of friction angle for each order of
magnitude change of effective normal stress. This is identical to the case for
JRC of rock joints).
Example calculation of strength for waste dump of porphyry (Barton, 1982).
Calculated distribution of friction angles in a waste dump or rockfill dam.
Note strong influence of 10% increased porosity (Barton and Kjaemsli,
1981).
 RELEVANT
PARAMETERS

JCS (or ac )
Unweathered rock
a
Weathered rock JRC

A r(orb)

. !eathered r
ROCKJOINT
unweathered

b S (strength)

R (roughness)
-.
CD B r (friction)

CRUSHED ROCK

S (dCS)
b
JRC R)

INTERFACE
,
, .. ~' '11\ Q,.

!<ockfti!

1<. ck ,,,t
----_ ..

I ::; s: IoJ/o (:rc~ ) + r

 EQUIVALENT ROUGHNESS (R)
15 14 13 12 11 10 9

[) DRY

SAT.

_----11

~--------~------~----------~--------~~~~~~~------
15 20 25 30 40 45

POR OSITY In 0/0) (after compaction)

(before consolidation)

EXAMPLES SHOWING DEGREE OF ROUNDEDNESS

"
QUARRIED TALUS MORAINE GLACIFLUVIA FLUVlAL
ROCK MATERIAL MATERIAL

m :U
~

=- --.-
..~
_ee
.H Hi
~

Figure 40. Results of tilt tests on poorly graded gravel ([). ,and on well
graded gravel ~. ). The smooth, partly-angular to partly-rounded
particles predicted by this classification are in fair agreement with
actual observations of the gravel.
 55.-------~~----1I------._----------------------
1 MPa 2 MPa OROVILLE DAM MATERIAL

50~~------~----------~ o dmax = 12mm

6 dmax = SOmm n=18%
I 0 dmax = 150mm
~ 45r-~~~~~~~-------+----------~--------~
Test data
from Marachi
I~-----l~ et. al. (J 7)

35~ L- L- L- ~

200 400 600 BOO

I I
lMPa 2MPa (Eqn. 4)
~\ ESTIMATED (J)'

so ~~, 0 dSO = 2.Smm

\', x>,
,
\'6
0'
<, ...
....
<, 0_
6 dSO = 10mm
0 dSO = 30mm
n=18%

, 45 "
<,
-- -..-b "'""-- --0- ____
.....
....
....
r-- __
P_:--6 __ --- ---- ----- ---
- -0-_ -- --
-
----
( )-...

40
---c J---- __

35
200 400 600 BOO
EFFECTIVE CONFlNING PRESSURE 0-3 (PSi)
 TRIAXIAL TEST PLANE TEST

, ~
\
1.0
"'j-.. \
0.8 t-... 1\
........ \
~ 0.6 ..
1,1'

-
III
I-..
A B

200 300~500

dSO particle size Imm)

FIG. 7.-Method of Estimating Equivalent Strength (S) of Rockfill, Based on Uniaxial

Compression Strength (0'...), and on d 50 Particle Size

d 50 particle size

(T c uniaxial compressive strength

o(rock
} equivalent strength (S) (Fig. 7)

description: origin
roundedness
smoothness
equivalent roughness (R) (Fig. 8)
n % porosity after compaction
~b basic friction angle J (usual range 25-35~
Figs. 5 and 6 show the potential of the method. Estimated cf>' values, and
their variation with confining pressure and particle size, are compared with
measured data for Pyramid dam argillite (quarried rock) and Oroville dam
amphibolite (fluvial gravel). Uniaxial compression strengths were 15,805psi (110
MPa) and 28,565 psi (200 MPa), respectively. -

TABLE 1.--c;fJ Varies by R Degrees for Each Ten-Fold Change in Pressure

I

I
0' n " in Equivalent 4>' 4>'
mega pascals overburden plane triaxial
(1) (2) (3) (4)
0.0001 5mm 67 65
0.001 50 m.m 61 59
0.01 500mm 55 53
0.1 5m 49 4r
1.0 SO m 43 41
10.0 500 m 37 35
Note: 25.4 mm = I in.; I MPa = 145 psi.
 $' = R.log (S/On') + ~b (5 )
Example: porphyry waste dump:

c = 150 HPa, dSO = 250 mm, S = 30 MPa (Figure 13)

n = 35%, sharp angular particles, R = 6 (Figure 12)

$b = 30 (obtained from tilt tests on sawn blocks)

The following values of ~' would be obtained from equation S.

a ' (HPa) ~
n

10 33

It w rlI be noticed from this tabulation and an earlier ooe for

rock joints that the value of $' varies by R or JRC degrees, for each
ten-fold change in stress level.
~' (n= 25%)
6(1';
5
5

30m 0.1
,
0.2
6n
(MPa) 0.3
0.4 - - -- - - - - - - _ _ (tf!)
0.5 - ':1': ,,:: ")S 50
-- - <. 7.
<, "

"\ ,
\

ASSUMPTIONS: ~b :30
1. nc:25/.(R=8.0)
6c(sat.}= 150MPa
2. n= 35/. (R= 5.5)
d50= 200mm ~'
3
~ =2.15t1m
G. SOME ASPECTS OF INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTH BETWEEN
ROCK MATERIALS

Huder (1967) interface tests for three different surface roughnesses (aIL =

211000, 811000 and 5011000) JRC-controlled behaviour always occurred with

smoothest interface.
Concepts of "JRC-controlled"and "R-controlled" behaviour and synthesis of
experimental results reported in the literature for a/d., ratio (Barton, 1982).
Photographic illustration of JRC and R-controlled behaviour (Barton, 1980).
Nomogram for selecting appropriate Land JRC (or R) value based on given
dso particle size (50% of particles pass given sieve size) and based on
interface roughness amplitude (a). (Barton et al., 1983).
Mixed effects from course particles placed at toe of waste dump or at toe of
rockfill dam. Resistance to waterflow increased, resistance to shear on
interface may be reduced.
~'+ ~ and f -~effects from inclined foundations, as for Patton "i" values.
Internal water flow through rockfill: resistance to JRC-controlled failure and
R-controlled failure from water seepage forces.
Interface characteristics (drill and blasted or smooth bored) for silo (or
blocked ore schute) studies when filled with rockfill.
Silo (or blocked ore schute) studies of internal stresses and sidewall friction.
With either gravel or rockfill, sidewall frictions bears full load after HID ratio
of about 1.0 (Barton et al. 1983).
 ------------------1000mm --------------------.1
smooth

rough

very
rough

Profiles of three rock surfaces

1.6
SANO GRAVEL
I
I
d mal( .10 mm
very
rough dmQl( .200mm
I
I dSO .0.8mm dSO 6 mm
1.2 :
I
~" I rough

I 8", '"
0.8 I

smooth I 2 mm
smooth. 2mm II
0),
I
I i I
22 26 30 34 20 24 28 32
POROSITY (n) -t;

Figure 2.1 Interface shear tests using sand and gravel placed against 1 meter
long rock surfaces of increasing roughness, after Huder (1967).
Normal stress 0 = 0.1 MPa (14.5 psi) in each case.
n
 100
v
V
~V
/
q
dSO a= 01 + 02 (mm)

,,/ V I 2
~002 .02 0.2 2 20 200
PARTICLE SIZE (mm) ROUGHNESS AMPLITUDE

j
" ill I t II II I I If I I I I I I II I
0.01 0.1 1.0 I 10.0 100
(R - controlled -
I behaviour)
o r------......, I~
I,
TRANSITION
I[
AT a/dsoz7
I
"
/ /'::
(J RC - controlled " very rough and
behaviour) f : undulating
~o--------~~~~~~--O~~I
I
I
I
I
0.01 1.0 10.0
AMPLITUDE / PARTICLE SIZE (a/dSO)

Figure 2.3 Transition between JRC-controlled behavior (shear along interface)

and R-controlled behavior (shear through rockfil1). after Barton (1980).
 I
JRC-CONTROLLED
I
a
I
I
"

I
I
I

_ J L. _'- .;; _ __
Figure 52. Interpretation of interface roughness for determining whether
shear behaviour is JRC-controlled or R-control1ed.

~o 300

E
-
a::
UJ
t-
200

E 100
-C
UJ
~
....
....J
...J 50
W
o
300~--+-~~r---~---r~~-r--7 .... 40
::::> ~ 30
t- 200~--+-~~~--~--~-4-4-V
~
R-CONTROLLED ~ 20
0.. e
II
~ 100~--~------------~~ o
Approx- LO
boundary
-0 10
If) 50r---+-~~+---~ UJ
If)
W ....
N
5
Z 30r--+-~~ (/)
I 4
C) UJ 3
::> 20~-+---+--+---7" ....J
o ....
U 2
a:: t-
o 10~-+", o:
UJ 4:
0- 1.0
a::
::>
If)
....J
"'-
ct:j---+--+-+--~---+--t
U
0.5
UJ
~
3 ~~~~~r---+---~~ .... 0.4
I-
....
e 2 a::
u
0.3
0.2

0.1 02 OJ as 1.0 2 3 4 5 10 20-30 e

o APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF PROFILE (Llm.

1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 50 100 200-1000
I I I J J I I I I I I L__
J

CD GIVEN PARTICLE SIZE dSO (mm)

FIG. 1. - Coarse rockfill at the toe improves resistance to
ravelling, but may prejudice interface shear
strength locally.
 positively sloping interface

( ~'+ B)

horizontal interface

negatively sloping interface

( .' - B )

FIG. 20. - A negatively sloping interface may have a dramatic

influence on the resistance to ravelling at the toe,
during severe leakage.
 2.0

~. for J RC - controlled shear

..
s:
"'0
...
GJ
.Q
1.5
~ = 265 t/m3
E
..:
8.
- 1.0
~
,..-'"
E
c
.....
u 0.5

~ CRITICAL FLOW-RATE FOR

o SLIDING OF SINGLE STONES
ALONG THE INTERFACE

STONE DIAME TER (mm) After Sotvik (1962 )

2.0 .----r"-.----r-I-,...,....,.TT""-r---...-r---y-~r------------,
t' for R-controlled shear
..
s:
"'0
G>
~ 1.5 ~-4---+-1

E
..:
8.

-
u
~ 1.0 ~-+-~~t i---I---t-nr=-~

"'E
Hartung og 0
0.5 ~,,-,,J-----+---2'. ~l----I
I k
Scheuerlein(1970)
CRITICAL FLOW- RATE FOR
.'=450 RAVELLING OF STONES IN
o
l---b~r DOWNSTREAM TOE

o 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1800

STONE DIAMETER (mm) After Olivier (1967) and
Stephenson (1979 L
 2'",ft.

I~
-:
'.-,

Figure 2.4 Simulated smooth-blasted and smooth bored half-cylinders for inter-
face-rockfill tilt testing.
co
w

Figure 51. Examples of interface test runs, using the fine and coarse fractions of quartzitic
gravel sliding on the smooth-bored (TBM simulated) half cylinder.
Figure 59. Method of pre-drilling and tension splitting, to produce the
rough surface of a smooth-blasted excavation.
105
-~-- :;;JP
 ". eIIOCIU'ILL) eft .,,., ~

,...
10
", eG'UV!L) eft :I I~)

~~

=t
... I
-e eo.
<,

--
4

..01
y~
10
,...
o
~-.....-"n
.. (G".V!L;
-- ........
-----+----.
/
/
/
00
e
10
e
l Joe % -I
/
I +
/ Q

In 1.
I

N
o
/
I J.:H'H. J.~YH.

/
I 14.1.00 H!)nO~

__----~-------4--------~------~--------~------~
O~------~--~--~--
00000
N ~
H. STRESS TRANSFORMATION REALITIES IN A ROCK MASS, AND
SUMMARY OF SHEAR CRITERIA FOR DISCRETE INSTEAD OF
CONTINUUM MODELLING

1m ' jointed block test that did not reach shear failure using classic stress
transformation equations (Bakhtar and Barton, 1984).
Classic stress transformation equations and dilation corrected version that fits
experimental data better Bakhtar and Barton, (1984) .
Stress path with classic, dilation corrected, and fully correct terms explains
difficulty of shearing when joints are inclined to principal stresses.
Translational (as above) or rotational behaviour may be related to ratio
RQD/Jn. Solid rock and soil are at opposite ends of diagonal.
Conceptual method for estimating the shear resistance of in situ crushed rock
using modified R (based on RQD/Jn) and modified S (using friction J/Ja
instead of strength c.). This is a weakness-based as opposed to a strength-
based criterion.
Summary diagram comparing all the shear strength criteria from intact rock
to rockfill and filled joints.
STRESS TRANSFORMATION

THEORETICAL

T = + (CJ', _ CJ'2) sin 2~

DILATION CORRECTED

T ="21 ((J, - (J2) sin 2 [~ + d.n mOb]

 1
j - S1

0<'
~/~
0'2
~,~
~ a2
~
/ O~ S2

Dilation dn 0

CJ)
CJ)
w
a:
~
CJ)
a:
cot
w
:I: CD Theoretical
CJ)
Dilation
corrected

@ Fully
corrected

NORMAL STRESS
 "R,A 5LATJONAL
N~ N
.
'( I
-
ROTATIONAL

ROD 100 ~o80 10 bO 50 40 30 20 10 0

In
IN "f"A<.1 05 zoo JBO IbO I~ 120 JOa 180 IbO 140 20
I 0 100 130 80 10 fO 50 40 30 ~O10
O~E
SET
2 50 145 to 3. 130 25 Z L.! .(}5I

3 3? !30 27 23 20 J7 ,/3 10 t 33
TWO
sers
1- ..
j,
~
25 122 20 111 IIJ 12 .0 t 5 l:S
6 it ,5 13 12 11 ) t 5 3-3 '-7
~

1l4Ree
sers
9 \I 10 9 8 t 6 4~3-3 7:2 '1
12 ~ 7, t b5 +:2 3,] 1:5 '-1 0-8
Foug
~c=T5 '5 1 6 S t-l 40 33 7:1 1:0 1-3 0-1
20 5 45 40 '3-5 10 IS to '5 1-0 SOIL
 CONCEPTUAL MeTHoD FoR. ESf/l\4ATING :

R.

I"~ r-----------~~

o
0-' 0-1. o~ 0.4 <>5

, 1. :) 4 - 11. 2..

( Jo.)
)(AMPLES : Q e ::: {'/~ Jt\ ::15 Tr :::t =~
tZ "
~. - v (:
-><j>=lJ
.r /_.- -- ,(). } -
I

cp= R k,~~) + cP v- 4> I == ;<'0 IS

0
}o
cr- If\
I -::: 10 I 0( MR...
~ UJ
-.0.
O'i
OJ
i"titt
~
)It

5'"0
-I

(~~~~
t

~v

f
~

O"~ 0'". t~
~ 50
~
or let, : e,
)
~t"'l 20
~) ~b
~
~

!-ft4 40
~
~o,~t
I 0'"

~ ---~
~~
_ .' ;a~,......""". flU
(J';:) 4>~
~ 30 -------
U:1
c:::!. ~'-" ~7 J. '"'kf
- -41~ R
\-
(~) ~b
<,

c:i
'" r
~ 0-"
<
(,ti
~'T

~ ~fi((d Jr/r~
\f\ \AI t'ces
(("eo,J; .

Jo 20 30 4<J so '0
{::FPeC'ftv6. (VO(J.. MA L S-rtLe:.SS (f.L: ~3)0,- (/" I UP..
\

I
I ( (
 ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAG PAULO

DEP AR TAMENT 0 DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDACOES

PEF - 5822 PROJETOS DE OBRAS SUBTERRANEAS EM

ROCHASFRATURADAS

LECTURE 7:

"THE Q-SYSTEM OF EXCAVATION SUPPORT DESIGN"

The Q-system of rock mass classification was introduced in an earlier lecture, and
it was compared with the R1v1R method of Bieniawski. In this lecture some
background information about the development of the system in given, firstly
from 1973-74 when it was developed (Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974) and
secondly from 1993-94 when some updating of support measures and small
changes to SFR were made (Grimstad and Barton, 1993).

Two invaluable stimuli for the development of the Q-system were: 1) the need to
explain different amounts of deformation in hydropower caverns of different size;
how did the rock conditions affect the deformations? 2) the case records of Cecil
(1970) who improved upon his professor's RQD system (Deere, 1964) by
suggesting that the number of joint sets was important to the stability of tunnels.

Cecil (1970) visited numerous Norwegian and Swedish tunnels and some
caverns, and provided sketches of instability conditions, and brief but useful
descriptions of the rock mass and structural features. These we used for testing
 2

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAD PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

some preliminary ratings for number of joint sets (In) and for joint roughness (Jr).
These were progressively added to by descriptions and ratings for clay fillings
(Ja) and for weakness zones and stress problems (SRF). Water problems (Jw)
were added later, when some 130 extra case records had been collected, many
from site visits by the first two authors.

The initial 210 (approx.) case records spanned tunnel or excavation sizes of 1 to
100 meters, some 50 rock types (but mostly granites, schists, gneisses and
quartzites) and depths from 5 to 2500 meters. About 110 cases were from
Scandinavia, and about 100 from other parts of the world. More than 30 cases
had Q-values in the two lowest classes 0.1, < 0.01, i.e. extremely and

exceptionally poor) while less than half this number were in the two highest
classes (> 100, > 400 i.e. extremely and exceptionally good).

Because of the magnitude of the ratings, the six Q-system parameters result in an
extreme range of six orders of magnitude in quality (0.001 is essentially clay, and
1000 is essentialy unjointed hard rock). This big range of qualities is realistic, and
it closely resembles the product of shear strength and modulus of deformation.
The six parameters actually represent (relative block size) x (inter-block shear
strength) x (active stress), and the detailed ratings were arrived at by trial and
error during a six month development period prior to publication in 1974.

The Q-value of a rock mass can be estimated by observing the rock quality in
rock cuttings, in surface exposures devoid of significant weathering (glaciated
terrain), in blasted foundations and in drill core. When the time comes for
 3

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAD PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

tunnelling, the Q-parameter ratings must be updated by following the progress of

tunnelling. Day-to-day or week-to-week decisions on the relevant rock class and
appropriate support class are made as the tunnel progresses. Without this
attention to actual rock class, unsafe solutions to support in some sections, and
over-design in most of the tunnel may be the result.

The original (1974) Q-system development was based on what at the time was
considered the most effective and economic support for tunnels and caverns of
widely varying dimensions, namely systematic rock bolting (B) and mesh
reinforced shotcrete Snnr). Cases involving steel sets and final, nominal concrete
linings were not included. The idea was to use the Q-system to directly
recommend permanent support solutions for excavations of given span and safety
requirement. Since the late 70's, fiber reinforced shotcrete S(fr) has been
available in several countries, and already by 1984 steel mesh reinforcement was
entirely replaced by steel fiber reinforcement in Norway. For this reason, due to
the spreading use of S(fr) in many countries, this revolutionary one-cycle steel-
reinforced-concrete is now part of the Q-system recommendations for tunnel
support.

Many new case records, now totaling 1250 cases, have been added to make the
support recommendations more reliable (Grimstad and Barton, 1993). Grimstad
has also been responsible for updating part of the SFR ratings for stress slabbing
and rock bursting, since such tunnelling problems can now be tackled by S(fr)
+ B (end-grouted, not fully-grouted for the case of stress problems).
 4

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAG PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

Both the original B + S(mr) and new B + S(fr) recommendations are given for

reference purposes, so that the increasing bolt spacing and reduced shotcrete

thickness achieved with modem materials can be compared with the earlier

solutions which are still practiced in many countries.

The Q-value can be used for several purposes of which the following IS a

reasonably complete list:

1. estimation of maximum permanently unsupported span for a given Q-value

(useful in mining).

2. estimation of permanent rock reinforcement needs for tunnels and caverns

when the Q-value is not high enough for the excavations to be unsupported.

3. estimation of the deformation modulus.

4. estimation of the deformation to be expected with a given span and Q-value.

5. estimation of the seismic P-wave velocity.

 5

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO

DEPARTMv1ENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

A. CASE RECORDS OF TUNNELS WERE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

OF DATA FOR DEVELOPING RATINGS FOR THE PARAMETERS
NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE ROCK MASS QUALITY

Three examples of Cecil (1970) case records that were used to develop the
best set of ratings for the chosen parameters, like number of joint sets,
roughness etc.
Contrasting stability and overbreak from one joint set and three joint sets, and
simple ratings for joint roughness which will also influence whether
overbreak occurs.
1973 Q-system chart prior to improvement and publication. Note absence of
Jw (water inflow term).
Range of tunnel and cavern dimensions and depths for the original 200 case
records.
Frequency of occurrence of rock types III the original 200 case records
(Barton, 1987).
Examples of six photographs of rock masses with details of the Q-parameter
ratings. Numbers and letters in brackets refer to the relevant parameter rating
tables.
 ~
NGI

1_
---_ 6.5 m ----.-

SCHIST 53

r Graphite - and
day-filled shear zone

RQ 0 across tunnel = 70 -t. I

-----8 m-----

76

width = 5.9 m
/
/

GRANITE 61
Figure 30. Examples of three case records with overbreak (Cecil, 1970).
 ',.'

rough Jr- 3 ,.\6,,, Jr. 1'5

- - -- .....-
Imooth
- - 2
- 'MM_.!'
--= - .;s;ep:~

.
10

-
Indc.nlhl." 1'5
. ,U(ku,s.I.Ud
- --- -- --_.
05

UNDULATING PL.ANAR
- ~- -- - .-- - ---

~~---------------------------~ NGI
 CD ROCK MASS STRUCTURE. ST~ES5 REDUC.TION FAC.TOR

(i\ (10.') OC'l.lrr

'C!s, co..si .~ loose rock ([RB

A. ""~ssi""/"o
Dt.scrl p tlO"
",,1t..- ,t-,;"ts.
1 B
.~~;,~~~i::;e- --
A. M:lt:~;-ct:~-~;,:-;;~-
~u....,...v.y...:..\ Y"Ddc..
,o~l.i,,"'"
10
We .I.f."tS~ lo'"
. DtplX Or ~""'v.t.o~ < <;0',...
cl~
5
B. Ol\~ ~i"C s.t. z C. Wc .\("rH ';oot ,.o"r.i"i~ <LA)
Zs
C. i>.~t set r(u.s ". .J. 0"'. 0< p t\... 0\ e." .t,o~ > 50 .
OIlC. 3
D. ' ..0 ~i"t SiltS.
:1- _ Gi) ~:'~P..~t~~~_..':~~L~~:~.?!~!~_p_,:,i>!.e~~
- - E~"':-0-;.:t -~;tl-rC,-';"L~. - b Desn-i "0" lrYGj (Jt./O;
25
D. looso,0!'t" ~i"h > /00 > b'~
F. Three. ~i"t set,. 8 E. ,...... strfU 100-10 ~.&- '6& 1'0
G. Th,,(. joi .t sels pl., ro."J,.OM. 'I F. hi~\.. ,~.tSJ 10-5 ,"-'33 05
G. roc\(. b"t. < 5 < '33 5'0
H. Crv.~~(t.lro,k or e..rtk-rikt.,
12 0:- ,. ..).r pr;.cipl sr~ss, (~orit .. v t.) .
ra. <lo \.u."i~ . i"t.d....

2 JOINT ROUG-HNE5S NUMBER E><CAVATION SAFETY RATtO

cript,o", <ITiD
DCl
N 2.-5
A. .t,~~
Rol.l~l. J o."J.v..~ 4- Pcr ."'l\~"/; .i
c. Opt"'~~s,
B. . ".,,,fi r t... rls fo.. 1.~c1r". /6
B. S .ootl...,~..J..t.\,;.') z Sl'o ..~or: "OOOM) M"~or .oa.cI. ."d,
C. ril tu.~.tlSI Sl.lr~~ e],",btrs. . /-3
c. Sl'II\.ooil} ~ea..,..l~ p(a.V\o..- 1
D. Po .tr s-tcJ.i."'J "' .~o. ,.o.,J 4~J.. 1'0
D. s.....ootL, fla.t, slic.kt...sidttl. 1.1. r .i{"' . ~ t... "t(f.

E. J.. ...il..,~")st.t..o"'1
Ufttltr"::,...
Spo,t. .l. ptl.bf,. f ..
ci1if.'ts, 07
t ..
,t.itl.

JOINT AL"T(;RATION {l./OMBE.R BOL,. AND A/'JCHO~ LE.f'/c7TIi5

ROOF: t - 2-+- 0'15 B (B C ffl1l1)

L. 0'4-0 B

PI'- I'IBt

;:. so 0'3 0'03

10-50 O IS 0'05
5-10 0'2. 0'07
<5 0'3 0'12.

GOOD E)(C.ELLENT
100
qO
eo
70
'0
SO -
40

T~
-'~
---
.30

20
x
---..
cO
E 10
q
....... a
7
b
Z
g:
V1
5.
4
3 q,

2.

-
Q

ROCK MASS QUALITY

 ~
NGI
SPAN OR DIAMETER (rn)

1-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30-100

80 f-

If)
w
If)
< 60
(..)

LL
-
o
a:
w
IZl 4 0
2
::J
Z

20

TUNNEL DEPTH (meters)

0-25 25-50 50-100 100-250 250-100500-250

If)
w 40
If)
<
o
LL
0 30
a:
w
IZl
:I
::J
Z
20

10

1::::::::t@:m:1 SCANDINAVIAN CASU (CECIL, 1i70)

_ OTHER CASIS
 "
~
:-.~
.~

.~

.i~
.'J~ Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 11
'l~

f~
~~

'~

1. GitANITE a. ORANlT.e;
0.90/9 xl. 5/1. 0 xO. 66/1. 0 Q. 70/15x3. 0/1.0 x Il, 66/1. 0
10 ( {air/good) 9. ~ (ai~)
~
. (IE/ZF. 3E/4B. 5B/6J) (IC/~H. 3:8/4B. Sa/6J)

~
..
.<

i
j

f
3. SANDSTONE.CLAYSTONE NODULAR. LIMESTONE
O. 40/9x 1. o/z. OxO. 66/1. 0 Q.80/9x1.0/5xO.66/5
.1.5 (poor) O.Z4 (very poor)
(IB/ZF. 3F/4C. SB/6J) (ID/ZF. 3:f/4N. SB/6G)

5. MUDSTONE (overall ROD 30) 6. ORANl'f.e; (~<;Qmp03ed) aon-o

O.30/9l!'1.0/5xO.66/S O.IO/ZOx1.0/ho.6J>/6
.0.09 (extremely poor) 0.009 (~x<;eptiQnally poor)
(IB/ZF. 3J/4N. 58/6B) (IA/ZJ. 3J/4K. 5a/6N)
 6

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE sAn PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA(OES

B. Q-PARAMETER RATING TABLES FROM 1974 AND 1994 AND

COMPARISONS OF BASIC SUPPORT CHARTS FROM 1974 AND
1994.

Q-value calculation and ranges of individual ratings.

Q-parameter ratings from Barton, Lien and Lunde (1977). These are a
condensed version of the identical ratings from 1974 which were printed on
several pages.
Q-parameter ratings from Barton and Grimstad (1994) showing changes to
three of the SRF ratings for high stress conditions (see 6 b).
1974 case records plotted on the SPANIESR - Q-value diagram indicating
range of data. Note unsupported cases (black circles).
Support class numbering (NS. 1 to 38) for selecting B + S(mr) support with
the 1974 support tables.
Suggested support measures for the 38 support categories of 1974. Note
conditional factors which should also be checked when using the 1994 B
+ S(fr) support recommendations, in case adjustments seem warranted.
Example of SPANIESR and Q-critical estimation for Majes tunnels, Peru.
(ESR = 1.6 is relevant for water tunnels).
Table ofESR (safety requirement numbers) from 1974.
Table of ESR (safety requirement numbers) from 1994, shows some small
modifications.
 7

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

Comparison of the three versions of the support selection charts from 1974 (B
+ S(mr)), 1986 (B + S(fr)), and 1993/1994 (B + S(fr)).
1993 support chart with explanations of rock class and support (Grimstad and
Barton, 1993).
Examples ofB + S(fr) designs for different rock classes.
 The rock mass quality, which ranges over six orders of magnitude, is
described by the six parameters given below:
Q = RQD x -Jr x -- Jw
In Ja SFR

where Q = quality number (0.001 for squeezing clay, 1000 for',

________________________ m__as_s_iv_e~,_u_ni_o_in_te_d~roc~~k~) _
b(o,k ~it e /, RQD% - modified core recovery (counting only pieces > 10 em in
length) (rating 10 to 100%)
A., Jn - joint set number (rating 0.5 to 20)
:; 'A =a> , t:re vt 01i{ Jr - joint roughness number (rating 0.5 to 4)
Ja joint alteration number (rating 0.75 to 20)
, It; r ~ v:
.: fA ~ \..... -.;;

r ':"',P"j
~ "'- :>
{JSFR w
- joint water reduction factor (rating 0.05 to 1.0)
-stress reduction factor (rating 0.5 to 400)
 Table 1. Updated Q-system parameter ratings (1993 update)
.pp'OW
t, Rock Quality Designation RQD 5. Joint Water Reduction Factor ..,e1l1 pl Jw
(kaf~11

A Very poor 0-25 Dry excavations or minor inflow. I.e. <5l1min

A <1 1.0
Poer 2550 locally
B
50 - 75 Medium inflow Of pressure. occasional outwash of 12.5 0.66
C Fait B
[oint lillings
0 Good 75 - 90
Large inllow or high pressure in competent rock with 0.5
C 2.510
E Excellenl 90 - ~OO unfilled joints
NOlI: il Where ROD is reponed or measured IS '" 10 (including 01. a nominal Large inllow or high pressure. conslderable oulwesh
0 2.510 0.33
value 01 10 is us.ed 10 evaluale O. 01 joint fillings
ii) ROD intervals 01 !j. t.. 100;95.90 tc . are sufficiently accurato.
Exceptionally hig/l inll.ow or water pressure at
E >10 0.20.1
.blasting. <,iecaying with time
Exception~.IlY high inllow or water pressure
F >10 0.1-0.05
2. Joint Set Number J"
continuing wi1.hout noticeable decay
Noto: il Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase J"Y if drainage measures
A Massive. no or few joints 0.5 1.0
are installed.
B One joint set 2 iil Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered.
C One joint set plus random joints 3
0 Two joint sets 4
6. Stress Reduction Factor SRF
E Two joint sets plus random joints 6
F. ~hreB joint sets 9 W kness zones intersocting tlXCMv6tion. which m.y C4Jj11lIDosening of rock
a'
m6SS when tunnel is excavated
G Three joint sets plus random joints 12
Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing c~y or chemi 10
Four or moro joint sets. random. hea~ily jointed; A
H
sugar cube", etc.
15 cally disintegrated rock, very loose surrounding rock (any depth)
Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically 5
J Crushed rock. eanhlike 20 B disintegrated rock. (depth of excavation :s SOm)
Note: n For intersections. us. (3.0 x J",)
Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically
ii} For portals. use 2.0 x J",) C 2.5
disintegrated rock (depth of excavation > 50m)
Multiple shear zones in competent rock Icl,y-fr I. loose 7.5
0 surrounding rock (any depth)
3. Jo)nt Roughness Number J, Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-(reel (depth of
E . excavation s 50m) 5.0
s} Rock wall contact. and bl rock-wall contlet before 10 em .""ar
Single s.hea, zones if) competent rOCK(clay-(ree)'(dePlh 0/
A Discontinuous joints 4 F 2.5
excavation> 50ml
B Rough or irregular. undulating 3 Loose. open joinls. heavily [ointed 0, sugar cube", ere, (any
G 5.0
C Smooth. undulating 2 depth)
0 Slickensided. undulating 1.5 Note: il ReGuce these values o] SRF \ly 25-50% i.l the relevant shear Jones
only in/.lvence ~l/I do npt inlersect the excavation.
E Rough or irregular. planar 1.5
F Smooth. planar 1.0
G Slickensided. planar 0.5 bJ C_t~".t rock. rod ~trB'S pr(Jb(~ms (1(; /0'1 iT, Iv. SRF
Note: il Descriptions refer to small seat. features and intermediate seale H Low stress, near 5urface. cpan joints >200 <0-91 2.5
features, in that order.
Medium str.ss. favourable Itresl 20010 0.01-0.3 1
cJ No rrx:kw.1I cont.ct when sh ,.d J condition
Zont conlaining clay minerals thick enough to High stress. very tight structure.
H 1.0
prevtnt rockwaU CenlaCI K Usua.uy favourable 10 stability. mav 105 0.3-0.4 0.5-2
Sandy. gravelly 01 crU$hed zone thick enough 10 be unlavourable for wall stability.
J 1.0
prevent rockwaU contacl Moderate slabbing .ller > 1 hour in
L 5-3 0.5-0.65 550
NOIt: i) Add 1.0 if1he mean spacing 01 the relevant joint set i$ !}reqier tnan 3m. ma.s:~;v"Jo<;k
iil J, - 0.5 can be used lor planar aUckenaided joints hilving lineation SI<lbbing a.nci roc"k ~~rst after a few
provided the linaations are oriented lor minimum strength. M minutes in mssstv rock
3-4 0.65-1 50-200

Heavy tock burst (slTaif)-b4rsll and

N imme<,iiate dynamic deformations in <2 >1 200400
</Ir r,ock
4. Joint Alteration Numoer .I. ~S;\(q
<Jpprox.
Note: ii) For svong1y anisotropic virgin stress field (if measuredl: when
al Rockwall conract (no minora' rdJlngs. only coatingv 5.::;;: (/,/U3 :S 10. reduce Uc to O.75u,. When u,/u3 > 10. reduce tI.
Tighlly healed. he'd. non-soltening. impermeable to 0.50c ""Ile,~ 0c = unconfined Compression strengt/). 0, and iTa a,.
A
filling. i.e., quartz or epidott - 0.75 the major and minor principal stresses, and o. = maximum langenlial
stress (estimOl.ed Irom elastic theorv).
B Unallered joint walls. surface staining only 25-35' 1.0 un Few case records available where depth of crown below surface Is less
thiln span width. Suggest SRF increase from 2.5 to 5 lor such c es
Slightly altered joint walls. Nonsoltening minerai
(see HI_
C coatings. sandy particles. clayfree disintegrated
rock, etc.
25-30' 2.0
..
Silty or sandyclay coatings. small clay fraction
0 20-2!ij' 3.0
(nonsoftening) e) Squ zlng rock: pl.stlc flow of Incomp.t,nt rock
q,/fTc SRF
und., the Influence of high rock pressure
Softening or low friction clay mineral cOltings. I.e..
E kaolinite or mica. Also chlorite, talc. gypsum. 816' 4.0 o IMildsque ing rock pressure 1-5 5-10
graphite, ere., and smaU quantities of SWilling clays.
p I Heavy squeezing rock. pressure >5 10-20
bl Rock-wall contact before 10 em shea, (thin miner .1flllingsl
Note: ivl Cases of sque ing rock may occur for depth H> 3500 liS (Singh et
F Sandy particles. c~y-fret disinlegrated rOCk ,C. 25-30' 4.0 al.. 1992). Rock mISS compression strength can be Ulimaled from
Q 7 yO liS IMP.) whore y _ rock densily in om/ce (Singh. 1993).
Strongly overconsolidaled non-softening clay mineral 6.0
G 16-24'
fillingS (continuous. bul < ~mm Ihickneul dJ S.w.e11i1J9 rpc.k;- chllmir:;l1 swelling .ctlvlty d.penaUfg on presenc. of w.t.,

H
Medium or (ow overconsolidation. softening. clav
12-16' 8.0 R IMild s.I({~llingrock p,~ss~,e 510
mineral lillings (continuous. bUI < 5mm thickness)
S Ilji,eavy svyelfing rock pressure 10-15
Swelling-clay lillings. i.e., monlmorillonite
tccmlnuous. bul < 5mm lhicknes.). Val\le 01 J. 8-12
J 6-12'
depends on percent of swolling claysize panicles.
and access to water. etc.
cl No rock- wall contact wh.n sh r.d (thick minalCiIl (d/"lQgsI
KL Zones or band. 01 disintegrated or cr\lshed rock ~M
6-24'
e, II, Qf
M clay (see G. 1-1.J lor description of cia V condition) 8,12 Not,o: J, qn~. J. <;1~Hific~;ion i~ appli~q 10 the joint set or discor)tin~!IY thalli
least 1;I)o!o~ra.bl~,lOTsl~Pil!lY 1'0\11 fr9m the point ql vievi 01 orlenlalien .nd
Zones or bands of silty- 01 sandy' cloy mall clav
N ItlClion (non-softeningl 5.Q shear re,si~,Ii'.nce (yy/J~f!l r ~ (10 I~" (J,/J. I.

OP Thick. continuous zones 01 bands 01 cloV (S08 G. H. 10.13,

R J lor description 01 clay conditionl 6~4
or 132Q
6. Stress Reduction Factor SRF
a) Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may cause loosening of rock
mass when tunnel is excavated
Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or chemi-
A 10
cally disintegrated rock, very loose surrounding rock (any depth)
Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically
B 5
disintegrated rock (depth of excavation ::5 50m)
I

Single weakness zones containing clay or chemically

C 2.5
disintegrated rock (depth of excavation> 50m)
Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay-free), loose
D 7.5
surrounding rock (any depth)
Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free) (depth of
E 5.0
excavation ::5 50m)
Single shear zones in competent rock (clay-free) (depth of
F 2.5
excavation > 50m)
Loose, open joints, heavily jointed or "sugar cube", etc. (any
G 5.0
depth)
Note: i) Reduce these values of SRF by 25-50% if the relevant shear zones
only influence but do not intersect the excavation.
b) Competent rock, rock stress problems O'c 10'1 O'olO'c SRF
H Low stress, near surface, open joints >200 <0.01 2.5
Medium stress, favourable stress
J 200-10 0.01-0.3 1
condition
High stress, very tight structure.
K Usually favourable to stability, may 10-5 0.3-0.4 0.5-2
be unfavourable for wall stability.
Moderate slabbing after > 1 hour in
L 5-3 0.5-0.65 5-50
massive rock .
Slabbing and rock burst after a few
M 3-2 0.65-1 50-200
minutes in massive rock
Heavy rock burst (strain-burst) and
N immediate dynamic deformations in <2 >1 200-400
massive rock
Note: ii) For strongly anisotropic virgin stress field (if measured): when
5 ::5 a,/a3 ::5 10, reduce ac to 0.75ac' When a, la3 > 10, reduce ac
to 0.5ac' where ac = unconfined compression strength, a, and a3 are
the major and minor principal stresses, and ao = maximum tangential
stress (estimated from elastic theory).
iii) Few case records available where depth of crown below surface is less
than span width. Suggest SRF increase from 2.5 to 5 for such cases
(see H). .
c) Squeezing rock: plastic flow of incompetent rock
under the influence of high rock pressure
O'olO'c SRF

0 Mild squeezing rock pressure 1-5 5-10

P Heavy squeezing rock pressure >5 10-20
Note: iv) Cases of squeezing rock may occur for depth H > 350 Q 1/3 (Singh et
al., 1992). Rock mass compression strength can be estimated from
q === 7 V Q 113 (MPa) where V = rock density in qrn/cc (Singh, 1993).
d) Swelling rock: chemical swelling activity depending on presence of water
R Mild swelling rock pressure 5-10
S Heavy swelling rock pressure 10-15
 IXCEPTIONALL Y IXlRlMILY VUY v.ay IXT. IXC.
POOl POOR POOl POOR 'All GOOD
GOOD GOOD GOOD

50 50

~~,l
__
40
30 30

..t

20 o
o 0
,~~~~~ __--~~~~lail~~~Jc~~-:;:j:::~=t:=:=~==: 20
~

10 10
~
vt
-,
WI

Z
5
4 o
o

C
A.
3
o
'" 2

t
~
,./
..........,
__ ~a:
~1-+-++++++---+--+-++-H+t+--+-+- ..
+-t-H+H---+--+-+-H+H+---+--t-+-t-+++-H

GOl 002 004 01 02 04 1 2 4 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000

Q x_
Jr:) Jw
ROCK MASS QUALITY ( RQD) '(
x
In Ja (SRF)

Figure 5. Analysis of case records indicates the approximate boundary betwein supported (0) and unsupported (.)
excavation~. The type of support, if any, depends on the rock mass quality (0), the span, and the
typ~ of excavation (ESR).
--.
E EXCEPTI0t-lALLY IX"IIMIlY . VERY I VIR.., IXT. EXC.
...:::t lOO
POOR
I

'OOR 'OOR
'OOR fAI!It GOOD ' GOOD I
GOOD GOOD
100
e
iii
:::t 50
:xl
;....-r-
I,lj
1.00.~'
: '

r
---
I
-
,
If

3
",.
.
:50

---
I
~ 40 16 i I 1
0. '" I 'll' i ;:~ ",. 2 "",
40

...
'"
iii""III 30
.... .... :- ,.., ,!. ... ~O

il ,
28 24
i.--- i- 19 I
I

;.... ~
io-~\'"i -
~
,....
i""""
~
---
l!i ~'Kl I ' I
20

,
20I
32

.........-- I.....- ~
... ~~'" I
""'~ioo
'!V
.. ~ ,..,
I
c( I
~
Q i'"'""" '3.$
, ! I , ~j.. ~ ;9\ !
23

-- .-
38 2 ~ I ,)0
%1 re , ,

~ .. ..- ~ .,-
- -- ,
III ~ '12 13 ~

5
- ... """ 34 3l
, ~
5

Z
o
II
4
3
~
37
,..,..-
1000""

s-:
~
.... .- 2~
... ... 2l .., .... ""
- 4
3

-
'"Z 2
... .. ""
~
2.5
~
2
..... ....
100-

,..,~ 33
,/ NO ~"'fO'T "JQUJIID

-
~ 36 29~
~
Q

I- ~
.".
Z ,. ~


~. ..... , ""
-
-a
>
:::l
,..,........., ~

001 O()02 O()04 01 02 04 1 2 .., 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000

Q = (ROD' J
ROCf( MASS QUALITY --)
J x. (~.!) ?C (~)
n 'J a . SRF'
 TABLE 2 . Suggested Support Measures for the 38 Categories
Suppo", C07Iatttona' f= Suppo1'~ C07tdi ~';ona L la.c~ors
oau- i/QD ./1' SPAN Twp. of ."PPOn /fee c<zCJ- RQD SPAll Typ" of suppo1'= Nou
gol'lJ 7;; Ta ~ go'l"J T ~a -nF
"
--- -- --
l" - Iblue'l)
Iblueq)
-- >lO >0.5 - Blue'l) 1 III
+tor or clIII
I

-- - - -- -
2"
3-
4"
Iblue~~
Ibluea
-- 25 :ilO >0.5 - 8lueq)
+SI=)
1 III
5=
I

5" Ib lue'l) - - ~0.5 - Bltq) 1 I

- --- --
- --
6" Iblueq) +S(=l
1"
a" - - --
Ib(ue'l)
.b(ue~)
- - - - !I(t'll
5=
1
+S(mr) 5-7.S em XI
VIII.X.

9
~2u
<20 -- --
Iblue'l)
I(uea) 2.5-3 -
2.
- - - Blue'l) 1
+S 2.5-; c:o
I.IX

io i30
<30 - -
Ilue'l) 2-3
I(ue'l) 1.5-2
-- - - _l2 8ltq) 1 :a
+Slatrl 1.5-LOcIII
I.IX

'30 -- --
+<:lm
Ble'l) 2-3 -- n
- - <1211I Ilue'l) ~ a
+Slmrl 5-1.5 0:11I
I.lX
ll"
<30 I(t'l)
+<:lll
l.5-2
- - >12111 CCA 20-40 <:!II vrrr ,x.
l2"
-30
<30
-- -
-
Iltql 2-1
Blt'l) 1. 5-2 a
-- - - QZ.
+aitq)
s(u)
1 III
10-ZO !II vttI,X,
+Blto) i
Xl

XI
.no --
'1.5
+<:lm
'b(ue"'l) I - - ,\3011I altq) 1 III
.S(=.r~ 30-~
I,IV,V,
~
II
~10
<to
<l.5
--
~1.5
I(ue'l) l.5-2
B(ueq) 1.5-2 III
I
I
28-
S.e - - ~20. ) \I(t'l) 1
<30 +s(mr) 2Q.- lII
r.rr.rv,
IX

IX
<lO <1.5

-
Blue'l) L5-2 a
+S 2-3 em
I noea
XII - - <20m B(tq) L m
+SI=) 15-20
I,n,IX
=
UO .15 8(e'l) LS-2 II
+<=lm)
I.n
- - - C~(sr) 30-1000:11IIV '/III, I

l4
<lO - ~l5 B(eq) L5-2 II
+S(=r) 5-l0 em
I.n
>, >0.25 -
+BI tal 1
aluc", - III
X XI
-
- - <15 B(ueq) L5-2 II
, +<:lm
I,tII
29' '5 >0.25 -
+$ 2-3
!llu1:q) 1 III "'" -
-ic - - Iltq)
+<:lm
L5-2 II I,U, IV
- ~0.25
+Slmr) 5 CIII
\lltq) 1 :a -
is .lO - - Bleq) l.5-2 :a I.U.IV +Slmrl 5 =

l6"'- >l5 - -
+S(mr) 5-LO 0:=
Iltq) 1. 5-2 III t,V,VI
~S - - 8It;) 1 III
+S 2.5-5 =
IX

See
- -
+cllll 30
<5 -- -- S(atr) 5-1.5 CIII IX
not.
UI
:\15 I(eq) 1.5-2
+S(zul 10-15 0:=
I,V.1ft
- Iltq) 1 III
"'SCmri 5-7.5
VIII,X,
XI
.".
>30 - - Ib(utq) I >4 - - Blt'1l 1 III :X

l7
(~lO,)
"30 - - Blueq) 1-1.5 I
~4,~l.5
-- -
+Slmrl 5-12.5=
Slmr) 1.5-25 CIIIIX
<10 - ~III Blue;) 1-1. 5
+S 2-3 em
I
31 <1.5 - C~ 20-40
+B(t;) 1 III
IX II =
-- - - -
<La <6

S 2-3 em I Cc:.\(sr) 30-;0 c= vm,x,
;(I
>5 ~lO
Iltq) l-1.5 I,UI +.It") 1

>5 -
+<:lm
<to III I(ueq) "1-1.5 I 12 - - '20::> BIt;) 1
+Slmrl 40-00 =
II.IV.
IX II

ra :i5 -
+<:llll
~10 III I(tq) l-L. 5 I,IU
Su
:'\oee - - <20 B(t'l) 1
+S(lIIel 20-40

III.IV.II
IX =
:i5 -
-s 2-3 e
<La I(ueq) 1-1.5
-s 2-1 CII
a I
XII
- - - C~(srl40-120=
+B(t'll
IV. VII:'
~ X.X: ..
- - ~20 I(eq)
1-2 :a I.n.IV
,2 - 1 :a-
Z.S-5 e
IX aleq)
+$(U)
19
- -
S(u)
10-LS ell
<20 II I(tq)
1-1.5 I. II
))'
. - -- --
S(II,1')5-10 <:11I IX
7.S-1S <:III VUt.X
20 - -
..
, (u)

~3~ II I(tql
SolO ell
1-2 ,. I,V,VI
,~ ~O .lS
S(\\\t'}
\I (,q)
-S(~)
1 III
5-7.:
- em
Il(
See
not..
XII
- -
-S(mrl 20-25
<35 :a I(tq)
-3{ul
1-2 "'"
10-20 c:o
I,n.IV 34
<: ~0.25
--
<0 .25
--
S(lIl.Cl 7.S-15 c'" IX
S(",r) 15-25 ClI! Il(
U2.. ~.7S
- slueq) 1 I -CC~I$r) 20-60
+91 tal 1 ~
- "'"
'l;!t,X
XI
21
<12.5
-
;)0.75
---
5 2-3 em
S 2.5-5 <:III
I(ue"l 1 ,.
I - - 9Iegl-1", .a~,.
+SIIIl.C) 30-100Clll
~:, IX 11

>10,
i<30 )
>0.75
>1.0 (Iluei)
+<:llll
1 '"
I
I
3S
s'ee - -
~l511 ccx (sr) 60-2eO"",
+a(eq) 1 ~
VI!:,X,
KI.n
22 uc >1.0
-- 5 2.5-7.5 <:III I
I\Qte
lI,II - <15,. - \I(eq) ~l; IlI,IU XI
<30 "1.0 I(utq).l ,.
+5Iatr) 2.5-5 <:III
I
. -
+S(~) 20-75
<1511 cc.\ln) 40-1S0CDI VIII.X,
=
-- ,:$- ,.
~30 I(ue-) 1 +Slta) XI.IU

23
- Ileq) 1-1.. III
$(8) 10-15 <:III
I
I,II,Iv,
'Ill 36'
-- --
S 1\IIr' -W.;-zu
S(atr) 10-10
--
1 '" CIII
rx
VIII,X, =
- - <15 :a I(ueq) 1-1.5 I +" t~) 0.5-LOoI XI

S
24- - - ,30,.
-S(lUl 5-10 <:III
I(tq) 1-1.5 '"
+S(u) 15-30 <:III
I,V,VI 37
-
- --
Slatr) 20-00 "'"
Star) 20-00
--
0.5-l.00I
IX
VIII,X,
""
+I(t-) XI
- - -- . --
nce. <30 I(eq) 1-1. 5 :a I.n,Iv IX
XII -S(lUl 10-15 = 38
S~e
'10la
~lOtD
CCA(arJlOO-lOOem
CCA(ar)100-300<:lll VIII,X,
8Itq) 1 II,XI

-Author.' e.1:aac. ot .uppor~. Inaut!1c1e".: 0:

npee
XIII -- <lam
-
<10(11 S(mr) 70-200 CIII IX
-
S(IIIe) 70-200 <:III VIII,X,
recordl available tor reliable tia&uon of ."PPO"l: +BI~q) 1 ~ I::.:C:
r.quir_enel. .- . "~

!<!ly :0 SUppo~ TcwLss:

~b - spQe bqltil''l
a syS~~~1c bo~t;nq
NOU. The type of suppore ':0 be \laed ~n c:n"~Jri lutq,l q;outad
1 l:O a wl.ll de~nd an ehe bl&nil\9 t.ecbn.i.CN'"
Smcoeh wall blaninq and ehol'O",h u.."iJlq-4oWII
may reIDQve ehe "eed tar luppon. Jouq""",,,ll
It'l)
-
- une,,,Horlt4,
e!'M~Ol'P4, 'exp4nd\n'l
rock ,",un,
q;O\.lt-od
poq~ qU4~1ty rod .
shell type tor eo~.t.nt
ilOst:-tensioned
~"s_es; see !loeo X~)
V.-':'1 i"
blaaeinq llAy relult 1n ehe need to, .~I)qle s s.llgecr.~,
"appl1catian. at Ihce.::eu, e.pechlly "gn ("",,) . r;.,h r8illtorc,d
ehe excavauon he1qhe 1. >%5 a. FI>.:'.n ~
1 to S.
cl,;. cn.~rl 1~~ ~'In
recardl Ihculd dit:ereneiaee ca.:~ri.' ~ " c: ~ CQII;rlel 4rCh
laxl ,ud ri"i~reed
 ,
SPAN/E5R m.
oo
-

,
-z
"
.,. ~
'".,.
c: lit
<
. '"z
0
- - lit

~
- , 0
,. .,.
o
\ - o

~

o - \~
~---.---

-
Q'-,'-
. 0
Q Ct'ltlc.1

---t\~-' I~
I
----- ---
<lit

-C

o
o

\
..11 o
C:I~
ZI.
~
ZI"
1=1'"
\
"'II
I

-
o
o
I
I
I
I
I'"
I~
~

IZ
I.
I.
I'" . -

._,-
I-
II
I'
.
I
I
...
e

Figure 4. Qcritical ~ 2 for 4.6 meters span

w ate r tun n e 1 (E S R = 1. 6 ) . t~hen Q ; 5
greater than 2 no support ;s required.
 Table 3
The Excavation Support Ratio (ESR) for
a Variety of Underground Excavations

Type of.Excavation ESR

Number
of Cases
A. Temporary mine openings, etc. ca. 3-5 ? (2)
B. Permanent mine openings. water-tunnels for hydro
power (exclude high pressure penstocks). pilot
tunnels. drifts and headings for laroe openings 1.6 (83)
c. Storage caverns. water treatment plants. minor
road and railway tunnels. surge chambers. access
tunnels. etc. 1.3 (25)
D. Power stations. major road and railray tunnuls,
civil defense chambers, portals, intersections 1.0 (79)
E. Underground nuclear power stations, railway sta-
tions, sports and public facilities, factories ca. 0.8 ? (2)

11
Design of Tunnels using NMT
and Verification with UDEC-BB 5

Table 2 Summary of recommended ESR values (updated) for selecting safety

level.

Type of Excavation ESR

A Temporary mine openings, etc. ca 2-5
B Permanent mine. openings, water tunnels for hydropower 1.6-2.0
(exclude high pressure penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts and
headings for large openings, surge chambers -

C Storage caverns, water treatment plants, minor road and 1.2-1.3

railway tunnels, access tunnels
D Power stations, major road and railway tunnels, civil 0.9-1.1
defence chambers, portals, intersections
E Underground nuclear power stations, railway stations, sports 0.5-0.8
and public facilities, factories, major gas pipeline tunnels
 EXCEPTIONALLY
POOR
I EXTREMElY
POOR
VERY
POOR
POOl FAil GOOD
VERY
GOOD
EXT.
GOOD
EXC.
GOOD ,00

~
,
--.--'-
, , NGI
- -" ...-
10
40 7
, ,

'-
I
.0

-
- " ,

-- --
.....-
24
-;;
u- .,.

-".
20 2
n
U

10
III --:: 14 _
~ ,

-
--- ~
,.

~
-.- i""
2
21
l,.....--'"
...

--
2

~ ~ ~ ~~ N01IU'POIT IIQUIIiD
1
~

.... ~
--
~
o(n -002 -004 . , ....... 1M 200 _ 400 1000

Exceptionally Extremely Vlry Very Ext. Exc.

poor ' poor poor Poor Fair Good good good good
100

50 50

20 20

10 10

5 5

2 2

.001 .01 .1 10 40 100 400 1000

Exceptionally Extremel, Very Very Ext. Exc.

Poor Fair Good
poor poor poor good good good

IOO~~~~~]!~~~~IH~~~~~ITE~~~~~~~~~3I~Effii5.~1li.
E
IIg. tl:I

n;
~
7 tr:l
&
~ 20+---+-+-~~ 5 ::i'
3e:::
<.) U)
-=(.1.l S
Ci 10
0-
..
3
tT1
~. tIl
Co
U) 5 ~
2.4
.-
0
II

2 1.5

. 0.04 0.1 0.4 I 4

}q13
,
10 40 100 400 1000
Rock mass quality Q:;;...E..Q.Q. x Jr Jw
In ]a x SRF
APP/lox RM.R. we're.. Q.H ~~~ {<.~ t<. -c 15 io~,.~ T 50
2.D 35 ,0 '.? o liS

ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION

ROCK CLASSES
G F E D C B A

,....
ElIaptiMaUJ
...-
EldreI8dy Very
poor
Poor Fair Good Very
good
I ED.
&OOd
I Ext.
pod ,
20
It"l
I I l I.Lilli
.. :: "1_~]'1 m~ m 25m ~!;[;U 11 ~
50 I
I I I I
a
e 'lJf.Hr''''''r''T:'n':H:~ 7
:,:, :.:11:;:, ',',',',',',', ',',.,' ,'...
, o.ac:r' .
.S
. 20 1 I I "1:lJo ";'ll'fftru::,:::::::::::r:::::~"'f I I I II Ms 's'
~
.-
.'.','.',',"

~ ~

~3;"
~ tI)
.c::~
. 10
o
a CI.t
:;rot
~I 5 '11111 I I 11111112.4
-,
IF
(:,
Ii

2 t I I 'II I I II I I "I II " I I I I I "II 1.5

)
0.001 0.004 0.01 . 0.04 0.1 0.4 1 4 10 40 100 400 1000
Rock mass quality Q = RQD x l!:... x ~
In Ja SRF

REINFORCEMENT CATEGORIES: 5) Fibre reinforcedshotcrete and bolting, 5-9 em, Sfr+ B

1) Unsupported 6) Fibre reinforced shotcrete and bolting, 9-12 em, Sfr+B
2) Spot bolting, sb 7) Fibre reinforced shotcrete and bolting, 12-15 em, Sfr+ B
3) Systematic bolting, B 8) Fibre reinforced shotcrete > 15 em,
4) Systematic bolting, reinforced ribs of shotcrete and bolting, SCr,RRS+ B
(and unreinforced shotcrete, 4-10 em), B(+8) 9) Cast concrete lining, CCA

, ~
MGI
 ~
Q = 0.4-1 NGI
Roof: Bolts e-e 106m, 1= 4m, 10-12 em S(fr)
=
Walls: Bolts I 3m, 6-9 em S(fr)

t--------1l1------~

Q~ 1
Roof: Bolts c-c 2m, I = 4m, 610 em S(fr)
Walls: Bolts I = 3m, 5-6 em S(fr)

I+------~. IH----~-~~
I

Figure 1.10 Tunnel support for Q = 0.4-1.0 andfor Q > 1.

 ~
Q = < 0.1
NGI
RRS and bolting e-e 1.2m, I = 4m, followed by CCA for worst qualities.
CCA 25 to 50 em depending on conditions.

1'+--------11-1------41

Q = 0.1-0.4
=
Roof: Bolts c-c 1.4m, J 4m, 12-15 cm S(fr).
Walls: Bolts I = 3m, 10-12 em S(fr).

Figure 1.9 Tunnel support/or Q < 0.1 and Q = 0.1-0.4.

 8

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

C. UNSUPPORTED EXCAVATIONS AND SELECTION OF

SUPPORT PRESSURES WHEN SUPPORT IS NEEDED

Permanently unsupported spans as a function of rock quality. Mines

(unconfmned) have more or less correct stope dimensions (up to 80m span),
but exact Q-values are difficult to confmn.
Factors for improving the reliability of permanently unsupported spans can be
selected based on the 36 Q-system case records.
Listing of no-support Q-parameter characteristics. Note high JrlJa ratios,
implying ~o~ 68 (mean value) and strong dilation potential.
Summary of unsupported SPAN-Q relationships with ESR (safety
requirement) numbers 0.8, l.0, l.3, l.6, 3.0 and 5.0 added to linear
envelopes. (3.0 and 5.0 represent temporary mine openings). Red line
corresponds to no-support boundary in support design chart.
Stand-up time case records from Bieniawski (1989). Note simple conversion
ofRMR ~ 50 + 15 lOglOQ.
Approximate support pressure requirements based on general Q-value and on
Jr rating, which determines dilation, and has therefore a strong influence on
support pressure.
For general seismic design choose 25% higher support pressure for
dynamic/static stress differences. 2(SRF) give Qseismic= Y; Qstatic,and the
necessary 25% increase. (Barton, 1984).
 9

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

Approximate adjustments to Q-support chart for estimating temporary support

and wall support.
Singh et al. (1992) and Singh (1993) estimates of the critical depth for
squeezing, which relates to their estimate for the apparent strength of the rock
mass.
Q/SPAN versus deformation ~ (Barton et al. 1980, 1994). Diagonal line is
given by ~(nun) ~ SPANCm/Q(Barton, 1997).
Q/SPAN versus ~ for soft rocks (data from Chen and Kuo, 1997).

Some improved equations for ~v and ~h and Ko, with examples.

 ',,'.

MINES
UNc.oNFIRMED
VERY EXT. IXC.
POOR FAIR GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
I ! ~
,
. ,
,

"
"
,,

-......
100
,

-z
E :. I
It
~.

,,
"
"
,,
,,'.

.... '
,,

.,..
I-
"
.I
50
40
se
C
A. ," ~
III
I- 20

1
Q

t-
...:
,,>? ~
""" I

10
o
A.
,

A. ... ~,,- "

;:) ~ .... 5
III ,,
Z
;:)
?
.,-
,,
,,
"3
,,
,,
,
.
2

2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400

ROCK MASS QUALITY (Q )

~ .
,

CONDITIONAL FACTORS FOR IMPROVING THE RELIABILITY OF PERMANENT

UNSUPPORTED SPANS

2. If RQD ~ 40, should have In ~ 2

3. 9, should have Jr' ~ 1.5 and ROD ~ 90

4. If J
r -
1, should have Jn < 4

s. If SRF > 1, should

, have
' Jr ~ 1.5

6. If SPAN > 10 m, should have J < 9

n

7. If SPAN> 20 m, should have In ~'4 and SRF ~ 1

 o
36
 Very Ext. Exc.
Poor Fair Good
good good good
~
200
NGI
I.--J..-
I.--
Ii)100
.....
Q)
~~";j.>'
~
.sQ)
50 1/ I""~)~ l/
L...-I.-'
c: 40 V j..- I~ ~ L.--L.--

--- ............ ...... ......

.........

[ 30 V .......
(J) ............
L...-i-'
"0 20 ......
...... ~
VV
;:::::t:'
t
Q)
~ 6::= ~ 1.-- ... ~j,.()
I...-'
o
a. 10 ~
Q.
I.--~
..-- ~ ...... ~'\~.
I

:::J
(J)
c
::> 5
:?"
~
t..,.....-
i...,...o"'"
~
......
..- ---
4
~
'-"""'
~ /
...
3 c=
V
v
2 ~
c>
i 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000

Very Ext. Exc.

Poor Fair Good
cood aood cood

200

Ii)100
.....
Q)

.s
Q)

50 [}
c: 40 ....
ca
a. 30
(J) ....... ;.

"0 20
Q)
1:: v ~ ~~
0
a. >V I.
a. 10
:::J
(J)
c: I...-
::> 5 ....
4 ?
3
2
Ie
2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000
Rock mass quality (Q)

Require3ents for permanently unsupported openings.

Condition41 requir~ents
2. If RQD s 40, should have Jo s 2
3. If J. 9, should have Jr ~ 1.5 and RQD ~ 90
4. If Jr I. shou ld have In < 4
5. If SRF > I. should have Jr ~ 1.5
6. If SPAN> 10 ~, should have In < 9
7. If SPAN> 20 m, should have Jo s 4 and SRF s 1

Figure 5.40 Q-system case records and characteristics of permanently

unsupported openings (Barton. 1976)
 ~
NGI

30r- ~------_r~1~d--_r1~wk~~lm~0T_----:11yr--~~=10~~==~
[J

101+-------f---..
8 .}-------+--~
E
e:- 6r---~~L-~~~
5 +------13.n.,.<;
C1l
a. 4t---~~~~r-~~--~~---+--~--~~~~~~~
-
en
o
o
a:
i

10 1 102 103 104

Stand-up Time, hrs

10
8
E
6
c 5
C1l
a. 4

-
en
0
0
II:
3

2
RMR

1----'/-1--0'0 \.! I
!' I
10 102 1Q3 104

Stand-up Time, hrs

 EXCEPTIONALLY EXTREM~LY VERY VERY EXT. EXC.
POOl POOl POOR POOR FAIR GOOD GOOD GOOD GOO_D
N
o
I I I
I 40

30
seI ~-.J.....
20
20

)~~

~~~~ " l~;~~ijll~i~~ml~~~~ml~~~DI'

1()

fOe
v
\ 5~'0 ~ "- 5
z
at
~
I ~ ----.::::::: s tp
I ~ __ ~~++~t--~--~-rHH~~---+~-+~~H 3

t..
--"r-- .0 ~
"-J ... I....I.l--+-i-i-f-+1f-H+---i-+++I+t+t
...
f.>

III
r-.:::.......::r--- "
o

~~-
.n ~~

.
IU
?
::l
tit
tit
III

CL
'~Ia~
I~

<,

~
. ~~

.
O.,~
~-- mI -- ......
..+-I-l-l-l
J.
I'o,s
s

?"
r-
o
?

1~--r-;-;-t~1tt--~--~~~~+----+--~~~~+---~~
---r-- r-- J "0
f.>
::I
0..
o 1~--1--+-+-r~H+----t-~~+4~~---4--t-~~~l---~~~-f~,- ':-'
CL .... ~. "'."$
CL
r---....... "0 r-
::l t:
tit

'0 5
, -
,;. ~~
~.
4~
..::
".l'o

05
::I
0..
n

0 'r--r~H+~--4-+44+~--+-~~~--~~~~~~~~~-4~ 04

03
0
) ~
0 2 "'" 01

'2-
0l~
-001
__ ~~~~~~
-002 -004 ~,
__ ~~~-L~~
~J .. 1
~~~~~L-
.J .. __~~-L~LUUL __~ __~~~~L-
2 1() 20 .0 100
__~-L~~~U
200 .00
01
1000

Q (RQO, (~t i: )
ROCK MASS QUALITY J f" ( SRF
Ja
"
 VERY POOR ~. VERYGOOD

-:
/

".:, ~---fOl
\
,
S.I.Mlc
d I, Q
','
,
r',

\
'. ,
,
\
~ \' :'. \
\ .:.. \
\ .,.:

'001 01 '02 1 1 10(' 1000

Jw
ROCK MASS QUALITY
SRF
 Table 3 Methods for selecting approximate temporary support and cavern wall
support using observed Q-vaiues.

l. Temporary Support a) increase ESR to 1.5 x ESR

b) increase Q to 5Q (arch)
c) Increase Qw to 5Qw
2. Wall Support . a) select Qw = 5Q (when Q > 10)
(based on modified quality b) select Qw = 2.5Q (when Q < 10)
Qw for walls) c) select Qw = 1.0Q (when Q < 0.1)
Note 1 Use total excavation height (H) for wall support design.
Note 2 Q is the general rock quality observed when inspecting the arch or
walls of a tunnel. For local variations of rock quality (arch or
walls), map locally and change support as appropriate. (Qw is not
the observed value of Q in a cavern wall.) ,

, ~
NGI
 ~
NGI
Table 10. Recommendations for estimating temporary support and bolt and
anchor lengths. (Barton et al., 1977). (See also right hand side
of Figure 42.)

2. Temporary support (feasibility and planning only)

The method of modifying the estimates of permanent support to take care of
temporary support is to select a support category (box numbers 1 to 38 in
support chart) closer to the "no support" diagonal. It has been found from
trial and error that the following modifications to Q and BSR give reasonable
estimates
a) Increase in ESR to 1.5 X ESR
b) Increase Q to 5Q (roof arch)
c) Increase o, to 5 Qw (walls)
These factors are applied equally to both roof and walls such that any
differences in the permanent roof and wall support will also be in operation
for temporary support.
3. Recommended bolt and anchor lengths
Bolt and anchor lengths for permanent support depend on the dimensions of
the excavation. Lengths used in the roof arch are usually related to the
span, whole lengths used in the walls are usually related to the height of the
excavations. The ratio of bolt length to span tends to reduce as the span
increases. This trend has been illustrated by Benson et al., 1971.
Accordingly, the following recommendations are given as a simple rule of
thumb, to be modified as in situ conditions demand.
ROOF: bolts L = 2 + 0.15 B/ESR
anchors L = 0.40 B/ESR

WALLS: bolts L = 2 + 0.15 H/ESR

anchors L = 0.35 H/ESR
where
L = length in metres
B = span in metres
H = excavation height in metres
ESR = excavation support ratio
(Bolt lengths used as temporary support will us;lJally be only loosely
dependent on excavation ~nsions, Lengths. of between 1.5 and 3.0
metres seem to be used in UW').y types of e:KQav~twJJ6,)
. -
 Critical depth

(2)

Apparent compressive strength (of the rock mass)

1
q ::::7 y Q 3
(3)

Table 5 Prediction of depth (H) for squeezing ground. and prediction of effective
rock mass strength (q) from Q-values (from Singh's equations))

Rock Q range H q Likely phenomenon

Class (m) (MPa)

A 40-1000 1196-3492 62-182 strain bursting

B 10-40 754-1196 39-62 rock slabbing
C 4-10 555-754 29-39 block yielding
D 1-4 350-555 18-29 block yielding
E 0.1-1 162-350 8.4-18 crush and squeeze

F 0.01-0.1 76-162 3.9-8.4 squeezing

G 0.001-0.01 35-76 1.8-3.9 squeezing
Assume v = density = 2.6 gm/cc in equation 3.

~------------------------------~ NG.
Table 5. Approximate onset of squeezing conditions (Singh et al. ,
I 1992)

Q H (m)
1 350
01 160
0.01 75
0.001 35

. Table 6. Approximate estimates of rock mass strength (Singh, 1993)

.
Q 'Y q MPa
10 2.7 41
1 2.5 17
0.1 2.3 7.5
0.01 2.1 3.2
0.001 1.9 1.3

/
 AAAAA ARCH
00000 WALL
. ~ 5fAI'I("')Y(-J ~~~--~ INVERT
6 C"'''') A. Q rq14f.) ARCH GJOViK

r- I I

t
.
,

I
'-r
r

r
I

I
Ij

,
.--r r- I-TI}
I

I I III
I',

!
I

I
,I

I !
I

I III
I!

I I I ~I I II I , I I II III I I I I ! I III

C) I ~I I f II , I ~II rn Iii i i ! II
W
I
<,
a ~illi:i
ill 1_ I

I Iii I [I!
L
~ I
t . I
I r'!!III I
I
I
I
I
TTm
'- r
i I. 1.1
"[-1

L I I I IIIII I ,
~

I
I.

I ; , "
~ , ,

o ;

z
ntH
litH
! Iii
I mil i : I t t---!!'-+-,-H11~fI"

CL 0.01 ~
(J)
-- -
,
I
,
I
,
III1I t : i; ~;;
I: I i I I II
<, 1 I I II II I I .rirhll
a

, ~AJ:oJ.. /1f11r
(J~", i'i19
 :~~~fl'
, '~I~ - '~II~Jf+:1 1:11
~::li:='E''Ei=F":. LEGEN~ .
I I I 1- I' n
:1=11-1=1:1' ~:It:=lI=l::j:j:-I:1+n 4 Arch
o Wall
_ . .. Q Invert

I f'H.J. Arch Gievik

I lli-l II I
t::~~:::===1== ::__
- . t-- -

0.0001 I I I IIIIII.\ I I 111111 I I I I IIII I I II Cl II /I I 1l'Hl1

B
2 4 68 2 4 68 2 4 68 2 4 6 S 2 4 68 C 2 4 68
0.01 O~1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Deformation, mm

100
wall horizonlal convergence
-- -lower section. excavation
ONH(spon= 10m)
10 HKLP(span= 12m)
~ RNH!Spon=4.96M)
r:x:xxx:x
RNH spof];4.9m)
CXXXX) RNH spon=9.1 m)
* ** RNH spon=4.96m)
~
III
0-
m
<, 0.1
a
*
0.01

0.001

0.000 1 -t--r--r-"""""TT'-T-r-r-rTmrr--'-'"T'"T'TT1""""'-r-T"T"T''I'TT1'''--''''-'''-TTT~--'-----'TT~
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Monitoring Deformation (rnm) .

100~~---~------------~.~.~.~.~.~~s~p~o~n==~m~
horizontal convergence OHTL(spon=6m)
---lolal DMD(spon=10.4m
<>oQ>
00000 HKLP(spon= 12m}
RNH spon=9.1 m)
10- MMA RNH spon=4.96m
@))RNJ-I spon=4.9m)
<XXXXl RNH spon=9.1 m)
*.*** RNH spon=4.96m
~RNH spon=Sm)
1
o
~
to
0-
m
<, 0.1
a.

0.01

0.001

0.000 1 ;--r.....,"TT1,.",..-r'""'T"'TTTTTI,.--....,..-'T'"T"I'TT'"'--.-,....,..,..,r'n'1'1~..,.......,...,..-TTTm--,--.TT1".,:;.j
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 ( 1000 10000
Monitoring Deformation mrn)

Fig. 9 SpanlQ versus deformation. Barton et al. (1994), Chen and Kuo (1997).
 SPAN(m)
l1(mm) -. -Q---:-"':" (2)

In consistent units this therefore becomes

SPAN
- (3)
l1 = lOOOQ

(4)

where cry is the vertical stress, c, is the uniaxial strength and l1y is the vertical deformation of
the arch.

(5)

( )2( HEIGHT )2
K _ all _ l111 SPAN
o - crv - l1v
(6)
 ~
NGI

For example the Gjevik cavern with span of about 60 m (60,000 mm) showed a total "radial"
arch deformation of about 6 to 8 mm, and had a mean. Q-value of about 10. the average depth
was 40 m (say cry = 1 MPa) and the average uniaxial strength crc ~ 75 MPa (tectonised gneiss)
substituting in equation 4 we get:

60,000 (T
7mm =:$ 100.10 V75

The right hand side of this approximation is calculated to be 6.9 mm, Normally the agreement
would not of course be' as close as this. The influence of horizontal stress on 6.y is also
unknown in this case.

We can test these two equations against the recently constructed Nathpa Jhakri power house.
The following measured data has been used in numerical UDEC-BB) modelling of this
cavern, reported by Chryssanthakis et al. (1996). .

Span ::::20m cry ~. 6 MPa c, ~ 35 MPa

Height ~ 50 m crh ~ 4 MPa (perpendicular to wall) Q ~3

Measured deformations (where MPBX are installed) are approximately 25 mm in the arch and
up to approximately 50-55 mm in the walls, though there is significant variability here.
Equations 4 and 5 give the following excellent estimates:

20,000 {6
Av == 100.3 V35 =:$ 28mm

A _ 50,000 ~ 4 =:$
h - 100.3 35 56mm

With Nathpa Jhakri power house predictions given previously we have:

K '" (56)2(20)2 :;;;;0.64

o 28 50 .

Measured values used previously were 0'1) ~ 4 MFa. ;;:6

0.. W~,i.e, almost the correct result
is shown.
 10

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDAc;OES

D. NEW CASE RECORDS INVOLVING THE USE OF S(fr) FOR

AVOIDANCE OF UNWANTED LOOSENING EFFECTS

Grimstad's 1986 case records which were used for a preliminary update of
support recommendations.
Grimstad's 1993 case records.
Grimstad's case records for bolt spacing in unsprayed and shotcrete sprayed
areas.
Grimstad's case records for S(fr) thickness as a function ofQ-value.
Approximate S(fr) thickness data for small (i.e. 5m), medium (i.e. 10m) and
large (i.e. 20m) spans. Grimstad and Barton (1993).

,
r Use of S(fr) as a function of tunnel span (range 5.5 to 19m) and Q-value
(range 0.003 - 13). Cases with CCA, RRS or CCA with freezing.
Ward et al. (1983) experiences with different support measures in research
tunnel in mudstones. Note efficiency of B + S(mr) compared to other
methods. Effects of early and late placement of support. (Note that S(fr) can
be very early).
SFR tends to increase with lower Q-values. Selection of inappropriate support
(e.g. steel arches) could increase SFR artificially due to loosening effects.
Grimstad and Barton (1993).
Grimstad's 1985 experiences with S(fr) in Norway show tunnel driving rate
advantages ofB + S(fr) methods compared to cast concrete at face.
 11

ESCOLA POLITECNICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA DE ESTRUTURAS E

FUNDA<;OES

Updated estimates of typical mean weekly advance rates with different

degrees of support, for a wide range of Q-values. (Grimstad and Barton,

1993).

Comparison of B + S(fr) hours per round with steel set progress in large

Indian HEP (Grimstad, 1996), each as a function of Q - value.

Some 1998 cost estimates for rock support for 12m spain rail tunnel m

Norway, (1 US$ ~ 7.5 Kr) Loset and Kreldsvik, 1998.

 Exceptionally
poor

20~ 20
z
c(
0... 10 10
III

1/
5 5
c:
o
'iij 2
c: 2
,01
E 11 1
"C
....
c:
OJ
--"ro
>
::::J
C"
LLJ

.001 .004 .01 .04.1 4 1 4 10 40 100 L.OO 1000

Rock mass quality a. = (R~nOl x (~~) x (i:F)

Gr~fto.t ~t-.{. IllS'

 t SVilrt
dlrli Oirli

4..0 100
Usikret Spr.ytebetong Utst.pt
3!C. Bolter (.bin t) Bolter (+band) + fiberarmert . Sprekker 1/ T~JOnelakse
sDf.vtebetong

I" II:~" I I"I!;. :1:: :',," 1<'" ,l f ",,, 'I lit., i'"
G~''''stMt~Al:'fU;1g, '" j_

\ (.
<- ( ( (
j
:r
t

4.00 flflflflfl USIKRET S&Fj fl tlO fl.. * fl ctr fl l'ttltlI) <r <Jr 0 fIl fl
00000 SPOTBOLT S&Fj ~o fl~ ~. 0 ~
SYSTEMBOLT S&Fj
+++++ FIBER SPRUTET S&Fj !if . 1:rtr~~ 0
~ 0 <J!)

00000 SPOTBOLT MLESUND ~ ~ m 'b tdr 0 fl 0

8
3.50 SYSTEMBOLT MLESUND o <D0 0 00 &:moo (!J)S ~ <2
x x x x x FIBER SPRUTET AALESUND
00000 SPOTBOLT TRONDHEIM 00 @' 0 0 tp
.,.,.,., '" FIBER SPRUTET TRONDHEIM o 00 en arD@ooot:t,o 9:;~0 <J!)8 SO
o. 000 0 00 0
3.00 o 0 o 00 0 amBaxmo ocmxmrooav 0 ~ 0 0
0
00 ooooo 08

w 4 o 0 0 ~ 0 0 (JI) 000 0 0 0
o Usikret/sp c-c>4m
~o 00000
<:)
z; 2.50
w
.~
3-4
2.5-3
1.5-2.5
sp c-c 2,5-4m
B/sp c-c 1,8-2,5m
8 c-c 1,3-1 ,8m
()gIJ)()

o 0
(IJ(t <JlD1>e& ~

0 ij
. .. "<)oe -

<il
o 1-1.5 8 c~c 1-1.3m o o <ll>CDD9:; 0 o
Z
.a:: 1 Sfr 5-10cm o ill

~ 2.00
If)

w
0.75
0.5
Sfr 10-15cm
Sfr 15-20cm

. ..
... - .-.
. .._ .. -- .... .. . -

o
z
w
& 1.50



......- -- ..... .-- ....

-

. - . .. ..

1.00 '" + x. x '" ,..x*""' ..'" . ,.......,,...,1.1

IIIIIII*, ...--_ * "'_'" '" t

x x x x X x x x x lIIOIO(xXlOO< xax .ooc _x >eX

0.50 x x x+ X )Qt.,'.;(x

0.00 I I I I 1 I If I 1
J
Of
J
I IITTlj I
J
I , , '" 'I 'I'
,
I I III/ 'I"
)
, 11'1
0.01
ltJ 0.1 1
Q-verd;er
10 100 1000

~~--~~--------=-----------~~~---------------------NGI
 " ... ' ' .. ........ ". ::: "- .
.. :' ' ..... ~. ", ', ..... . . ..:.. , .....
~ ". . .::: .- -'.
'

: .' '.'. . . -;',

5.00 -'--~"~7n'-~~~~~--T-~~nT~-r-rTrTn~~~lTlTnmr--r-rTlTrm
-

0.00 ~--+-+444~~-+-++4~~--~~++~--~~++tH~--~~++H#--~~++~
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 lOa 1000
Rock Mass Ou~lity, Q.
Figure 4 Bolt spacing related to Q-value in unsprayed areas.

5.00 -'-'--''''''''-rrTTTr"-'--''''''''-rrTTTr"-r"-l-rT"TTTTr"-T"""1r-rrrrm--,-,r-rTTfnr-r-rTrniTl

en
~ 4.00 ~--+-~4+~~-}-}+++H~--~~++~--~-rttHt~~~-trH~~-r~rt~
<i:
"C
Q)
>
~ 3.00 ~--+-+4++~~-+-++++H~--~~~~~---r-rt+Ht~~~-rrH~---r~t+~1
(f)

.E
OJ
'5 2.00 +--+-+-l++~~-I--++4~rt+--hRH+-H~~
...
r:'+,:
+++Htt---I-1H-+t-Htt--++++tlffi
co ' " ,.
J5- ,. t n :"'~

0.00 ~--+-+-l44~~-+-++++H~~~~++~---r+t+titH-~~-++HHtt--+-rt+titH
0.001 0.01 0,1 10 100 1000
FlQok Maaa Qu~U;ty, Q.
FigureS Bolt spacing related to Q in sprayed aJ"es..

~--~-------------------------~ NGI
 -Q)

..o
Q)

c
o
U 15.00 -t--H-t-Htttt--HH-H++H--f-H-H++H--+-H-+H+1+-+-H-I+l+l+--l-+-t-l+-I-I+l
"0
Q)
>-
~. I-
c.
sn
"0 10.00 -t--H-t-Htttt--HH-H++H--f-iI-+++t1*-+-!-++H+H--+-H-I+l+l+--l-+-t-l+t-!+l
Q)
() '.

cO::
-o
c
.(ji
~l

_. - '" ..
5.00 -t--lH-HH+H+--H-t-H+ttt--H-l--H+ttt--+-jf-!..-H4+f+---+-H++-li+I+-+-+-++t-H+I
II) ~
(1).0
Q) .-
cu.
~-
o
.- Q)
Q)
.c_
t-(fl 0.00. -t--t--I-+-t+tttt--t-IH-t+t+++--t-IH-++++++--+-+-+-+-Ioi#j.~+-+-+-++t+#-+-"""""-++-I-I+I
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Rock Mass Quality, 0

Figure 8 Case records of S(fr) showing thickness in centimetres as a function of the Q-

value.

~---------------~ NGI
 ','

r '""

30
..-8 \
\

---:5'20
o \
\
-,
C/)-- \
,, .(~'" \.
, ~~ \.
.....
0
rn
<,
'-
a '\.
./0
~cf.,"- -, <,
tr: Sl ,. ~
,- 10
<,

-
Cl) 'J);qlj <,
"- ....

-
J' "-
~
.-..c:
E-o
c.:>
'Pql) ............ <,
-, -,
.
~ ~-~ ""II!!!I!'

0 .~ ~ . ~
0.001 0.01 1 0.1 10 100
Rock mass quality, Q
Figure 9 S(fr) thickness as a function of tunnel span and Q-value

\... -
~~

..

NGI
#,' .-
\ ",

Steel Fibre Reinforced Sprayed Concrete

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Rock Mass Quality, Q
. -
Figure 6 Cases where steel fibre retnforced sprayed concrete has been used, in relation
to the rock mass quality diagram.

* * * * * Sprayed Ribs
. . . .. CCA (Cas't Concrete Arches)
CCA with Freezing

100

..s
..
s:
Cl
'(jj
:::c
..0 t-.
c 10
It!
C.
en
..c
Q)
Iii
>
'5
C'
w

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 1,0 100 1000

Rock Maflfl QuaUW"O

Figure 7 Cases where sprayed concrete ribs, edif C~Qr.~~ Qrch~~or ~~t co.1,l,cr~te
I

arches combined. with free'ling have been ~e(i~ in r,e14rian to the rock l)')!!.SS
quality diagram.

L
t-
'-~---------------------------~ NGI
 ~
NGI

30 \ LEGEND
f SRF increase
I\ Steel sets
and lagging

20
Q)
::J
ca
>
f~\~
LL
a:
en 10
'I'" -,
AAS -,

8 sb NONE
o~------~~------~--------~--------~--------~
0.001 0.01 o.t 1 10 100
Rock mass quality, Q

SRF as a function of Qvalue and rock support method in joinsed rock.

2 3 4 5 years LEGEND
0 .1) robctlc S{tr)
Rockbolts and sprayed concrete arch 2) 8 (d~layed)
3) steel sets
5
(more delayed)

!
10 =
a.
(It
(It

E 15 1::
E
C
CD
~
II)
E 20 1i
CD
0
ra
:e\'II
a. 0:
'"
0

30 Circular steel ribs

Left: Wardet al. (1983) experimel.ll.aJ results in mudstones.

Right: Conceptual effects of early QI1I} late placement ofsupport on
SRF.
 70
Spot bolting iJ

QI
u
60
Systematk bolting ,
~--
/'
/'
",
ro 50
'--
<, Steelfibre reinforced
X shotcr ete and bolts
OJ
OJ 40
~
<,
E .--: Bolts, steel straps and
30
OJ
Spiting + cast \ ~/~ wire mesh De :: 10
---
IV
c; concrete

I .....
---/~-.
en
20
c
>
l-
10
0

0
-----:-.=::::..----/~(ast concrete close to the face

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Rock mass quality, Q
 ~
NGI

.70
I! =
LEGEND
Increasing SRF

Q) 60
o
--
~
co

Q)
50

-
Q)
3:
40
E
..co
Q)
30
'-
0>
C
.- .s;
c 20
0
10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Rock mass quality, Q

Figure 68. Approximate tunnel driving rates in drllland"blasted tunnels

supported by NMT for the case of '0. to 90m2 tunnel sizes.
 40.00
Q
Z
;:::l
a
~ 35.00 Time consumption per round
~ when supportmg with B + Smr
~
p.. + steel sets
30.00
C/)
~
;:::l
a 25.00
::z::
z
... t~CIA~ CI~ bf:
A ~ So-6ow-. '-
~ 20.00
~ .c.:{v"ill(~
~
~
.....l 15.00 ~h.~ 4:2. M/YOtANJ...) .C~CA"'~i~
U
>- v(.V\tifuJ:::.o", J.(l~
U
10.00 5GO..L..~
Z
a ck I'~~ olA1:.
~ Time consumption per round "" IA
-e 5.00 when supporting with B + Srf'+
~
-< RRS in Norwegin road tunnels in 1IOcM.5lAfff>~
u
><
~ 0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
ROCK MASS QUALITY, Q

Figure 3 Excavation rates experienced in Norwegian road tunnels

compared to estimated excavation rates when applying mesh
reinforced shotcrete and steel set

35.00 Q

Q
Z
;:::l Estimated data from
a Nativp a Jtuikr-i using
~ 30.00 Q
Srtvr and s'f;.el sets
~

i
~
c,

zs.oo o

... 20.00 Q
Z
Q

~
~
~ 15.00

.~

. .
....l
U
>-
U 10.00
Z
a 1-
e:: I I I .. ~OM
-<
:>
5.00

(4~

-< Data from Fodn~$ road tumriel, Norway ::- ( CCjG~)

u
X
~ 0.00

0.01 0.1 I 10 100

ROCK MASS QUALITY, Q
.Figure 4 Excavation rates from Fodnes Road Tunnel in Norway
compared to estimated excavation rates at Naihpa Jhakri

f:\brukere\eg\art\qnmtind.94
Sikring i forskjellige Q-klasser for dobbeltspor, spennvldde 12m

Q Heng Yegg
<0,01 CCA CCA
0,01-0,04 CCA eller RRS CCA eller RRS
0,04-0,1 RRS eller B(e-e 1,2m) + S(fr) 20cm RRS eller B(c-c 1,2m) + S(fr) 20cm
0,1-0,4 B(e-e 1,4) + S(fr) 15em B(e-e 1,6m) + S(fr) 12em
0,4-1,0 B(e-e 1,6) + S(fr) 11em B(e-e l,8m) + S(fr) IOcm
1,0-4,0 Btc-c 2,Om) + stfr) 8em B(e-e 2,2m) + S(fr) 5em
4,0-10,0 B(e-e 2,2m) + S(fr) 5em . B(e-e 2,5m) + S Sem
10,0-40,0 B(e-e 2,5m) + S 5em sB
>40,0 sB Ingen

Sikringsmengder og sikringspris per tunnelmeter for dobbeltspor,

spennvidde 12 m

Q CCA RRS S(fr) S nr' Bolter For- Kostnader

m3 (stk) m3 (stk) bolter per tunnel-
stk. meter, kr
<0,01 20 4,0 14 51 800
0,01-0,04 0,5 11 24 13 50065
0,04-0,1 8 16 8,4 33320
0,1-0,4 5,6 13 6,3 24530
0,4-1,0 3,3 9 11 730
1,0-4,0 2,2 6 7820
4,0-10,0 1,4 S 5520
10,0-40,0 1,4 3 , 4040
>40,0 2 920

Ltff<~ ~..A k~(IAfVik

If,g.