Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses For
Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses For
Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses For
ges “98 30101 t sm ao popIsuo9>t|s IEUL| “s8unb09 ufol Sy0]Y> 2u108 ‘>u0z seas ut weas 4e[p 2ntuo|]oURLION juyjams asryps poreuraey‘ss € “Sof pasoeum “tpoous ssourjg ‘simons $901 ,99n9 Ns, ‘auarenb ur auo7 sous “yaSu9] wi OS * “(461 11993 323) wapoms -N “oaplyy seasia uu 200p oF] “Wey Joo padoys a8 p94 “uuajpe>) smogar zovea 2oupy “Tui Wo oF § ‘aropuirs syd sos tel 7338 se sansosony “Sy aol pow see3s “ep futuayos-uou pur awoy ser payer “atop tt ago se5qs apn wpe 803, 0009 “(OZ61 [1999 “J>4) UPS “N ‘spi suenatag [pura 2963). “Bunso[q uoyar 3ea1gH940 OUI aupsaid 291M ON “Burpeds sa og—s "398 100 |“ “Seung Sud] WE SIT jeuOSeIp sug ‘paseds AjoHoq9 40 ta89] 1H 9 6c ca won -epuaunmos3y wt uuoddns Sq JOOU INVaS UST ms, 5 “fe % ~ f dow suoddng wea wy8PH NVaS DEPT ‘wops0] ‘wopreaeaxs so as0diind “ ‘aeqeasur jo a1ma2N SSWIV 1DO¥ AO NOLLaNIDSId sais ON a) (0261) 1999 Aq paqiz9seq spz099y ase ay JO X1G 40} HOddNG yo UOHRDHpa1q PUL UOHEDIFISSEID “8 AGELEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 217 be A108 ID, “so12uHNua> UF UOAIS sy SSOUAPIKA 219:9UK09 40 aIDINOYS — -soMOU UF UDAsB s1 BuPeds Jog, “ysour yor] WEY = ‘poosoyupas [a0is = 45 “pooroyuras ysouu = stu ‘Soxpae ax2r9UOD Ise> = YOO Bunjog r0ds = gs Bupjoq reworks = I ‘MIDIOGS = § YE PUR “ET ZL “TL SOIqEL wos} paurErgo st ,uoRepusUUIODY UIEdENg jooy,, wUunIo> puey-aYsNI :2!0N ce 9 L100 95) FH) HOPS “N folsuaig “eum a>espeaq] “¢ “Burundo padeys-aznea 2818] yoy 03 Ino. JOO! BASsI8 1n290 su07 ways 9/8Uv ALOT pu [29 “pupa 4yjesoy “94s YstuyUDA0 10fFc fautina ou suqap 2u07 "ly avouh ae (of—s saoepms rend "2800], suonesy dae paw jaoqg au ST 9 OF __-aiaIDIONom gE SS “BUI 0 st or seems 10 Aynavo 01 pou3ye Appuonbasy pue poysnia soy “syues8 uy ouo7 eays Koso) Teoma Spe wi O1 pBu9] Ww Oe “TOs Te 91 oro (0Z61 11220 323) uapamg ‘NC aduog “Jouum sDeI]E |, “€ yoos padeys-o8pay -Z “moguy sorem sues disuy Bur -oeds ura o¢—s 08 ‘Sooepins __ tuto! paseoo-anydes3 popsuyays ‘yloowws paureiuo> pue apis Ww OL os seas 2007 avays “uneasy Of = 9_-ksB pue Guruoyos uoU) Kep> 3H wo € 8 sem ara YY UE SHYDS UF ‘suioz seOys yRaNpIoAG “Buy WE SE “T Be wp sz (a) s= wap § (ou) s+ sor wr a= or oT re &aotione, os 91 ero (OZ61 1195 “}24) upams “N ‘oapay olspes ‘jouw eoempe “¢ “Buruodo uaous padeys WA “1we|d 19mod Jo uonesDdoN. Barton, R. Lien, and J. Lunde 218 mt poouls pa tapas orl te oor st nos ut un wo 67 g= co Sor © ot nuts Spor asoxsiyps ssoase Semin 12 GosHe5 ayasnioys Funurol ywonsan sop WpBU9] ws “T—_L9 rs EL 9% ) uapamg "x fag [puum ss200y “¢ juds anoge eaq3240) *Z -9¢ o589 ‘o10u 295 “MoyJue Io18 utoeds tu 0 up 67 $+ sot oe ost se BT dre OT ST "0g am m0ys pur 1z ode 4 POU 199 ce oT eT 25 J) UAPENS “N (sig [SUL sEIPES]Y “¢ 18g 3004 podeys-o8poqy 7 196 asta ‘o10u aag sare uBisu] "BuDeds w sz st st_ 9 z ee 6s wide OT "s'0 “ og saimoys pue 12 Axor *s110q 320% 1 09 awenpy w Ww wope20f Huopeavaxa jo 380¢Rh4 *¢ wonepuomuooss ys as, isu JO 2U03¢N] “EON noddns joou /NWas UH OL GOW pon uoddng wdoq 28H NVds SS¥W NOOY 40 NOLLATWOSAC “I 28D (61) 1999 &q poqusssq spr029y aseD 2y2 JO xIg 10) 120ddng yo woFIa}pazq PUR VOLIPITpISSLID “6 GELEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Desiga of Tunnel Support 219 29 Ur HAAS St SSOU}SNIN aIas0uOD 0 aroADIOYS — “SoH UF UDATB sf SuBDeds Jog -ysour yur] wey = wp ‘poosojuras [pars = 48 Spooiojuras yout = sur ‘saypae awsDUOD 18> = YO “Bunjog ods = gs Punjoq sweuorsss = q ‘maINOYs = § Ky ‘PL PuE “EL ZEIT SeIgeL wosy poureago st ,woMepLOUNUODDY HOddng joy, UUENIOD puEY-AYSNE 910 St LOOT {OL6L [1999 24) wjoyyroas, “suds ations sonby pa Sera “= ST OL at See OZ “S9PHs 30 SI]¥y OW SeaIquDAO JONI “7 a “Moy sisi suey jou ope -Sisuy upeds ui p33 4530 200N= Sroge et “Sn poseyme-yanon Seay 0 su08Ne oq 1045 98 ‘nay asin ates pst a 90E “TZ ou ov cH Suomessa (ocet 4995 338) wopams ede apt soa died * wrist a= “su ae aeanqaoao ‘1 Kota ang ‘soquseyp uF 2092240 OZ ve et os or or zt os sau or or “oor 410 gNON= sioquieyp se Go noe ar a00N a os a (o¢61 11999) -oapaqy Borat one run 20a“ o=0 2H Oris 2 z Ssans sysy_ 4d “ears Somos st_o1 t ses 8 agin A19Q. HON or st Sop gine aoa a enians [ “a ‘at 0 41083189 au0N er pore aos OL “TOL ce ot Lb H) Bapaans “NT jy Joor ‘wos ‘sopenuy ur yeazquaao ase °Z220 Chey stom N. Barton, R. Lien, and J. Lunde: GRANITE 60 GRANITE 66 SCHISTOSE METAGREVWACKE _ 87 Pian view Rewer, fT ae Z : : ms a Sedineaion shames ae PRO EOE, ee peng gocher GRANITE 14,75 ay MY, / Plan view of tunnel GRANITE 70 TP err 20m | \ usm | 16m 20m —4 GNeIss n Fig, 8. Sketches of the six case records described in Table 9, after Cecil (1970) Skizzen der sechs Fille, welche nach Cecil (1970) in Tabelle 9 beschrieben sind Croquis représentant les six cas décrits dans le tableau 9, selon Cecil (1970)Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 224 and those requiring some form of permanent support. Classification data for the thirty case records that plot on or below the boundary in Fig. 6 are given in Table 10. ‘As can be seen from the table, out of the thirty case records there are only six supported tunnels that plot below the boundary. The remaining one hundred and ninety case records contain only six further exceptions to the rale; i.e, unsupported tunnels that plot above the diagonal boundary. It therefore appears that self-supporting tunnels can be predicted with accept- able accuracy. The linear boundary can be approximated by the following equation: 2Q04 © where Dé imiting value of SPAN/ESR Q = rock mass quality The unsupported spans listed in Table 10 range from 1.2 to 100 metres. Thus it does not appear that span-width need be a limiting factor, pro- vided the rock mass quality is sufficiently high. In fact the Carlsbad lime- stone caverns of New Mexico have unsupported spans of up to 190 metres, presumably due both to the absence of joints and to a favourable stress field. The classification data listed in Table 10 gives a good indication of the “vital statistics” of self-supporting tunnels. It appears that a high ROD value (mean ROD = 85%o) is common but not without exception. One joint set is also a common characteristic, although the mean value of J, is 2.9, which represents one joint set plus random. None of these unsupported tun- nels have more than three joint sets. In general the joints tend to be dis- continuous or undulating (mean J, 2.6), though there are several examples with smooth-planar joints. The two most important requisites appear to be unaltered joints (J, 1) and dry excavations (J,—1). There are very few exceptions to these two observations. (D) Tunnel Support Recommendations Different personal, national and continental engineering practices lead inevitably to variations in methods of support, even for the same quality of rock. The majority of data has been obtained from European case records due in particular to the ninety or so case records from Scandinavia (Cecil, 1970) and other Norwegian case records known to the authors. As a result of this European-Scandinavian bias, and the belief that shotcrete and bolting methods deserve most attention, many well documented case records have been ignored. These include those describing steel rib support methods, free span concrete arch roofs, and pre-cast sectional linings. Small variations in support methods also occur in each category and are due to rock mass differences, since a given value of Q is not unique, but a combination of several variables. In order to separate the more im. Rock Mechaies, Vol. 6/4 5222 N. Barton, R.Lien, and J. Lunde: Table 10, Classification Data for Self-Supporting Tunnels Support Case Description of support. ROD/Ju_Jn/Ja_Jw/SRF_ SPAN/ESR Q eategory No, used Dd No.0 6 none, $ (Lapp) for pro- 60/2 LL 9.6 60 tection from small stones (0 8 none m2 wm Ww 96 35 support) 17 sb+5 (Lapp. for protec 1002 15/1 W/L 96 75 tion from small stones 20 none m2 1 1A D6 35 21 none 1004/1 0.65 BLO 266 27 (near category 13) none 90/3 WL LSI 30 29 none 92 LAS 135 35 none wet S667 36 none 2 wo Si.6 20 53. (near category 17) B 1009 LS SING 4A 58 none 100% SVL 101.0 1000 70 none 42 1S 12S B61 74 (near category 9) none 10/21/1687 77 (near category 5) sb 1001 SAS 20/13 200 (50 bolts per 300 m) 78 none 92 1s 1s | SNS OT 37 none wool at 14.25/16 400 2 none 92 LS WL BBO. 96 none 100714160 1b none 75/9 U3 066/133 87 112 none s2 ol os 126 $3 113 none too aS 26 MS (near category 13) B wor 4/20 GAL 20 (1.0 m) 1196 none 100/14 17S 10/4800 119¢ none 1001 4/1 1S 100/580 1208 none 959 kL 73 316 120 none 95/9 MLS TAS 6B 27a none or sb 10/4 = LS aI 75 7b none or sb 1004 30S 203150 144 sb, 2m long 94 kL 33 $8.6 150 none 1004 OSS GANS 50 Key: S$ = shoterete (mumber of applications in brackets) B= systematic bolting (mean spacing in brackets) 0 = spot boltingEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunne: Support 223 cortant variations in support practice, the conditional factors ROD/J, and Te should be evaluated in addition to the overall quality Q. Two excava- ‘fons having the same rock mass quality Q, may in one case be bolted, and in che other case only shotcreted. The conditional factor ROD/J, describing block size will normally separate these two cases. For instance, rock masses with ROD/J, values larger than 10 will tend to be massive to blocky re- {uiring only bolting, while values less than 10 are likely to represent blocky ghd jointed rock, which can often be adequately treated with shotcrete, In Other examples, the conditional factor Jj/J. describing inter-block shear Strength may play a more important role. In some cases the equivalent dimension (D,) which is equal to SPAN/ESR can be used as a third con- ditional factor to explain differences in support practice. Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 contain the authors’ recommendations for permanent support for all 38 categories. It should be noted that the support tables have been designed in the first instance to supply estimates of per- manent roof support. Methods for estimating permanent wall support are based on the hypothetical “wall quality” (range 1.0Q to 5.0) that was discussed on p. 213. A complete worked example is given at the end of the paper to illustrate the whole method. It will have been noticed that no recommendations for temporary sup- port have been discussed up to this point. Only a limited number of the case records contained such details. ‘Therefore any recommerdation given here will be an approximation, without the necessary back-up from case records. Nevertheless in principle, a tunnel with given values of SPAN/ESR and quality Q will obviously require reduced overall measures where tem- porary support is concerned. Appropriate reductions in support can be obtained by increasing the value of ESR to 1,5 ESR, and by increasing O to 5.Q. In other words, shifting a plotted point downward and to the right hand side of Fig. 5, in the general direction of the NO SUPPORT boundary. These factors would be applied equally to both the roof and wall, such that any differences in roof and wall support would also be in operation for temporary support. It should finally be emphasised that the support recommendations con- tained in this paper are based for the most part on general engineering prac- tice for a given type of excavation. If for some reason the qualtty of drilling and blasting is better or worse than that in normal practice, then the recom- mended support will tend to be over-conservative or inadequate respectively. However, there is an additional complication in that the appearance of the excavated surfaces (apparent rock mass quality) tends to suggest either an incteased or a decreased Q value for these two cases. For instance, when the dcilling is poorly executed and hole alignment is bad, the degree of over- break and need for support may increase considerably. ‘Therefore, where possible, the rock mass quality Q should be estimated from exposures ex- cavated in a similar manner to that used in the final excavations. Where this is not possible, allowances should be made, in particular with regard to the value of J, (joint set number) and to a lesser extent ROD. 1s224 N. Barton, R.Lien, and J. Lunde ‘Table 11, Support Measures for Rock Masses of “Exceptional”, “Extremely Good", “Very Good", and “Good” Quality (Q range: 1000—10) Support Q Conditional factors P SPAN/ Type of Note eate- ROD/ jy, SPAN/ kgiem? ESR (m)_ support see gory Jn Ir!» _“EsR(m) (approx.} p.229 1000-400 — = <0.01 20-40 sb (ure) = 2 1000-400 — —~ == —<0.01 30-60 sb (ure) - 3° 1000-400 — — — — <0.01 sb (utg) = 4 1000-400 — — —— — 10 05 1540 Big 52m Th IV elm s0-~- Bg) 152m 1, HIV 4-8 (ime) 5—10em 168° 40-10 315 05 30-65 Bg) 152m, Vs VI See elm note XII - = B(tg)15—2m 1, V, VI +5 (ims) 10—15em * Acthors’ estimates of support. Insufficient ease records available for reliable estimation ‘of support requirements. The iype of support to be used in categories 1 to 8 will depend on the blasting technique. Smooth wall blasting and thorough barring-down may remove the need for support. Rough: wall blasting may result in the need for single applications of shoterete, especially where the excavation height is >25 m, Future case records should differentiate eategorics 1 to 8. Key :o Support Tables: sb B (ate) spot bot systematic bolking untensioned, groutedEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 225 Table 12. Support Measures for Rock Masses of “Fair” and “Poor” Quality (Q range: 10—1) Support Q Conditional factors Pe SPAN/ Type of support Note cates ROD/In Ina SPAN! Kalem® ESR (mi) See gory In IeJa ESR” approx.) p.229 ee ee) 1 210, s30— B(ag)1—1sm 1 <0 — 26m Bag) 115m 1 +$2-—3em <1 = <6m S23cm 1 1 14 mS 10m 10 7S B(@) ism 1 +elm 2S (TS aa _ Wx s0u wo OF—0E (am) $+ 295 XI ‘A ‘AL ‘I wry Gh) se~st swt mez = - FOOT ste |) a+ 1x x ‘IA > 001 (a) § wa - = wT @) ae 1X ‘X “HA, > Ob—07 VOD wa< _ _ wa 62g (aw) $+ xt wy Gin) g wa = = ws OI—S-z (Fun) s+ xi‘ 1 @) a 81-9 St wae - = rool XID wp s—s7 +m y (in) g _ _ al us 62—$ (3) $+ 1X *X SHIA wy) ST _ _ _ rO-0T ot 1 ws Gu) grant) @ — S05 = 1 wos (ru) ¢+ury (an) g = so< ore 1 Wp iowutury mg Tyr sez = so< ore FOOL (xordde) 6rd 20g (wu) guy Cw) ySTINVas = "ML Hay Axon S10N oddns yo adh, Sa/NVUS 7 ‘ioxDe} [euonipuo) B uoddng (ro-0 :98ue1 O) Aryeh 00g ADA, Jo sasseyy yoy 105 sammseayy az0ddng “EL QUEEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 227 1x ‘X “HA ‘AL 1x SX ‘AL “HT Ix “XI ‘AL I Ix °X ‘MTA, 1x ‘XI XL XI 1x MTA, XI xl “syuotaummbas odldns Jo wonorpod suapyuoo 304 ajqeyeav sprosas ase> qwspsygnsuy “oddns jo sowutnse ,s1OyNY wr) a+ > O71—OF (18) YOO 181 OF —0T (att) $+ 1) a 9 09—op (at) $+ wT) wy &) a+ m9 9s—0€ (3) YOO. wp) a+ ‘w9 OF—07 V9 up Se—6°4 (a) § up zg (1a) s+ a) g wD G26 (80) 6+ wr (&) € ud sz (am) § wm g—67 S+ur TG) we g (om) sm 1 (8) va g (ow) ge T Gn) wD Ez S+uEL Bm) en Sl ott re-or oe oe of oe woe> - wore = — stos — st0< — swo< se ii Rw re-ro roo roo ro-ro 1X 2100 295 we Te 604 a a § a a stusuisaynbos waddns jo worisypaad qwapyuo 205 a[qeyteAe spsosas ave> suarsyynsuy “ueddns jo serewnse ,sIOWNY 5 wr Gh) a+ 1x “LX STA 2 0gz—0L (24) § wore - ~ XI tw ge —02 (at) § wore = = wy at MIX 2200 ix “U ‘X “MA wr ODE—OOL (5) YOO wore _ _ 2S XE WD00E—V0F 8) VOD 00 a wore = — wooo ae wor—so Oh) a+ IX *X ‘IA Wo O9—OT (HU) = - - XL w 99—07 (200) ¢ SIT a _ _ _ Too'o—10°0- “a a o'1—S°0 (th) a+ 1X ‘X ‘THA wo OZ—OI (sm) S _ = —_ T wo O<—OT (34) § Ot—0T a — ~~ ~~ Too'0—10'0 29 wy i) a+ I “IX *X “IA w> OSI—OF (28) VOD. uw sT> - _ aa ¢£—OF (a + ‘IX “XT w 1 (ih) @ mw st> _ _ wh) de Ix a0 WX ‘XA .007—09 (8) YOO wists - -~ 2S 1% 001 0F Gu) 5+ - 1X XIE wr@e sso 9 werz - - woo st wr) at 1X *X MIA wa 09—02 (48) YOO. om a xr 9 ZS (ati) § = sox = xt wp S154 at) § = scoz > su 6 —-§ (il) 5 ay (3) M07 9 ~ StOz tz 100-10 +e ‘wD ST—S"Z (7m) § _ ~~ — > 1 aw) § = = ca wo 5577 (atl) § x1 wr Gla 6-01 9 - - ca wore te (onde) sce 4 95 (w) sy (uw) uswNvas = Eau ‘A089 on uuddus jo wks, -USE/NVES y Soieg [euontpuo3) o ‘wedans (to90—1'0 #984 O) Aajends goog Ayeaondaaxg, pur 200g A[owanixg, Jo sossvyy yy 30) sounseayy a10ddng “$1 919er,Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 229 Supplementary Notes for Support Tables I. For cases of heavy rock bursting or “popping”, tensioned bolts with en‘arged bearing plates often used, with spacing of about 1m (occa- sicnally down to 0.8 m). Final support when “popping” activity ceases. II. Several bole lengths often used in same excavation, i.e. 3, 5 and 7m. Ul. Several bolt lengths often used in same excavation, i.e. 2, 3 and 4m. IV. Tensioned cable anchors aften used to supplement bolt support pres- sures. Typical spacing 2—4 m. Y. Several bolt lengths often used in some excav: 6,8 and 10 m. VI. Tensioned cable anchors often used to supplement bolt support pres- sures. Typical spacing 4—6 m. VII. Several of the older generation power stations in this category employ systematic ot spot bolting with areas of chain link mesh, and a free span concrete arch roof (25—40 cm) as permanent support. ns, VIII. Ceses involving swelling, for instance montmorillonite clay (with access of water). Room for expansion behind the support is used in cases of heavy swelling. Drainage measures are used where possible. IX, Cases not involving swelling clay or squeezing rock, X. Cases involving squeezing rock. Heavy rigid support its generally used as permanent support. XI. According to the authors’ experience, in cases of swelling or squeezing, the temporary support required before concrete (or shotcrete) arches arz formed may consist of bolting (tensioned shell-expansion type) if the value of ROD/J, is sufficiently high (i.e. >1.5), possibly com- bined with shotcrete. If the rock mass is very heavily jointed or crushed fice. ROD/Jy<1.5, for example a “sugar cube” shear zone in quartz- ite), then the temporary support may consist of up to several applica- tions of shotcrete. Systematic bolting (tensioned) may be added after casting the concrete (or shotcrete) arch to reduce the uneven loading on the concrete, but it may not be effective when RQD/J, <1.5, oF waen a lot of clay is present, unless the bolts are grouted before ten- sioning. A sufficient length of anchored bolt might also be obtained using quick setting resin anchors in these extremely poor quality rock- masses. Serious occurrences of swelling and/or squeezing rock may require that the concrete arches are taken right up to the face, pos- sibly using a shield as temporary shuttering. Temporary support of the working face may also be required in these cases. XII. For reasons of safety the multiple drift method will often be needed during excavation and supporting of roof arch. Categories 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 35 (SPAN/ESR > 15 m only). XII, Multiple drift method usually needed during excavation and support of arch, walls and floor in cases of heavy squeezing. Category 38 (SPAN/ESR > 10 m only).230 N.Barton, R.Lien, and J. Lunde: (E) Worked Example 20m Span Machine Hall in Phyllite (i) Rock Mass Classification Joint set 1 strongly developed foliation smooth-planar (Jp — 1.0) chlorite coatings (a= 4.0) ca, 15 joints/metre Joint set 2. smooth-undulating Ur=2) slightly altered joint walls (J, 2) ca, 5 joints/metre Je=15+5=20 ROD =50. (Eq.2) Jn=4. Minimum Jj/Jo= 1/4 Minor water inflows: J,,= 1.0 Unconfined compression strength of phyllite (o,) = 400 kg/cm? Major principal stress (0;) ~30 kgiem? Minor principal stress (03) = 10 kgicm? (04/63) =3 clo, = 13.3 (medium stress) SRF 1.0 =P. 4-4 £31 (poor) (Eq. 1) (ii) Support Recommendation Type of excavation Machine hall B=20m, H=30m (ESR=1.0) —B/ESR = 20, H/ESR~ 30 Support category (a) Roof Q=3.4; category 23 (Fig. 5) (b) Walls “Q” =3.1-2.5; category 20 Recommended Support (a) Category 23. Table 12 B(tg) 1.4m (Roof) + S(mr) 15 cm Notes: I, IV, VIL (b) Caegory 20 Table 12 B(tg) 1.7m (Walls) + S$(mr) 10 cm Notes: II, 1VEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 231 Mean length of bolts and anchors (a) Roof bolts 5.0m_(Appendix) anchors 8.0m (Appendix) (b) Walls bolts 6.5m (Appendix) anchors 105m (Appendix) Support pressure estimates (a) Roof Q=3.1 1, (Fig. 4, shaded envelope) Approx. range for Pray; = 0.9—2.0 kg/em? 2. (Eq. 3) Prot = 1.37 kg/em?® 3. (Eq. 4) Proot = 0.91 kg/cm? (b) Walls “Q”=3.1-2.5 1. (Fig. 4, shaded envelope) Approx. range for Pya 2. (Eq. 3) Pya = 1.01 kg/em’ 3. (Eq. 4) Py = 0.67 kg/em® 0.61.4 kg/em* Commentary 1. Note the use of the minimum value J;/Je for calculating Q. The prop- erties of the joint set having the lowest shear strength should always be used, unless the user considers the orientation is entirely favourable such that a second joint is more unfavourable to stability, despite having a higher value of Jo/Jo- 2. The choice of 1.4m and 1.7 m spacing for roof and wall bolts fom the empirical listed ranges of 1—1.5 m and 1—2 m was made in accordance with the specific value of Q, in relation to the range for the given category (i.e. OQ = 1—4). These bolt spacings are approximate and need to be checked against required support pressures. 3. When using Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 for wall support, the relevant span should be used when the conditional factor (SPAN/ESR) is listed. Hence the choice of the minimum 10cm of mesh reinforced shotcrete from a pos- sible range of 10—20 cm. 4, The mean bolt and anchor lengths should be coordinated with the recommendation given under Note If (p. 229}. Thus, for the roof, variable {intermeshed) bolt lengths of 3, 5 and 7m appear reasonable, while for the wall 5, 6.5 and 8m might be more appropriate. The recommendation for using tensioned cable anchors (Note IV) is based on current practice in most caverns of this size. The effectiveness of such widely spaced (2—4 m) rein- forcement ig pechaps open to question. 5. The range of estimates of support pressure give room for choice. The estimates obtained from Eq. (4) are especially dependent on the absence of additional joint sets. Should some additional random joints be discovered when access tunnels are driven into this hypothetical rock mass, both j,, and Q will be affected, and this will have a multiple effect on Eq. (4). The value of J, will increase to 6, Q will reduce to 2.1, and the estimate of roof sup- Port pressure would rize from 0.91 to 1.28 kg/em?.232 N. Barton, R. Lien, and J. Lunde Appendix Design Concepts for Rationalizing the Support ‘Tables The simple theory used to rationalize the support dimensioning can be conveniently divided into three parts: bolting, concrete lining, shotcrete lining. 1. Bolting The support pressure capacity of tensioned or grouted bolts is equal to the yield capacity of one bolt (if adequately anchored) divided by the square of the bolt spacing. If a 10 tons working load is assumed for a 20 mm diameter bolt, the support pressure is as follows: P=1a? (6) where P = support pressure capacity in kg/cm? a = bolt spacing in metres Eq. (6) and the support pressure chart (Fig. 4) were used in combination with the case records, and this helped to provide a rational and reasonably con- tinuous spectrum of bolt spacings. When a range of spacings is quoted in Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14, for instance 1.5 to 2.0m, the lower limit applies to the lowest rock mass quality Q, and the upper limit to the highest rock mass quality in each given support category. In cases where anchors were noted as a supplementary reinforcement method, the given bolt spacings could be increased, provided the total support pressure generated by the combined bolting and anchoring was not reduced. Bolt and anchor lengths depend on the dimensions of the excavations. Lengths used in the roof arch are usually related to the span, while 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 demonstrated 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 7) anchors L=0.40 B/ESR 8) Walls: bolts L=2+0.15 H/ESR (9) anchors L=0.35 H/ESR (10) where L = Iength in metres span in metres excavation height in metres excavation support ratioEngineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 233 2. Concrete Lining ‘The theory of thin walled cylinders provides a simple expression be- tween lining thickness, resultant stress in lining, and uniform internal or external pressure at equilibrium. For external loading the following expres- sion is obtained: PR (1) where P = externally applied pressure (kg/em*) «© = compressive stress in lining (kg/cm?) R = internal radius of lining (cm) + = wall thickness for equilibrium (em) “The above expression is based on the assumption that bending and shear stresses are absent. When a concrete lining is used in combination with systematic bolting, stresses caused by uneven loading or non-circular linings can presumably be minimized and the above equation used with a conservative value for allowable stress. If bolt tensions could be guaranteed, some sharing of sup- port pressure would occur and lining thickness could be reduced. However, some form of internal steel reinforcement may be required to reduce the unfavourable effect of uneven stresses. A conservative value of 3 (allowable) equal to 50 kg/em? was assumed when rationalizing Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14. ‘The appropriate range of pressure (P) was estimated using Fig. 4, in com- bination with available case records. Support pressure load sharing by systematic bolting was ignored, there- fore concrete thickness may be too conservative if bolts are added and an- chorage is effective. However, it should be emphasised that concrete lining is only recommended in the poorest qualities of rock mass, where the effec- tiveness of bolt anchorage is relatively uncertain. 3. Shoterete Lining When single (2—3 cm) or double (5cm) applications of shotcrete are applied — usually in combination with systematic bolting (i.e. support categories 21 and 25, Tables 12 and 13) — the function of the shotcrete is to prevent loosening, especially in the zone between bolts. In such cases no attempt was made to use Eq. (11) for design thicknesses. The mode of failure of thin layers of shotcrete is one of shear, not bending or compression, as emphasised by Rabcewicz (1969) and Miiller (1970). In fact, the support tables are based on a wealth of case records in these support categories, and any attempt to incorporate theory would be superfluous, even if the relevant theory was reliable.234 N. Barton, R.Lien, and J. Lunde: ‘Conclusions 1. The method of classifying rock masses for tunneling stability incor- porates six parameters which can be estimated in the first instance using an inexpensive combination of field mapping and geological engineering judge- ment. Should bore core be available together with the results of rock mechan- ics tests suich as point load strength, natural rock stress etc., then the esti= mate of rock mass quality Q will be that much more reliable, though not necessarily more accurate. At a more advanced stage of a project when exploratory adits are available, the estimates of Q can, and should be updated further. Support requirements may be re-evaluated in the light of the in situ conditions revealed. 2. The support recorimendations contained in this paper are based for the most part on general engineering practice for a given type of excavation. If for some reason the quality of drilling and blasting is better or worse than that in normal practice, then the recommended support will tend to be over-conservative or inadequate respectively. The most reliable estimates of rock mass quality Q and support measures will therefore be obtained from exposures excavated by the same methods as those to be used in the final excavations. Where this is not possible, allowance should be made, partic. ularly with regard to the value of J, (joint set number) and ROD. 3. The use of past and present case records as a basis for future design introduces the danger of perpetuating over-conservative (and occasionally under-conservative) practice. Consequently, case records describing failure of temporary support, or the necessity for additional support are especially valuable for indicating what the present safety margins are. 4. A further danger of using past and present case records as a basis for future design is that excavation techniques are changing. More and more smooth wall blasting is used and more and more tunnels are machinebored. The support pressure required will reduce as improved excavation techniques result in less disturbance of the surrounding rock. ‘These trends must be incorporated as they occur. 5. Readers in a position to supply detailed case records, especially in areas where the authors’ data is sparse, could make a valuable contribution, enabling the updating and improvement of the support tables. Acknowledgements It is not usual to acknowledge the contribution of publications. How- ever, the field work performed by Cecil (1970) has proved such a valuable source of information for developing this method of classification that his contribution must be specially acknowledge. ‘The review article by Cording, Hendron and Deere (1972) was another valuable source from the Univer- sity of Illinois. Finally the authors would like to thank their colleagues at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, in particular Arild Palmstrém, Tor Léken, Tore Valstad and Bjérn Buen for helpful discussisons and’ con- tributions.Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support 235, References Barth, S Felsmechanische Probleme beim Entwurf der Kaverne des Pump- speicherwerkes Waldeck Il. Bautechnik, Vol. 49, No.3, 73-83 (1972). Barton, N.: Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints, To be published .n: Engineering Geology, Amst., Vol. 7 (4), 287332 (1973). Barton, N.: A review of the shear strength of filled discontinuities in rock, Norsk forening for fjllsprengningsteknikk. Fjellsprengningsteknikk, Bergmckanikk (Conference), Oslo 1973. Tapir, Trondheim. Editor: E. Broch. 38 p. (1974). Barton, N, R. Lien, and J. Lunde: Analysis of rock mass quality and sup- port practice in tunneling, and a guide for estimating support requirements. NGI Internal report 54206, 74 p. (1974). Benson, R.P., R. J. Conlon, A.H. Merritt, P. Joli-Coeur, and D. U. Deere: Rock mechanics at Churchill Falls. American Society of Civil Engineers. Symposium on Underground Rock Chambers, Phoenix, Arizona. Proceedings, 407—486 (1971). Bieniawski, Z.T.: Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, Dec. 335—343 (1973). Bjerrum, L: Discussion on: R. E, Goodman and H.M. Ewoldson: A design approsch for rock bolt reinforcement in underground galleries. International ‘Symposium on Large Permanent Underground Openings. Oslo 1969. Proceedings, p. 261 (1970), Brown, G. L, ED. Morgan, and J. $. Dodd: Rock stabilization at Mor row Point power plant, American Society of Civil Engineers. Proceedings, Vol. 97, No.SM 1, 119—139 (1971). Cecil Ill, 0. S.: Correlations of rock bolt-shotcrete support and rock quality parameters ir. Scandinavian tunnels. Ph. D. Thesis. Urbana, University of linois 414 p. (1970) Coates, D. F: Classification of rocks for rock mechanics. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 1, 421429 (1964). Cording, E. J, and D.U. Deere: Rock tunnel supports and field mea- surements. North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago 1972, Proceedings, Vol. 1, 567—600 (1972). Cording, E. J, A.J.Hendron, and D.U. Deere: Rock engineering for underground caverns. American Society of Civil Engineers. Symposium on Under- ground Chambers. Phoenix, Arizona, 1971, $67—600 (1972). Deere, D. Ux: Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes. Felsmechanik und Ingenieurgeologie, Vol. 1, No. 1, 16—22 (1963). Deere, D.U., R.B.Peck, JE. Monsces, H.W, Parker, and B. Schmidt Design of tunnel support systems. Proceedings. 49th Annual Meeting, Highway Research Board, January (1970). Denkhaus, H.G.: Discussion on: Theme I: Engineering geological _con- siderations in the design and construction of large underground openings. Inter- national Symposium on Large Permanent Underground Openings. Oslo 1969. Pro- ceedings, 125—126 (1970). Merritt, A. H.: Geological predictions for underground excavations. North American Rapid Excavations and Tunneling Conference, Chicago 1972. Pro- ceedings, Vol. 1, 115—132 (1972).236 N. Barton et al.: Engineering Classification of Rock Masses Monsees, |.: Design of support systems for tunnels in rock. Ph, D. Thesis. University of Hlinois. 1252 (1970). Miiller-Salzburg, L.: A new European tunneling concept. Paper presented at a Tunneling Conference at Lorch, West-Germany, 1970, under the title “Neuere Anffassungen im mitteleutopiischen Felshohlraumbau und deren Auswirkungen auf die Praxis”. Salzburg. 42 p. Osterreichische Gesellschaft fir Geomechanik. Translation 17 (1970). Palmstrém, Ax Private communication (1974). Rabcewics, Lv. Stability of tunnels under rock load. Water Power, Vol. 21, June: 225—229, July: 266-273, August: 297—302 (1969). Selmer-Olsen, R.: Experiences with using bolts and shoterete in area with rock bursting phenomena. International Symposium on Large Permanent Under- ground Openings, Oslo 1969. Proceedings, 275—278 (1970). Terzaghi, Kx Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. Proctor, R.V., and T. L. White: Rock tunneling with steel supports. Youngstown, Ohio, Com- mercial Shearing and Stamping Co., 17—99. Harvard University. Graduate School of Engineering. Publication, 418 — Soil mechanics series 25 (1946). Wickham, G.E., H.R. Tiedemann, and E.H. Skinner: Support deter- minations based on geological predictions. North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference. Chicago 1972. Proceedings, Vol. 1, 43—64 (1972). Address of the authors: Dr. Nick Barton, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Postboks 40 Tasen, Oslo 8, Norway. Princed in Austria