Engineering Geology, 12 (1978)113--142 113

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

INDEX PROPERTIES AND OBSERVATIONS FOR DESIGN OF

CHAMBERS IN ROCK

E.J. CORDING and J.W. MAHAR

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
61801 (U.S.A.)
(Received April 22, 1977; revised version accepted February 27, 1978)

ABSTRACT

Cording, E.J. and Mahar, J.W., 1978. Index properties for design of chambers in rock. In:
W.R. Judd (Editor), Near Surface Underground Opening Design. Eng. Geol., 12:
113--142.

The in-situ methods emphasized in this paper are used to relate rock index properties
to the performance of a tunnel or large chamber. The methods are carried out by explora-
tion prior to construction and by observations during excavation. The mechanics of the
deformation and the possible modes of tunnel failure should provide the basis for relating
the significant rock index properties to behavior.
Index properties of significance in tunneling can be divided into the following cate-
gories: the average quality of the rock mass, the properties of planar discontinuities, and
the properties of intact specimens. The average quality of the rock mass can be determined
from quantitative estimates of rock quality, fracturing, and weathering in the rock core.
Calibrated descriptive estimates may suffice. The average rock quality indices are partic-
ularly useful in the exploration stage in locating the low quality zones that may cause
tunneling difficulties. Properties of planar discontinuities, have a large influence on the
performance of large chambers but are more difficult to assess in the exploratory phase of
a project.
Loosening ground and highly stressed ground conditions and their influence on perfor-
mance of large chambers are summarized. The following design aspects are discussed:
(1) heading support requirements; ( 2 ) support spacing; (3) support displacements; (4)
support pressures and bolt lengths; (5) compatibility of initial and final support and inte-
gration of excavation and support sequences in large chambers. The size of the chamber
with respect to the wave length, continuity, and spacing of joints has an important
influence on support pressures and support selection.
Classification systems that directly relate rock indices to support can be used for a
preliminary estimate of support requirements. However, an additional step should be
included when evaluating performance:
(1) Evaluate geology and determine significant index properties.
(2) Outline expected ground behavior and its effect on construction. This additional
step requires a knowledge of construction procedures as well as the models of rock
behavior that are appropriate to the given geologic setting and excavation geometry. The
geologic data should be plotted in plan and cross-section views of the proposed opening
for each excavation sequence in order to identify potential problems and to check the
adequacy of the proposed support systems.
(3) Select support systems and construction procedures that permit the headings to he
safely and economically excavated, and that provide a permanent support suitable over
the intended life of the facility.
114

During construction, much can be gained by observing overbreak, fallout, evidence of

slabbing due to stress, rock movement, and support distress. The information should be
collected at the heading of the tunnel, as the rock is excavated and supported. Observa-
tions of support procedures immediately after blasting are particularly important. Rugged,
reliable instruments that can be installed, read, interpreted, and related to geologic condi-
tions in a timely manner can contribute much to the observation program.

1. INTRODUCTION

The design o f a tunnel or chamber in rock involves n o t only the propor-

tioning o f the final lining but also siting o f the tunnel and selection of tunnel
geometry, and selection of excavation and support sequences so t h a t the
tunnel can be safely advanced and so that excessive damage to nearby
structures is minimized.
The geotechnical aspects of the design of a tunnel or chamber are deter-
mined from exploration during the initial phases of the project and from
observations during and following excavation. During exploration, rock index
properties should be determined so that geologic features of significance in
tunneling can be evaluated. During construction, observations provide a
means of relating rock index properties and construction procedures to the
performance of the tunnel. As outlined by Peck et al. (1953), index properties
for rock or soil should be quantitative and should be related to the significant
engineering properties o f the material. The index p r o p e r t y should be repro-
ducible and should be obtainable from a simple test, preferably from normal
e x p l o r a t o r y information.
It should be recognized that, at present, many of the index properties in a
rock mass are difficult to assess in the e x p l o r a t o r y stage and, even at later
stages of the project, are n o t always easily identified or quantified. Moreover,
it is even more difficult to predict the ground behavior based on the index
properties particularly during the e x p l o r a t o r y phase of the project.
The mechanics of the d e f o r m a t i o n and t he possible modes of tunnel failure
should provide the basis for relating the significant rock index properties to
behavior. Analytical studies, t e m per e d by a knowledge of construction condi-
tions in the field, can be of assistance in developing relations between index
properties and tunnel performance. Rock movement, overbreak, and support
loads and distress are aspects of the per f or m ance that should be observed.
There is a need for developing f ur t he r understanding o f the influence of
geologic and construction conditions on the performance of tunnels and
chambers. Identification of the i m p o r t a n t index properties as t hey affect
rock behavior should be built up f r om extensive observations of geologic
conditions, ground behavior, and construction procedures within a given
geologic environment.
Section 2 o f this paper is an overview o f exploration and index properties
for a tunnel or chamber in rock; Section 3 discusses some of the factors
influencing stability and support; and Section 4 outlines the observations that
can be used to evaluate tunnel performance. Throughout , comparisons are
 115

made between methods used for small tunnels, large deep chambers, and
shallow chambers in rock. Most of the discussions refer to tunnels and
chambers excavated in loosening ground (rock fragments, blocks, and wedges
tending to separate from the surrounding rock mass and move under gravity
into the opening). Although other ground conditions such as squeezing, swell-
ing, slaking, flowing, and excessive water flows are encountered in tunnels,
treatment of these ground conditions is beyond the scope of this paper.

2. INDEX PROPERTIES

2.1. Summary of index properties

Rock properties of significance in tunnel design and construction can be

categorized in three broad areas:
{1) The average quality of the rock mass, a property of the rock mass as
distinguished from the properties of an intact rock sample. The quality is a
summation of the effect of planar features such as joints and shears on the
average properties of the rock mass. The compressibility of the rock mass and,
to some extent, the stability of an opening and the tendency of the arch of an
opening to ravel are affected by the rock-mass quality.
(2} Properties of specific planar features. Failures often occur along a few
distinct planar joints or shears. In such cases, the stability is determined largely
by the properties along those surfaces rather than by the average properties
of the entire mass. Overbreak, fallouts, and the rock blocks to be supported
are strongly dependent on the properties of specific sets of joint and shear
zones.
(3) Properties of the intact or laboratory specimens. Some properties of
significance in tunneling can be determined from small samples. In many
cases, the significant properties can be estimated by combining some of the
results from laboratory tests with information on the gross features of the
rock mass obtained from exploratory work. The rate of advance of tunnel-
boring machines is a function of the hardness of an intact sample as welt as
the character of the jointing in the rock mass. The compressibility of the rock
mass is a function of the modulus of the intact sample as well as the average
quality o f the rock mass. The unconfined compressive strength of the sample,
when compared with the m a x i m u m in-situ stress, provides an indication of
the expected stress-slabbing conditions (rock bursts, popping rock, and
formation of new fractures due to high stresses). Some of the slaking and
swelling characteristics can also be evaluated from small samples using soil
testing procedures.
Table I summarizes index properties according to the above categories
(Cording et al., 1975). Table II summarizes the index properties which are the
basis for the tunnel support classification systems developed by Wickham et
al. {1972), Barton et al. (1974} and Bieniawski (1976). In the following para-
graphs, several of the index properties related to tunnel support are discussed.
TABLE I

Rock properties of significance in tunneling

Method of OetemlnaUon
Field Happing,
Index Prolx~rty Regtonal Geology, Tuneel Application of the
Core Logging Lab Index Test In-Hole Tests R~ote Sensing, Exposures Index Property
Geophysical,
In Sttu Tests

Average RockMassQuahW

S. RQO,core recovery Log core Log ~11 of Estlmte field

tunw1 deformtton modulus
to evaluate rock
b. Frecture frequency Log core Water pressure Log m l l of dlspluc~ent mea-
(frsctures/foot) tests tunnel surolnents and
- lining-rock tnter-
Seismic ratio Vp fleld.2 action Large scale
Lab sonic velocity Sonic loqglng Fteld selsmtc plate loud tests ere
( Vp lab ) (Vp lab ) (Vp field ) (Vp field ) sometimes used to
evaluate modulus;
not usually wer-
d. Degree of weathering Log core: evaluKe Evaluate strength, runted for tunnels.
Jotnt ~stherlng as porosity, hardness Estlmmto tunnel
well as general of sample support requtremnts
weatherl~

Properties of Malor Joint

Sets and Shear Zones
a Spacing Log core Observe tn Observe tn Est 1rote tunnel
exposures tunnel support requirements
b. Fllllng end roughness Evidence of sllck- Dtroct shear tests Indtcsttons of Large scale Samptlng and
enstdes, cluy. of Joint surface soft metertsls dtrlct shear observation of
Smoothness of or of ft111ng. De- fromgeophyst- tests not usual- gouge, evtdimce
Joints. ([vldence term|nation of ca1 loqgtng. ly Wlrrsntnd for of sltckenstdes,
may he limited.) p l . t l c l t y Indices. tunnels. Jolnt surfaces.
c. gaviness (Inclination. Observe In Observe tn
=t" end wavelength) exposures tunnel
d. Continuity (length) Observe extent Observe extent
of Jotnts In of Jelnts tn
outcrops tunnel
e. Attitude (dlp and strlke Oriented core 6orehole Map orteetlttons limp orientations
with respect to tunnel) camera In exposures tn tunnels
f. Cmtbtnattons of Jotnt Oriented core ilorohole Map ortentotlons Hap ortentettons
sets CAmerA tn exposures tn tunnels
 Properties of the Rock Samp~

S. Nodulus, Eli b Unconfined c~mpre- Use lab modulus as

slon test with base for osttmttng
strainlmsure- the field modulus
ments (see also 1)
b. Unconfined co~gressive Unconfined cow,pros- Estimate effect of
Strength, oc slon test htgh stresses on
s]ebbtng and popptng
of rock

c. Creep properties Evidence of Constent load trl- Evaluate extent Observations Estimate presSUreS
she*red, ~ethered axisl creep tests of she~r zones of squeezing and defomttuns on
and low qunllty end plastlclty 11ntngs tn squeezing
rock indices ~ -- ground

d, Swelling properties Deterloretlon of Measure swell pres- Obtervst|ons Estimate pressures

sure on samles, of sunlllng and and defomltton In
evaluate plsstlclty henve tn tunM1 sunl ] tng ground

e. Slake durability Deterioration of Slake-dureblltty Observittuns Evaluate ~ n c y

core test and plssttctty of slektng tn for sloktng (time
Indices tunnel dependent deterior-
ation duo to Imts-
tdre cMnges)
f. Boroablllty (for tunnel Presence of hard Abrasion hardness Observe field Determine extent Evaluate fenstbt 1lt~y
boring mchlnes) mlnertls tests o lmpect d r l l l rates of rock types of machtne tunneling
hardness tests,
micro-bits
g- Plasticity of shales, Attorperg limits Correlltl With re-
altered rock or fllllng (llqutd, plosttc) sidue1 shelf
materials strength, slaktng,
swelling, end creep
properties

4. In-Sltu Permeablhty Fracturing, open Simple penmb111ty 8orohele Evidence of fault Water problems In
zones In dr1111ng tests for porous mter pres- zones, civttles, tunnel
mtertsls sure tests, other hlgh perme-
punplng tests a b i l i t y zouns

--1
118

TABLE II

Summary of geotechnical parameters used in tunnel support classification systems

Classification system Parameters

Rock structure rating (RSR) rock type and weathering

(Wickham et al., 1972)
Geomechanics (RM R)
(Bieniawski, 1976)
Rock mass quality (Q)
(Barton et al., 1974)
general geologic structure
average joint spacing
orientation of structures relative to tunnel axis
ground water volumes and pressures
intact strength
RQD
joint spacing
joint roughness, opening, hardness and filling
ground water volumes and pressures
orientation of structures relative to tunnel axis
RQD
number of joint sets
roughness of most unfavorable joint sets
degree of alteration or filling of most unfavorable
joint set
stress, intact strength and degree of fracturing
ground water volumes and pressures

2.2. Rock quality

The average quality o f the r o c k mass is particularly useful in the e x p l o r a t i o n

stage for evaluating the c o n d i t i o n s t o be e x p e c t e d along a t u n n e l line. R o c k
mass p r o p e r t i e s can be s u m m a r i z e d on a core log b y showing items such as
core r e c o v e r y , r o c k q u a l i t y designation (RQD), degree o f weathering, and
f r a c t u r e f r e q u e n c y . Such indices m a k e it possible t o rapidly assimilate a large
a m o u n t o f e x p l o r a t o r y d a t a and locate zones in the r o c k t h a t are likely t o be
o f low quality and p r e s e n t tunneling difficulties.
T h e R Q D represents the p e r c e n t a g e o f the NX core r u n t h a t consists o f
sound pieces o f core greater t h a n 10 cm (4 inches) in length. (Breaks in the
core i n d u c e d by drilling should n o t be considered.) It was originally d e v e l o p e d
b y Deere et al. ( 1 9 6 7 ) for evaluating core samples in o r d e r to select the best
location for a cavern in a granitic rock. T h e R Q D should be c o n s i d e r e d in the
light o f the geologic c o n d i t i o n s and the drilling c o n d i t i o n s at the site.
T h e r e m a y be several causes for the low quality o f the core, and t h e y need
to be d e t e r m i n e d w h e n using the RQD:
(1) Improper drilling and handling. Even t h o u g h t h e drilling breaks are n o t
included in the RQD, excessive breakage or loss o f the core during drilling will
t e n d to lower the RQD.
(2) Drilling parallel to and intersecting a joint. The core t e n d s to break
apart w h e n a j o i n t intersects t h e core parallel to the core axis.
(3) Separation along bedding planes and foliation surfaces. Even t h o u g h
bedding plane partings and foliation surfaces are n o t o p e n in the field, the
 119

drilling process and subsequent moisture changes during storage may cause
the core to break along partings. Thin-bedded shales c o m m o n l y exhibit this
behavior, and if the breaks are included in the estimate, the RQD will be very
low.
(4) Smaller core size than NX. Additional breakage will take place using
smaller diameter core than NX, and the size of the pieces tends to be propor-
tional to the core diameter.
(5) Weathering. Weathered zones along joints or in the rock mass will
produce lower RQD values. At one site in a granite gneiss, the highly
weathered rock could be distinguished from the partially weathered zone on
the basis of RQD. The highly weathered zone had RQD values less than 50%,
and occurred in the upper 3 m (10 ft) of the rock profile. Below a depth of
6 m (20 ft.), the rock was unweathered, and RQD values were greater than
85%.
(6) Shear zones. In unweathered schistose gneisses in Washington, D.C.,
shear zones or fracture zones were usually present where the RQD for a 5-ft.
core run was less than 60%. In some of these cases, slickensides and clay
seams were n o t easily observed in the core, but the shear zone could be
observed in the exposures in the tunnel at the locations predicted from the
low RQD values.
(7) Closely jointed and fractured zones. The RQD can be directly related
to the degree of fracturing.
(8) Core disking. High in-situ stresses may cause disking of the core into
thin wafer-like pieces.

2. 3. Properties o f planar features

Orientation and strength

The stability of a tunnel in loosening ground depends on the orientation of
and strength along discontinuities. Some of the more difficult ground condi-
tions can develop where shears and joints are planar and slick, but widely
spaced. Thus the RQD in this instance would be high, but the tunneling
conditions would be difficult. Orientation of and strength along major continu
ous anisotropic features, such as foliation or bedding plane weaknesses, are
particularly critical considerations in evaluating rock support conditions.
Both the rock quality and the properties of major planes or zones of weakness
should be considered in evaluating rock support requirements.
Planes that strike within 25 ° of the tunnel axis usually present the most
difficult support problem. High-angle joint planes (dips greater than 50 ° ) can
cause extensive sidewall support problems. High-angle planes can also form
deep, potentially unstable wedges in the crown, particularly if their surfaces
are planar and slick, as is c o m m o n to shears and shear zones. Low-angle
planes of any orientation and of any strength, will tend to cause shallow slabs
to form in the crown of the opening. Minimal support is generally required
where there is an absence of well-developed shears, shear zones, or weathered
zones, and where there are not enough prominent joint sets to form wedges.
120

(~)
(AO~
j (nS)
HEIGHT o f
DIP H F EQUIVALENT M I N I M U M CONDITION
ANGLE ' ROCK LOAD FOR FAILURE

0~ . 30 ° 90 °-60" (0 " IS)B Both planes wavy, offset

30° . 45 ° 60 °. 45 ° (15 2s)B One p l a n e w a v y or o f f s e t

One p l a n e s m o o t h to
slightly wavy

One p l a n e sheared, c o n t i n u -
45 °- 60° 4S°. 30~ ( 25 - 43)B ous and p l a n a r ,
One plane s l i g h t l y w a v y

Bath planes sheared, con-

6 0 ° . 7S° 30°- 15" ( 43 - 1 0)B
tinuous and p l a n a r

L o w l a t e r a l stresses In a r c h ;
Surfaces p l a n a r, s m o o t h , pos-
75 ° . 90~ 15"- 0° >lOB s i b l y open, or progressive f a i l -
ure a i d e d by s e p a r a t i o n alan
low angle joints

Fig.1. Conditions for wedge formation in tunnel crown.

The stability of wedges formed in the crown by continuous intersecting

joints striking within 25 ° of the tunnel axis is controlled principally by the
dip of the planes and the filling on and planarity of their surfaces. Figure 1,
based on observations in foliated rocks in New York and Washington, des-
cribes the minimum conditions required to form unstable wedges in the
crown. The waviness described in the figures is related to the inclination, i, of
the large-scale irregularities whose wave length is on the order of 1--10 m
(0.3--30 ft.). Wave lengths of this scale will influence the overall stability of
both large and small blocks around an opening. The relation between i and
waviness is as follows {Cording and Mahar, 1974):
 121

i waviness
00--5 ° planar
5°--10 ° slightly wavy
10°--20 ° wavy
~20 ° very wavy
Failure of wedges formed by low-angle joints (Case 1: 0o--30 ° dip) is pos-
sible even if both sides of the wedges are wavy, offset, or rough. It is more
c o m m o n , however, if one joint is smooth and planar. For intermediate dip
angles (Case 2 : 3 0 ° - - 4 5 ° dip) wedge failures in the crown can occur if one
surface is planar and the other offset and wavy. In such a case the wedge will
tend to separate from the wavy surface. For joints dipping from 45 ° to 60 °
(Case 3) failure can occur even if one joint is wavy, although commonly, at
least one of the surfaces would be sheared.
For deep wedges to fail (Case 4 : 6 0 - - 7 5 ° dip), both surfaces must be
planar, smooth, and sheared. In this case, both surfaces are at their residual
strength.
The above discussions of wedge stability in the crown and resulting support
requirements assume t h a t displacements are small and that progressive loosen-
ing of deeper wedges is not allowed. Loosening in the haunches and sidewalls
can also influence the stability of the rock above the crown, particularly in
poorer quality rock, such as very blocky and seamy ground where the
loosened zone progresses from the walls into the arch along continuous, often
planar weaknesses. (For this reason, Terzaghi, 1946, considered both the
height and width of the opening in evaluating the height of rock load for
steel-supported tunnels.)
Planes that strike across the tunnel line will tend to cause support problems
at the face, if high-angle joints, and in the crown, if low-angle joints. The
orientations shown in Fig.4b are most critical.

Direction of dip with respect to direction of driving

The direction of dip with respect to direction of driving affects the
stability of wedges in the heading (Cording and Mahar, 1974). Where dips are
away from the face (dip direction less than 90 ° to the direction of driving),
the plane is first exposed in the arch or crown of the tunnel. Before the plane
intersects the tunnel, it is within a few feet of the tunnel surface and may be
close enough to form the back of a wedge. On the next round it may be day-
lighted unexpectedly in the tunnel arch. The wedge backed by this plane will
tend to separate and rotate into the heading starting at the face (Fig.2). This
may occur unexpectedly after the blast, particularly if the surfaces are planar,
smooth and wet. For a plane striking within 25 ° of the tunnel axis, such a
condition is most likely to occur on the sidewall or lower arch. It is likely to
occur in the crown or arch for a low-angle plane of any strike direction.
Planes dipping towards the face (dip direction greater than 90 ° to the
direction of driving) are first exposed in the b o t t o m of the face and sidewall,
and can be observed as they progress up the wall. A high-angle plane will first
122

FACEAFTERNEXT

i i •RIPTION--r/
tDRIVE
DISCONTINUITY/

PLAN

IAL FALL O U ~

5 4 3 2 1 12 3 45
SUCCESSIVEPOSITIONSOF DISCONTINUITYIN
TUNNELFACEASTUNNELIS ADVANCED
CROSSSECTIONAT TUNNELHEADING
(a) DIP DIRECTIONLESSTHAN (b) DIP DIRECTIONGREATERTHAN
90° FROMDIRECTIONOF 90° FROMDIRECTIONOF
DRIVE DRIVE
Fig.2. Relation of direction of driving to direction of dip.

cause a sliding problem on the sidewall, but usually n o t until a substantial

portion of the plane is exposed in the b o t t o m of the wall (Fig.2). With further
advance of the tunnel, the plane progresses toward the crown and opposite
arch. When the plane intersects the arch it may first result in small overbreak.
In the next round it is further from the wall and may cause large overbreak in
the arch. In the following round, it may be far enough into the opposite wall
not to produce overbreak during blasting. This is a critical time, because a
wedge may subsequently fall out during the support period. One of the
greatest hazards during the support period is the fallouts of large blocks
bounded by slick, wet, planar surfaces that provide little or no warning prior
to failure.

Combinations o f joint sets to form a wedge

In order for a rock block to displace, sufficient joint sets must be presented
to form a block of rock that kinematically can move into the opening. One of
the more critical support conditions occurs when two sheared, high-angle
planes combine to form a deep wedge in the crown of the tunnel. Even
though smooth rock joints may bound a given rock block, they may be
 123

oriented in such a way t h a t the rock block keys to other blocks and cannot
displace into the opening. In this case the rock mass has a strength due to the
interlocking effect of the rock blocks. In order for the block to fail it must
either shear through irregularities along the joint surfaces, or excavation
adjacent to the block must take place to free the block.
Minimal support is usually required when there is only one prominent set
of joints striking within 25 ° of the tunnel axis. When other intersecting joints
are absent, a single shear or joint will tend to cause only shallow slabbing and
overbreak near the perimeter of a circular tunnel; large block fallouts are not
likely (Fig.3). In a chamber with re-entrants, such as the haunch illustrated in
Fig.3, a single joint set can cause blocks to separate over a large portion of the
haunch, even in cases where the joint surface is irregular and has a high friction
angle. One could conclude from the above example that the design for a large
chamber would benefit from detailed exploration to locate all joint sets. This
detail is usually more feasible for a large chamber than a long tunnel, because
the exploration effort is concentrated in a small area.

2. 4. Stress slabbing

Several investigators have used the ratio of the unconfined compressive

strength to maximum free field stress, oe/ol, as an indicator of conditions
where rock bursts, popping rock, or the formation of new fractures and slabs
develop around an opening (Cording et al., 1971; Cook, 1973; Barton et al.,
1974; Bieniawski, 1976).
Stress conditions required to cause minor bursting in chambers in crystal-
line massive rocks in the walls of Norwegian valleys, were described by Selmer-
Olsen (Brekke, 1970) in terms of the tensile strength of the rock and the
vertical distance between the chamber and the top of the valley side. A ratio
of tensile strength, Or, to in-situ stress can be obtained by expressing the
relationship in terms of an equivalent overburden stress, or, due to a column

\
50' 24'

Fig.3. Influence o f single joint set on overbreak.

124

of material having a height equal to the distance to the top of the valley side.
For ot/a,, less than approximately 0.5, bursting would be expected (equivalent
to a oc/o v less than 10, assuming oc is 20 times or). Although stress conditions
near this limit do not produce major rock bursts, they may be of substantial
economic consequence in the excellent quality rock because of the require-
ment for support -- even light support -- in a cavern that would otherwise be
unsupported (Brekke, 1970).
Other investigators indicate that rock bursts or stress slabbing may develop
for values o f a c/ol less than approximately 4 to 6 (Cording et al., 1971; Cook,
1973; Barton et ah, 1974). In high strength quartzites, a¢ = 200 MPa (30,000
psi), Cook (1973) indicates that a ratio of o~/ol less than 1.5 results in
inability to keep a mine open. In a low strength rock, such as a t u f f having
% = 10 MPa (1500 psi), the same ratio would produce new fractures and
slabs around the openings as they are excavated, but a much smaller release
of energy. Popping rock rather than major bursts would be expected (Cording
et ah, 1971).
In heavily jointed and sheared rock, deformations take place along the
existing discontinuities, and rock slabbing or bursting is not as evident. How-
ever, massive rock adjacent to fault zones and fractured rock may exhibit
prominent stress-slabbing conditions.
Some of the early work regarding stress concentrations around openings
placed emphasis on determining maximum stress concentrations and shaping
the opening to reduce the stress concentrations to a minimum. However, the
location of the highest stress concentration occurs around the smallest radius
curves and does not involve a large volume of rock. Of more importance are
the zones where large stress differences exist to depth, behind the large radius
surfaces, such as the high side walls of a powerhouse. The stability of such
areas can be even more critical when joints or bedding planes parallel the
surface. For example, although stress slabbing developed to a depth of
1--2.5 m (3--8 ft.) on the surfaces of a 30-m (100-ft.)-diameter rock bolted
cavern in a highly stressed t u f f (~c/ol = 1.5) the most critical condition
occurred on the 36-m (120-ft.)-high planar sidewall where a high-angle joint
set almost parallel to the wall combined with new fractures due to high stress
to allow large block movements to a depth of 6--9 m (20--30 ft.) (Cording et
al., 1971). Nearby, in an identically shaped second chamber with the same
initial rock-bolt support, joints did not parallel the wall and stability problems
did not develop. Conversely, had the cavern been constructed in a rock mass
with the same joints almost parallel to the wall, but in a rock of higher intact
strength (for example oclol > 6), it is doubtful that major stability problems
would have developed.
From their experience in caverns in Norway, Selmer-Olsen and Broch
(1977) emphasize the importance of minimizing the length of planar walls of
a cavern that are parallel to the direction of the maximum principal compres-
sive stress. They show desirable cavern configurations to minimize the support
requirements for both highly stressed and moderately stressed ground, for
various ratios of horizontal to vertical stress.
 125

In shallow chambers, and even in many chambers at depth, the stress levels
are low enough that major difficulties with stress-slabbing do not develop. In
these cases, the opening shape and the required rock support are primarily
determined on the basis of the geometry of the rock discontinuities so that
the critical rock wedges (such as those described in Section 2.3) are properly
supported.

3. SUPPORT

3.1. Summary of support selection

The selection of a support involves choosing a system compatible with the

ground conditions, excavation procedures and sequences, and with the
materials, equipment, and labor force available to the contractor. Indices such
as those described in Section 2 are useful for defining the ground conditions
so that appropriate support is chosen.
The following paragraphs describe the factors involved in selecting the
support system. They are:
(1) Heading support. The support must be capable of being installed safely
and providing adequate support in the heading.
(2) Support spacing. The support must be spaced closely enough to
prevent excessive loosening and fallout from between the support elements.
(3) Support displacement. The support system should be capable of limit-
ing rock movements to acceptable levels and deforming under the anticipated
rock movements without failure.
(4) Support pressures and bolt lengths. The support system should have
sufficient capacity to hold the critical rock wedges in place and rock bolts
should be of sufficient length to develop anchorage behind the critical
wedges.
(5) Compatibility of initial and final support and integration of excavation
and support sequences in large chambers. The initial and final supports should
be coordinated so that they are compatible. In some cases, both the initial
and final supports can be provided by a single system. However, there are
cases where a single system cannot satisfy the functions of both the initial
support (stabilization of the heading) and the final support (support the
tunnel for its intended life), without excessive deterioration. In large
chambers, initial excavation sequences may be used as access areas to help
support later excavation stages.

3.2. Heading support

In underground construction, the support must be integrated with the

excavation sequence. Support size and spacing is determined not only by the
anticipated rock loads, but also by the requirements for protecting workmen
by providing timely support in the heading.
126

The reach, or maximum distance excavated ahead of the last support

(Fig.4a), is a critical factor in the stability of a heading. The reach can be
minimized by placing support at the face, and excavating only short distances
in each round. Specifications for support should not only include the spacing
and capacity of the support system b u t the maximum distance from the face
that it is to be installed.
The height and width of a tunnel determines the distance ahead of the face
that a failure can occur. To minimize the possibility of failure ahead of the
face, the face height can be limited by excavating a smaller tunnel, by leaving
a core in the center of the excavation, or by sloping the face. Spiling can also
be used to provide support ahead of the face and to support the crown before
it is exposed by excavation (Fig.4b). In soft ground, spiles can be driven
ahead of the face. In rock, spiles, consisting of reinforcing bars installed in
percussion drilled holes and fully encapsulated in resin have proven effective
in providing support at and ahead of the face.
i~Reach.i
r 7

Steel Rtbs ~, I

! I
I
,,
I
__J

~aJ~ ! ~ Reach ~j

........ ..Q .....

Fully grouteds p / ~

l
/ 7/¢
Fig.4. Support at heading, a. Examples of reach, b. Use of spiling for support ahead of the face.
 127

3.3. Support spacing

Spacings for rock bolts typically range from 1 to 3 m (3--10 ft.), with the
wider spacings used in excellent quality rock or in rock having an inter-
mediate support system such as shotcrete and mesh. Rock-bolt spacings
should also be less than 1/2 the bolt length (Lang, 1962; Dept. of the Army,
1975).
In most small tunnels, and in some large chambers in excellent quality
rock, if the selected supports are spaced so that they provide adequate protec-
tion, they usually have sufficient capacity, or can be easily dimensioned, to
carry the anticipated rock loads. This is not the case in very large chambers
or in intermediate-sized chambers in poor rock.

3.4. Support displacement

Most rock tunnels and chambers, particularly those at shallow depth, are
located in loosening ground. For such tunnels, the support should be placed
as soon as possible to minimize rock loads. The loads that develop will be a
function of the geometry and strength of the discontinuities, the displace-
ments allowed, and the size and geometry of the opening.
Ground reaction curves for elasto-plastic or creep-sensitive materials, such
as those described by Rabcewicz (1969}, show that the pressure required to
support the opening decreases as the inward displacement is allowed to
increase (Fig.5a}. Delay in placing supports results in less load on the support.
In many loosening ground conditions, however, the rock mass is stiff enough
so that only small displacements are required to reduce the pressures to mini-
m u m levels, and the support placement need not be delayed to develop
minimum pressures. In fact, any delay in placing the support will result in
loosening of the ground and a reduction in the strength of the mass, so that
the rock loads increase (Fig.5b). In shallow rock chambers, it is particularly
important that loosening be limited by early placement of support so that
the thin rock arch is preserved.

3.5. Estimates o f support pressure

For a frictional rock material loaded by its o w n b o d y forces, the support

pressure, P,, in the arch of a tunnel will be:
P~ = nB~
where B is the width of the opening, ~/the unit weight of material, and n is an
inverse function of the shear strength of the rock mass and its discontinuities.
The shear strength may increase or decrease with opening width. If it is
assumed that the shear strength does not vary with width, then an increase in
width requires a proportionate increase in the support pressure. Several
factors are described in Section 3.7 that influence the relation between n and
opening width. The value of n also increases when loosening and displacements
128

Support
Pressure,
Pi

Displacement Ol

Support \
Pressure, Support
Pi ~ InstalIe d ~

, .

b DIsplacenmnt
d
Fig.5. Ground reaction curves, a. Squeezing ground, b. Loosening ground.

cause a loss of interlocking and confinement of rock blocks or a reduction

from peak to residual values along joint surfaces bounding the blocks.
The height of rock loads, Hp, for steel supports in loosening ground is given
by Terzaghi (1946} as a function of the width, B, and height, H t, of the
tunnel. In good quality rock, Hp ranges from 0 to 0.5B whereas in poorer
quality rock (blocky and seamy to crushed ground) Hp ranges from 0.25B
to 1.1(B + Ht), equivalent to n values ranging from 0.25 to 2.2.
Large rock-bolted chambers in fair to excellent quality rock typically have
n values in the arch ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 (Cording et al., 1971). Rock-bolt
lengths typically range from 1/4B to 1/3B. Rock loads will be smaller for
support systems that limit the ground movements, but the height of rock
load (or rock pressure} should remain a function of the width of the opening.
In large rock chambers, rock-bolt lengths and pressures with respect to open-
ing height (on the sidewall} or width (in the arch) are typically lower in the
 129

sidewall than in the arch. However, the high sidewalls used in many large
chambers can present a more critical stability condition than the arch when
major shear zones or joints intersect the chamber surface. Substantially
longer bolts and higher support pressures may be required on the walls when
adversely oriented joints or weak zones are present.
Since Terzaghi's work, many rock-classification systems have been
developed for use in evaluating tunnel ground conditions and support require-
ments. A large number of classifications are developed for specific sites, and
are appropriate for specific geologic and construction conditions. Such classi-
fications provide a basis for communicating between various parties engaged
in the project. Other investigators have developed systems for more general
use. Lauffer's well-known classification (1958) relates standup time to tunnel
rock behavior and opening width. More recently Linder (1963) has correlated
Lauffer's rock descriptions with support design for use in tunnels. Deere et al.
(1969} summarize typical support types and dimensions for 6--12 m (30--
40 ft.)-wide tunnels as a function of the RQD. Wickham et al. {1972), Barton
et al. (1974) and Bieniawski (1976) have each developed classification
systems that include RQD and other significant rock indices. From these
indices a classification number can be obtained that is correlated with support
requirements. The description of significant index properties is one of the
most useful aspects of the classifications. In many cases, the individual indices
may be of more benefit in describing potential tunnel ground conditions than
a combined classification number, particularly when using the systems with
different geologic and construction conditions.

3.6. Approach to selection o f support

Although classification systems can be used to obtain an approximate

estimate of support requirements, the procedures for evaluating support
requirements should include the following steps:
(1) Evaluate geology and determine significant index properties.
(2) Outline expected ground behavior and its effect on construction. This
additional step requires a knowledge of construction procedures as well as the
models of rock behavior that are appropriate to the given geologic setting and
excavation geometry. The geologic data should be plotted in plan and cross-
section views of the proposed opening for each excavation sequence in order
to identify potential problems and to check the adequacy of the proposed
support systems.
(3) Select support systems and construction procedures that permit the
headings to be safely and economically excavated, and that provide permanent
support suitable for the intended life of the facility.
In loosening ground, support requirements can be estimated by evaluating
the critical rock wedges (such as those illustrated in Fig.l) and designing the
support to hold the wedges in place.
Exploration should be carried out to determine the geologic features that
will affect wedge stability. For large openings, exploration is concentrated in
130

a relatively small area. Not only should the average quality of the rock
throughout a large chamber be determined, the major shear zones and other
low-quality zones should be specifically located and oriented with respect to
the walls and intersections of the chamber. Support of benches, haunches,
and intersections in the opening may be affected by a single, unfavorably
oriented joint set and consequently the orientation of all major joint sets
should be determined in the exploration. Although information can be
obtained from borings, the most complete exploration information is
obtained from a pilot tunnel driven at the location of the chamber.
In long tunnels it is not usually possible or necessary to locate all major
shear zones. An estimate should be made of the relative percentages of the
various tunnel ground conditions expected. The orientation of the major
structures and an estimate of their frequency and character should be deter-
mined for given reaches of the tunnel.
Once the geometry and strength of the rock mass and its discontinuities
have been estimated, critical wedges can be selected on the basis of criteria
such as those outlined in Fig.1. Analyses of displacements and stress around
the opening, using finite element models with joints, may also provide insight
into the extent of the critical wedges that must be supported in highly
stressed ground. Proposed excavation and support sequences should be tested
against the given wedge geometries to determine if the chamber will remain
stable as it is excavated. Support pressures are selected so that the stability
of the critical wedges is maintained.

3. 7. Size effect

In the writers' experience, large chambers have required substantially

greater support pressures than smaller openings, and the support pressures
have been related to the size of the opening. For example, in the cavern in
tuff (oc/ol = 1.5, RQD: excellent), a 0.14 MPa (20 psi) pressure was required
to stabilize the 36-m (120-ft)-high sidewall while typical rock-bolt spacings
and pressures [0--0.03 MPa (0--5 psi)] were adequate on 3--6-m (10--30 ft.)-
high walls. In Washington, D.C., in schists with planar and continuous joints
and shears, rock pressures in the arch of 21 m (70-ft.)-wide openings measured
0.14 MPa (20 psi), while rock support in the r o o f of 6-m (20-ft.)-wide open-
ings provided a support pressure of approximately 0.03 MPa (5 psi).
Barton et al. (1974) compare support pressures for openings of varying
size with a combined rock mass quality parameter, Q, but do not include the
effect of size on support pressure. In cases where the spacing of the support
controls, the support pressures may not appear to be a function of width of
opening. For example a 6 m (20-ft.)-tunnel and a 12 m (40-ft.)-tunnel may
both be supported with 25 mm (1-inch)-diameter rock bolts on a 1.5 × 1.5 m
(5 ft. × 5 ft.} spacing. The spacing is controlled b y the quality of the rock
and the potential for fallout between bolts. Even larger chambers, if in excel-
lent quality rock where only local loosening takes place around the perimeter,
may require small support pressures and be adequately supported by the
 131

above bolt pattern. This may be the case for the Norwegian chambers des-
cribed by Brekke (1970}, where rock support, if used at all, is nominal and
bolt pressures required are small.
Some of the factors that affect the relation between support pressure and
opening size in loosening ground are outlined below and illustrated in Fig.6:
(1) Joint spacing with respect to size o f opening. For small openings with
widely spaced joints, the rock mass acts as if it has a cohesive c o m p o n e n t of
strength, and the pressure, P1, required to support the opening is reduced by a
cohesive term, C:
Pi = nB~--C
where C is a function of the ratio of joint spacing of the critical joint sets to
the tunnel diameter. In a small opening, little or no support may be required,

Fig.6. Geologic features affecting size. a. Influence of joint spacing, b. Influence of

excavation increment. Influence of joint continuity.
132

while in a large opening, where joints are closely spaced with respect to the
width of the tunnel, the cohesive component approaches zero, and support
pressures are large.
{2) If a large chamber is excavated and supported in increments, the
loosening of the rock around the opening will primarily be a function of the
width of the individual excavation increments, whereas a small tunnel
excavated full face will have a loosened zone proportional to its full width.
However, if through-going discontinuities are present in both cases, the rock
pressures may still be proportional to the width of the opening.
(3) If the continuity of shears or joints is substantially less than the width
of the opening, then large wedges may not be able to form, and the rock
pressures will not increase in direct proportion to the width of the opening.
The wavelength of the irregularity with respect to the width of the tunnel is
another scale effect that influences pressure. In the Washington, D.C.
chambers, the joints and shears are planar and continuous so that the pressures
tend to scale with the width of the opening.
(4) Support of a large tunnel is made more difficult not only because of
increases in rock pressure, and changes in the scale of the joint spacing with
respect to opening width, but also because of the increased construction
problems in excavating and installing support, and the limitations of the
support system. For example, if a straight-leg steel support is placed in a
small tunnel, it can be braced to provide resistance to side loading by placing
an invert strut across the b o t t o m of the tunnel. In a tunnel with a high side-
wall, a heavy straight-leg steel support would not be capable of providing
substantial lateral support even when an invert strut is installed. In a large
tunnel heading, not only are the rock loads increased, but the size of the face
and the disturbed zone ahead of the face is enlarged, making it more difficult
to install the support safely in the heading.

3.8. Excavation and support sequences in large chambers

In a large chamber, excavation and support sequences are more complex

than in a small tunnel, and have a greater influence on the permanent support
requirements. Support procedures should be planned to provide maximum
support prior to excavation of the main portion of the chamber, and to
provide initial and permanent linings that are compatible, and do not dupli-
cate support functions. Excavation and support sequences for large chambers
excavated at shallow depth are particularly critical, because of the need to
maintain the thin rock arch and prevent collapse to the ground surface.
Large shallow chambers constructed before the advent of rock bolts, such
as the subway stations built in New York City at the turn of the century,
were supported internally with steel or timber, and were supported, and
resupported with posts and beams as the various excavation stages were
carried out. With rock bolts, the internal supports can be minimized, and
portions of the rock arch can be pre-supported prior to excavation. Figure 7
illustrates the construction sequence for a subway station in rock, similar to
 133

the procedures used for the 18-m (60-ft.)-wide stations in the foliated schists
on the Washington, D.C. Metro, where rock cover over the crown may be as
little as 9 m (30 ft.).
The running tunnels (R) are excavated with tunnel-boring machines
through the station area prior to the construction contract for the main
station. The running tunnels and pilot tunnel (P) provide an opportunity for
rock-bolt support to be placed, n o t only immediately adjacent to the existing
excavations, b u t also over the arch of the station, above the areas y e t to be
excavated (Figs.7a and 7b). The bolts perform a similar function as the
spiling in Fig.4, b u t are placed laterally over the arch prior to excavating the
main portion of the station.
Once the rock arch is pre-supported with fully grouted rock bolts, the
upper heading can be excavated, placing the arch support on the foundations
set in the running tunnels (Fig.7c). The height of the upper heading and
volume of material excavated in this stage is greater than would be possible
without the bolted arch, because the grouted bolts in the arch have reduced
the potential for failure above and ahead of the face. In one of the station
excavations in Washington, it was observed that the face of the excavation
had broken ahead approximately 3--4.5 m (10--15 ft.) further than the ends
of the blast holes. The fallout of rock was confined to the excavation limits by
the rock bolts, and did not proceed above the arch, as would have occurred
had the bolts n o t been present (Cording et al., 1977).
Because of the shallow cover and the presence of steeply dipping shear
zones striking parallel to the station axis, the rock bolts alone do not provide
sufficient support for the arch. A final lining of light steel ribs encased in
shotcrete or concrete is installed as the upper heading is excavated. The
amount of support required using this procedure is much less than would be
required if heavy steel ribs were installed to support the arch, and then the
permanent concrete lining were placed at a later date, after excavation was
completed.

4. OBSERVATIONS

4.1. Purpose and method o f observations

The observation program for a large chamber differs from the program for
a tunnel. A large chamber opened b y excavations in sequence is much more
difficult for the miners and engineers to observe, compared to a small tunnel
that is opened full face and immediately supported. Thus, more reliance must
be placed on measurements of rock movement and support performance with
a large chamber. R o c k displacement measurements can provide early warning
of potentially unstable conditions. For a large chamber, opened in increments,
there is an. opportunity to monitor the displacements during several sequences
of excavation. Movements and support loads observed during one sequence
can be used to determine the adequacy of method for the next sequence, and
corrections to the excavation and support procedures can be made, if needed.
b~
 135

Chambers are sometimes designed to take advantage of observations by

installing a minimum support, then adding more support where observations
indicate it is needed. In most civil-works chambers in the U.S., it is preferable
to design an adequate support system, in which minimal construction changes
will be required, and then use the observations to confirm design assumptions,
or to warn of any abnormal conditions that may require adjustments in
excavation or support procedures. Instrumentation should be considered
where openings are large, where there is a difficult and complex geology,
where the opening geometry and the required construction procedures are
complex, where there is a possibility of large movements that could cause
stability problems or damage to adjacent structures, or where information is
needed on support loads to aid in designing future sections.
Observations in a rock chamber or tunnel during construction also provide
a means for relating index properties and other significant geologic and con-
struction parameters to the performance of the chamber. An instrumentation
or observation program is of little benefit to the profession unless the results
are compared with the geologic index properties at the site. In many cases,
data originally t h o u g h t to be variable and scattered fall into place when the
details of the geology are understood.
In many cases, an understanding of the performance of a tunnel can be
gained w i t h o u t the use of extensive instrumentation; but to do this careful
visual observations of such occurrences as overbreak, fallout, rock loosening,
fresh fractures, cracks in the lining, and other evidence of rock movement and
support distress should be made and compared with the behavior of instru-
mented sections.
One of the most informative and reliable measurements in a tunnel or
chamber in rock is the measurement of displacements using extensometers.
Displacement measurements integrate the local strains and displacements over
the measurement length and thus do n o t present the same difficulties as strain
gages or pressure cells, which measure the conditions at a point and which
tend to produce erratic and scattered results.
The displacement measurements give an indication of the stability of an
opening. Impending failures or fallouts are directly signalled by measuring
those rock displacements that would go unrecognized by the naked eye.
Sufficient data has been collected on rock movements, and correlations with
analytical models are available, so that observed displacement measurements
can be interpreted.
The anchors for extensometers can be placed in such a way that informa-
tion can be obtained as to the depth of the movement as well as the magni-
tude. The planning of a remedial support system is greatly benefited by
having information on the volume of rock which is involved in the movements

Fig.7. Excavation and support sequence, a. Excavation of running tunnels (R) and pilot
tunnel (P) and installation of rock bolts, b. Enlargement of pilot tunnel (Stage 1 ) excava-
tion of corner (Stage 2) and installation of wall plate (Stage 3). c. Excavation of main
heading (Stage 4). Installation of arch (Stage 5). Removal of remainder of invert (Stage 6).
136

Extensometers should be installed before significant rock movements take

place. The extensometers installed in boreholes from the ground surface or
from existing nearby excavations are best suited for this purpose, as they can
be installed prior to any excavation in the vicinity of the instruments. Extenso-
meters can also be installed in small pilot tunnels located in the crown of the
proposed excavation. Subsequent movements due to driving the larger open-
ings are then fully recorded as the heading approaches, reaches, then passes
the instrument location. If the above alternatives are not possible, then
extensometers can be installed from within the tunnel near the face of an
advancing excavation. Obviously, displacements occurring prior to installation
of the extensometer -- in front of the heading and as the heading is first
opened -- are not recorded. Such extensometers are usually installed from the
same work platform that the contractor uses to drill rock-bolt or blast holes,
and they can be installed near the heading after the initial support is placed.
Displacements during the first round of advance of the heading away from
the section can then be recorded, if the extensometer is of the type that can
be installed rapidly and read immediately after installation. Extensometers
are available that can be installed and read within 30 minutes after the bore-
hole has been drilled. Most extensometers can be read with a repeatability of
+0.025--0.05 mm (0.001 to +0.002 inches), which is quite adequate for
evaluating the significant rock movements around a tunnel or chamber.
After the geologic observations and the rock-displacement measurements
are organized, the next most important consideration is the performance of
the support itself. Instruments are available to measure distortion of a lining,
strain in the section of a lining or the total load on the lining. Much useful
information has also been observed by noting cracks in shotcrete, loosening
of rock blocks, and the distortion of the supports. Again, the performance of
supports may be variable and depend on local geology, which should be
mapped in detail.

4.2. Criteria for evaluating displacements

Criteria for determining if displacements are indicative of either stable or

potentially unstable behavior are outlined in this section. Displacements that
indicate local instability, such as loosening of a thin rock slab, are distinguished
from those that indicate a more widespread and deep-seated condition affect-
ing the stability of the entire opening. In most cases, a single criterion is not
adequate for evaluating the stability of a tunnel.
Displacement measurements are most valuable when extensometers are
installed at or before the beginning of excavation, and when measurements
have been taken regularly throughout the entire excavation period at several
locations so that a complete history of movements is available. They will be
of use if the geologic conditions and construction events in the vicinity of the
measurements are also recorded and compared with the movements.
 137

Displacement magnitude
Elastic or elasto-plastic continuum solutions are quite useful for compari-
son with the observed displacements in a rock tunnel or chamber, even
though the rock mass may suffer large displacement along joint surfaces and
not behave as a continuum. The continuum solution is valuable because it
provides an estimate of the displacements the mass would undergo if loosen-
ing along the joints were minimized. Unstable conditions may exist if displace
ments are large with respect to the displacements predicted from elastic
theory.
Either a closed elastic solution, assuming simple boundary conditions, or a
finite-element elastic solution that approximates the more complex boundary
conditions in a chamber, can be used to estimate the elastic displacements.
The rock movements measured in deep tunnels and chambers, such as
those constructed for powerhouses, are typically on the order of 1--3 times
the movements one would calculate from elastic theory, using an appropriate
in-situ rock modulus that accounts for the stiffness of the joints in the rock
mass (Deere et ah, 1967). Normal displacements in most of these chambers
were in the range of 2.5--7.5 m m (0.1--0.3 inch). Movements that occurred
where shear zones or other major discontinuities were not adequately
supported were typically in the range 12.5--75 mm {0.5--3.0 inch), approxi-
mately 5--10 times the elastic displacements. In most cases, movements of
this magnitude were recognized as being excessive, and corrective measures
were taken (Cording et al., 1971).
Displacement measurements previously obtained in stable sections of a
tunnel can be used to establish the typical behavior to be expected in other
portions of the project. For example, in the shallow Washington Metro
tunnels where the in-situ stresses were low, the calculated elastic displace-
ments were extremely small -- on the order of 0.25--1.25 mm (0.01--0.05
inch). Observed displacements for well-supported excavations were typical,
2--5 times the elastic displacements, and ranged from 0.5 mm (0.02 inch} for
small tunnels to 5 mm (0.2 inch) for larger excavations. Displacements of
0.5--1.25 mm (0.02--0.05 inch) were typical for 1.2--1.8-m (4--6-ft.) wide
rock blocks supported by a 50-mm (2-inch) thick shotcrete layer and fully
grouted, non-tensioned rock bolts (Cording et al., 1977). The displacements
represented the small a m o u n t of separation along the joints that occurred as
the tension increased in the bolts. The movements would not have been
substantially less than 0.5--1.25 mm (0.02--0.05 inch), even if the calculated
elastic displacement had been much smaller.

Rate of displacement
Displacement rates should be examined closely when evaluating the
stability of a tunnel. Sudden increases in the rate of rock movement that are
larger than would be expected for the increment of excavation carried out in
the vicinity of the extensometer may provide an early indication of an
138

unstable condition. High rates of movement that are unrelated to excavation

or that continue after the face has advanced well beyond the extensometer
location, may also indicate an unstable condition. One of the best means of
evaluating such rates of movement is to compare them with rates previously
observed in portions of the tunnel that were well supported and where the
displacements ultimately stopped.
In a shallow subway station in Washington, displacement rates in wello
supported portions of the cavern were less than 0.1 mm {0.004 inch)/day
when the heading had advanced one tunnel width, and less than 0.025 mm
(0.001 inch)/day after the heading had advanced three or more tunnel widths.
Rates of movement that were 3--4 times these values were usually indicative
of conditions where additional support was required (Cording et al., 1977).
Extensometers with anchors at several depths provide useful information
that a single position extensometer or a convergence gage cannot provide
regarding the depth of the movement zone and the volume of rock involved
in the movements. Loosening of shallow slabs is c o m m o n as an excavation is
opened, but if the loosening is allowed to continue, the zone of movement
will tend to extend to greater depths, and the rock loads may increase.
Extensometers should be long enough to extend beyond the potential zone
of movement, or supplementary measurements, such as precise surveys,
should be made. In the underground Machine Hall at Morrow Point Dam,
50.8 m m (2 inches) of displacement took place on one wall of the chamber.
The wedge was so large that a 15-m (50-ft.) long extensometer on the wall
registered no displacement; it was located entirely within the moving wedge.
The movements were detected by precise survey measurements in the
chamber (Dodd, 1967).

Displacement capacity of the support system

Observed displacements should not exceed the displacements that will
cause distress or failure of the support system. Shotcrete has been observed
to crack in the tunnels of the Washington, D.C. Metro when the differential
movement between rock blocks exceeds 1.2--2.5 mm (0.05--0.10 inch). At
the Nevada Test Site, bearing plates dished and eleven rock bolts broke when
rock displacements approached 50 mm (2 inches). (The bolts were tensioned,
but not grouted, over an 8-m (24-ft.) length.)

Displacement capacity of the rock mass

Displacements should not exceed the capacity of the rock mass to maintain
its strength and coherence, unless the support system is capable of supporting
the resulting increased rock loads. Rock strength along joints decreases with
displacement as irregularities on the joint surface are sheared or overridden.
In the Washington Metro Subway chambers, relatively small displacements at
the edge of the excavation caused movement of large volumes of rock. In one
case, in a 6-m (18-ft.)-wide by 8-m (24-ft.)-high tunnel, large sidewall loads
developed at displacements of 2.5--12 mm (0.1--0.5 inch) because the discon-
tinuities were oriented unfavorably (striking almost parallel to the wall and
 139

dipping toward the excavation) and were planar and continuous. The sidewall
movements also caused loosening of rock to a distance of 6 m (20 ft.) above
the crown.
The magnitude of the displacements that will cause loss of strength of the
rock mass depends on the a m o u n t of displacement it takes to override or
shear off the irregularities so that the block will fall out or so that residual
strength will be reached on the joint surfaces. Where joints are planar and
slickensided, and sufficient joint sets are present to form blocky rock, the
displacements required to cause failure will be less than those where surfaces
are irregular and joints are discontinuous. This range of displacements is
estimated to be approximately 2.5--25 m m (0.1--1 inch) in Washington, D.C.

4. 3. Supplemental observations

Supplemental observations of support load, support distress, and rock

movement will aid the interpretation of displacement measurements. Some of
these observations are outlined below:
(1) Opening of joints or movement of rock blocks. Such observations can
be made visually or with a tape measure or survey. Open cracks in boreholes
can be inspected with a stratascope. Rock displacements are also indicated
by offsets in open boreholes drilled prior to the time of the rock movements.
Any loose slabs in the vicinity of an extensometer should be noted.
(2) Mapping of joints, shear zones, and other geologic features that could
cause movement. Observations of overbreak and rock loosening along the
joints and shear zones will aid in evaluating the significance of these features.
(3) Crack surveys in shotcrete. The width, length, and relative movement
of the crack should be measured with time, and the thickness of the shotcrete
in the vicinity of the crack determined.
(4) Evidence of distress or displacement of steel ribs and timber blocking.
Crushing, bending, or loosening of the timber should be noted. Distortion and
twisting of rib sections and opening of b u t t plates can be measured with a
tape. Deflection or settlement of the ribs can be measured by survey. Closure
of ribs can be measured with a tape extensometer or a tape measure.
(5) Evidence of distress or loosening of rock bolts. Tensioned, non-grouted
bolts should be checked for loosening of the bolts at the bearing plate, bend-
ing of the bolt head, or breaking of the bolt. Load cells installed on non-
grouted bolts can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the bolt installation,
but provide relatively little information on the overall performance of the
rock bolts. Grouted bolts are usually preferred to non-grouted bolts, and
they cannot be instrumented with load cells.
(6) Measured strains or loads on the support system. Strain gages can be
attached to steel ribs or embedded in shotcrete or concrete. Load cells can be
placed beneath posts. Gages that will be stable in the tunnel environment
should be selected.
(7) Groundwater flows and pressures. The location and quantity of flow
from rock joints or from cracks or joints in the lining should be noted.
140

Piezometers can be installed in the rock or behind the lining to measure

water pressures.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The in-situ methods emphasized in this paper are used to relate rock index
properties to the performance of a tunnel or large chamber. The methods are
carried o u t by exploration prior to construction and b y observations during
excavation. In most cases, the estimation of tunnel stability and support
requirements is benefited more by careful observations of the geology and its
influence on tunneling than b y an extensive program of in-situ testing.
Index properties of significance in tunneling can be divided into the
following categories: the average quality of the rock mass, the properties of
planar discontinuities, and the properties of intact specimens. The average
quality of the rock mass can be determined from quantitative estimates of
rock quality, fracturing, and weathering in the rock core. Calibrated descrip-
tive estimates may suffice. The average rock quality indices are particularly
useful in the exploration stage in locating the low quality zones that may
cause tunneling difficulties.
Properties of planar discontinuities, such as the thickness of clay filling,
may be lost unless procedures for obtaining full core recovery are carried out.
The large-scale features of planar discontinuities, such as continuity and
waviness can only be observed in exposures.
Pilot tunnels not only provide exposures of the geology but can also serve
as an in-situ test in which the influence of rock properties on overbreak and
support requirements can be studied and used as an indication of conditions
to be expected in a large chamber. However, pilot tunnel support require-
ments may not be related directly to those for a large tunnel because of size
effects. The amount and type of support required may differ considerably.
As described in Section 3, support pressures in loosening ground will tend to
increase in proportion to the width of the opening. The relation is affected
by the geologic conditions illustrated in Fig.6; joint spacing with respect to
opening width, the continuity and waviness of joints, the size of the indivi-
dual excavation sequences, and the timeliness of support placement.
In comparing a small tunnel with a large tunnel, it should be recognized
that not only will support pressures differ b u t there will be a significant differ-
ence in the construction methods required to stabilize the heading and install
supports. Extrapolation of the observations from a small to a large tunnel can
be most appropriately made by "taking apart" and examining the geologic
features and construction procedures in the small tunnel, then putting these
features back together in the larger tunnel. The effect of the geologic indices
on the performance should then be examined by proceeding through potential
construction sequences for the large tunnel, step by step. One may find, in
"taking apart" and then putting the elements back together that pieces are
missing or do not fit. Such an exercise will clearly highlight the areas in
which behavior or support conditions are unknown.
 141

A similar approach can be taken when using core borings and other
exploration data to estimate support and construction requirements. Although
classification systems and rules of thumb that directly relate rock indices to
support requirements can be useful, it is the writers' conclusion that an addi-
tional step is needed in the evaluation of support:
(1) Evaluate geology and determine significant index properties.
(2) Outline expected ground behavior and its effect on construction. This
additional step requires a knowledge of construction procedures as well as the
models of rock behavior that are appropriate to the given geologic setting and
excavation geometry. The geologic data should be plotted in plan and cross-
section views of the proposed opening for each excavation sequence in order
to identify potential problems and to check the adequacy of the proposed
support systems.
(3) Select support systems and construction procedures that permit the
headings to be safely and economically excavated, and that provide perma-
nent support suitable over the intended life of the facility.
Much can be gained by observing overbreak, fallout, evidence of slabbing
due to stress, rock movement, and support distress. The information should
be collected at the heading of the tunnel, as the rock is excavated and sup-
ported. Observations of support procedures immediately after blasting are
particularly important. Rugged, reliable instruments that can be installed,
read, interpreted, and related to geologic conditions in a timely manner can
contribute much to the observation program.

REFERENCES

Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lund, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech., 6(4): 189--236.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1976. Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. In: Z.T. Bieniawski
(Editor), Exploration for Rock Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1: 97--106.
Brekke, T.L., 1970. A survey of large permanent underground openings in Norway. Proc.
Int. Syrup. Large Permanent Underground Openings, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo,
pp. 15--30.
Cook, N.G.W., 1973. The siting of mine tunnels. Assoc. Mine Managers, No. 3/73.
Cording, E.J. and Mahar, J.W., 1974. The effects of natural geologic discontinuities on
behavior of rock in tunnels. Proc. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conf. AIME,
San Francisco, 1: 107--138.
Cording, E.J., Hendron Jr., A.J. and Deere, D.U., 1971. Rock engineering for underground
caverns. Syrup. Underground Rock Chambers, Phoenix, ASCE, pp.567--600.
Cording, E.J., Hendron Jr., A.J., MacPherson, H.H., Hansmire, W.H., Jones, R.A., Mahar,
J.W. and O'Rourke, T.D., 1975. Methods for Geotechnical Observations and Instru-
mentation in Tunneling. NSF Rep., UILU-ENG 75 2022, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Ill.,Vols. 1 and 2.
Cording, E.J., Mahar, J.W. and Brierley, G.S., 1977. Observations for shallow chambers in
rock. Int. Syrup. Field Measurements in Rock Mechanics, Zurich, pp.485--508.
Deere, D.U., Hendron Jr.,A.J., Patton, F.D. and Cording, E.J., 1967. Design of surface
and near-surface construction in rock. Syrup. Rock Mech., 8th, Minnesota.
Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Monsees, J.E. and Schmidt, B., 1969. Design of Tunnel Liners
and Support Systems. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Contr.
No. 3-0152.
142

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1975. Rock Reinforcement in Civil

Engineering Works. Rep. EMl110-1-2907.
Dodd, J.S., 1967. Morrow Point Underground Powerplant Rock Mechanics Investigations.
A Water Resources Technical Publication. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colo.
Lang, T.A., 1962. Theory and practice of rock bolting. Trans. AIME, 23.
Lauffer, H., 1958. Gebirgsklassifizierung fiir den Stollenbau. Geol. Bauwes., 24: 46--51.
Linder, R., 1963. Spritzbeton in Felshohlraumbau. Bautechnik, 40(10): 327--331.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W. and Thornburn, T.H., 1953. Foundation Engineering. Wiley, New
York, N.Y., 410 pp.
Rabcewicz, L.V., 1969. Stability of tunnels under rock load. Water Power, 1969 (June--
August).
Selmer-Olsen, R. and Broch, E., 1977. General Design Procedure for Underground Open-
ings in Norway. Rockstore 77, Stockholm, Preprint, pp.11--18.
Terzaghi, K., 1946. Section I in: R.V. Proctor and T.L. White (Editors), Rock Tunneling
with Steel Supports. The Commerical Shearing and Stamping Co., Youngstown, Ohio.
Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H.R. and Skinner, E.H., 1972. Ground support prediction
model (RSR concept). Proc. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conf., AIME, Chicago,
1: 43--64.