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

net/publication/286803659

Application of the strain energy to estimate the rock load in non-squeezing

ground condition

Article  in  Archives of Mining Sciences · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

16 5,786

4 authors, including:

Mohsen Soleiman Dehkordi Morteza Gharouni Nik

Islamic Azad University, Bafgh Branch, Bafgh, Iran Iran University of Science and Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Lifetime Analysis on Centrifugal ID Fan Foundation in Cement Plants View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Soleiman Dehkordi on 21 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Arch. Min. Sci., Vol. 56 (2011), No 3, p. 551–566 551
Electronic version (in color) of this paper is available: http://mining.archives.pl

M. SOLEIMAN DEHKORDI*,1, K. SHAHRIAR**, P. MAAREFVAND**, M. GHAROUNI NIK***

APPLICATION OF THE STRAIN ENERGY TO ESTIMATE THE ROCK LOAD IN NON-SQUEEZING

GROUND CONDITION

ZASTOSOWANIE ENERGII ODKSZTAŁCEŃ DO ESTYMACJI OBCIĄŻENIA GÓROTWORU

W WARUNKACH BRAKU OSIADANIA GRUNTU

Estimation of rock load is very important issue because the selection of support system is highly
related to this parameter. Several methods are used to estimate this parameter such as experimental, empi-
rical and numerical methods. In this study, a new empirical method is proposed to estimate the rock load
based on the ration of the residual strain energy of post failure to the stored strain energy of pre failure.
Also a statistical analysis is performed through collected actual data from five tunnels in non squeezing
condition. The result showed that there is a direct relationship between both parameters and the good
correlation between both parameters is achieved by using of power equation to estimate of rock load in
non squeezing condition.

Keywords: rock load, strain energy, non-squeezing ground condition, empirical methods

Określenie obciążenia górotworu jest niezwykle ważnym zagadnieniem gdyż warunkuje dobór
odpowiedniej obudowy. Istnieje wiele metod określania tego parametru: metody eksperymentalne,
empiryczne oraz numeryczne. W pracy tej zaproponowano nową empiryczną metodę prognozowania
obciążenia górotworu na podstawie określenia szczątkowej energii odkształceń w warunkach po znisz-
czeniu w stosunku do zgromadzonej energii odkształcenia przed zniszczeniem. Przeprowadzono analizę
statystyczną danych zebranych w pięciu tunelach w warunkach braku osiadania. Wyniki analizy wskazują,
że istnieje bezpośredni związek pomiędzy obydwoma parametrami. Dobra korelację pomiędzy dwom
parametrami uzyskać można poprzez zastosowanie funkcji potęgowej do określenia obciążeń górotworu
w warunkach braku osiadania.

Słowa kluczowe: obciążenia górotworu, energia odkształcenia, brak osiadania, metody empiryczne

* ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING, TEHRAN, IRAN.

** MINING DEPARTMENT, AMIRKABIR POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, TEHRAN, IRAN.
** MINING DEPARTMENT, AMIRKABIR POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, TEHRAN, IRAN.
*** SCHOOL OF RAILWAY ENGINEERING, IRAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TEHRAN, IRAN.
1
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98-912-526-3028; Fax: +98-261-228-0301. E-mail address: mohsen.soleiman@yahoo.com
552

1. Introduction
Tunnels improve connections and their benefits are not negligible. In fact, moving traffic
underground and employing subways can substantially improve the quality of life and have a high
economic effect. Also the constructions of tunnels are expensive and difficult and require very
high level of technical and experimental skills. The possible collapse of a tunnel is a complex
problem because it is strongly affected by the several parameters such as rock mass behavior,
properties of intact rock and discontinuities, number of joint sets and etc. Geotechnical analysis
performed by Szwedzicki (2008) shows that collapses do not happen at random and can be pre-
dicted by warning signs such as indicators and precursors. Terzaghi (1946) proposed the rock
load factor, Hp, which is the height of loosening zone over tunnel roof which is likely to load the
steel arches. These rock load factors were estimated by Terzaghi from a 5.5 m wide steel-arch
supported rail/road tunnel in the Alps during the late twenties. A limitation of Terzaghi’s theory
is that it may not be applicable for tunnels wider than 6 m (Singh et al., 2006). also Cecil (1970)
concluded that Terzaghi’s classification provided no quantitative information regarding the rock
mass properties.

Fig. 1. Terzaghi’s rock-load concept in tunnels (Terzaghi, 1946)

Deere et al. (1970) modified Terzaghi’s classification system by introducting the RQD as the
lone measure of rock quality. They have distinguished between blasted and machine excavated
tunnels and proposed guidelines for selection of rock supports for 6 to 12 m diameter tunnels in
rock. Barton et al. (1974) believed that the support pressure is independent of opening width in
rock. Rock mass – tunnel support interaction analysis of Verman (1993) also suggests that the
support pressure does not depend on the tunnel width, provided support stiffness is not lowered.
Goel et al. (1996) also studied this aspect of effect of tunnel size on support pressure and found that
there is a negligible effect of tunnel size on support pressure in non-squeezing ground condition,
but the tunnel size could have considerable influence on the support pressure in squeezing ground
 553

condition. For a deep tunnel, Unal (1983), proposed correlation to estimate the support pressure
using RMR for openings with flat roof. Goel and Jethwa (1991) have evaluated unal’s equation
for application to rock tunnels with arched roof by comparing the measured support pressures
with estimates from unal’s equation. The comparison shows that it is not applicable to rock tun-
nels with arched roof. Bieniawski (1984) proposed guidelines for selection of tunnel supports.
This is applicable to tunnels excavated with conventional drilling and blasting method.
Osgoui et al. (2009) suggested a new equation to predict of support pressure by using of GSI.
Based on this method the support pressure function depends on the following parameters:

P ≈ f (GSI, D, σcr, De, γ, Cs, Sq) (1)

where GSI is the Geological Strength Index; D the disturbance factor; σcr the residual compressive
strength of the rock mass in the broken zone around the tunnel; De the equivalent diameter of the
excavation; γ the unit weight of rock mass; Cs the correction factor for the horizontal to vertical
field stress ratio (k), and Sq the correction factor for the squeezing ground condition.
Finite element-based analyses and other numerical strategies are employed to predict the
rock load but the empirical methods are still widely used due to their simplicity (Fraldi, 2010).
However, the results of empirical methods can vary very significantly and their applicabil-
ity strongly relies on the judgment of the designers. The main aim of this work was to propose
a new empirical equation for correlating rock load with ratio of the residual strain energy of post
to the stored strain energy of pre failure based on the collected actual data from five excavated
tunnels in Iran.

2. Projects description and geology

All used data is collected from five tunnels including Emamzade Hashem, Rudbar, Kaka Reza,
Bakhtiari and Karaj tunnels in Iran. General specifications of tunnels and geological properties
of rock mass is mentioned in table 1. The collected data including all types conditions of rock
mass such as weak (GSI < 25), fair (25 < GSI < 75) and good rock masses (GSI > 75) that Rock
mass of Emamzade Hashem and Rudbar tunnels (except headrace tunnel) is classified as weak to
fair classes but Bakhtiari and Kaka Reza rock mass of tunnels is classified as fair condition, also
rock masses of headrace tunnel of Rudbar dam and Karaj water conveyance tunnel are classified
as good rock mass. geomechanical properties of rock masses are shown in table 2.

3. Strain energy theory

The area under stress strain curve is called strain energy. In predicting the in situ perform-
ance of an excavation it would be expected that excavating underground spaces induced local
response in surrounding rock mass of excavations that it would depend on both the volume of
rock subject to induced stress and the magnitude and distribution of the stress components in
the affected volume. They are incorporated in the static strain energy increase, (∆Ws). For the
elastic analysis, the increase in static strain energy was equivalent to the energy released by
excavation (Wr). However, local rock fracture which occurs around excavation consumes some
of the released energy. If fracture does not occurs, ∆Ws = Wr . If fracture occurs, the rock frac-
 TABLE 1 554
General specifications and geological properties of tunnels

Excavation Length Section Over bur- Specific

Tunnel name Application Formation Lithology
method (m) type den (m) condition
North Penstock Power water Hormoz, Mila marly limestone, dolomite limestone,
Heading & bench 998 Horseshoe 17-39 ………
(Rudbar) way & dalan limestone & weathered marl
South Penstock Power water Hormoz, Mila marly limestone, dolomite limestone,
Heading & bench 959 Horseshoe 20-46 ………
(Rudbar) way & Dalan limestone & weathered marl
Headrace Power water Dalan, Sarvak Gray limestone, marl limestone,
Full face 1329 Horseshoe 85-395 ………
(Rudbar) way & garu limestone
Shemshak, Elika,
Emamzade Slide drift, Head- squeezing,
Transport 3189 Horseshoe 10-370 Mobarak, Jirud, Sandstone, limeston, shale & marl
Hashem ing & bench mudflow,
Mila & Lakon
Water con- Heading & short Modified
Kaka Reza 3107 90-790 Sarvak & Amiran limestone(mainly), shale & marl ………
veyance bench horseshoe
Water con- Mechanized Brescia tuff, green tuff, Shale, Sand-
Karaj 29456 circle 100-800 Karaj ………
veyance (TBM) ston & Siltstones
Power water
Bakhtiari Heading & bench 1166 Horseshoe 65-490 Sarvak Gray marly limestone & shale ………
way

TABLE 2

Geomechanical properties of rock masses

Tunnel name GSIpeak mi Ei (Gpa) δci (Mpa) δcm (Mpa) Φ (deg) C (Mpa) D K
North Penstock (Rudbar) 17-39 5-11 1.8-3 50-90 0.95-9.9 22.6-51.1 .05-0.392 0.2-0.8 1-1.4
South Penstock (Rudbar) 20-46 5-11 1.8-10 50-90 0.98-12.2 23.65-53.5 0.016-0.767 0.2-0.8 1-1.4
Headrace (Rudbar) 45-60 6-11 7-10 50-85 6.33-14.95 33.19-49.47 0.98-2.18 0 0.8
Emamzade Hashem 25-59 5-12 1.5-3 21-70 0.8-8.7 13.7-58.81 0.099-1.17 0.2-0.8 1-1.5
Kaka Reza 40-50 5-11 4-7 50-90 2.3-12.5 16.9-48.9 0.26-2.24 0.2-0.8 0.85
Karaj 20-83 8-27 5.6-15 30-120 2.1-57.31 25.1-57.7 0.45-7.1 0 0.5-1
Bakhtiari 40-76.5 5-9 10-15 57-90 3.5-14.4 25.4-44.1 0.223-2.932 0.2-0.8 0.5-0.8
 555

ture energy, Wf , reduces the stored energy, such that Wr = ∆Ws + Wf . Ultimately, in the case of
extensive rock fracture, all the released energy may be consumed in rock disintegration (Brady
et al., 2005; Jackson et al., 2008). In this paper, relationship between rock load with ratio of the
residual strain energy of post to the stored strain energy of pre failure is studied.

3.1. Rock mass behavior models

Hoek and Brown (1997) suggested guidelines to estimate the post failure behavior types
of rock mass according to rock mass quality. These guidelines are based on rock types: for very
good quality hard rock masses, with a high GSI value (70 < GSI < 90), the rock mass behavior is
elastic brittle; for averagely jointed rock (50 < GSI < 65), moderate stress levels result in a failure
of joint systems and the rock becoming gravely; for heavily jointed rock (40 < GSI < 50), strain
softening is assumed; and for very weak rock (GSI < 30), the rock mass behaves in an elastic
perfectly plastic manner and no dilation are assumed. These concepts are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Strain softening behavior can accommodate purely brittle behavior and elastic perfectly plastic
behavior, so brittle and elastic perfectly plastic behaviors are special cases of the strain softening
behavior (Alejano et al., 2009).

Fig. 2. Different of post-failure behavior modes for rock masses with different geological
strength indices (GSI) (Alejano et al., 2009)

3.1.1. Strain-softening behavior

Strain-softening behavior developed in order to model plastic deformation processes, in
which a material is characterized by a failure criterion f and a plastic potential g. One of the
main properties of the strain-softening behavior model is that the failure criterion and the plastic
potential not only depend on the stress tensor σij, but also on the plastic or softening parameter
η. Thus, the behavior model is plastic-strain-dependent (Alejano et al., 2009a). The failure cri-
terion is defined as:

f (σr, σθ, η) = 0 (2)

556

Strain-softening behavior is characterized by a gradual transition from a peak to a residual

failure criterion that is governed by the softening parameter η. In this model when the softening
parameter is null, an elastic regime exists, whenever 0 < η < η*, the softening regime occurs and
the residual state takes place when η > η*, with η* defined as the value of the softening parameter
controlling the transition between the softening and residual stages. This model is illustrated in
Fig. 3. The slope for the softening stage or drop modulus is denoted by M. if this drop modulus
tends to infinity perfectly brittle behavior appears, whereas perfectly plastic behavior is obtained
if this modulus tends to zero (Alejano et al., 2009a). It is obvious that perfectly brittle or elastic-
brittle-plastic and perfectly plastic models are special cases of the strain-softening model. This
behavior is strongly capable to represent the macroscopic results commonly observed in practice,
even if it is not capable of simulating certain particularly complex microscopic phenomena involv-
ing actual rock deformation and failure processes. The constitutive equation for a strain-softening
material can be obtained according to the incremental theory of plasticity (Alejano et al., 2009a).
The plastic strain increments can be obtained from the plastic potential:

g (σr, σθ, η) (3)

According to:

(4)

·
Where λ is a plastic multiplier and an unknown. Eq. (3) is the constitutive equation of the plastic
regime that it is usually called the flow rule. If the plastic potential coincides with the failure
criterion, then it is called an associated flow rule; otherwise it is called a non-associated flow
rule (Alejano et al., 2009b).

Fig. 3. Stress-strain curve for an unconfined test performed on a sample of strain-softening

material (Alejano et al., 2009)
 557

3.1.2. Influence of the Confinement Pressure on the Softening Rate

Confinement pressure affected on rock mass behavior as with increasing confinement pres-
sure, the rock mass behaviors become more and more ductile and finally behave ideally plastic
(Rummel, 1970). The conclusion of Seeber (1999) showed that ideally plastic behavior, without
strain softening post failure, may be expected when the confinement pressure σ3, is equal to or
greater than one-fifth of the axial stress at failure (Fig. 4):

1
s3,crit ³ × s 1,max (5)
5

Assuming the failure criterion of Hoek and Brown, based on Seeber’s condition, the relation
between the confinement pressure and the uniaxial compressive strength σc, of the intact rock
can be obtained (Egger, 2000). This relation can be approximated by:
sc × mb
s 3,crit ³ (6)
16

Where, mb is the product of a parameter m depending on the lithology, with a reduction factor
depending on the degree of fracturing of the rock.

Fig. 4. Dependence of the post-failure behavior of granite samples on the confinement pressure.
(a) Results of a numerical simulation of the 3-axial tests. (b), Schematic behavior (Egger, 2000)

3.2. Using of Hoek-Brown failure criterion to estimate

the maximum and minimum principal stresses
In order to characterize a strain-softening rock mass the following information is needed:
(1) peak and residual failure criteria, (2) elastic parameters (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ra-
tio), and (3) post-failure deformability parameters (drop modulus and dilatancy angle) (Alejano,
2009). Joints and defects in a rock mass reduce the strength of the mass below the strength of an
intact rock. The geological strength index (GSI) as a ‘scaling’ parameter is used to provide an
558

estimate of the decreased strength of the rock mass in situ based on the Hoek-Brown criterion.
The GSI is an empirically dimensionless number that varies over a range between 10 and 100. By
definition, GSI values close to 10 correspond to very poor quality rock mass, while GSI values
close to 100 correspond to excellent quality rock masses (Hoek et al., 1997; Marinos et al., 2000;
Hoek et al., 2002; Cai et al., 2004).
When the GSI scale factor is introduced, the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for the rock mass
is given according as follows:
a
æ s æ
s 1 = s 3 + sci çmb × 3 + sç (7)
è sci è

The parameter mb in Eq. 7 depends on three, the intact rock parameter mi, the value of GSI
and disturbance factor D, as defined by the equation:

æ GSI - 100 æ
mb = mi × exp ç ç (8)
è 28 - 14D è

D is a factor which depends upon the degree of disturbance to which the rock mass has been
subjected by blast damage and stress relaxation. It varies from 0 for undisturbed in situ rock
masses to 0.8 for very disturbed rock masses in tunnels (Hoek et al., 1997; Hoek et al., 2002);
Hoek et al., 2008).
The parameter, s, depend empirically on the value of GSI, D as follows,

æ GSI - 100 æ
S = exp ç ç (9)
è 9 - 3D è

The parameter, a, also depend empirically on the value of GSI, as follows,

-GSI -20 æ
1 1 æ 15
a= + çe -e 3 ç (10)
2 6ç ç
è è

Determining the appropriate value of σ3 for use in Eq. 7 is very important. It is estimated
based on equation (11):
-0.94
s3 æs æ
= 0.47 ç cm ç (11)
scm è g ×h è

Where, σcm, is the rock mass strength, defined by equation 12, γ is the unit weight of the rock mass
and H is the depth of the tunnel below surface. In cases where the horizontal stress is higher than
the vertical stress, the horizontal stress value should be used in place of γh (Hoek et al., 2002).

2 × c × cos F
scm = (12)
1 - sin F
 559

Peak properties of rock masses were estimated on the basis of the Hoek and Brown proposal.
Cai et al. (2007) proposed estimating the residual strength of rock masses by adjusting peak GSI
to the residual GSI res value by using of two major controlling factors in the GSI system includ-
ing residual block volume Vrb and residual joint condition factor Jrc. The proposed method for
estimation residual strength of rock mass was validated with actual examples based on using in
situ block shear test data from three large-scale cavern construction sites and data from a back-
analysis of the rock slope. In order to obtain Peak failure criterion can be used of GSI peak in
mentioned equations. The residual failure criterion is similarly obtained by changing the value
of the peak geotechnical quality GSI peak to that of the residual geotechnical quality GSI res. The
guidelines given by Cai et al., (2007) used to estimate GSI res. it is mentioned in Table 3. Once
this GSI res value has been obtained, a standard technique (for instance, RocLab (2002)) can be
used to obtain the residual parameters m res and s res (together with the non-changing σci) that
define the Hoek-Brown residual failure criterion. If the rock mass is a disturbed rock mass, this
should be also taken into account.

TABLE 3
res peak
Initial approach to approximately estimating the GSI based on GSI (Cai et al., 2007)
peak res
GSI GSI
75 35-45
70 30-40
60 28-37
50 25-33
40 23-30
30 21-27
25 20-25

3.3. Estimating approaches of pre and post failure

deformability
The pre failure deformability obtained using traditional approaches. The deformation
modulus Erm can be obtained by following Hoek and Diederichs approach because more effec-
tive factors on deformability such as the elastic modulus of intact rock Ei, disturbance factor D
and GSI were used in this equation (Hoek et al., 2006).

æ D æ
ç 1- ç
Erm = E i × ç 2 (13)
(75 + 25D - GSI ) ç
çç 11 çç
è1 + e è

Poisson’s ratio n does not usually affect rock behavior to a significant degree, so standard
values in the range 0.25-0.35 are likely to be valid for any approach.
As mentioned above it has been observed in the field that the deformability post-failure
behavior of rock masses is highly dependent on rock mass quality and on confinement stress.
Based on these observations, the following values proposed by Alejano et al. (2009) to estimate
the drop modulus of the rock mass according to the peak rock mass quality given by GSI peak
560

and to the level of confinement stress expressed in terms of the rock mass compressive strength
given by s peak × sci. The values obtained thus take into account the assumption of a continuous
trend, from brittle behavior in high-quality rock masses subjected to unconfined conditions, to
pure ductile behavior in poor-quality rock masses for extremely high confinement stresses. The
value of the drop modulus depends on the deformation’s modulus Erm according to:

M = –ω · E rm (14)
The value of the ratio ω depends on the GSI peak and confinement-stress level and can be
estimated according to:
-1
æ s3 æ s3
w = éê0.0046e 0.0768 × GSI peakù ç ç for ³ 0.1 (15)
ë ûú ç peak ç peak
è s × sci è s ×sci

-1
æ s3 æ s3
w = êé0.0046e 0.0768 × GSI úù ç
peak
+ 0.05ç for £ 0.1 (16)
ë ûç peak ç peak
è2 s ×s ci è s × sci

If confinement stresses is not considered in calculation, the drop modulus can be estimated
according to Eq. 17:

E rm
M= for 25 < GSI < 75 (17)
0.08 × GSI - 7

a more complex approach to estimate of drop modulus, including the effect of σci is:

E rm
M= for 20 < GSI < 75 (18)
æ s æ
0.0812 çGSI + ci (MPa) ç - 7.66
è 10 è

The following equation is used as a first approach to estimate the drop modulus, if one
uses more complex strain softening models with confinement stress dependent drop modulus
(Alejano et al., 2009):

1000 × Erm
M= for 25 < GSI < 75 (19)
GSI × s3 + 75 × GSI - 225s3 - 5875

The most complex equation to estimate the drop modulus is defined as:

Erm
M= (20)
é é8.66 - 0.0812 × (GSI + s ù
ci (MPa ) ) éæ 225 - GSI æ
ù
æ 55 - 0.6 GSI æù ú
1- ê ê ú × êç ç × s3 + ç çú
êê 8 - 0.08 × GSI ú ëè 1000 è è 8 èûú
ëë û û
 561

The Equation (20) is used for GSI ranges from 20 to 75 and more effective factors such as
GSI, confinement stress σ3, unixial strength of intact rock σci and etc are applied in this equation
(Alejano et al., 2009).
All mentioned equations are used to estimate of drop modulus in this paper.

3.4. Estimating of axial strain related to peak strength

One of the most important factors to estimate of strain energy is axial strain. Also correct
estimation of this parameter is difficult but several methods are proposed to estimate it. Sakurai
(1983, 1997, 2003) has suggested that the stability of tunnels can be assessed by using of the
strain in the rock mass surrounding the tunnel. The maximum strain is defined by the ratio of
tunnel closure (δi) to tunnel diameter (do). Sakurai proposed the following equation to estimate
the percentage strain:
B
εpc = Aσ cm (21)

Where σcm is the rock mass strength and A, B are constants.

The application of this notion to practical tunnel problems is illustrated in Fig. 5 which shows
the percentage strain observed during the construction of three tunnels in Taiwan.

Fig. 5. Percentage of strain for different rock mass strengths. The points plotted are for the Second Freeway,
the Pinglin and the New Tienlun Headrace tunnels in Taiwan (Sakurai, 1983)
562

Note that this critical strain only defines the boundary between those tunnels that do not
require special consideration and those that need careful consideration in terms of support de-
sign. It can be seen that those tunnels fall above a line categorized as requiring special support
consideration that is well defined by Sakurai’s critical strain concept.
Sakurai (1997) has proposed three warning levels of risk in tunnels according:

Log εc = –0.25 LogErm – 0.85 (22)

Log εc = –0.25 LogErm – 1.22 (23)

Log εc = –0.25 LogErm – 1.59 (24)

Where εc is critical strain and Erm is deformation modulus of rock mass.

Equation 22, 24 are shown short and long term of stability of tunnels (Sakurai, 1997).
In this paper Equation 22 is used to estimate of critical strain related to peak strength of
rock mass.

4. Estimating of rock load in non-squeezing ground

condition
Estimating of strain energy, the area under stress-strain curve, is very difficult because rock
mass behavior is not completely obvious. In this paper based on actual data from five tunnels
(254 data) strain energy is estimated in two sections including pre and post failure by assuming
linear behavior before and after failure. These concepts are shown in fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Stored and residual strain energy in pre and post failure respectively
 563

Then strain energy, W, in pre and post failure are calculated based on equations 25 and 26:

1
Wpre = s 1 peak × e1 peak (25)
2

1
Wpost = és 1 peak + s 1resù × De (26)
2ë û

Where, Wpre, Wpost are stored and residual strain energy in pre and post failure respectively and
ε1peak is strain in peak point and ∆ε shows change in strain from peak strength to residual strength
and it is estimated based on estimating the drop modulus, M, and changing in stress from peak
to residual strength according to the following equation:

Ds s1res - s1 peak
M = = (27)
De e1res - e1 peak

s 1res - s 1 peak
De = (28)
M

The drop modulus is estimated using the mentioned equations in section (3-3).
In the next step, the ratio of stored and residual strain energy in post to pre failure, Ψ, is
calculated.

Wpost
Y= (29)
Wpre

the maximum and minimum of Ψ varies between 0.002-66.70 and it depend on quality of rock
mass and confinement stress so that an increase the confinement stress and a decrease quality of
rock mass can cause to increase of Ψ and it can be true inversely.
Finally the relation between rock load and ratio of the residual strain energy of post to the
stored strain energy pre failure, Ψ, in non squeezing ground condition is estimated.
Based on the statistical analysis, the maximum correlation between both parameters is
achieved using of equations 14 to 16 to estimate the drop modulus according to fig. 7.
The relation between both parameters is then achieved as follows:

Hp = 1.8199 · Ψ0.3969 (30)

564

Fig. 7. Correlation between rock load, HP, with ratio of strain energy density post to pre failure, Ψ,
in non-squeezing ground condition

5. Conclusion
The results show that increasing the quality of rock mass and reducing the minimum principal
stress can cause to reduce ratio of residual strain energy of post failure to stored strain energy
of pre failure, Ψ, and rock load, Hp, because rock mass behavior changes from elastic plastic
to elastic brittle and drop modulus changes from 0 to infinite. It is observed from performed
statistical analysis on collected actual data from five tunnels in non-squeezing ground condi-
tions that the relationship between both parameters is direct and the good correlation between
both parameters is achieved using of power equation to estimate the rock load in non-squeezing
ground condition.

Acknowledgement
The authors are indebted to staff of all consulting engineers, contractors and employers to
offer data to us and to any people who help to us to preparation this paper. The authors are also
indebted to Reviewers, whose comments lead to a hopefully more accurate estimation of rock
load.

References

Alejano L.R., Alonso E., Rodriguez-Dono A., Fernandez-Manin G., 2009a. Application of the convergence-confinement
method to tunnels in rock masses exhibiting Hoek-Brown strain-softening behavior. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences. Elsevier Science, July.
 565

Alejano L.R., Rodriguez-Dono A., Alonso E., Fdez-Manin G., 2009b. Ground reaction curves for tunnels excavated in
different quality rock masses showing several types of post-failure Behavior. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology . Elsevier Science, July, 689-705.
Barton N., Lien R., Lunde J., 1974. Engineering classificaion of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. NGI
Publication No. 106, Oslo, 48.
Barton N., Lien R., Lunde J., 1975. Estimation of support requirements for underground excavations. XVIth Sym. on
Rock Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA, 163-177.
Bhasin R., Grimstad E., 1996. The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment of tunnel stability. Proc. Conf.
on Recent Advances on Tunnelling Technology, New Delhi, 1, 183-196.
Bieniawski Z.T., 1984. Rock mechanics design in mining and tunnelling. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 97-133.
Brady B.H.G., Brown E.T., 2005. Rock mechanics for underground mining. Chapter 10, Third edition, http://www.
springeronline.com.
Brekke T.L., 1968. Blocky and seamy rock in tunnelling. Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol., 5(1), 1-12.
Cai M., Kaiser P.K., Uno H., Tasaka Y., Minamic M., 2004. Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus and strength
of jointed rock masses using the GSI system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 41(1), 3-19.
Cai M., Kaiser P.K., Tasakab Y., Minamic M., 2007. Determination of residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses
using the GSI system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 44, 247-65.
Carranza-Torres C., Fairhurst C., 2000. Application of the convergence-confinement method of tunnel design to rock masses
that satisfy the Hoek Brown failure criterion. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,15 (2), 187-213.
Cecil O.S., 1970. Correlation of rock bolts – shotcrete support and rock quality parameters in Scandinavian tunnels.
PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 414.
Deere D.U., Peck R.B., Parker H., Monsees J.E., Schmidt B., 1970. Design of tunnel support systems. High Res. Rec.,
339, 26-33.
Egger P., 2000. Design and Construction Aspects of Deep Tunnels (with particular emphasis on strain softening rocks).
published in Tunnels under Pressure, the proceedings of the AITES-ITA 2000 World Tunnel Congress.
Marinos P., Hoek E., 2000. GSI – A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. Proc. GeoEng 2000
Conference, Melbourne.
Fraldi M., Guarracino F., 2010. Analytical solutions for collapse mechanisms in tunnels with arbitrary cross sections.
International Journal of Solids and Structures. 216-223
Goel R.K., Jethwa J.L., 1991. Prediction of support pressure using RMR classification. Proc. Indian Getech. Conf.,
Surat, India, 203-205.
Goel R.K., Jethwa J.L., Dhar B.B., 1996. Effect of tunnel size on support pressure. Technical Note. Int. J. Rock Mech.
and Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Pergamon, 33(7), 749-755.
Hoek E., Brown E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Sci. Geom. Abstr. 34 (8),
1165-1187.
Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Corkum B., 2002. Hoek–Brown failure criterion – 2002 ed. In: Proceedings of the NARMS-
TAC 2002, Mining Innovation and Technology. Toronto, Canada, pp. 267–273.
Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Diederichs M.S., Corkum B., 2008. Kersten Lecture Integration of geotechnical and struc-
tural design in tunnelling. In: 56th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference. University of Minnesota.
Hoek E., Diederichs, M.S., 2006. Empirical estimates of rock mass modulus. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 43:203-15.
Jackson K., Kingman S.W., Whittles D.N., Lowndes I.S., Reddish D.J., 2008. The effect of strain rate on the breakage
behavior of rock. Archives of Mining Sciences, Vol. 53, No 1, p. 3-22.
Reza R., Osgoui Erdal Ünal. 2009. An empirical method for design of grouted bolts in rock tunnels based on the Geolo-
gical Strength Index (GSI). J. engineering Geology, 154-166.
RocScience, RocLab, 2002. Rocscience Inc., Toronto, Canada.
Rose D., 1982. Revising Terzaghi’s tunnel rock load coefficients. Proc. 23rd U.S.Sym. Rock Mech., AIME, New York,
953-960.
Sakurai S., Takeuchi K., 1983. Back analysis of measured displacements of tunnels. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engi-
neering 16 (3), 173-180.
566

Sakurai S., 1997. Lessons learned from field measurements in tunnelling. Tunnelling and underground space technology,
12(4), 453-460.
Sakurai S., Akutagawa S., Takeuchi K., Shinji M., Shimizu N., 2003. Back-analysis for tunnel engineering as a modern
observational method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 18 (2-3), 185-196.
Singh B., Jethwa J.L., Dube A.K., 1995. A classification system for support pressure in tunnels and caverns. J. Rock
Mech. & Tunnelling Technology, India, 1(1), January, 13-24.
Singh B., Jethwa J.L., Dube A.K., Singh M., 1992. Correlation between observed support pressure and rock mass quality.
Int. J. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, Pergamon, 7(1), 59-74.
Singh M., Singh B., Choudhari J., 2007. Critical strain and squeezing of rock mass in tunnels. Tunnelling and Under-
ground Space Technology. 343-350.
Sinha R.S., 1989. Underground structures – design and instrumentation. Elsevier Science, U.K., 480.
Terzaghi K., 1946. Rock defects and loads on tunnel support. Introduction to rock tunnelling with steel supports. Eds,
R.V., Proctor and White, T.L., Commercial Sheering & Stamping Co., Youngstown, Ohio, U.S.A., 271.
Unal E., 1983. Design guidelines and roof control standards for coal mine roofs. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, University Park, 355.
Verman M.K., 1993. Rock mass – tunnel support interaction analysis. PhD thesis, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 258.
Szwedzicki T., 2008. Precursors to rock mass failure in underground mines. Archives of Mining Sciences, Vol. 53,
No 3, p. 449-465.

Received: 09 May 2011

View publication stats