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

net/publication/294569031

Geotechnical risks in rock mass characterisation - Part 1

Article · September 2004

CITATIONS READS

2 46

2 authors, including:

Johannes Kleberger
iC consulenten Ziviltechniker GesmbH Vienna/Austria
10 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Johannes Kleberger on 10 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION

Geotechnical risks in rock

mass characterisation - Part 1
Irmina Pöschl,

M
ost rock mass classification schemes
fall short in meeting the demands of
increasingly complex contractual
conditions for today’s infrastructure
projects, where cost and risk control
play a major role. The concept for rock mass charac-
terisation proposed in this paper systematically aims
towards the definition of typical rock mass behaviour
and the recognition and description of geotechnical
risks. The product is the definition of rock mass types
that supply the information required for tunnel design as
well as for ground-related contractual issues.
Geotechnical risks in tunnelling
Geotechnical risks in tunnelling generally stand for
hazardous geotechnical conditions, which could
unfavourably affect a tunnel project and might – in the
worst case – cause fatalities. Less tragic but also
significant consequences include damage to
equipment, interruption of works, inadequacy of design,
contractual claims, etc. all of which eventually lead to
delays to schedule and/or increase of project costs.
Most geotechnical risks can be controlled by
adequate design solutions that prevent the occurrence
of the “risk event” (e.g. modification of tunnel alignment
to avoid intersection of major fault zone), or minimise
the consequences of a “risk event”.
Some geotechnical risks cannot be controlled by
economically and/or technically feasible design
solutions. The consequences of such a risk event (e.g.
catastrophic earthquake) must be assessed and
considered in the project risk management plan.
The precondition for risk control and risk
management is the timely recognition of potential
geotechnical risks for a project. A considerable amount
of significant geotechnical risk factors reflect specific
rather than standard conditions (e.g. extremely weak
materials along fault zones, or karstic fault breccias).
Frequently overlooked in the course of the feasibility
study and the design stages are unforeseen non-
standard conditions which often give rise to the most
significant hazards, damages and/or contractual
disagreements.
Most geotechnical risks in tunnelling are directly
related to the properties of the rock mass and to
circumstantial influencing factors such as insitu stress,
kinematics, groundwater, orientation and dimensions of
excavation. The interaction of rock mass properties and
influencing factors eventually defines the rock mass
behaviour that would be observed during tunnel
excavation without application of support/construction
measures. Though such a situation does not reflect
typical conditions during construction works, the
description of rock mass behaviour without support is
required for the basic understanding of potential failure
modes and risk events.
The actual scenario during and after construction can
be referred to as “system behaviour”[11], [16] that relates
to deformations and conditions taking place during
controlled by available routine support measures or
standard design would lead to unsafe system consultant
behaviour, posing a geotechnical risk.
Ideally, all potential risks related to rock mass charac- geologist, and
teristics should be covered by a rock mass classi- Johannes
fication system that provides the conclusive summary
of geological/geotechnical conditions expected during
Kleberger,
tunnelling. managing
director, both of
Rock mass classification
Rock mass properties, including lithological, structural iC consulenten ZT
and rock mechanical characteristics and selected GmbH in
circumstantial factors (e.g. groundwater, overburden)
are used in standard classification schemes. These Salzburg, Austria,
standard schemes allow for the description of typical discuss rock mass
rock mass materials (see Figure 1) that relates directly to
tunnel support measures (e.g. Q[1], [2] or RMR[2]) and/or
classifications and
supports the assessment of rock mass parameters (e.g. their limitations
GSI[5], [7]). Yielding a numerical rating or index, the
in atypical or
quoted classification schemes are referred to as
quantitative methods. In fact, reference to “semi- hazardous
quantitative” scheme would be more accurate, since ground. For
the classification is based on quantitative parameters
(e.g. strength, RQD, spacing and set number of discon- meeting the
tinuities) as well as qualitative parameters that are demands of
assigned to numerical values (e.g. conditions of
discontinuity surfaces, rock mass structure).
today’s
The advantages of such schemes are evidently: 1) contractual
Their international application and acceptance; 2) The
environment they
relative simplicity and clarity of their application; and 3)
The reproducibility of classification procedures. Most of propose a flexible
these standard schemes were originally developed for concept based on
jointed rock mass and reach the limits of their
applicability in soil-like materials that often prevail in a variety of
very poor rock mass (e.g. some fault materials). available methods
Quantitative classification schemes usually lack a
qualitative description of rock mass behaviour. The
consideration of direct interaction between rock mass
classes, support classes and deformation
measurements during excavation is not foreseen. This Below: Design solutions
may lead either to over-conservative and costly support are vital in minimising
application, or to the under-estimation of specific risks such as a drainage
hazardous conditions. system for elevated water
In contrast to these quantitative approaches, classi- flow, seen below in 1999 in
fication schemes that have been routinely applied in the Austria’s Blisadona Tunnel
A KNITTEL

excavation and after application of routine support

measures (Figure 1). A specific rock mass behaviour or
singular hazardous event that cannot reasonably be

SEPTEMBER 2004 Tunnels & Tunnelling International 37

ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION

Right: Fig 1 - Schematic

relations between rock
mass properties, rock
Rock and rock mass
properties
+ Circumstantial
factors
= Rock mass behaviour
Typical rock mass
+ Construction method
/support measures
= System
behaviour
mass behaviour and Lithology Insitu stress behaviour
Discontinuities Kinematics Failure modes
support design with
Parameters Water Geotechnical risks
quantitative and qualitative Dimensions of
classification approaches excavation
Orientation of
excavation
Factual/quantitative Etc Interpretative/ Deformation
description qualitative description measurements

Quantitative approach: Qualitative approach: Support classes/

GSI, Q, RMR ÖNORM B 2203 tunnel design

Right: Fig 2 - Proposed

rock mass characterisation Rock and rock mass
properties + Circumstantial
factors = Rock mass behaviour
+ Construction method
/support measures =
System
behaviour
in the frame of ground
conditions and tunnel
design Factual/quantitative Interpretative/ Deformation
description qualitative description measurements

GSI Proposed concept for rock mass Support classes/

Q characterisation: rock mass types (RMT) tunnel design
RMR

Eastern Alps (e.g. Austrian standard ÖNORM B 2203[12])
were based largely on the qualitative description of rock
mass behaviour[3], [9], [10], [12]. The advantages include: 1)
Rock mass classes are defined in relation to typical
deformation and behaviour modes; 2) The adequacy of
the classification and applied support can directly be
verified by deformation measurements during tunnel
excavation (Figure 1) allowing for a flexible and cost
efficient project realisation; 3) The classification scheme
is also functional in very poor, soil-like ground where the
description of discontinuities in jointed rock mass is less
relevant and standard quantitative classification
systems (see above) reach the limits of their
applicability. A safe and efficient performance of rock
● Involve transparent and reproducible classification
procedures based on factual geotechnical data
● Provide design parameters that correlate directly with
numerical analysis and the design of temporary and
final lining
● Relate to standard classification schemes, allowing
comparative plausibility checks and universal
understanding within an international environment of
engineering
● Describe typical rock mass behaviour and failure
modes that relate to routine support classes and can
be verified by deformation measurements and
observations during tunnel excavation
● Describe non-standard hazardous conditions and

Acknowledgements:
Reference is made to
all parties and persons
– too many to be
named – that
contributed to the
continuous and
ongoing development
of the presented
concept of rock mass
characterisation.
*
Original definition in[11]
modified for proposed
application.
Part 2 of Geotechnical
risks in rock mass
characterisation will
appear in next month’s
T&TI and will show the
theory in practice, as
demonstrated by case
histories.
mass classification according to this approach, though,
requires profound understanding of geo-mechanical
aspects of rock mass behaviour, failure modes and their
relation to rock mass characteristics. Because of this
prerequisite and the lack of quantitative definitions, the
method – though successfully applied in projects
worldwide – proved to be internationally less accepted
than quantitative classification schemes.
All of the above described rock mass classification
schemes fall short – in one way or another - in meeting
the demands of increasingly complex contractual
conditions for today’s infrastructure projects, where
cost and risk control plays a major role.
Adequate ground classification is not only an
indispensable tool for tunnel design but also forms a
basic part of construction contracts. The lack of
adequate ground classification is frequently the main
cause for contractual disagreements. A classification
scheme that allows the assessment of reasonably
foreseeable geotechnical risks protects the client from
unjustified claims, and allows the contractor to request
compensation for unforeseeable conditions, both
according to international contract regulations or
recommendations on risk sharing (e.g. FIDIC[4], ITA[8]).
For satisfying these requirements, a rock mass classi-
fication scheme must:
geotechnical risks that can be controlled by
additional non-routine support measures and/or
considered in a project risk management plan
New methods and the modification of available
standards contributed to the development of rock mass
classification throughout the last decade, providing
more sophisticated classification tools that take into
account contractual as well as technical aspects.
Quantitative and qualitative rock mass classification
methods were combined in projects worldwide to
comply with specific requirements.
The original qualitative classification approach[12] was
modified by enhancing the input of quantitative data
and by increasing the transparency of classification
procedures and terminology. The methodology was
standardised in official guidelines in 2001[11], [16] that
supplement the new Austrian Standard for cyclic
underground excavation (ÖNORM B 2203-1[13]).
Proposed concept
The concept proposed here combines quantitative and
qualitative classification methods (Figure 2). It system-
atically aims towards the definition of typical rock mass
behaviour patterns and towards the recognition and
description of geotechnical risks (Figure 3).
The characterisation process permits the definition of

38 Tunnels & Tunnelling International SEPTEMBER 2004

 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION

Subject Method Description Correlations Left: Fig 3 - Proposed rock

Rock mass properties mass characterisation -
Lithology Standard field Rock type
classification process
descriptions Mineralogical composition GSI
Laboratory testing Texture
Etc
Factual/quantitative description

Discontinuities ISRM standard Schistosity/bedding/joints/faults REFERENCES

descriptions Anisotropy, spacing, persistence, RMR
Borehole data (RQD) 1. NR Barton, 1988. “Rock
Mass Classification and
Water Field testing Water level Tunnel Reinforcement Se-
Laboratory testing Water pressures lection using the Q-sys-
Circumstantial factors

Field observations Permeability tem” Symp. Rock Class.

Q Eng. Purp., ASTM Special
Modes of water circulation
Inflow Technical Publication 984.
Hydrochemistry Philadelphia.
2. ZT Bieniawski, 1989.
“Engineering Rock Mass
Insitu stress/ Project geometry Overburden Classifications” Wiley.
stress Field testing Water loads 3. FJ Brosch, 1986. “Geol-
distribution Literature Tectonics ogy and Classification of
Geological mapping Rock Masses – Examples
from Austrian Tunnels”.
Parameters Laboratory testing Intact rock Bull.Int.Assoc.Eng.Geol.,
Laboratory/field testing Discontinuities No.33.
Rock mass 4. FIDIC, 1995. Conditions
of Contract for Design-
Build and Turnkey, Parts I
and II, First Edition.
Rock mass 5. E Hoek, ET Brown, 1997.
Interpretative/qualitative description

behaviour “Practical Estimates of

Rock Mass Strength”. Int.
J. Rock. Mech. & Mining
Failure Sci. & Geomec. Abstr.
Kinematic analysis Quantitative 34(8), 1165-1186.
modes Numerical analysis risk
6. E Hoek, 1999. “A discus-
Rock mass behaviour

Analytic analysis analysis

sion on acceptable criteria
Field observations for temporary support and
Tunnel
Risks design final linings of large span
transportation tunnels in
Construction poor rock”. Vancouver.
and experience Karst or other cavities
procedures 7. E Hoek & P Marinos,
Sudden, large-scale water flow
2000. “Deformation: Esti-
Confined water
Construction mating Rock Mass
Steep water gradients Strength: Predicting
schedule
Heavily squeezing conditions Squeeze”. Tunnels & Tun-
Rock burst nelling International.
Project risk
Tool wear managment 8. ITA 1988-1992. ITA Rec-
Low probability of prediction ommendations on Contrac-
Rapidly changing conditions tual Sharing of Risks. Tun-
Etc neling and Underground
Space Technology, Vol. 3,
5 and 7.
9. H Laufer, 1997. “Rock
Classification Methods
“rock mass types” (RMTs*) that display typical placed prominently in geotechnical reporting. Based on Excavation Re-
deformation/failure patterns and/or may impose The geotechnical risks identified and described in the sponse”. Felsbau.
specific geotechnical hazards. The number of rock classification sheets should be considered for 10. L Müller, Feb 1978.
“Removing Misconceptions
mass types individually defined for a project depends quantitative risk analysis, development of special on the New Austrian Tun-
on project-specific conditions (such as the complexity design/support/construction measures, construction nelling Method”. Tunnels
of geological conditions, or the variety of potential scheduling and the development of a project risk and Tunnelling Interna-
tional.
failure modes and risks). Also because of this inherent management plan. 11. ÖGG, 2001. Richtlinie
and unusual flexibility the concept provides a tool that für die Geomechanische
can handle technical and contractual aspects of non- Summary and conclusions Planung von Untertage-
bauarbeiten mit zyklischem
standard geotechnical conditions with increasing The concept for rock mass characterisation proposed in Vortrieb.
efficiency for all involved parties. this paper combines quantitative and qualitative rock 12. ÖNORM B 2003, 1994.
Rock mass descriptions and the assessment of rock mass classification systems. The process can be Untertagebauarbeiten,
Werkvertragnorm, Entwurf.
mass behaviour, failure modes and risks are based on individually adjusted by employing a variety of methods. 13. ÖNORM B 2003 and
factual site investigation data, field observations, Key elements including rock and rock mass properties, 2001: Untertagebauar-
kinematic (e.g. Unwedge), numerical (e.g. FLAC) or circumstantial influencing factors, geomechanical beiten – Werksver-
analytical analysis[6]. Design parameters are derived parameters, typical rock mass behaviour, failure modes tragsnorm, Teil 1: Zyklis-
cher Vortrieb.
from statistically evaluated factual data and/or are and geotechnical risks are described in a classification 14. L Rabcewicz, 1964.
estimated according to internationally accepted sheet for individual rock mass types that are correlated “The New Austrian Tun-
procedures (e.g. Hoek & Brown criterion[5], [7] Roclab[15]). to quantitative standard classification systems. nelling Method” Water
Power.
Quantitative standard classifications (e.g. GSI, Q, RMR) All descriptions and assessments are performed to 15. Rocscience Inc, 2001.
are implemented, depending on project specifics and international and/or national standards/methods, RocLab.
client’s requirements. allowing for transparent and reproducible classification. 16. W Schubert, A Goricki,
E Button, G Riedmüller, P
Factual and interpretative, quantitative and qualitative The scheme systematically aims towards the definition Pölsler, A Steindorfer and R
key data are summarised in a single classification sheet of typical rock mass behaviour and the recognition and Vanek, 2001. “Consistent
for each rock mass type (RMT). Thus, typical rock mass description of geotechnical risks. The product is the Excavation and Support
Determination for the De-
behaviour and geotechnical risks related to non- definition of rock mass types (RMTs) that supply the sign and Construction of
standard events, issues that are often concealed in text conclusive information required for tunnel design as well Tunnels” Felsbau.
parts of geotechnical reports if mentioned at all, are as for ground-related contractual issues. T&T

SEPTEMBER 2004 Tunnels & Tunnelling International 39

View publication stats