Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Geotechnical investigations and preliminary support design for

the Geçilmez tunnel: A case study along the Black Sea coastal
highway, Giresun, northern Turkey
Haluk Akgün a,⇑, Serkan Muratlı b, Mustafa Kerem Koçkar c
a
Geotechnology Unit, Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
b
Çınar Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Ankara, Turkey
c
Earthquake Implementation and Research Center, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study encompasses geotechnical investigations, stability assessments and design of the preliminary
Received 7 December 2011 support systems for the Geçilmez tunnel which is constructed in Giresun for the improvement of the high-
Received in revised form 22 October 2013 way along the Black Sea coast. During the study, a detailed geological map of the study area was prepared
Accepted 28 October 2013
and the geotechnical characteristics of the rock masses were determined. The rock mass classification of
Available online 28 November 2013
the tunnel grounds was performed by utilizing the RMR method, Q system, NATM and the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) classification which was followed by performing a geotechnical investigation along
Keywords:
the tunnel grounds in order to obtain the geotechnical parameters for the stability analyses of the portals
Tunnel and portal stability
Geotechnical characterization
and of the tunnel. Lugeon (water pressure) tests were performed in order to determine the permeability of
Rock mass classification the rock mass along the tunnel. The appropriate geotechnical parameters were utilized in order to perform
Structurally controlled rock failures during rock slope stability kinematic and limit equilibrium analyses at the portals of the tunnel. Empirical preli-
tunneling (wedge stability) minary tunnel support systems according to the RMR method, Q-system and NATM were determined. The
Finite element analyses structurally controlled instabilities within the tunnel sections were identified and the required prelimin-
Thrust–moment interaction analysis ary tunnel support systems were determined to overcome these instabilities. Regarding the structurally
controlled rock failures along the probable weak zones and lineaments (i.e., inactive probable faults or
shear zones) during tunneling, wedge stability analysis was utilized to determine the potential wedge fail-
ures that could possibly occur during tunneling and to apply the necessary support systems for stabilizing
any wedge failure in the tunnel. The induced stress distributions and deformations in the rock mass sur-
rounding the tunnel grounds was investigated and the interaction of the support systems with the rock
mass was analyzed by using numerical (finite element) modeling. In the finite element analyses it was
assumed that the rock mass behaved as a fractured rock mass since the tunnel grounds were moderate
to highly jointed. The objective of the numerical modeling was to check the validity of the empirical pre-
liminary tunnel support requirements and also to compare the results with those obtained through
assuming structurally controlled failures during tunneling. The performance of the preliminary tunnel
support was also validated on the basis of thrust–moment interaction analyses. The results of the struc-
turally controlled failure analyses, numerical analyses and thrust–moment analyses were compared in
an attempt to determine the preliminary tunnel support systems to stabilize the Geçilmez tunnel.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Turkish General Directorate of Highways (KGM) adjudi-
cated a highway project for the improvement of the government
highways along the Black Sea coast. The project included construc-
tion of highways, viaducts and tunnels for the improvement of the
highway between Giresun–Espiye (KM: 0 + 000–24 + 576.14) along
the Black Sea coast. As a result of the preliminary geotechnical
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 2105727; fax: +90 312 2105750.
E-mail address: hakgun@metu.edu.tr (H. Akgün).
studies carried out in the region, four tunnels were constructed,
which are the Aksu tunnel, Geçilmez tunnel, Uluburun tunnel
and Arıdurak tunnel, respectively (Fig. 1). This study consists of
geotechnically assessing the portal slope stability and tunnel sta-
bility of the Geçilmez tunnel which is constructed as a single tube
horseshoe shaped tunnel between KM: 12 + 247.50–12 + 555.00 of
the Giresun–Espiye highway project with a total length of 307.5 m.
The construction of the Geçilmez tunnel is part of a project that
involves the improvement of the Black Sea coast government high-
way between Giresun–Espiye (KM: 0 + 000–24 + 576.14) and the
Geçilmez tunnel is constructed approximately at the midway of

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.10.018
278 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
Fig. 1. Location map of the study area through (a) Google Earth and (b) local map.
this project which is situated about 500 m after the Yolağzı town-
ship. It is accessible through all year by the existing government
Black Sea coast highway. Fig. 1 gives a location map of the study
Fig. 2. A view (looking NE) of the location of the entrance portal of the Geçilmez
tunnel prior to excavation.
area. The best times to visit the area is between April and August,
as there is heavy rain in the region during the other months. Fig. 2
gives a view of the location of the entrance portal of the Geçilmez
tunnel prior to excavation.
2. General geology
In general, the Eastern Pontides (Eastern Black Sea) has formed
by the intercalation of Upper Cretaceous basic and acidic volcanic
rocks and their pyroclastics (agglomerate and tuff), which are the
products of subduction zone in island arc volcanism related with
the tectonism of the region. The volcanosedimentary and pelagic
units have formed during dormant periods of volcanism in the re-
gion. The oldest volcanic rocks in the region are the lower basic
series and the youngest volcanic rock is the acidic biotite bearing
dacite. The other units observed in the region are deep intrusive
rocks such as diorite, quartz diorite, granodiorite, basaltic dykes
and sedimentary units including sandstone and limestone (Metag
Engineering Co. Ltd., 1972; Temelsu International Engineering Ser-
vices Inc., 1994).
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
2.1. Stratigraphy
The generalized columnar section of the region is presented by
Fig. 3. The units from oldest to youngest are the lower basic series,
dacite, the volcanosedimentary unit, diorite, the upper basic series,
biotite bearing dacite, diabase and basalt dykes, and alluvium (Me-
tag Engineering Co. Ltd., 1972).
2.2. Tectonism
The region is under the influence of the Eastern Pontides tecto-
nism, where the geological model is based on island arc volcanism.
Tectonism is developed in the northeast, northwest (NW) and
east–west (E–W) directions. The general alignment of the disconti-
nuities in the region is northeast (NE) and northwest (NW). The ef-
fect of tectonism is mostly seen in tuffs and sedimentary
formations as most of the rocks are volcanic in the region. The off-
set of faults is not easy to measure, because of dense vegetation
and thick alluvium (Metag Engineering Co. Ltd., 1972; Temelsu
Fig. 3. A generalized columnar section of the region (Metag Engineering Co. Ltd.,
1972).
279
International Engineering Services Inc., 1994). The structural anal-
ysis of the project area was also validated by using 1/15.000 scale
aerial photographs (Temelsu International Engineering Services
Inc., 1994). The dense vegetation and thick alluvium observed in
the study area and its close vicinity made the structural analysis
difficult with such large scale of aerial photographs. Nevertheless,
using the morphological properties and surface waters which gen-
erally follow the probable weak zones and form tributary-gullies,
some other probable weak zones and lineaments with approxi-
mate orientations of N–S and NW–SE were also identified. The
examples of the approximate N–S extending probable lineaments
(i.e., inactive faults or shear zones) may be observed in the geolog-
ical map in Fig. 4 which correspond to the entrance (western)
portal of the tunnel (F1), to the inner section of the tunnel (F2
and F3/F4) and to the exit (eastern) portal of the tunnel (F5),
respectively.
3. Geology and geotechnics of the project area
3.1. General
A geological map with a scale of 1/1000 and a section along the
tunnel axis was prepared (Fig. 4). The length of the tunnel is
307.5 m and the entire tunnel cuts through basalt. A general side
view of the tunnel route is given by Fig. 5. The rocks that are ex-
posed in the study area are agglomerate, biotite bearing dacite
and basalt which are described below. Colluvium is generally ob-
served along the coastline and at the mouths of major rivers. It is
generally composed of sand, gravel with a thickness ranging from
3 to 6 m.
3.1.1. Basalt
It is black to greenish and light green to gray-black where
weathered and has porphyritic texture with plagioclase pheno-
crysts. It is generally slightly to moderately weathered and locally
highly weathered especially at the entrance portal of the tunnel.
The rock is generally slightly to moderately chloritized and serpen-
tinized and also contains slight iron staining. It locally shows
columnar jointing and vesicularity (3–10 mm) with columns
extending in the east–west direction, which most probably is a
product of submarine volcanism. It is medium strong to strong
with an average uniaxial compressive strength of 42.5 MPa (ISRM,
1981). It is moderately to locally highly jointed with 15–60 cm
spacing and 1–10 m persistence. The joints have rough, undulatory
and slightly weathered to unweathered surfaces with occasional
calcite infillings. Other than the jointing described above, there
are some occasional nearly vertical discontinuities with 10–20 m
persistence and 2–5 cm aperture with calcite infilling in the basal-
tic rock mass, which are distinguished as probable faults. Drilling
was performed in the basalt along the tunnel route through bore-
holes GÇ-1, GÇ-4, GÇ-5 and GÇ-6 where the average corresponding
RQD values were determined to be 61%, 85%, 66% and 58%, respec-
tively, leading to a mean RQD value ± one standard deviation of
67.5% ± 12.1%. The RQD value was also calculated from the discon-
tinuity scan-line survey measurements performed on basalt out-
crops along the tunnel route from the equation: RQD = 115–3.3
Jv, where Jv is the total number of joints per m3 (RQD = 100 for
Jv < 4.5; Barton et al., 1974). The number of joints per m3 was mea-
sured to range from 12 to 15, which led to an RQD value range of
65.5–75.4%, justifying the mean RQD value of 67.5% obtained from
the core samples.
3.1.2. Agglomerate
Agglomerate which is the base rock in the study area has not
been cut along the tunnel route but it covers a large area and it
280 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

Fig. 4. Geological map and cross section along the axis of the Geçilmez tunnel.

Table 1
Laboratory test results along with sample intervals.

Borehole Sample Unit weight, Uniaxial Modulus Poisson’s

no.a interval ct (kN/m3) compressive of ratio, t
(m) strength, rc elasticity,
(MPa) E (GPa)
GÇ-1 14.40– 21.28 45 – –
14.75
GÇ-1 57.45– 23.34 32 8.40 0.05
57.67
GÇ-6 17.00– 24.32 40 9.25 0.38
Fig. 5. A general view of basalt along the Geçilmez tunnel. 17.30
GÇ-4 28.60– 23.73 30 15.0 0.11
28.90
is exposed towards the east of the study area after passing the exit GÇ-4 28.60– 23.63 40 – –
portal. Agglomerate is dark green to green and yellowish to brown 28.90
GÇ-4 32.78– 22.65 18 4.0 0.11
with a sandy andesitic coarse grained matrix. It is generally mono-
33.00
mictic and contains lapilli size (4–64 mm) and block size (>64 mm) GÇ-4 35.50– 23.54 32 – –
black to gray rounded basalt clasts. It is weak to moderately weath- 35.70
ered and locally highly weathered with calcite veinlets (3–5 mm) GÇ-5 13.30– 24.81 67 – –
around the clasts. Although it seems massive it is weak to medium 13.55
GÇ-5 18.90– 24.32 81 – –
strong with no consistent jointing.
19.10
GÇ-5 27.00– 24.91 40 14.0 0.13
3.1.3. Biotite bearing dacite 27.25
Biotite bearing dacite and tuff is only observed at the crest of a
Borehole locations are presented in Fig. 4.
the hill that overlies the tunnel and it has not been cut during tun-
neling. It is yellowish to white and pinkish, possessing a fine glassy
matrix with abundant biotite and some quartz phenocrysts. It is tunnel route. Two more vertical boreholes were planned to be
slightly weathered, but kaolinization of feldspars and sericitation drilled, one towards one-third of the tunnel route and the other to-
is observed in the highly weathered tuffaceous regions. It is hard, wards the summit of the hill, but these borings could not be per-
strong and massive. It is observed as big blocks on slopes and at formed due to accessibility problems caused by dense vegetation,
the crest of the hill that the tunnel is constructed. especially hazelnut trees. As a result, all the borings were drilled
horizontally and placed adjacent to the highway along the tunnel
3.2. Geotechnical investigations route.
Rock mechanics tests were performed by the Turkish General
In order to determine the geotechnical properties of the project Directorate of Government Highways Technical Research Depart-
site, a total of 200 m of drilling was performed through four bore- ment, Soil Mechanics and Tunneling Section on 10 core samples ta-
holes along the tunnel route. Two of the boreholes were located at ken from the four borings to determine the physical and mechanical
the entrance and exit portals, one borehole around the exit portal properties of the basalt constituting the tunnel grounds. The results
in the tunnel section and another one towards the middle of the of the geomechanics tests summarized in Table 1 indicate that the
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
mean unit weight ± one standard deviation of the basalt is
23.65 ± 1.08 kN/m3. The uniaxial compressive strength, modulus
of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are 42.50 ± 18.52 MPa,
10.13 ± 4.47 GPa and 0.156 ± 0.129, respectively.
In practice, the intrusive rocks and their pyroclastics are gener-
ally assumed to be impermeable because of their glassy matrices,
however, pyroclastic rocks may contain local permeable zones
within their decomposed and altered regions which may have
developed due to the long period of the inactivity of volcanism in
the region. These zones are not capable of holding water perma-
nently, as they are bound by impermeable units from the top
and from the bottom. The same conditions also seem to be valid
for the hydrothermally altered zones.
The tunnel route is composed entirely of basalt and in practice
basalt is impermeable, however, because of its discontinuous
nature, it may allow inflow of water into the tunnel especially
during the heavy rainy season in the area (i.e., September to
April), particularly in the highly jointed, fractured and weathered
sections of the basalt. For this reason, water pressure (Lugeon)
tests were performed in the vicinity of the tunnel to determine
the permeability of the basaltic rock mass along the tunnel route
and hence, to gather information on the potential of the water
inflow into the tunnel level. The results of the water pressure
(Lugeon) tests indicated that the rock mass permeability ranged
from very low (0.32 L) to low permeability (2.86 L) with a mean
permeability ± one standard deviation of 1.39 ± 0.92 L (low
permeability) according to the classification proposed by Qui-
nones-Rozo (2010). These low permeability results suggested that
no serious water inflow problems at the tunnel level were to be
expected.
4. Rock mass classification and empirical tunnel support design
4.1. General
The geotechnical properties of the rock mass constituting the
tunnel grounds were determined through dividing the tunnel
grounds into seven geotechnical sectors. The boundaries of these
seven geotechnical sectors were delineated by the three inactive
probable faults (shear zones) situated at KM: 12 + 306–12 + 316
(F2) and at KM: 12 + 448–12 + 461 (F3 and F4; Fig. 4). Since the
inactive probable fault (shear zone) F1 is located about 9 m west
of the entrance portal and lies outside of the tunnel space, it
was ignored in the stability analyses of the entrance portal. The
inactive probable fault (shear zone) located about 9 m west of
the exit portal (F5) was taken into account in the stability analyses
of the exit portal since it lies inside the tunnel space. The probable
shear zones F1 and F5 were encountered during the drilling oper-
ations in borings GÇ-1 and GÇ-6, respectively. The geotechnical
properties of the sectors were assessed through using three
empirical rock mass classification systems, namely the Q-system
(Barton et al., 1974), the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) method
(Bieniawski, 1989) and NATM (New Austrian Tunneling Method)
by using correlations with the RMR and Q systems according to
the procedure given by the Turkish General Directorate of
Highways (2002).
A summary of the empirical preliminary support systems
(including rock bolt, shotcrete, wiremesh and steel sets) according
to the RMR method, Q-system and NATM are briefly summarized
in Table 2. In this table, support requirements are simply assem-
bled within three categories of the rock mass: Fair Quality/B1 (Q
range: 10–4), Fair Quality/B2 (Q range: 4–1) and Poor Quality/B3
(Q range: 1–0.1). A summary of the rock mass classification of
the seven sectors according to the RMR method, Q-system and
NATM are given in Table 3. The basalt was classified according to
NATM into two ground categories, which are B2 and B3,
281
representing approximately 71% and 29% of the tunnel grounds,
respectively.
4.2. Determination of the geomechanical properties of basalt
The geomechanical properties of the basalt was studied and
evaluated for each of the seven geotechnical sectors mentioned
in Table 3. The rock mass properties (i.e., shear strength parame-
ters, elastic parameters, Hoek–Brown constants, etc.) of each sector
were evaluated by using the RMR method, Q system and the
Geological Strength Index (GSI) method (Hoek and Brown, 1997)
as given in Table 4. The geomechanical parameters provided input
for the kinematic and limit equilibrium analyses along with tunnel
stability assessment through structurally controlled failure and fi-
nite element analyses.
5. Rock slope stability assessment
5.1. Stability analyses of the portals
In order to decide the most suitable slope geometry and loca-
tion for portal construction, several closely spaced geological sec-
tions were drawn at the west (entrance) and east (exit) portals of
the tunnel. As a result of the evaluation of the sections, it was
decided to construct the entrance portal between KM: 12 + 235–
12 + 247.5 and the exit portal between KM: 12 + 555–12 + 570 of
the highway. Cut portal side slopes (i.e., cut slopes along the sides
of the portal locations) and portal face slopes (i.e., cut slopes above
the portal faces) with the determined slope ratios at the entrance
and exit portals of the tunnel were initially analyzed by stereo-
graphic techniques and kinematic analyses, and then slopes with
potential failures were checked by utilizing limit equilibrium
methods.
The first step in any rock slope stability analysis must be a de-
tailed evaluation of the lithology and rock mass structure. This is
followed by the necessity to determine if the orientation of the
existing discontinuity sets could lead to block instability. This
assessment may be carried out by means of stereographic tech-
niques and kinematic analysis. For example, the program DIPS
(Diederichs and Hoek, 1989) allows for the visualization and deter-
mination of the kinematic feasibility of rock slopes by using fric-
tion cones (FC), daylight envelopes (DLE) and toppling envelopes
(TE). It is essential that such approaches recognize potential sliding
failures involving single discontinuities or discontinuity intersec-
tions. The DIPS software program was used to generate the stereo-
nets from the data collected through the scan-line discontinuity
survey. For each discontinuity survey a contoured pole data stere-
onet with joint set windows was constructed. The stereonets were
then analyzed according to procedures given in Hoek and Bray
(1981) in order to assess potential modes of failure, thereby allow-
ing potential failure zones to be identified (Bye and Bell, 2001).
5.2. Kinematic analyses of the portal slopes
Considering the geological observations, rock mass classifica-
tions and topographic conditions, a slope ratio of 1/3 (h:V) was
chosen for the side slopes and a slope ratio of 1/5 (h:V) was chosen
for the portal face slopes. The slopes were then kinematically ana-
lyzed according to the determined slope ratios for possible kine-
matic rock slope failures, namely, planar failure, wedge failure,
and toppling failure, respectively. Since the behavior of rock in nat-
ural and artificial rock slopes is controlled by the discontinuity
planes, in the kinematic analyses of slopes, the parameters that be-
long to the discontinuity surfaces were used. According to Hunt
(1996), typical strength values for rock mass discontinuities for
282 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

Table 2
Summary of the empirical support type and related support requirements for the Geçilmez tunnel.

Support type B1/4 < Q < 10/fair rock B2/1 < Q < 4/fair rock B3/0.1 < Q < 1/poor rock
Construction phase Top heading and bench Top heading and bench Top heading and bench
Excavation method Drill and blast Smooth blasting, roadheaders if required Smooth blasting, roadheaders if required
Round length Top heading (2.0–3.0 m) and bench Top heading (1.5–2.5 m) and bench Top heading (1.5–2.0 m) and bench
(4.0 m) (3.5 m) (2.5 m)
Stand-up time 2–4 days 5–10 h 2h
Support time Commence support after each blast Commence support after each blast Commence support after each blast
NATM, RMR and Q-system Shotcrete (100 mm) + wiremesh (1 Shotcrete (150 mm) + wiremesh (1 Shotcrete (250 mm) + wiremesh (2
support requirements layer) + systematic grouted bolting SN* layer) + systematic grouted bolting SN* layer) + steel ribs
type (U = 26 mm, L = 4 m, spacing type (U = 26 mm, L = 4 m, spacing (spacing1.0  1.0 m) + systematic
2.0  2.5 m) + spot SN* type bolting (if 2.0  2.0 m) + spot SN* type bolting (if groutedbolting SN* type (U = 26 mm,
required in lower half) required in lower half) L = 4 m, spacing 1.0  2.0 m) + forepoling
(L = 4 m, spacing 0.5  0.5, every two
ribs)
*
The SN (Store Norfors) bolt is a complete rod anchor provided with a rolled up metric thread, plate, spherical washer and hexagonal nut that is available in different sizes.

Table 3
A summary of the rock mass classification of the tunnel sectors.

Tunnel section Length (m) RMR Q NATM

Sector 1: Entrance portal (probable fault or shear zone) (F1) 28 45 1.01 B3
KM: 12 + 242–12 + 270
Sector 2: Tunnel section 36 56 1.78 B2
KM: 12 + 270–12 + 306
Sector 3: Tunnel section (probable fault or shear zone) (F2) 10 33 0.11 B3
KM: 12 + 306–12 + 316
Sector 4: Tunnel section 132 56 1.78 B2
KM: 12 + 316–12 + 448
Sector 5: Tunnel section (probable faults or shear zones) (F3 and F4) 13 31 0.10 B3
KM: 12 + 448–12 + 461
Sector 6: Tunnel section 70 56 1.78 B2
KM: 12 + 461–12 + 531
Sector 7: Exit portal (probable fault or shear zone) (F5) 48 47 0.82 B3
KM: 12 + 531–12 + 579

use in preliminary stability analysis for smooth and unweathered
surfaces are / = 30–35° for granite, basalt, gneiss, sandstone, lime-
stone and / = 25–30° for shale, phyllite, micaschist. It is advised to
add 5–15° to these values if the discontinuity surfaces are rough
and undulated or have an average roughness, but if the discontinu-
ity surfaces are highly weathered and decomposed 5–10° is ad-
vised to be subtracted from these values (Hunt, 1996). Since the
discontinuity surfaces in the study area are rough to slightly rough,
the upper bound value of 35° was utilized for / in the kinematic
analyses of the entrance and exit portal slopes which consist of dis-
continuous rock masses. This value also corresponds to the upper
bound of the / value obtained through the RMR method for the
portal slopes.
5.2.1. Kinematic analyses of the entrance portal slopes
The side and face slopes of the entrance portal of the Geçilmez
tunnel encompasses dark gray, black to locally greenish; moderate
to highly weathered, medium hard to hard, medium strong to
strong, moderate to closely jointed basalt. The separations of the
discontinuities generally range from 0.5 to 5 mm and occasionally
range from 5 to 10 mm. The discontinuities are rough, undulating
and are occasionally filled by calcite. The average spacing of the
discontinuities are 150–300 mm with persistence ranging from 1
to 3 m. The 60 m horizontal drilling (GÇ-1; Figs. 4 and 5) performed
at the entrance portal reveals that the RQD is 30–35% in the first 5–
7 m, which is the most weathered and disintegrated part that will
be removed during portal construction. The RQD gradually in-
creases going from the entrance portal to the inner parts of the
tunnel leading to an average RQD in the borehole of about 61%.
The entrance portal was designed to be constructed between
KM: 12 + 235–12 + 247.50 with a slope ratio of 1/5 (h:V) for the
portal face slope and 1/3 (h:V) for the portal side slope, leading
to the entrance portal face and side slope orientations of 79°/
227° (dip/dip direction) and 72°/317°, respectively. A scan-line dis-
continuity survey was performed around the entrance portal and
66 discontinuity measurements were taken. As a result of the ste-
reographic plot of these data, three main discontinuity sets were
determined at the entrance portal:
DS1 = 36°/293° (dip/dip direction).
DS2 = 65°/317°.
DS3 = 53°/003°.
It should be noted that one of the inactive probable faults with
an orientation of 84°/256° (dip/dip direction) that was discovered
in the area is located towards the west of the entrance portal (F1;
Table 3 and Fig. 4). Since this probable fault is not located in the
tunnel space and does not cut the side or face slope of the entrance
portal, it was ignored in the kinematic analyses. The pole density
plot of the discontinuities at the entrance portal is given by
Fig. 6. The major discontinuity sets in basalt and their kinematic
analyses results at the entrance portal face and side slopes are gi-
ven in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
5.2.2. Kinematic analyses of the exit portal slopes
The exit portal of the tunnel is mostly covered by hazelnut trees
which were grown on the 2–3 m thick soil covering the underlying
basalt. The geotechnical characterization of the exit portal slopes
was performed with the aid of two horizontal boreholes, namely,
GÇ-6 of 60 m length drilled parallel to the tunnel axis at the exit
portal and GÇ-5 of 30 m length drilled perpendicular to the tunnel
axis at the side of the exit portal. The exit portal consists of black to
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299 283

Table 4
The geomechanical properties of basalt at each of the seven geotechnical sectors of the project area as determined by the RMR method, Q system and the Geological Strength
Index (GSI) method. RocLab (Rocscience, 2007) was utilized for the GSI method.

Geomechanical properties Sector 1: Entrance portal Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Sector 7: Exit portal
RMR method
RMR rating 45 56 33 56 31 56 47
Elastic modulus (E; MPa)a 7499 12,000 3758 12,000 3350 12,000 8414
Friction angle (/0 ; °) 25–35 25–35 15–25 25–35 15–25 25–35 25–35
Cohesive strength (c0 ; MPa) 0.2–0.3 0.2–0.3 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.2–0.3
Rock mass class and description III; Fair rock III; Fair IV; Poor III; Fair IV; Poor III; Fair III; Fair rock
rock rock rock rock rock
Q system
Q-rating 1.01 1.78 0.11 1.78 0.10 1.78 0.82
Elastic modulus (E; MPa)b 7544 9115 3602 9115 3490 9115 7033
Rock mass class Poor rock Poor rock V. poor rock Poor rock V. poor rock Poor rock V. poor rock
GSI method
Intact rock strength (rci; MPa)c 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5
Intact elastic modulus (Ei; MPa) 14,875 14,875 14,875 14,875 14,875 14,875 14,875
Hoek–Brown constant (mi) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Geological Strength Index (GSI) 34 ± 2 44 ± 3 26 ± 2 44 ± 3 24 ± 2 44 ± 3 36 ± 2
Disturbance factor, Dd 1.0 (S)e; 0.8 (T)e 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 (S)e; 0.8 (T)e
Hoek–Brown constant (mb) 0.224 (S); 0.492 (T) 0.892 0.305 0.892 0.271 0.892 0.259 (S); 0.554 (T)
Hoek–Brown constant (s) 1.67  105 (S); 4.54  105 0.0002 1.35  105 0.0002 9.98  106 0.0002 2.33  105 (S); 0.0001
(T) (T)
Constant (a) 0.517 0.509 0.529 0.509 0.533 0.509 0.515
Friction angle (/0 ; °) 40.1 (S); 50.5 (T) 49.0 38.0 46.0 36.0 50.1 41.5 (S); 51.5 (T)
Cohesive strength (c0 ; MPa) 0.104 (S); 0.099 (T) 0.234 0.146 0.302 0.143 0.213 0.112 (S); 0.105 (T)
Rock mass tensile strength (rtm; MPa) 0.003 (S); 0.004 (T) 0.010 0.002 0.010 0.002 0.010 0.004 (S); 0.005 (T)
Uniaxial compressive strength (rc; 0.144 (S); 0.241 (T) 0.568 0.113 0.568 0.091 0.568 0.175 (S); 0.288 (T)
MPa)
Deformation modulus (Erm; MPa)f 472.2 (S); 570.9 (T) 946.6 431.7 946.6 409.7 946.6 506.1 (S); 623.4 (T)
a (RMR-10)/40
E (GPa) = 10 if RMR 6 50 (Serafim and Pereira, 1983); E (GPa) = 2  RMR-100 if RMR > 50 (Bieniawski, 1976).
b
E ðGPaÞ ¼ 10Q 1=3
c where Qc = Q  rc/100 (Barton, 2002).
c
The mean value from Table 1.
d
For a reasonably conservative approach, a disturbance factor of 1.0, representing poor quality blasting was assigned for the rock masses of the portal slopes and a
disturbance factor of 0.8, representing very poor quality blasting was assigned for the rock masses of the tunnel sections.
e
S = slope; T = tunnel.
f
The deformation modulus (Em) values have been calculated by the Generalized Hoek–Diederichs equation (Hoek and Diederichs, 2006).

Fig. 6. Pole density plot of basalt at the entrance portal.

dark gray, locally greenish, slightly to moderately weathered, lo-
cally highly weathered, medium hard to hard, medium strong to
strong, moderate to closely jointed basalt. The separations of the
discontinuities generally range from 0.5 to 5 mm and occasionally
range from 5 to 10 mm. The discontinuities are rough, undulating
and are occasionally filled by calcite. The joints have an average
spacing of 250–450 mm and persistence of 3–l0 m. The average
RQD is 66% in borehole GÇ-6 and 58% in borehole GÇ-5, leading
to an overall mean RQD of 62% at the exit portal.
The exit portal was designed to be constructed between KM:
12 + 555–12 + 570 with a slope ratio of 1/5 (h:V) for the portal face
slope and 1/3 (h:V) for the portal side slope, leading to entrance
portal face and side slope orientations of 79°/057° (dip/dip
23direction) and 72°/327°, respectively. A total of 24 discontinuity
284 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

Fig. 7. The major discontinuity sets in basalt and their kinematic analyses results at the portal face slope at the entrance portal.

Fig. 8. The major discontinuity sets in basalt and their kinematic analyses results at the cut side slope at the entrance portal.

measurements were taken and five main discontinuity sets were
determined at the exit portal:
DS1 = 63°/171° (dip/dip direction).
DS2 = 36°/167°.
DS3 = 23°/320°.
DS4 = 70°/306°.
DS5 = probable fault F5 = 81°/018°.
It should be noted that one of the inactive probable faults or
shear zones with an orientation of 81°/018° (dip/dip direction) that
was discovered in the area is located along the exit portal (F5; Ta-
ble 3). Since this probable fault or shear zone is located in the tun-
nel space and cuts the side or face slope of the exit portal, it was
considered in the kinematic analyses. The pole density plot of the
discontinuities at the exit portal is given by Fig. 9. The major dis-
continuity sets in basalt and their kinematic analyses results at
the exit portal face and side slopes are given in Figs. 10 and 11,
respectively.
5.2.3. Results of the kinematic analyses
In the portal slopes, two kinematic failure zones were identified,
namely, planar and wedge failure zones (Figs. 8 and 11). Planar
failure is a common type of translational failure and occurs by slid-
ing along a single plane. According to Hoek and Bray (1981), in or-
der for sliding to occur on a single plane, all of the geometrical
conditions must be satisfied. Then, from the stereographic analy-
ses, a potential for planar failure exists when the poles of the dis-
continuities fall within the daylight envelope behind the slope face
and are inclined at an angle greater than the friction angle, which is
35° (DIPS software; Rocscience, 2004). Potential wedge failures ex-
ist where two discontinuities, which dip out of a face intersect and
the line of intersection daylights into the face and is steeper than
the friction angle of the joint surfaces (Hoek and Bray, 1981). Then,
on the stereonet, if discontinuity 1 and 2 intersect within the cone
of wedge or friction circle (line of intersection dip angle > friction
dip angle) and daylight within the slope face, these result in a high
probability of wedge failure (DIPS software; Rocscience, 2004).
Hence, the results of the kinematic analyses on the portal slopes
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299 285

Fig. 9. Pole density plot of basalt at the exit portal.

Fig. 10. The major discontinuity sets in basalt and their kinematic analyses results at the portal face slope at the exit portal.

Fig. 11. The major discontinuity sets in basalt and their kinematic analyses results at the cut side slope at the exit portal.
286 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
depict the potential for planar failure at the entrance portal side
slope along discontinuity set 2, discontinuity set 3 and a potential
for wedge failure along discontinuity sets 2 and 3, and along dis-
continuity sets 1 and 3 (Fig. 8). No possibility of kinematic failure
exists along the face slope of the entrance portal (i.e., none of the
poles of the discontinuities fall within the daylight envelope;
Fig. 7). There is a possibility of kinematic wedge failure between
discontinuity set 4 and the probable fault F5 along the side slope
of the exit portal (Fig. 11). There is no possibility of kinematic fail-
ure along the face slope of the exit portal (i.e., none of the poles of
the discontinuities fall within the daylight envelope and none of
the discontinuities intersect within the cone of wedge; Fig. 10).
The kinematic failures determined by the stereographic analyses
were checked and verified by the limit equilibrium analyses pre-
sented below.
5.3. Limit equilibrium analysis of the kinematic rock slope failures
5.3.1. General
In the kinematic analyses, the potential rock failures were
determined based on the geometry of the slope, the orientation
of the discontinuities and the friction angle since the potential fail-
ures determined by the kinematic analyses are valid for zero cohe-
sion (c = 0) and zero water pressure. In this section, these potential
failures are checked through limit equilibrium analysis by consid-
ering the effects of cohesion and water. The cohesion of the basaltic
rock mass at the entrance (Sector 1) and exit portals (Sector 7) as
determined by the RMR method ranged from 200 to 300 kPa (Ta-
ble 4). For a reasonably conservative approach, the cohesion along
the discontinuities was taken as 100 kPa in the limit equilibrium
analyses (i.e., a value equal to half of the lower bound of the cohe-
sion of the basaltic rock mass). Although the slopes were dry and
no groundwater was encountered during drilling at the entrance
and exit portals, considering the high rainfall along the Black Sea
coast, the portals under consideration were evaluated by assuming
saturated conditions for a conservative approach. The safe factor of
safety (F) in the analytical solution was considered to be equal to
1.20 (F = 1.20) in conjunction with the requirement of the Turkish
Department of State Highways (2002). The results of the kinematic
analyses indicated the possibility of planar and wedge failure along
the cut side slope of the entrance portal and wedge failure along
the cut side slope of the exit portal of the tunnel. Limit equilibrium
analyses were carried out in these sectors to check and verify the
stability of any potential kinematic failure in these rock slopes
through comparing the resisting forces vs. the driving forces acting
on the rock slopes.
Fig. 12. Geometry of a slope with a tension crack (Hoek and Bray, 1981).
Hoek and Bray (1981) present a limit equilibrium procedure for
planar failure analysis that accounts for the effects of cohesion (c),
angle of internal friction (/) and water pressures (U, V; Fig. 12) for
a slope with a tension crack through equation:
cA þ ½WCosWp  U  VSinWp Tan/
F¼ ð1Þ
WSinWp þ VCosWp
where, from Fig. 12, A = length of the discontinuity plane; H = height
of the block; z = depth of the tension crack; Wf = dip of the slope
face; Wp = dip of the discontinuity plane; W = weight of the planar
block/unit width; zw = depth of water in tension crack; V = lateral
water pressure in the tension crack/unit width; U = uplift water
pressure/unit width; c = cohesion; and / = internal friction angle.
Hoek and Bray (1981) present a limit equilibrium procedure for
wedge failure analysis that takes into account the effects of cohe-
sion and water pressure. The factor of safety is calculated from
equation:
F ¼3=cHðcA X þ cB YÞ þ ðA  ðcw =2cÞXÞTan/A
þ ðB  ðcw =2cÞYÞTan/B ð2Þ
where cA and cB are the cohesive strengths of planes A and B along
the base of the wedge; /A and /B are the angles of internal friction
on planes A and B along the base of the wedge; c is the unit weight
of the rock mass; cw is the unit weight of water; H is the height of
the wedge; X, Y, A, and B are dimensionless factors that depend on
the geometry of the wedge and the slope; and, the angles wa, wb, w5
required for calculating the coefficients X, Y, A and B are measured
from the stereoplot according to Hoek and Bray (1981).
5.3.2. Results of the limit equilibrium analyses
The results of the entrance portal cut side slope planar limit
equilibrium analyses for saturated conditions by utilizing Eq. (1)
showed that the factor of safety (F) was determined to be greater
than 1.20 for the discontinuity sets DS2 (65°/317°; F = 1.29) and
DS3 (53°/003°; F = 3.17). Upon performing the entrance portal
cut side slope wedge limit equilibrium analyses for saturated con-
ditions (Eq. (2)), the factor of safety was determined to be greater
than 1.20 for the two wedges defined by discontinuity sets DS1–
DS3 (F = 2.60) and DS2–DS3 (F = 2.83). The results of the exit portal
cut side slope wedge limit equilibrium analyses for saturated con-
ditions (Eq. (2)) showed that the factor of safety was determined to
be greater than 1.20 (F = 10.8) for the wedge defined by the discon-
tinuity set DS4 and the probable fault F5. It should be noted that on
the stereonet, the intersection of DS4 and the probable fault F5 day-
lights almost on the slope face, resulting in a very low probability
of wedge failure, leading to a very high FS as expected. Hence, the
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
results of the limit equilibrium analyses indicated that neither
planar nor wedge failure was to be expected along the entrance
or exit portal cut side slopes even under saturated conditions for
a side slope of 1/3 (h:V).
5.4. Reinforcement of the portal slopes
The entrance and exit portal slopes of the Geçilmez tunnel were
analyzed by both kinematic and limit equilibrium analyses and it
was determined that the portal slopes were generally stable and
safe. But in order to be conservative and to reduce the possibility
of future slope failures, the portal slopes are recommended to be
supported according to the specifications of the Turkish Depart-
ment of State Highways (2002) as presented below:
 10 cm shotcrete (applied as 5 + 5 cm layers) and wiremesh (one
layer),
 systematic rock bolts (U = 26 mm, L = 6 m long, spacing
3  3 m).
6. Analysis and remediation of the structurally controlled rock
failures during tunneling
6.1. Introduction
In underground openings excavated in jointed rock masses at
relatively shallow depths, the most common types of failures are
those involving wedges falling from the roof or sliding out of the
sidewalk of the openings. These wedges are formed by intersecting
structural features, such as bedding planes and joints, which sepa-
rate the rock mass into discrete but interlocked pieces. When a free
face is created by the excavation of the opening, the restraint from
the surrounding rock is removed. One or more of these wedges can
fall or slide from the surface if the bounding planes are continuous
or rock bridges along the discontinuities are broken. Each wedge,
which is allowed to fall or slide, will cause a reduction in the re-
straint and the interlocking of the rock mass and this, in turn, will
allow other wedges to fall. This failure process will continue until
natural arching in the rock mass prevents further unravelling or
until the opening is full of fallen material (Hoek, 2006).
A characteristic feature of wedge failures in blocky rock is that
very little movement occurs in the rock mass before failure of the
wedge. In the case of a roof wedge which falls, failure can occur as
soon as the base of the wedge is fully exposed by the excavation of
the opening. For sidewall wedges, sliding a few millimeters along
one plane or along the line of intersection of two planes is gener-
ally sufficient to overcome the peak strength of these surfaces. This
dictates that movement along the surfaces must be minimized.
Consequently, the support system has to provide a ‘stiff’ response
to movement. This means that mechanically anchored rock bolts
need to be tensioned while fully grouted rock bolts or other contin-
uously coupled devices can be left untensioned. Mechanically an-
chored bolts with face plates or fully grouted bolts or cables can
be selected to provide support. In addition, a layer of shotcrete
can be applied to the excavation surface for additional support of
wedges in blocky ground, and can be very effective if applied cor-
rectly. This is because the base of a typical wedge has a large
perimeter and hence, even for a relatively thin layer of shotcrete,
a significant cross sectional area of material has to be punched
through before the wedge can fail (Hoek et al., 1995).
6.2. Wedge stability analysis of the Geçilmez tunnel
The software Unwedge (Rocscience, 2005) was utilized to deter-
mine the potential wedge failures that could possibly occur during
tunneling and to apply the necessary support systems for
287
stabilizing any wedge failure in the tunnel. The tunnel route, with
a trend of N47°E and a plunge of 0o was analyzed at three critical
sections, specifically the entrance portal (Sector 1), the central sec-
tor where two probable faults or shear zones F3 and F4 intersect
(Sector 5) and the exit portal of the tunnel (Sector 7) by utilizing
the major joint sets pertaining to each sector (Table 3). The
geomechanical rock mass parameters of the discontinuity surfaces
at each sector are presented in Table 4. A factor of safety (FS) of 1.5
was utilized in the tunnel stability analyses performed by
Unwedge.
6.2.1. Entrance portal of the tunnel (Sector 1)
This part includes the section at KM: 12 + 242–12 + 316 of the
tunnel grounds and the three dominant discontinuity sets repre-
senting this section were given previously as follows (note that
the pole density plots and the major discontinuity sets are given
by Figs. 6 and 7):
DS1 = 36°/293° (dip/dip direction).
DS2 = 65°/317°.
DS3 = 53°/003°.
At the entrance portal, three wedges of which two of them had a
potential for wedge failure with respect to tunneling were deter-
mined as presented in Fig. 13(a). Fig. 13(b) shows the results upon
application of the empirical support systems (presented by Table 2
for poor/B3 type of rock) which led to an increase in the factor of
safety values leading to stable wedges (FS > 1.5).
6.2.2. Central sector with two probable inactive faults or shear zones F3
and F4 (Sector 5)
This part includes the section at KM: 12 + 448–12 + 461 of the
tunnel grounds. A scan-line discontinuity survey was performed
along the tunnel route and 88 discontinuity measurements were
taken. Fig. 14 gives a pole density plot of the discontinuity sets
along the tunnel route. As a result of the stereographic plot of these
data, four main discontinuity sets were determined along the
tunnel route. A plot of these four main discontinuity sets and the
two probable shear zones F3 and F4 are given by Fig. 15 and are
summarized below:
DS1 = 18°/196° (dip/dip direction).
DS2 = 49°/146°.
DS3 = 27°/347°.
DS4 = 80°/074°.
DS5 = probable fault or shear zone F3 = 80°/018°.
DS6 = probable fault or shear zone F4 = 85°/272.
Wedge stability along the central part of the tunnel alignment
was assessed by studying the influence of each of the four discon-
tinuity sets (DS1–4) on the two fault or shear zones F3 and F4. At
the central sector nineteen wedges of which eleven of them had
a potential for wedge failure with respect to tunneling were deter-
mined as presented in Fig. 16a. Fig. 16b shows the results upon
application of the empirical support systems (presented by Table 2
for poor/B3 type of rock) which did not entirely lead to an increase
in the factor of safety values leading to stable wedges. In other
words, when the influence of the discontinuity sets DS2 and DS4
were analyzed separately in conjunction with the two fault or
shear zones (F3 and F4) along the tunnel alignment after the appli-
cation of the empirical support systems, safety factors of the poten-
tial roof wedges of DS2–8 and DS4–4 were calculated as 1.493 and
1.337 (Fig. 16b), respectively (FS < 1.5). This may imply that poten-
tial wedge failures (i.e., excessive overbreak, collapsing and defor-
mation risks) might occur along the roof of the tunnel. In such a
case, an increase in the preliminary support elements (i.e., steel
288 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

support, wiremesh, shotcrete, invert concrete, etc.) may be utilized
to decrease the possibility of wedge failure along the tunnel in
these two probable fault or shear zones (Sector 5). For this specific
case, an additional shotcrete thickness of 100 mm, which brought
the total shotcrete thickness to 350 mm was applied to increase
the structurally controlled stability along the roof of Sector 5. This
way, the safety factors of the potential roof wedges of DS2–8 and
DS4–4 increased up to 1.774 and 1.575, respectively, leading to
stable rock wedges.
6.2.3. Exit portal of the tunnel (Sector 7)
This part includes the section at KM: 12 + 531–12 + 579 of the
tunnel grounds and the four dominant discontinuity sets along
with one probable fault or shear zone (F5) representing this section
were given previously as follows (note that the pole density plots
and the major discontinuity sets are given by Figs. 9 and 10):
DS1 = 63°/171° (dip/dip direction).
DS2 = 36°/167°.

(a) prior to application of support (b) after application of support

Fig. 13. A perspective view and related safety factors of the potential wedge failures determined at the tunnel entrance portal (a) prior to and (b) after application of the
tunnel support systems.

Fig. 14. Pole density plot of the discontinuity sets along the tunnel route.
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299 289

DS3 = 23°/320°.
DS4 = 70°/306°.
DS5 = probable fault or shear zone F5 = 81°/018°.
Wedge stability at the exit portal of the tunnel was as-
sessed by studying the influence of two of the four discontinu-
ity sets (DS1–4) on the probable fault or shear zone F5 at a
time. At the exit portal, nineteen wedges of which four of
them had a potential for wedge failure with respect to tunnel-
ing were determined as presented in Fig. 17a. Fig. 17b shows
the results upon application of the empirical support systems
(presented by Table 2 for poor/B3 type of rock) which led to
an increase in the factor of safety values leading to stable
wedges (FS > 1.5).

Fig. 15. The major discontinuity sets in basalt and the two probable shear zones F3 and F4 along the tunnel route.

F3-F4 & DS1 F3-F4 & DS3

F3-F4 & DS2 F3-F4 & DS4

Fig. 16a. A perspective view and related safety factors of the potential wedge failures determined at the tunnel central sector prior to application of the empirical support
systems. Note that the influence of each of the four discontinuity sets (DS1–4) were analyzed separately in conjunction with the two shear zones F3 and F4 along the tunnel
alignment.
290 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

F3-F4 & DS1 F3-F4 & DS3

F3-F4 & DS2 F3-F4 & DS4

Fig. 16b. A perspective view and related safety factors of the potential wedge failures determined at the tunnel central sector after application of the empirical support
systems. Note that the influence of each of the four discontinuity sets (DS1–4) were analyzed separately in conjunction with the two shear zones F3 and F4 along the tunnel
alignment.

F5 & DS2-4 F5 & DS1-3

F5 & DS 3-4 F5 & DS1-4

Fig. 17a. A perspective view and related safety factors of the potential wedge failures determined at the tunnel exit portal prior to application of the empirical support
systems. Note that the influence of two of the four discontinuity sets (DS1–4) were analyzed separately in conjunction with the probable fault F5 at a time.
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
F5 & DS2-4
F5 & DS3-4
Fig. 17b. A perspective view and related safety factors of the potential wedge failures determined at the tunnel exit portal after application of the empirical support systems.
Note that the influence of each of the four discontinuity sets (DS1–4) were analyzed separately in conjunction with the probable fault F5 at a time.
7. In situ and induced stress analysis around the Geçilmez
tunnel
7.1. Introduction
The finite element software Phase2 (Rocscience, 2010) was used
to determine the induced stresses and deformations developed
around the rock mass surrounding the tunnel and the interaction
of the proposed preliminary support systems with the tunnel
grounds assuming that the rock mass behaved as a fractured rock
mass since the tunnel ground is moderate to highly jointed. As sta-
ted before, the tunnel is planned to be constructed as a single tube
horseshoe shaped tunnel with a 10 m span and 8 m height. The
tunnel grounds were analyzed and modeled with Phase2 with the
geotechnical parameters presented in Table 4. As the tunnel
grounds are moderate to highly jointed, the Generalized Hoek–
Brown plastic failure criterion was used with Phase2 (Rocscience,
2010).
The objective of Phase2 was to check the validity of the empir-
ical preliminary tunnel support requirements given in Table 2,
using the top heading and bench method of excavation as sug-
gested by the Turkish Department of State Highways (2002) and
also to compare the results with those obtained through Unwedge
which assumes structurally controlled failures (i.e., wedge failure)
during tunneling. Modeling with Phase2 consisted of four stages. In
the first stage, in situ stress distributions (gravity loading due to
the thickness of the overburden at the design elevation) were
examined. In the following two stages, the induced displacements
and the yield points (shear and tension) developed around the tun-
nel were analyzed by using top heading followed by excavating the
entire tunnel. In the final stage, the performances of the
291
F5 & DS1-3
F5 & DS1-4
preliminary support systems (i.e., shotcrete and rock bolting) were
investigated.
7.2. Numerical modeling
The tunnel grounds were analyzed and modeled with Phase2 at
the three critical sectors, namely, Sector 1 (the entrance portal),
Sector 5 (the most critical zone entailing the intersection of inac-
tive faults or shear zones) and Sector 7 (the exit portal). The follow-
ing section summarizes the results of the finite element analyses at
the three different sectors.
7.2.1. Finite element modeling of Sector 1 (the entrance portal) of the
Geçilmez tunnel
In this tunnel section, the support systems that were empiri-
cally determined in Table 2 were utilized. The finite element mesh
of the unsupported and supported tunnel section at the end of the
third and final (fourth) stages of tunneling, the total displacements
and the extent of yield zones (shear and tension) in the rock mass
are shown in Figs. 18–20, respectively. The displacements and the
extent of the yield (failure) zone decreased after support installa-
tion. Therefore, it may be concluded that the support recommen-
dations given in Table 2 and checked through the software
‘‘Unwedge’’ were also deemed satisfactory according to the results
obtained by Phase2 in order to stabilize the entrance portal of the
tunnel.
7.2.2. Finite element modeling of Sector 5 (intersection of the inactive
probable faults or shear zones) of the Geçilmez tunnel
In this tunnel section, the support systems that were empiri-
cally determined in Table 2 were utilized. The finite element mesh
292 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

Fig. 18. Finite element mesh of the supported entrance portal section at the end of the final (fourth) stage of tunneling.

Fig. 19. Total displacements around the (a) unsupported entrance portal section and (b) supported entrance portal section at the end of the third and fourth stages of
tunneling, respectively.
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
Fig. 20. Extent of the yield zones around the (a) unsupported entrance portal section and (b) supported entrance portal section at the end of the third and fourth stages of
tunneling, respectively.
of the unsupported and supported tunnel sections at the end of the
third and final (fourth) stages of tunneling, the total displacements
and the extent of yield zones (shear and tension) in the rock mass
for Sector 5 are presented by Figs. 21–23, respectively. Regarding
Sector 5, the displacements and the extent of the yield (failure)
zone generally slightly decreased after support installation
(Fig. 22 and Fig. 23). Although, at Sector 5, the support recommen-
dations given in Table 2 were deemed satisfactory according to the
results obtained by Phase2 to stabilize the tunnel section, the
support recommendations checked through the software
‘‘Unwedge’’ did not give satisfactory results for some section due
to the structural instability of the shear zones which was not pos-
sible to detect by using continuous rock mass modeling (such as
Phase2) in some cases given above. During the modeling of contin-
uous rock masses, it is difficult to idealize the kinematically con-
trolled rock mass or fault zones, which may be insufficient for
describing deformation, failure mechanism and other failure re-
lated phenomenon encountered during tunnel excavation. Hence,
when studying structurally (kinematically) controlled rock masses,
it may be desirable to consider the continuous characteristics as
well as the structural (discontinuous) characteristics of the rock
masses during modeling.
293
7.2.3. Finite element modeling of Sector 7 (the exit portal) of the
Geçilmez tunnel
In this tunnel section, the support systems that were empiri-
cally determined in Table 2 were utilized. The finite element mesh
of the unsupported and supported tunnel section at the end of the
third and final (fourth) stages of tunneling, the total displacements
and the extent of yield zones (shear and tension) in the rock mass
are shown in Figs. 24–26, respectively. The displacements and the
extent of the yield (failure) zone decreased after support installa-
tion. Therefore, it may be concluded that the support recommen-
dations given in Table 2 and checked through the software
‘‘Unwedge’’ were also deemed satisfactory according to the results
obtained by Phase2 in order to stabilize the exit portal of the
tunnel.
7.2.4. Validation of preliminary tunnel support thorough thrust–
moment interaction
Sauer et al. (1994) introduced the basic considerations of the
capacity limit curves (CLC) and demonstrated the design of cross
sections or shotcrete lined tunnels by the use of CLC’s. Such curves
determine all combinations of bending moment and thrust that
can be endured by a given concrete or shotcrete cross-section.
294 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

Fig. 21. Finite element mesh of the supported tunnel section at the end of the final (fourth) stage of tunneling at Sector 5.

Fig. 22. Total displacements around the (a) unsupported tunnel section and (b) supported tunnel section at the end of the third and fourth stages of tunneling at Sector 5,
respectively.
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299 295

Fig. 23. Extent of the yield zones around the (a) unsupported tunnel section and (b) supported tunnel section at the end of the third and fourth stages of excavation at Sector
5, respectively.

Fig. 24. Finite element mesh of the supported exit portal section at the end of the final (fourth) stage of tunneling.
296 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
Fig. 25. Total displacements around the (a) unsupported exit portal section and (b) supported exit portal section at the end of the third and fourth stages of tunneling,
respectively.
The principle of CLC’s is to present computed thrust (N) and bend-
ing moment (M) combinations vs. all possible maximum allowable
section forces in a diagram. For this purpose all combinations of
calculated section forces for a given plain or reinforced cross
section are graphed in a diagram with the thrust at the abscissa
and the bending moment at the ordinate. Although the most unfa-
vorable deformation and the load scenario on support elements
presented above appear to be in acceptable limits and the empiri-
cally determined support members are deemed to be safe enough
to support the tunnel, preliminary tunnel support (e.g., shotcrete
alone) was also validated on the basis of the resulting factor of
safety with respect to failure through using thrust–moment inter-
action diagrams as suggested by Sauer et al. (1994) and Hoek
(2007). The moment-axial thrust capacity curves plotted in
Fig. 27(a)–(c) by the RESPONSE2000 software (Sauer et al., 1994)
were calculated for a factor of safety of 1.0 on the basis that the
shotcrete is temporary. Those curves have been calculated for Sec-
tor 1 (the entrance portal), Sector 5 (the inactive fault or shear zone
intersection) and Sector 7 (the exit portal), respectively. In these
analyses, some cracking and crushing can be tolerated provided
that it does not lead to progressive failure. Similarly, as it can be
observed from the plots of the analyses results, there are some
points falling beyond the region formed by capacity curves. These
curves were calculated on the assumption that the preliminary lin-
ing consists of 250 mm thick shotcrete without any reinforcement.
Consequently, those linings consisting of shotcrete can be said to
be acceptable.
8. Summary and conclusions
In this study, the stability assessment and the design of the
Geçilmez tunnel which is constructed in Giresun, along the Black
Sea coastline, Turkey was investigated. The study began with 1/
1000 scale geological mapping of the study area and the
determination of the geotechnical characteristics of the rock
masses in the area. Then, rock mass classification of the tunnel
grounds was completed and the geotechnical parameters that were
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299
Fig. 26. Extent of the yield zones around the (a) unsupported exit portal section and (b) supported exit portal section at the end of the third and fourth stages of tunneling,
respectively.
necessary for the stability analysis and for the design of the tunnel
were determined.
During the geological mapping of the study area, it was deter-
mined that the entire tunnel ground was composed of basalt which
is generally slightly to moderately weathered, moderate to highly
jointed, medium strong to strong. The basaltic rock constituting
the tunnel ground was classified through the RMR-system, Q-sys-
tem and NATM as ranging from very poor to fair according to the
RMR and Q-system and as B2 (friable) and B3 (very friable) accord-
ing to NATM.
The results of the water pressure (Lugeon) tests indicated that
the permeability of the rock mass ranged from very low permeabil-
ity (0.32 L) to low permeability (2.86 L) with a mean permeabil-
ity ± one standard deviation of 1.39 ± 0.921 L (low permeability).
Kinematic and limit equilibrium rock slope stability analyses
were performed at the portal face and portal side slopes. Following
the slope stability analyses, recommendations were made
regarding the required support systems or appropriate slope
297
remediation measures (i.e., systematic rock bolting, shotcrete and
wiremesh).
Regarding the structurally controlled rock failures along the
probable weak zones and lineaments (i.e., inactive probable faults
or shear zones) during tunneling, wedge stability analysis was uti-
lized by using the Unwedge software to determine the potential
wedge failures that could possibly occur during tunneling and to
apply the necessary support systems for stabilizing any wedge fail-
ure in the tunnel (i.e., the performances of the empirical support
systems were checked).
The finite element software Phase2 was used to determine the
induced stresses and deformations developed around the rock
mass surrounding the tunnel and to check the validity of the
empirical preliminary tunnel support requirements obtained by
the RMR, Q-system and NATM. An additional objective of Phase2
was to compare the results with those obtained through Unwedge
which assumes structurally controlled failures (i.e., wedge failure)
during tunneling. Because it is difficult to idealize structurally
298 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299

2.5
Cracking

Crush on bottom
2.0
Crush on top

Top Heading+support
1.5

Axia lthrust (MN)

Full excavation

1.0 Full excavation+support

0.5

-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0.0

(a)
0.5
Moment (MNm/m)

3.0
Cracking

2.5 Crush on bottom

Crush on top
2.0
Top Heading+support
Axia lthrust (MN)

1.5 Full excavation

Full excavation+support
1.0

0.5
-0.19
-0.18
-0.17
-0.16
-0.15
-0.14
-0.13
-0.12
-0.11

-0.09
-0.08
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
-0.1

0.0

(b)
0.5
Moment (MNm/m)

2.5
Cracking

Crush on bottom
2.0
Crush on top

Top Heading+support
1.5
Axia lthrust (MN)

Full excavation

1.0 Full
excavation+support

0.5

-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0.0

(c)
0.5
Moment (MNm/m)

Fig. 27. Shotcrete stability analyses of the Geçilmez tunnel through the RESPONSE 2000 software for (a) Sector 1 (the entrance portal), (b) Sector 5 (the inactive shear zone
intersection) and (c) Sector 7 (the exit portal).

(kinematically) controlled rock mass or fault zones in terms of basis of thrust–moment interaction analyses through the RE-
describing deformation, failure mechanism and other phenomenon SPONSE2000 software.
encountered during tunnel excavation by using continuous rock
mass modeling, when studying structurally (kinematically) Acknowledgements
controlled rock masses, it may be desirable to consider the contin-
uous characteristics as well as the structural (discontinuous) char- Thanks are due to Mr. Hasan Özaslan of Yüksel Proje Interna-
acteristics of the rock masses during modeling. tional A.Sß. for his kind assistance throughout the project and for
Upon installation of the empirical preliminary support systems, supplying Fig. 2. The authors are thankful to Dr. Kıvanç Okalp,
the total displacements and the extent of the failure zones around Coordinator of Projects, Beray Engineering Consultancy Ltd., for
the tunnel was generally reduced. Therefore, it was concluded that his assistance in re-drafting Fig. 4 and to Dr. Evrim Sopacı, Senior
the empirical support recommendations given for tunnel design Geological Engineer, Temelsu International Engineering Services
were generally satisfactory. The performance of the preliminary Inc., for his valuable suggestions in some of the numerical model-
tunnel support (e.g., shotcrete alone) was also validated on the ing steps.
 H. Akgün et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 277–299 299

References ISRM, 1981. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities
in rock masses. In: Barton, E.T. (Ed.), Rock Characterization, Testing and
Monitoring. Pergamon Press, Oxford, London, 221p.
Barton, N., 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation
Metag Engineering Co. Ltd., 1972. General Prospection Report for the Giresun
and tunnel design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39, 185–216.
Region, vol. 1. DPT Copper Project, pp. 6–20 (in Turkish).
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the
Quinones-Rozo, C., 2010. Lugeon test interpretation, revisited. In: Collaborative
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6 (4), 189–236.
Management of Integrated Watersheds, 30rd Annual USSD (United States
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In: Proc. Symp.
Society on Dams) Conference, April 12–16, US Society on Dams, Denver, CO,
Exploration for Rock Engineering, 1, Cape Town, Balkema, pp. 97–106.
USA, pp. 405–414.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual
Rocscience, 2004. DIPS Version 5.103, Graphical and Statistical Analysis of
for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering, Wiley,
Orientation Data, Rocscience Inc. 31 Balsam Ave., Toronto, Ontario M4E 1B2,
New York, 251p.
Canada.
Bye, A.R., Bell, F.G., 2001. Stability assessment and slope design at Sandsloot open
Rocscience, 2005. UNWEDGE Version 3.009, Underground Wedge Stability Analysis,
pit, South Africa. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 449–466.
Rocscience Inc. 31 Balsam Ave., Toronto, Ontario M4E 1B2, Canada.
Diederichs, M.S., Hoek, E., 1989. DIPS Software (Data Interpretation Package Using
Rocscience, 2007. RocLab Version 1.031, Rock Mass Strength Analysis Program
Stereographic Projection). Rock Engineering Group, Department of Civil
using the Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion, Rocscience Inc. 31 Balsam Ave.,
Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada, p. 90.
Toronto, Ontario M4E 1B2, Canada.
Hoek, E., 2006. Course Notes, Practical Rock Engineering, Revised 2007 Ed. Toronto,
Rocscience, 2010. Phase2 Version 7,013, Finite Element Analysis for Excavations
Canada, p. 237. <http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/corner/
and Slopes, Rocscience Inc. 31 Balsam Ave., Toronto, Ontario M4E 1B2,
Practical_Rock_Engineering.pdf>.
Canada.
Hoek, E., 2007. Integration of geotechnical and structural design in weak rock
Sauer, G., Gall, V., Bauer, E., Dietmaier, P., 1994. Design of tunnel concrete linings
tunnels. Discussion by Evert Hoek, August, RocNews (RocScience Newsletter,
using limit capacity curves. In: Siriwardane, H.J., Zaman, M.M. (Eds.), Proc. 8th
Spring, 2007).
Int. Conf. for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Balkema,
Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering. Revised 3rd Ed. Institution of
Rotterdam, NL, pp. 2621–2626.
Mining and Metallurgy, London, 358p.
Serafim, J.L., Pereira, J.P., 1983. Considerations of the geomechanical classification of
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock
Bieniawski. In: Proc. 12th Congr. on Large Dams, Mexico City, pp. 59–68.
Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 34 (8), 1165–1186.
Temelsu International Engineering Services Inc., 1994. The final Project Report of
Hoek, E., Diederichs, M.S., 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int. J.
the Hapan Tunnel, vol. 1. Turkish Department of State Highways (Karayolları
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (2), 203–215.
Genel Müdürlüğü, KGM), pp. 1–33 (in Turkish).
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995. Support of Underground Excavations in
Turkish Department of State Highways, 2002. Technical Specification of Turkish
Hard Rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, 215p.
Department of State Highways, Turkish Department of State Highways (in
Hunt, R.E., 1996. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis and Evaluation. McGraw-Hill
Turkish).
Book Co., New York, 729p.