Erbil Polytechnic University

Engineering College

“Tunnel Engineering”

Prepared by:
Aram Faisal
ROCK MASS STRENGTH FOR TUNNEL Shwan Ramadan
Dilan Sadiq
SUPERVISED BY : M.SC. AHMAD S. ALI
Hiwa Hamid
 OBJECTIVES

 Introduction

 Parameters for Rock mass Classification

 Common rock mass classification systems

 Rock mass strength

 Rock mass strength for tunnel

 How to minimize the risks in tunneling work

 Rock mass strength assessment based on rock mass rating gsi

 Rock mass strength assessment based on joint spacing and joint conditions

 Rock mass strength based on bieniawski’s rock mass rating system rmrb

 Tensile strength and equivalent mohr – coulomb strength

envelope 2

 Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION :

In the last decades the study of discontinuous rock mechanics has developed tremendously. For
constructions, such as slopes, foundations and shallow tunnels it has been recognized that
discontinuities have a major influence on the mechanical properties of a rock mass. This perception has
major consequences for the assessment of the engineering behavior of a rock mass.

The strength of a rock mass for tunnels purposes is for a large part determined by the discontinuities in
the rock mass. Numerical calculations of discontinuous rock masses prove often to be cumbersome and
unreliable. Rock mass classification may be an equal or more reliable methodology.

The criterion is developed in the context of a slope stability classification system, however, there is no
reason that the criterion is not also valid for the determination of rock mass strength for other purposes,
such as foundations on a discontinuous rock mass. The results of the strength criterion are compared to
the results of the ’modified Hoek-Brown strength criterion’ and to the rock mass strength as determined
by Bieniawski’s classification system
 PARAMETERS FOR ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION

 To derive the overall behavior of a rock mass, both the engineering properties of the
rock material and the fractures should be taken into consideration. The most significant
parameters that are used in classification systems are the following:
1. Strength and deformability of intact rock
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) which considers the intensity of fracturing in a drill
core
3. Rock fractures parameters (spacing, orientation, width, roughness, weathering, etc.)
4. Groundwater pressure and flow
5. In-situ stress
6. Geological structures such as faults and folds

4
COMMON ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

 Rock Load Classification: Introduced by Terzaghi in 1946, the system evaluates

the impact of rock load on steel supported tunnels based on a descriptive

classification of rock classes.

 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System: The RMR system was developed by

Bieniawski in 1973 in order to derive the required support measures for tunnels.
The system is practical as it uses a few basic parameters. Since its conception, it
has been tested and improved by many case studies.
5
COMMON ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

 Q-system: The Q-system was introduced by Barton, Lien, and Lunde in 1974 and its
purpose was to determine the rock mass characteristics and tunnel support measures
based on 212 hard rock tunnel case histories from Scandinavia. Q-rating is derived
by assigning values to six parameters that are grouped into three quotients.

 Geological Strength Index (GSI): GSI was introduced by Hoek in 1994. Its purpose
was to derive the rock mass properties by using in-situ observations of the rock mass
conditions along with correlations developed from the RMR-system. GSI utilizes 2
main parameters, the rock mass structure and the discontinuity surface quality.

6
 Table 1. Major rock mass classification systems (Cosar, 2004)
Rock Mass Classification Country of
Originator Application Areas
System Origin

Rock Load Terzaghi, 1946 USA Tunnels with steel Support

Stand-up time Lauffer, 1958 Australia Tunneling

New Austrian Tunneling

Pacher et al., 1964 Austria Tunneling
Method (NATM)
Rock Quality Designation
Deere et al., 1967 USA Core logging, tunneling
(RQD)
Rock Structure Rating
Wickham et al., 1972 USA Tunneling
(RSR)
Bieniawski, 1973 (last Tunnels, mines, (slopes,
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) South Africa
modification 1989-USA) foundations)
Modified Rock Mass Rating
Ünal and Özkan, 1990 Turkey Mining
(M-RMR)
Barton et al., 1974 (last
Rock Mass Quality (Q) Norway Tunnels, mines, foundations
modification 2002)

Strength-Block size Franklin, 1975 Canada Tunneling

Basic Geotechnical Classifi

ISRM, 1981 International General
cation

Rock Mass Strength (RMS) Stille et al., 1982 Sweden Metal mining

Unified Rock Mass

Classification System Williamson, 1984 USA General
(URCS)
Communication Weakening
Singh, 1986 India Coal mining
Coefficient System (WCS)

Rock Mass Index (RMi) Palmström, 1996 Sweden Tunneling

Geological Strength Index

Hoek and Brown, 1997 Canada All underground excavations
(GSI)
ROCK MASS STRENGTH

 The assessment of rock mass strength is a key element in any rock excavation for

both, open pit and underground excavations.

 When numerical models are used as a tool of analysis, this strength is defined in

terms of a strength envelope.

8
ROCK MASS STRENGTH FOR TUNNEL

 Tunneling work includes constructing a tunnel and associated temporary works of

setting up
access roads and working yards.

 The design of a tunnel is not similar to that of a plant or structure and it is difficult
to assume accurate geological conditions, properties and variability of rock mass
along the tunnel.

 Tunnel design is generally carried out on the basis of less reliable geotechnical
assumptions in comparison with other designs in the preliminary stage .

9
 HOW TO MINIMIZE THE RISKS IN TUNNELING WORK

1. To review existing information and conduct site investigations to assume accurate

geological and geotechnical conditions along the tunnel alignment.

2. To implement an inspection of excavation surface in the construction stage to

compare the actual geological and geotechnical conditions with the assumed
conditions in the design stage.

3. To monitor deformation of the excavated tunnel cavern and stress and/or strain of
installed measurement devices around the tunnel to detect any abnormalities in order
to conduct countermeasures if necessary.

4. 4. To review and modify the specification of the rock mass classification system and
selection of tunnel support based on the actual geological and geotechnical conditions
10

confirmed in the construction stage, if necessary.

 ROCK MASS STRENGTH ASSESSMENT BASED ON ROCK
MASS RATING GSI

 The rock mass strength can be evaluated using the Hoek – Brown failure criteria [Hoek,
1995]. The strength envelope written in term of the principal stresses is shown in Eq. (1).
…. EQ (1)

Where σci is the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock (UCS), and the
parameters mb, s and a are related with
the rock mass rating through the GSI. These relationships are shown in Eq (2), (3) and
(4).
..…. EQ (2)

……. EQ (3)

…. EQ (4)
11

where mi is a material constant and D is a Disturbance Factor.A correlation between the GSI
index and the rock mass quality can be seen in Figure 1
Figure 1: Correlation
between GSI and
rock mass properties
and Nf and Nc
parameters definition.
Ro science [8]

12
ROCK MASS STRENGTH ASSESSMENT BASED ON JOINT
SPACING AND JOINT CONDITIONS

 The GSI is insensitive to those rock mass characteristics that most influence rock

mass strength. A series of relationships are

proposed that seek to partially address this issue by differentiating rock masses
having the same GSI. These relationships
are functions of two parameters, Nf and Nc. Nf is a function of the characteristics of
the fracturing and interlocking and Nc is
a function of the joint condition. The variation of these parameters is conceptually
shown in Figure 1

13
14
15
ROCK MASS STRENGTH BASED ON BIENIAWSKI’S ROCK
MASS RATING SYSTEM RMRB

 The basic parameters used in Bieniawski’s Rock Mass Rating (RMRB) system are:•

Strength of Intact Rock σci• Drill Core Quality RQD

• Spacing of discontinuity
• Condition of Discontinuities (based on discontinuity length, aperture width, roughness,
infill type and thickness of the weathering)
• Ground Water
If RMRB is used as a Rock Mass Classification system, the Nf and Nc parameters must
be calculated using Eq. (9) and (10)

16
17
TENSILE STRENGTH AND EQUIVALENT MOHR – COULOMB STRENGTH
ENVELOPE

 The tensile strength σt for the rock mass can be calculated by setting σ1=σ3 = σt in Eq.

(1) and can be calculated using Eq. (14).

 This represents a biaxial tension. For brittle materials, the uniaxial tensile strength is

equal to the biaxial tensile strength (Hoek, 1983)

18
19
 CONCLUSION

 A new approach is presented to assess the parameters mb, s and a in the Hoek – Brown
failure criterion , The method uses
the joint condition and fracture frequency via RQD and spacing as input to the criterion.

 Two Rock Mass Classification systems are considered,; Bieniawski’s and Laubscher’s.
Instead of using the overall Rock Mass Rating RMR derived using one of these systems
as input to the strength criterion, two new parameters based on joint condition and
fracturing of the rock mass Nf and Nc are used. These new parameters can be evaluated
directly from the RMR and no new data is required .

 The procedure can address differences in joint condition and fracturing that are not
reflected in the rating systems. The proposed method can differentiate between the
strength of rock masses with high fracturing and clean rough joints and rock masses
with low fracturing and smooth joints with gouge, even though they might have the 20

same rock mass ratings.

SOURCE

 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6501-3_3

 https://www.geoengineer.org/education/rockmechanics/rock-mass-characterization

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277504261

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253645785

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282853848

 Guideline for Rock Mass Classification System (Technical Assistance for Improvement of

Capacity for Planning of Road Tunnels

21
Japan Sri Lanka)