£{ ,£=

ENGINEERING
GEOLOGY
ELSEVIER EngineeringGeology48 (1997) 59-81

Support pressure assessment in arched underground openings

through poor rock masses
B h a w a n i S i n g h a, R . K . G o e l b,., J . L . J e t h w a c, A . K . D u b e b
a Department o f Civil Engineering, University ofRoorkee, Roorkee 247 667, India
b CMRIRegional Centre, CBRI Campus, Roorkee 247 667, India
c C M R I Regional Centre, 54 B Shankar Nagar, Nagpur 440 010, India
Received 30 May 1996; received in revised form 13 February 1997; accepted 13 February 1997

Abstract

Himalayan tunnels provide challenging opportunities for working on the problem of assessment of support pressure
in tunnels. A resume of the efforts by Indian researchers on this topic is presented in this paper, with a brief review
and comparison with the approaches of Bieniawski (1979) and Barton et al. (1974; Analysis of Rock Mass Quality
and Support Practice in Tunnelling, and a Guide for Estimating Support Requirements, Report by NGI, June). It is
noted that Goel's classification of tunnelling conditions (Goel, 1994; Correlations for Predicting Support Pressures
and Closures in tunnels. Ph.D. Thesis, Nagpur University, India, p. 308) is complementary to the Q-system. Contrary
to Terzaghi's theory, support pressures are observed to be independent of opening size. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Classification; Pressure; Tunnel; Squeezing; Supports; Weak rocks

1. Introduction (Bieniawski, 1984). The construction engineers

and the geologists generally prefer the empirical
Reliable prediction of tunnel support pressure approaches over the theoretical and the numerical
is a difficult task. Starting with Terzaghi's rock approaches mainly due to their simplicity.
load concept (Terzaghi, 1946), several classifica- However, no classification has found universal
tion systems have been developed for estimating acceptance because none has been adequately
tunnel support pressures. Most of these systems backed by measured tunnel support pressures.
classify tunnelling conditions into several distinctly Thus, the degree of uncertainty in any of the
different groups and correlate these groups with classification systems is not known.
stable support capacities. This paper presents the state-of-art on assess-
In fact, the quantitative classification approach ment of support pressure on the basis of Indian
serves as the only practical basis for the design of tunnelling experience of over 20 years in more than
complex underground structures on many projects 60 instrumented tunnel sections in the Himalayas
and in other parts of the country, and also experi-
* Correspondingauthor. Tel.: +91 133272196 (0)/73720 (R); ences of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
FAX: +91 133275998. (NGI).

0013-7952/97/$17.00© 1997ElsevierScienceB.V. All rights reserved.

PH S0013-7952 (97)00019-7
60 B. Sinjzh el al. EngineermL, Geo/@,,y 48 t 1997~ 5~ ,W

Approaches for assessment of support pressure where or0 is the tangential stress and q,. mass is the
vary with the ground conditions and, therefore, uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass.
firstly an approach for the assessment of ground Eq. (1) can be written as follows lbr a circular
conditions is presented for arched underground tunnel under hydrostatic stress field
openings.
2P > q . . . . . . . (2 )

where P is the magnitude of in-situ stress and

2. Prediction of ground conditions for tunnelling approximately equal to the overburden pressure.
Use of Eq. (2) for predicting the squeezing
It is known that tunnelling through squeezing ground condition poses practical difficulties as the
ground conditions is relatively slow and problem- measurement of the in-situ stress and determina-
atic because the rock mass around the opening tion of the mobilized compressive strength of the
fails and looses its inherent strength under the rock mass are both time consuming and expensive.
influence of cover pressure. Underground excava- The research group of Prof. Jiri Nedoma has
tion, under such conditions, may mobilise high studied in-situ stresses due to interaction between
support pressures. Tunnelling under non-squeezing tectonic plates in North-East Himalaya (Nedoma,
ground conditions, on the other hand, is compara- 1996). Their study shows that there are compres-
tively easy because the inherent strength of the sion zones in the lower and upper Himalayas
rock mass is not lost. Therefore, an advance knowl- causing high horizontal stresses resulting into the
edge of the ground conditions (squeezing or non- uplift of mountains. The high in-situ stresses in
squeezing) plays an important role in designing younger and weak rock masses in the lower
the support system and for obtaining a good Himalayas has caused a high degree of squeezing
advance rate. in tunnels. Research by Prof. Nedoma (1996) has
Non-squeezing ground conditions are common shown that compression zones exist at upper plate
in the majority of tunnelling projects. Squeezing boundaries. Such proposed empirical correlations
ground conditions, on the other hand, have gen- (Table 2) may be applicable for tunnels in other
erally been encountered during tunnelling through mountain ranges.
the lower Himalayas in India, where the rock The above research may also explain the hori-
masses are weak, highly jointed, faulted, folded zontal stresses near surface in the undergoing
and tectonically disturbed and the overburden is tectonic plate reducing due to downward plate
high. The combination of the weak rock mass and bending. Therefore the chances of squeezing may
the high in-situ stress is responsible for squeezing. be less at shallower depths, and the suggested
Various ground conditions generally encountered correlations may not be applicable in such ten-
in tunnelling are given in Table 1. In this paper sion zones.
approaches for predicting the self-supporting, non-
squeezing and squeezing ground conditions are 2.2. Empirical approaches for arched underground
discussed. openings
Various approaches developed so far can be
grouped broadly into two categories as follows: The philosophy of empirical approaches, based
( 1 ) the theoretical approach, and (2) the empirical on the classification systems, is that a maximum
approach. overall rating suggests that all the parameters are
favourable and, similarly, a minimum rating indi-
cates that all the parameters are unfavourable.
2.1. The theoretical approach
Moreover, the role of each parameter increases as
rock mass condition or situation tends to be
The squeezing conditions around a tunnel open-
poorer. These are probably the reasons why classi-
ing are encountered if,
fication systems have proved successful and, there-
ao > q ...... ( 1) tore, became popular all over the world.
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 61

Table 1
Classification of ground conditions

Sr. no. Ground Sub-class Rock behaviour

classification

1 Elastic Self-supporting Massive or competent rock mass requiring no support for tunnel
stability
Non-squeezing Massive and competent rock mass requiring supports for tunnel
stability
2 Ravelling Chunks or flakes of rock mass begin to drop out of the arch or
walls due to loosening, sometimes after the rock mass is excavted
3 Squeezing Mild squeezing (u/a = 1-3%) Rock mass squeezes plastically into the tunnel. Rate of squeeze
Moderate squeezing (u/a = 3 5%) depends upon the degree of overstress. Occurs at shallow depths
High squeezing (u/a > 5%) in weak rock masses like clay (after Singh et al., 1973), etc. Hard rock
masses under high cover may move in combination of ravelling of
face and squeezing behind the face.
4 Swelling Rock mass absorbs water, increases in volume and expands slowly
into the tunnel, e.g., montmorillonite clay.
5 Running Granular material becomes unstable when exposed to steeper slopes.
6 Flowing A mixture of soil-like material and water flows into the tunnel.
The material can flow from invert as well as from the face, crown,
and wall and can flow for large distances completely filling the
tunnel in some cases.
7 Rock burst A violent failure in hard and massive rock masses when subjected
to high overstress.

u = radial tunnel closure; a = tunnel radius.

Table 2
Prediction of ground conditions using rock mass number N (after Goel et al., 1995)

Sr. no. Ground conditions Correlations

1 Self-supporting H < 2 3 . 4 N °'s8" B -°1 and 1000B -°'1

2 Non-squeezing 23.4NO.SS. B-O.l < H <275NO.33. B-O.~
3 Mild squeezing 275N °'33. B -°1 < H < 450N °33. B o.1
4 Moderate squeezing 450N0.33. B-0.t < H<630NO.33. B-O.1
5 High squeezing H > 630NO.33. B-0.~

2.3. The approach of Singh et al. (1992) tion > 10 even if RQD=0; J,=joint set number;
J, =joint roughness number for critically oriented
Singh et al. (1992) proposed an empirical joints; Ja=joint alteration number for critically
approach using Barton's rock mass quality Q and oriented joints; Jw =joint water reduction factor;
overburden H. Incidentally, a plot between these and SRF = stress reduction factor.
two parameters (Fig. 1) provided a clear-cut In the lower Himalayas, RQD was found to be
demarcation between the squeezing and the non- generally low (0-20%). However, according to
squeezing cases with the following equation for Barton et al. (1974), a minimum value of 10
this line of demarcation should be taken for RQD.
Eq.(3) suggests that a tunnel will exper-
H=350Q °'33 (3)
ience squeezing ground conditions when
where H = tunnel depth in metres; Q = rock mass H > 350Q°'33 m, Fig. 2 shows the plot between
quality (Barton et al., 1974) (Q=(RQD/J,)" H/Q °'33 and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
(J,/Ja)" (Jw/SRF)); RQD = rock quality designa- of rock material qc. It may be seen that there is
62 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81

2000
o-
b -
c-
MANERI BHALI PROJECT
SALAL PROJECT
TEHRI DAM PROJECT
•
x
NON SQUEEZING CONDITION
SQUEEZING CONDITION
"1
• - KOLARGOLD MINES ROCK BURST
f - CHIBRO KHODRI TUNNEL
g- GIRl HYDEL TUNNEL
1000 h- LOKTAK HYDEL TUNNEL
i - KH,I~RA HYDEL PROJECT
-159- BARTON'S CASE HISTORIES
E
xf
z
w SQUEEZING~, ~ x g
n, 500 o
Id
u~ xg xg
e: xg
tEl
>
~ xg •
xo 149
0 NON- SQUEEZING
x Xh
159 xf xf
•t04 ei05
C X
oc • o
200 Xg ! °c

Xh • 101 08
ei

b
100 , ~3 !5
v
i •_67v
74 75
0-001 0"01 O-1 1 I0 t00
ROCK MASS QUALITY, (Q)

Fig. 1. Criterion for predicting ground condition (after Singh et al., 1992).

no effect of qc on criterion of squeezing ground unreliable prediction. There are problems in

conditions (Eq. (3)). Grimstad and Barton ( 1993, obtaining a correct value of SRF near zones of
1995) and Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) have also weaknesses intersecting an excavation. Further, a
recommended this criterion. large range of SRF values are suggested by Barton
et al. (1974) when a shear zone only influences
2.4. Effect of thickness of the weak band on but does not intersect the excavation. For "compe-
squeezing ground conditions tent rock masses" the determination of SRF is
based on 0-1, 03, qc and q, values (where 0", and
Limited experience along the 29-km long tunnel c~3 are major and minor principal stresses, qc is
of the Nathpa-Jhakri project, H.P., India suggests unconfined compressive strength, and qt is tensile
that squeezing does not take place if the thickness strength of rock material ) and the suggested values
of band of weak rock mass is less than 2Q °'4 m. of SRF have wide ranges. For "squeezing and
However, more project data is needed for a better swelling rock masses", it is practically difficult to
correlation. even identify the category. Further it has been
experienced that the SRF does not adequately
2.5. Difficulties in estimating SRF represent the stress conditions of a rock mass, at
least for the squeezing ground conditions in the
Although Eq. (3) is quick and easy to use in the Himalayas (Goel, 1994).
field, the authors have experienced that estimating For example, two tunnels at depths from surface
a correct value of SRF is difficult in some cases. of 100 and 300 m, indicating different magnitudes
Incorrect selection of SRF values may lead to of cover pressure, are being excavated through the
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 63

1500

0
o

C~

e •

• • m ......
|

l
•" Uln I • |•
• l
100 150 2O0
qc, MPa

• No.-..o,~;,g . s,,.,=°g i
Fig. 2. Plot between H / Q °'33 and UCS of rock material qc (H= overburden in metres).

same rock mass with, say, a single zone of weak- definition of various parameters in Eq. (4) is the
ness containing clay or chemically disintegrated same as given in Eq. (3); (3) tunnel depth or rock
rock. For both tunnels, the SRF value will be 2.5, cover above tunnel roof H in metres to account
because the depth of excavation is more than 50 m. for in-situ stress condition; and (3) tunnel width
This clearly shows that precise weightage to stress B in metres for strength reduction of rock mass.
conditions is missing from SRF, thereby indicating The squeezing ground conditions have been
inadequacy in the Q-system in the complex divided into three sub-classes using the approach
Himalayan region. of Singh et al. (1995b). These are: (i) mild squee-
Grimstad and Barton (1993) have suggested to zing-closure of 1-3% of tunnel size; (ii) moderate
increase SRF to virtually ( S R F ) 2 for competent squeezing-closure of 3-5% of tunnel size; and (iii)
rock masses. Further research is under progress high squeezing-closure of > 5% of tunnel size.
at NGI. Tangential strain e0 is equal to the ratio of tunnel
Because of these problems, an easy to use empiri- closure and diameter. If it exceeds the failure strain
cal approach for predicting ground conditions, e I of the rock mass, squeezing will occur. It may
developed by Goel et al. (1995), is presented below. be added that mild squeezing may not begin even
if the closure is 1% and less than e I.
2.6. The approach of Goel et al. (1995)
2. 7. Criteria for ground conditions
The parameters selected for developing the
empirical approach are: ( I ) rock mass number, N
All the 98 data points are plotted on a log-log
N=(RQD/J,)(Jr/Ja)Jw (4) graph between rock mass number N and H . B°'1
64 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81

and are shown in Fig. 3, wherein the various 3. Prediction of support pressure in tunnels
ground conditions have been demarcated by
straight lines. The equations of these lines are 3.1. Non-squeezing and squeezing ground
given in Table 2. The tunnel depth H and the conditions
tunnel width B in the correlations of Table 2 are
in metres. These correlations may be used reliably The predicted support pressures from the
for predicting the ground conditions. approaches of Terzaghi (1946), Deere et al. (1969),
It is to be noted that equations given in Table 2 Barton et al. (1974) and Unal (1983) have been
are valid for a tunnel depth of up to 800 m and a compared with the measured values of support
tunnel diameter or width of up to 12 m. pressures under both non-squeezing and squeezing
Table 2 is found to be complementary to the Q- ground conditions, see Figs. 5 and 6, respectively.
system. Table 2 should be used first to predict the It has been observed that none of the approaches
ground conditions, and then SRF may be esti- are applicable under squeezing ground conditions,
mated from the SRF table of the Q-system. Fig. 4 whereas the approach of Barton et al. (1974)
shows the plot between H - B ° ' I / N 0'33 and uniaxial provides a reasonable estimate of support press-
compressive strength (UCS) of rock material qc. ure in non-squeezing ground conditions and
It may be seen in Fig. 4 that the criterion of for smaller tunnels under squeezing ground
squeezing in Table 2 is independent of q,.. conditions.

113000

Rock burst

/
Maximum recommended tunnel depth
1000

T-- • ..~,~ ,~~" ~-,--~, • ~ .

o -.
II1
- . / •
• / . . .
1017
; , , ~ .- _. .-; :,/.. • •
• : -. : Self- supporting

• . "-.// . ;
Non - squeezing / / ~ •*

/
10 I i
0.01 01 1 10 100 1000
Rock Mass Number N

' • NON-SQUEEZING • SELFSUPPORTING • SQUEEZING (~) ROCKBURST

i
Fig. 3. Prediction of ground conditions (after Goel et al., 1995; H = overburden in metres, B = tunnel width in metres and N = Q. S R F ).
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 65

20oo

looo
c~
(
Hi~a Squeezing

. Moderate Squeezing
u
~0 ° .
, s* Mild Squeezin 8
t
275
N
| . m~ • * .
t *' Ncm- Squeezing
nu n
'u ' , n. .I , • u
0
0 50 100 150 200
qe, MPa
Fig. 4. Plot betweenH. B°':/N °'33 and UCS of rock materialqc (B=tunnelwidth in metres).

The reliability of quantitative classification sys- does not adequately represent the squeezing effect
tems for estimating tunnel support pressure has probably due to lack of sufficient number of case
increased with the passage of time. The recent histories. Therefore, tunnel depth was considered
work in India on the development of correlations as an additional parameter to give adequate
for predicting support pressures and experiences weightage to the in-situ stress. Finally, the "time
on the use of the Q-system of Barton et al. (1974) factor" was introduced as the third parameter
and the RMR-system of Bieniawski (1973) are because tunnel closure and, therefore, the support
presented in this paper. pressure increases with time under squeezing
conditions.
3.2. Correlations o f Singh et al. (1992) Considering the above three parameters, in addi-
tion to the original six of the Q-system, Singh
A stiffer tunnel support system undergoes et al. (1992) proposed correction factors f, f ' and
smaller deformations and attracts higher support f " for tunnel depth, tunnel closure and time after
pressure. A flexible support system, on the other supporting, respectively. They modified Barton's
hand, permits greater deformations and attracts correlation for short-term support pressure as fol-
smaller pressure. The support stiffness is therefore lows:
an important parameter in any correlation for
Pi = [0.2.( 5Q)-°'a3 /J,] "f "f ' "f " (MPa) (5)
tunnel support pressure. Since steel arch supports
with a variety of back-fills, such as tunnel muck, The correction factor f for tunnel depth is same
concrete blocks, lean concrete, etc., have been used for both the non-squeezing and squeezing ground
in most of the tunnel test-sections, tunnel closure conditions and is given as
was considered to represent the influence of sup-
f = 1 + ( H - 320)/800 > 1 (6a)
port stiffness.
Experience with the application of the Q-system in which H is the tunnel depth in metres. Eq. (6a)
in tunnelling under squeezing ground conditions implies that the correction for tunnel depth should
has shown that the stress reduction factor SRF be applied only when the tunnel depth exceeds
 0-3 0-3
T e r z a g h i (1946) /
Deere (1969) Barton et al. ( t 9 7 4 )
0
EL
:E O
(3.
0.2 0.2
-6
O.
-d
O..
x
Q.
Q;
01 0-I
0
o~ 0-t
"' 9~_e_7 •
< 4 4 7 m~ • 12 <[
1../,, 8 '7

1 2 HIGH SCATTER ~ ; ~ r : o.8t 5

I z • ~ | I l I I I J I l I /L 13 i J I I I I l I l i ~ l r~
0 o
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 O-I 0.2 0-3
p obsd., MPa P obsd. ~ MPo
5
0.3 "12 o.3 5
Wickham el el. ( 1972 )
Unol (1983) t2
o ELASTIC I
n
:E
oc
02 4 ',3 ;,
-.q

Q.. k~

1t Oc
r'~ 14 13 m 7 / ~
I. • 8 s ~ •
o
0-I
o
>
<
i;
9 ::
• ~2 . HIGH SCATTER HfGH SCATTER
" k ~ i l l 1 l 1 l 1 I I I I / I l I I I I I 1 1 [ I I 1 1
0
0 0-I 0"2 0"3 0 0.1 0-2 0.3
Pob sd. ,, M Po Pobsd. J M P o

(~) - ( ~ Small Tunnels ; (~ - (~) M e d i u m Tunnels ; (~ - (~ LargeTunnets

Fig. 5. Comparison of estimated and measured support pressures under non-squeezing ground conditions.
 1"2 /
1.6 Terzaghi (1946) • g
Wickham et al. ( ~ 9 7 2 ) Deere ( ~ 9 6 9 )

I SQUEEZING J 0
Q" 1.2
~0'8
?

~ 0-8

0
~- 0.4
<~ ~ 0-4

t~
"2 r =0.74

"T- , , , L , , , , z 0 i l l i i i I I I t I I I I I I
o L/',
0 0"4 0"8 t'2 0 0"4 08 1-2 4.6

Pobsd. ~ M P a P obsd. ~ MPo

c~

,.2 1.2
/
Barton et al. ( 1 9 7 4 ) Unal (t983)
/ -

0
~-° EZING
--1
0-8
~o
I cAsIEs ~ 9,o tal
ct ~3
I

/5 9 _~
• 2 / i = •
i- 0-4

<¢

0 J i 1 I I 1 I I I I I 0
0 0-4 0-8 1-2 0 O'4 0"8 t "2
P o b s d . ~ MPo Pobsd.) MPG

0- (~) Small Tunnels ) (~) M e d i u m T u n n e l s ; (~ ~ (~ Large Tunnels

Fig. 6. Comparison of estimated and measured support pressures under squeezing ground conditions.
68 R S&gh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59 81

320m. Grimstad and Barton (1993, 1995) have response curves for the squeezing ground
accepted a proposed correction factor for over- conditions.
burden also. Experiences in Himalayan tunnels
suggest that f adequately accounts for the stress
conditions for both non-squeezing and squeezing
3.3. Effect of tunnel size on support pressure in non-
ground conditions. Therefore, there is no need for
squeezing ground conditions
using increased SRF values as suggested by
Singh et al. (1992) have studied the effect of
Grimstad and Barton (1993).
tunnel size on support pressure. Fig. 8 shows the
The correction factor f ' for tunnel closure after
variation of normalized roof support pressure
Singh et al. (1992) is given as
pobsd/p . f . f , . f , , with the width of tunnel opening
jr', = P o b s d / f "Pi ( 6b ) (2a or B). The ordinate represents the normalized
observed roof support pressure corrected for the
where, p~ = short-term support pressure of Barton overburden, the tunnel closure and the time after
et al. (1974) (pi=O.2(5Q)-°33/jr) in MPa. excavation. It may be seen in Fig. 8 that the
The variation of Pobsa/J"Pi was plotted against support pressure is independent of tunnel size and
normalized tunnel closure (u,,/a) in Figs. 7(a) and between 2 and 22 m.
7(b) to obtain roof and wall correction factors, It may be noted that rock mass quality Q
i.e., froof and f ' a u , respectively. The normalized estimated from a larger tunnel would be smaller
tunnel closure is the ratio of tunnel closure and than that obtained from small drifts in a similar
tunnel width expressed in percent. It may be seen rock mass. This is due to the possibility of
in Fig. 7 that values off'roof and fwaU are almost intersecting more geological discontinuities and
equal and, therefore, both are denoted as f" and intrusions in a larger opening. So, in a wider
presented in Table 3. It can be seen that f ' was cavern, the range of Q values is observed to be
higher for low tunnel closure. It decreased grad- larger and the geometrical mean value reduces
ually with rise in tunnel closures and attained a with the size of cavern.
minimum value at 5% normalized closure.
However, the correction factor f ' again increased
when the normalized closure exceeded 6%. The 3.4. The Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) correlation
cause of rapid increase in support pressure is the Jbr squeezing ground conditions
onset of sympathetic failure within the broken
zone. Thus, it may be noted that the curves for f ' Using the cases of Scandinavian tunnels and the
in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) represent normalized ground data of Singh et al. (1992) and Goel et al. (1995),

Table 3
Correction factors)'" for tunnel closures (after Singh et al., 1992

Ground condition Support stiffness Tunnel closure Correction factor, f '

Non-squeezing Very stiff < 1 1.0

Squeezing Very stiff I 2 > 1.8
Squeezing Stiff 2 4 0.85
Squeezing Flexible 4 6 0.70
Squeezing Very flexible 6 8 1.75
Squeezing Extremely flexible >8 1.80

Note: the correction factor for tunnel closure, f', does not take into account the method of excavation and construction. For large
tunnels (dia.>9 m) under high squeezing ground conditions, full face excavation will not be possible and therefore heading and
benching methods of excavation would have to be adopted. In heading and benching methods the tunnel wall closure would be
excessive, and therefore the value o f / " would be very high.
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 69

l.q

u ¢',,I

u
%

( J°°J I ) |un$$l~Id I~,o)I O]l^lllsgo Olz;"1"rx~,~ @

.o

=1

_ . .
@

r-:

/
I

¢I11~| ]IBII$$JII~ v~O4~ O|All|SgO O|ZIIYHWC)N

70 B. Singh et al. ,' Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59 81

× - - SOUEEZING
• - - NON- SQUEEZING

Q} Ul
q~ ql

W- -i'- . . . . ~ . . . . . . . i[ ....... 0
n.
]{
(3,.
• ,,4 $.4
_1 ~ 0
~U

(:1 0

0 I i i I i

0 4 8 12 16 20

DIAMETER OF O P E N I N G ,rn

Fig. 8. Support pressure virtually independent o f tunnel size (after Singh et al., 1992).

Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) suggested a new blocks. Consequently, observed support pressures
correlation for poor qualities of brecciated rock are not higher for wider arched openings in non-
mass experiencing squeezing ground conditions squeezing ground conditions. However, there is
(H> 350Q°'~3 or H. B°'l >275N °'33) as follows: need for improvement in understanding the
mechanics of rock mass.
p =(40' B/Jr) Q-O.3S (kPa) (7) It is, therefore, suggested that in-situ stress along
where B is the span of the opening in metres. the tunnel axis should be accounted for in the
Eq. (7) suggests that the support pressure p wedge analysis for the prediction of support
increases with the increase in tunnel span B for pressures.
Recently Singh et al. (1995a) have compared
poor qualities of brecciated rock masses.
support pressures measured from tunnels and cav-
erns with estimates from Terzaghi's rock load
3.5. The modified rock load theory of Terzaghi concept. They found that the support pressure in
rock tunnels and caverns does not increase directly
The rock load theory of Terzaghi (1946) and with excavation size as assumed by Terzaghi (1946)
wedge theory show that support pressures are and others due mainly to dilatant behaviour of
proportional to the tunnel size. Terzaghi's theory rock masses, joint roughness and prevention of
of arching for tunnelling through soils is not loosening of rock mass by improved and modern
applicable for rock masses because rocks have pre- tunnelling technology. They have subsequently
existing planes of weaknesses unlike soils. Theory recommended modified ranges of support pres-
of rigid rock wedges does not give realistic predic- sures as given in Table 4. However, the support
tions, as the in-situ stress along the axis of tunnels pressure is likely to increase directly with the
and caverns pre-stress rock wedges. Only small excavation width for tunnels through slickensided
wedges tend to fall down due to the blasting shear zones, thick clay filled fault gouges, weak
vibrations. If openings are supported well and clay shales and running or flowing ground condi-
timely, interlocking of rock blocks with rough and tions where interlocking of blocks is likely to be
dilatant joints also arrests falling of the rock missing as in Terzaghi's trap door experiments.
Table 4
Recommendations of Singh et al. (1995a) on support pressure for rock tunnels and caverns

Terzaghi's classification Classification of Singh et al.

Category Rock conditions Rock load Category Rock condition Recommended support pressure (kgcm -2) Remarks
factor, Hp
Pv Ph

1 Hard and intact 0 1 Hard and intact 0 0

2 Hard, stratified 0-0.25B 2 Hard, stratified or 0.0-0.4 0
or schistose schistose
3 Massive, moderately 3 Massive, moderately 0.4-0.7 0
jointed 0-0.5B jointed
4 Moderately blocky, 0.25-0.35B (B+Ht) 4 Moderately blocky, 0.7 1.0 0-0.2pv Inverts may be
seamy and jointed seamy, very jointed required
5 Very blocky and 0.35-1.1 (B+Ht) 5 Very blocky and seamy, 1.0-2.0 0-0.5pv Inverts may be
seamy, shattered shattered, highly jointed, required, arched
thin shear zone or fault roof preferred
Completely crushed 1.1 (B+Ht) 6 Completely crushed but 2.0-3.0 0.3-1pv Inverts essential,
but chemically chemically unaltered, thick arched roof
intact shear and fault zone essential
Squeezing rock 1.1 2.1 (B+ Hi) 7 Squeezing rock condition Depends on primary Inverts essential
at moderate stress values Ph in excavation,
depth may exceed Pv arched roof essentail q~
o~
(A) Mild squeezing 3.0-4.0
(u/a up to 3%)
(B) Moderate squeezing 4.0 6.0
t.~
(u/a = 3-5%)
(C) High squeezing 6.0-14.0
(u/a>5%)
8 Squeezing rock at 2.1-4.5 (B+ Ht)
great depth
9 Swelling rock up to 80 m 8 Swelling rock Depends on orientation Inverts essential
irrespective of swelling material, Ph in excavation,
of B + H t may exceed Pv arched roof essential
(A) Mild swelling 3.0 8.0
(B) Moderate swelling 8.0-14.0
(C) High swelling 14.0-20.0

Pv = vertical support pressure; Ph = horizontal support pressure; B = width or span of opening; H t = height of opening; u = radial tunnel closure; a = B/2; thin shear zone =
up to 2 m thick.
72 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59 81

3.6. Correlation with rock mass number N (after tories pertaining to 9-m diameter sections from
Goel et al., 1995) the Chhibro-Khodri tunnel.

Considering tunnel depth, tunnel span, tunnel

closure and rock mass number N defined as stress- 3. 7. Correlations with rock mass rating (RMR)
free Q (SRF = 1), the following set of correlations
have been developed for predicting ultimate sup- Goel and Jethwa ( 1991 ) have proposed a corre-
port pressure: ( 1) for non-squeezing conditions lation for estimating the support pressure using
Bieniawski's RMR. The advantage of this correla-
Pel(N) = (0.11H°'lB°'l/N°'33)-0.038 (MPa) (8) tion is that it can be applied for both non-squeezing
and (2) for squeezing conditions and squeezing ground conditions without an
advance knowledge of the ground conditions. The
Psq(N) = [f(N)/30] [ 1 0 (H°'6B°~/53'5N°331] (MPa) (9) correlation is as follows:
where pe~(N)=ultimate support pressure in non-
p = (7.5BO.1.//0.5 - RMR)/20RMR (MPa) (10)
squeezing ground in MPa; psq(N)=ultimate sup-
port pressure in squeezing ground in MPa; f ( N ) =
where tunnel depth H and tunnel span B are in
correction factor for tunnel closure (see Table 5);
metres and support pressure p is in MPa.
H=tunnel depth in metres; B=tunnel span in
metres; and N=rock mass number given as
(RQD" J," Jw)/(J," J~). 3.8. Correlation with rock condition rating (RCR)
The variation o f f ( N ) was plotted against the
normalised tunnel closure in Fig. 9 which has Considering tunnel depth, tunnel span, tunnel
subsequently been used to prepare Table 5. closure and rock condition rating RCR (parame-
Estimated support pressures from Eqs. (8) and ter-wise equivalent to rock mass number N and
(9) for tunnel sections under non-squeezing and defined as Bieniawski's RMR, free from ratings of
squeezing ground conditions have been compared joint orientation and crushing strength of rock
with the measured values in Figs. 10(a) and 10(b), mass), Goel (1994) suggested the following set of
respectively. Eqs. (8) and (9) have good correla- correlations for predicting ultimate tunnel support
tion coefficients of 0.95 and 0.97, respectively. It pressure: (1) for non-squeezing conditions
can be seen in Fig. 10(b) that Eq. (9) provides
reliable support pressure values even for case his- peI(RCR) =(46.6H°'15B°'1/RCR 1"98)(MPa) ( 11 )

Table 5
Correction factory(N) for tunnel closure

Sr. no. Degree of squeezing (using Table 2) Normalised tunnel closure (%) Correction factor, J(N)

Very mild squeezing I 2 1.5

270N °'33- B -°'1 < H < 3 6 0 N °33. B ol)
Mild squeezing 2 3 1.2
360N ° 3 3 . B - ° ' I < H < 4 5 0 N °'33.B 0.1~
Mild to moderate squeezing 3 4 1.0
450N °33. B o.1 <H<540NO.33. B o.1)
Moderate squeezing 4 5 0.8
540N °33. B 0.~ <H<630NO.33. B ol)
High squeezing 5 7 1.1
630N °33. B -°1 < H < 8 0 0 N 0"33. B o.1)
Very high squeezing >7 1.7
800NO.33 • B o . l > H )

Note: normalised tunnel closure is defined as radial tunnel closure expressed in terms of percent of tunnel width.
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 73

2'5
I
Z
w,.
2"0

u
1"5

,,,..

I'0
u

o
0.=,
L..
t,
(J
0"0 1 I 1
0 2 4 6 El
Normalised funnel closure (44/a~ " / . ) "

Fig. 9. Correction factor for tunnel closure f(N) under squeezing ground conditions (after God et al., 1995).

and (2) for squeezing conditions Although tunnel span B continues to have less
influence on the support pressure under squeezing
p~q(RCR) = [f(RCR)/30]
ground conditions (Eqs. (9) and (12)), the tunnel
[10 (0.93.//0.6. BO.1/RCR1.2)] (MPa) (12) depth H has a significantly higher influence.
A rise in the value of correction factor f(N) for
where, pel(RCR)=ultimate support pressure in
tunnel closures beyond 5% is attributed to the
non-squeezing ground in MPa using RCR;
increase in the loosening pressure which is reflected
psq(RCR) = ultimate support pressure in squeezing
ground in MPa using RCR; f(RCR)=correction in a rising "ground reaction curve" (Figs. 7 and
factor for tunnel closure (see Table 6); H=tunnel 9). Tunnel closures should normally not be allowed
depth in metres; and B = tunnel span in metres. to exceed 5% of the tunnel size. However, in cases
Table 6 has also been prepared by using the of soft rock masses with depths exceeding 500 m
same method as for Table 5. it may be necessary to permit higher closures to
Estimated support pressures from Eqs. ( 11 ) and bring down temporary support requirements to
(12) for tunnel sections under non-squeezing and manageable levels for ease of supporting at the
squeezing ground conditions have been compared face which is necessary for faster drivage. Such
with the measured values in Figs. 11 (a) and 11 (b), higher tunnel closures will be associated with larger
respectively. Figs. ll(a) and l l ( b ) show that plastic zones which will be mobilising relatively
Eqs. (11) and (12) have good correlation coeffi- higher ultimate support pressures requiring higher
cients of 0.93 and 0.94, respectively. ultimate support capacities (Jethwa et al., 1981).
For obtaining ultimate support pressure using In other words, attempts to reduce support require-
Eqs.(8), (9), (11) and (12), the relationship ments closer to a tunnel face will be associated
between ultimate and short-term support pressures with a thicker tunnel lining.
suggested in the later part of the paper may be Effect of tunnel size on support pressure
adopted. obtained by Goel et al. (1996) is presented in
It can be seen that the two parameters, tunnel Table 7. In the case of squeezing ground condi-
depth H and tunnel span B, have little influence tions, Table 7 shows that the support pressure
on support pressure for tunnels under non-squeez- depends significantly upon the tunnel size. The
ing ground conditions (Eqs.(8) and (11)). reason is that tunnel closures were high in tunnels
74 B. Singh eta/. Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59 81

015
.,o

0~0
g

~a. 0 0 5

1 3 / Non - Squeez in~ [

l o.. ._ J
f I 1
0
0 0 05 0 iO 015

(a) P obtd. , M Po

t2

O8 9
g

C4

4 6 Calel

t __ I,,~ r -" 0 9 7
0
0 0-4 08 12

(b) P')btd , MP0

Fig. 10. (a) Comparison of measured support pressures with estimated support pressure using Eq. (8) under non-squeezing ground
conditions. (b) Comparison of measured support pressures with estimated support pressure using Eq. (9) under squeezing ground
conditions.

larger than 6 m diameter due to heading and However, buckled ribs became stable after some
benching method of excavation. So there is size closure as the support pressure was also reduced
effect. with enlargement of broken zone (Fig. 13). Thus
In squeezing ground conditions, steel rib sup- it was possible to re-use these tunnels by replacing
ports failed by buckling leading to more closure. failed ribs with new stiffer ribs one by one. It is
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 75

Table 6
Correction factorf(RCR) for tunnel closure

Sr. no. Degree of squeezing Normalised tunnel closure (%) f(RCR)

1 Very mild squeezing 1-2 2.0

2 Mild squeezing 2-3 1.7
3 Mild to moderate squeezing 3-4 1.2
4 Moderate squeezing 4-5 0.8
5 High squeezing 5-7 1.2
6 Very high squeezing >7 1.7

Note: normalised tunnel closure is defined as radial tunnel closure expressed as percent of tunnel radius.

essential that steel ribs must have inverted struts rock mass with qc > 2 MPa, Jw = 1 and Q < 10.
at the bottom to enable ribs to take very high wall
q . . . . . = 7. ~. QI/3 (MPa, derived from Eq. (3))
support pressures. The recent trend, of course, is
to use steel fibre-reinforced shotcrete and closely (14a)
spaced rock bolts in the squeezing ground which
~bp= t a n - ' (J,/Ja) (14b)
should also form the complete ring.
cp = q . . . . . (1 - s i n ~bp)/2 cos ~bp (14c)
c, =0.1 MPa (14d)
3. 9. Elasto-plastic theory for squeezing ground
conditions ~br = ~v - 10 > 14 ° (14e)
Aydan et al. (1993) studied squeezing phenomena
Daemen (1975) suggested the following equa-
and its mechanics and also proposed a method of
tion for obtaining short-term support pressure in
predicting the squeezing. They have also proposed
the tunnels in squeezing ground
a few correlations for estimating various engineer-
ing properties of rocks using uniaxial strength.
Pi = [e( 1 -- sin ~bp)- cp cos ~bp+ c, cot ~b,]M,
The correlation for frictional angle ~bp (°) with qc
- c, cot q~, +_7(b - a)M~ (13) (MPa) considering about 35 data points from
laboratory tests is as follows:
where, Pi = short-term support pressure; P =
~bp= 20- qO.25 > 10 o (15)
overburden pressure or cover pressure, cp and
c , = p e a k and residual cohesion values of Fig. 12 shows the plot between uniaxial compres-
rock mass, respectively; ~bp and ~br=peak and sive strength ( U C S ) of rock material qc and
residual angle of internal friction, respectively; Q0.33. It is interesting to note that Eq. (14a) is
Jr and Ja = Barton's parameters; My = lower bound of the data points for various projects
[a ( 1 - sin q~r)/(b- a) ( 1 - 3 sin ~br)]. [(a/b)~ -1 _ 1 ]; worldwide (qc>2 MPa) in Fig. 12. For massive
M~ = (a/b)'; ~ = (2 sin ~br)/(1 - sin ~br); a = radius of rock masses, q~ mass tends to be nearly equal to
tunnel opening; b = r a d i u s of broken zone (< 5a); q¢. It should be realised that very high strength is
7 = u n i t weight of rock mass (g cc-~). mobilized in the tunnels due to the constrained
Jethwa (1981 ) extended Eq. (13) to account for fracturing unlike slopes.
face advance. He also found that a compaction The strength enhancement in tunnels is due to
zone of radius of about 0.37b is developed around pre-stressing of rock wedges, both in roof and
support system within the broken zones. walls, by the in-situ stress along the axis of tunnels
The experience suggests that the strength param- and caverns. Constrained fracturing is another
eters of rock mass may be estimated as follows for reason for higher strength. Whereas in slopes,
76 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 46 (1997) 59-81

0t6

I Non - sques zln

Colos g)

r = 0.94 =7

0'12

g B
~E
=4

g
re
0'08

n
'L n2

0-04 st3/
44

0 b
0 0-04 008 0'12 0"16
(a) P o b . d , , MPo

1'2

ISqu ee zing I
Cales
10
r = 0'93

0"8

u
n~
v

0.,I I
8 mu

s3
7=

O k 1 1 1 1 I 1
o 04 0"0 12

(b) ~ob~d_ , MPo

 B. Singh et al. / Eng&eering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 77

Table 7
Effect of tunnel size on support pressure in arched roof underground openings (Goel et al., 1996)

Sr. no. Type of rock mass Rise in support pressure due

to increase in tunnel size (%)

A. Arched roof opening

1 Non-squeezing ground conditions <20
2 Squeezing ground conditions
(a) Fractured, jointed and weak rock masses (N=0.5 10) 20-60
(b) Soft-plastic clays, running ground, flowing ground, clay-filled 100
joints, fault gouges, and slickensided shear zones (N=0.1-0.5)
B. Rectangular opening 100

i000

[I IJ I~n
[] i[] I j
100
D ; B Ill• []
I :iBm
¢g
[] [] ee ~
I i

II ..-- '~Q "0.33

10
¢S

f
J

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 I0 100 1000
R o c k Mass Quality Q
B Non-squeezing . Squeezing

Fig. 12. Plot between QO.33 and UCS of rock material qc.

in-situ stress is released a n d is negligible and, modulus of deformation of weak and jointed rock
therefore, there is no e n h a n c e m e n t o f strength. In masses j u s t like soil (Singh et al., 1997).
the b l o c k shear test, also, i n t e r m e d i a t e p r i n c i p a l T h e residual c o h e s i o n cr is n o t zero until tunnel
stress is negligible a n d these tests u n d e r e s t i m a t e closure exceeds 6% o f tunnel d i a m e t e r due to
the cohesive strength o f the r o c k m a s s m o b i l i z e d s u d d e n s y m p a t h e t i c failure o f r o c k m a s s within
in tunnels. Thus, strength p a r a m e t e r s suggested by entire b r o k e n zone (Fig. 13). Therefore, tunnel
Bieniawski (1973) are valid for slopes only. It m a y closure s h o u l d n o t be allowed to exceed this limit
also be m e n t i o n e d t h a t in-situ stress also increases a n d s u p p o r t s s h o u l d n o t be installed t o o late.

Fig. 11. (a) Comparison of measured support pressures with estimated support pressure using Eq. ( 11 ) under non-squeezing ground
conditions. (b) Comparison of measured support pressures with estimated support pressure using Eq. (12) under squeezing ground
conditions.
78 B. Singh et al. /' Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81

\\ ............................ ]i::~-........ -.
Failure or
\ ................. , ~ .......... .~ ", broken zone

\ \ 2b 2rc 2a: ~ - - ~ :
Compactionzone
(2re = 0.37.2 b)
.o
0

Cr = 0

Cr~ 0
~-- onset of sympathetic failure
6%

tunnel closure

Fig. 13. Effect of sympathetic failure of rock mass on theoretical ground response curve of squeezing ground.

However, concrete lining should be done beyond ment of swelling support pressures, respectively,
a distance of 4b from the tunnel face so that tunnel for swelling rocks with swelling minerals. On the
closure is stabilised. It is thus suggested that a contrary, Terzaghi (1946) has recommended very
tunnel in highly squeezing ground conditions high values of support pressure. Verman (1993)
should be less than 6 m in size to allow full face has suggested increase in support pressure due to
tunnelling. post-construction saturation as follows:
Psat <[1 -(Esat/Edry)].),H (16)
3.10. Prediction of support pressure Jor tunnels in
swelling ground conditions where Esat = modulus of deformation of saturated
rock mass; Edry=modulus of deformation of dry
The difference between squeezing and swelling rock mass; and H = overburden in metres.
ground conditions is that, in the latter case, the In a rock mass with water-sensitive minerals,
tunnel wall closure is due to swelling of the rock Esat<<Edry and the support pressure may increase
mass on account of the presence of the minerals drastically after post-construction saturation
which are prone to swelling when it comes into around pressure tunnels and penstocks. More
contact with moisture. Barton et al. (1974) has research is needed on the effect of saturation on
given due attention for assessing the support in support pressure.
swelling ground conditions by considering the
swelling conditions in SRF. However, its applica- 3.11. Prediction of support pressure Jbr tunnel walls
bility could not yet be checked because of the lack in non-squeezing ground conditions
of measured support pressure values under swelling
ground conditions. Field tests and laboratory test Experiences have shown that the approach of
should, therefore, be conducted for proper assess- Barton et al. (1974) gives too high values of the
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 79

wall support pressures. Measured values of wall where Qm = m e a n value of Q in deciding the sup-
support pressure are negligible in non-squeezing port; Q,~= Q value of the weak zone; Qsr= Q
ground conditions (Singh et al., 1992). value of the surrounding rock; and b = breadth of
the weak zone in metre.
3.12. Prediction o f support pressure for caverns The strike direction (0) and thickness of weak
zone (b) in relation to the tunnel axis is important
The caverns are generally designed through good for the stability of the tunnel, and therefore the
rock masses, i.e., the ground conditions would be following correction factors have been suggested
either self-supporting or non-squeezing. It has been for the value of b in the above Eq. (17):
experienced that, for assessment of roof and wall
support pressures, the approaches of Barton et al. if 0 = 9 0 - 4 5 ° to the tunnel axis then use lb;
(1974) and Singh et al. (1992) are reliable. The if 0 = 4 5 - 2 0 ° then use 2b;
approach of Goel et al. (1995) has been developed if 0 = 10-20 ° then use 3b;
for tunnels of up to 12m and, therefore, its if 0 < 10 ° then use 4b.
applicability for caverns with a diameter of more
than 12 m is yet to be checked.
It may be noted that the reinforced rock wall Hence, if the surrounding rock near the shear
column has a tendency to buckle due to tangential zones can be downgraded with the use of the
stress (Bazant et al., 1993), because of the possi- above formula, a heavier support can be chosen
bility of a vertical crack propagation behind the for the whole area instead of the weak zone alone.
reinforced rock wall. So the length of anchors/rock Fig. 14 shows a typical treatment method for
bolts should be adequate to prevent buckling and shear zones. This strategy is very urgently needed
vertical crack propagation. if N A T M or N T M (Norwegian Tunnelling
Method) are to be used in the Himalayan region,
3.13. Prediction of support pressure in shear and as seams/shear zones/faults/thrusts/intra-thrust
weak zones zones are frequently found along tunnels and
caverns in the Himalayas. A case history showing
Rock mass classifications consider only the the recurrence of thrusts and their effect on the
homogeneous units, and so downgrading the rock tunnelling has been presented by Jethwa et al.
quality adjacent to shear zones may be difficult. It (1980).
is envisaged that the rock mass affected by the
shear zone is much larger than the shear zone
itself. Hence, this rock mass must be downgraded
to the quality of shear zone so that a heavier
SHEIIII
ZONE/
support system in relation to the regular one can
be installed. A method has been developed at N G I
(Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) for assessing
support requirements using the Q-system for rock
masses affected by shear zones (Grimstad and
Barton, 1993). In this method, weak zones and
the surrounding rock are allocated their respective
Q value from which a mean Q value can be
determined taking into consideration the breadth
of weak zone. The following formula may be
employed in calculating the mean Q value from
the two Q values (after Bhasin et al., 1995)
Z.~HOICREI~
Fig. 14. Typical treatment of a narrow shear zone (after
log Qm = (b- log Qwz + log Qsr)/(b + 1 ) (17) Lang, 1961).
80 B. Smgh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81

3.14. Ultimate support pressure (4) Assessment o f support pressures in shear zones
and walls o f caverns should be made cau-
Ultimate support pressure could be estimated tiously. Shear zones treatment should be done
from the short-term support pressure values properly.
obtained from the above correlations. The ratio ( 5 ) Under swelling g r o u n d conditions, the reliabil-
between the ultimate support pressure after about ity o f any o f the approaches is yet to be
100 years and the short-term support pressure for established and, therefore, laboratory tests and
various types o f g r o u n d conditions is given as field instrumentation are suggested.
follows: ( 1 ) Pult/P = 1.75 for non-squeezing g r o u n d (6) Relationships between long-term or ultimate
( = f " in E q . ( 5 ) ) ; ( 2 ) p u l t / p = 2 - 3 for squeezing support pressure and short-term pressure also
rock conditions (Jethwa, 1981); ( 3 ) p u ~ t / p = 6 for vary with the g r o u n d conditions, and the
water-charged rock masses with erodible joint fill- estimated values are given in the paper.
ings (Mitra, 1991 ).

3.15. Effect o/seismicity on support pressure References

For tunnels located near faults/thrusts (with Aydan, O., Akagi, T., Kawamoto, T., 1993. The squeezing
plastic gouge) in seismic areas, the ultimate support potential of rocks around tunnels; theory and prediction.
pressure m a y be about 25% to account for accumu- Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 26 (2), 137-163.
lated strains in the rock mass along the fault Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Analysis of Rock Mass
Quality and Support Practice in Tunnelling, and a Guide for
(Mitra, 1991 ). This has been estimated from the Estimating Support Requirements, Report by NGI, June.
10-year monitoring o f the C h h i b r o - K h o d r i Bazant, Z.P., Lin, F.B., Lippmann, H., 1993. Fracture energy
u n d e r g r o u n d powerhouse, India. release and size effect in borehole breakout. Int. J. Numerical
Analyt. Methods Geomech. 17, 1 14.
Bhasin, R., Grimstad, E., 1996. The Use of Stress-Strength
Relationship in the Assessment of Tunnel Stability. Proc.
4. Conclusions Recent Advances in Tunnelling Technology, New Delhi,
India.
(1) Assessment o f support pressure in arched Bhasin, R., Singh, R.B., Dhawan, A.K., Sharma, V.M., 1995.
underground openings depends upon the Geotechnical Evaluation and a Review of Remedial Mea-
ground conditions. The ground conditions can sures in Limiting Deformations in Distressed Zones in a
Powerhouse Cavern. Conf. on Design and Construction of
be safely predicted using the approaches dis- Underground Structures, New Delhi.
cussed in the paper. The a p p r o a c h o f Goel Bieniawski, Z.T., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed
et al. (1995) is complementary to the Q-system rock masses. Trans. S. African Inst. Civil Engineers 15
and one can predict the degree o f squeezing (12), 335 344.
and other g r o u n d conditions for getting S R F Bieniawski, Z.T. (1979). Tunnel design by rock mass classifica-
tion. Tech. Rep. No. GL-79-19, Sept. 1979, Prepared for
(Fig. 3). Office of Chief Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
(2) Correlations presented for estimating the sup- Bieniawski, Z.T., 1984. Rock Mechanics Designs in Mining and
port pressures can also be used reliably. Tunnelling, Text book Published by A.A. Balkema, Rotter-
Support pressures are f o u n d to be independent dam, p. 272.
o f the size o f arched excavations (for tunnel Daemen, J.J.K., 1975. Tunnel Supprt Loading Caused by Rock
Failure, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapo-
diameter from 2 to 22 m) in the non-squeezing lis, USA.
ground conditions. However, support pressure Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Monsees, J.E., Schmidt, B., 1969.
m a y increase with tunnel size in squeezing Design of Tunnel Liners and Support System, Highway
g r o u n d (Table 7). Research Record No. 339, US Department of Transporta-
(3) The support pressures in squeezing ground tion. Washington. DC.
Goel, R.K., 1994. Correlations tbr Predicting Support Pressures
conditions are observed to decrease with and Closures in tunnels. Ph.D. Thesis, Nagpur University,
tunnel closure significantly and increase India, p. 308.
rapidly beyond 6% closure. Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J.L., 1991. Prediction of Support pressure
 B. Singh et al. / Engineering Geology 48 (1997) 59-81 81

using RMR Classification. Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conf., Nedoma, Jiri, 1996. Personal communications, Institute of
Surat, India, December 1991. Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J.L., Dhar, B.B., 1996. Effect of tunnel size Republic, 182 07, Praha 8, Czech Republic.
on support pressure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Singh, Bhawani, Fairhurst, C., Christiano, P.P., 1973. Com-
Abstr. 33 (7), 749-755. puter simulation of lamintaed roof reinforced with grouted
Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J.L., Paithankar, A.G., 1995. Indian expe- bolt. Proc. of IGS Sym. on Rock Mech. and Tunnelling
riences with Q and RMR systems. Tunnelling Underground Problems, Kurukshetra, India, 41-47.
Space Technol. 10 (1), 97 109. Singh, Bhawani, Jethwa, J.L., Dube, A.K., Singh, B., 1992.
Grimstad, E., Barton, N., 1993. Updating of the Q-system for Correlation between observed support pressure and rock
NMT. Proc. Int. Sym. on Sprayed Concrete - - Modern Use mass quality. J. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 7
of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground Support, ( 1), 59-74.
Fagerenes 1993, Norwegian Concrete Association. Singh, Bhawani, Jethwa, J.L., Dube, A.K., 1995a. Modified
Grimstad, E., Barton, N., 1995. Rock Mass Classification and Terzaghi's Rock Load Concept for Tunnels. J. Rock Mech.
the Use of NMT in India. Proc. Conf. on Design and Con- Tunnelling Technology, 1 (1), Jan. India.
struction of Underground Structures, Feb. 23-25, New Singh, Bhawani, Viladkar, M.N., Samadhiya, K.N., San-
deep1995b. A semi-empirical method for design of support
Delhi, India.
systems in underground openings. Tunnelling Underground
Jethwa, J.L., 1981. Evaluation of Rock Pressure in Tunnel
Space Technol. 10 (3), 375-383.
through Squeezing Ground in Lower Himalayas. Ph.D.
Singh, Bhawani, Viladkar, M.N., Samadhiya, K.N., Mehrotra,
Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
V.K., 1997. Rock mass strength parameters mobilised in tun-
Jethwa, J.L., Singh, B., Singh, Bhawani, Mithal, R.S., 1980. nels. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 12 ( 1), 00-00.
Influence of geology on tunnelling conditions and deforma- Terzaghi, K., 1946. Rock Defects and Load on Tunnel Sup-
tional behaviour of supports in the faulted zones: a case ports. In: Proctor, R.V., White, T.C. (Eds.), Introduction to
history of Chhibro-Khodri Tunnel in India. Eng. Geol. 16 Rock Tunnelling with Steel Support. Commercial Shearing
(3/4), 291 318. and Stamping Co., Youngstava, OH, USA.
Jethwa, J.L., Dube, A.K., Singh, B., Singh, Bhawani, 1981. Unal, E., 1983. Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards
Rock Load Estimation for Tunnels in Squeezing Ground for Coal Mine Roofs, Ph.D Thesis, The Pennsylvania State
Conditions, RETC, San Francisco, May 3-7. University (refer to page no. 113, Text Book Rock Mechanics
Lang, T.A., 1961. Theory and practice of rock bolting. AIME in Mining and Tunnelling, Bieniawski, Z.T., A.A. Balkema
Trans. ?, 220 Publishers, 1984).
Mitra, S., 1991. Studies on Long term Behaviour of Verman, Manoj, 1993. Rock Mass-tunnel Support Interaction
Underground Power House Cavities in Soft Rocks. Ph.D. Analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee,
Thesis, University of Roorkee, India. India.