Geotechnical Engineering

Think in other terms
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 JUSTIFICATION
1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM (KEY QUESTION)
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 MAIN OBJECTIVE
1.4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
3
3
7
7
7
7
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 ROCK MECHANICS
2.3 GEOMECHANICS
2.3.1 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
2.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
2.5 TUNNEL LINING
2.5.1 THE NEW AUSTRIAN TUNNELLING METHOD (NATM)
2.6 THE DESIGN OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS FOR TUNNEL LINING
2.6.1 TUNNEL GEOMETRY
2.6.2 TUNNEL MECHANICS
2.6.3 STEEL ARCHES
2.6.4 ROCK BOLTS
2.6.5 SHOTCRETE
2.7 CONCLUSION
8
10
10
11
19
21
22
26
26
27
30
31
32
32
3.0 METHODOLOGY
34
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 DESIGN STEPS AND PROCEDURES.
34
34
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
39
4.1 SITE INVESTIGATIONS

4.2 CLIMATE AND VEGETATION
4.3 GEOLOGY
4.3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
4.3.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY
4.3.2.1 Main Sulphide Zone (MSZ)
39
40
40
40
43
43
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
4.3.3 GEOLOGICAL DISRUPTIONS

4.4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
4.4.1 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.5 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
4.6 DATABASE VALIDATION/INTEGRITY OF SITE BACKGROUND
43
44
44
45
56
5.0 DESIGN OF THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE
57
5.1 CLASSIFYING THE SUPPORT TYPE

5.2 DETERMINING THE SUPPORT GEOMETRY
5.3 STEEL SETS DESIGN
5.3.1 STEEL ARCHES
5.3.2 STEEL BASE PLATES
5.3.3 STEEL BRACKETS
5.3.4 TOP HAT CONNECTION
5.4 STRIP FOOTINGS
5.5 DRAINAGE
5.5.1 WEEP HOLES
5.5.2 DRAIN
5.5.3 SUMP
5.6 SUPERSTRUCTURE
5.6.1 BRACKETS
5.6.2 BASE PLATES
5.6.3 ANCHOR BARS
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
62
6.1 CONCLUSION
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
62
62
REFERENCES
74
Figure 1.1: The room and pillar method of mining (extracted from civil
engineering vol. II underground mining methods and equipment, S. Okubo
and
J. Yamatomi).........................................................................................................................7
Figure 1.2: Portal 5, Ngezi mine, Zimplats..........................................................................8
Figure 2.1: Drill and blast process (extracted from tunnelling in rocks inaugural lecture by
Zhao Jian, 24 May 2007)....................................................................................................11
Figure 2.2: Procedure for measurement and calculation of RQD (After Deere, 1989).....16
Table 1.1: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter A: General area geology.............................18
Table 2.2: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter B: Joint pattern, direction of drive.............18
Table 2.3: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter C: Groundwater, joint condition.................19
Figure 2.3, estimated support categories based on the tunnelling quality index Q (After
Grimstad and Barton 1993)................................................................................................21
Figure 2.4, concept of movement of loosed rock toward a tunnel of width B, height Ht and
transfer of rock load, Hp (Terzaghi, 1946)..........................................................................30
Figure 2.5, forces acting on tunnel support in inclined strata (Terzaghi, 1946).................31
Figure 2.6, Deflection of stress around a circular opening................................................31
Figure 3.1, Geomechanics system, rock load height method.............................................38
Figure 3.2, NCB system, triangular loosened zone method...............................................38
Figure 3.3, Terzaghi system, loosed zone method.............................................................39
Figure 3.4, the Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach rock load height
method................................................................................................................................39
Figure 4.1, Ngezi mine location and surrounding infrastructure (extracted from portal 5
feasibility study page 3).....................................................................................................42
Figure 4.2, schematic diagram showing location of resource areas, portal 1-10 (an extract
from portal 5 feasibility report, page 4).............................................................................44
Table 4.1: Typical Geological Section..............................................................................47
Figure 4.3, Ngezi mine portal 5 position............................................................................48
Table 4.2, typical geotechnical properties..........................................................................49
Table 4.3, Ground condition classification.........................................................................49
Table 4.4, Typical Geological Section..............................................................................50
Table 4.5.............................................................................................................................51
Table 4.6.............................................................................................................................52
Table 4.7.............................................................................................................................53
Table 4.8.............................................................................................................................54
Table 4.9.............................................................................................................................56
Table 4.10...........................................................................................................................57
Table 5.1: Design properties, values and conclusions........................................................59
Figure 5.1 (a), top hat connection......................................................................................60
Figure 5.1(b), top hat connection.......................................................................................61
CHAPTER 1 (ONE)
1.0 Introduction and project justification

1.1 Introduction
A tunnel is an artificial underground passageway that has been driven through the ground,
rock or any geological formation, which has a length that greatly exceeds its width or
height and is enclosed except for openings of exit and entrance. If a tunnel has been
driven through competent rock or soil, then it will be self-supporting and there will be no
need for supporting the tunnel. However, if it is not self-supporting there will be need for
supporting the tunnel with a relevant support structure that will stop the tunnel from
collapsing. Tunnel support structure can be in the form of anchor bolts, shotcrete,
reinforced concrete steel sets, and etcetera. The process of supporting the tunnel is called
tunnel lining. A tunnel can be supported even though it will be self-supporting for
aesthetics and also to bring a sense of safety to the users. Tunnel lining can also be done
even if the tunnel is self-supporting so as to deal with the effects of ground water into the
tunnel.
Tunnel lining should be done for the roof, walls and floor of the tunnel, according to the
purpose of the tunnel and the competence of the tunnel. A soil or rock class should
determine the type of tunnel lining to be employed on the tunnel so as to avoid under
designing or overdesigning. For this cause ground conditions should be thoroughly
investigated prior to the design. Tunnel lining has no particular method that should be
followed since ground conditions vary from place to place and from position to position
during the tunnelling process, however there are various steps and a lot of case studies
that give insight and help through the tunnel lining process.
1.2 Justification
The increase in exploration and mine development in Africa has been
primarily focussed on gold, diamond and Platinum exploration.
Undoubtedly, there is still great scope for these commodities, but riding on the back of
improving base metal prices, this sector could see an increase in activities. Zimbabwe is
one of the few countries that have tremendous potential for base metal and industrial
mineral deposits hence the reason why one of the largest mining group of companies,
Impala Platinum (Implats), operating as Zimplats in Zimbabwe has invested a great deal
in the Zimbabwean mining sector. This means that a lot of human resource has been and
is being enrolled into the mining sector, hence the need to provide civil and infrastructure
facilities for the sector, especially at the Mhondoro-Ngezi Mine. Each year sees the Ngezi
mine expanding from one portal to another hence the need to construct civil facilities (e.g.
ore pass, raise bores, substations, tunnel linings, silos, etcetera) and infrastructure
buildings (e.g. training centres, laboratories, stores, sheds, shelters etcetera).
Ngezi mine is a mine in Zimbabwe which is mining the PGM (platinum group metals)
using the room and pillar method for extracting the ore. The Ngezi mine has four portals
that are functional and a fifth portal which is to be opened in due course, i.e. portal 5.
Portal 1 to 4 already exist and have suitable tunnel linings which were designed according
to the respective rock mass classification based on the rock deformation tendencies, the
RMR (Rock Mass Rating), the RQD (Rock Quality Designation) index, the RSR (Rock
Structure Rating) and the rock tunnelling quality index, Q. Portal 5 which is to be opened
soon will require a tunnel lining which should also be suitable for the existing rock
structure.
The tunnel lining project at the Ngezi mine was initially done as a result of the rock
failing to withstand its own weight and external pressures which resulted in the collapse
of the mine at portal 1. From a health and safety point of view, it meant that workers were
being exposed to risk of injury or death. On production, plant and equipment were at risk
of being destroyed and also the mining process was affected because of the blocked
access. It was therefore necessary for Zimplats to initiate a tunnel supporting strategy for
the Ngezi mine for areas being mined which have an incompetent rock mass.
The mining method done at the Ngezi mine is the room and pillar, shown in
fig
1.1 on the next page. The Room and Pillar method currently being used in
P3
will be adopted for P5. The 9 dip contour has been identified as the
boundary of the Room and Pillar operations as trackless vehicles do not operate optimally
at gradients above 9. Alternative methods have been identified for trial mining in the
steeper areas that range from + 9 to -18. The room and pillar method works in such a
way that the pillars of the original bedrock are left to support rock pressure and to protect
personnel, plant and equipment. Drill jumbos are usually used for driving crosscuts and
connecting these crosscuts. Blasted ore is then mucked and hauled by LHD (load haul
dumps). However, sometimes these pillars are not able to withstand rock load and are
susceptible to collapse hence there is need to support the tunnel with rock bolts and
shortcrete, were necessary, with a reinforced concrete tunnel lining and steel sets.
Figure 1.1: The room and pillar method of mining (extracted from civil engineering vol. II underground mining
methods and equipment, S. Okubo and J. Yamatomi)
Fig 1.1: It is also necessary to have a tunnel lining at a mine entrance

(portal) since the room and pillar method is not employed at these mine
openings, hence there will be no support for the tunnel, so should the rock
type at the portal be incompetent, which is more often the case at these mine openings,
then supporting the tunnel at this stage will be very necessary. Another thing is that at the
portals there is need for stores, offices and ablution facilities; therefore tunnel support is
very essential at this stage of the mining process. The mine opening (portal 5), is shown
in fig 1.2 on the next page.
Figure 1.2: Portal 5, Ngezi mine, Zimplats.
It is therefore the authors desire to design a relevant tunnel lining structure For the Ngezi
mine portal 5 which will ensure that the tunnel does not collapse during its life span. The
tunnel lining to be designed by the author will only be constructed on the portions with
extremely weak rock masses, were shotcrete and rock bolts alone cannot support the
tunnel. At the same time, this same design can be used, or modified were necessary to suit
a different location, with more or less the same ground conditions as those at portal 5,
were mines are facing the risk of collapse anywhere in Zimbabwe. The design will also
pave way to tunnelling technology and tunnel lining researches at NUST and in
Zimbabwe for transport, infrastructure and national monuments tunnel constructions.
The design of tunnels in rock because of the very complex nature of rock
masses and the difficulties encountered with their characterisation currently
utilizes three main approaches: analytical, observational, and empirical.
The discussions of these methods will be outlined in chapter 2. Design data will be
mainly gathered from portal 3 which is presumed to have the same conditions as those
likely to be met at portal.
1.3 Statement of problem (Key Question)

Ngezi mine portal 5 is to be opened soon and initial drilling and blasting has already been
done to investigate initial rock mass properties. The rock mass at the tunnel entrance is
incompetent and similar conditions are likely to be met as mining progresses, therefore, a
suitable support structure for the tunnel is required.
1.4 Project objectives

1.4.1 Main objective
To ensure that the Ngezi mine portal 5 will not collapse, by means of constructing a
suitable support structure (tunnel lining).
1.4.2 Specific objectives
1. To investigate the nature of the rock mass to be bored in order to see how
competent it is and how likely it is to fail.
2. To classify the rock mass using the rock mass classification system in
order to come up with the suitable tunnel support category required for the
particular rock mass.
3. To calculate the rock loads, stresses and strains that will be exerted on the
tunnel by the rock mass during the rock deformation tendencies caused by
tunnel cavity.
4. To investigate the effects of ground water on the tunnel.
5. To design and detail a roof, wall and drainage system for the tunnel that
will be able to withstand the calculated rock load. (reinforced concrete,
steel arches and steel sets)
CHAPTER 2 (TWO)
2.0 Literature review
2.1 Introduction
When a tunnel is bored through a rock, by either drilling and blasting (D&B) or by the
use of a tunnel boring machine (TBM), it should be determined whether the rock will
need to be supported or it will be self-supporting, if it needs to be supported then the type
of support should be determined. TBMs are used for large rock tunnel projects and drill
and blast for the smaller rock tunnel projects especially in mining.
Zhao Jian professor of rock mechanics and tunnelling in his inaugural lecture of 24 May
2007 briefly describes a tunnelling procedure:
Rock tunnelling involves,
Rock excavation to make a hole and is primarily driven by rock excavation machine
technology.
Rock support to sustain the hole. Support technology is a largely driven science
together with support material technology. This is the procedure of tunnel lining.
The above description by Zhao Jian briefly outlines the basic processes of tunnelling and
tunnel lining. Modern rock tunnels are excavated by primarily two methods. The drill and
blast (D&B) and the tunnel boring machine (TBM). Drilling and blasting involves drilling
a charge holes advancing into rocks and using explosives to blast the rocks. The tunnel
boring machine (TBM) is a complex set of equipment assembled to excavate a tunnel.
The TBM includes the cutterhead, with cutting tools and muck buckets, systems to supply
power, cutterhead rotation, and thrust; a bracing system for the TBM during mining,
equipment for ground support installation, shielding to protect workers, and a steering
system. Back-up equipment systems provide muck transport, personnel and material
conveyance, ventilation, and utilities.
Fig 2.1 below shows a brief description of a drill and blast process which is
utilised by the Ngezi mine. First a hole is drilled and charged and then
blasting follows, the tunnel is then given sufficient time for ventilation to
take place before mucking out the ore.
Figure 2.1: Drill and blast process (extracted from tunnelling in rocks inaugural lecture by Zhao Jian, 24 May
2007)
Blasting for underground construction purposes is a cutting tool, not a bombing

operation.
This quotation from a paper by Svanholm et al (1977) emphasises an important factor in
drill and blast tunnelling - the quality of blasting can have a major influence upon the
amount of damage inflicted upon the rock surrounding a tunnel. A good tunnel blast is
one which results in good fragmentation of the rock within the tunnel, a loose and easily
diggable muckpile of limited lateral extent and minimal damage to the rock surfaces
around the tunnel. All of these results can be achieved in a single blast if sufficient care is
taken with the design of the blasthole pattern, the charge distribution and the detonation
sequence (Svanholm et al, 1977, Langerfors & Kihlstrom, 1973, Holmberg & Persson,
1980, Hagan, 1980, Holmberg, 1975).
2.2 Rock mechanics

Civil and mining engineers have been building structures on or in rock for
centuries and the principles of engineering in rock have been understood for a long time.
Rock mechanics is merely a formal expression of some of these principles and it is only
during the past few decades that the theory and practice in this subject have come
together in the discipline which we know today as rock mechanics. A particularly
important event in the development of the subject was the merging of elastic theory,
which dominated the English language literature on the subject, with the discontinuum
approach of the Europeans. The gradual recognition that rock could act both as an elastic
material and a discontinuous mass resulted in a much more mature approach to the
subject than had previously been the case. At the same time, the subject borrowed
techniques for dealing with soft rocks and clays from soil mechanics and recognised the
importance of viscoelastic and rheological behaviour in materials such as salt and potash.
Rock mechanics helps civil engineers understand the nature and the behaviour of the rock
in which a particular construction project is to be carried out on. (Evert Hoek, 2000;
Course notes, pg. 7)
The author has therefore taken appreciable time to study the subject of rock mechanics as
it is very important in the project as the tunnelling is being done through a rock mass and
a perfect appreciation for the behaviour of the rock mass is required in order to come up
with a relevant support structure for the tunnel.
2.3 Geomechanics
The corner-stone of any practical rock mechanics analysis is the geological data base
upon which the definition of rock types, structural discontinuities and material properties
is based. Even the most sophisticated analysis can become a meaningless exercise if the
geological information upon which it is based is inadequate or inaccurate.
Evert Hoek (1995) says The methods for the collection of geological data have not
changed a great deal over the past 25 years and there is still no acceptable substitute for
the field mapping and core logging. There have been some advances in the equipment
used for such logging. The emergence of geological engineering or engineering geology
as recognised university degree courses has been an important step in the development of
rock mechanics. These courses train geologists to be specialists in the

recognition and interpretation of geological information which is significant
in
engineering design. These geological engineers, following in the tradition

started by Stini in the 1920s, play an increasingly important role in modern rock
engineering.
Once the geological data have been collected, computer processing of this data can be of
great assistance in plotting the information and in the interpretation of statistically
significant trends by using the program DIPS1 developed at the University of Toronto.
Surface and down-hole geophysical tools and devices such as borehole cameras have
been available for several years and their reliability and usefulness has gradually
improved as electronic components and manufacturing techniques have been improved.
However, current capital and operating costs of these tools are high and these factors,
together with uncertainties associated with the interpretation of the information obtained
from them, have tended to restrict their use in rock engineering. It is probable that the use
of these tools will become more widespread in years to come as further developments
occur.
2.3.1 Rock Mass Classification
During the feasibility and preliminary design stages of a project, when very little
detailed information on the rock mass and its stress and hydrologic characteristics is
available, the use of a rock mass classification scheme can be of considerable benefit.
At its simplest, this may involve using the classification scheme as a check-list to
ensure that all relevant information has been considered. At the other end of the
spectrum, one or more rock mass classification schemes can be used to build up a
picture of the composition and characteristics of a rock mass to provide initial estimates
of support requirements, and to provide estimates of the strength and deformation
properties of the rock mass.
It is important to understand that the use of a rock mass classification scheme does not
(and cannot) replace some of the more elaborate design procedures. However, the use
of these design procedures requires access to relatively detailed information on in
situ stresses, rock mass properties and planned excavation sequence, none of which
may be available at an early stage in the project. As this information becomes
available, the use of the rock mass classification schemes should be updated and used
in conjunction with site specific analyses. (Evert Hoek, 1995)
Mahtab and Grasso (1992) define the term "rock mass" as the rock fabric and all the
joints it contains. Evert Hoek in his rock engineering course notes (1995) outlines how
rock masses are classified. He gives seven categories by which rock masses can be
classified, which are:
Terzaghis rock mass classification

The earliest reference to the use of rock mass classification for the design of
tunnel support is in a paper by Terzaghi (1946) in which the rock loads, carried by steel
sets, are estimated on the basis of a descriptive classification. The clear and concise
definitions and the practical comments included in these descriptions are good examples
of the type of engineering geology information, which is most useful for engineering
design.
Terzaghi's descriptions (quoted directly from his paper) are:
Intact rock contains neither joints nor hair cracks. Hence, if it breaks, it breaks across
sound rock. On account of the injury to the rock due to blasting, spalls may drop off the
roof several hours or days after blasting. This is known as a spalling condition. Hard,
intact rock may also be encountered in the popping condition involving the spontaneous
and violent detachment of rock slabs from the sides or roof.
Stratified rock consists of individual strata with little or no resistance against
separation along the boundaries between the strata. The strata may or may not be
weakened by transverse joints. In such rock the spalling condition is quite common.
Moderately jointed rock contains joints and hair cracks, but the blocks between joints are
locally grown together or so intimately interlocked that vertical walls do not require
lateral support. In rocks of this type, both spalling and popping conditions may be
encountered.
Blocky and seamy rock consists of chemically intact or almost intact rock fragments
which are entirely separated from each other and imperfectly interlocked. In such rock,
vertical walls may require lateral support.
Crushed but chemically intact rock has the character of crusher run. If most or all of the
fragments are as small as fine sand grains and no recementation has taken place crushed
rock below the water table exhibits the properties of water-bearing sand.
Squeezing rock slowly advances into the tunnel without perceptible volume increase. A
prerequisite for squeeze is a high percentage of microscopic and sub-microscopic
particles of micaceous minerals or clay minerals with a low swelling capacity.
Swelling rock advances into the tunnel chiefly on account of expansion. The capacity to
swell seems to be limited to those rocks that contain clay minerals such as
montmorillonite, with a high swelling capacity.
Classification including the stand-up time

Lauffer (1958) proposed that the stand-up time for an unsupported span is
related to the quality of the rock mass in which the span is excavated. In a tunnel, the
unsupported span is defined as the span of the tunnel or the distance between the face and
the nearest support, if this is greater than the tunnel span. Lauffer's original classification
has since been modified by a number of authors, notably Pacher et al (1974), and now
forms part of the general tunnelling approach known as the New Austrian Tunnelling
Method.
The significance of the stand-up time concept is that an increase in the span of the tunnel
leads to a significant reduction in the time available for the installation of support. For
example, a small pilot tunnel may be successfully constructed with minimal support,
while a larger span tunnel in the same rock mass may not be stable without the immediate
installation of substantial support. The New Austrian Tunnelling Method includes a
number of techniques for safe tunnelling in rock conditions in which the stand-up time is
limited before failure occurs.
These techniques include the use of smaller headings and benching or the use of multiple
drifts to form a reinforced ring inside which the bulk of the tunnel can be excavated.
These techniques are applicable in soft rocks such as shales, phyllites and mudstones in
which the squeezing and swelling problems, described by Terzaghi (see previous section),
are likely to occur. The techniques are also applicable when tunnelling in excessively
broken rock, but great care should be taken in attempting to apply these techniques to
excavations in hard rocks in which different failure mechanisms occur.
In designing support for hard rock excavations it is prudent to assume that the stability of
the rock mass surrounding the excavation is not time-dependent. Hence, if a structurally
defined wedge is exposed in the roof of an excavation, it will fall as soon as the rock
supporting it is removed. This can occur at the time of the blast or during the subsequent
scaling operation. If it is required to keep such a wedge in place, or to enhance the margin
of safety, it is essential that the support be installed as early as possible, preferably before
the rock supporting the full wedge is removed. On the other hand, in a highly stressed
rock, failure will generally be induced by some change in the stress field surrounding the
excavation.
The failure may occur gradually and manifest itself as spalling or slabbing or it may occur
suddenly in the form of a rock burst. In either case, the support design must take into
account the change in the stress field rather than the stand-up time of the excavation.
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD)
The Rock Quality Designation index (RQD) was developed by Deere

(Deere et al 1967) to provide a quantitative estimate of rock mass quality
from drill core logs. RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces
longer than 100 mm (4 inches) in the total length of core. The core should be at least NW
size (54.7 mm or 2.15 inches in diameter) and should be drilled with a double-tube core
barrel. The correct procedures for measurement of the length of core pieces and the
calculation of RQD are summarised in
Figure 2.2 below.
Figure 2.2: Procedure for measurement and calculation of RQD (After Deere, 1989)
Palmstrm (1982) suggested that, when no core is available but discontinuity

traces are visible in surface exposures or exploration adits, the RQD may be
estimated from the number of discontinuities per unit volume. The suggested
relationship for clay-free rock masses is:
RQD = 115 - 3.3 Jv
Where Jv is the sum of the number of joints per unit length for all joint
(discontinuity) sets known as the volumetric joint count. RQD is a directionally
dependent parameter and its value may change significantly,

depending upon the borehole orientation. The use of the volumetric
joint count can be quite useful in reducing this directional
dependence.
RQD is intended to represent the rock mass quality in situ. When using diamond
drill core, care must be taken to ensure that fractures, which have been caused by
handling or the drilling process, are identified and ignored when determining the
value of RQD. When using Palmstrm's relationship for exposure mapping, blast
induced fractures should not be included when estimating Jv. Deere's RQD has
been widely used, particularly in North America, for the past 25years. Cording
and Deere (1972), Merritt (1972) and Deere and Deere (1988) have attempted to
relate RQD to Terzaghi's rock load factors and to rock bolt requirements in
tunnels. In the context of this discussion, the most important use of RQD is as a
component of the RMR and Q rock mass classifications covered later in this
chapter.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
Bieniawski (1976) published the details of a rock mass classification called the
Geomechanics Classification or the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system. The
following six parameters are used to classify a rock mass using the RMR system:
1. Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD).
3. Spacing of discontinuities.
4. Condition of discontinuities.
5. Groundwater conditions.
6. Orientation of discontinuities
Rock Structure Rating (RSR)
Wickham et al (1972) described a quantitative method for describing the quality
of a rock mass and for selecting appropriate support on the basis of their Rock
Structure Rating (RSR) classification. Most of the case histories, used in the
development of this system, were for relatively small tunnels supported by means
of steel sets, although historically this system was the first to make reference to
shotcrete support. In spite of this limitation, it is worth examining the RSR system
in some detail since it demonstrates the logic involved in developing a quasiquantitative rock mass classification system. The significance of the RSR system,
in the context of this dissertation, is that it introduces the concept of rating each of
the components listed below to arrive at a numerical value of RSR = A + B + See,
where parameter A, B and See are elaborated below. The table that follows each
parameter description is the one used to determine the value of that particular
parameter.
i. Parameter A, Geology: General appraisal of geological structure on the basis of:
Rock type origin (igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary).
Rock hardness (hard, medium, soft, decomposed).
Geologic structure (massive, slightly faulted/folded, moderately

faulted/folded, intensely faulted/folded).
Table 1.1: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter A: General area geology.
ii. Parameter B, Geometry: Effect of discontinuity pattern with respect to the direction of
the tunnel drive on the basis of:
Joint spacing.
Joint orientation (strike and dip).
Direction of tunnel drive.
Table 2.2: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter B: Joint pattern, direction of drive.
iii. Parameter C: Effect of groundwater inflow and joint condition on the basis of:
Overall rock mass quality on the basis of A and B combined.
Joint condition (good, fair, poor).
Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per 1000 feet of tunnel).
Table 2.3: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter C: Groundwater, joint condition.
a: Dip: flat: 0-20; dipping: 20-50; and vertical: 50-90

b: Joint condition: good = tight or cemented; fair = slightly weathered or altered; poor =
severely weathered, altered or open.
Three tables from Wickham et als 1972 paper are reproduced in Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.
These tables can be used to evaluate the rating of each of these parameters to arrive at the
RSR value (maximum RSR = 100). The author is going to make use of these tables in his
design as they provide a pivotal role in rating a rock mass and suggesting an appropriate
rock mass.
Modified Rock Mass Rating (MRMR)
Laubscher (1977, 1984), Laubscher and Taylor (1976) and Laubscher and Page (1990)
have described a Modified Rock Mass Rating system for mining. This MRMR system
takes the basic RMR value, as defined by Bieniawski, and adjusts it to account for in situ
and induced stresses, stress changes and the effects of blasting and weathering. A set of
support recommendations is associated with the resulting MRMR value. In using
Laubscher's MRMR system it should be borne in mind that many of the case histories
upon which it is based are derived from caving operations. Originally, block caving in
asbestos mines in Africa formed the basis for the modifications but, subsequently, other
case histories from around the world have been added to the database.
Rock Tunnelling Quality Index, (Q)
On the basis of an evaluation of a large number of case histories of underground
excavations, Barton et al (1974) of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute proposed a
Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) for the determination of rock mass characteristics and
tunnel support requirements. The numerical value of the index Q varies on a

logarithmic scale from 0.001 to a maximum of 1,000 and is defined by:
Q=
RQD Jr Jw

Jn
Ja SRF
Where
RQD is the Rock Quality Designation
Jn
is the joint set number
Jr
is the joint roughness number
Ja
is the joint alteration number
Jw
is the joint water reduction factor
SRF is the stress reduction factor
Parameter Jn, Jr, Ja, Jw and SRF shall be obtained from field investigations that shall be
undertaken by the author and presented in chapter 4.
Dr Evert Hoek in his rock engineering course notes classifies Tunnel reinforcement
according to rock mass quality into 9 categories according to the summary given by
Grimstad and Barton, 1993 as shown in fig 2.3 shown on the next page.
REINFORCEMENT CATEGORIES
Unsupported
Spot bolting
Systematic bolting
Systematic bolting with 40-100mm unreinforced shortcrete
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 50 90mm, and bolting
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 90-120mm, and bolting
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 120mm 150mm, and bolting
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 150mm, with reinforced ribs of shortcrete and
bolting
Cast concrete lining.
Figure 2.3, estimated support categories based on the tunnelling quality index Q (After Grimstad and Barton
1993)
Hence in a nutshell, the basic design of a support structure for a tunnel in a rock depends
on the classifications of the rock mass in order to come up with a proper design so as not
to over design or under design.
2.4 Groundwater Conditions

The presence of large volumes of groundwater is an operational problem in tunnelling
but water pressures are generally not too serious a problem in underground excavation
engineering. (Hoek, 1982) Exceptions are pressure tunnels associated with

hydroelectric projects. In these cases, inadequate confining stresses due to
insufficient depth of burial of the tunnel can cause serious problems in the
tunnel and in the adjacent slopes. The steel linings for these tunnels can cost several
thousand dollars per metre and are frequently a critical factor in the design of a
hydroelectric project.
Groundwater pressures are a major factor in all slope stability problems and an
understanding of the role of subsurface groundwater is an essential requirement for any
meaningful slope design. (Hoek and Bray 1981; Brown 1982)
While the actual distributions of water pressures in rock slopes are probably much more
complex than the simple distributions normally assumed in slope stability analyses.
(Freeze and Cherry 1979) Masur and Kaufman (1962) suggested that sensitivity studies
based upon these simple assumptions are generally adequate for the design of drainage
systems.
In the case of dams, forces generated by the water acting on the upstream face of the
dam and water pressures generated in the foundations are critical in the assessment of the
stability of the dam. Estimates of the water pressure distribution in the foundations and of
the influence of grout and drainage curtains upon this distribution have to be made with
care since they have a significant impact upon the overall dam and foundation design.
(Soos, 1979)
The major advances which have been made in the groundwater field during the past
decade have been in the understanding of the transport of pollutants by groundwater.
Because of the urgency associated with nuclear and toxic waste disposal in industrialised
countries, there has been a concentration of research effort in this field and advances have
been impressive. The results of this research do not have a direct impact on conventional
geotechnical engineering but there have been many indirect benefits from the
development of instrumentation and computer software which can be applied to both
waste disposal and geotechnical problems.
In the case of tunnels, the rate of inflow of groundwater in litres per minute per metre of
the tunnel should be determined, or a general condition can be described as completely
dry, damp, wet, dripping, and flowing. If actual water pressure data are
available, these should be stated and expressed in terms of the ratio of
the
water pressure to the major principal stress. The latter can be either
measured or determined from the depth below surface, i.e., the vertical stress increases
with depth at 1.1 psi per foot of the depth below surface. (Z. T. Bieniawski 1990)
It is common practice to not design for external hydrostatic pressure where feasible. This
is done by specifying weep holes to keep external hydrostatic pressures from developing
against tunnel linings. (Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Risk Assessment report,
November 2008) on this notion the author shall provide weep holes for the lining and not
design for the external hydrostatic pressure.
2.5 Tunnel lining

Permanent lining is required in most tunnels, always in soft ground and frequently in
rock. The purpose of a lining is partly structural, to contain and support the ground and
control inflow of water, as well as to provide an internal finishing suitable for the
equipment of the tunnel. The principal materials and construction methods for permanent
lining of bored tunnels are: 1) in-situ concrete, 2) sprayed concrete (shotcrete), 3)
segments in prefabricated concrete or cast-iron.
Z. T. Bieniawski in his book Tunnel designs by classification elaborates the theory
behind tunnel and tunnel lining. He says, the design of tunnels in rock currently utilizes
three main approaches: analytical, observational, and empirical. In view of the very
complex nature of rock masses and the difficulties encountered with their
characterization, the analytical approach is the least used in the present engineering
practice. The reason for it does not lie in the analytical techniques themselves, since some
have been developed to a high degree of sophistication, but in the inability to furnish the
necessary input data as the ground conditions are rarely adequately explored.
Consequently, such analytical techniques as the finite element method, the boundary
element method, closed form mathematical solutions, photoelasticity or analogue
simulation are mainly useful for assessing the influence of the various parameters or
processes and for comparing alternative design schemes; they are the methods of the
future not as yet acceptable as the practical engineering means for the design of rock
tunnels.
According to Z. T. Bieniawski 1986, the observational approach, of which the New
Austrian Tunnelling method (NATM) is the best example, based on observations and
monitoring of tunnel behaviour during construction through selecting or modifying the
support as the project proceeds. This represents essentially a "build as you go"
philosophy since the support is adjusted during construction to meet the changes in
ground conditions. This approach is nevertheless based on a sound premise that a flexible
tunnel lining, utilizing the inherent ability of the rock to support itself, is
preferable to a rigid one. In practice, a combination of rockbolts and
shotcrete is used to prevent excessive loosening in the rock mass but
allowing it to deform sufficiently to develop arching and self-support characteristics. The
problem with this approach is, however, that it requires special contractual provisions:
these may be suitable for the European practice for which they were evolved many years
of trial and error, but are not easily adaptable to the established U.S. contracting
procedures. (Z. T. Bieniawski, 1986)
2.5.1 The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)
The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) is an approach or philosophy integrating
the principles of rock mass behaviour and the monitoring of this behaviour during tunnel
excavation. The word method is not a very proper choice of word usage, as the NATM is
not a set of specific excavation and support techniques. Instead the NATM involves a
combination of many established ways of excavation and tunnelling, but the difference is
the continual monitoring of the rock movement and the revision of support to obtain the
most stable and economic lining. The NATM is not a simple employment of shotcrete as
support. Rabcewicz, 1964 said, a new tunnelling method- particularly adapted for
unstable ground- has been developed, which uses surface stabilisation by a thin auxiliary
shotcrete lining, suitably reinforced by rock bolting and closed as soon as possible by an
invert. Systematic measurement of deformation and stresses enables the required lining
thickness to be evaluated and controlled.
Below is a description given by Dr Erik Eberhardt in his module Tunnelling and
Underground Design of 2012:
Mobilisation of strength: the inherent strength of the soil/ rock surrounding the tunnel
should be conserved and mobilised to the maximum extent possible (i.e. controlled
deformation of the ground is required to develop its full strength). Primary support is
directed to enable the rock to support itself. It follows that the support must have suitable
load deformation characteristics and be placed at the correct time.
Primary support: minimisation of ground loosening and excessive deformation may be
achieved in various ways, but generally a primary support system consisting of systematic
rock bolting and a thin semi flexible shortcrete lining is used. It is essential that it is
placed and remains in physical contact with the ground and deforms it.
Flexible support: the NATM is characterised by versatility/ adaptability leading to flexible
rather than the rigid tunnel support. Thus strengthening is not by a thicker concrete lining
but a flexible combination of rockbolts, wire mesh and steel ribs. The primary support
will partly or fully represent the total support required and the dimensioning of the
secondary support will depend on measurement results.
Measurements: the NATM requires the installation of instruments at the

time the initial shotcrete lining is placed, to monitor tunnel deformation and
build-up of load in the support. This provides information on tunnel
stability and enables optimisation of the load bearing rock mass ring.
Closing of invert: closing to form a load bearing ring of the rock mass is essential. In soft
ground tunnelling, the invert must be closed quickly and no section of the excavated
surface should be left unsupported even temporarily. For rock tunnels, the rock mass must
be permitted to deform sufficiently before the support takes full effect.
Excavation sequencing: the length of the tunnel left unsupported at any time during
construction should be as short as possible. Where possible, the tunnel should be driven
full face in minimum time with minimum disturbances of the ground by blasting.
Conceptual arrangements: since the NATM concept is based on monitoring measurements
(i.e. observational approach), changes in support and construction methods should be
possible and worked into the contractual system. All parties involved in the design and
execution of the project design and supervisory engineers and the contractors engineers
and foremen must understand and accept the NATM approach and adopt a co-operative
attitude to decision making and the resolution of problems.
NATM Advantages
The primary advantage of NATM is the economy resulting from matching the amount of
support installed to the ground conditions, as opposed to installing support for the
expected worst case scenario throughout the entire tunnel. The safety of the work is more
easily assured because the sizes and the configuration of the headings making up the total
tunnel cross section can be adapted to the degree of instability of the working force.
NATM Disadvantages
One of the chief problems is the need for cooperation between the owners and
contractors engineers in deciding the amount of support to be installed from day to day.
It is not easy to achieve this in the adversarial conditions often encountered. Also the one
man one job philosophy of union contracting tends to spoil the economic advantages
since most of the tasks are necessarily performed sequentially, some of them by other
trades. Daily production rates are often lower, and in soft ground, more support is
generally required to support the working face, than with shield driven tunnels.
The empirical approach relates the experience encountered at previous projects to the
conditions anticipated at a proposed site. If an empirical design is backed by a systematic
approach to ground classification, it can effectively utilize the valuable practical
experience gained at many projects, which is so helpful to exercising one's engineering
judgment. This is particularly important since, to quote a recent paper:' "A

good engineering design is a balanced design in which all the factors which
interact, even those which cannot be quantified, are taken into account; the
responsibility of the design engineers is not to compute accurately but to judge soundly.
Rock mass classifications, which thus form the backbone of the empirical design
approach, are widely employed in rock tunnelling and most of the tunnels constructed at
present in the United States make use of some classification system. The most extensively
used and the best known of these is the Terzaghi classification which was introduced over
40 years ago.
In fact, rock mass classifications have been successfully applied throughout the world: in
the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Southern Africa, Australia, New Zealand,
Japan, USSR, and in some East European countries. Some classification systems were
applied not only to tunnelling but also to rock foundations, rock slopes, and even mining
problems.
The purpose of this report is to evaluate tunnel design practices with respect to rock mass
classification systems and particularly those which have been introduced in the recent
years, have been tried out on a large number of tunnelling projects, and have offered a
practical and acceptable alternative to the classical Terzaghi classification of 1946.
During the feasibility and preliminary design stages of a project, when very little detailed
information on the rock mass and its stress and hydrologic characteristics is available, the
use of a rock mass classification scheme can be of considerable benefit. At its simplest,
this may involve using the classification scheme as a check-list to ensure that all relevant
information has been considered. At the other end of the spectrum, one or more rock mass
classification schemes can be used to build up a picture of the composition and
characteristics of a rock mass to provide initial estimates of support requirements, and to
provide estimates of the strength and deformation properties of the rock mass.
It is important to understand that the use of a rock mass classification scheme does not
(and cannot) replace some of the more elaborate design procedures. However, the use of
these design procedures requires access to relatively detailed information on in situ
stresses, rock mass properties and planned excavation sequence, none of which may be
available at an early stage in the project. As this information becomes available, the use of
the rock mass classification schemes should be updated and used in conjunction with site
specific analyses.
A rock mass classification has the following purposes in a tunnelling

application:
1. Divide a particular rock mass into groups of similar
behaviour
2. Provide a basis for understanding the characteristics of each group.
3. Facilitate the planning and the design of excavations in rock by yielding
quantitative data required for the solution of real engineering problems.
4. Provide a common basis for effective communication among all persons
concerned with a tunnelling project.
These aims can be fulfilled by ensuring that a classification system has the following
attributes: Simple, easily remembered, and understandable. Each term clear and the
terminology used widely acceptable. Only the most significant properties of rock masses
included. Based on measurable parameters that can be determined by relevant tests
quickly and cheaply in the field. Based on a rating system that can weigh the relative
importance of the classification parameters. (Z. T. Bieniawski, 1986; Nguyen Duc Toan,
2006)
Steve Klein of Jacobs associates in his book An approach to the classification of weak
rock for tunnel project defines a weak rock. He writes, Most approaches that have been
used to define weak rock from an engineering point-of-view are based on the uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock.
For example, the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) describes rock with
an UCS in the range of 0.25 to 25 MPa (about 35 to 3,600 psi) as extremely weak to
weak (ISRM, 1981). A more appropriate upper bound strength limit for weak rocks
may be 20 MPa (about 3,000 psi) because there appears to be a difference in the way rock
weaker than this limit behaves when sheared. Strength test data for sandstones indicate
rocks with a UCS below about 20 MPa generally contract when sheared whereas stronger
rocks tend to dilate (Dobereiner and de Freitas, 1986). Materials that dilate when sheared
tend to resist the strains imposed on them and therefore, are less deformable than
materials that tend to contract when sheared. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper,
weak rock is considered to be rock with an UCS in range of 0.25 to 20 MPa (about 35 to
3,000 psi).
Another important factor influencing the strength of weak rocks is the porosity, or the
amount of void space in the rock. In general, high porosity correlates with low strength.
Low porosity and high strength is a result of a dense arrangement of grains

and/or cementing agents filling the void space between grains. Table 1
summarizes some available strength data for mudstone and sandstone,
generally indicating that mudstone and sandstone with a porosity higher than about 10
and 20 percent, respectively, will most likely be considered weak rock, if 20 MPa is taken
as the upper strength limit.
Examples of weak rocks include sedimentary rocks (sandstone, siltstone, shale, claystone
or mudstone, clay-shale, marl, and chalk), some volcanic rocks (tuff, agglomerate, and
breccia), and weathered and altered (hydrothermal or chemical) rocks of all types. In
addition, weak rock conditions can also be produced by close jointing, shear zones, or
faults in the rock mass.
When a particular type of support has been determined by the use of support classes
outlined in this chapter, a relevant design can now be deduced which is suitable for the
particular rock class according to the support class it belongs to.
2.6 The design of support elements for tunnel lining

2.6.1 Tunnel Geometry
In the design of tunnels, designers attempt to utilize a shape that will prove the most
stable. Basic mechanics, in conjunction with the rock mass classification, dictates the
most effective geometry. For instance, tunnels are rarely excavated with a flat roof. The
reason for this is that, as the span increases, the rock in the center has less force holding it
up, and a flat-roofed tunnel is more susceptible to collapse. However, when tunnelling is
strongly stratified rock, such as shale, the roof is often cut flat, taking advantage of the
rock's natural tendency to break along bedding planes. By cutting the tunnel along
bedding planes and then supporting the roof, the tunnel would be less apt to collapse than
if a different geometry were employed which cut across the bedding of the rock, making
it more unstable. For the most part, however, tunnels are excavated with roofs that are
circular segments, which is the most stable geometric shape with regard to an externallyapplied stress. Also common are tunnels cut with horseshoe shapes, or tunnels with gothic
arch roofs, which provide maximum stability in the roof section. (Wahlstrom, 1973)
In addition to the shape of the tunnel section, the size is also very important. It is
generally considered that the minimum size for a tunnel that will still permit reasonable
working space is at least 7 feet (2.15 m) high by 4 feet (1.2 m) wide, clear of the wall or
the supports, for a walkway. (Wahlstrom, 1973) The primary problem in sizing a tunnel
is one of support against external stress. Consider circular tunnels: Using the formula of
(pi)r2 to calculate the area of a circle (or in this case, an infinitesimally thin
slice through a circular tunnel), it can be shown that doubling the diameter
(2r) of a circular tunnel results in four times the area (2r) of the slice. This
means that doubling the diameter of a tunnel requires removing four times as much rock.
This rock, up to the point of excavation, had been in equilibrium with the surrounding
rock, and had been supporting it. In addition, the surface area of the tunnel is doubled,
and so the forces in the rock which are trying to bring down the tunnel are now acting
over twice as large an area. It is for this reason that the use of supports is much more
important in larger tunnels than in smaller ones. Often, in cases where tunnels are to be
driven into rock of questionable competence, very small tunnels are driven first and then
carefully enlarged and supported during the enlarging process. (Wahlstrom, 1973)
2.6.2 Tunnel Mechanics
The two concepts in mechanics which most apply to tunnelling are stress and strain.
Stress may simply be thought of as a force applied on a body, and strain may simply be
thought of as that body's deformational response to the stress. For instance, consider
placing a heavy book on top of a grape. The stress is the force of gravity and the mass of
the book, and the strain is the reaction of the grape to the stress, namely, flattening.
Staining of the book by the grape juice is a chemical process, and is not considered in this
paper. Stress and strain models are used by most tunnel engineers to determine the
feasibility of a particular excavation. However, recent models have begun to move away
from a stress-and-strain focus. The focus of some of the newer models is the distortional
strain energy stored in the rock masses. The reason for this is that energy is a scalar, and
thus has no direction, so that the analysis may be performed without regard to the
directions of the stress and strain acting on the rock body. (Matsumoto and Nishioka,
1991)
Jim St. Marie in the consideration of stress and strain puts the dynamic nature of a
material into three classes of ideal behaviour, and all real materials behave in some
combination of the three.
1. Hookian solid-body (elastic) behaviour: In elastic behaviour, the strain is completely
proportional to the stress applied, so that a plot of stress vs. strain yields a straight line.
2. St. Venant's solid-body (plastic) behaviour: In plastic behaviour, an applied stress will
not result in any strain until a certain stress is reached (yield point). At this point, only
strain increases. Reduction of the stress to below the yield stress will result in the
cessation of the strain.
3. Newtonian liquid (viscous) behaviour: In viscous behaviour, the rate of strain is
proportional to the stress applied. That is, as the stress applied increases, the deformation
does not increase, but the rate at which the body deforms does.
When any underground excavation is made in an already weak rock, it

often serves to further weaken the rock above it. This is due to a
combination of 1) the excavation activity itself (primarily blasting)
weakening the surrounding rocks as a result of shock waves and 2) the removal of
supporting rock from underneath a large mass of rock. The net effect of this, weakening
of rock and also giving it a place to go, is a movement toward the tunnel from above,
which wraps around the tunnel and forms wedges of material which press in on the sides
of the tunnel (Terzaghi, 1946). As Figure 2.4 illustrates, the rock in area abcd, loosened
by the excavation, is attempting to move downward, and is being resisted by friction on
surfaces ac and bd. The effect of this is the transfer of a large amount of the overburden,
W1, onto the abutments of the tunnel. This tunnel will require steel supports, and they will
be supporting a load equivalent to Hp, which will depend on the characteristics of the
rock mass and the dimensions of the tunnel.
Figure 2.4, concept of movement of loosed rock toward a tunnel of width B, height Ht and transfer of rock load,
Hp (Terzaghi, 1946)
Tunnels are sometimes cut with flat roofs when excavated in strongly laminated rock, in
order to take advantage of the rock's tendency to separate on those planes. However, it is
rarely the case that laminated rocks are found in a pristine state with their bedding planes
parallel and horizontal. Inclined bedding planes in stratified rocks pose a great problem,
in that there is a great tendency for the rock to move along the bedding planes and thus
slide into the tunnel (Jim St. Marie 2011) as indicated in Figure 2.5 below, modified
from Terzaghi (1946). The steep angle of the bedding planes with respect to the tunnel
will result in the wedge-shaped rock body (aed) sliding into the tunnel and putting stress
on the support (ac). The lateral force, P, can be estimated from the mass of
the
sliding rock body and the angle which it makes with the tunnel support.
According to King (1996), the load on the tunnel and supports depends on
the
strike and dip of the strata, and tunnels will have to be cut more narrowly in the event of
steeply inclined stratified rocks. (Jim St. Marie 2011)
Figure 2.5, forces acting on tunnel support in inclined strata (Terzaghi, 1946)
In general, rocks have a high resistance to crushing. King (1996) states that the walls of a
tunnel will not fail as a result of compression except at great depth - more than 2000 feet
(600 m) for softer sandstones and more than 19,000 feet (5800 m) for the strongest rocks.
However, the rocks are still under an immense amount of stress, and the rock left standing
after tunnel or cavern excavation must bear a greater load than before, as illustrated in
Figure 2.3 from Terzaghi. This point is further illustrated in Figure 2.6 below, from
Herget (1988). The grid lines represent the principal plane-strain stresses around a
circular tunnel after excavation. The crowding of the trajectories at the sides indicates an
increase in compression, and the widening at the top and bottom indicates a decrease in
compressive stress. This implies that the walls of a tunnel, not the roof, would be more
susceptible to failure. This is the mechanical basis of the rockburst phenomenon.
Figure 2.6, Deflection of stress around a circular opening
Of all the hazards associated with mining, rockbursts are perhaps the most terrifying. A
rockburst is the sudden, violent dislocation of slabs of rock in a tunnel, usually from the
walls, but also potentially from the roof or even floor. Considered to be a "mininginduced seismic event," a rockburst can release enormous amounts of energy, and some
have been measured at 4 on the Richter scale (Jha and Chouhan, 1994), and one
rockburst was recorded by a seismological station 1200 miles distant. The danger is
obvious and quantifiable: In a three-year period in the Kolar gold-field in India,
rockbursts accounted for 50% of all fatalities. (Obert and Duvall, 1967)
One of the primary causes of rockbursts is obviously stress. The forces necessary to
shatter tons of rock require the input of stress. The other primary factor is the rock type.
An interesting point about rock bursts is that they do not occur in weak rocks. It is
thought that the pressures which can cause a rockburst are slowly released in the weaker
rocks by semi plastic adjustments. (Wahlstrom, 1973) The rocks affected are nearly
always hard, strong, and brittle. These rocks may have an unconfined compressive stress
of 15,000 to 60,000 psi (100-400 MPa) and a Young's modulus (modulus of elasticity) of
6x10^6 to 14x10^6 psi (40,000 to 90,000 MPa) In the United States, the most common
location for rockburst phenomena seems to be the Coeur d'Alene mining district of
northern Idaho, where the galena mines run over a mile deep into the quartzites of the
Revett Formation of the Belt Supergroup. (Obert and Duvall, 1967; Jim St. Marie, 2012)
Mathematically, it can be shown that the strain energy per unit volume, defined as the
(normal stress)2/2E, where E is the Young's modulus, or the ratio of stress to strain. The
maximum strain energy per unit volume would be C0/2E, where C0 is the uniaxial
compressive stress. (Obert and Duvall, 1967) All other things being equal, the weakest
rocks would be the least likely to burst, because they would reach their failure point far
before they could store enough strain energy to produce a violent failure. (Jim St. Marie,
2012) Considering that notion, the author is not going to worry about rockbursts as the
rock being dealt with at portal 5 is anticipated to be very weak rock.
Excavation of tunnels in rock is a complicated, dangerous, and expensive

process. The mechanics of this can be very complex. However, in the case
of
excavation into rock which has a certain degree of competence,
approximations can be made that will allow for simplification of the mathematics, at least
in the preliminary design phase, which will allow for the simple calculation of the
feasibility of the project. In the actual design of the tunnel, the more complex
mathematical models would be used, and with a number of computer application
programs, be much quicker and more accurate than in the past, ensuring the excavation of
a safe and stable tunnel (Jim St. Marie, 2012)
The design of the steel arches is going to be an iteration method where various sections of
steel arches (I beam or H beam) will be subjected to various loadings and the most
suitable and economic design to be considered by the author will be the one with its
yielding point tallying with a load that is close to the rock load to be determined for portal
5. Design can be evaluated and verified using the software FLAC (Remedial Design of
Steel Arch Support for an Ore Pile Tunnel Using FLAC, Andrew Corkum, 2011)
2.6.3 Steel arches
Steel ribs are used for reinforcement of weaker tunnel sections, and give rigid to
semi-rigid support. The ribs are made from I-beam or H-beam structural steel bent
to conform to the requirements of a particular tunnel cross-section.
The design of steel arches based on the notion of the unstable rock wedge in the
crown or possible asymmetrically, to be supported by the arch. The arch is
buttressed against the rock around the remainder of the periphery of the tunnel, to
limit bending stresses. The design of the foot-blocks is vital to the success of the
system of support, in relation to bearing capacity of the ground, which may be
weakened by the disturbance caused by the tunnel excavation. The weakness of
steel arch support concerns the load at which failure may occur by lateral buckling
and torsion.
Timber may be used for packing between the beams and the rock. However,
providing continuous bedding against the rock may considerably increase the
load-bearing capacity of the arches. A means for achieving this objective is the
inserting between the rock and arch a bolster made of porous fabric filled with a
weak sand/cement grout.
2.6.4 Rock bolts
Steel bolts are frequently set in holes drilled into the rock to assist in supporting
the entire roof or individual rock slabs that tend to fall into a tunnel. Rock bolts
maintain the stability of an opening by suspending the dead weight of a slab from
the rock above by
providing a normal stress on the rock surface to clamp

discontinuities together and develop beam action
By preventing key blocks becoming loosened so that the strength and integrity of
the rock mass is maintained.
If the characteristics of the rock are such that the bolts will suffice in supporting
the roof or parts thereof, the use of bolts is both safe and economical.
The effective use of bolts requires some understanding of the natural forces that
exist underground. In an underground excavation all downward-acting forces are
transmitted to the walls of the excavation. Most of the rock above the excavation
is supported by natural arch action that bears on the walls. The arch suspends the
remaining rock below the arch. If this suspended rock lacks sufficient strength, it
sags and tension cracks develop. As the cracks work up into the roof, weakening
the suspended strata, rock begins to fall all at once or over an extended period of
time. If the rock is strong enough and free of large slips and cracks, the rock that
is subject to falling usually should not exceed one-third of the width of the roof. It
is this rock that bolts can support.
2.6.5 Shotcrete
Pneumatically applied mortar and concrete are increasingly being used for the
support of underground excavations. The effectiveness of a shotcrete is
determined by its compressive strength, bond strength, flexural strength and
modulus of elasticity. A layer of shotcrete 150mm thick around a tunnel 10m in
diameter can carry a load of 500 kN / m corresponding to a burden exceeding
20m of rock. A combination of rock bolts and shotcrete has proved an excellent
temporary support for all qualities of rock.
Shotcrete is best known in tunnelling as an integral component of the NATM

method. Quick-setting concrete is sprayed onto the bare rock surface immediately
after excavation, and rapidly hardens to form a preliminary support until the final
lining of conventional poured concrete can be installed.
Shotcrete has advantages and disadvantages. Traditionally, shotcrete's quicksetting properties have been achieved by the injection of high-alkaline additives at
the spraying nozzle. However, this method has always had its drawbacks. The
resulting concrete is highly porous, and lacks strength. Caustic dust from the
additives can cause skin and lung problems, and represents a health hazard to
construction workers.
(The above information on the support elements for tunnel lining was extracted from an
untitled power point file from an unrecognised source on google.com.)
2.7 Conclusion
For the previous tunnel linings I was merely using experience as a civil
engineer, but one major assumption I adopted which may be useful to you is
assume a rock load at a depth of 3m (Stephen Norton, 2013)
to
In conclusion, for the tunnel lining design, the author is going to use the empirical
approach and observational approach. The empirical approach is convenient as it is the
one which relates to experience encountered at previous projects to the conditions
anticipated at the current project. P1, P2, P3 and P4 have tunnel linings and the author
will consider their designs in order to come up with the best design for portal 5, since the
conditions at P5 are not fully explored but just presumed to be similar to those of P3.
The observational approach is an important tool for the author in his design since it is
based on observations and monitoring of tunnel behaviour during construction and the
mining process thereby selecting or modifying the support structure as the project
progresses. Support can be adjusted during construction to meet the changes in ground
conditions according to position and how blasting and the mining process will be done at
any particular position. Support can be adjusted from cast concrete lining and steel sets
for extremely weak rock to shotcrete and rock bolts for fairly competent and very
competent rock mass. The analytical approach is not the best of approaches to be used for
design in the case of portal 5. Analytic modelling can be achieved only when material
parameters, constitutive equations and boundaries are appropriately defined or modelled,
which makes the use difficult for portal 5.
The author is going to design only for the worst case scenario of the rock mass for the
tunnel; other cases are in the scope of the mine geologists and the mine rock engineers.
An amalgamation of the empirical approach and the observational approach shall be used
in order to come up with a design that is both economical and reliable.
CHAPTER 3 (THREE)
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the project methodology, which essentially consists of the
evaluation methods, as well as the design procedures to be undertaken by the author in
designing a permanent support structure for the weak rock mass in portal 5 Ngezi mine.
The author has compiled information from various sources and various disciplines
considering the logic behind each step and justifying each stage in order to come up with
a reasonable set of procedures to be followed for the tunnel lining design. Basically there
are three approaches that exist for the design of tunnel support structures, empirical,
analytical and observational methods. The author has come up with a combination of the
three approaches for each of the particular design stages.
3.2 Design steps and procedures.

1. Site investigations to determine the following parameters for design:
(a) Rock mass classification
Rock mass classification helps in classifying the support type. Support categories
include rock bolts, shortcrete, cast concrete lining and steel sets. It is after a
careful rock mass classification that the appropriate tunnel support

lining can be selected. Rock mass classification properties that will
investigated are:
Rock quality designation
Length of core pieces 100 mm
R.Q.D =
100
Totallength of core run
be
(b) Rock mass rating

R.M.R is evaluated from the RMR charts in the appendix which consider the
following parameters:
i. Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.
ii. Rock Quality Designation (RQD).
iii.
Spacing of discontinuities.
iv. Condition of discontinuities.
v. Groundwater conditions.
vi. Orientation of discontinuities
(c) Rock structure rating
R.S.R = A+B+C
Where, A is the geology parameter
B is the geometry parameter and,
C is the ground water effect parameter.
The values A, B and C are evaluated from the tables in the appendix section for
the R.S.R
(d) Rock tunnelling quality index, Q
RQD Jr Jw

Q=
Jn
Ja SRF
Where
R.Q.D is the Rock Quality Designation
Jn
is the joint set number
Jr
is the joint roughness number
Ja
is the joint alteration number
Jw
is the joint water reduction factor
SRF is the stress reduction factor
(e) Rock mass density
The rock density plays a pivotal role in analysing the rock mass behaviour as well
as aiding in calculating the rock load exerted on the tunnel.
(f) Radius of influence of tunnel on rock
The radius of influence plays a major part in calculating the rock load therefore
should be determined.
(g) Influence of groundwater on the rock mass and the tunnel.
The groundwater influence on tunnels has a very big impact and should be
carefully determined prior to design. Dry, damp or wet conditions will not greatly
impact the tunnel or change the general design but large inflow and
exceptionally large flow results in large hydrostatic pressures and
these should be included in the design.
2. Calculating the rock load exerted by the rock mass on the tunnel.
Four different methods will be used to calculate the load being exerted by the rock on the
tunnel.
Geomechanics rock mass classification system.
National Coal Board (NCB) loosened zone approach.
Terzaghi design method.
Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach.
Geomechanics rock mass classification system
Figure 3.1, Geomechanics system, rock load height method
HP =
100RMR
W
100
P = HP W
Where, RMR is the rock mass rating,
W is the tunnel width
Hp is the rock mass height above tunnel which has effect on the tunnel
is the rock mass density
National Coal Board (NCB) loosened zone approach
Figure 3.2, NCB system, triangular loosened zone method.
Hp = (1-1.5) W
P=(
W
2
Hp where parameters carry the same meaning as in the first method.
Terzaghi design method
Figure 3.3, Terzaghi system, loosed zone method
Hp = (0.35 1.1) (Tunnel width + Tunnel Height)
P=
W
2
Hp where parameters carry the same meaning as in the first method.
Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach
Figure 3.4, the Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach rock load height method
Hp = W
P=(
W
2
HP parameters carry the same meaning as in the first method.
An average of the four methods will be taken as the load exerted by the rock mass on the
tunnel. The rock load is the basis for the design of the support elements therefore it is one
of the major aspects to be considered for the tunnel support design.
3. Determine the dimensions of the tunnel easy for tunnel support design calculations,
analysis and construction, but also close to the tunnel dimensions proposed by the mining
engineers, and then come up with a working drawing.
4. Determine the stress strain behaviour of the rock load on the boundary of the tunnel
(tunnel analysis by a suitable Finite Element Analysis Method)
5. Determine the steel arch beam section shape, size and spacing by using a suitable
modelling software or technique. Among the suitable softwares that can be used by the
author is FLAC, PLAXIS, or ABAQUS.
6. Design the reinforced concrete thickness and grade and come up with a relevant
bending schedule for the walls and the roof.
7. Design the base plates and the strip footings.
8. Design the weep holes, conduit, and drain for ground water and any other water that
can exist in the tunnel to eliminate the need of considering hydrostatic pressure in the
design.( this step is valid only if there is minimum inflow into the tunnel. If inflow is
large or largely excessive then hydrostatic pressure needs to be considered.)
9. Determine a suitable stabilised fill/slab for the floor of the tunnel with a suitable slope
to allow for water to flow into the drainage.
10. Draw the final construction drawings.
Chapter 4 (FOUR)
4.0 Site investigations and presentation of results
4.1 Site investigations
Zimplats owns mineral rights on the Ngezi tenements which form part of the Great Dyke
in Zimbabwe. The tenements extend for a distance of 30km and are located in the
Sebakwe Sub Chamber. The Ngezi Mine is located in the south of this sub chamber.
Current operations at the Ngezi Mine consist of an open pit producing about 100ktpm and
underground operations at Portal 2 (P2) producing 80ktpm (0.96Mtpa). In addition
Portal 1 (P1) and Portal 4 (P4) are building up to production levels of 125ktpm
(1.5Mtpa) and 190ktpm (2.3Mtpa) respectively. Ore from the open pit and P2 is crushed
on surface nearby and transported by road train to the SMC 77km to the north. The open
pit is nearing the end of its life. The ore from P1 and P4 (2.3Mtpa) will be crushed in
close proximity to their respective portal, as will be the case for Portal 5 (P5). It is
planned to construct a concentrator in the vicinity of P4 to cater for the processing
shortfall at SMC.
The current Ngezi mine site is situated 170km by tarred road south west of Harare. SMC
(Silo Metallurgical Complex) is situated 77km north of the current mine site and 80km
from Harare. The surrounding infrastructure for the Ngezi mine is shown in fig 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1, Ngezi mine location and surrounding infrastructure (extracted from portal 5 feasibility
study page 3)
4.2 Climate and Vegetation

The +1,200m altitude of the region results in a temperate climate with daily maximum
temperatures in the 20-30C range. The winter season is generally from May to August
and frost occurs occasionally. The rainfall is about 760mm per annum, falling between
September and April.
Exceptionally wet or dry seasons are not uncommon but winter rainfall is limited. The
prevailing wind direction is from the north east. The mining project area is located
entirely on state land and consists of poor quality agricultural land that traditionally has
been used for cattle grazing and light subsistence agriculture. The light woodland cover is
not of significant conservation importance as similar woodland is found

extensively throughout Zimbabwe.
SMC (Silo Metallurgical Complex) is situated within commercial farms on leased land.
The surrounding land is used for a mixture of crops and cattle grazing.
4.3 Geology
4.3.1 Regional Geology
The Great Dyke is a layered mafic-ultramafic complex that transects the Zimbabwean
Archaean Craton in a NNE trending direction. The dyke is highly elongate, slightly
sinuous, 550km long with a maximum width of 12km. The Great Dyke developed
initially as a series of discrete magma chamber compartments which coalesced as the
chambers filled. The chamber coalesced below the Main Sulphide Zone (MSZ) and so
prior to erosion taking place the MSZ would have been continuous along the length of the
dyke.
The dyke is divided into two major successions, a lower ultramafic sequence dominated
from the base upwards by cyclic repetitions of dunite, harzburgite and bronzitite
(pyroxenite) and an upper mafic sequence consisting mainly of gabbro and gabbronorite.
Much of the mafic sequence has been eroded away.
The MSZ is preserved in a continuous zone stretching 90km from Lake Manyame to
Ngezi Dam known as the Hartley Complex. The Hartley Complex straddles two subchambers, Darwendale and Sebakwe: the Ngezi project lies towards the south of the
Sebakwe Sub-chamber.
The Ngezi project covers an area of about 30km in a NNE direction. Zimplats intend to
exploit the area with a series of up to 10 decline systems commonly referred to as portals.
(See Figure 3.2 on the next page). The orebody at P5 is very similar to that at P2 and P4
and forms a shallow syncline that dips at between 9 and 18 on the east and western
extremities and dips from 9 to flat towards the centre of the syncline. The mining method
at P1, P2, P3 and P4 where the dip of the orebody is <9is mechanised Room and Pillar at
a stopping width of 2.5m. This mining method has been successful and has therefore been
adopted for P5. The mining method for the steeper portions of the syncline has yet to be
defined, although a project to trail mine the steeper areas has been
authorised to commence. Access from surface to the P5 mining area will be
via
2 declines developed at 8 below the horizontal. Each decline will split; one
will intersect the reef horizon at the 9 dip contour (Access Decline) while the other is
developed in the footwall 30m below the reef horizon, this decline will house the
conveyor ore handling system (Waste Decline). The 30km stretch area is a highly
faulted area therefore support of the structure at the portals is very necessary.

Figure 4.2, schematic diagram showing location of resource areas, portal 1-10 (an extract from
portal 5 feasibility report, page 4)
There are accordingly four parallel declines from the split, two on reef for trackless
vehicle movement, one for the conveyor and one for servicing the conveyor. Ore will be
loaded by LHD close to the working face and tipped into diesel trucks that will haul to
ore passes above the conveyor system. Ore will be fed onto the conveyor via an apron
feeder and sacrificial belt. Ore will be crushed on surface and placed in a silo pending
transport by conveyor to the new concentrator or by road train to SMC. Ventilation will
be disseminated through the 4 declines and raise bored holes (RBHs) situated adjacent
to the declines and exhausted through RBHs located near the top of the mine
4.3.2 Local Geology

4.3.2.1 Main Sulphide Zone (MSZ)
The MSZ lies in ultramafic (pyroxenite), 5 to 50m below the contact between the mafic
and ultramafic sequences. The MSZ is a lithologically continuous layer between 2m and
10m thick that forms an elongated basin. Layers of igneous rocks within the basin dip at
between 5 and 20 along the flanks and flatten out towards the centre to form an almost
flat portion along the axis of the basin. Typically the MSZ consists of a 2-10m thick zone
containing 2-8% of iron-nickel-copper sulphides disseminated in pyroxenite the base
metal sub-zone. The base of this nickel-copper rich layer is straddled by a 1-5m thick
zone of elevated precious metals (Pt, Pd, Rh and Au or 4E) commonly referred to as the
PGE (Platinum Group Elements) sub-zone. The base of the MSZ can be located visually
in drill core. The PGE mineralisation cannot be located visually but is spatially linked to
the peak sulphide zone in a consistent manner allowing its location to be identified from
the sulphide peak.
The PGE mineralisation includes major concentrations of platinum, palladium, rhodium
and gold and minor concentrations of iridium, ruthenium and osmium. Base metals
present in this zone are nickel and copper with minor traces of cobalt.
4.3.3 Geological Disruptions

Extensive faulting has modified the synformal shape of the MSZ. The poor
quality of the outcrop and the fact that the vertical drill holes rarely intersect
the
predominantly near vertical faults has precluded detailed mapping of these faults prior to
mining. The north-western corner of the potential P5 footprint near to Mulota Hill has
been excluded from the Resource because the profiles in this area are disputed. Typically
they have a single high gold value, little or no platinum and wide and sometimes elevated
palladium grades. The relationship between the disruption and the silicification at Mulota
Hill is not yet understood. There appears to be extensive faulting around this zone.
There are scattered local disruptions to the metal profile. Aplite and dolerite dykes and
coarse grained bronzitite layers are responsible for most of these. Some are particularly
enigmatic and can only be located by assay; they have a very subtle increase in grain size
in the disrupted zone and often have more obviously coarse material in the hanging wall.
It is not yet understood to what extent these zones join up but it is assumed that they are
small discontinuous bodies. Drilling and geological investigation continues. P5 is an upthrown block between two boundary faults. Geological lineaments have been computed
as a result of an aeromagnetic survey. The properties of these lineaments are currently not
well understood.
According to the topography, resistivity and the drilling that has been completed in the
initial area planned to be mined, faulting will be encountered. However thereafter the
mining area, for a number of years will be relatively be un-faulted. Close spaced drilling
to determine the details of the initial faulted area continues. There appears to be more
intense faulting northwards near to and east of the Mulota disruption. More drilling will
be required to determine the nature of this faulting before mining reaches this area.
4.4 Geotechnical Engineering

4.4.1 Geological and geotechnical environment
The MSZ is contained within an ultramafic bronzitite horizon underlying massive
mafic gabbro norite and Websterite. A typical geological section is summarized in
Table 4.1 on the next page.
Table 4.1: Typical Geological Section
Indicative thickness of unit(m)
Description
4-15
Residual and completely weathered gabbro

norite
+50
Gabbro norite
Pegmatite
22
Websterite
Highly weathered websterite
Bronzitite
Mineralised zone within bronzitite
14
Bronzitite
4.5 Presentation of results

Fig 4.3 on the next page shows the opening to portal 5 from the initial drill and blast of
the rock. The rock mass has been temporarily supported by shortcrete and rock anchors. A
suitable tunnel lining should be constructed beginning with a landing for the pipework
and electricity cables for the tunnel supplies since there are going to be ablution facilities,
offices store rooms, clock room and other relevant facilities.
Figure 4.3, Ngezi mine portal 5 position.
Some of the geological information used in layout design for portal 5 has been derived
from investigations at P1, P2, and P4 and from observation of the pillar behaviour at P3.
Additional information from laboratory testing samples obtained from P5 exploration
holes summarised in the table below extracted from the rock mass explored shown in fig
4.3 above.
Table 4.2, typical geotechnical properties
Property
Mean
Standard
deviation
Number of
samples
Uniaxial compressive stress

(MPa)
233
39
14
Youngs Modulus (Gpa)
142
12
14
Poissons ratio
0.22
0.02
14
Tensile strength(MPa)
20.6
1.5
12
Density(KN/m3)
32.8
0.3
13
Hoek-Brown (m)
12
8.8
24
Reports and observations at P2 indicate that the rock mass is very blocky and that MRMR
values may tend to lie in the range from mid 30 to lower 40. These are significantly lower
than the observed in the P4 geotechnical cores and the rock mass at P5 will likely be
worse than that of P2 and P4.
A classification audit on the ground conditions has been undertaken at P2 indicates the
following distribution:
Table 4.3, Ground condition classification
Ground class
Area (m2)
(%)
A (Good)
3,258
1.1
B (Fair)
116,161
38.5
C (Poor)
181,899
60.5
D (Very Poor)
744
0.3
Total Area
302,093
100
Current geological information indicates that in general P5 ground condition will be

worse than that of P2. It is expected that the number of B occurrences will reduce
accompanied with an increase in the C and D ground classes.
The typical geological section of portal 5 presumed from previous encounters at the four
previous portals is given below.
Table 4.4, Typical Geological Section
Indicative thickness of unit(m)
Description
4-15
Residual and completely

weathered gabbro norite
+50
Gabbro norite
Pegmatite
22
Websterite
Highly weathered websterite
Bronzitite
Mineralised zone within bronzitite
14
Bronzitite
Tables that begin from table 4.5 to table 4.10 give the determined value for the particular
parameter in question and the relevant value of that parameter is in bold font different
from the rest of the other value. The actual calculations of the parameters and properties
are presented on the working sheets attached at the end of this chapter.
Table 4.5
Description
Value
RQD
Notes
Very poor
0-25
Poor
25-50
Fair
50-75
Good
75-90
Excellent
90-100
If RQD is
reported as
10,
including 0, a
nominal value of 10 is used
to evaluate Q
Table 4.6
Joint set number
Jn
Massive, no or few joints
0.5-1.0
One joint set
Se
e
One joint set + 1 random
Two joint sets
Two joint sets + 1 random
Three joint sets
Three joint sets + 1 random
12
Four or more joint sets, random
15
Crushed rock, earthlike
20
Table 4.7
Joint roughness number
Jr
Discontinuous joints
Rough and irregular, undulating
Smooth undulating
Slicken sided undulating

1.5
Rough or irregular, planar
1.5
Smooth, planar
1.0
Slicken sided planar
0.5
Table 4.8
Joint
alteration
number
Joint alteration number
Ja
Tightly healed, hard, non-softening,

impermeable filling.
0.75
r
Degrees
approx
Values of r the
residual
friction angle,
are intended as
Unaltered joint walls, surface staining 1.0

only.
25-35
Slightly altered joint walls, nonsoftening mineral coatings, sandy

particles, clay-free disintegrated
rock, e.t.c
2.0
25-30
Silty, or sandy clay coatings, small

clay fraction(non-softening)
3.0
20-25
Softening or low friction clay mineral 4.0

coatings, i.e. Kaolinite, mica. Also
chlorite, talc, gypsum and graphite
e.t.c., and small quantities etc and
small quantities of swelling.
(Discontinuous coatings, 1-2mm or
less)
an
approximate
guide to the
mineralogical
properties of
alteration
products, if
present.
8-16
Description
Value
Notes
Joint alteration number
Ja
Degrees(approx.)
b. Rock walls before 10cm

shear
F
Sandy particles, clay-free,

disintegrating rock e.t.c
4.0
25-30
Strongly over-consolidated, nonsoftening clay minerals fillings

(continuous5mm thick)
6.0
16-24
Medium or low over

consolidation, softening clay
minerals (continuous 5mm
8.0
12-16
thick)
J
Swelling clay fillings, i.e.

montmorillonite, (continuous
5mm thick). Values of Ja
depend on the percentage of
swelling clay-size particles and
access to water
8.0-12.0
6-12
c. No rock wall contact when

sheared
K
Zones or bands of disintegrated

or crushed
6.0
Rock clay (see G, H and J for

clay conditions)
8.0
8.0-12.0
6-24
Zones or bands of silty or sandy

clay, small clay fraction, nonsoftening
5.0
Thick continuous zones or bands

of clay
10.0-13.0
P&R
(see G.H and J for clay

conditions)
6.0-24.0
Table 4.9
Joint water reduction
Jw
Approx. water
pressure(kgf/cm
)
Dry excavation of minor inflow i.e.

5 l/m locally
1.0
1.0
Medium inflow or pressure,

occasionally outwash of joint
fillings.
0.66
1.0-2.5
Large inflow or high pressure in

competent rock with unfilled joints
Large inflow or high pressure
0.5
0.33
2.5-10
2.5-10
1.
Factors See to F
are crude
estimates;
increase Jw if
drainage installed.
Exceptionally high inflow at

blasting, decaying with time
0.2-0.1
10
Exceptionally high inflow or

pressure
0.10.05
10
2. Special
problems caused
by ice formation
are not
considered
Table 4.10
Stress reduction factor
SRF
a. Weakness intersecting excavation,

which may cause loosening of rock
mass when tunnel is excavated
A
Multiple occurrences of weakness

zones containing clay or chemically
disintegrated rock, very loose
surrounding any depth
10
1. reduce the values

of SRF by 25-50%
but only if the
relevant shear zones
influence do not
Single weakness zones containing

clay, or chemically disintegrated
rock(excavation depth 50m)
5.0
Single weakness zones containing

clay, or chemically disintegrated rock
(excavation depth 50m)
2.5
Multiple shear zones in competent

rock(clay free), loose surrounding
rock(any depth)
7.5
Single shear zone in competent

rock(clay free).(depth of
excavation50m)
5.0
Single shear zone in competent

rock(clay free).(depth of
excavation50m)
2.5
Loose open joints, heavily jointed or

sugar cube, (any depth)
5.0
intersect the
excavation
NB. All bold values in tables represent the evaluated values for portal 5.
Groundwater conditions can be safely concluded as wet. No actual water discharges or
pressure could be calculated as the condition is generally wet or dripping and not flowing
which would have made it very difficult to come up with a detailed groundwater
hydraulics model.
4.6 Database Validation/Integrity of site background

The Zimplats samples were analysed by Genalysis for platinum, palladium, gold,
rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, nickel (contained within sulphides and a total nickel
content), copper, sulphur and cobalt and often for osmium. Genalysis (Pty) Ltd. is an
internationally recognised assay laboratory. It is certified by the National Association of
testing Authorities Australia (NATA). For this Resource estimate it was agreed that only
platinum, palladium, gold, rhodium, nickel (sulphide) and copper were to be used.
Chapter 5 (five)
5.0 Design of the support structure
5.1 Classifying the support type

Table 5.1: Design properties, values and conclusions.
Rock mass classification
Value
Conclusion
Rock Quality Designation, RQD
27%
Extremely poor rock mass
Rock Structure Rating, RSR
52%
Poor rock mass
Rock Mass Rating, RMR
40
Type IV, poor rock
Rock Mass Quality, Q
0.34
Very poor rock mass
Excavation support ratio, ESR
1.6
Permanent mine opening
Inserts at the end of this chapter include the calculations of these rock mass classification
values and the tables in the appendix give the relevant conclusion for each value that has
been calculated.
The rock mass at portal 5 is a very poor or weak rock mass hence supporting the tunnel
with reinforced concrete and steel sets is going to be required. The support structure is
very necessary for the roof and walls of the tunnel. Since there is no and will be no
overburden pressure from the floor of the tunnel designing a support structure there on
will not be very necessary. However for drainage purposes and the easy movement of
workers and vehicles, (trucks, load haul dumps, utility vehicles e.t.c), a platform for
vehicular movement may be designed. The ground water conditions are not adverse
therefore it is safe to design weep holes in order to relieve any hydrostatic pressure from
the rock mass.
5.2 Determining the support geometry

In the design of tunnels, designers attempt to utilize a shape that will prove the most
stable. Basic mechanics, in conjunction with the rock mass classification, dictates the
most effective geometry.
A circular roof is going to be used since it is the most stable geometric shape with regard
to an externally-applied stress as it will distribute the applied forces evenly throughout the
structure and will utilize the fact that for weak rock, it may crush along any
plane and the circular geometry will provide maximum stability better than
flat roof.
5.3 Steel sets design

Refer to the inserts of calculation sheets at the end of this chapter
5.3.1 Steel arches
A top hat section is going to be used for the design as it provides perfect connections of
the arch column to the arch roof section as shown in the figures 5.1 (a) and (b).
Figure 5.1 (a), top hat connection.
Figure 5.1(b), top hat connection.
5.3.2 Steel base plates

5.3.3 Steel brackets
5.3.4 Top hat connection
5.4 Strip footings
5.5 Drainage
The rock strata is a water bearing geological formation so water will be discharging onto
the tunnel lining structure and also water will be coming from the rock on the underside
of the tunnel. It is therefore wise to design the tunnel wall and roof with weep holes so
that water will not build up in the structure but will discharge outside through the weep
holes and into a conduit which will then discharge the water into a drainage which will
transport the water into a sump, hence there is need to design for the weep holes, conduit,
drain and sump.
5.5.1 Weep holes
The entry of large quantities of water from the tunnel face or from the rock surrounding
the tunnel is one of the most troublesome problems which can be encountered in
underground construction. Although it is sometimes difficult to predict the location and
the extent of water problems and to specify how these problems should be
dealt with.
Since the student is not going to be designing for the external hydrostatic pressure on the
walls and roof of the tunnel, weep holes have to be provided; these will keep external
hydrostatic pressure from developing against the tunnel. These will act as the pressure
release facilities as water will discharge from the rock strata into the weep holes, weep
holes can be installed through the concrete lining to drain the surrounding groundwater
into the tunnel.
The weep holes consist of a 2.5-inch-diameter PVC solid pipe into which a 1.5-inch
perforated PVC pipe was inserted provided at regular intervals of 1m. The inserted pipe
was wrapped with two layers of geotextile filter fabric prior to insertion into the larger
pipe. The geotextile filter fabric also covers the interior end of the inserted pipe.
5.5.2 Drain
Drain will be designed as open channel and should be capable of transporting the water
from the conduits and the groundwater which will flow into the drain because of the
sloping ground to the sump.
5.5.3 Sump
Factors should slope at 45 to direct settled solids to the sump inlet.
Sump pits are to be a minimum of 750mm deep and 0.25m area, therefore if the
student uses the minimum sump sizes then if the sump is designed as square,
l = 0.25m
l = 0.25
l = 0.5m
And h = 0.75m
Sump pit is to be fitted with a tightly fitting removable cover of aluminium
Sump pit will be constructed of concrete.
Sump pit is to be fitted with an opening to accept 100mm drain with the invert of
the pipe located above the centre of the sump pit height.
Sump pit is to be placed on an even well compacted surface.
5.6 Superstructure
5.6.1 Brackets
Brackets are flat steel plates bolted to the steel columns and the steel arches so as to keep
e structure in position and avoid any movements during concrete pouring and in e event
of possible rock falls or earth disturbances or vibrations.
5.6.2 Base plates

Base plates are provided so that they will distribute the loads evenly from
columns to the strip footing so that loads will not be distributed directly and
also to minimise the effect of punching shear.
the
5.6.3 Anchor bars

Anchor holes for anchor bars should be drilled to about 2m into the rock and then grouted
in position. After grouting the protruding length which had an L bend will then be welded
to the steel column. This is done so that in the event of the rock collapsing from e side
walls they will be no sway movement as a result of the auxillary load emanating from
such failure/collapse and also anchoring assist in making the whole structure one unit i.e.
e concrete and the side wall rock...e ring effect????????????????
CHAPTER 6
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto
a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
M't:7:25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
6.2 Recommendations
APPENDIX A
Table 6.1: Rock structure rating: Parameter A: General area geology
Table 6.2: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter B: Joint pattern, direction of

drive
Table 6.3: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter C: Groundwater, joint condition
Table 6.4 A: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Table 6.4 B: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Table 6.4 C: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Table 6.4 D: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Table 6.4 E: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Table 6.4 F: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Table 6.5: Guideline for excavation and support of 10m span rock tunnels in accordance
with the R.M.R. system (after Bieniawski 1989)
Rock mass
class
Excavation
Rock bolts
(20 mm
diameter, fully
grouted)
I - Very
good rock
RMR: 81100
Full face,
3 m advance.
Generally no support required except spot

bolting.
II - Good
rock
RMR: 6180
Full face,
1-1.5 m advance.
Complete support 20 m
from face.
Locally, bolts in
crown
3 m long, spaced
2.5 m with
occasional wire
mesh.
50 mm in
crown
where
required.
None.
III - Fair
rock
RMR: 4160
Top heading and bench

1.5-3 m advance in top
heading. Commence
support after each
blast.
Complete support 10 m
Systematic bolts
4 m long, spaced
1.5 - 2 m in
crown and walls
with wire mesh
in crown.
50-100
mm in
crown
and
30 mm in
sides.
None.
Shotcrete
Steel sets
from face.
IV - Poor
rock
RMR: 2140
Top heading and bench

1.0-1.5 m advance in top
heading.
Install support
concurrently
with excavation, 10 m
from face.
Systematic bolts
4-5 m long,
spaced 1-1.5 m
in crown and
walls with wire
mesh.
100-150
mm in
crown
and
100 mm
in sides.
Light to
medium ribs
spaced 1.5 m
where
required.
V Very
poor rock
RMR: < 20
Multiple drifts 0.5-1.5 m

advance in top heading.
Install support
concurrently with
excavation. Shotcrete as
soon as possible after
blasting.
Systematic bolts
5-6 m long,
spaced 1-1.5 m
in crown and
walls with wire
mesh. Bolt
invert.
150-200
mm in
crown,
150 mm
in sides,
and 50
mm on
face.
Medium to
heavy ribs
spaced 0.75 m
with steel
lagging and
forepoling if
required.
Close invert.
Table 6.6 1: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.6 4: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling

Quality index (After Barton et al 1974) cont.
Table 6.6 6a: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling

Quality index (After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.6 6b: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE USE OF THESE TABLES

When making estimates of the rock mass Quality (Q), the following guidelines should be
followed in addition to the notes listed in the tables:
1. When borehole core is unavailable, RQD can be estimated from the number of joints
per unit volume, in which the number of joints per metre for each joint set are added. A
simple relationship can be used to convert this number to RQD for the case of clay free
rock masses: RQD = 115 - 3.3 Jv (approx.), where Jv = total number of joints per m3 (0 <
RQD < 100 for 35 > Jv > 4.5).
2. The parameter Jn representing the number of joint sets will often be affected by
foliation, schistosity, slaty cleavage or bedding etc. If strongly developed, these parallel
'joints' should obviously be counted as a complete joint set. However, if there are few
'joints visible, or if only occasional breaks in the core are due to these features, then it will
be more appropriate to count them as 'random joints when evaluating Jn.
3. The parameters Jr and Ja (representing shear strength) should be relevant to the weakest
significant joint set or clay filled discontinuity in the given zone. However, if the joint set
or discontinuity with the minimum value of Jr/Ja is favourably oriented for

stability, then a second, less favourably oriented joint set or discontinuity
may sometimes be more significant, and its higher value of Jr/Ja should be
used when evaluating Q. The value of Jr/Ja should in fact relate to the surface most likely
to allow failure to initiate.
4. When a rock mass contains clay, the factor SRF appropriate to loosening loads should
be evaluated. In such cases the strength of the intact rock is of little interest. However,
when jointing is minimal and clay is completely absent, the strength of the intact rock
may become the weakest link, and the stability will then depend on the ratio rockstress/rock-strength. A strongly anisotropic stress field is unfavourable for stability and is
roughly accounted for as in note 2 in the table for stress reduction factor evaluation.
5. The compressive and tensile strengths (c and t) of the intact rock should be evaluated
in the saturated condition if this is appropriate to the present and future in situ conditions.
A very conservative estimate of the strength should be made for those rocks that
deteriorate when exposed to moist or saturated conditions.
Table 6.7: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
APPENDIX B
References
1. Abad, J., Celada, B., Chacon, E., Gutierrez, V. and Hildago, E.
Application of Geomechanics Classification to Predict the Convergence of
Coal Mine Gallaeries and to Designer Supports. Proceedings, 5th
International Congress of Rock Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Melbourne, Australia, April, 1983, pp. E15-E19.
2. Baczynski, N. Rock Mass Characterization and Its Application to Assessment of
unsupported underground openings, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1980, 233
3. Barton, N. Application of Q-System and Index Tests to Estimate Shear Strength and
Deformability of Rock Masses. Proceedings. International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, Laboratorio
Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, September 1983, Vol. II,
pp. 11-51-11-70.
4. Bieniawski, Z. T. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 15, 1978, pp. 237248.
5. Bieniawski, Z. T. The Geomechanics Classification in rock engineering applications.
Proceedings, 4th International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Montreux, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1979, Vol. 2, pp. 51-58.
6. Bieniawski, Z. T. Rock mass classifications - state of the art and need for
standardization. Transportation Research Record, No. 783, Washington,
DC, 1981, pp. 2-9.
7. Bieniawski, Z. T. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling, A. A. Balkema
Publishers, Rotterdam/Boston, 1984, 272 p.
8. Cameron-Clarke, I. S. and Budavari, S. Correlation of rock mass classification
parameters obtained from borecore and in situ observations. Engineering Geology., Vol.
17, 1981, pp. 19-53.
9. De Vallejo, L. I. A New Rock Classification System for Underground

Assessment Using Surface Data. Proceedings. International Symposium on
Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, Laboratorio Nacional De
Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, September 1983, Vol. I, pp. 11-85-11-94.
10. Hoek, E. Geotechnical design of large openings at depth. Proceedings,
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York, 1981, Vol. 2,
pp. 1167-1185.
11. Kendorski, F. S., Cummings, R. A., Bieniawski, Z. T., and Skinner, E. H. Rock mass
classification for block caving mine drift support.
Proceedings, 15th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, International Society for
Rock Mechanics, Melbourne, 1983, pp. B101-113. D22
12. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 106, NO.
GT9, September 1980, pp. 1013-1035.
13. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. Underground Excavations in Rock, Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy, London, 1980, 527 p.
14. Priest, S. D. and Brown, E. T. Probabilistic stability analysis of variable rock slopes.
Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, Section A, Vol. 92, 1983,
pp. 1-12.
15. Brown, E. T. and Hoek, E. "Determination of Shear Failure Envelope in Rock Masses,
Discussion." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1988, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp. 371-373.
16. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. A 1988 Update of the Hoek and Brown Failure Criterion.
1988 Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, In Publication.
17. Serafim, J. L. and Pereira, J. P. Considerations of the Geomechanics Classification of
Bieniawski. Proceedings, International Symposium on Engineering Geology and
Underground Construction, Laboratorio Nacional De Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal,
1983, pp. 11-33-11-42.
18. Moreno-Tallon, E. Comparison and application of geomechanics

classification schemes in tunnel construction. Proceedings,
Tunneling '83 Conference, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London,
1982, pp. 241-146.
19. Unal, E. Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine Roofs. Ph.D.
Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1983, 355 p.
20. Priest, S. D. and Hudson, J. A. Discontinuity spacing in rock.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 13,
1979, pp. 135-198.
Herget, G., 1988, Stresses in Rock, A.A. Balkema, 179 pages
King, E.H., 1996, Rock Tunnels, Tunnel Engineering Handbook, Bickel, J.O., Kuesel,
T.R., and King, E.H., eds., second edition, Chapman & Hall, pp122-152.
Mahtab, M.A., and Grasso, P., 1992, Geomechanics Principles in the Design of Tunnels
and Caverns in Rocks, Elsevier Press, 250 pages.
Matsumoto, Y., and Nishioka, T., 1991, Theoretical Tunnel Mechanics, University of
Tokyo Press, 223 pages.
Obert, L., and Duvall, W.I., 1967, Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures in Rock,
John Wiley & Sons, 650 pages.
Parker, H.W., 1996 Geotechnical Investigations, in Tunnel Engineering Handbook,
Bickel, et al (eds).
Terzaghi, K., 1946, Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports, Rock tunneling with steel
supports, Proctor, R.V., White, T.L., and Terzaghi, K., editors, Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Co., Youngstown, Ohio.
Walhlstrom, E. E., 1973, Tunneling in Rock, Elsevier , 250 pages
Whittaker, B.N., Singh, R.N., Sun, G., 1992, Rock Fracture Mechanics; Principles,
Design, and Applications, Elsevier, 570 pages.
Williams, T.J., Wideman, C.J., and Scott, D.F., 1992, Case History of a Slip-Type
Rockburst, Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 139, 3-4, pp. 627-637
Jim St. Marie Tunnelling: Mechanics and hazards

Geotechnical Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Think in other terms

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

4.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

4.1 SITE INVESTIGATIONS

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

4.3.3 GEOLOGICAL DISRUPTIONS

5.0 DESIGN OF THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE

5.1 CLASSIFYING THE SUPPORT TYPE

6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Think in other terms

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

1.0 Introduction and project justification

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Fig 1.1: It is also necessary to have a tunnel lining at a mine entrance

Figure 1.2: Portal 5, Ngezi mine, Zimplats.

Think in other terms

1.3 Statement of problem (Key Question)

1.4 Project objectives

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Blasting for underground construction purposes is a cutting tool, not a bombing

Think in other terms

2.2 Rock mechanics

Think in other terms

rock mechanics. These courses train geologists to be specialists in the

engineering design. These geological engineers, following in the tradition

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Terzaghis rock mass classification

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

Classification including the stand-up time

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

The Rock Quality Designation index (RQD) was developed by Deere

Palmstrm (1982) suggested that, when no core is available but discontinuity

Think in other terms

dependent parameter and its value may change significantly,

Think in other terms

Geologic structure (massive, slightly faulted/folded, moderately

Table 1.1: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter A: General area geology.

Think in other terms

Table 2.3: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter C: Groundwater, joint condition.

a: Dip: flat: 0-20; dipping: 20-50; and vertical: 50-90

Think in other terms

tunnel support requirements. The numerical value of the index Q varies on a

Tunnel lining for underground mine.

Think in other terms

2.4 Groundwater Conditions

Think in other terms

engineering. (Hoek, 1982) Exceptions are pressure tunnels associated with