1.

PROJECT SETTING & SITE GEOLOGY

URS Corporation (URS) was retained to undertake
a detailed inspection, investigate existing ground
conditions and evaluate the structural condition of
underground structures associated with a power
generating hydroelectric facility located on a river
between two sets of falls in upper New York state.
The underground structures comprised an intake
tunnel and ancillary structures, including the intake
shaft, the surge tube riser shaft (STRS), the tunnel
transition area (TTA), and the three penstocks
including the penstock transition zones (PTZs). The
work included a geotechnical investigation and
performance of numerical and empirical analyses to
assess the structural stability of the aforementioned
existing structures. This paper details the
assessment of the structural stability of the STRS
only.
The intake tunnel is located beneath a river
extending from the upper falls (higher elevation) to
the lower falls (lower elevation). The ground
surface elevations in the area range from
approximately elevation (EL) 450 feet at the top of
the river gorge to EL 260 feet below the lower falls.
The elevation of the river varies from EL 392 feet
above the upper falls to EL 252 feet below the
lower falls. Between the two falls, the river is at
approximately EL 350 feet. The intake tunnel
conveys water from the impoundment area (approx.
EL 391 feet) located above the upper falls, through
a series of three penstocks and turbines, to
discharge points located at the base of the lower
falls. The total elevation head of water between the
impoundment area located above the upper falls and
the base of lower falls is 139 feet.
1.1. Bedrock Formations
The rock formations exposed at the project site
include (from youngest to oldest) the Irondequoit
Limestone, Rockway Dolomite, Williamson Shale
(Upper Maplewood Shale & Lower Maplewood

ARMA/USRMS 06-1071

Ground Deformation and Structure Stability in
Highly Stressed Rock Formations

Paul Headland
URS Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Mohamed Younis
URS Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

Copyright 2005, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at Golden Rocks 2006, The 41st U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): "50 Years of Rock Mechanics - Landmarks and Future
Challenges.", held in Golden, Colorado, J une 17-21, 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,
ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: The project site is situated in highly stressed rock formations located in upstate New York. The project location
and client name are confidential. The objective of the study was to investigate the stability of an 87-year old surge chamber shaft
embedded in a river gorge side slope with a slope height in excess of 150 feet. The shaft is concrete lined and approximately 22
feet in diameter and 75 feet high. Based on a visual inspection, the concrete shaft structure displayed extensive cracking with a
crack pattern that appeared to be the result of high non-uniform stresses imposed by the surrounding rock formations with possible
rock expansion and movement towards the gorge. The rock formations present at the site consist primarily of limestones,
sandstones, and shales. An engineering geological investigation was designed to study the in situ rock mass characteristics, in situ
stresses and ground behavior. The study included geological rock mapping (RMR & Q System), rock coring, geophysical
investigation, dilatometer in situ testing, and laboratory rock testing. A numerical model of the rock gorge was built to simulate
the rock stresses and behavior using two-dimensional Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) software. This paper
presents the geological study and the analysis. The analysis results obtained were found to concur with initial field observations.
Shale), Reynales Limestone (Wallington Limestone,
Seneca Park Hematite & Brewer Dock Limestone),
Maplewood Shale, Kodak Sandstone, Cambria
Shale, Thorold Sandstone, Grimsby Sandstone,
Devils Hole Sandstone, and Queenston Shale.
Different formations exposed on the sidewalls of
the river gorge exhibited various degrees of
weathering depending upon the nature of the
formation.
The general stratigraphic profile (ground surface to
depth) present in the vicinity of the STRS on the
sidewalls of the river valley adjacent to the
hydroelectric station is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Geologic Profile
Formation Depth from (EL ft) Depth to (EL ft) Thickness (ft)
Glacial Till 460.0 443.5 16.5
Irondequoit Limestone 443.5 425.5 18.0
Rockway Dolomite 425.5 413.5 12.0
Williamson Shale
(1)
413.5 386.5 27.0
Reynales Limestone
(2)
386.5 366.5 20.0
Maplewood Shale 366.5 347.5 19.0
Kodak Sandstone 347.5 343.0 4.5
Cambria Shale 343.0 328.3 14.7
Thorold Sandstone 328.3 320.5 7.8
Grimsby Sandstone 320.5 288.2 32.3
Devils Hole Sandstone 288.2 284.0 4.2
Queenston Shale 284.0 260.0 24.0
(1)
Williamson Shale formation comprises the Upper Williamson Shale (thickness = 10 ft) and the Lower Williamson Shale (thickness = 17 ft).
(2)
Reynales Limestone formation comprises Wallington Limestone (thickness = 16 ft), Seneca Park Hematite (thickness = 1 ft), and Brewer Dock
Limestone (thickness = 3 feet).

1.2. Groundwater
The groundwater regime in the vicinity of the
hydroelectric facility appears to be primarily
controlled by the presence of the adjacent river.
Based on historical water level information, it
appears that the observed levels correspond with the
adjacent water levels in the river.
1.3. Tectonic Setting
The bedrock formations in the project area are
known to contain relatively high horizontal in situ
stresses. These stresses developed as a result of
historic large land mass movements. It is believed
that as the river gorge developed, and rock was
eroded away, the horizontal stresses were forced to
concentrate in the strata below the river. It is
therefore thought that the intake tunnel was
constructed in, and currently exists in, a relatively
highly stressed rock mass.
2. DETAILED INSPECTION
2.1. Tunnel Inspection
URS inspected the underground structures
associated with the hydroelectric facility between
July 2003 and November 2003. The inspection
culminated in a detailed assessment of the condition
of the tunnel and associated appurtenant structures,
including the Intake Shaft, STRS, Main Tunnel,
TTA, three PTZs, and three Penstocks. The
reported observations for the STRS are summarized
below.
Surge Tank Riser Shaft
The STRS is a 22-foot internal diameter concrete-
lined vertical shaft which extends from EL 370 at
the base of the surge tank to the crown of the intake
tunnel at approximately EL 289 (shaft length = 81
feet). The center of the surge tank riser shaft is
located at STA -0+43 within the transition zone
between the tunnel and the penstocks, where the
tunnel envelope widens immediately north of STA
0+00 of the tunnel alignment. The following key
observations were made of the STRS shaft during
the inspection.
Shaft walls were generally in poor condition;
Shaft lining appeared to deteriorate considerably
with increasing depth below ground surface;
Structural cracks of varying size, extent, and
frequency were observed throughout the depth
of the shaft;
Concrete spalling was observed to varying
degrees along the entire depth of the shaft;
Minor seepages and limited staining were
observed on the shaft lining walls;
Evidence of buckling (bulging) was observed at
several locations within the shaft.
Buckling appeared to be more pronounced towards
the base of the shaft, including one large area of
buckling (4 feet wide by 12 feet high) located
approximately 10 feet above the tunnel crown on
the northeast wall of the shaft.
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION & ROCK
PROPERTIES
The URS field investigation was conducted in the
fall of 2003. The investigation consisted of geologic
mapping, borehole drilling, in situ dilatometer
testing and laboratory testing of selected rock core
specimens. A summary of each of these field
activities is presented below.
3.1. Geologic Mapping
URS conducted detailed geologic mapping of
exposed sidewalls of the river gorge and collected
orientation and discontinuity condition data for each
of the geological formations observed. URS
conducted geologic mapping of the exposure
present along gorge sidewalls to evaluate rock mass
characteristics and structure in relation to the tunnel,
two shafts, and three penstocks associated with the
hydroelectric facility. The mapping evaluated
discontinuity (bedding/joint) orientations,
conditions, and characteristics. Figure 1 presents a
profile view of the pertinent geologic formations
URS identified during geological mapping
activities.
3.2. Borehole Drilling
The URS field investigation comprised two (2)
borings. Boring B-1 was completed in October 2003
and is located within the TTA below the STRS
(approximately EL 268 feet). Boring B-2 was
completed in November 2003 and is located
approximately 70 feet to the northeast of the STRS
at ground surface (approximately EL 460 feet).
Both borings are located to the east of a river. The
locations of the two URS borings are shown on
Figure 2.

Figure 1: Geological Profile



Figure 2: Boring Locations
URS also conducted an extensive review of the
geotechnical data associated with these borings in
order to develop an overall rock mass
characterization and classification for the rock
formations intersected by the structures associated
with the facility.
The URS field investigation proceeded as follows:
B-1 was a vertical boring drilled and
continuously cored from the TTA invert
(approx. EL 268 feet) to a depth of 24 ft
below the invert (approx. EL 244 feet) of the
tunnel lining immediately beneath the center
of the STRS using mud rotary drilling
techniques with continuous sampling
methods. Downhole testing consisted of four
rock dilatometer tests undertaken in situ to
evaluate rock mass bulk modulus and in situ
stress magnitude. Upon completion, this
borehole was backfilled with grout and sealed
with concrete flush with the surface of the
tunnel with concrete. One anchor bolt 15 feet
in length was installed into the boring at this
location and grouted in place per the clients
request.
B-2 was a vertical boring drilled from ground
surface (approximately EL 460 feet) and open
holed to 90 feet below ground surface
(approximately EL 370 feet) and then
continuously cored to a depth of 200 feet below
ground surface (approximately EL 260 feet).
Boring URS B-2 was located approximately 70
feet to the northeast of the STRS using mud
rotary drilling techniques with continuous
sampling. Downhole testing consisted of 11
rock dilatometer tests to evaluate rock mass
bulk modulus and in situ stresses. Upon
completion, this borehole was backfilled with
grout from EL 260 feet to ground surface (EL
460 feet).
Strength descriptions presented on the boring logs
are based on actual unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) laboratory testing results below the
Kodak Sandstone only. Above the Kodak
Sandstone, the strength descriptions on the boring
logs are based on classification tests undertaken in
the field.
3.3. Dilatometer Testing
Dilatometer testing was undertaken at 15 locations
within the two borings completed as part of the
URS field investigation. Dilatometer tests were
performed using the Probex 1 dilatometer system
manufactured by RocTest. The dilatometer
apparatus consists of a probe, volume measurement
instrument, and a hydraulic pump with pressure
gage. The 70-mm or 2.76-inch (N size) diameter
and 15-inch long cylindrical probes contain a high-
pressure expandable rubber membrane that is
inflated with water during the test. During testing,
the volume change induced in the probe for each
pressure applied was measured using a linear
volume displacement transducer. Expansion of the
probe was controlled by applying hydraulic pressure
from a hand-operated hydraulic pump and pressure
gage. The maximum pressure capacity of the
dilatometer system is 350 tons/ft
2
(700 kips per
square foot [ksf]).
The dilatometer test data were processed and
computer generated test curves produced, followed
by the calculation of geotechnical parameters
interpreted from the test curves. Each of the
geotechnical parameters derived from the
dilatometer test curves are discussed below.
Elastic Deformation Moduli
The initial (E), reload (E+), and unload (E-) elastic
deformation moduli were calculated from the linear
portions of the dilatometer test curves. The initial
moduli (E) for all test locations (DT1 through
DT15) ranged from 303 psi (B1-PM3) to 3,183 psi
(B2-PM9). The reload moduli (E+) ranged from
2087 psi (B1-PM3) to 71,580 psi (B2-PM14). The
unload moduli (E-) ranged from 862 psi (B1-PM3)
to 56,380 psi (B2-PM7). The elastic moduli
parameters as determined from the dilatometer
testing are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - Dilatometer Test Results Elastic Moduli Parameters
Boring Formation Tested
Test Depth
from
(ft)
Test Depth
to
(ft)
Initial
Modulus (E)
ksi
Unload
Modulus (E-)
ksi
Reload
Modulus (E+)
ksi
B1-PM1 Queenston Shale
(1)
5.375 6.625
(2)

(2)

(2)

B1-PM2 Queenston Shale
(1)
9.375 10.625
(2)

(2)

(2)

B1-PM3 Queenston Shale
(1)
14.375 15.625 303 2,087 862
B1-PM4 Queenston Shale
(1)
19.225 20.475 2,280 56,620 29,860
B2-PM5 Maplewood Shale 95.375 96.625 741 2,067 1,692
B2-PM6 Maplewood Shale 106.375 107.625 740 4,106 3,057
B2-PM7 Kodak Sandstone 114.375 115.625 1,352
(2)
56,380
B2-PM8 Cambria Shale 126.375 127.625 1,579 11,930 7,896
B2-PM9 Thorold Sandstone 133.375 134.625 3,183
(2)

(2)

B2-PM10 Grimsby Sandstone 144.375 145.625 1,889 10,960 10,350
B2-PM11 Grimsby Sandstone 152.875 154.125 1,413 9,266 6,313
B2-PM12 Grimsby Sandstone 168.375 169.625 1,529 12,460 6,663
B2-PM13 Queenston Shale
(1)
176.375 177.625 2,354
(2)
16,230
B2-PM14 Queenston Shale
(1)
188.375 189.625 1,697 71,580 18,410
B2-PM15 Queenston Shale
(1)
197.375 198.625 1,796 18,980 7,909
(1)
The Queenston Shale encountered in borings B-1 and B-2 was described as a SILTSTONE becoming shaley in parts.
(2)
Data contained errors or produced unacceptable results and therefore was not used to provide geotechnical parameters.

In Situ Stress State
The in situ horizontal total stress (
ho
) was
determined from the dilatometer test results as the
stress (P
o
) corresponding to the initiation of the
linear elastic response. The vertical overburden
stress in boring B-2 was calculated using an
estimated total unit weight for the rock as
determined from the laboratory test results. It
should be noted that the vertical stresses calculated
from the tests completed in boring B-1 have
assumed that the overburden stress at the tunnel
surface (start of boring) is equal to zero. However,
the stress distribution is vertically non-linear and
would be greater than the typical vertical stress
distribution (depth below ground surface multiplied
by the rock unit weight) due to the transfer and
distribution of in situ stresses within the rock mass
arching around the tunnel. The in situ stress
parameter results as determined from the
dilatometer testing are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 - Dilatometer Test Results In Situ Stress Parameters
Boring
Test Depth
from
(ft)
Test Depth
to
(ft)
Formation Tested
In Situ
Horizontal
Stress (
ho
)
psi
In Situ
Horizontal
Effective
Stress
(
ho
) psf
In Situ
Vertical
Effective
Stress
(
v
) psf
Coefficient
of Earth
Pressure at
Rest (K
o
)
B1-PM1 5.375 6.625 Queenston Shale
(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

B1-PM2 9.375 10.625 Queenston Shale 120 16,656 1,051 15.85
B1-PM3 14.375 15.625 Queenston Shale 130 17,784 1,576 11.28
B1-PM4 19.225 20.475 Queenston Shale 340 47,723 2,084 22.90
B2-PM5 95.375 96.625 Maplewood Shale 220 31,680 16,003 1.98
B2-PM6 106.375 107.625 Maplewood Shale 210 30,240 17,837 1.70
B2-PM7 114.375 115.625 Kodak Sandstone 160 23,040 18,147 1.27
B2-PM8 126.375 127.625 Cambria Shale 200 28,800 20,447 1.41
B2-PM9 133.375 134.625 Thorold Sandstone 225 32,400 21,457 1.50
B2-PM10 144.375 145.625 Grimsby Sandstone 260 37,440 23,186 1.61
B2-PM11 152.875 154.125 Grimsby Sandstone 290 41,760 24,222 1.72
B2-PM12 168.375 169.625 Grimsby Sandstone 290 41,760 27,817 1.50
B2-PM13 176.375 177.625 Queenston Shale 260 37,440 29,644 1.26
B2-PM14 188.375 189.625 Queenston Shale 625 38,880 31,654 1.23
B2-PM15 197.375 198.625 Queenston Shale 290 41,760 33,161 1.26
(1)
Data contained errors or produced unacceptable results and therefore was not used to provide geotechnical parameters.

The results of these tests are valid for the specific
materials and locations tested and are not to be
construed to be representative of the entire geologic
unit present at the site. Variations in engineering
properties and differences in conditions are often
encountered within each geologic unit.
The following observations can be made from the
dilatometer testing results.
The ratio of horizontal (
ho
) to vertical (
v
)
effective stress (K
o
) increases significantly
towards the center of the river gorge. K
o
is
significantly greater immediately beneath the
TTZ (B-1) than in the ground mass as
determined from the dilatometer testing
completed in B-2 located approximately 90 feet
to the northeast of the TTZ/STRS;
The values of K
o
in boring B-1 vary
significantly (K
o
range 11.28 to 22.90)
throughout the length of the formation tested
(EL. 258 feet to EL 248.2 feet);
The values of K
o
in boring B-2 are relatively
constant (K
o
range 1.23 to 1.98) throughout the
length of the formation tested (EL 364 feet to
EL 262 feet);
The stiffest materials are the sandstone units;
the less stiff materials are the shale units.
3.4. Laboratory Testing
A total of 19 samples were selected for laboratory
rock testing. Twelve samples were selected for
unconfined compressive strength testing (ASTM
D2938), three sample for Brazilian Split testing
(ASTM D3967), two samples for point load testing
(ASTM D5731), and three samples for slake
durability testing (ASTM D4644).
Based on the results of the laboratory rock testing
on selected samples from borings B-1 and B-2 the
following observations can be made.
The unconfined compressive strength values
ranged from 10,137 psi (Grimsby Sandstone) to
23,775 psi (Thorold Sandstone);
The unit weight values of the formations tested
were very consistent and ranged from 157.8 pcf
(Grimsby Sandstone) to 167.76 pcf (Queenston
Shale);
The point load strength values ranged from 437
psi (Maplewood Shale) to 19,043 psi (Brewer
Dock Limestone).
4. ROCK MASS STRUCTURE
Based on examination of the rock core collected
from borings B1 and B2 the intact rock mass
structure is generally considered to be sub-
horizontally bedded unweathered, moderately hard
to hard, fine (e.g., shale and siltstone) to coarse
grained (e.g., sandstone), laminated (e.g., shale) to
thickly bedded (e.g., sandstone), highly (e.g., shale)
to moderately fractured (e.g., sandstone)
sedimentary rock with unweathered and
smooth/planar bedding and unweathered
smooth/planar joints becoming slightly rough in
parts. The dip of the bedding ranges between 3 and
4 and is classified as flat (dip of bedding = 0 to
20). The above description is based on generalized
observations of the intact rock mass.
4.1. Bedding Characteristics
The strike, dip and dip direction data of bedding
plane discontinuities within the rock mass located at
the hydroelectric facility was collected as part of the
URS geological mapping completed as part of the
URS field investigation.
Bedding thicknesses are typically from 0.1 to 0.5
inch (laminated) and 0.5 to 2.0 inch (very thinly
bedded) in the shale units (Williamson Shale and
Maplewood Shale) and from 2 inches to 2 feet
(thinly bedded) and 2 feet to 3 feet (thickly bedded)
in dolomite, limestone, sandstone, and siltstone
units. Based on examination of the rock core
collected from borings B1 and B2 the following
general observations can be made regarding the
bedding of the formations present at hydroelectric
facility.
Bedding is sub horizontal (classified as flat);
Shale bedding thickness is generally between
0.1 inch and 2.0 inches;
Limestone, dolomite, sandstone and siltstone
bedding thickness is generally between 2 inches
and 3 feet;
Bedding roughness is generally smooth and
planar becoming slightly rough locally; and
Bedding planes are generally unweathered and
tightly healed with no infill material.
Based on the information contained within the
above table, the average dip and dip direction of the
formations exposed adjacent to the hydroelectric
facility is 3 and 166 respectively. Discontinuity
data was not collected for the Williamson Shale and
Maplewood Shale units due to the weathered nature
and access issues of these exposed in situ
formations.
4.2. Joint Characteristics
The strike, dip, and dip direction data of joint set
discontinuities within the rock mass located at the
hydroelectric facility were collected as part of the
URS geological mapping. Using the full data set
collected for each formation the average strike, dip
and dip direction have been calculated. One
predominant conjugate set of joints was noted
during the geological mapping.
Based on examination of the rock core collected
from borings B1 and B2, the following general
observations can be made regarding the jointing of
the formations present at the hydroelectric facility.
Jointing is sub-vertical (80 to 90);
Shale joint spacing is generally very closely
spaced (0.07 foot to 0.2 foot) to closely spaced
(0.2 foot to 0.7 foot);
Limestone, dolomite, sandstone and siltstone
joint spacing is generally closely spaced
(0.2 foot to 0.7 foot) to widely spaced (2 feet to
6.6 feet);
Joint roughness is generally smooth and planar,
becoming slightly rough locally; and
Joints are generally unweathered and tightly
healed with no infill material.
The average joint set discontinuity data
(Discontinuity Set A & Discontinuity Set B) for
each formation are summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4 - Average Joint Set Discontinuity Data
Discontinuity Set A (Average
Measurements)
Discontinuity Set B (Average
Measurements)
Formation Strike
Direction
()
Dip () Dip
Direction
()
Strike
Direction
()
Dip () Dip
Direction
()
Irondequoit Limestone 165/345 86 255 55/235 84 325
Rockway Dolomite 176/356 87 265 51/231 86 323
Williamson Shale 161 341
(1)
86
(1)
252
(1)
65/245
(1)
87
(1)
323
(2)

Wallington Limestone 146/326 85 238 80/260 88 170
Seneca Park Hematite 144/324 86 234 82/262 86 172
Brewer Dock Limestone 174/354 86 264 66/246 86 156
Maplewood Shale 172/352
(1)
86
(1)
264
(3)
72/252
(1)
86
(1)
156
(3)

Kodak Sandstone 170/350 87 80 78/258 86 348
Cambria Shale 163/343 87 253 33/213 85 123
Thorold Sandstone 158/338 86 251 29/209 87 210
Grimsby Formation 163/343 87 253 29/209 87 209
Devils Hole Sandstone 139/319 85 229 80/260 86 170
Queenston Shale 41/221 85 131 87/267 87 179
(1)
Values estimated based on average overlying and underlying formation measurements. No credible shale measurements were made due to the
degree of weathering and inaccessibility of the formations in situ.
(2)
Values estimated based the overlying Rockway Dolomite measurements due to significant disparity between dip direction of overlying and
underlying strata.
(3)
Values estimated based the overlying Brewer Dock Limestone measurements due to significant disparity between dip direction of overlying
and underlying strata.


A random set of discontinuities was also noted for
the Brewer Dock Limestone, Rockaway Dolomite,
and the Irondequoit Limestone. These three
formations are located closest to ground surface.
4.3. Faults
No faults intersect the project site based on the
findings of the field investigation, geological
mapping, and a review of all available geological
publications and project information supplied by the
client. The nearest known faults occur within the
Clarendon-Linden Fault Zone located in the
Allegheny Plateau physiographic province, which is
approximately 30 miles to the south of the project
site.
5. ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
Bieniawski (1989) [1] and Barton et al. (1974) [2 &
3] developed rock mass quality indices, namely the
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system and the Rock
Mass Quality (Q-System) system, respectively, that
are widely used to classify rock quality and to
estimate tunnel support requirements. The Q-
System was developed primarily for classifying
metamorphic rock mass quality. Rock mass
classification using the Q-System was undertaken
during the URS geological mapping. However, the
Q-System classification results are not presented.
URS evaluated general rock mass quality based on
evaluation of rock mass conditions for each
geologic formation as observed during URS
geological mapping and to a lesser extent based on
evaluation of rock cores collected during the URS
field investigation.
It should be noted that the UCS values used for rock
mass classification purposes are based upon
laboratory test data for the Kodak Sandstone and all
underlying formations. The UCS values for all
formations above the Kodak Sandstone were based
upon visual observations made during the field
investigation.
The RMR values were estimated predominantly
from weathered exposures and to a lesser extent the
individual core runs (B1 & B2), and therefore only
approximate the local site conditions that may be
encountered in situ. Differences may result from:
encountering joint swarms, differing seepage
conditions, overbreak during construction (tunnels
and shafts) along bedding, and other conditions.
In general, rock mass classes determined from the
RMR were Class II Good Rock to Class III Fair
Rock. The RMR ranged from 39, which equates to
Class IV Poor Rock (Williamson Shale and
Maplewood Shale), to 82, which equates to Class I
Very Good Rock (Devils Holes Sandstone, Kodak
Sandstone, and Seneca Park Hematite).
Comparing the ratings from the two systems (RMR
& Q-System), it can be seen that the Williamson
Shale, Maplewood Shale and formations containing
shale layers/partings (Irondequoit Limestone,
Rockway Dolomite, and Queenston Shale are
classified as fair rock with all the other rock
formations (dolomite, limestone, siltstone, and
sandstone) being classified as good rock or better.
The only anomaly was the Kodak Sandstone, which
was classified as fair rock according to the Q
System and good rock according to the RMR
System.
6. METHOD OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
URS conducted a combination of numerical
analyses, using Universal Distinct Element Code
(UDEC) [4 & 5] and Structural Analysis and Design
Professional 2002 (STAAD.Pro 2002) [6 & 7]
software programs, and empirical analysis to
investigate and asses the existing conditions of the
STRS. Below is a brief description of the analysis
methods, numerical models, and empirical analyses
performed
6.1. Numerical Analysis Using Universal Distinct
Element Code (UDEC)
An analysis was conducted using a two-dimensional
distinct element program, UDEC, which was
developed specifically for modeling of jointed rock
masses. UDEC is a two-dimensional numerical
program based on the distinct element method for
discontinuum modeling. The discontinuous
medium is represented as an assemblage of discrete
blocks. The discontinuities are treated as boundary
conditions between blocks; large displacements
along discontinuities and rotations of blocks are
allowed. Individual blocks behave as either rigid or
deformable material. Deformable blocks are
subdivided into a mesh of finite-difference
elements, and each element responds according to a
prescribed linear or non-linear stress-strain law. The
relative motion of the discontinuities is also
governed by linear or non-linear force-displacement
relations for movement in both the normal and shear
directions. UDEC has several built-in material
behavior models, for both the intact blocks and the
discontinuities, which permit the simulation of
response representative of discontinuous geologic
or similar, materials. UDEC is based on a
Lagrangian calculation scheme that is well suited
to model the large movements and deformations of
a blocky system. A model was created using UDEC
to analyze the existing conditions and behavior of
the rock slope encompassing the STRS. The
analysis results were input into a STAAD.Pro 2002
three dimensional (3-D) model to analyze the
structural conditions and response of the STRS.
6.2. Numerical Analysis Using STAAD.Pro 2002
STAAD.Pro 2002 is a structural analysis program
used to model structure response to external loads.
STAAD.Pro 2002 uses different structural analysis
methods such as finite element and finite difference.
The STAAD.Pro 2002 analysis is purely an elastic
analysis. A model was created using STAAD.Pro
2002 to model STRS concrete lining response to
external loading from the surrounding rock
medium. The loading regime surrounding the
STRS was obtained from the UDEC Base Model.
6.3. Empirical Methods
Empirical analysis methods including typical
geological in-situ stress distribution and rock loads
as determined using Terzaghis method for tunnels
were used to estimate loading regimes on the STRS
and the tunnel lining respectively. In addition,
internal stresses such as bending moment and axial
loads within the STRS lining were estimated based
on arbitrary distortion of the lining. Empirical
analysis was performed to estimate external loading
on the tunnel using typical lateral thrust from the
rock based on the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure obtained during URS field geotechnical
investigation. The loading regime was applied to
the tunnel to estimate bending moment and axial
loads based on arbitrary distortion.
7. STRS ANALYSIS
The structural analysis undertaken for the STRS
included a UDEC analysis to calculate the
magnitude and distribution of the STRS, a
STAAD.Pro 2002 analysis to evaluate internal
loads in the STRS concrete lining, and an empirical
analysis to estimate the effects of horizontal loading
on the STRS concrete lining. The purpose of the
empirical analysis was to compare the computer-
based STAAD.Pro 2002 analysis with the hand-
calculated empirical analysis.
7.1. UDEC Base Model
This model was developed to investigate the
magnitude and distribution of stress regime
surrounding the STRS embedded within the gorge
sidewall adjacent to the facility. The horizontal
stress regime data generated by the UDEC analysis
were used as input data for the STAAD.Pro 2002
analysis.
The model geometry is 800 feet wide (x direction)
by 450 feet high (y direction). Displacement
boundaries were located on the left, right, and
bottom of the model. A surcharge load (1,875 lb/ft)
representing the glacial till was applied at the top
boundary of the rock in the model. The model
geometry for Base Model is shown on Figure 3
(UDEC Base Model Geometry).

Figure 3: UDEC Base Model

For analysis purposes, selected geological
formations were grouped together based on their
similar characteristics and rock mass properties.
The modeled geological profile consisted of six
geological layers including the Irondequoit
Limestone and Rockaway Dolomite (Layer 1) with
a combined thickness of 30 feet, Williamson Shale
(Layer 2) with a thickness of 30 feet, Reynales
Limestone (Layer 3) with a thickness of 20 feet,
Maplewood Shale (Layer 4) with a thickness of 20
feet, Kodak Sandstone, Cambria Shale, Thorold
Sandstone, Grimsby Sandstone, and Devils Hole
Sandstone (Layer 5) with a combined thickness of
60 feet, and Queenston Shale (Layer 6) with a
thickness of 185 feet.
The rock mass properties included bulk modulus
(K), shear modulus (G), bulk unit weight (),
friction angle (), dilation angle (), cohesion (c),
and tensile strength (
T
) for each of the six geologic
layers. These properties are summarized in Table 5
below. In addition, joint properties including joint
normal stiffness (jkn), joint shear stiffness (jks),
joint friction angle (jfric), joint friction angle (jdil),
and joint cohesion (jcoh) for each of the geologic
formations are presented in Table 6 below. These
properties were derived from the results of the field
investigation, laboratory testing, geological
mapping, and available geological literature.

Table 5 - Formation Rock Mass Material Properties
Layer Formation Name
K

(psf*)
G
(psf)

(pcf)

c
(psf)

T

(psf)
1
Irondequoit Limestone,
Rockaway Dolomite
1.5x10
8
6.9x10
7
170 10
o
8.6x10
5
1.2x10
5

2
Upper Williamson
Shale, Lower
Williamson Shale
9.0x10
7
4.2x10
7
165 10
o
8.6x10
5
1.2 x10
5

3 Reynales Limestone 1.5x10
8
6.9x10
7
170 10
o
8.6x10
5
1.2x10
5

4 Maplewood Shale 8.9x10
7
6.9x10
7
165 10
o
8.6x10
5
1.2x10
5

5
Kodak Sandstone,
Cambria Shale, Thorold
Sandstone, Grimsby
Sandstone, Devils Hole
Sandstone
2.3x10
8
1.1x10
8
161 10
o
1.2x10
6
1.9x10
5

6 Queenston Shale 1.9 x10
8
8.9 x10
7
167 10
o
7.9x10
5
1.1x10
5

* psf = pounds per square foot

Table 6 - Formation Joint Properties
Layer Formation Name
jkn
(psf)
jks
(psf)
jfric jdil
Jcoh
(psf)
1
Irondequoit Limestone
& Rockaway Dolomite
2.1x10
8
8.1x10
7
30
o
5
o
0
2
Upper Williamson
Shale & Lower
Williamson Shale
1.3x10
8
5.0x10
7
20
o
5
o
0
3 Reynales Limestone 2.1x10
8
8.1x10
7
30
o
5
o
0
4 Maplewood Shale 1.3x10
8
4.8x10
7
30
o
5
o
0
5
Kodak Sandstone &
Cambria Shale &
Thorold Sandstone &
Grimsby Sandstone &
Devils Hole Sandstone
1.1x10
9
4.0x10
8
30
o
5
o
0
6 Queenston Shale 7.0x10
8
2.7 x10
8
25
o
5
o
0

The modeling approach included two stages. The
first stage represented the initial condition prior to
the formation of the river gorge. In the second,
stage, the gorge was excavated to generate the
existing in situ stresses at the project site, prior to
the construction of the tunnel and associated
structure. The horizontal stresses at the locations
where the shaft would be located were obtained
from the model. A graphical representation
showing the magnitudes of these horizontal stresses
within the STRS envelope is presented in Figure 4.
7.2. STAAD.Pro 2002 Model
The 3-D STAAD.Pro 2002 model was developed to
evaluate the response of the STRS concrete lining
under the stress regime as determined from the
UDEC Base Model. The stress values from the
STAAD.Pro 2002 model at various elevations
within the STRS lining were then compared to the
strength (tensile/compressive) of the concrete.
The STRS lining was modeled as an 80-foot-high
(EL 290 to EL 370 ft) and 24-foot outside diameter
(OD) cylinder. Please refer to Figure 4
(STAAD.Pro 2002 STRS Model Geometry) for the
model geometry. The internal diameter of the
STRS lining was 22 feet with a concrete lining wall
thickness of 1 foot. The STAAD.Pro 2002 model
assumes fixed support at the bottom of the STRS
sidewalls.


Figure 4: Horizontal Stress Magnitudes in the STRS Envelope

The concrete liner properties included:
Compressive strength (f
c
),
Youngs modulus (E),
Poisons ratio ( ),
Unit weight (), and
Tensile strength (
T
).
These values were developed based on concrete
strength and thickness measurements made during
the URS 2003 tunnel inspection.
The STAAD.Pro 2002 model was used to calculate
hoop and longitudinal (vertical) stresses throughout
the STRS concrete lining. The maximum tensile
stress in the longitudinal direction obtained was as
high as 5,778 psi. It must be noted that this analysis
is an elastic analysis and the tensile stress
magnitude obtained from the analysis is much
higher than the concrete tensile strength. The
concrete tensile strength is typically on the order of
1/10 of the concrete compressive strength. Figure
5 shows the tensile stress contours overlaid onto the
crack distribution map as observed in the field
during the URS inspection. In addition, the
compressive stress in the longitudinal direction was
as high as 10,800 psi, which is much higher than the
compressive strength of the concrete measured in
the field (1,500 psi).
The hoop stresses obtained from the analysis ranged
from approximately 10 psi to 6,000 psi. These
stresses are compressive in nature. The hoop
stresses at four elevations of EL 300 feet, EL 315
feet, EL 325 feet, and EL 335 feet are presented in
Table 7 to compare with the empirical analysis
results.
Table 7 - Hoop Stresses Acting on STRS Lining
(STAAD.Pro 2002)
STAAD.Pro
2002 Scenario
Hoop
Stresses (psi)
Concrete f
c

(psi)
EL. 300 6030 1500
EL. 315 3020 1500
EL. 325 1891 1500
EL. 335 762 1500
f
c
compressive strength
It is evident from the results that at EL 300 feet, EL
315 feet, and EL 325 feet the hoop stresses are in
excess of the compressive strength of the concrete
lining.

Figure 5: Tensile Stress Contours vs. Crack
Distribution
7.3. Empirical Analysis
Empirical analyses were undertaken to evaluate the
magnitude of hoop stresses acting upon the STRS
lining at EL 300 feet, EL 315 feet, EL 325 feet, and
EL 335 feet. The hoop stress values from the
Empirical analysis at various elevations within the
STRS lining were then compared to the strength
(tensile/ compressive) of the concrete. The results of
the hoop stresses calculated from the empirical
analyses are presented in Table 9 below.
Table 9 - Hoop Stresses Acting on STRS Lining
(Empirical)
Empirical
Scenario
Hoop Stresses
(psi)
Concrete f
c

(psi)
EL. 300 1350 1500
EL. 315 1015 1500
EL. 325 830 1500
EL. 335 646 1500

It is evident from the results that at EL 300 feet, EL
315 feet, EL 325, and EL 335 feet, the hoop stresses
exceed the compressive strength of the concrete
lining. These stress values do not represent any
distortion that would create bending moments
resulting in higher stresses in the STRS lining.
6.4 STAAD.Pro 2002 v Empirical
A comparison between the STAAD.Pro 2002
analysis and empirical analysis is presented in the
Table 8. The hoop stress results obtained from the
empirical method are less than those obtained from
STAAD.Pro 2002 analysis. It must be noted that
the empirical analysis has limitations. The
empirical analysis does not take into account rock
structure interaction and the non-uniform
distribution of stresses around the STRS.
Table 8 - Comparison of STAAD.Pro 2002 FOS v
Empirical Hoop Stresses
Scenario
Hoop Stresses
STAAD.Pro 2002
(psi)
Hoop Stresses
Empirical (psi)
EL 300 6030 1350
EL 315 3020 1015
EL 325 1891 830
EL 335 762 646
8. STRS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The modeling of the STRS involved a two-stage
analytical process. Stage One (UDEC) comprised
modeling the rock slope and gorge to better estimate
the horizontal stress regime in place around the
shaft structure. Stage Two (STAAD.Pro 2002)
involved using the rock and field stresses from
Stage One in another model to identify the
distribution of the internal stresses within the STRS
structure. The models (Stage One amd Stage Two)
show a non-uniform stress distribution around the
STRS structure and a non-linear stress distribution
over the extent of the STRS structures height.
The presence of non-uniform horizontal and vertical
stresses around the STRS structure is reasonable
considering the proximity of the cliff face and the
distribution of relatively high horizontal stress
around the river gorge. It would be expected that
the net overall driving stress would be towards the
gorge emanating out of the cliff face (east to west
direction) as observed in the model.
Physical signs of this type of stress distribution
would be the outward displacement and intermittent
instability of the cliff face. Manifestation of this
behavior has been observed during the inspections
and remedial work on the PTZ, TTA, and STRS as
well as being evident from the observed debris at
the base of these slopes.
The non-linear increase in horizontal stress is also
expected in rock masses where there are
interbedded hard (limestone and sandstone) and soft
(shale) strata. Stronger strata are able to transmit
higher stresses than weaker strata. The higher
stresses in these strata result in higher lateral stress
values and therefore a higher ground load onto
tunnel and shaft linings from these strata as
compared to the softer strata.
The STRS model shows all of the intuitively correct
responses to the aforementioned conditions, and
therefore we feel that our analysis realistically
modeled the response mechanism of the STRS
structure to the ground loading. The model and
subsequent calculations show that anticipated
current stress conditions are sufficient to crack the
lining,and that when these cracks appear they occur
in a pattern that closely resembles those observed in
the field.
The cracking observed in the field shows significant
flexure and shear displacement, and this type of
cracking appeared in the model as a result of the net
overturning forces associated with gorge slope
stability. It is likely that these stresses occurred
over a period of time, but because of the continually
degrading slope, it is also anticipated that these
loads continue to be applied to the STRS. The
comparison of modeled tensile stress distribution
and actual observed cracks are presented on Figure
5 (Tensile Stress Distribution in STRS Lining).
The results of our analysis show that the majority of
deformation, cracking and loading of the STRS is
caused by high horizontal stresses in the hard strata
and the unbalancing forces of slope movement. The
mass slope movement is continuous due to
weathering of strata causing unloading of the slope.
The overall mechanism of what will become the
progressive failure of the STRS is that the internal
structural stresses increase over time until the lining
cracks and re-distributes this load plastically around
the structure. The stresses then increase again as a
result of the continuing dynamic nature of the slope
instability and the internal forces until buckling of
the structure, loss of integrity and ultimately
collapse of the STRS take place.
The current condition observed in the STRS lining
appears to have moved through the cracking phase
with buckling of the structure taking place. The
analysis has shown clearly that the mechanism and
process of deformation identified above will
continue.
It has been argued with some reason that the STRS
cracking was caused by old loads perhaps even
loading during construction that have long since
dissipated and pose no threat to the stability of this
structure. The analysis in concert with empirical
calculations and observed evidence of the structure
and slopes refutes this argument and makes a
compelling case that the loading that caused the
current level of structural distress to the STRS
remains a dynamic force on the structure and will
cause further damage to the existing STRS lining.
Further dynamic loading is added to the STRS by
the rapidly rising and falling internal water
pressures that are part of the normal function of this
structure. The effects of changing water pressure
on the structure in its current condition are
significant. The turbulent water provides another
changing stress environment that can work
particularly at the bulge and crack location to erode
the weaker concrete material from this area. The
water will leak at this location, eroding the rock and
shale surrounding the shaft, and providing further
basis to assume a changing stress environment with
more asymmetric load conditions on the structure
and a higher degree of slope movement due to
weathering and erosion.
Future work at the facility should carefully consider
the effect of surface work adjacent to the slope on
the underground structures and particularly the
STRS. For example, if the station building itself
were ever to be demolished, there would be serious
potential consequences for slope stability and for
the STRS that should be considered fully before this
building is removed.
Limiting the current level of slope deterioration and
movement is a key part of our proposed strategy to
obtain long-term stability of the structure. This
should be done in concert with rehabilitation of the
STRS structural lining.
Slope stabilization would be one component of a
comprehensive rehabilitation program. Slope
stabilization will prevent establishment of a
dynamic loading environment on the structure and
the rehabilitation can then be adequately designed
for a static load environment and long-term
stability.
The evidence gathered to date by URS suggests
very strongly that the STRS lining should be
structurally repaired as a matter of urgency. A new
lining for this structure can be either steel or
concrete, but should be designed in accordance with
existing engineering practices to take no
consideration or contribution from the remaining
strength of the existing lining. It is also our
recommendation that the new lining should be
independent from the existing TTA structure. It is
our recommendation that a structural ring beam be
constructed at the base of the STRS that will carry
stresses from the TTA, and then a structural hinge
be made between this ring beam and the rest of the
STRS structure.
9. TTA ANALYTICAL RESULTS
It is evident from this observed cracking pattern that
significant stress transfer has taken place between
the STRS and the TTA structures. These cracks
provide further evidence that the proposed
mechanism of loading and displacement of the
STRS structure as modeled is sound.
Our modeling has not analyzed the interaction of
the TTA with the shaft, as this is a highly 3-D
problem and is not feasible to analyze using 2-D
methods such as those described here. Our
objective in the analysis of the TTA was to
determine if there was any underlying structural
problem under the current loading conditions. We
removed considerations of the shaft structure and
used our base model of the ground including the
cliff face to investigate the TTA structure.
The modeling results of the TTA show that this
structure, when not influenced by additional shear
loading from the shaft structure, may have structural
issues of concern. The concrete strengths assumed
in the model (500 and 1,000 psi) were exceeded by
the maximum internal stresses in the TTA structure.
Concrete strengths within the structures likely vary,
and degradation of concrete strength is usually
somewhat patchy. However, it can be seen that the
required concrete strength for a 24-inch lining is
around 3,000 psi and it should be noted that we
observed several areas with strength measurements
lower than 3,000 psi.
The concrete strengths selected for our analysis
were considered a worst-case scenario based on our
field measurements and are obviously not
representative of the entire structure. This approach
was taken in the analysis as it is standard practice to
generally assess whether there is a possible
problem. Further investigation of the concrete can
quickly quantify the extent of our potential problem.
We recommend that the rehabilitation of the STRS
provide a structural hinge between the shaft and
the TTA so that the TTA can be treated as an
independent structure. This allows more flexibility
to consider the structures separately and, depending
on the results of further investigation, we can
consider non-structural repairs of the TTA as part of
an overall maintenance program.
10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1. STRS
The conclusions and recommendations pertaining to
the STRS structure based upon the results of the
analyses are listed below.
The UDEC base model provided horizontal
stress information for further structural and
empirical analysis of the STRS structure;
The STRS models indicated a consistent
mechanism of ground loading on the STRS
structure;
The numerical analysis and subsequent
empirical calculations showed that the
anticipated current load conditions are sufficient
to crack the lining and that the cracks formed
closely resemble those observed in the field
during the URS 2003 Inspection;
The continuous weathering and mass movement
of the rock slope provides a significant portion
of the overall ground loading and deformation
of the STRS structure;
The continuous weathering process indicates
that loading of the STRS structure will continue
to increase over time and impose a load upon
the STRS;
Further dynamic loading on the structure is
induced by rapid changes in internal water
pressure;
Rehabilitation of the STRS structure should
consider the need to stabilize the slope and
prevent further weathering in the vicinity of the
facility;
Rehabilitation should consider the need to
structurally separate the STRS and TTA
structures and replace the lining with a newly
designed STRS lining in either steel or concrete;
and
The rehabilitation work described above should
be given the highest possible priority.
10.2. TTA
The conclusions and recommendations pertaining
to the TTA based on the results of the analyses
specific to the structural stability of the STRS are
listed below.
The crown of the TTA shows structural
cracking consistent with shear forces transferred
from the observed deformation of the STRS;
The UDEC TTA model indicated that the TTA
has underlying stress-induced structural issues
due to degraded concrete strength; and
Once the above rehabilitation of the STRS has
been carried out the TTA can be considered as a
separate structure.
REFERENCES
1. Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989, Engineering Rock Mass
Classification A Complete Manual for Engineers and
Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons.
2. Barton, N., R. Lien, and J. Lunde, 1974, Engineering
Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel
Support, Journal of the International Society for Rock
Mechanics, December 1974, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 189-236.
3. Barton, N., 2002, Some New Q-Value Correlations to
Assist in Site Characterisation and Tunnel Design.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences 39, 185216.
4. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (1995) Theory and
Background, First edition, January 2000, Minneapolis:
ICG.
5. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (1995) Users Guide,
First edition, January 2000, Minneapolis: ICG.
6. Research Engineers, Intl, a Division of netGuru Inc.
STAAD.Pro 2002 Technical Reference Manual,
April 2002, REI.
7. Research Engineers, Intl, a Division of netGuru, Inc.
STAAD.Pro 2002 Software Release Report,
February 2002, REI.