GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF TUNNEL

BETWEEN SWAT AND BUNER DISTRICT

(KARAKAR AREA)

By

MUHAMMAD QADEER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL

SHAHAN SAFI UD DIN

Supervised By:

DR. MUHAMMAD NAVEED ANJUM

MR. DIDAR ALI

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR
SESSION 2019-23
 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF TUNNEL
BETWEEN SWAT AND BUNER DISTRICT
(KARAKAR AREA)

Thesis Submitted to the Department of Geology, University of Peshawar for Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY

By

MUHAMMAD QADEER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL
SHAHAN SAFI UD DIN

Supervised By:
DR. MUHAMMAD NAVEED ANJUM
Mr. DIDAR ALI

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR
SESSION 2019-23
 THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF TUNNEL
BETWEEN SWAT AND BUNER DISTRICT, KP NORTH
PAKISTAN

Thesis Submitted for Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY

Is hereby approved by

__________________________ ______________________

Dr. Muhammad Naveed Anjum Dr. Gohar Rehman

Supervisor/Internal Examiner Secretary, Thesis committee

Department of Geology Department of Geology

University of Peshawar University of Peshawar

__________________________ ______________________

Dr. Waqas Ahmad Dr. Fayaz Ali

NCE in Geology Chairman

University of Peshawar Department of Geology

University of Peshawar

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praises to Almighty Allah, the most beneficent and most merciful who gave us,
the courage to work constantly and enable us to complete successfully this research
work.

We wish to express our deep gratitude to our supervisor Dr. Muhammad Naveed
Anjum and Mr. Didar, Department of Geology, University of Peshawar for his
continuous encouragement, expert guidance and helpful suggestions throughout this
work. His endless encouragement has been the major driving force throughout this
research.

We are also very grateful to Mr. Didar, Institute of Geology, University of Peshawar
who arranged the field visit in an appropriate time and helped a lot in field data
acquisition.

All members of the technical staff of the Department of Geology are acknowledged,
especially Mr. Rasheed Masih, during thin section preparation.

We would like to express our heartiest gratitude to our seniors especially to all our
class fellows for their encouragement during this research work.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER-1 ................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Examples ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Kohat Tunnel, KPK, Pakistan...................................................................... 2
1.1.3 Col de Tende Road Tunnel Italy.................................................................. 2
1.1.4 Felbertauern Tunnel, Germany .................................................................... 3
1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 General Geology ...................................................................................................... 5
1.4 General Info of Tunnel............................................................................................. 5
1.5 Aim and Objectives.................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER-2 ................................................................................................................. 7
REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS .............................................................. 7
2.1 Geology and Tectonics of Northern Pakistan ................................................. 7
2.1.1 Eurasian Plate .............................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Kohistan Island Arc ..................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Indian Plate .................................................................................................. 9
2.1.4 The Study Area .......................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER-3 ............................................................................................................... 14
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Various Rock Mass Classifications Systems ......................................................... 15
3.3 Rock Mass Classification For Current Approach ................................................. 16
3.3.1 Rock mass rating (RMR) system ............................................................... 16
3.3.2 Rock Strength Rating for Intact Rock ....................................................... 19
3.3.3 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Rating .................................................. 21
3.3.4 Joint Spacing (Js) Rating ........................................................................... 21
3.3.5 Joint Condition (Jcd) Rating: .................................................................... 22
3.3.6 Groundwater Condition (Jw) Rating ......................................................... 24

iii
3.3.7 Joint Orientation (Jo) Rating .................................................................... 24
3.3.8 Excavation and Support Design in Accordance with RMR System ......... 25
3.3.9 Limitations on Geomechanics Classification: ........................................... 27
3.4 Q System (Rock Tunneling Quality Index) ........................................................... 28
3.4.1 Parameterization for Q System ........................................................................... 29
3.4.1.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Rating ........................................................ 29
3.4.1.2 Joint Set Number (Jn) Rating........................................................................... 30
3.4.1.3 Joint Roughness Number (Jr) Rating ............................................................... 31
3.4.1.4 Joint Alteration Number (Ja) Rating ................................................................ 32
3.4.1.5 Joint Water Reduction Factor (Jw) Rating....................................................... 34
3.4.1.6 Stress Reduction Factor (SRF)......................................................................... 35
Barton, 1993) ............................................................................................................... 35
3.4.2 Limitations of Q System ............................................................................ 35
3.5 Geological Strength Index (GSI)................................................................... 36
3.5.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ....................................................................... 37

CHAPTER-4 ............................................................................................................... 38
PETROGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 38
4.1 General Statement .................................................................................................. 38
4.2 Petrography ............................................................................................................ 38
4.2.1 Amphibolite schist ..................................................................................... 38
4.2.2 Biotite schist .............................................................................................. 40

CHAPTER-5 ............................................................................................................... 42
RESULT, DISCISSION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................... 42
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Rock Mass Rating (RMR-System) ........................................................................ 42
5.2.1. Amphibolite schist (inlet) .................................................................................. 42
5.2.2 Biotite schist (outlet) .......................................................................................... 42
5.2.3 RMR values at inlet and outlet .................................................................. 43
5.2.4 Support and recommendation .................................................................... 45
5.3 Q System ................................................................................................................ 45
5.3.1 Calculated Q value at inlet and outlet ................................................................. 45
5.3.2 Support and recommendation based on Q system ..................................... 47

iv
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................ 49
5.4 Geological Strength Index ............................................................................. 49
5.7 Calculated GSI of inlet is given below in table by formula (A) ............................ 50
5.8 GSI of outlet rocks is calculated by formula (A) ................................................... 51
5.5 Joint Alteration....................................................................................................... 51
5.6 Correlation between petrography and rock mass parameters ................................ 59
5.7 Relationship between RMR and stand up time ...................................................... 59
5.8 Correlation between Q and RMR systems ............................................................. 60
5.9 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 61

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 62

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Classification Parameters and their Ratings (Bieniawski, 1998)................ 17

Table 3.2. Rating Adjustment for Discontinuity Orientations (Bieniawski,1998) ..... 18

Table 3.3. Rock Mass Classes Determined From Total Ratings (Bieniawski, 1998) .. 18

Table 3.4 Meaning of Rock Mass Classes ................................................................... 19

Table 3.5: Strength of Intact Rock Material (Bieniawski, 1989) ................................. 20

Table 3.6 Rating of RQD (Bieniawski, 1989) ............................................................. 21

Table 3.7: Rating of Joint Spacing (Bieniawski, 1989) ............................................... 22

Table 3.8: Rating of Joint Conditions (Bieniawski, 1989) .......................................... 24

Table 3.9: Rating of Groundwater Condition (Bieniawski, 1989)............................... 24

Table 3.10: Assessment of joint orientation Effect on Tunnel (Bieniawski, 1989) .... 25

Table 3.11: Adjustment of Joint Orientation (Bieniawski, 1989) ................................ 25

Table 3.13: Rating of RQD for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and
Barton, 1993) ............................................................................................................... 29

Table 3.14. Rating of Jn for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and ........ 30

Barton, 1993) ............................................................................................................... 30

Table 3.15: Rating of Jr or Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and Barton,
1993) ............................................................................................................................ 31

Table 3.16. Rating of Ja for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and Barton,
1993) ............................................................................................................................ 33

Table 3.17. Rating of JWR for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and
Barton, 1993) ............................................................................................................... 34

Table 3.18: Rating of SRF for Q system (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and ..... 35

𝐺𝑆𝐼 = 1.5 ∗ 𝐽𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑85 + RQD ̸ 2 ................................................................................... 36

Table 3.19 General Chart for GSI Estimate from Field Geological Observation ........ 36

Table 3.20: Classification of Rock Mass Quality by RQD (Deere, 1966) ................. 37

Table 4.1 Model Mineralogical Composition of Amphibolite Schist................. 39

vi
Table 4.2 Model Mineralogical Composition of Biotite Schist .............................. 40

Table 5.1. At inlet station (calculation) ....................................................................... 43

Table 5.2. At outlet station ........................................................................................... 44

Table 5.3 support recommendation to rock mass classes based on RMR ................... 45

RQD = 115−3.3 (Jv) .................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.4 Resultant Q-value derived from inlet........................................................... 46

Table 5.5 Resultant Q-value derived from outlet......................................................... 47

Table 5.6 General Chart for GSI Estimate from Field Geological Observation .......... 50

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Showing Kohat tunnel, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan ............................. 2

Figure 1.2: Exhibiting Col de tende tunnel, between France and Italy......................... 3

Figure 1.3: showing Felbertauern tunnel between Austria and Germany .................... 4

Figure 1.4: Shows Inlet (Amphibolite Schist/A) and outlet (Biotite Schist/B) ............. 5

Figure 2.1: Map showing present day configuration of African, Arabian, Indian and
Eurasian Plates (Scotese et al., 1988, 1997). ............................................................... 11

Figure 2.2: Map showing the structural elements of Pakistan, Afghan Block, Indian
Shield and Arabian Sea (from Kazmi and Rana, 1982). .............................................. 11

Figure 2.3: Showing Gological map of North Pakistan by P.J. Treloar et al., 2019
(Study Area Map) ........................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3.1 Shows before and after compression A and B (UCS) of Sample 1. ....... 19

Figure 3.2 Shows before and after compression of A and B (UCS) of Sample 2. . 20

Table 3.12: Guidelines for support of tunnel based on RMR (Lowson and Bieniawski,
2013) ............................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 4.1 Showing Photomicrographs (XPL) of Amphibolite Schist show

Hornblende Biotite and Quartz. ................................................................................... 39

Figure 4.2: Showing Photomicrographs (XPL) of Amphibolite Schist show

Hornblende Biotite and Quartz. ................................................................................... 40

Figure Showing 4.3 Photomicrographs (XPL) of Biotite Schist show Biotite and
Quartz ........................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 4.4: Showing Photomicrographs (XPL) of Biotite Schist show Biotite and
Quartz. .......................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 5.1 Showing Q System Recommendation chart (Grimstard and Barton, 1993)
...................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 5.2 Showing Inlet Rosette................................................................................. 52

Figure 5.3: Showing Contour ....................................................................................... 52

Figure 5.4: Showing 3D Stereonet ............................................................................... 53

viii
Figure 5.5: Showing Symbolic Poles ........................................................................... 53

Figure 5.6: Showing Sets ............................................................................................. 54

Figure 5.7: Showing Poles ........................................................................................... 54

Figure 5.8: Showing Rock Quality Designation Graph ............................................... 55

Figure 5.9: Showing Outlet Rosette: ............................................................................ 55

Figure 5.10: Showing Contour ..................................................................................... 56

Figure 5.11: Showing 3D Stereonet ............................................................................. 56

Figure 5.12: Showing Symbolic Poles ......................................................................... 57

Figure 5.13: Showing Sets ........................................................................................... 57

Figure 5.14: Showing Poles ......................................................................................... 58

Figure 5.15: Showing Rock Quality Designations Graph ........................................... 58

Figure 5.8: shows correlation between Roof span, RMR and Stand-up time
(Bieniawski,1993). ....................................................................................................... 60

ix
 ABSTRACT

This study investigates the geotechnical suitability of the under-construction tunnel

between Swat and Buner region KPK, northern Pakistan. Having a length of 2.2 km,
the surrounding rocks are consisting of metamorphic rocks (schists) and igneous rocks
which belong to Indian plate. This research work presents a case study of petrography
and rock mass characterization by using the application of rock mass quality (Q) and
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) systems of the rocks along the axis of the tunnel.
Additionally, support designs are also proposed according to the aforementioned
systems.

The petrographic analysis, divides the tunnel length into two lithologic units namely
Amphibolite schist (inlet) and Biotite schist (outlet). These are medium to coarse
grained, foliated rocks having a number of discontinuities which are widely spaced,
resulting medium Q and RMR values.

Geological investigation, including the detailed discontinuity survey, was carried out
to determine dip, dip direction, orientation, spacing, aperture, roughness and alteration
of discontinuities. The tunnel ground has been classified using Q and RMR
classification systems into distinct rock mass classes such that the inlet and outlet rock
masses are classified into Good, Fair , Poor and Very Poor Class (3-6) whereas Good
to Fair Class (51-63) in case of RMR system. The relatively good rock conditions
acquired through RMR values are attributed to ground water conditions, joint spacing,
RQD and up to some extent their favorable orientation of discontinuities with respect
to the tunnel drive.

Orientation of joints can significantly affect the tunnel drive during its excavation.
However, at inlet the orientation of joints do not affect the tunnel drive but at outlet
most of unfavorable effect may significantly badly affect the tunnel drive.

x
Chapter-1 Introduction

Chapter-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Geology play the key role in many engineering projects including ground excavation
(tunneling), foundation and slope stability analysis. Among these projects tunnel
construction requires considerable geological input (Bell et al., 1995). Tunneling in
hard ground conditions leads to deteriorates the physical condition of the ground and
rocks, developing numerous fractures and cracks which weakens the overall
engineering design. For safe and economic design of the tunnel, it is necessary to
consider the geological behavior (strength, altitude, spacing and degree of jointing) of
the strata (Bieniawski, 1972).

The Rock mass classification system (RMCS) have been successfully used throughout
the world in preliminary stages of many engineering projects especially in tunneling
(Deere et al., 1967; Wickham et al., 1972). The RMCs proves helpful in assessing the
rock mass parameters to estimate the required support measurements (Bieniawski,
1989; Cosar, 2004). The engineering geological investigation is more important
(Rahimi et al., 2014) and has significant role on design and execution level of civil
engineering projects. The present study provides details of such engineering
geological aspects for a ~ 2.2 km long tunnel.

Tunneling is increasingly being used world-wide to provide the infrastructure required

for sustainable urban communities. The high demand for space, to reduce distance and
the disturbance of existing infrastructures by construction measures increasingly
forces future infrastructure projects to be carried out underground. At the same time,
interferences with daily activities of the cities, natural or water resources shall be
reduced and noise, dust, as well as site traffic shall be minimized. All these factors
may lead to pre-determined routes, with ground conditions which may not always be
very favourable (Eder et al., 2004, Guglielmetti et al., 2007).

1.1.1 Examples

These examples have taken from Google.

1
Chapter-1 Introduction

1.1.2 Kohat Tunnel, KPK, Pakistan

Indus Highway taking off from Peshawar passes over a hill range rising to a height of
900 meters. The distance between the towns of Peshawar and Kohat, over the existing
hill route is nearly 65 km. The National Highway Authority has initiated a project to
build a tunnel through the hill range with a view to reducing the distance. The length
of the proposed tunnel is 1.885 km. Though the tunnel will not reduce the distance by
more than a few km but the travel time will be much reduced as the speed will
increase from 40 km per hour to 70 km per hour. In addition travel over the steep and
dangerous hill route, that causes many an accident, will be avoided. (figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Showing Kohat tunnel, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

1.1.3 Col de Tende Road Tunnel Italy

Col de Tende Road Tunnel is a 3182 meters long road tunnel running under Col de
Tende between France and Italy. It was inaugurated in 1882 and it was until 1964 the
longest road tunnel in the Alps. At its opening time it was the world's longest road
tunnel. Altitude on the French side: 1,280 m; Italian side: 1,321 meters. The tunnel
and its access roads were damaged by Storm Alex in October 2020, closing the tunnel.
As of June 2021, repair work is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. (figure
1.2).

2
Chapter-1 Introduction

Figure 1.2: Exhibiting Col de tende tunnel, between France and Italy

(From France, 44°8′20″N 7°34′14″E, to Italy, 44°10′3″N 7°34′18″E)

1.1.4 Felbertauern Tunnel, Germany

The Felbertauern Tunnel (German, Felbertauern) is a 5.2 km long tunnel in the

Austrian Alps. The tunnel connects the Felber valley (in the north, region of Salzberg)
with the Tauern valley (in the south, region of Tyrol).

Construction began in 1962, and the tunnel was opened in 1967. The term
"Felbertauern" by itself often is used to include the approach roads on both ends,
which were built as the same time as the tunnel.

Unlike most other tunnels in the Alps, the Felbertauern Tunnel has only one tube. The
daily traffic through the tunnel is approximately 4,000 vehicles per day, with about
7% trucks. Bicycles are not allowed in the tunnel, but a bicycle transport service is
available.

The total length of the Felbertauern Tunnel is 5,282 meters (5.2 km), making it one of
the eleven longest tunnels in Austria. The Felbertauern Pass is at an altitude of 2,481

3
Chapter-1 Introduction

meters (2.4 km). It is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Traffic in both directions
must pay a toll at the toll booth at the southern portal. The approach roads are 7.5m
wide.(Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3: showing Felbertauern tunnel between Austria and Germany

1.2 Study Area

The Karakar Pass section is located approximately 95 km northeast of Peshawar in the

Buner region of Swat district. It is bounded by longitude 72°15 to 72°22.5 E and
latitude 34°00 to34°36N (toposheet No.43B/6 Survey of Pakistan). Rocks of the area
belonging to the lower Swat-Buner schistose group and Swat granitic gneisses
(Martin, et al, 1962), are interpreted as marginal slice of Indian plate, bounded in the
north by Main Mantle Thrust (MMT) (Yeats and Lawrence.,1984).

4
Chapter-1 Introduction

Figure 1.4: Shows Inlet (Amphibolite Schist/A) and outlet (Biotite Schist/B)

1.3 General Geology

According to Martin et al., (1962) the lower Swat-Buner schistose group includes
siliceous schist, amphibolite, marble and calcareous schist, phyllite and green schist.
These rocks are intruded by Swat granitic gneiss forming parallel bedded sheets
within the siliceous schist unit. Schist, marble, amphibolite, and underlying gneiss are
considered as crystalline thrust sheet of the Indian plate which moved southward on
the thrust plane exposed as a zone of recrystallized mylonite at the base of Swat
gneisses (Humayun, 1985). The study area is underlain by Amphibolite Schist and
Biotite Schist belonging to Marghazar formation.

1.4 General Info of Tunnel

The tunnel will join the Swat and Buner Districts, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the
length of tunnel is about 2.2 km. The area where the tunnel is going to build is named
Karakar, area which is located at northeast of Peshawar and distance is approximately
95km from Peshawar city.

5
Chapter-1 Introduction

1.5 Aim and Objectives

The study area is aimed at finding the suitability of the rocks for tunnel construction.

Main objectives were;

• Collect rocks from inlet and outlet for identification.

• Adopt scale line survey at inlet and outlet.

6
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

Chapter-2

REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

2.1 Geology and Tectonics of Northern Pakistan

Three distinct tectonic domains are identified in the northern Pakistan including,
Eurasian plate, Kohistan Island Arc (KIA) and Indian plate from North to South
respectively (Coward et al., 1986; Ahmad et al., 2004).

2.1.1 Eurasian Plate

The northernmost tectonic domain, the Eurasian Plate, is composed of accreted

microplates known as the Karakoram and Hindukush blocks. These microplates
collided with the Eurasian Plate prior to the significant collision between Asia and
India (Angiolini et al., 2013; Faisal et al., 2014). The initial collision between the
Kohistan-Ladakh Arc and the Karakoram Block took place between 102 and 85
million years ago, corresponding to the commencement of northward subduction and
Thetys Ocean consumption (Coward et al., 1986; Pudsey, 1986; Treloar et al., 1989).
This collision occurred along the Main Karakoram Thrust (MKT) or Shyok Suture
Zone (Shaltegger et al., 2002).

The Karakoram Plate extends from Afghanistan through northern Pakistan to northern
Ladakh and west Tibet (Desio and Zanettin, 1970). Within the Karakoram, three main
tectonic zones are recognized from north to south: the northern Karakoram terrane,
the Karakoram batholith, and the Karakoram metamorphic complex (Rex et al.,
1988).

The geological history of the Hindu Kush Range is characterized by a complex

interplay of magmatism, metamorphism, and deformation spanning from the early
Paleozoic to the present day (Debonn et al., 1987; Hildebrand, 1998; Zanchi and
Gaetana, 2011; Faisal et al., 2014). In the northwestern Chitral region of Pakistan, the
Hindu Kush terrane is dominated by the Kafiristan, Tirich Mir, and Garam Chasma
Plutons (Pudsey et al., 1985; Hildebrand et al., 2001). The region's rocks also include

7
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

a variety of metasedimentary rocks, including variably metamorphosed metapelites

with localized calcsilicate rocks (Zanchi et al., 2000; Hildebrand et al., 2001) dating
back to the Devonian age (Gaetani et al., 1996).

2.1.2 Kohistan Island Arc

A comprehensive geological sequence in Northern Pakistan was established through

the interplay of intraoceanic subduction during the Jurassic-Cretaceous period,
leading to the formation of the Kohistan Island Arc (KIA) (Coward et al., 1987; Khan
et al., 1998; Searle et al., 1999). The subsequent collision between KIA and the
Eurasian plate gave rise to the Shyok Suture Zone or Main Karakoram Thrust.
Simultaneously, the collision of the Indian plate with KIA resulted in the inception of
the Main Mantle Thrust (MMT) (Treloar et al., 1996; Searle et al., 1999).

The collision between KIA and the Indian plate transpired during the early-mid
Eocene epoch (Tahirkheli et al., 1979). The MMT, characterized by a north-dipping,
generally east-west striking, highly deformed zone housing a complex melange
system (Dipietro et al., 2000), is a prominent feature of this geological setting.

From south to north, the KIA can be classified into distinct units:

The base of KIA, referred to as the 'Jijal Complex,' is situated just north of the MMT.
It is composed of mafic granulite-facies gabbroic rocks underlain by ultramafic rocks
(Miller et al., 1991; Yamamoto and Yoshino, 1998).

The 'Kamila amphibolite belt' (Bard, 1983; Jan, 1988) consists of variously
metamorphosed gabbros (and gabbronorites), diorites, and granodiorites formed from
magmas displaying distinct mantle sources (Shaltegger et al., 2002).

Massive gabbronorites form the central part of the arc, known as the 'Chilas Complex'
(Bard, 1983; Khan et al, 1989; Mikoshiba et al., 1999).

8
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

The 'Kohistan Batholith' is composed of multiple plutons of dioritic to granitic

composition (Petterson and Windley, 1985).

At the northern end of the arc, basic to acid volcanics of the Chalt Group are overlain
by Albian-Aptian metasediments of the Yasin Group (Pudsey, 1986). These were
emplaced in the Early-Lower Cretaceous (104Ma) in one or more basins related to the
arc (Khan et al., 1996, 1998).

2.1.3 Indian Plate

The separation between the Indian plate and the Kohistan-Island-Arc (KIA) is
facilitated by a regional fault zone known as the MMT or the Indus Suture Zone
(ISZ). The northernmost passive continental margin of the Indian plate exhibits
Triassic to Eocene cover and basement sequences that have undergone multiple
metamorphoses and deformations due to the collision of the Indian plate with the KIA
in Pakistan and Gondwana affinity blocks to the east over the last 70 to 50 million
years (Yin and Harrison, 2000). This collision induced significant south-directed
thrusting of the KIA along the north-dipping MMT, resulting in ophiolite
emplacement, mid-crust softening, approximately 470 km of shortening, and the
exhumation of deep-seated high-grade rocks of the Indian plate, followed by the
closure of the Neo-Tethys (Coward and Butler, 1985; Treloar et al., 2003; Dipietro et
al., 2008).

The Indian plate can be subdivided into three tectonic units from north to south: (1) an
internal metamorphosed unit, (2) an external unmetamorphosed or low-grade
metamorphic zone, and (3) the foreland basin sediments (Treloar et al., 1991). The
internal zone, known as the Greater Himalayas, is separated from the external zone,
the Lesser Himalayas, by the Hissartang Fault (Coward et al., 1988).

The internal zone comprises both cover and basement rocks. The basement rocks
primarily consist of high-grade gneisses, some of which remain unaffected by
Himalayan metamorphism, while the cover rocks mainly consist of green schist to
amphibolite-grade metapelites and metapsammites metamorphosed during the

9
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

Himalayan orogeny (Treloar et al., 1989). Additional significant components include

Cambro-Ordovician granitoid intrusions (Le Fort et al., 1980; Sajid et al., 2018).
Deformation and metamorphism within the internal zone progressively increase from
south to north (Treloar, 2003; Yin, 2006). Treloar et al., (1989) further divided the
internal zone of the Indian Plate into six stratigraphically distinct nappes, including
the Besham nappe, Swat nappe, Hazara nappe, Bannu nappe, Lower Kaghan, and
Upper Kaghan nappes. The zone can also be divided into three blocks: the western
Malakand block, comprising Chakdara granitic gneisses and Mekhband-Pinjkora
schistose rocks; the Panjal-Khairabad block; and the Bannu Block in the northeast
(Pogue et al., 1999; Dipietro, 2008).

The external zone, situated between the Panjal/Khairabad thrust and the Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT), consists of slightly Pre-Himalayan metamorphosed
Precambrian metasediments, unmetamorphosed Mesozoic to Eocene Neo-Tethyan
shelfal sediments, and Miocene molasse deposits (Calkins et al., 1975).

During the Miocene (11-10 Ma), Himalayan deformation propagated further

southward near the MBT (Treloar et al., 1992; DiPietro and Pogue, 2004), where
unmetamorphosed Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks were thrust over Neogene molasses,
separating the Lesser Himalayas from the Sub-Himalayas. In the latest phases in
Pakistan, thrusting transferred further southward, resulting in the formation of the Salt

Range Thrust (SRT), the southern boundary of the Himalayan range. The SRT thrust
Cambrian and Paleozoic rocks above Quaternary deposits (Yeats and Lillie, 1991;
Kumar et al., 2001).

The tectonic map figure2.1, showing present day configuration of African, Arabian,
Indian and Eurasian Plates and figure2.2, shows Map showing the structural elements
of Pakistan, Afghan Block, Indian Shield and Arabian Sea are given below;

10
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

Figure 2.1: Map showing present day configuration of African, Arabian, Indian and
Eurasian Plates (Scotese et al., 1988, 1997).

Figure 2.2: Map showing the structural elements of Pakistan, Afghan Block, Indian
Shield and Arabian Sea (from Kazmi and Rana, 1982).

11
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

2.1.4 The Study Area

The under Construction Karakar tunnel is located approximately 95km northeast of

Peshawar in the Buner region of Swat district. Rocks of the area are belongs to lower
Swat-Buner schistose group and swat granitic gneiss (Martin et al., 1962) are
interpreted as a marginal slice of Indian plate bounded in north by Main Mantle
Thrust (MMT). The under construction Karakar tunnel will pass under the Karakar
mountain which will shortcut the distance of 11km pass to 2.2km through Karakar
tunnel connecting Swat and Buner areas. The area in south is bounded by series of
north dipping thrust faults. (figure 2.3).

12
 Chapter-2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS

Figure 2.3: Showing Gological map of North Pakistan by P.J. Treloar et al., 2019
(Study Area Map)

13
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Chapter-3

Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Petrography serves as a fundamental tool for comprehensive analysis and

interpretation of rock samples providing valuable insights into the mineralogical
composition, texture and fabric of rocks. Samples have been selected from both inlet
and outlet of the tunnel. The purpose of petrography was to identify minerals in order
to recognize rock types. Samples were collected from both outlet and inlet for
detailed petrographic observations. For detailed study five thin sections prepared
from each sample of inlet and outlet in lab and then studied them with the help of
microscope. Different Plane Light and Cross Light Properties are studied.

Rock mass characterization forms the foundation of empirical approaches in

engineering geology, geotechnical engineering, and mining engineering, playing a
crucial role in rock mechanics. This methodology is extensively utilized to establish
practical foundations for designing intricate civil structures such as tunnels, mines,
and slopes in various projects.

In projects involving the design, construction, and excavation of rocks, rock mass
classification stands out as a pivotal parameter (Hoek et al., 2005). It involves
categorizing a specific rock mass into distinct classes exhibiting similar behavior but
differing qualities from one another (Bieniawski, 1989). Each rock mass is assigned a
particular value or rating based on its behavior. These individual ratings are then
combined to derive a final rating used for the overall classification of rock masses
(Bieniawski, 1989).

The primary objectives of this classification, as outlined by Bieniawski,

(1993), are to:

1. Identify various parameters influencing the behavior of rock masses.

2. Segregate rock masses into qualitatively different classes based on their
behavior.

14
 Chapter-3 Methodology

3. Provide guidelines for estimating support requirements in tunnels and

mines.

3.2 Various Rock Mass Classifications Systems

Classification based on the mode of characterization can be broadly categorized into

two groups:

1. Quantitative
2. Qualitative

Quantitative systems include Rock Quality Designation (RQD),Rock Mass Rating

(RMR) and Rock Quality System (Q system). On the other hand, qualitative systems
comprise rock load classification and Geological Strength Index (GSI).

• Terzaghi (1946) introduced rock load classification, initially applied effectively in

tunneling with steel support. This system classifies rock conditions into nine
distinct classes, ranging from intact and hard rock (Class 1) to swelling rock
(Class 9). The Geological Strength Index (GSI) by Hoek and Brown (1997)
establishes the interrelation between rock mass structures and rock discontinuity
surface conditions.

• Lauffer (1958) proposed a stand-up time classification system and established a

relationship between the stand-up time for an unsupported span and the quality of
the rock mass.

• Rock Quality Designation (RQD) by Deere, (1967) involves a qualitative estimate

of rock obtained from drill core. Wickham's, (1972) Rock Structure Rating
considers two factors influencing rock mass behavior: geological parameters and
construction parameters. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) by Bieniawski, (1973), also
known as Geomechanics classification, utilizes basic parameters regarding the
geometry and mechanical conditions of the rock mass.

The Rock Quality Index Q-system, introduced by Barton, (1974), is the product of
rock mass geometry, inter-block shear strength, and active stresses encountered
during underground excavations. The Q and RMR systems were later modified into

15
 Chapter-3 Methodology

the Rock Mass Number system (N) by Goel, (1995) and the Rock Condition Rating
systems (RCR) by Singh and Goel, (2011), respectively.

3.3 Rock Mass Classification For Current Approach

This research has included classification system of RMR, Q and GSI. Since GSI does
not offer a proper support mechanism, therefore for support design only RMR and Q
system have been utilized.

3.3.1 Rock mass rating (RMR) system

The RMR system, also known as Geomechanics classification, was introduced by

Bieniawski in 1972-1973 based on 49 case studies aimed at identifying the stability
and support needs of tunnels (Bieniawski, 1973). This system finds extensive
applications across various engineering projects such as tunnels, foundations, slopes,
and mines.

Six parameters are employed in classifying a rock mass using the RMR system
(Bieniawski, 1989):

1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength of rock materials (UCS).

2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD).
3. Spacing of discontinuities.
4. Conditions of discontinuities.
5. Orientation of discontinuities.
6. Groundwater conditions.

The RMR system categorizes the rock mass along the tunnel alignment into several
distinct zones, each exhibiting more or less similar geological characteristics.
Typically, the boundaries of these structural zones coincide with major geological
features such as shear zones, faults, and dykes. The aforementioned six parameters
(Table 3.1) are determined for each structural zone through field measurements and
entered into standardized input data sheets (Bieniawski, 1998).

The significance of geomechanics classification lies in selecting a set of guidelines

for rock reinforcement in tunnels, as outlined in the table. It's important to note that

16
 Chapter-3 Methodology

these supports indicate primary support and are not permanent. They are applicable to
rock masses excavated through conventional drill and blast methods (Bieniawski,
1989).

Table 3.1: Classification Parameters and their Ratings (Bieniawski, 1998)

PARAMETER Range of values // ratings
Strength of Point-load For this low
intact rock strength range uniaxial
4 - 10 1-2
material index > 10 MPa 2 - 4 MPa compr.
MPa MPa
Strength is
1 preferred
Uniaxial 5- 1-5 <1
compressive > 250 MPa 100 - 250 50 - 100 25 - 50 25 MPa MPa
strength MPa MPa MPa MPa
RAT ING 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
Drill core qu ality RQD 90 - 100% 75 - 50 - 75% 25 - 50% < 25%
90%
2
20 17 13 8 5
RAT ING
Spacing of di scontinuities >2m 0.6 - 2 200 - 600 60 - 200 < 60 mm
3 m mm mm
RAT ING 20 15 10 8 5
Length, <1m 1-3m 3 - 10 m 10 - 20 > 20 m
persistence m
Rating 6 4 2 1 0
Separation none < 0.1 0.1 - 1 mm 1 - 5 mm > 5 mm
mm
Rating 6 5 4 1 0
Roughness very rough rough slightly smooth slickensided
Condition of rough
4
Rating 6 5 13 0
discontinuities
none -
H filling
S oft filling
Infilling ard < 5 < 5 mm > 5 mm
(gouge) mm > 5 mm
Rating 6 4 2 2 0
Weathering unweathered slightly moderately highly w. decomposed
w. w.
Rating 6 5 3 1 0
Inflow per none < 10 10 - 25 25 - 125 > 125 litres /min
10 m tunnel litres/min litres/min litres/min
5 length
Ground water
pw / σ1 0 0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 > 0.5

17
 Chapter-3 Methodology

General completely damp wet dripping flowing

conditions dry
RATING 15 10 7 4 0
pw = joint water pressure; σ1 = major
principal stress
Table 3.2. Rating Adjustment for Discontinuity Orientations
(Bieniawski,1998)

Very Favourabl Fai Unfavourabl Very

favourabl e r e unfavourabl
e e

RATING Tunnels 0 -2 -5 -10 -12

S
Foundation 0 -2 -7 -15 -25
s

Slopes 0 -5 -25 -50 -60

Table 3.3. Rock Mass Classes Determined From Total Ratings (Bieniawski, 1998)

Rating 100 - 81 80 - 61 60 - 41 40 - 21 < 20

Class No. I II III IV V

Description VERY GOOD FAIR POOR VERY

GOOD POOR

18
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Table 3.4 Meaning of Rock Mass Classes

Class No. I II III IV V

Average stand- 10 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours 30 minutes

up for 15 m for 8 m for 5 m for 2.5 m for 1 m span
time span span span span

Cohesion of the rock > 400 300 - 400 200 - 300 100 - 200 < 100 kPa
mass kPa kPa kPa kPa

Friction angle of the < 45o 35 - 45o 25 - 35o 15 - 25o < 15o
rock mass

The input parameters of RMR system are discussed below in detail:

3.3.2 Rock Strength Rating for Intact Rock

The intact rock strength denotes the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of
undisturbed rock.We calculate the UCS values by test(ASTM D7012-14). Force
applied perpendicular to the Schistosity. The evaluation of intact rock material is
based on Table 3.5.

A B

Figure 3.1 Shows before and after compression A and B (UCS) of Sample 1.

19
Chapter-3 Methodology

A B

Figure 3.2 Shows before and after compression of A and B (UCS) of Sample 2.

Table 3.5: Strength of Intact Rock Material (Bieniawski, 1989)

S. No. Qualitative Compressive Point Load

Rating
Description Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa)

1 Exceptionally strong >250 >8 15

2 Very strong 100 - 250 4-8 12

3 Strong 50 - 100 2-4 7

4 Average 25 - 50 1-2 4

5 Weak 5 - 25 2

Very weak 1-5 Use of UCS is 1

6
<1 preferred
Exceptionally week 0
7

20
 Chapter-3 Methodology

3.3.3 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Rating

RQD serves as a parameter to assess the quality of a rock mass. The most reliable
RQD values are directly calculated for each core run from borehole logging, adhering
to the guidelines of Deere et al., 1967. In the case of surface mapping data, RQD is
estimated using the volumetric joint count method introduced by Palmstrom (1996).
RQD values are calculated by this formula as well;

RQD = 115-3.3*Jv

We calculate RQD values by the help of Dips software.

The rating of RQD values is determined by referencing a representative range of

RQD values as outlined in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Rating of RQD (Bieniawski, 1989)

RQD % Rock Quality Rating

S.no.

1 90-100 Excellent 20

2 75-90 Good 17

3 50-75 Fair 13

4 25-50 Poor 8

5 <25 Very poor 3

3.3.4 Joint Spacing (Js) Rating

Joint spacing plays a crucial role in the RMR system, whereas the Q-system does not
account for joint spacing considerations. Geological mapping is the primary source
for obtaining joint spacing values for various joint sets. Additionally, the average
spacing of joints can be assessed from borehole data, considering the total frequency
of joints for each core run. The joint spacing values obtained from boreholes are also

21
 Chapter-3 Methodology

utilized for comparative analysis. The rating of joint spacing is determined based on
the average spacing of joint sets, as outlined in the provided Table 3.7.

Furthermore, when relying on borehole loggings, the Js ratings derived from the
average spacing are deemed to adopt a conservative approach. This is due to the fact
that both drilling breaks and natural joints are encompassed in the calculation of the
average spacing.

Table 3.7: Rating of Joint Spacing (Bieniawski, 1989)

S. No Description Spacing (m) Rating

1 Very wide >2 20

2 Wide 0.6 — 2 15

3 Moderate 0.2 — 0.6 10

4 Close 0.06 — 0.2 8

5 Very close < 0.06 5

3.3.5 Joint Condition (Jcd) Rating:

The evaluation of joint conditions in the RMR system involves assessing five key
parameters: joint length (persistence), joint aperture (separation), joint roughness,
joint infilling materials, and joint weathering of the joint wall. Here is a summary of
each parameter:

Joint Length (Persistence):

Derived from surface mapping data, joint length represents the trace length of joints in
an area.

Reliable estimates are obtained during geological mapping to avoid misleading

results.

Subdivided into classes as per RMR requirements, and representative values are used
for rating.

22
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Joint Aperture (Separation):

Measured as the opening between joint walls, aperture is assessed from surface
mapping and borehole logs.

Categorized into five classes in the RMR system based on representative values.

Rating involves comparing field or borehole log data with these representative
aperture values.

Joint Roughness:

Roughness, indicating undulation on joint surfaces, is crucial for estimating shear

stresses.

RMR system categorizes roughness into five classes: very rough, rough, slightly
rough, smooth, and slickensided.

Joint Infilling:

Infilling material occupying joint openings is a key parameter estimating shear

stresses.

Categorized into five classes in the RMR system based on no infilling, hard infilling,
and soft infilling criteria.

Measurement from surface mapping and borehole logs, with emphasis on

representative values.

Joint Weathering:

Weathering conditions of joint walls are observed in surface mappings and recorded
in borehole logs.

Typically, surface joint walls are slightly weathered, and deeper walls are in fresh
conditions.

The rating considers conditions ranging from "fresh" to "slightly weathered" at

different depths.

23
 Chapter-3 Methodology

The overall rating of joint conditions is determined by utilizing representative or

average values for each sub-parameter, as specified in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Rating of Joint Conditions (Bieniawski, 1989)

Length Apertu Roughness Infilling Weathering

re
(m)
(mm)

<1 6 0 6 Very rough 6 None 6 Fresh 6

1-3 4 <0.1 5 Rough 5 Hard,<5mm 4 Slightly 5

3-10 2 0.1-1 4 Slightly 3 Hard,>5mm 2 Moderately 3

rough

10-20 1 1-5 1 Smooth 1 Soft,<5mm 1 Highly 1

>20 0 >5 0 Slickenside 0 Soft,>5mm 0 Decomposed 0

3.3.6 Groundwater Condition (Jw) Rating

The RMR groundwater rating is typically computed using either inflow data or the
ratio of joint water pressure to the major principal stress. In the feasibility stage,
where inflow data and rock stress data are often unavailable, groundwater conditions
are commonly characterized based on observations of the groundwater table during
borehole drilling. Descriptions such as completely dry, wet, dripping, and flowing are
utilized to convey the groundwater conditions. The rating for groundwater condition
is established in accordance with the criteria outlined in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9: Rating of Groundwater Condition (Bieniawski, 1989)

General

Description Completely Dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing

Rating 15 10 7 4 0

3.3.7 Joint Orientation (Jo) Rating

The orientation of joints significantly influences stress distribution. Typically, the

RMR value is derived by summing up the ratings of the five aforementioned
24
 Chapter-3 Methodology

parameters, collectively referred to as RMR basic. This RMR basic value is

commonly employed in the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. The estimation of the RMR
value takes into account the joint orientation, as illustrated in Table 3.10 and Table
3.11 below.

Table 3.10: Assessment of joint orientation Effect on Tunnel (Bieniawski, 1989)

Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis Strike parallel to tunnel axis Irrespective

of strike

Dip 45-90 Dip 20-45 Dip 45-90 Dip 20-45 Dip 20-45 Dip 0-20
Dip 45-90

V. Favorable V. favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable Fair

Fair

Note: Dips in the above table are apparent dips along tunnel axis.

Table 3.11: Adjustment of Joint Orientation (Bieniawski, 1989)

Joint orientation V Favorable favorable Fair Unfavorable V unfavorable

Tunnel & mines 0 -2 -5 -10 -15

Foundations 0 -2 -7 -15 -25

Slopes 0 -5 -25 -50 -

Note: Dips in the above table are apparent dips along tunnel axis

3.3.8 Excavation and Support Design in Accordance with RMR System

Bieniawski (1989) provided guidelines for selecting support for a 10m span modified
horseshoe tunnel constructed using the drill and blast method in a rock mass
experiencing vertical stress <25 MPa (equivalent to a depth below the surface of
<900m). However, in 2013, Lawson and Bieniawski updated these guidelines to cover
tunnels of all sizes. The excavation and support system for a proposed 13.2m span

25
 Chapter-3 Methodology

tunnel has been developed based on the guidelines outlined by Lawson and
Bieniawski in 2013 (refer to Table 3.12).

Table 3.12: Guidelines for support of tunnel based on RMR (Lowson and Bieniawski,
2013)

Rock Bolts

Excavation Shotcrete Steel Ribs

(20mm fully
grouted)

Full face 3m 4m long bolts 20mm to None

excavation spaced 2.8m 50mm in
spacing. crown
>80 A
Capacity (160 where
required
kN)

Full face 1.0-1.5m 4m long bolts 50mm to None

advance. Complete spaced 2m to 100mm in
support 20m from 2.8m crown
face spacing.in where
B crown and required
walls with
wiremesh in
crown Capacity
(130 160 kN)

Top heading and 5m long bolts 100mm - Light to

benching 1.5-3m spaced 1.3 to 200mm in medium ribs
advance in top 2m in crown crown spaced 1.5m
C heading. Commence and walls with where where
support after each wire mesh in required required
blast crown. 78 -130
kN)

26
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Top heading and 5-6m long 200 - Medium to

bench 1.0 to 1.5m bolts spaced heavy ribs
300mm in
advance in top 0.8 to 1.3m in spaced
crown,
heading. Install crown and 0.75m with
200m in
D support walls with steel lagging
sides,
concurrently with wire mesh in and fore
excavation 10m crown. 42 -48 50mm on poling if
from face kN) required
face

Top heading and 5-6m long 200 - Medium to

bench 1.0 to 1.5m bolts spaced heavy ribs
300mm in
advance in top 0.8-1m in spaced
crown,
heading. Install crown and 0.75m with
200m in
<20 E support walls with wire steel lagging
sides,
concurrently with mesh in crown. and fore
excavation 10m <42 kN) 50mm on poling if
from face required
face

3.3.9 Limitations on Geomechanics Classification:

Despite its widespread application in rock mechanics, geomechanics classification

has limitations. It does not account for prevailing stresses in the area, as only
conditions up to 25 MPa are considered in estimating the Rock Mass Rating (RMR).
Overstressing situations such as rock bursting and squeezing are not addressed.
Additionally, the classification lacks ratings for faults, weak and shear zones, and
swelling conditions. The specific parameters representing these complex geological
features are unclear, posing challenges in characterization. These limitations highlight
that while the RMR has validity, it falls short as a conclusive solution for designing
sustainable support for underground structures.

27
 Chapter-3 Methodology

3.4 Q System (Rock Tunneling Quality Index)

Following a meticulous analysis of a database comprising over 200 case histories,

Barton and his colleagues, Lien and Lunde, formulated a novel support system for
tunnels at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) in 1974. The Q system,
introduced by Barton et al. in 1974, is articulated through an equation involving six
parameters. Utilizing the derived Q value, they then devised a thorough design and
support recommendation for subterranean excavations. The equation is presented as
follows:

Where,

RQD = rock quality designation rating

Jn = number of sets of joints in rock

Jr = roughness of joint surface

Ja = alteration of joint walls

Jw = rating of water present in joints

SRF = rating of prevailing stresses

The Q system, developed in 1974, primarily aimed at classifying rock around

subsurface excavations. While initially designed for this purpose, field geologists also
utilize the system during the project design phase to provide a rough estimate of rock
mass quality. However, it's essential to note that the effectiveness of the Q system's
support depends on the size and geometry of the underground opening. For
undisturbed rock mass, the Q-value may be misleading.

Since its inception, the Q system has significantly contributed to tunneling technology
advancements. This includes the adoption of various support mechanisms like
different rock bolts, the introduction of fiber-reinforced technology, and the
application of sprayed concrete, replacing traditional cast concrete with sprayed

28
 Chapter-3 Methodology

concrete ribs. These innovations have greatly benefited the field of tunnel
engineering.

The Q system has undergone revisions over the years, continually updated with new
case studies and database evaluations. In 1993, Grimstad and Barton studied 900 case
histories from India, Norway, and Switzerland, leading to significant revisions.
Additionally, the 2002 revision by Grimstad et al. focused on evaluating the load
function and rock mass quality, analyzing factors such as thickness spacing and the
strengthening of reinforced ribs of sprayed concrete (RSS).

As an empirical design method, the Q system provides estimates for rock support.
Different Q-values are associated with various types of permanent support, outlined in
a schematic chart. When combined with the ratio of span and excavation support ratio
(ESR), Q values define the support system for a rock mass.

3.4.1 Parameterization for Q System

The parameterization of the Q system closely resembles that of the RMR system, and
is succinctly outlined below.

3.4.1.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Rating

The RQD values, employed in the Q system, adhere to the identical specifications
applied in the RMR ratings, as outlined in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13: Rating of RQD for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and
Barton, 1993)

1) RQD (Rock Quality Designation) RQD (%)

A Very poor (> 27 joints per m3) 0-25

B Poor (20-27 joints per m3) 25 - 50

C Fair (13-19 joints per m3) 50 - 75

D Good (8-12 joints per m3) 75 - 90

E Excellent (0-7 joints per m3) 90 - 100

29
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Note:

(i) Where RQD is reported or measured as < 10 (including 0), a nominal

value of 10 is used to evaluate Q

(ii) RQD intervals of 5, i.e., 100, 95, 90, etc. are sufficiently accurate

3.4.1.2 Joint Set Number (Jn) Rating

The Jn denotes the count of joint sets and their impact, derived from geological
mapping conducted on the surface and within adits. Since no adit has been excavated
during this feasibility stage, the joint set number values are derived from surface
geological mapping. These Jn values were approximated for each geotechnical or rock
unit and are presumed to be applicable to each corresponding unit along the level and
alignment of subterranean structures. The assessment of Jn is established based on
Table 3.14.

Table 3.14. Rating of Jn for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and

Barton, 1993)

Joint Set Number Jn

A Massive, no or few joints 0.5 - 1

B One joint set 2

C One joint set plus random 3

D Two joint sets 4

E Two joint sets plus random 6

F Three joint sets 9

G Three joint sets plus random 12

H Four or more joint sets, heavily jointed, ―sugar-cube‖, etc. 15

J Crushed rock, earth-like 20

Notes: (i) For tunnel intersection, use (3.0 x Jn);

(ii) For portals, use (2.0 x Jn)
30
 Chapter-3 Methodology

The prevalent occurrence involves 2 to 4 joint sets, along with occasional random
cracks in the two types of rock. Typically, the stability conditions of the subsurface
are notably influenced when there are two to three sets of joints, significantly
impacting underground activities.

3.4.1.3 Joint Roughness Number (Jr) Rating

Joint roughness stands out as a crucial rock mass parameter, exerting a considerable
impact on stresses and failure potential. The Jr values primarily originate from three
distinct sources: joint roughness coefficients derived from borehole logs, visual
assessments of outcrops on-site, and phase mapping conducted within tunnels and
adits. The joint roughness parameters for each geotechnical unit are determined by
selecting the most representative value from all these sources, subsequently
establishing the Jr rating in accordance with Table 3.15.

Table 3.15: Rating of Jr or Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and Barton,
1993)

2) Joint Roughness Number Jr

a) Rock-wall contact, and

b) Rock-wall contact before 10 cm of shear movement A

Discontinuous joints Jr = 4

B Rough or irregular, undulating 3

C Smooth, undulating 2

D Slickensided, undulating 1.5

E Rough or irregular, planar 1.5

F Smooth, planer 1.0

G Slickensided, planar 0.5

Note:
i) Description refers to small scale features and intermediate scale features, in that
order
c) No rock-wall contact when sheared

31
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Zone containing clay minerals thick enough to prevent 1.0

H rock-wall contact

Sandy, gravelly or crushed zone thick enough to prevent 1.0

I rock-wall contact

Note:

(i) Add 1 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is greater than 3 m
(dependent on the size of the underground opening)

(ii) Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar slickensided joints having lineations,
provided the lineations are oriented in the estimated sliding direction

3.4.1.4 Joint Alteration Number (Ja) Rating

The Ja parameter encompasses a wide range of factors, including joint surface

conditions influenced by phenomena such as joint healing, coating, infilling, residual
friction angle, and the shear history of rock discontinuities. Typically, the shear
history of geological conditions is not well-known, so the value of this parameter is
established by utilizing the residual frictional angle derived from laboratory testing of
rock discontinuities and the conditions of coating or infilling obtained from borehole
logs. The Ja rating is determined based on Table 3.16.

32
 Chapter-3 Methodology

Table 3.16. Rating of Ja for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and Barton,
1993)

4 Joint Alteration Number Φr approx. Ja

a) Rock-wall contact (no mineral fillings, only coatings)
Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable
A filling, i.e., quartz or epidote. 0.75

B Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only. 25-35° 1

Slightly altered joint walls. Non-softening mineral
C coatings; sandy particles, clay-free disintegrated rock, etc. 25-30° 2

Silty or sandy clay coatings, small clay fraction

D (non-softening). 20-25° 3
Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, i.e.,
E kaolinite or mica. Also chlorite, talc gypsum, graphite, 8-16° 4
etc., and small quantities of swelling clays.

b) Rock-wall contact before 10 cm shear (thin mineral fillings)

F Sandy particles, clay-free disintegrated rock, etc. 25-30° 4

Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening, clay

G mineral fillings (continuous, but <5 mm 16-24° 6
thickness).
Medium or low over-consolidation, softening, clay
H mineral fillings (continuous, but <5 mm thickness). 12-16° 8
Swelling-clay fillings, i.e., montmorillonite (continuous,
J but <5 mm thickness). Value of Ja depends on percent of 6-12° 8-12
swelling clay-size particles.
c) No rock-wall contact when sheared (thick mineral fillings)
Zones or bands of disintegrated or
K 16-24° 6
crushed rock. Strongly overconsolidated.
Zones or bands of clay, disintegrated or crushed
L rock. Medium or low overconsolidation or 12-16° 8
softening fillings.
Zones or bands of clay, disintegrated or crushed rock.
M Swelling clay. Ja depends on percent of swelling clay-size 6-12° 8-12
particles.
Thick continuous zones or bands of clay.
N 12-16° 10
Strongly over-consolidated.
Thick, continuous zones or bands of
O 12-16° 13
clay. Medium to low overconsolidation.
Thick, continuous zones or bands with clay.
P Swelling clay. Ja depends on percent of swelling 6-12° 13-20
clay-size particles.

33
 Chapter-3 Methodology

3.4.1.5 Joint Water Reduction Factor (Jw) Rating

The JWR parameter plays a crucial role in influencing the strength of intact rock and
the magnitude of stresses in subsurface conditions. The impact of groundwater, or
simply water, is typically assessed using inflow data or water pressure information.
However, detailed data on water inflow in tunnels and pressure along the majority of
underground excavation sections is often unavailable. Consequently, Jw values are
estimated by assuming hydrostatic water pressure, which varies almost linearly with
depth under saturated conditions. This approach can be misleading, particularly in
densely jointed hard rocks, where flow and pressure conditions are often influenced
by localized fracture/joint geometry. Additionally, outflows observed in nullah
sections are considered in determining the JWR parameter. The JWR rating is
established based on Table 3.17.

Table 3.17. Rating of JWR for Q System (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and
Barton, 1993)

4) Joint Water Reduction Factor Jw

A Dry excavations or minor inflow (humid or a few drips) 1.0

B Medium inflow, occasional outwash of joint fillings (many drips /‖ 0.66

rain‖)

C Jet inflow or high pressure in competent rock with unfilled joints 0.5

D Large inflow or high pressure, considerable outwash of joint 0.33

fillings

E Exceptionally high inflow or water pressure decaying with time. 0.2-0.1

F Causes outwash of material and perhaps cave in Exceptionally high 0.1-0.05

inflow or water pressure continuing without Noticeable decay.
Causes outwash of material and perhaps cave in

Notes:
i) Factors C to F are crude estimates. Increase Jw if the rock is drained or
grouting is carried out

ii) Special problems caused by ice formation are not considered

34
 Chapter-3 Methodology

3.4.1.6 Stress Reduction Factor (SRF)

The incorporation of the stress reduction factor (SRF) distinguishes the Q system, as
the RMR system lacks consideration of this parameter. The SRF specifically
addresses the influence of stresses, making it a challenging parameter to estimate due
to subjective descriptive sorting and the significant stepwise variations in SRF values
(Table 3.18).

Table 3.18: Rating of SRF for Q system (NGI 2015, updated from Grimstad and

Barton, 1993)

3.4.2 Limitations of Q System

Palmstrom and Broach, (2006) identified several limitations associated with the Q
system, emphasizing its optimal performance within a specific range of Q values,
typically between 0.1 and 40, and for tunnels with spans ranging from 2.5 to 30m.
The Q values also face constraints when dealing with overstressing situations. Despite
the provision of input parameters, estimating Q values demands careful consideration,
35
 Chapter-3 Methodology

especially in conditions prone to rock burst, squeezing, and swelling ground in weak
areas.

3.5 Geological Strength Index (GSI)

The Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced by Hoek in 1994 and 1995 and later
updated by Hoek & Brown in 1997, serves as a global standard for classifying
fractured or jointed rock masses. It is a crucial input parameter for calculating the
Hoek-Brown rock mass strength (refer to Table 3.19). GSI provides a strength index
based on geological conditions identified through field observations or the
quantification of inherent rock properties. This characterization relies on visual
assessments of the rock mass structure, considering factors such as the number of
discontinuities, block geometry, and lithological features. Surface conditions of rock
discontinuities, including roughness, infilling, weathering, and alteration, also
contribute to the estimation. Various formulas exist for determining GSI, with the
research utilizing the updated quantitative approach (Eq. 12) by Hoek et al., 2013.

𝐺𝑆𝐼 = 1.5 ∗ 𝐽𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑85 + RQD ̸ 2

Table 3.19 General Chart for GSI Estimate from Field Geological Observation

Very Blocky Disintegrated 50-40 40-30 30-20 30-20 20-10

Laminated/Sheared none none 30-20 20-10 10-0

36
 Chapter-3 Methodology

3.5.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

The RQD Index, introduced by Deere in 1964 and 1967, is a key rating parameter
widely employed in rock classification systems, including the RMR system. It serves
as a quantitative measure of rock quality, specifically for drill cores, focusing on core
recovery percentage derived from fracture count and softening rock content. Notably,
RQD considers only core pieces larger than 100mm and has proven effective in
identifying roughly uniformly fractured rock since its inception (3.20).

Table 3.20: Classification of Rock Mass Quality by RQD (Deere, 1966)

RQD (%) 90 - 100 75 - 90 50 - 75 25 - 50 < 25

Rock quality Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor

The RQD is commonly described as the aggregate length of intact core segments
exceeding 100mm, located between naturally occurring (non-drilling induced)
fractures. It is expressed as a percentage of the entire length of each core run,
measured along the core axis. This calculation is performed using the equation
provided below.

RQD = ∑𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑕 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 > 100 ̸ total core run length * 100

Several alternative approaches exist for determining the RQD of rock in the field. In
the research, RQD was computed by placing a measuring tape on an outcrop in two to
three directions and tallying the rock segments exceeding 100mm. The RQD was then
determined by summing the 100mm rock segments along these directions, employing
the same method as outlined by Deere.

𝑅𝑄𝐷 = ∑𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑕 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 > 100 ̸ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑝 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒t𝑐h 100

Dips Software

We create Rosette figures, Contour figures, 3D Stereonet figures, Symbolic Pole

figures,Sets figures, Poles figures and Rock Quality Designation Graphs.

37
 Chapter-4 PETROGRAPHY

Chapter-4

PETROGRAPHY

4.1 General Statement

Petrography serves as a fundamental tool for comprehensive analysis and

interpretation of rock samples providing valuable insights into the mineralogical
composition, texture and fabric of rocks. Samples have been selected from both inlet
and outlet of the tunnel. The purpose of petrography was to identify minerals in order
to recognize rock types. Samples were collected from both outlet and inlet for
detailed petrographic observations. For detailed study five thin sections prepared
from each sample of inlet and outlet.

4.2 Petrography

The tunnel is divided into following lithological units based on petrographic

observations;

1) Amphibolite schist
2) Biotite schist

The rocks in inlet (Swat side) are Amphibolite Schist and the rocks in outlet (Buner
side) are biotite schists

4.2.1 Amphibolite schist

Amphibolite schist is medium to coarse grained metamorphic rock and exhibit

foliation or banding due to alignment of mineral grains during metamorphism. The
petrographic study reveals that rock is predominantly comprise of hornblende, quartz,
hornblende shows alteration to chlorite amphibole, k-feldspar and biotite. Hornblende
is a mineral belong to amphibole group. The color of hornblende ranges from light
green to dark green to black and elongated mineral grains. Hornblende also shows
two cleavage planes along with some uneven or irregular fractures (Figure 4.1 and
Figure 4.2). Amphibolite Schist belonging to Marghazar formation.

38
 Chapter-4 PETROGRAPHY

Table 4.1 Model Mineralogical Composition of Amphibolite Schist

Rock Name Hornblende % Quartz % Others % (Altered

Amphibole, K-
feldspar, Biotite)

Amphibolite Schist 60-70 10-15 15-20

Figure 4.1 Showing Photomicrographs (XPL) of Amphibolite Schist show

Hornblende Biotite and Quartz.

39
 Chapter-4 PETROGRAPHY

Figure 4.2: Showing Photomicrographs (XPL) of Amphibolite Schist show

Hornblende Biotite and Quartz.

4.2.2 Biotite schist

Biotite schist is a metamorphic rock. Petrographic study of outlet samples shows that
rock is predominantly composed of biotite and quartz with minor amount of feldspar
and garnet. Biotite color ranges from brown to black (Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4).
Biotite Schist belonging to Marghazar formation.

Table 4.2 Model Mineralogical Composition of Biotite Schist

Rock Name Biotite % Quartz % Others % (Feldspar

and Garnet)

Biotite Schist 40-50 40-50 10-15

40
Chapter-4 PETROGRAPHY

Figure Showing 4.3 Photomicrographs (XPL) of Biotite Schist show Biotite and
Quartz

Figure 4.4: Showing Photomicrographs (XPL) of Biotite Schist show Biotite and
Quartz.

41
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Chapter-5

RESULT, DISCISSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, considering the geological and drop mass parameters data, rock mass
classification system have been used for tunnel ground; in ordered to classify the
study area into distinct rock mass classes and estimating some appropriate support for
them. The Q and RMR systems have been applied in terms of their diagnostic rock
mass parameters, general geology and ground conditions, as per elaboration in
chapter 3. Two segment of the studied tunnel, from inlet and outlet has been selected
for rock mass characterization. The different parameters for Q and RMR systems
have been calculated. The details of each system have been elaborated in this chapter.

5.2 Rock Mass Rating (RMR-System)

The main lithological units investigated at inlet is the Amphibolite schist and at outlet
is the Biotite schist. These units are divided into different rock mass classes based on
RMR parameters. The engineering geological parameters including the Uniaxial
Compressive Strength (UCS) (based on ISRM, D7012-14) RQD, joints orientation,
joint spacing, joint persistence, joint surface conditions and ground water conditions
were determined. Different rock units in terms of RMR parameters are discussed
below;

5.2.1. Amphibolite schist (inlet)

The recommended Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of Amphibolite schist at

inlet according to ISRM (D7012-14) is used for RMR classification i.e. UCS is 35-
38MPa; RQD is 82%; joint spacing ranging from 0.2-0.6 cm; joints encounter is
rough undulating and undulating planner, persistence 1-20 meters and joint apertures
are 2mm in width with filling materials. Orientation of discontinuities conditions
were observed. Weathering of rocks also observed.

5.2.2 Biotite schist (outlet)

The Biotite schist has average Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of 42-45
42
 Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

MPa (ISRM, 2007) with average RQD 70 %; joint spacing 290 mm; joints are rough
undulating, smooth planner and undulating planner; persistence of 3m and joints
apertures 1mm in width with filling material. Discontinuities attitude reveals fair
tunnel drive condition. Roughness in outlet rocks is observed.

5.2.3 RMR values at inlet and outlet

Based on above mentioned RMR parameters for different rock types, an

RMR value and rock class have been evaluated as per recommended
values (Bieniawski, 1989) (Table 5.1). Likewise station at outlet were
also assessed in accordance to RMR parameters. The result are shown in (table
5.2).

Table 5.1. At inlet station (calculation)

Properties RMR Rating

RQD 17

Spacing 10

orientation ─5
Inlet rock Amphibolite
schist Ground water 15

(UCS) Uniaxial compressive 8

Strength

Condition of discontinuities

1 infilling 2

2 aperture 1

3 persistence 4-0

4 Roughness 5-3

5 weathering 6-5

43
 Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Station Rock type RMR values Rock class

Inlet Amphibolite schist 63-56 Fair rock (Ⅲ)

Good rock (Ⅱ)

Outlet Calculation

Table 5.2. At outlet station

Properties RMR Rating

RQD 13

Spacing 10

orientation ─5
Outlet rock Biotite schist Ground water 15

(UCS) Uniaxial compressive 4

Strength

Condition of discontinuities

1 infilling 2

2 aperture 1

3 persistence 4

4 Roughness 1

5 weathering 6-5

Station Rock type RMR value Rock class

Outlet Biotite schist 51-50 fair rock (Ⅲ)

44
 Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

5.2.4 Support and recommendation

According to RMR parameters the rock masses fall under the rock mass classes from
fair to good. Based on support recommendation chart after Bieniawski, (1989), type
and amount of support estimates are presented in the (table 5.3).

Table 5.3 support recommendation to rock mass classes based on RMR

Rock mass classes Support recommendation

Class Ⅱ Good Rock bolts Shotcrete Steel set

rocks
3 m long bolt in
crown, spaced 2.5 m
50 mm in crown None
with occasional
where required
wire mesh

Class Ⅲ Fair rocks Systematic bolt 4 m 50-100 mm in

long, spaced 1.5-2 crown and 30 mm

m in crown and wall in side

with wire mesh in
None
crown

5.3 Q System

The Q value for a specific length (stations) both at inlet and outlet were calculated.
The resulting Q value has been corresponding to specific rock class.

5.3.1 Calculated Q value at inlet and outlet

At inlet and outlet two stations were evaluated for Q-system’s parameters. The RQD
was determined indirectly from joints volume using a relation proposed by Palmstrom
(1989).

45
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

RQD = 115−3.3 (Jv)

The joint set number (Jn), roughness (Jr), and alteration (Ja) were assessed during
scan line survey whereas joint water (Jw) was assumed dry (chapter 4). Stress
reduction factor SRF value is calculated which is 1 and 2.5, and the Q value is
ranging from 0.2 to 1.69. The rock masses at inlet and outlet are classified as fair to
poor. Resultant Q values derived from inlet (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4 Resultant Q-value derived from inlet

Elevation Rock RQD Jr Jn Ja Jw SRF Q-value

type
Q=
(m)
RQD ̸Jn*Jr ̸Ja*Jw
S̸RF

1090- AS 17 1.5 15*2 1 1 2.5 0.336

1100

1100- AS 17 1.5 15 1 1 2.5 0.678

1140

1140- AS 17 1.5 15 1 1 1 1.695

1190

1190- AS 17 1.5 15 1 1 1 1.695

1240

1240- AS 17 1.5 15 1 1 1 1.695

1290

1290- AS 17 1.5 15 1 1 1 1.695

1340

A S = Amphibolite schist

Resultant Q values derived from outlet (Table 5.5).

46
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Table 5.5 Resultant Q-value derived from outlet

Elevation Rock RQD Jr Ja Jn Jw SRF Q-value

type
(m) Q = RQD ̸Jn*Jr ̸Ja*Jw
S̸RF

1050- BS 13 1 2 6*2 1 2.5 0.2166

1060

1160- BS 13 1 2 6 1 2.5 0.433

1100

1100- BS 13 1 2 6 1 1 1.083
1150

1150- BS 13 1 2 6 1 1 1.083
1200

1250- BS 13 1 2 6 1 1 1.083
1300

1300- BS 13 1 2 6 1 1 1.083
1350

B S = Biotite Schist

5.3.2 Support and recommendation based on Q system

From the above analysis the support measure were define in accordance with
recommendations made by Grimstard and Barton (1993). The Q value and other
required parameters (tunnel height and excavation support ratio) has been plotted in
the support estimate chart (fig5.1).

47
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Q System Recommendation chart

Figure 5.1 Showing Q System Recommendation chart (Grimstard and Barton, 1993)

REINFORCEMENT CATEGORIES:

1) Unsupported
2) Spot bolting
3) Systematic bolting
4) Systematic bolting, (and unreinforced shotcrete, 4-10 cm)
5) Fibre reinforced shotcrete, 5-9 cm and bolting
6) Fibre reinforced shotcrete, 9-12 cm and bolting)
7) Fibre reinforced shotcrete,12-15 cm and bolting.
8) Fibre reinforced shotcrete. > 15 cm, reinforced ribs of shotcrete and bolting
9) Cast concrete lining

48
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Results and Recommendation

3) Systematic roof bolting 4.25m and wall bolting 6.25.

4) Systematic roof bolting 4.25m and wall bolting 6.25, (and unreinforced shotcrete,
4-10 cm)
5)Fibre reinforced shotcrete, 5-9 cm and roof bolting, 4.25m and wall bolting 6.25.
6) Fibre reinforced shotcrete, 9-12 cm and roof bolting, 4.25m and wall bolting 6.25.
5.4 Geological Strength Index

The Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced by Hoek in 1994 and 1995 and
later updated by Hoek & Brown in 1997, serves as a global standard for classifying
fractured or jointed rock masses. It is a crucial input parameter for calculating the
Hoek-Brown rock mass strength (refer to Table 5.6). GSI provides a strength index
based on geological conditions identified through field observations or the
quantification of inherent rock properties. This characterization relies on visual
assessments of the rock mass structure, considering factors such as the number of
discontinuities, block geometry, and lithological features. Surface conditions of rock
discontinuities, including roughness, infilling, weathering, and alteration, also
contribute to the estimation. Various formulas exist for determining GSI, with the
research utilizing the updated quantitative approach (Eq.) by Hoek et al., 2013.

Equations for GSI:

(A) GSI = RMR ─ 5

(B) GSI = 9*ln Q ꜘ + 44
(C) GSI = 1.5 joint condition (89) + RQD ̸ 2

49
 Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Table 5.6 General Chart for GSI Estimate from Field Geological Observation

Very Blocky Disintegrated 50-40 40-30 30-20 30-20 20-10

Laminated/Sheared none none 30-20 20-10 10-0

5.7 Calculated GSI of inlet is given below in table by formula (A)

Rock type RMR─5 GSI

Amphibolite schist 59.5─5 54.5

By formula (B)

Rock type Distance 9*lnQ’+44 GSI

Amphibolite schist At 10 meters 9*ln0.85+44 42.53

Amphibolite schist <50 meters 9*ln1.7+44 48.77

Amphibolite schist >50 meters 9*ln1.7+44 48.77

BY formula (C)

Rock type 1.5*Joint condition + RQD ̸ 2 GSI

Amphibolite schist 1.5*18+82 / 2 68

50
 Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

5.8 GSI of outlet rocks is calculated by formula (A)

Rock type RMR─5 GSI

Biotite schist 50.5─5 45.5

By formula (B)

Rock type Distance 9*lnQ+ꜘ 44 GSI

Biotite schist At 10 meters 9*ln0.5416+44 38.42

Biotite schist <50 meters 9*ln1.0833+44 44.72

Biotite schist >50 meters 9*ln1.0833+44 44.72

BY formula (C)

Rock type 1.5*Joint condition + RQD ̸ 2 GSI

Biotite schist 1.5*14+70 ̸ 2 56

5.5 Joint Alteration

In underground tunneling project dip and dip orientation of joints greatly affect the
tunnel stability. Therefore it is important to consider joints in designing tunnel support
system and tunnel direction through the rock mass. It is of prime importance
especially in geomechanical classification system (RMR). The orientation of joints
has relatively favorable and unfavorable effect on tunnel drive during excavation
(Bieniawski, 1989). The strike and dip data of joint sets are measured at studied
section of tunnel and represented in rosette diagrams.

51
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Inlet Rosette :

Figure 5.2 Showing Inlet Rosette

Contour (Inlet)

Figure 5.3: Showing Contour

52
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

3D Stereonet (Inlet)

Figure 5.4: Showing 3D Stereonet

Symbolic Poles (Inlet)

Figure 5.5: Showing Symbolic Poles

53
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Sets (Inlet)

Figure 5.6: Showing Sets

Poles (Inlet)

Figure 5.7: Showing Poles

54
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Rock Quality Designation Graph (Inlet)

Figure 5.8: Showing Rock Quality Designation Graph

Outlet Rosette:

Figure 5.9: Showing Outlet Rosette:

55
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Contour (Outlet)

Figure 5.10: Showing Contour

3D Stereonet (Outlet)

Figure 5.11: Showing 3D Stereonet

56
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Symbolic Poles (Outlet)

Figure 5.12: Showing Symbolic Poles

Sets (Outlet)

Figure 5.13: Showing Sets

57
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Poles (Outlet)

Figure 5.14: Showing Poles

Rock Quality Designations Graph (Outlet)

Figure 5.15: Showing Rock Quality Designations Graph

58
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

5.6 Correlation between petrography and rock mass parameters

The detailed petrographic studies of rock samples from inlet and outlet reveals that
tunnel majorly consist of the two major rock types namely Amphibolite Schist and
Biotite Schist (Chapter 4). Among these, Amphibolite schist is medium grained,
compact and slightly to moderately weathered. As a result, these rocks having greater
(average) RQD, Q values and RMR ratings (Table 5.7). The another rock type (Biotite
Schist) is relatively medium to coarse-grained with unweathered to slightly weathered
condition have the average ROD, Q values and RMR rating comparatively low (Table
5.7).

Table 5.7 Average RQD, Q value and RMR rating with respect to main rock
types

Rock of Rock type Average RQD Average Q Average RMR

value
Inlet Amphibolite 82% 0.903 59.5
schist
Outlet Biotite 70% 0.5776 50.5
schist

5.7 Relationship between RMR and stand up time

Many rock mass classification systems have indirectly aid into many unknown
parameters. The one among these is the stand-up time for a given rock mass that can
be estimated via RMR system. The RMR values of both inlet and outlet are plotted
against the stand-up time (h) vs unsupported in (m) graph (Bieniawski,1993). The
purpose is to recognize how long a rock mass can withstand without giving any major
support, as shown in the (Figure 5.8).

59
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

Figure 5.8: shows correlation between Roof span, RMR and Stand-up time
(Bieniawski,1993).

The Fig 5.8: shows that the studied rock mass in case of RMR system falls in the
Good(B) to Fair(C) rocks categories that can withstand without giving any major
support for 50 hours to 500 hours.

5.8 Correlation between Q and RMR systems

Interrelationship between the two most widely used classification systems, the rock
mass rating (RMR) of Bieniawski (1976) and the rock mass quality (Q-system) of
Barton et al., (1974), have been proposed by many researchers. Several authors in the
past had also given empirical correlation between these two systems based on
statistical analysis of the field data. One of the very early correlations was given by

Bieniawski (1976) based on geological data collected from various sites located in

Scandinavian courses which is expressed as

RMR = 9lnQ+44

Several other correlation were also worked out by Rutledge and Preston (1978),
Moreno (1980) Cameron-Clarke and Budavari (1981), Abad et al., (1984) and Imran
and Rahul (2015). The correlations are presented in equations II, III, IV, V and VI
respectively.

RMR = 5.9lnQ+43 (11)

60
Chapter-5 Result, Discussion and Conclusion

RMR=5.4ln Q+55.2 (111)

RMR = 5lnQ+60.8 (IV)

RMR=10.5 ln Q+41.8 (V)

RMR = 4.5ln Q+43.6 (VI)

If we see the table of Q system and RMR system the supporting things are congruent
(same). In shotcrete and systematic bolting are required and in RMR system we also
got information about the withstand time that is from 50 to more than 500 hours.

5.9 Conclusions

The main aim of the current research work is to conduct the rock mass
characterization of the Tunnel using RMR and Q systems and petrographic analysis
of rock masses. The results were further materialized to predict and evaluate
appropriate rock reinforcement requirements for the studied tunnel. Following
conclusions can be derived from this study.

Petrographically the tunnel has been divided in to two rock types at inlet and outlet
containing Amphibolite Schist and Biotite Schist respectively. Amphibolite Schist are
stronger as compared to Biotite Schist because of the presence of Hornblende.

Q and RMR systems are applied to the rock mass both at outlet and inlet at certain
lengths. Rock masses ranges from Good to Fair (63-51) in case of RMR-system and
Q-system lies in Good, Fair, Poor and Very Poor rock mass (3-6).

Correlation between RMR and stand up time have been a positive approach during
preliminary stages of project. The good and fair classes (Ⅱ& Ⅲ) can withstand for
50 to 500 hours respectively.

Utilizing the field data to formulate an empirical correlation between Q and RMR
systems will certainly provide an effective tool for underground engineering projects.

It is also concluded from this research work that the evaluation of support system for
a rock design, the discontinues parameters are more vital than mineralogical
characteristics.

61
Chapter-7 References

REFERENCES

Abad, J., Celada, B., Chacon, E., Gutierrez, V., & Hidalgo, E. (1983). Application of
geomechanical classification to predict the convergence of coal mine galleries
and to design their supports. 5th ISRM Congress,
Angiolini, L., Zanchi, A., Zanchetta, S., Nicora, A., & Vezzoli, G. (2013). The
Cimmerian geopuzzle: new data from South Pamir. Terra Nova, 25(5),
352360.
Bard, J. P. (1983). Metamorphism of an obducted island arc: example of the Kohistan
sequence (Pakistan) in the Himalayan collided range. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 65(1), 133-144.
Barton, N., & Grimstad, E. (2014). Tunnel and cavern support selection in Norway,
based on rock mass classification with the Q-system. Norwegian Tunnelling
Society, 23, 45-77.
Barton, N., Lien, R., & Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses
for the design of tunnel support. Rock mechanics, 6, 189-236.
Bell, F., Cripps, J., & Culshaw, M. (1995). The significance of engineering geology to
construction. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special
Publications, 10(1), 3-29.
Bienawski, Z. (1976). Rock mass classifications in rock engineering.
Bieniawski, Z. (1973). Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil
Engineering= Siviele Ingenieurswese, 1973(12), 335-343.
Bieniawski, Z. (1993). Classification of rock masses for engineering: the RMR
system and future trends. In Rock testing and site characterization (pp. 553-
573).
Elsevier.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1989). Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual
for engineers and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering.
John Wiley & Sons.
Butler, R., George, M., Harris, N., Jones, C., Prior, D., Treloar, P., & Wheeler, J.
(1992). Geology of the northern part of the Nanga Parbat massif, northern
Pakistan, and its implications for Himalayan tectonics. Journal of the
Geological Society, 149(4), 557-567.

62
Chapter-7 References

Calkins, J., Offield, T., Abdullah, S., & Ali, S. T. (1975). Geology of the southern
Himalaya in Hazara. Pakistan, and Adjacent Areas: US Geological Survey
Professional Paper.
Cameron-Clarke, I., & Budavari, S. (1981). Correlation of rock mass classification
parameters obtained from borecore and in-situ observations. Engineering
Geology, 17(1-2), 19-53.
Coşar, S. (2004). Application of rock mass classification systems for future support
design of the Dim Tunnel near Alanya Middle East Technical University].
Coward, M., & Butler, R. (1985). Thrust tectonics and the deep structure of the
Pakistan Himalaya. Geology, 13(6), 417-420.
Coward, M., Butler, R., Khan, M. A., & Knipe, R. (1987). The tectonic history of
Kohistan and its implications for Himalayan structure. Journal of the
Geological Society, 144(3), 377-391.
Coward, M. P., Butler, R., Chambers, A., Graham, R., Izatt, C., Khan, M. A., Knipe,
R. J., Prior, D., Treloar, P. J., & Williams, M. (1988). Folding and
imbrication of the Indian crust during Himalayan collision. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and
Physical Sciences, 326(1589), 89-116.
Coward, M. P., Rex, D. C., Asif Khan, M., Windley, B. F., Broughton, R. D., Luff, I.
W., Petterson, M. G., & Pudsey, C. J. (1986). Collision tectonics in the NW
Himalayas. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 19(1), 203-
219.
Debon, F., Afzali, H., Le Fort, P., & Sonet, J. (1987). Major intrusive stages in
Afghanistan: typology, age and geodynamic setting. Geologische Rundschau,
76, 245-264.
Deere, D., Hendron, A., Patton, F., & Cording, E. (1966). Design of surface and
nearsurface construction in rock. ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics
Symposium,
Deere, D., & Miller, D. (1967). The rock quality designation (RQD) index in practice,
classification systems for engineering purposes. Proc. Symp. Rock
Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes,
Deere, D. U. (1964). Technical description of rock cores for engineering purpose.
Rock Mechanics and Enginee-ring Geology, 1(1), 17-22.
Desio, A., & Zanettin, B. (1970). Geology of the Baltoro basin. (No Title).
63
Chapter-7 References

DiPietro, J. A., Ahmad, I., & Hussain, A. (2008). Cenozoic kinematic history of the
Kohistan fault in the Pakistan Himalaya. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 120(11-12), 1428-1440.
DiPietro, J. A., Hussain, A., Ahmad, I., & Khan, M. (2000). The main mantle thrust in
Pakistan: its character and extent. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 170(1), 375-393.
DiPietro, J. A., & Pogue, K. R. (2004). Tectonostratigraphic subdivisions of the
Himalaya: A view from the west. Tectonics, 23(5).
Eder, S., Poscher, G., & Kohl, B. (2004). Tunnelling in urbanised areas-Geotechnical
case studies at different project stages. Engineering Geology for
Infrastructure Planning in Europe: A European Perspective, 435-443.
Faisal, S., Larson, K. P., Cottle, J. M., & Lamming, J. (2014). Building the Hindu
Kush: monazite records of terrane accretion, plutonism and the evolution of
the Himalaya–Karakoram–Tibet orogen. Terra Nova, 26(5), 395-401.
Gaetani, M., Angiolini, L., Nicora, A., Sciunnach, D., Le Fort, P., Tanoli, S., & Khan,
A. (1996). Reconnaissance geology in upper Chitral, Baroghil and Karambar
districts (northern Karakorum, Pakistan). Geologische Rundschau, 85,
683704.
Goel, R., Jethwa, J., & Paithankar, A. (1995). Indian experiences with Q and RMR
systems. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 10(1), 97-109.
Grimstad, E. d. (1993). Updating the Q-system for NMT. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete-Modern use of wet mix
sprayed concrete for underground support, Fagemes, Oslo, Norwegian
Concrete Association, 1993,
Guglielmetti, V., Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., & Xu, S. (2008). Mechanized tunnelling in
urban areas: design methodology and construction control. Taylor & Francis.
Hildebrand, P., Noble, S., Searle, M., Parrish, R., & Shakirullah. (1998). Tectonic
significance of 24 Ma crustal melting in the eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan.
Geology, 26(10), 871-874.
Hildebrand, P., Noble, S., Searle, M., Waters, D., & Parrish, R. (2001). Old origin for
an active mountain range: Geology and geochronology of the eastern Hindu
Kush, Pakistan. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113(5), 625-639.

64
Chapter-7 References

Hoek, E., & Brown, E. T. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences, 34(8),
11651186.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., & Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown failure
criterion2002 edition. Proceedings of NARMS-Tac, 1(1), 267-273.
Hoek, E., Carter, T., & Diederichs, M. (2013). Quantification of the geological
strength index chart. ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics
Symposium,
Humayun, M. (1985). Tectonic significance of mylonites from Mingora, Swat. Geol.
Bull. Univ. Peshawar, 18, 137-145.
Khan, M. A. (1989). The Chilas Mafic-Ultramafic Igneous Complex; The root of the
Kohistan Island Arc in the Himalaya of northern Pakistan. Tectonics of the
western Himalayas, 232, 75.
Khan, M. A., Treloar, P. J., Khan, M. A., Khan, T., Qazi, M. S., & Jan, M. Q. (1998).
Geology of the Chalt–Babusar transect, Kohistan terrane, N. Pakistan:
implications for the constitution and thickening of island-arc crust. Journal of
Asian Earth Sciences, 16(2-3), 253-268.
Khan, T., Asif Khan, M., Qasim Jan, M., & Naseem, M. (1996). Back-arc basin
assemblages in Kohistan, Northern Pakistan. Geodinamica Acta, 9(1), 30-40.
Kumar, R., Ghosh, S. K., Sangode, S. J., Pogue, K. R., Hylland, M. D., Yeats, R. S.,
Khattak, W. U., Hussain, A., Jadoon, I. A., & Frisch, W. (1999). PART III.
HIMALAYAN FORELAND: SEDIMENTS, STRUCTURES, AND
LANDFORMS. Himalaya and Tibet: Mountain Roots to Mountain Tops, 328.
Kumar, S., Wesnousky, S. G., Rockwell, T. K., Ragona, D., Thakur, V. C., & Seitz,
G. G. (2001). Earthquake recurrence and rupture dynamics of Himalayan
Frontal Thrust, India. Science, 294(5550), 2328-2331.
Lauffer, H. (1958). Gebirgsklassifizierung fur den stol lenbau. Geologie und
Bauwesen, 24(1), 46-51.
LEFORT, P., DEBON, F., & SONET, J. (1980). The" Lesser Himalayan" cordierite
granite belt, typology and age of the pluton of Manserah (Pakistan).
Lowson, A., & Bieniawski, Z. (2013). Critical assessment of RMR based tunnel
design practices: a practical engineer’s approach. Proceedings of the SME,
Rapid excavation and tunnelling conference, Washington, DC, USA,
Marinos, V., Marinos, P., & Hoek, E. (2005). The geological strength index:
65
Chapter-7 References

applications and limitations. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,

64, 55-65.
Martin, N., Siddiqui, S., & King, B. (1962). A geological reconnaissance of the region
between the Lower Swat and Indus Rivers of Pakistan. Geol. Bull. Punjab
Univ, 2, 1-13.
Mikoshiba, M., Takahashi, Y., Takahashi, Y., Kausar, A., Khan, T., Kubo, K., &
Shirahase, T. (1999). Himalaya and Tibet: Mountain Roots to Mountain Tops.
Geological Society of America Special Paper 328, 47-57.
Miller, D. J., Loucks, R. R., & Ashraf, M. (1991). Platinum-group element
mineralization in the Jijal layered ultramafic-mafic complex, Pakistani
Himalayas. Economic Geology, 86(5), 1093-1102.
Moreno Tallon E, 1980, Application de Las Classificaciones Geomechnicas a Los
Tuneles de Parjares, II Cursode Sostenimientos Activosen galeriasy Tunnels,
Foundation Gomez-Parto, Madrid, Spain
Palmstrøm, A. (1996). Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical
rock engineering: Part 1: The development of the Rock Mass index (RMi).
Tunnelling and underground space technology, 11(2), 175-188.
Petterson, M. G., & Windley, B. F. (1985). RbSr dating of the Kohistan arc-batholith
in the Trans-Himalaya of north Pakistan, and tectonic implications. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 74(1), 45-57.
Pudsey, C., Coward, M., Luff, I., Shackleton, R., Windley, B., & Jan, M. (1985).
Collision zone between the Kohistan arc and the Asian plate in NW Pakistan.
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, 76(4), 463-479.
Pudsey, C. J. (1986). The Northern Suture, Pakistan: margin of a Cretaceous island
arc. Geological Magazine, 123(4), 405-423.
Rahimi, B., Shahriar, K., & Sharifzadeh, M. (2014). Evaluation of rock mass
engineering geological properties using statistical analysis and selecting
proper tunnel design approach in Qazvin–Rasht railway tunnel. Tunnelling
and underground space technology, 41, 206-222.
Rahul, K., Imran, D., Sudarshan, Y., Sharma, R., Singh, G., & Rizwan, M. (2015).
GENETIC VARIABILITY WITHIN AND BETWEEN CUCUMIS SPECIES
THROUGH SSR MARKERS. Journal of Cell and Tissue Research, 15(2),
5043.
66
Chapter-7 References

Rex, A., Searle, M., Tirrul, R., Crawford, M., Prior, D., Rex, D., & Barnicoat, A.
(1988). The geochemical and tectonic evolution of the central Karakoram,
North Pakistan. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 326(1589), 229-255.
Rutledge, J., & Preston, R. (1978). Experience with engineering classifications of
rock. Proc. Int. Tunnelling Sym., Tokyo, A3.
Sajid, M., Andersen, J., Rocholl, A., & Wiedenbeck, M. (2018). U-Pb geochronology
and petrogenesis of peraluminous granitoids from northern Indian plate in
NW Pakistan: Andean type orogenic signatures from the early Paleozoic
along the northern Gondwana. Lithos, 318, 340-356.
Schaltegger, U., Zeilinger, G., Frank, M., & Burg, J. P. (2002). Multiple mantle
sources during island arc magmatism: U–Pb and Hf isotopic evidence from
the Kohistan arc complex, Pakistan. Terra Nova, 14(6), 461-468.
Searle, M., Khan, M. A., Fraser, J., Gough, S., & Jan, M. Q. (1999). The tectonic
evolution of the Kohistan Karakoram collision belt along the Karakoram
Highway transect, north Pakistan. Tectonics, 18(6), 929-949.
Singh, B., & Goel, R. K. (2011). Tunnelling in weak rocks. Elsevier.
Tahirkheli, R. K. (1979). Geology of Kohistan and adjoining Eurasian and
IndoPakistan continents, Pakistan. Geol. Bull. Univ. Peshawar, 11(1), 1-30.
Terzaghi, K. (1946). Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. Rock tunneling with
steel supports.
Treloar, P., Broughton, R., Williams, M., Coward, M., & Windley, B. (1989).
Deformation, metamorphism and imbrication of the Indian plate, south of the
Main Mantle Thrust, north Pakistan. Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 7(1), 111-125.
Treloar, P. J., & Coward, M. P. (1991). Indian Plate motion and shape: constraints on
the geometry of the Himalayan orogen. Tectonophysics, 191(3-4), 189-198.
Treloar, P. J., O'brien, P., Parrish, R., & Khan, M. A. (2003). Exhumation of early
Tertiary, coesite-bearing eclogites from the Pakistan Himalaya. Journal of the
Geological Society, 160(3), 367-376.
Treloar, P. J., Petterson, M. G., Jan, M. Q., & Sullivan, M. (1996). A re-evaluation of
the stratigraphy and evolution of the Kohistan arc sequence, Pakistan
Himalaya: implications for magmatic and tectonic arc-building processes.
Journal of the Geological Society, 153(5), 681-693.

67
Chapter-7 References

Treloar, P. J., Rex, D., Guise, P., Coward, M., Searle, M., Windley, B., Petterson, M.,
Jan, M., & Luff, I. (1989). K Ar and Ar Ar geochronology of the Himalayan
collision in NW Pakistan: Constraints on the timing of suturing, deformation,
metamorphism and uplift. Tectonics, 8(4), 881-909.
Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R., & Skinner, E. H. (1972). Support determinations
based on geologic predictions. N Am Rapid Excav & Tunnelling Conf Proc,
Yamamoto, H., & Yoshino, T. (1998). Superposition of replacements in the mafic
granulites of the Jijal complex of the Kohistan arc, northern Pakistan:
dehydration and rehydration within deep arc crust. Lithos, 43(4), 219-234.
Yeats, R. S., & Lillie, R. J. (1991). Contemporary tectonics of the Himalayan frontal
fault system: folds, blind thrusts and the 1905 Kangra earthquake. Journal of
Structural Geology, 13(2), 215-225.
Yin, A. (2006). Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained
by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and
foreland sedimentation. Earth-Science Reviews, 76(1-2), 1-131.
Yin, A., & Harrison, T. M. (2000). Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan
orogen. Annual review of earth and planetary sciences, 28(1), 211-280.
Zanchi, A., & Gaetani, M. (2011). The geology of the Karakoram range, Pakistan: the
new 1: 100,000 geological map of Central-Western Karakoram. Italian
journal of Geosciences, 130(2), 161-262.
Zanchi, A., Poli, S., Fumagalli, P., & Gaetani, M. (2000). Mantle exhumation along
the Tirich Mir Fault Zone, NW Pakistan: pre-mid-Cretaceous accretion of the
Karakoram terrane to the Asian margin. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 170(1), 237-252.

68