Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1673-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

R. D. Dwivedi1 · R. K. Goel1 · M. Singh2 · M. N. Viladkar2 · P. K. Singh3

Received: 15 January 2018 / Accepted: 19 November 2018

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Studies have shown that the ground behaviour for rock tunnelling depends on the rock mass strength and the in situ stresses.
The rock mass strength, to a considerable extent, is governed by the presence of joints/discontinuities and their properties.
Three aspects concerning the joints are primarily responsible for the reduction in the strength and are measurable in the
field: (i) Joint frequency or number of joints per metre length in the direction of loading (Jn), (ii) orientation of critical
joint set with respect to loading direction (β), and (iii) shear strength along the critical joint set (r). These three factors have
been combined into another rock mass parameter, namely, the joint factor (Jf). Thus, joint factor has been selected as one
of the parameters for developing the empirical correlation for predicting the ground behaviour. In addition to joint factor,
the tunnel size and the tunnel depth are the other two involved parameters. Details of data and the process of developing
the empirical correlations are discussed in the paper. The proposed empirical correlations for non-squeezing and squeezing
ground behaviours have been validated by comparing the results with the observed data obtained from various sections of
one Himalayan tunnel recently excavated in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India.

Keywords Joint factor · Empirical correlation · Tunnelling · Ground behaviour prediction · Non-squeezing · Squeezing ·
Rock burst

Abbreviations ϕsp Elastic energy

Jf Joint factor ϕst Dissipated energy
H Overburden height or tunnel depth Jn Joint frequency, i.e., number of joints per metre in
D Tunnel diameter the direction of loading
De Equivalent diameter n Joint orientation parameter depending upon the
Q Tunnelling quality index orientation of the joint plane with respect to load-
N Rock mass number ing direction
RMi Rock mass index r Joint strength parameter
SRF Stress reduction factor A Rock element in Fig. 2a
RQD Rock quality designation θ Dip of joints
k Ratio of horizontal in situ stress to vertical in situ θA Apparent dip of joints
stress α Angle between tunnel axis and strike of joint
F Ratio of stored elastic energy to dissipated energy S Joint spacing in the direction of loading
Js Joint spacing of the most critical joint
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this ϕ Friction angle of joints
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0060​3-018-1673-0) contains σn Normal stress
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. σci Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock
* R. D. Dwivedi
[email protected]
1 Introduction
1
CSIR-CIMFR Regional Centre, Roorkee,
Uttarakhand 247667, India Reliable prediction of ground behaviour is one of the most
2
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, important aspects in the planning and designing of tun-
Uttarakhand 247667, India nels through complex geological conditions. The ground
3
CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826015, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 R. D. Dwivedi et al.

condition is required to be defined in the contract document arrangements of installing adequate supports in appropri-
which is prepared before the national/international bids are ate time. This is possible only, if the ground behaviour is
invited for tunnel construction, so that the contractor gets predicted in advance. Keeping this in view, an attempt has
sufficiently good idea about the geology and the geological been made in the present study to develop reliable empiri-
conditions through which the tunnelling is to be done and cal correlations using joint factor (Jf), tunnel depth (H) and
hence can keep contingency plans ready before he comes the tunnel diameter (D) for prediction of ground behaviour.
across the challenging problems during construction. Addi- In the present study, empirical correlations have been
tionally, if the information about ground behaviour is availa- developed for predicting the ground behaviour, which are
ble prior to excavation, the site engineers can plan their strat- handy tools. Before presenting the new approach, the state-
egy with regard to excavation method and the supporting of-the-art of empirical approaches developed earlier for pre-
elements for the tunnel for safe and time efficient tunnelling. dicting the ground behaviour has been discussed here.
Stability is a major concern for underground construc-
tions when the ground is subjected to high in situ stresses.
High in situ stress or anisotropic stress condition causes rock 2 Earlier Research and State‑of‑the‑Art
bursting during tunnelling in strong rock mass, squeezing in
weak rock mass or other stress induced stability problems Various researchers have attempted to predict the ground
(Selmer-Olsen and Broch 1977). behaviour and have proposed empirical correlations involv-
Squeezing problems were encountered during construc- ing some of the parameters, i.e., vertical in situ stress, uni-
tion of Giri–Bata and Chhibro–Khodri hydroelectric pro- axial compressive strength of intact rock (σci), and tunnelling
jects of North India during the period from 1970 to 1980 quality index (Q) or rock mass number (N) or rock mass
when the terminology of squeezing ground was not known index (RMi) (Table 1). Approach suggested by Jethwa et al.
to engineers. The tunnels of these projects were constructed (1979) has not considered rock-joint properties and size of
through crushed slates and phyllites in case of Giri–Bata opening for predicting the squeezing ground behaviour. In
project and through red shales and plastic clays in case addition, the approach was developed using the data of Lok-
of Chhibro–Khodri project. Chhibro–Khodri project was tak hydro project, India. Saari (1982) suggested the use of
delayed by about 6 years due to severe squeezing problems the strain mobilized in tunnels as a parameter to assess the
encountered during excavation of a 9 m diameter tunnel. To degree of squeezing of rock mass. A threshold tunnel strain
reduce the squeezing problem, three smaller diameter tun- value of 1% was suggested for the estimation of squeezing
nels, each with a diameter of 3 m, were excavated in place behaviour (Shrestha 2005). Singh et al. (1992) developed
of a single tunnel of 9 m diameter (Goel 1994), which shows an approach to predict squeezing condition in tunnels on
the influence of the size of tunnel on squeezing ground the basis of rock mass quality Q (Barton et al. 1974) and
condition. overburden depth, H (m). The approach was developed after
The aforementioned ground behaviour problems may analyzing the data of 41 tunnel sections. The approach of
as well be reduced by changing the alignment of tunnel, Singh et al. (1992) has not considered the tunnel size as an
if possible or may be properly tackled by making prior influencing parameter. Other researchers have also proposed

Table 1  Approaches for predicting ground behaviour as suggested by various researchers

Approach References

CF = σci/σv = 5 − 3, moderate spalling or slabbing; CF = 3 − 2, spalling or rock burst; CF < 2, heavy rock burst Barton et al. (1974)
Sv = 2 σv/σci < 1 non-squeezing; Sv = 1–3 mild to moderate squeezing; Sv > 3 high squeezing Jethwa et al. (1979)
For σci/σθ > 7, No rock burst; σci/σθ = 3.5, minor spalling; σci/σθ = 2, severe spalling; σci/σθ = 1.7, heavy support Hoek and Brown (1980)
required; σci/σθ < 1
H > 350Q1/3 for squeezing Singh et al. (1992)
H(B − Bs)0.1 > 483.Q1/3 for squeezing Verman (1993)
H > (275N1/3)B− 0.1 for squeezing Goel (1994)
Cg = RMi/σθ > 2.5, no rock stress induced instability; Cg = 2.5 − 1, high stress, slightly loosening; Cg = 1 − 0.5, light Palmstrom (1995)
rock burst; Cg < 0.5, heavy rock burst
F = (ϕsp)/(ϕst), for F ≤ 2, no shock; 2 ≤ F < 5, weak to medium shock; F ≥ 5, strong to violent shock of rock burst Kwasniewski et al. (1994)
B = σci/σt, for B > 40, no rock burst; if B = 26.7, weak rock burst; B = 26.7 − 14.5, strong rock burst; and B < 14.5, Qiao and Tian (1998)
violent rock burst
PES = σci2/2.Es, for PES = 50 kJ/m3, very low rock burst; 50 > PES ≤ 100 kJ/m3, low rock burst; 100 > PES ≤ 150 kJ/ Wang and Park (2001)
m3, moderate rock burst; 150 > PES ≤ 200 kJ/m3, high rock burst; PES > 200 kJ/m3, rock burst is very high

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

correlations but with limited data and hence with less reli- energy (ϕ st) as a tool to predict coal bumps in mines.
ability. Further, the approaches by Singh et al. (1992) and According to him, the bigger the value of F, stronger is the
Verman (1993) consider Q value of rock mass which has an shock at failure which would lead to coal bumps. Wang and
ambiguous value of stress reduction factor (SRF) utilized to Park (2001) studied a case of Linglong gold mine in China
assess Q value (Palmstrom and Broch 2006). Further, con- and concluded that the occurrence of rock burst depends
sideration of RQD in Q-system and other rock mass classi- not only on the property of storing strain energy in rocks,
fication systems using RQD are misleading due to ignoring but also on strain energy accumulation in mining. The sug-
the core pieces of lengths less than 10 cm. The number of gested approaches based on the study of mines would not be
joints per metre length, i.e., joint frequency would not arbi- helpful for the cases of tunnels as standing pillars in mines
trarily ignore any joint and would, therefore, reflect the total are subjected to uniaxial compression whereas the walls of
number of joints per metre length considered in the ‘joint tunnels are in biaxial loading conditions.
factor’ by Ramamurthy and Arora (1994). Therefore, joint For characterizing the rock mass, a new concept of joint
factor (Jf) has been used in the present study. factor (Jf) has been proposed by Ramamurthy and Arora
Russenes (1974) suggested an approach to predict degree (1994), which has been considered in the proposed new
of rock burst using tangential stresses around tunnel bound- approach along with other influencing parameters as dis-
ary and the point load strength index of the rock (Fig. 1). cussed below.
Barton et al. (1974) and Muir Wood (1979) proposed a
term competency factor as the ratio of uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock to overburden stress, to assess the 3 Selection of Influencing Parameters
stability of tunnels. To estimate the squeezing potential of for the Proposed Approach
soft rock tunnels in Japan, Nakano (1979) has also used this
parameter. Hoek and Brown (1980) used competency factor Behaviour of the ground is primarily governed by two
to predict rock burst in square shaped tunnels, where ground parameters, namely rock mass condition and in situ stress
was subjected to k = 0.5 (k is ratio of horizontal to vertical conditions. Rock mass condition is characterized by proper-
in situ stresses) (Table 1). Palmstrom (1995) combines the ties of joints (joint spacing, in-fill material, and joint condi-
approaches of Russenes (1974) and Hoek and Brown (1980) tion) and has been considered in terms of ‘joint factor’. The
and proposed another approach based on competency factor in situ stress has been represented by the tunnel depth as
(Table 1). discussed in Sect. 3.3. In addition to these two parameters,
Kwasniewski et al. (1994) suggested an approach using size of tunnel is another influencing parameter especially
ratio (F) of stored elastic energy (ϕsp) to the dissipated in weak rock mass (Goel et al. 1996). Large diameter of a
tunnel attracts larger values of induced stresses around the
tunnel periphery and hence invites large tunnel deformations
20 in weak rock masses, which leads to further loosening of
rock joints, thereby resulting in reduced rock mass strength
around the tunnel periphery (Dwivedi et al. 2014). Attempt
Point load strength index, Is (MPa)

16 has been made here to discuss briefly the three influencing

parameters considered in the present study for developing
the correlations.
12
3.1 Joint Factor (Jf)
8 The concept of joint factor was developed by Ramamurthy
and Arora (Arora 1987; Ramamurthy and Arora 1994). In
the joint factor, three parameters namely, the joint frequency
4
(Jn), the joint orientation (n) and the joint strength (r) have
been considered. The joint factor (Jf) has been defined by
the following relation:
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Jn
Tangential stress, σθ (MPa) Jf = . (1)
n⋅r

Fig. 1  The degree of rock burst related to point load strength index of
According to Ramamurthy and Arora (1994), the joint
rock and the tangential stress around the tunnel boundary (Russenes factor value obtained from Eq. 1 is inversely related to the
1974) joint strength of the rock mass.

13
 R. D. Dwivedi et al.

3.1.1 Joint Frequency (Jn)

Joint
Joint frequency is number of joints per metre in the direc- P
tion of loading. Determination of parameter J n can be β R
Excavated
understood by the following explanation. A Q ϴA
Figure 2a depicts a circular tunnel excavated through
inclined bedding planes. Loading direction on a rock mass
element ‘A’ near springing level has been shown by verti-
(a) (b)
cal arrows. Enlarged view of the element ‘A’ is shown in
Fig. 2b. Joints with constant spacing, PR (mm) are dip-
ping at an angle of θo. Let the apparent dip of the joints be
θA°. If the tunnel axis makes an angle αo with the strike of Fig. 2  a Loading on a rock mass element ‘A’ near springing level in a
circular tunnel. b Enlarged element ‘A’
joints, the apparent dip is given by Eq. 2.
𝜃A◦ = tan−1 (tan 𝜃 ◦ . cos 𝛼 ◦ ). (2) From the data collected Ramamurthy and Arora (1994)
I n Δ P Q R g i ve n i n F i g . 2 b , ∠ P R Q = 9 0 ° , also observed that for clean joints, the strength parameter
∠PQR = 90° − θA = β, then r depends upon the value of uniaxial compressive strength
( ) PR PR (σci) of intact rocks and the suggested values of r for vari-
sin 90 − 𝜃A = sin 𝛽 or cos 𝜃A =
S
or S =
cos 𝜃A
, (3) ous values of σci are presented in Table 3. In the present
study, Table 3 has been used to obtain value of r for rock
where S is joint spacing in the direction of loading. burst conditions where the joints are clean and the rock
1000 cos 𝜃A mass behaves like intact rock at high-confining stresses.
1000 1000
Jn = = or Jn = , (4) When a joint has gouge material of sufficient thickness
S PR∕ cos 𝜃A PR
to submerge the joint roughness, it is the frictional param-
where value of PR is in mm. eter of the gouge, which will control the development of
strength during shear. Accordingly, Ramamurthy and Arora
3.1.2 Joint Orientation Parameter (n) (1994) suggested the joint strength parameter values for dif-
ferent types of gouge material as given in Table 4. In the
The strength of jointed rock mass depends primarily present study, Table 4 has been used to obtain value of r
upon the orientation of the joint with respect to the direc- for squeezing ground conditions where the shear of jointed
tion of axial loading. A minimum value of strength has rock blocks under high stresses is controlled by the filling
been observed when the joints are oriented at an angle of gouge material.
of β = 30°–40° (Ramamurthy and Arora 1994). Simi- In case of self-supporting and non-squeezing ground
lar behaviour was also observed by Mclamore and Gray conditions, the value of r has been obtained either consid-
(1967), Attewell and Sandford (1974) and others. Values ering the clean joints or the filled-up joints as per the site
of n are presented in Table 2. conditions.

3.2 Diameter of Tunnel (D)

3.1.3 Joint Strength Parameter (r)
Diameter of tunnel plays an important role with regard to
Joint strength parameter depends upon the joint condition
the ground behaviour. Excavation of large diameter tunnels
(whether clean and rough or filled-up joints), thickness of
gives rise to formation of large broken zone around the tun-
the joint and joint alterations due to weathering (Rama-
nel periphery in weak rock mass leading to increased plas-
murthy and Arora 1994). The joint strength parameter r
tic deformation (Dwivedi et al. 2014). Thus, diameter of
is evolved to depict the condition of the joint. To estimate
excavated profile of tunnels is an important parameter and
this parameter Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) have con-
has been considered for development of the correlations for
ducted direct shear tests along the joints for three materials
predicting the ground behaviour.
(plaster of Paris, Jamrani sandstone and Agra sandstone).
In general, they found that parameter r is determined as
3.3 Overburden Height or Tunnel Depth (H)
the tangent of the friction angle (φ) operating along the
joint as follows:
In situ stress is a function of overburden height above
r = tan 𝜙. (5) tunnel. The vertical in situ stress increases with increase
in overburden height. Induced stresses are directly

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

Table 2  Joint orientation parameter n for different joint orientation angles (Ramamurthy and Arora 1994)
β (°) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

n 0.82 0.46 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.30 0.46 0.64 0.82 0.95

Table 3  Parameter r for different ranges of σci (Ramamurthy and 4 Collection of Data
Arora 1994)
σci (MPa) r values Remarks There are basically four sets of data pertaining to the tun-
nelling cases, wherein the ground behaviour corresponds to
2.5 0.30 Fine-grained Micaceous to coarse-grained
the—(i) self-supporting ground behaviour, (ii) non-squeez-
5.0 0.45
ing ground behaviour, (iii) squeezing ground behaviour, and
15.0 0.60
(iv) rock bursting phenomenon was observed. The squeez-
25.0 0.70
ing ground behaviour has been further classified in to mild
45.0 0.80
squeezing, moderate squeezing and high squeezing. Swell-
65.0 0.90
ing and slaking cases have not been considered in the study.
100.0 1.00
Different ground behaviour is identified on basis of the
strain levels observed around the tunnel boundary. In case
of self-supporting behaviour, strain is always under elastic
limit of the ground and measures far below 1%, whereas the
associated strain level is less than or equal to 1% in non-
Table 4  Joint strength parameter r for gouge material in joint near
residual state (Ramamurthy and Arora 1994) squeezing ground behaviour. However, if the strain level
exceeds 1%, it results in to squeezing ground behaviour.
Gouge material Friction angle, ϕ (°) r = tan(ϕ)
Squeezing is ‘mild’ if the strain level lies between 1% and
Gravelly sand 45 1.0 3%, ‘moderate’ if the strain level lies in the range of 3–5%
Coarse sand 40 0.84 and ‘high squeezing’ behaviour exists, if the strain level
Fine sand 35 0.70 exceeds 5% (Goel 1994).
Silty sand 32 0.62 The basic data collected in the field at various tunnelling
Clayey sand 30 0.58 project sites includes information related to: rock type, joint
Clay-silt spacing of the most critical joint set (Js), its true dip (θ), ori-
Clay-25% 25 0.47 entation of tunnel axis with respect to the strike of the most
Clay-50% 15 0.27 critical joint (α), friction angle of joint (ϕ), tunnel depth or
Clay-75% 10 0.18 overburden height above tunnel crown (H) and diameter of
tunnel (D). Parameters Js, θ, θA, α and ϕ are useful in the
determination of parameters, Jn, r and n which are required
for the computation of Jf. In this study, equivalent diameter,
De has been considered for non-circular tunnels, which is
proportional to the in situ stress. Increased in situ stresses computed using the expression:
in rock mass reduce the factor of safety and weaken it
around the tunnel periphery. Therefore, H is also an impor- De = (4A∕𝜋)0.5 ≈ D, (6)
tant parameter which should be considered for the study where A is cross-sectional area of tunnel. Water pressure
of ground condition. Horizontal in situ stress is also an on the tunnel sections considered for the study is below
influential parameter, but it is experienced that as one goes 0.1 MPa (Dwivedi et al. 2013).
deeper and deeper (> 400 m in the Himalaya), the ratio An attempt has been made in this study to collect maxi-
of horizontal to vertical stress (k) can be assumed as 1.0 mum possible data of 181 tunnel cross-sections from dif-
(Singh and Goel 2012). The phenomenon of squeezing ferent project sites which includes—(i) 25 tunnel sections
and rock burst has generally been experienced at greater in self-supporting ground condition, (ii) 54 tunnel sections
depths. At these greater depths, the assumption of vertical in non-squeezing ground behaviour, (iii) 85 tunnel sec-
stress as used in this study is reasonably valid. In those tions in squeezing ground condition, and (iv) 17 sections
situations, where these conditions don’t meet, rather than in rock burst condition. The data is available in the form of
using simple approximate techniques based on classifica- electronic supplementary material at the journal’s website
tion/characterization, sophisticated numerical techniques (Tables ESM_1 through ESM_4 respectively). The entire
should be preferred. data of rock burst presented in Table ESM_4 (except Dul

13
 R. D. Dwivedi et al.

Hasti hydroelectric tunnel at serial no.17, which corresponds general strike directions in Maneri, Heena and Tiloth areas
to minor rock burst) pertain to moderate nature of rock burst. are N10°–80°, N250°–280°, N290°–350°, respectively,
All the data collected for the study correspond to tunnels whereas dip/dip directions are 25°–45°/N100°–170°,
excavated by drill and blast method. Brief geology and 25°–35°/N160°–190° and 35°–49°/N20°–80°, respectively.
ground behaviour of these tunnels are as follows: These lithological units are intensely folded and faulted due
to tectonic disturbances (Dwivedi et al. 2013). The tectonic
4.1 Lower Periyar Hydro Electric Project (HEP) activity in the area has developed closely spaced jointing,
Tunnel brecciation and shearing even in the quartzites. The tun-
nel passes initially through meta-basics and basic chlorite-
The power tunnel along the left bank of river Periyar in schists and then enters into folded and jointed quartzites.
Idukki district of Kerala state, India is one of the main fea-
tures of the lower Periyar hydroelectric project. The power 4.4 Maneri Stage‑II Project Tunnel
tunnel is 12.76 km long and circular in shape having 7.0 m
excavated diameter. The project area encountered forma- The project is constructed across the river Bhagirathi and
tions of Archaean age consisting of composite gneisses and is located in the lower Himalaya about 150 km north-west
intermediate acid charnockites with inclusions of amphibo- of the holy town of Rishikesh in the state of Uttarakhand in
lites. The rock cover or overburden height along the tunnel India. A 16 km long head race tunnel having an excavated
alignment varies from 38.0 to 285 m. Massive to jointed diameter of 6.5 m passes through quartzites, meta-basics
composite gneisses comprising of lenses of amphibolites (also called meta-volcanic), limestones and epidiorites of
and granite-biotite gneisses are the main rock types along the Garhwal group and phyllites, slates and greywackes of
the tunnel alignment (Dwivedi 2015). Tehri Formation. The general dip of foliations as well as that
of the bedding planes varies from 40° to 80° in N–E direc-
4.2 Tehri HEP Tunnel tion. The tunnel encountered moderately foliated, jointed
and sheared meta-basics and quartzites in a length of more
The Tehri hydroelectric project is an irrigation-cum-hydro than 3000 m. In addition, pyrite-ferrous slates with thin
power project constructed across river Bhaghirathi about intercalations of quartzites and jointed limestone, massive
1.5 km downstream of its confluence with its tributary river phyllites and greywackes with calcareous lenses, and thinly
Bhilangana near Tehri town, India. The head race tunnels bedded greywackes were also encountered during tunnelling
(HRTs) having excavated diameter of 9.5 m are located (Goel 1994).
in grade-I and grade-II phyllites with occasional bands
of grade-III phyllites. Grade-I phyllites is predominantly 4.5 Salal HEP Tunnel
arenaceous, massive in character and distinctly jointed. The
foliation planes are least developed. The thickness of the The Salal hydroelectric project is located across river
individual bands varies from a few cm to 1 m. The tunnel Chenab near Reasi in Udhampur district of Jammu and
stretch in phyllites of grade-I is self-supporting and does Kashmir (J&K) state of India. Two tail race tunnels, each of
not require supports, whereas the behaviour of phyllites of 2.5 km in length, were constructed with an excavated horse-
other grades is observed to be non-squeezing. The grade-II shoe section having a width of 12.0 m. The tunnel align-
phyllites are considerably impregnated with quartz veins, ment crosses the hill under a maximum overburden height of
both along and across the foliation planes. Grade-III phyl- about 630 m. The tunnel is excavated through dolomites of
lites are mainly composed of the argillaceous component the great limestone series of Precambrian age. The dolomites
with lesser amount of arenaceous material. It is traversed by are moderately jointed and the joint walls are weathered.
closely spaced foliation planes, cleavages and joints and also The bedding joints dip at 40°–55° due North. The transverse
has quartz veins (Singh et al. 2007; Bahuguna et al. 2008). joints dip at 70°–80° due West and the cross joints dip at
30°–40° due South. The strike of bedding joints makes an
4.3 Maneri Stage‑I Project Tunnel angle of 65° with the tunnel axis at the outlet end and 20° at
the inlet end (Goel 1994).
This project is constructed across river Bhagirathi, a tribu-
tary of river Ganges located in the Uttarkashi district, in 4.6 Giri–Bata HEP Tunnel
the state of Uttarakhand, India. A circular head race tun-
nel of 5.8 m excavated diameter and 8.56 km length was This project was constructed across Giri river, a tributary
constructed through quartzites, quartzites interbedded with of river Yamuna. It is located near Girinagar in Sirmour
thin bands of slates, chlorite-schists, phyllites, meta-basics district of the state of Himachal Pradesh in India. A 7.1 km
and basic intrusives belonging to the Garhwal group. The long head race tunnel with a finished diameter of 4.60 m

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

was driven through a ridge separating the valleys of Giri 4.9 Noonidih–Jitpur Colliery
and Bata rivers (Dube 1979). The tunnel was excavated by
drill and blast method and the primary supports were steel The Noonidih–Jitpur Colliery is located in Jharia Coal-fields
ribs. The tunnel traverses through Blaini series rock forma- near Dhanbad in the state of Jharkhand in India. Under-
tions of carboniferous age for a length of about 1500 m and ground working of this colliery consisted of partially or fully
through highly jointed clay stones, highly crushed phyllites developed areas in two coal seams with thickness of 3.5 m
and siltstones for the remaining length. Joints were spaced at and 2.44 m and at a depth of 134 m and 73 m, respectively.
45–50 mm and dipping at 60°–70°. These formations were These coal seams dipped at about 8.7° (Dwivedi et al. 2013).
highly crushed with gouge filling along joints exhibiting a Two other coal seams with thicknesses of 2.44 m and 4.57 m
low angle of internal friction between 20° and 26° (Dube were located at depths of 233 m and 268 m, respectively.
1979). These coal seams were excavated through two shafts. A main
roadway of 3.5 m width was excavated through weak coal at
a depth of 450 m to excavate a 9 m thick coal seam. Drill and
4.7 Khimti HEP Tunnel
blast method of excavation was adopted to drive the main
roadway. Problem of excessive deformation was observed in
The Khimti-1 hydroelectric project is located in Janakpur
the main roadway due to high stress.
zone at about 100 km East of Kathmandu, Nepal. The pro-
ject area lies in the Midland Schuppen zones of the Melung
4.10 Tala HEP Tunnel
augen gneiss containing mainly grey, coarse to very coarse-
grained, porphyro-blastic augen gneiss (63%), occasionally
The project is located in the district of Tala on downstream
banded gneiss (12%), and granitic gneiss (7%) with bands
of river Wangchu in Bhutan (Sripad et al. 2007). The Tala
of very weak, green chlorite and bright grey talcose schist
hydroelectric project area falls within the central crystal-
(18%) parallel to the foliation at intervals of 5–15 m. Tun-
line belt of Thimphu formation and meta-sediments of Paro
nels/adits of the project faced squeezing problems in the
formation. It has a 22 km long head race tunnel (HRT) of
sections where schists or decomposed gneisses were present
6.8 m excavated diameter. The head race tunnel traverses
with 80–420 m overburden height above tunnel. Large defor-
through highly weathered biotite schist associated with
mations were recorded after 2 weeks at different sections
banded gneiss amphibolites and quartzites. During tunnel-
of tunnels at about 20 m behind the face of advance. The
ling, excessive deformation was observed at many tunnel
maximum tunnel deformation (strain) recorded was 6.4% in
sections showing squeezing behaviour of the poor rock mass.
Adit-1 at downstream chainage of 500 m (Shrestha 2005).
4.11 Kaligandaki “A” HEP Tunnel
4.8 Chhibro–Khodri HEP Tunnel
The Kaligandaki “A” hydroelectric project is located in
The project was constructed across river Tons, a tributary the Lesser Himalaya about 200 km West of Kathmandu in
of Yamuna river located in Uttarakhand state, India. Tunnel Nepal. Head race tunnel passes through highly deformed
with a finished diameter of 7.5 m was constructed between siliceous and graphitic phyllites with varying mineral com-
Chhibro and Khodri. The tunnel passes through Mandhali position and degree of metamorphism. As a result of tectonic
series (Paleozoic), Subathu–Dagshai (Lower Miocene) and movement, the rock mass in the area has been subjected to
Nahan series (Upper Tertiary) rocks. Mandhali series con- shearing, folding and faulting. The phyllites are of poor qual-
sists of boulder slates, graphitic and quartzitic slates and ity, thinly foliated and highly weathered. In general, the foli-
Bhadraj quartzite rocks with 5–10 m thick crushed quartzite ation joints are oriented in South east-North west direction
along Krol thrust. Subathu–Dagshai series is comprised of and dip of about 50°–60° towards South West. The joints are
(i) 1–3 m thick plastic black clays, (ii) red and purple col- filled with highly sheared clay, quartz and calcite veins. The
oured crushed, brecciated and sheared shales and siltstones, maximum rock cover above the tunnel is about 600 m and
(iii) minor grey and green coloured crushed quartzites, (iv) more than 80% of the tunnel alignment has an overburden
20–22 m thick black clays with thin bands of quartzites, and exceeding 200 m (Panthi and Nilsen 2007).
(v) 5–10 m thick soft and plastic black clays along the Nahan
thrust. Nahan series is comprised of greenish grey to grey 4.12 Loktak HEP Tunnel
micaceous sandstones, purple siltstones, red, purple, grey
and occasional mottled blue concretionary clays. General This project lies 39 km South of Imphal, the capital city
strike of these litho units is nearly perpendicular to the tun- of Manipur State in India. Loktak head race tunnel having
nel axis and the dip ranges from 20° to 60° in NNW to NNE finished diameter of 3.65 m traverses through lake deposits,
direction (Shome et al. 1973). terrace deposits and shales with thin bands of sandstones

13
 R. D. Dwivedi et al.

and siltstones. The general trend of the rock masses was in 4.16 Dul Hasti HEP Tunnel
N–S direction, i.e., perpendicular to the tunnel axis. The
tunnel was excavated by drill and blast method. The Loktak This is 9.46 km long head race tunnel in Dul Hasti hydro-
tunnel is the first tunnel in India, where NATM was used electric project located in Kishtwar district of Jammu and
in some stretches to tackle the squeezing ground (Malhotra Kashmir (J&K) state, India. The tunnel is traversed through
et al. 1982). Serious difficulties were experienced during quartzites and phyllites. The tunnel length of 7.58 km was
excavation due to excessive deformation and high squeez- excavated by tunnel boring machine and the rest part was
ing behaviour of laminated shales having joints filled with excavated by drill and blast method. The tunnel stretch
gouge material. below 1000 m depth experienced rock burst due to high
in situ stress (Vibert et al. 2005).
4.13 Frejus Highway Tunnel
4.17 Kielder Experimental Tunnel
The Frejus highway tunnel links the city of Modane in
France to the city of Bardonecchia in Italy through the Alps. The Kielder experimental tunnel was excavated in Weard-
The tunnel is 12.57 km long and 10.52 m wide with a two ale, County Durham, United Kingdom for geotechnical
lane horse-shoe section. The overburden along most of the investigation to explore a possibility of supplying water to
tunnel alignment is over 1000 m, but with a maximum of North-East of England through construction of water car-
1800 m. The French side of the tunnel passes through an rying tunnel. The tunnel transferred the water from Tyne
over thrust of calc-schists. The strike of the plane of schis- river to the Wear and Tees basins through. The experimen-
tosity is approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis of tal tunnel traversed through mudstones, which are mainly
the tunnel and its dip varies between 25° and 50°. A detailed moderately strong. The experimental tunnel was the scene
analysis shows some variations, locally more calcareous or of quite detailed studies of the performance of a variety of
more micaceous with some graphitic beds (Panet 1996). support systems in the Four Fathom mudstone over a period
of 5 years (Ward et al. 1983). Later in 1979, the experi-
4.14 Nathpa–Jhakri HEP Tunnel mental tunnel was closed when construction of 32 km long,
3.3 m diameter tunnel for the Kielder water scheme was
The Nathpa–Jhakri hydroelectric project is located on the completed.
downstream of river Satluj between Nathpa in district Kin-
naur and Jhakri in district Shimla of Himachal Pradesh in 4.18 Jin Ping HEP Drainage Tunnel
India. The head race tunnel, with 10.15 m excavated diam-
eter and approximately 27 km long was traversed through Seven parallel tunnels, each 17 km long with a maximum
augen gneiss, quartz-biotite schist, amphibolites and some depth of 2525 m, were constructed in the Jinping II hydro-
pegmatite lenses at places. The amphibolites are massive power station in southwestern China. It includes two aux-
weakly foliated with a prominent amphibole lineation. iliary tunnels, four head race tunnels and a drainage tun-
Quartz and feldspar exhibit a graphic texture and show two nel. The axes of these tunnels are orientated at N58°W.
sets of fractures (Kumar 2002). There are three sets of joints, The drainage tunnel having circular cross-section of 7.2 m
two of them are at right angles to each other and the third, diameter was excavated by tunnel boring machine (TBM). A
oblique to them, is sub-vertical and results in wedge shaped number of extremely intense rock bursts took place during
rock blocks. Foliations were observed dipping with 30°–70°, the excavation of drainage tunnel (Zhang et al. 2013). Most
40°–75°, 15°–55°, and 30°–85° towards North-East in vari- of the stretch of the tunnels (about 90%) is traversed through
ous sections of the tunnel. marble and the rest part is excavated through slate-sandstone
and green schist (Feng 2017). Some sections of the drain-
4.15 Laerdal Road Tunnel age tunnel exposed to rock burst have been considered for
validation of the developed correlation for rock burst ground
It is 24.5 km long road tunnel between Aurland and Laerdal behaviour.
connecting Oslo and Bergen. The dominant type of rock in
the Laerdal tunnel is precambrian gneiss. The rock mass
is sound and unweathered (The Engineer 2006). Maximum 5 Empirical Correlations for Prediction
rock cover above the tunnel is about 1400 m. Due to high of Ground Behaviour
in situ stress, the rock mass encountered rock burst in vari-
ous tunnel sections. The size of rock burst debris varies from The data presented in Tables ESM_1 to ESM_4 has been
small, thin flakes to huge rock blocks. Drill and blast method studied and analyzed to prepare plots presented in Fig. 3.
has been used for excavation of the tunnel. The figure shows the plot of joint factor (Jf) as an abscissa

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

5.2 Self‑supporting Condition

In Fig. 3, line DE is the boundary between self-support-

ing and non-squeezing ground conditions, which is repre-
sented by Eq. 9 as,

H = 170009D−1 e−0.025Jf . (9)

From the Eq. 9 for self-supporting condition, one gets,

H < 170009D−1 e−0.025Jf . (10)

Therefore, all points corresponding to self-supporting
ground condition are found to lie below line DE.

5.3 Non‑squeezing Condition

All points lying between the line DE and the line FG cor-
respond to non-squeezing ground condition and the equa-
tion of this line FG is given by

H = 170234D−1 e−0.017Jf . (11)

From the Eq. 11, for non-squeezing condition,

Fig. 3  Plot of product of tunnel depth (H) and diameter (D) versus H < 170234D−1 e−0.017Jf . (12)
joint factor, Jf
5.4 Squeezing Condition

on arithmetic scale versus product of tunnel depth and tunnel If the plot of the product (H·D) versus joint factor, J f
diameter (H∙D) plotted as an ordinate on logarithmic scale. results in to a point which lies above the line FG, the tun-
In this figure, there are basically four sets of data points nelling condition would be a squeezing ground condition.
corresponding to—(i) self-supporting ground behaviour, To meet this condition, therefore,
(ii) non-squeezing ground behaviour, (iii) squeezing ground H > 170234D−1 e−0.017Jf . (13)
behaviour and (iv) rock burst behaviour. Lines demarcating In Eq. 13, for lower values of the right hand side (RHS)
the different ground behaviour have been plotted in Fig. 3. term, severity of the squeezing will increase. Value of
Equation of these lines has been obtained and presented as RHS term decreases with increase in the values of D or/
follows: and Jf. This effect shows that the parameters D and Jf are
qualitatively at right place in the correlation. The expres-
sion can be deduced to
5.1 Rock Burst Condition
H ⋅ D > 170234e−0.017Jf . (14)
Quadrilateral ABCC′ formed by line boundaries AB and BC With the help of the above equations, one can predict
in Fig. 3 accommodates the points representing the ‘rock the ground behaviour at a certain tunnel depth, for known
burst’ type of ground behaviour. Line AB in Fig. 3 is repre- values of Jf and D. For example, a tunnel having 7 m diam-
sented by Eq. 7 as, eter and having joint factor, Jf = 300 will not show squeez-
ing condition at a tunnel depth less than 148 m and hence
Jf = 53. (7)
the ground will show a non-squeezing behaviour.
Equation 7 gives the value of Jf below which the rock
burst condition is expected. The other boundary for rock
5.5 Prediction of Degree of Squeezing
burst condition is represented by line BC having following
equation,
Degree of squeezing indicates the degree of tunnel defor-
H = 6000D e −1 0.0048Jf
. (8) mation (convergence) due to excessive stresses around
Thus, for rock burst condition in tunnels the overburden the tunnel periphery. The squeezing condition has been
height shall be more than the value estimated by Eq. 8 and classified into three categories viz., low or mild squeez-
the Jf value shall be less than 53. ing (strain level = 1–3%), moderate squeezing (strain

13
 R. D. Dwivedi et al.

level = 3–5%) and high squeezing (strain level > 5%). The 6.1 Himalayan Tunnel
demarcation lines HI and JK in Fig. 3 imply respectively
the following inequalities: The Himalayan tunnels have been constructed between a
For Mild Squeezing village in Udhampur district and the other village in Ramban
district on national highway (NH-1A) in J&K state bypass-
41901D−1 e−0.008Jf > H > 170234D−1 e−0.017Jf . (15)
ing hill station Patnitop in India. Single tube main tunnel of
For Moderate Squeezing 13.36 m diameter has two bi-directional lanes and escape
57563D−1 e−0.008Jf > H > 41901D−1 e−0.008Jf . (16) tunnel of 6.67 m diameter has single lane. The distance of
For High Squeezing 41 km along the surface highway has been reduced to 9 km
through tunnel. The escape tunnel is parallel to the main
H > 57563D−1 e−0.008Jf . (17) tunnel separated by 33 m thick rock barrier and connected
As mentioned earlier, joint factor, Jf indicates degree of to main tunnel by 29 cross-passages at interval of 300 m.
fracturing of rock mass and a high value of Jf will indicate The escape tunnel is intended to be utilized for emergency
a highly fractured and incompetent rock mass. All the rock services at the time of any accident in the main tunnel. The
burst conditions shown in Fig. 3 are found to be associated tunnels traverse through difficult geology of Murree forma-
with very low Jf values, indicating that the rock mass is quite tion containing alternate bands of claystone, siltstone, sand-
competent. However, the value of H·D (y-axis) is quite high stone and intermixed of these three rock masses (Fig. 4). The
for these points due to high overburden which induces high entire rock mass contain 3 joint set, i.e., bedding planes/
stresses around the opening leading to rock burst condition. joints dipping at 30°–45° towards N90°–110°, second joint
Further, rock burst data listed in Table ESM_4 shows mini- set dipping at 50°–75° towards N250°–300° and the third
mum value of r = 0.7, which shows that rock mass having joint set dipping at 50°–80° towards N200°–255°. The strike
value of r ≥ 0.7 will show rock burst condition, when sub- of the bedding joints makes an angle of about 8°–33° with
jected to high in situ stress because of the fact that stronger the tunnel axis. In sections of sandstone, non-squeezing
rock mass stores larger amount of elastic energy to make it ground behaviour (tunnel deformation less than 1% of the
prone to rock burst at higher tunnel depth. tunnel size) has been observed, whereas in sections of silt-
stone, claystone and intermixed rock, squeezing behaviour
was observed, i.e., tunnel deformation (strain) exceeded 1%
of tunnel size. The uniaxial compressive strengths of freshly
6 Validation of Correlations obtained rock samples of sandstone, siltstone and claystone
are 50–80 MPa, 25–35 MPa and 15–25 MPa, respectively.
The developed empirical correlations pertaining to non- The intermixed rocks have a uniaxial compressive strength
squeezing ground behaviour and squeezing ground behav- of 20–30 MPa (CIMFR 2016).
iour described in Sect. 5 have been validated by comparing The tunnels have been constructed using New Austrian
the observed ground behaviour of Himalayan tunnel sec- Tunnelling Method (NATM). In view of this method of tun-
tions with the behaviour predicted by the correlations. The nel construction, two limits of tunnel deformation are gener-
correlations developed for rock burst behaviour have been ally suggested for different rock mass classes encountered
validated by comparing the observed behaviour of Jinping during tunnel construction to keep the watch on ultimate
tunnel sections. A brief description of the Himalayan tun- tunnel deformation and tunnel stability. These limits are, the
nels and Jinping tunnel used for validation has been given ‘attention limit’ and the ‘alarm limit’. During construction
in following paragraphs: of the Himalayan tunnel through layered mixed rock masses,

Fig. 4  View from main tunnel, Siltstone Intermixed siltstone & Sandstone Siltstone Intermixed siltstone & Intermixed silt-
south end showing bands of var- sandstone sandstone stone & sandstone
ious rocks of Murree formations
in a Himalayan tunnel

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

challenges viz., design of primary supports, design of the moderate squeezing (57563D− 1 e− 0.008Jf ) of Eq. 16, are pre-
deformation limits, etc. were faced. During excavation of the sented in column 9.
tunnel, supports were installed as per the rock mass and sup- On comparison, it can be seen in Table ESM_6 that H is
port classes and the deformation monitoring was started by larger than H1 at all chainages indicating that tunnel stretch
fixing the bi-reflex target points along the tunnel periphery. between chainage 385 m to chainage 2178 m is experienc-
For the stability of tunnel, as soon as the tunnel deformation ing a squeezing ground behaviour. It can be seen that tun-
crossed the ‘attention limit’, the supports were strengthened nel stretch from chainage 385 m to chainage 1122 m and
so that the ultimate or final tunnel deformation is contained at chainage 1514 m is experiencing mild squeezing; tun-
below the designed ‘alarm limit’. nel stretch from chainage 1685 m to chainage 1743 m is
The data corresponding to validation is available in the experiencing moderate squeezing; and tunnel stretch from
form of electronic supplementary material at the journal’s chainage 1960 m to chainage 2178 m is experiencing high
website (Tables ESM_5 through ESM_7 respectively). squeezing.
Further, Table ESM_6 shows the criteria for different
6.2 Tunnel Sections in Non‑squeezing Ground degree of squeezing. For example, escape tunnel sections at
Condition chainages 385 m, 690 m, 707 m, 850 m and 1122 m satisfy
the condition : H2 > H > H1 condition for mild squeezing
Table ESM_5 is presented for tunnel sections of escape tun- behaviour. Escape tunnel sections at chainages 1685 m and
nel at chainages 1566 m, 2225 m, 2435 m, 2486 m, 2600 m, 1743 m satisfy H > H1 and H3 > H > H2 conditions showing a
2649 m, and 2803 m, where radial tunnel deformations moderate squeezing behaviour (Table ESM_6). On the other
were observed to be < 1% (non-squeezing ground condi- hand, escape tunnel sections at chainages 1384 m, 1960 m,
tion) during tunnel excavation. Column 6 in Table ESM_5 2066 m and 2178 m satisfy H > H1 and H > H3 conditions
gives values of tunnel depth, H. Column 8 gives the value and exhibit high squeezing ground behaviour.
of H1 and column 7 gives the value of H4 computed from
Eqs. 13 and 10, respectively, for the non-squeezing ground
condition/behaviour. The Table ESM_5 states the satisfy-
6.4 Jinping Tunnel Sections and Rock Burst
ing condition required for non-squeezing ground in column
Behaviour
9. Tunnel depth, H (column 6) has been found to be less
Results of validation of rock burst ground condition
than the value of H1 (column 8) and it is larger than the
observed at some sections of Jinping hydroelectric drain-
value of H4 or (170009D− 1 e− 0.025Jf ) as seen in column 7 of
age tunnel have been listed in Table ESM_7. Here, over-
Table ESM_5. It shows that the tunnel sections reported in
burden height (H) is greater than the value of expression
the Table ESM_5 exhibit non-squeezing ground condition.
(6000D− 1 e− 0.0048Jf ) as per Eq. 8 for all the tunnel sections
Thus, it can be inferred from the study of Table ESM_5 that
given in Table ESM_7. Further, Jf values in column 4 are
the empirical correlation developed for prediction of non-
less than 53 and hence it also satisfies the condition given
squeezing ground condition is valid and hence can be used
in Eq. 7. Thus the correlations expressed through Eqs. 7 and
both in the field as well as in the design office.
8 hold good and can reliably predict the rock burst ground
condition.
6.3 Tunnel Sections in Squeezing Ground Condition

The geometrical details and rock mass characteristics

observed at different tunnel sections of the Himalayan 7 Concluding Remarks
escape tunnel where mild squeezing, moderate squeez-
ing and high squeezing ground conditions were observed Empirical approaches for prediction of ground behaviour
during tunnel excavation, are presented in columns 1–5 (self-supporting, non-squeezing, squeezing and rock burst)
of Table ESM_6 along with the chainages of these tun- have been developed using Jf. In addition to the rock char-
nel sections. Tunnel deformation ranges from 1 to 3% for acterizing parameter (Jf), diameter of tunnels (D) and over-
mild squeezing, 3–5% for moderate squeezing and greater burden height or tunnel depth (H) are the other influencing
than 5% for high squeezing ground condition. The tunnel parameters which have been used in the development of
depth (H) at respective chainages is stated in Column 6. correlations. The approaches developed for non-squeezing,
The values of H1, which defines the right hand side term squeezing and rock burst ground behaviour/conditions
(170234D− 1 e− 0.017Jf ) of Eq. 11, are presented in column 7. have been validated with the observed ground behaviour
The values of H2, which defines the term for mild squeez- in Himalayan escape tunnel and Jinping tunnel. The vali-
ing (41901D− 1 e− 0.008Jf ) of Eq. 15 are presented in column dation shows that the correlations can be reliably used for
8. Similarly, the values of H3, which defines the term for prediction of ground behaviour in tunnels. Due to absence

13
 R. D. Dwivedi et al.

of other field data, validation of the correlation proposed Mclamore R, Gray KE (1967) The mechanical behaviour of ani-
for self-supporting behaviour could not be done. However, sotropic sedimentary rocks. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng Ser B
89:62–79
as per Table ESM_1, the tunnels excavated in stronger rock Muir Wood AM (1979) Ground behaviour and support for mining
mass (having low Jf values) at shallow depths shall be self- and tunnelling. Tunn Tunn 11(4–5):43–48, 47–51
supporting. Influence of horizontal in situ stresses and joints Nakano R (1979) Geotechnical properties of mudstone of Neogene
other than critical joints on ground behaviour needs further Tertiary in Japan. In: Proceedings of lnternational symposium
on soil mechanics, Oaxaca, pp 75–92
study. An extensive study is also required to extend Table 3 Palmstrom A (1995) Characterizing rock burst and squeezing by the
for the rocks exhibiting uniaxial compressive strength more rock mass index. In: Proceedings of design and construction of
than 100 MPa. underground structures, New Delhi, 23–25 Feb
Palmstrom A, Broch E (2006) Use and misuse of rock mass classifi-
cation systems with particular reference to the Q-system. Tunn
Undergr Sp Technol 21:575–593
References Panet M (1996) Two case histories of tunnels through squeezing
rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 29(3):155–164
Arora VK (1987) Strength and deformation behaviour of jointed Panthi KK, Nilsen B (2007) Uncertainty analysis of tunnel squeez-
rocks. PhD Thesis, IIT Delhi, India ing for two tunnel cases from Nepal Himalaya. Int J Rock Mech
Attewell PB, Sandford MR (1974) Intrinsic shear strength of a brittle Min Sci 44(1):67–76
anisotropic rock-I: experimental and mechanical interpretation. Qiao CS, Tian ZY (1998) Study of the possibility of rock burst in
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 11(11):423–430 Dong-gua-shan copper mine. Chin J Rock Mech Eng (Exp)
Bahuguna H, Khanduri HC, Dangwal DP, Gajbhiye PK, Chakraborty 17:917–921
I (2008) Geotechnical investigations in the planning of power- Ramamurthy T, Arora VK (1994) Strength prediction for jointed
house complex of Tehri dam project (stage-I) India. In: Pro- rocks in confined and unconfined states. Int J Rock Mech Min
ceedings world tunnel cong underground facilities for better Sci 31(1):9–22
environment and safety, 19–25 Sept, New Delhi, India Russenes BF (1974) Analysis of rock spalling for tunnels in steep
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock valley sides (in Norwegian). MSc Thesis, Norwegian Institute
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech Rock Eng of Technology, Norway
6(4):189–236 Saari K (1982) Analysis of plastic deformation (squeezing) of layers
CIMFR (2016) Design of Chenani-Nashri highway tunnel of NHAI intersecting tunnels and shafts in rock. PhD Thesis, University
in the state of J&K. Project report No. CNP/R/4008/2014-15 of California
Dube AK (1979) Geomechanical evaluation of tunnel Stability under Selmer-Olsen R, Broch E (1977) General design procedure for under-
failing rock conditions in a Himalayan tunnel. PhD Thesis, Uni- ground openings in Norway. In: Proceedings of international
versity of Roorkee, Roorkee, India symposium on ROCKSTORE—77, Stockholm, pp 219–226
Dwivedi RD (2015) Behaviour of underground excavations in Shome SK, Andotra BS, Jain MS (1973) Review of failure patterns
squeezing ground conditions. PhD Thesis, IIT Roorkee, Roor- in the stage II tunnels of Yamuna hydroelectric scheme, Deh-
kee, India radun District. Proc Symp Rock Mech Tunn Probl Kurukshetra
Dwivedi RD, Singh M, Viladkar MN, Goel RK (2013) Prediction of Univ 1:70–79
tunnel deformation in squeezing grounds. Eng Geol 161:55–64 Shrestha GL (2005) Stress induced problems in Himalayan tunnels
Dwivedi RD, Singh M, Viladkar MN, Goel RK (2014) Estimation of with special reference to squeezing. PhD Thesis, Norwegian
support pressure during tunnelling through squeezing grounds. University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim,
Eng Geol 168:9–22 Norway
Feng X-T (2017) Rock burst: mechanisms, monitoring, warning and Singh B, Goel RK (2012) Engineering rock mass classification: tun-
mitigation. Butterworth-Heinemann, London nelling, foundations and landslides. Butterworth-Heinemann
Goel RK (1994) Correlations for predicting support pressures and Elsevier, Atlanta
deformations in tunnels. PhD Thesis, Nagpur University, Nag- Singh B, Jethwa JL, Dube AK, Singh B (1992) Correlation between
pur, India observed support pressure and rock mass quality. Tunn Undergr
Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Dhar BB (1996) Effect of tunnel size on support Sp Technol 7(1):59–74
pressure. Technical Note. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Singh M, Singh B, Choudhari (2007) Critical strain and squeezing of
Abstr 33(7):749–755 rock mass in tunnels. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 22(3):343–350
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. Institu- Sripad SK, Raju GD, Singh Rajbal, Khazanchi RN (2007) Instru-
tion of Mining and Metallurgy, London mentation of underground excavations at Tala hydroelectric
Jethwa JL, Dube AK, Singh B, Bagchi S (1979) Estimation of rock project in Bhutan. In: Singh R, Sthapak AK (eds) Proceedings
pressure and support requirements for unexcavated portions of international workshop on experiences and construction of Tala
Loktak Hydel tunnel. CMRS Report AC/16/78, April hydroelectric project Bhutan, 14–15 June, New Delhi, India,
Kumar N (2002) Rock mass characterization and evaluation of sup- pp 269–282
ports for tunnels in Himalaya. PhD Thesis, IIT Roorkee, Roor- The Engineer (2006) Laerdal tunnel. Creaform ACADEMIA Pub-
kee, India lishing Engineering Web. https​://www.engin​eerin​g.com/Libra​
Kwasniewski M, Szutkowski I, Wang JA (1994) Study of ability of ry/Artic​l esPa​ge/tabid​/ 85/Artic​l eID/60/Laerd​a l-Tunne​l .aspx.
coal from seam 510 for storing elastic energy in the aspect of Accessed 5 Jan 2018
assessment of hazard in Porabka-Klimontow Colliery. Sci Rept Verman MK (1993) Rock mass-tunnel support interaction analysis.
Silesian Technical University PhD Thesis, University of Roorkee, India
Malhotra VK, Tyagi GD, Sharma KS (1982) NATM for tunnel bor- Vibert C, Gupta SC, Felix Y, Binquet J, Robert F (2005) Dul Hasti
ing at Loktak HE project. In: Proceedings symposium tunnel- hydroelectric project (India): experience gained from back anal-
ling, 52nd session of the central board of irrigation and power, ysis of the excavation of the head race tunnel. In: Proceedings
New Delhi, June, 35–58 of Geoloine 2005, 23–25 May, Lyon, France

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling

Wang JA, Park HD (2001) Comprehensive prediction of rock burst Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
based on analysis of strain energy in rocks. Tunn Undergr Sp jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Technol 16:49–57
Ward WH, Tedd P, Berry NSM (1983) The Kielder experimental
tunnel: final results. Geotechnique 33(3):275–291
Zhang C, Feng XT, Zhou H, Wu W (2013) Rock mass damage develop-
ment following two extremely intense rock bursts in deep tunnels
at Jinping II hydropower station, southwestern China. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 72:237–247

13
Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling
Rock Mechanics and Rock Enginering

R.D. Dwivedi1*, R.K. Goel1, M. Singh2, M.N. Viladkar2, P. K. Singh3

1
CSIR-CIMFR Regional Centre, Roorkee, Uttarakhand 247667, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand 247667, India
3
CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826015, India

*Corresponding author: Telefax: +91 1332 275998; Email: [email protected]

1
Table ESM_1 Data collected from various tunnel sections in self-supporting ground condition

Sl. Rock Spacing,

Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
No. Type mm
PG-Pegmatite-granite Gneiss (foliated); P-I-Phyllites grade-I; Mb-Metabasics; Ss-Sandstone; LG-Leptite gneiss; LS- Laminated Schist; Ms-Mudstone
SELF-SUPPORTING

1. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG 46 54 50 30 40 13.89 0.09 0.839 184 29.5 7

2. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG Jethwa et al. 52 54 50 30 40 12.46 0.09 0.839 165 48 7
3. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG (1986) 35 54 50 30 40 18.12 0.09 0.839 240 54 7
4. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG 37 54 50 30 40 17.37 0.09 0.839 230 61 7
5. Tehri Tunnel P-I Bahuguna et al. 121 52 50 23 22 5.31 0.09 0.404 146 295 9.5
(2008); Goel
6. Tehri Tunnel P-I 126 52 50 23 22 5.09 0.09 0.404 140 280 9.5
(1994)
7. Koyna Tunnel Basalt 22 73 70 35 45 15.40 0.11 1.000 140 350 6.5
8. Koyna Tunnel Basalt Goel (1994) 44 70 65 40 45 9.66 0.07 1.000 138 37 10
9. Koyna Tunnel Basalt 44 69 65 35 45 9.87 0.07 1.000 141 334 7.7
10. Tandsi Inclines Ss Goel (1994); 18 78 74 40 16 15.15 0.33 0.287 160 26 3.8
Sinha et al.
11. Tandsi Inclines Ss 17 78 74 40 16 16.38 0.33 0.287 173 20 3.8
(2013)
12. Tandsi Inclines Ss 18 78 74 40 16 15.53 0.33 0.287 164 57 3.8
13. Tandsi Inclines Ss 15 78 74 40 16 18.09 0.33 0.287 191 32 3.8
14. Kielder Expt. Tunnel Ms Ward et al. 72 65 65 0 26 5.91 0.07 0.488 173 40 3.3
15. Kielder Expt. Tunnel Ms (1983) 61 65 65 0 26 6.93 0.07 0.488 203 110 3.3

…..Contd.

2
Sl. Rock Spacing,
Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
No. Type mm
Ms-Mudstone; LG-Leptite gneiss; LS- Laminated schist; Q-Quartzites; MG-Massive gneiss

SELF-SUPPORTING
16. Kielder Expt. Tunnel Ms Ward et al.
53 65 65 0 26 7.96 0.07 0.488 233 120 3.3
(1983)
17. Barton's Case History LG 92 50 50 0 30 6.96 0.09 0.577 134 140 9
18. Barton's Case History Q 88 50 50 0 22 7.34 0.09 0.404 202 80 5.9
19. Barton's Case History Q 105 50 50 0 22 6.14 0.09 0.404 169 15 8
20. Barton's Case History LG Goel (1994); 105 65 65 0 25 4.01 0.07 0.466 123 100 12
21. Barton's Case History LG Barton et al. 123 65 65 0 25 3.43 0.07 0.577 85 18 20
(1974)
22. Barton's Case History LG 110 50 50 0 30 5.87 0.09 0.577 113 60 12
23. Barton's Case History Q 85 50 50 0 22 7.53 0.09 0.404 207 65 3.5
24. Barton's Case History Q 85 50 50 0 30 5.87 0.09 0.577 113 300 6.1
25. Barton's Case History MG 70 70 70 0 30 4.89 0.11 0.577 77 30 22

3
Table ESM_2 Data collected from various tunnel sections in non-squeezing ground condition

Sl. Rock Spacing,

Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
No. Type mm
Mv-Metavolcanics; P-I, P-II & P-III-Phyllites grade I, II, & III; Mb-Metabasics; Gw-Grewackes; LG-Leptite gneiss; LS- Laminated schist Q-Sheared
quartzites
NON-SQUEEZING
1. Tehri Tunnel P-II 88 52 50 23 19 7.99 0.09 0.344 258 205 11
2. Tehri Tunnel P-II 98 52 50 23 22 7.24 0.09 0.404 199 200 11
3. Tehri Tunnel P-I 101 52 50 23 22 6.98 0.09 0.404 192 500 11
4. Tehri tunnel P-III 80 47 45 23 16 7.96 0.09 0.287 308 110 9.5
5. Tehri tunnel P-III 77 52 50 23 16 8.39 0.09 0.287 325 50 6.5
6. Tehri tunnel P-III 80 52 50 23 16 7.96 0.09 0.287 308 30 6.5
7. Tehri tunnel P-II Goel (1994); 75 52 50 23 19 8.61 0.09 0.344 278 60 6.5
8. Tehri tunnel P-III Singh et al. 83 52 50 23 16 7.70 0.09 0.287 298 70 6.5
(2007);
9. Tehri tunnel P-III Bahuguna,et al. 89 52 50 23 16 7.23 0.09 0.287 280 40 6.5
10. Tehri tunnel P-II (2008) 80 52 50 23 21 8.05 0.09 0.384 233 100 6.5
11. Tehri tunnel P-III 83 52 50 23 16 7.70 0.09 0.287 298 25 8
12. Tehri tunnel P-II 81 52 50 23 21 7.91 0.09 0.384 229 60 11.3
13. Tehri tunnel P-III 85 52 50 23 15 7.59 0.09 0.286 295 30 9.1
14. Tehri tunnel P-III 68 52 50 23 15 9.47 0.09 0.286 368 30 9.1
15. Tehri tunnel P-III 80 52 50 23 15 8.06 0.09 0.286 312 190 9
16. Tehri tunnel P-III 68 52 50 23 15 9.47 0.09 0.286 368 200 8

..…Contd.

4
 Sl. Rock Spacing,
Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
No. Type mm
Dol-Dolomites; BS- Blaini’s slates; BG-Biotite gneiss; FM-Foliated metabasics; SM-Sheared metabasics; MFQ- Moderately fractured quartzite; PG-
Pegmatite granites (foliated); GS-Gneiss and schist
NON-SQUEEZING
17. Tehri tunnel P-III Goel (1994); 65 52 50 23 15 9.86 0.09 0.286 383 100 5.9
Singh et al.
18. Tehri tunnel P-III 74 52 50 23 15 8.7 0.09 0.286 338 100 6.5
2007
19. Salal Tunnel Dol Goel (1994) 78 53 50 25 23 9.04 0.09 0.424 237 150 12
20. Giri Tunnel BS Dube (1979) 70 65 65 0 22 6.05 0.07 0.404 214 400 4.2
21. Maneri Stage I Tunnel FM 34 49 45 30 25 20.8 0.22 0.466 203 260 5.8
22. Maneri Stage I Tunnel SM Dube (1979); 28 49 45 30 25 25.63 0.22 0.466 250 350 5.8
Goel (1994);
23. Maneri Stage I Tunnel MFQ Singh et al. 41 49 45 30 22 17.42 0.22 0.404 196 500 5.8
24. Maneri Stage I Tunnel FM (2007) 33 49 45 30 25 21.32 0.22 0.466 208 225 4.8
25. Maneri Stage I Tunnel FM 38 49 45 30 23 18.6 0.22 0.424 199 550 4.8
26. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG 31 54 50 30 40 20.69 0.09 0.839 274 38 6.8
27. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG 26 54 50 30 40 25.07 0.09 0.839 332 26 6.8
Jethwa et al.
28. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG (1986); 25 54 50 30 40 25.98 0.09 0.839 344 55 6.8
29. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG Goel (1994) 24 54 50 30 40 26.80 0.09 0.839 355 48 6.8
30. Lower Periyar Tunnel PG 26 54 50 30 40 25.07 0.09 0.839 332 61 6.8
31. Khimti-1 Adit-1 d/s GS 41 55 50 34 27 15.56 0.09 0.51 339 95 4
32. Khimti-1 Adit-1 d/s GS Shrestha (2005) 42 55 50 34 27 15.24 0.09 0.51 332 98 4
33. Khimti-1 Adit-1 d/s GS 41 55 50 34 27 15.70 0.09 0.51 342 112 4

……Contd.

5
 Sl. Rock Spacing,
Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
No. Type mm
GS-Gneiss and schist; BG-Biotite gneiss; LS-Laminated schist; LG-Leptite gneiss; Mil-Milonite; Q-Quartzite

NON-SQUEEZING
34. Khimti-1 Adit-2 d/s GS 61 55 50 34 22 10.51 0.09 0.404 289 126 4

(Shrestha 2005)
35. Khimti-1 Adit-2 d/s GS 45 55 50 34 27 14.41 0.09 0.51 314 198 4
36. Khimti-1 Adit-3 u/s GS 59 55 50 34 22 10.98 0.09 0.404 302 130 5
37. Khimti-1 Adit-3 u/s GS 78 55 50 34 17 8.21 0.09 0.306 298 158 4.1
38. Mansar Incline BG Mohanty and
44 66 65 21 23 9.56 0.07 0.424 322 40 3
Mohanty (1996)
39. Kielder Expt. Tunnel Mud- Ward et al.
44 65 65 0 21 9.62 0.07 0.384 358 100 3.3
stone (1983)
40. Barton,s case history LS 59 45 45 0 31 10.91 0.09 0.60 202 400 20.4
41. Barton,s case history LS
Barton et al. (1974); Goel (1994)

65 45 45 0 31 9.94 0.09 0.60 184 400 20.4

42. Barton’s case history LG 90 50 50 0 30 7.17 0.09 0.577 138 260 19.5
43. Barton’s case history LG 98 65 65 0 25 4.30 0.07 0.466 142 335 23.5
44. Barton’s case history LS 84 60 60 0 24 5.94 0.05 0.445 267 100 9
45. Barton’s case history Mil 58 45 45 0 13 12.25 0.22 0.231 241 60 12.5
46. Barton’s case history Mil 80 50 50 0 21 8 0.09 0.384 220 100 12.5
47. Barton’s case history Q 90 50 50 0 22 7.13 0.09 0.404 196 260 24.7
48. Barton’s case history LS 86 50 50 0 16 7.46 0.09 0.287 289 15 16

…Contd.

6
 Rock Spacing,
Sl. No. Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
Type mm
Mv-Metavolcanics; Mb-Metabasics; Gw-Greywackes; LS- Laminated schist; Q-Sheared quartzites

NON-SQUEEZING
49. Maneri-II Mv 85 72 60 55 24 5.85 0.05 0.445 263 70 6.5
50. Maneri-II Mv 85 72 60 55 24 5.85 0.05 0.445 263 60 6.5

Goel (1994)
51. Maneri-II Mb 87 72 60 55 24 5.72 0.05 0.445 257 90 4.2
52. Maneri-II Gw 93 72 60 55 24 5.36 0.05 0.445 241 85 6.5
53. Maneri-II Mb 90 72 60 55 24 5.56 0.05 0.445 250 107.5 30.5
54. Maneri-II Gw 95 72 60 55 24 5.27 0.05 0.445 237 400 30.5

7
Table ESM_3 Data collected from various tunnel sections in squeezing ground condition

Rock Spacing, Degree of

Sl. No. Name of the Tunnel Reference θ (o) θA (o) α (o) ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
Type mm squeezing
CRS-Crushed red shales; SPBC-Soft & plastic black clays; CBS-Crushed Blaini’s slates; CP-Crushed phyllites

SQUEEZING
1. Chhibro-Khodri CRS 50 60 50 46 21 12.9 0.09 0.384 373 280 9 Moderate
2. Chhibro-Khodri CRS 50 60 50 46 21 12.9 0.09 0.384 373 280 3 Mild

Choudhari (2007)
Jethwa (1981);
Goel (1994);
3. Chhibro-Khodri CRS 45 60 50 46 25 14.3 0.09 0.466 348 680 9 High
4. Chhibro-Khodri CRS 45 60 50 46 25 14.3 0.09 0.466 341 280 3 Mild
5. Chhibro-Khodri SPBC 45 60 50 46 24 14.7 0.09 0.445 367 680 9 High
6. Chhibro-Khodri SPBC 45 60 50 46 24 14.3 0.09 0.445 357 280 3 Mild
7. Chhibro-Khodri CRS 48 60 50 46 21 13.4 0.09 0.384 388 250 2.5 Mild
8. Giri Tunnel CBS 45 65 65 0 20 9.3 0.07 0.364 365 200 4.6 Mild
Dube (1979); Goel (1994); Choudhari

9. Giri Tunnel CBS 48 65 65 0 20 8.9 0.07 0.364 355 414 4.6 Moderate
10. Giri Tunnel CBS 48 65 65 0 21 8.8 0.07 0.384 327 465 4.6 Moderate
11. Giri Tunnel CBS 50 65 65 0 21 8.5 0.07 0.384 320 240 4.6 Mild
(2007)

12. Giri Tunnel CBS 55 65 65 0 21 7.69 0.07 0.384 282 465 4.6 Mild
13. Giri Tunnel CP 55 65 65 0 22 7.70 0.07 0.404 272 380 4.6 Mild
14. Giri Tunnel CP 45 65 65 0 21 9.35 0.07 0.384 348 400 4.6 Moderate
15. Giri Tunnel CP 41 65 65 0 22 10.29 0.07 0.404 364 400 4.6 Moderate
16. Giri Tunnel CP 49 65 65 0 20 8.71 0.07 0.364 342 450 4.6 Moderate
17. Giri Tunnel CP 45 65 65 0 21 9.35 0.07 0.384 348 440 4.6 Moderate
18. Loktak Tunnel SS Choudhari 71 54 50 30 15 9.07 0.09 0.268 376 164 4.8 Mild
(2007)
19. Loktak Tunnel SS 71 54 50 30 15 9.07 0.09 0.268 376 300 4.8 Moderate

……Contd.

8
 Sl. No. Name of the Tunnel Rock Reference Spacing, θ (o) θA α ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m Degree of
Type mm (o) (o) squeezing
SS-Splintery shales; SM-Sheared metabasics; CQ-Crushed quartzites; SP-Siliceous phyllites; FM-Foliated metabasics; Mv-Metavolcanic; WC-Weak coal
SQUEEZING
20. Maneri Stage I Tunnel SM 31 49 45 30 20 23.06 0.22 0.364 288 350 4.8 Mild
21. Maneri Stage I Tunnel CQ 34 49 45 30 19 20.66 0.22 0.344 273 350 5.8 Mild

Jethwa (1981);
Goel (1994)
22. Maneri Stage I Tunnel SM 31 49 45 30 20 23.14 0.22 0.364 289 700 5.8 Moderate
23. Maneri Stage I Tunnel SP 38 49 45 30 20 18.66 0.22 0.364 233 550 5.8 Mild
24. Maneri Stage I Tunnel FM 40 49 45 30 20 17.62 0.22 0.364 220 635 5.8 Mild
25. Maneri Stage I Tunnel SP 39 49 45 30 20 18.02 0.22 0.364 225 650 5.8 Mild
26. Maneri Stage II Tunnel SM 69 72 60 55 24 7.23 0.05 0.445 325 250 7 Mild

Choudhari (2007)
27. Maneri Stage II Tunnel Mv 90 72 60 55 24 5.56 0.05 0.445 250 500 7 Mild

Goel (1994);
28. Maneri Stage II Tunnel SM 73 72 60 55 24 6.81 0.05 0.445 306 410 7 Mild
29. Maneri Stage II Tunnel Mv 75 72 60 55 24 6.68 0.05 0.445 300 480 2.5 Mild
30. Maneri Stage II Tunnel Mv 88 72 60 55 24 5.65 0.05 0.445 254 510 7 Mild
31. Maneri Stage II Tunnel SM 56 64 50 55 24 11.57 0.09 0.445 289 410 7 Mild

32. Noonidih Jitpur colliery WC Jethwa (1981) 13 9 9 0 19 75.32 0.82 0.344 267 450 7 Mild

33. Talal Hydro HRT, Bhutan 39 50 50 0 24 16.70 0.09 0.445 417 337 6.8 Moderate
Sripad et al. (2007)

34. Talal Hydro HRT, Bhutan 39 50 50 0 24 16.50 0.09 0.445 412 337 6.8 Moderate

35. Talal Hydro HRT, Bhutan 40 50 50 0 24 16.14 0.09 0.445 403 337 6.8 Moderate
AGO
36. Talal Hydro HRT, Bhutan 40 50 50 0 24 16.02 0.09 0.445 400 337 6.8 Moderate

37. Talal Hydro HRT, Bhutan 79 50 50 0 24 8.09 0.09 0.445 202 400 44.5 High

38. Talal Hydro HRT, Bhutan 87 50 50 0 24 7.37 0.09 0.445 184 400 44.5 High

……Contd.

9
 Sl. No. Name of the Tunnel Rock Reference Spacing, θ (o) θA α ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m Degree of
Type mm (o) (o) squeezing
AGO-Adverse geological occurrences; SP-Siliceous phyllites; GP-Graphic phyllites

SQUEEZING

39. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal SP 147 60 60 0 10 3.41 0.05 0.176 387 600 8.7 High

40. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 150 60 60 0 10 3.34 0.05 0.176 379 600 8.7 High

41. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 153 60 60 0 10 3.26 0.05 0.176 370 575 8.7 High

42. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 140 60 60 0 10 3.58 0.05 0.176 407 620 8.7 High

43. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal SP 147 60 60 0 10 3.39 0.05 0.176 385 620 8.7 High

44. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 152 60 60 0 10 3.28 0.05 0.176 373 580 8.7 High

Panthi and Nilsen (2007)

45. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 142 60 60 0 10 3.52 0.05 0.176 400 620 8.7 High

46. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 120 60 60 0 10 4.18 0.05 0.176 475 575 8.7 High

47. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 151 60 60 0 10 3.32 0.05 0.176 377 575 8.7 High

48. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 141 60 60 0 10 3.55 0.05 0.176 403 620 8.7 High

49. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 188 60 60 0 10 2.66 0.05 0.176 302 550 8.7 Moderate

50. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 152 60 60 0 10 3.28 0.05 0.176 373 550 8.7 High

51. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 224 60 60 0 10 2.23 0.05 0.176 253 550 8.7 Mild
52. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 153 60 60 0 10 3.26 0.05 0.176 370 550 8.7 High

53. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 138 60 60 0 10 3.63 0.05 0.176 412 450 8.7 High

54. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 152 60 60 0 10 3.28 0.05 0.176 373 525 8.7 High

55. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 153 60 60 0 10 3.26 0.05 0.176 370 510 8.7 High

……Contd.

10
Sl. No. Name of the Tunnel Rock Reference Spacing, θ (o) θA α ϕ Jn n r Jf H, m D, m Degree of
Type mm (o) (o) (o) squeezing
CS-Calc-schist

SQUEEZING
56. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 153 60 60 0 10 3.26 0.05 0.176 370 500 8.7 High

Panthi and Nilsen

57. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 153 60 60 0 10 3.26 0.05 0.176 370 475 8.7 High
58. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 153 60 60 0 10 3.26 0.05 0.176 370 425 8.7 High

(2007)
59. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 152 60 60 0 10 3.28 0.05 0.176 373 440 8.7 High
60. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 151 60 60 0 10 3.32 0.05 0.176 377 490 8.7 High
61. Kaligandaki HRT, Nepal GP 143 60 60 0 10 3.49 0.05 0.176 397 500 8.7 High
62. Frejus Road Tunnel, France CS 66 50 50 0 20 9.76 0.09 0.364 298 700 10.52 High
63. Frejus Road Tunnel, France CS 66 50 50 0 20 9.76 0.09 0.364 298 850 10.52 High

Panet (1996)
64. Frejus Road Tunnel, France CS 66 50 50 0 20 9.76 0.09 0.364 298 1000 10.52 High

65. Frejus Road Tunnel, France CS 66 50 50 0 20 9.76 0.09 0.364 298 1125 10.52 High

66. Frejus Road Tunnel, France CS 69 50 50 0 20 9.37 0.09 0.364 286 1250 10.52 High
67. Frejus Road Tunnel, France CS 69 50 50 0 20 9.37 0.09 0.364 286 1375 10.52 High

68. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 62 55 50 34 16 10.33 0.09 0.287 400 100 4.2 Mild
Shrestha (2005); Panthi

69. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 95 65 60 34 14 5.27 0.05 0.249 423 100 4.2 Mild

70. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 76 55 50 34 13 8.46 0.09 0.231 407 111 4.3 Mild
(2011)

71. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 103 65 60 34 14 4.87 0.05 0.249 391 138 4 Mild

72. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 66 55 50 34 17 9.78 0.09 0.306 355 212 4.4 Mild

73. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 43 55 50 34 27 15.00 0.09 0.51 327 261 4 Mild

……Contd.

11
 Sl. No. Name of the Tunnel Rock Reference Spacing, θ (o) θA α ϕ Jn n r Jf H, m D, m Degree of
Type mm (o) (o) (o) squeezing
GS-Gneiss and schist; SG-Sheared granites

SQUEEZING
74. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 63 55 50 34 21 10.20 0.09 0.384 295 276 5 Mild

75. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 65 55 50 34 21 9.95 0.09 0.384 291 276 5 Mild

Shrestha (2005); Panthi (2011)

76. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 62 55 50 34 16 10.40 0.09 0.287 403 140 4 Mild

77. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 43 55 50 34 27 15.06 0.09 0.51 328 284 5 Mild
78. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 43 55 50 34 27 15.06 0.09 0.51 328 300 5 Mild

79. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 67 55 50 34 17 9.58 0.09 0.306 348 300 5 Mild
80. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 56 55 50 34 22 11.42 0.09 0.404 314 225 4 Mild

81. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 69 55 50 34 17 9.28 0.09 0.306 337 218 4 Mild

82. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 76 55 50 34 13 8.46 0.09 0.231 407 112 4 Mild

83. Khimti-1 Hydro Tunnel, Nepal GS 96 65 60 34 14 5.19 0.05 0.249 417 112 4 Mild
84. Barton's Case History SG 14.6 High
al. (1974)
Barton et

78 60 60 0 15 6.37 0.05 0.268 475 400

85. Barton's Case History SG 30.5 High

89 50 50 0 16 7.26 0.09 0.287 281 400

12
Table ESM_4 Data collected from various tunnel sections in rock burst ground condition

Sl. Spacing, σci ,

Name of the Tunnel Rock Type Reference θ (o) θA (o) α ϕ (o) Jn n r Jf H, m D, m
No. mm MPa
ROCK BURST
1. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 500 50 31 60 46 1.9 0.43 1.04 4 125 1430 11
2. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 500 50 31 60 52 2 0..43 1.28 4 88 1420 11
3. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 55 36 60 46 1 0.32 1.04 3 50 1420 11
4. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 60 41 60 48 1 0.23 1.11 4 54 1320 11
5. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 50 31 60 45 1 0.43 1.00 2 52 1300 11
6. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 70 54 60 42 1 0.07 0.90 16 60 1300 11

Kumar (2002)
7. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 60 41 60 48 1 0.23 1.11 4 55 1300 11
8. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 800 55 36 60 39 1.3 0.32 0.81 5 50 1300 11
9. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 800 60 41 60 49 1.3 0.23 1.15 5 50 1230 11
10. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 70 54 60 46 1 0.07 1.04 14 65 1180 11
11. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 60 41 60 50 1 0.23 1.19 2 52 1180 11
12. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 500 50 31 60 51 2 0.43 1.23 4 70 1180 11
13. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 800 65 47 60 49 1.3 0.14 1.15 8 67 1100 11
14. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 70 54 60 55 1 0.07 1.40 10 56 1090 11
15. Nathpa Jhakri Massive gneiss 1000 60 41 60 40 1 0.23 0.84 5 50 1060 11
Laerdal Road Tunnel, Precambrian The Engineer
16. 1000 70 58 55 35 1 0.05 0.700 27 100 1400 11.3
Norway gneiss (2006)
Dul Hasti Hydro Vibert et al.
17. Quartzite 400 67 57 50 40 2.5 0.06 0.839 53 95 1000 8.3
Tunnel (2005)

13
Table ESM_5 Validation of non-squeezing ground condition using Jf

Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Satisfying
Chainage (m) Jn n r Jf D (m) H (m) H4 (m) H1 (m)
condition

1566 4.5 0.05 0.36 225 6.67 495 93 559 H4<H<H1

2225 4.3 0.05 0.38 212 6.67 588 128 699 H4<H<H1

2435 4.6 0.06 0.34 213 6.67 623 123 678 H4<H<H1

2486 4.3 0.05 0.38 212 6.67 626 128 699 H4<H<H1

2600 4.5 0.06 0.36 194 6.67 652 202 950 H4<H<H1

2649 4.7 0.05 0.42 209 6.67 656 138 734 H4<H<H1

2803 4.5 0.06 0.34 205 6.67 672 153 788 H4<H<H1

2856 4.2 0.06 0.34 194 6.67 676 199 942 H4<H<H1

2907 4.6 0.06 0.38 191 6.67 668 213 985 H4<H<H1

3107 4.6 0.06 0.42 191 6.67 645 217 1000 H4<H<H1

Notation: D - equivalent diameter (4*cross-sectional area/π) 0.5; H1 - right hand term of the inequality expressed for squeezing ground condition by Eq. 13; H4 - -1 -0.025 Jf (self-supporting ground condition expressed by extreme left hand side
170009.D e
term in Eq. 10); For non-squeezing condition – H1 > H > H4.

14
Table ESM_6 Validation of squeezing ground condition using Jf

Column  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
D H H1 H2 H3 Satisfying
Chainage (m) Jn n r Jf
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) condition
H2>H>H1
385 5.3 0.05 0.27 367 6.67 178 50 334 458
Mild Squeezing
H2>H>H1
690 5.7 0.05 0.31 348 6.67 294 69 388 533
Mild Squeezing
H2>H>H1
707 4.7 0.06 0.27 293 6.67 315 175 603 828
Mild Squeezing
H2>H>H1
850 5.4 0.06 0.31 319 6.67 359 113 490 673
Mild Squeezing
H2>H>H1
1122 4.6 0.06 0.31 246 6.67 458 390 878 1206
Mild Squeezing
H>H1; H>H3
1384 5.4 0.05 0.27 366 6.67 495 51 336 462
High Squeezing
H2>H>H1
1514 5.3 0.05 0.34 286 6.67 493 197 638 876
Mild Squeezing
H>H1; H3>H>H2
1685 5.3 0.05 0.31 322 6.67 505 107 478 657 Moderate
Squeezing
H>H1; H3>H>H2
1743 5.3 0.05 0.31 322 6.67 514 107 478 657 Moderate
Squeezing
H>H1; H>H3
1960 5.3 0.05 0.27 367 6.67 538 50 334 458
High Squeezing
H>H1; H>H3
2066 5.2 0.05 0.27 364 6.67 566 52 342 469
High Squeezing
H>H1; H>H3
2178 5.8 0.05 0.27 406 6.67 575 26 244 335
High Squeezing
-1 -0.017Jf -1 -0.008Jf -1 -0.008 Jf
Notation: ETSP - Escape tunnel south portal end; H1 – 170234.D e (Eq. 13) for squeezing condition); H2 - 41901.D e (Eq. 15 for mild squeezing condition); H3 - 57563.D e (Eq. 16 for moderate squeezing condition );For
squeezing ground – H > H1; For mild squeezing – H 2> H > H1; For moderate squeezing - H3 > H > H2; For high squeezing – H > H1 and H > H3.

15
Table ESM_7 Validation of rock burst ground condition using Jf

Column  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Chainage (m) Jn n r Jf D (m) H (m) 6000 D -1 e 0.0048 Jf Condition

485-495 0.87 0.46 0.81 2.3 7.2 2175 843 Rock burst
672-678 0.98 0.70 0.81 1.7 7.2 2250 840 Rock burst

703-709 0.98 0.82 0.81 1.5 7.2 2300 839 Rock burst

764-775 0.94 0.64 0.81 1.8 7.2 2300 841 Rock burst

16
References (referred in Tables ESM_1 - 4) only not in the manuscript)

Choudhari JB (2007) Closure of underground opening in jointed rocks. PhD Thesis, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee,
India

Jethwa JL (1981) Evaluation of rock pressures in tunnels through squeezing ground in lower Himalayas. PhD
Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Jethwa JL, Goel RK, Ram B, Verman MK, Singh B (1986) Rock mechanics instrumentation of lower Periyar
tunnel, Kerala, India. CMRS Report, March, 16 p

Mohanty AK, Mohanty S (1996) Structural patterns in the Sausar Group around Mansar, Nagpur district,
Maharashtra. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 48:559-565

Panthi KK (2011) Effectiveness of post-injection grouting in controlling leakage: A case study. Hydro Nepal:
Journal of water, Energy and Environment 8:14-18

Sinha RK, Jawed M, Sengupta S (2013) Influence of anisotropic stress conditions on design of development
workings in bord and pillar mining. ISRM (India) Journal 2(1):16-24

17