Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation - A Concept

Course on Geotechnical Risks in Rock Tunnelling Portugal, Aveiro, April 2004
Page 1 of 11
Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation A Concept

By Irmina Pschl1 and Johannes Kleberger2
Abstract: Most rock mass classification schemes fall short in meeting the demands of increasingly complex contractual conditions for todays infrastructure projects, where cost and risk control plays a major role. The concept for rock mass characterisation proposed in this paper systematically aims towards a) the definition of typical rock mass behaviour and b) the recognition and description of geotechnical risks. The product is the definition of rock mass types (RMTs) that supply the information required for tunnel design as well as for ground-related contractual issues. Geotechnical Risks in Tunnelling Geotechnical risks in tunnelling generally stand for hazardous geotechnical conditions that could unfavourably affect a tunnel project and might in the worst case cause human fatalities. Less tragic but also significant consequences include damage to equipment, interruption of works, inadequacy of design, contractual claims, etc., all of which eventually lead to delays of project schedule and/or increase of project costs. Most geotechnical risks can be controlled by adequate design solutions that 1) prevent the occurrence of the risk event (e.g. modification of tunnel alignment to avoid intersection of major fault zone), or 2) minimize the consequences of a risk event (e.g. adequate design to control deformations and failure, Figure 1, appropriate drainage system for elevated water inflow, Figure 2). Some geotechnical risks cannot be controlled by economically and/or technically feasible design solutions. The consequences of such a risk event (e.g. catastrophic earthquake) must be assessed and considered in the project risk management plan. The precondition for risk control and risk management is the timely recognition of potential geotechnical risks for a project. A considerable amount of significant geotechnical risk factors reflects specific rather than standard conditions (e.g. extremely weak materials along fault zones, or karstic fault breccias). Frequently being overlooked in the course of the feasibility study and the design stages un-foreseen non-standard conditions often give rise to the most significant hazards, damages and/or contractual disagreements.
1 2
A-5020 Salzburg, Austria, Email: [email protected] iC consulenten ZT GmbH, Zollhausweg 1, A-5101 Salzburg/Bergheim, Austria, Email: [email protected] Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation A Concept Pschl I., Kleberger J.
Page 2 of 11
Figure 1
Face collapse (left) and related sinkhole at surface (right), Trojane Motorway Tunnel, Slovenia, 2001.
Figure 2
Large-scale water inflow, Blisadona Railway Tunnel, Austria, 1999.
Most geotechnical risks in tunnelling are directly related to the properties of the rock mass and to circumstantial influencing factors such as insitu stress, kinematics, groundwater, orientation and dimensions of excavation. The interaction of rock mass properties and influencing factors eventually defines the rock mass behaviour that would be observed during tunnel excavation without application of support/construction measures. Though such a situation does not reflect typical conditions during construction works, the description of rock mass behaviour without support is required for the basic understanding of potential failure modes and risk events.
Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation A Concept Pschl I., Kleberger J.
Page 3 of 11
The scenario actually encountered during and after construction can be referred to as system behaviour [11] that relates to deformations and conditions taking place during excavation and after application of routine support measures (Figure 3). A specific rock mass behaviour or singular hazardous event that cannot reasonably be controlled by available routine support measures or standard design would lead to unsafe system behaviour, posing a geotechnical risk. Ideally, all potential risks related to rock mass characteristics should be covered by a rock mass classification system that provides the conclusive summary of geological/geotechnical conditions expected during tunnelling.
rock and rock mass properties - lithology - discontinuities - parameters
factual / quantitative description
circumstantial factors - insitu stress - kinematics - water - dimensions of excavation - orientation of excavation - etc.
rock mass behaviour -typical rock mass behaviour -failure modes -geotechnical risks
construction method / support measures
system behaviour
interpretative / qualitative description
deformation measurements
quantitative approach: GSI, Q, RMR
qualitative approach: NORM B 2203
support classes / tunnel design
Figure 3
Schematic relations between rock mass properties, rock mass behaviour and support design with quantitative and qualitative classification approaches.
Quantitative and Qualitative Rock Mass Classification and Geotechnical Risks Rock mass properties, including lithological, structural and rock mechanical characteristics and selected circumstantial factors (e.g. groundwater, overburden) are used in standard classification schemes (e.g. GSI [5] and [7], Q [1] and [2], RMR [2]), that allow for the (semi)quantitative description of typical rock mass materials (see Figure 3). The advantages of such schemes are evidently 1) their international application and acceptance, 2) the relative simplicity and clarity of their application and 3) the reproducibility of classification procedures. Most of these standard schemes were originally developed for jointed rock mass and reach the limits of their applicability in soil-like materials that often prevail in very poor rock mass (e.g. some fault materials). Most quantitative classification schemes lack a qualitative description of rock mass behaviour and the consideration of direct interaction between rock mass classes, support classes and deformation measurements during excavationis not foreseen. This may lead either to over-conservative and costly support application, or to the under-estimation of specific hazardous conditions. In contrast to these quantitative approaches, classification schemes that have been routinely applied in the Eastern Alps (e.g. Austrian standard NORM B 2203 [12]) were based largely on the qualitative description of rock mass behaviour ([3], [9], [10], [12]). The advantages include 1) the definition of rock mass classes with typical deformation and behaviour modes. 2) The adequacy of the classification and applied support can directly be verified by deformation measurements during tunnel excavation (Figure 3) allowing for a flexible and cost efficient project realisation. The classification scheme proved 4) to be also useful in very poor ground where standard description of jointed rock mass is not applicable. A safe
Page 4 of 11
and efficient performance of rock mass classification according to this approach, though, requires profound understanding of geo-mechanical aspects of rock mass behaviour, failure modes and their relation to rock mass characteristics. Because of this prerequisite and the lack of quantitative definitions, the method though successfully applied in projects worldwide proofed to be internationally less accepted than quantitative classification schemes. All of the above described rock mass classification schemes fall short in one way or the other - in meeting the demands of increasingly complex contractual conditions for todays infrastructure projects, where cost and risk control plays a major role. Inadequate classification schemes are frequently the main cause for contractual disagreements. Adequate ground classification, though, is an indispensable tool for tunnel design and a basic part of construction contracts. A classification scheme that allows the assessment of reasonably foreseeable geotechnical risks 1) protects the Client from unjustified claims, and 2) allows the Contractor to request compensation for unforeseeable conditions, both according to international contract regulations or recommendations on risk sharing (e.g. FIDIC [4], ITA [8]). For satisfying these requirements, a rock mass classification scheme must: a) Involve transparent and reproducible classification procedures based on factual geotechnical data. b) Provide design parameters that correlate directly with numerical analysis and the design of temporary and final lining. c) Relate to standard classification schemes, allowing comparative plausibility checks and universal understanding within an international environment of engineering. d) Describe typical rock mass behaviour and failure modes that relate to routine support classes and can be verified by deformation measurements and observations during tunnel excavation. e) Describe non-standard hazardous conditions and geotechnical risks that can be controlled by additional non-routine support measures and/or considered in a project specific risk management plan. New methods and the modification of available standards contributed to the development of rock mass classification throughout the last decade, providing more sophisticated classification tools that take into account contractual as well as technical aspects. Proposed Concept for Rock Mass Characterisation The concept proposed in this paper combines quantitative and qualitative classification methods3 (Figure 4) and was originally elaborated for project-specific classification systems.
rock and rock mass properties
circumstantial factors
rock mass behaviour
construction method / support measures
system behaviour
deformation measurements
GSI Q RMR
proposed concept for rock mass characterisation: rock mass types (RMT)
support classes / tunnel design
Figure 4
Proposed rock mass characterisation in the frame of ground conditions and tunnel design.
A particular variation of the methodology that supplements the new Austrian Standard for cyclic underground excavation (NORM B 2203-1[13]) was standardised in official guidelines for rock mass characterisation in 2001 [11] and is discussed in [16]. Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation A Concept Pschl I., Kleberger J.
Page 5 of 11
The characterisation process permits the definition of rock mass types (RMTs) that display typical deformation/failure patterns and/or may impose specific geotechnical hazards. The number of rock mass types individually defined for a project depends on project-specific conditions (such as the complexity of the geology, potential for failure modes and risks). Also because of this inherent and unusual flexibility the concept provides a tool that can handle technical and contractual aspects of non-standard geotechnical conditions with increasing efficiency for all involved parties.
Subject
lithology rock mass properties
Method
standard field descriptions laboratory testing
Description
rock type mineralogical composition texture etc. schistosity/bedding/joints/faults anisotropy, spacing, persistence, surface conditions, opening, infilling
Correlations
GSI
discontinuities
ISRM standard descriptions borehole data (RQD)
RMR
water circumstantial factors
field testing laboratory testing field observations
water level water pressures permeability modes of water circulation inflow hydrochemistry overburden water loads tectonics
insitu stress / stress distribution
project geometry field testing literature geological mapping

laboratory testing laboratory/field testing field testing / estimates
parameters
intact rock discontinuities rock mass stable, overbreaking, friable, squeezing, etc. typical deformation patterns block/wedge failure stress induced rock mass failure erosional failure / piping mixed face conditions karst or other cavities sudden, large-scale water inflow confined water steep water gradients heavily squeezing conditions rock burst tool wear low probability of prediction rapidly changing conditions etc.
rock mass behaviour
qualitative / empirical descriptions
failure modes rock mass behaviour
kinematic analysis numerical analysis analytic analysis synthesis of above and experience
risks
quantitative risk analysis tunnel design construction procedures construction schedule project risk managment
Figure 5
Proposed rock mass characterisation classification process
Rock mass descriptions and the assessment of rock mass behaviour, failure modes and risks are based on factual site investigation data, field observations, kinematic (e.g. unwedge), numerical (e.g. flac) or
Page 6 of 11
analytical analysis. Design parameters are derived from statistically evaluated factual data and/or are estimated according to internationally accepted procedures (e.g. Hoek&Brown criterion [5], Roclab [15]). Quantitative standard classifications (e.g. GSI, Q, RMR) are implemented, depending on project specifics. The process systematically aims towards the definition of typical rock mass behaviour patterns and towards the recognition and description of geotechnical risks. Factual and interpretative, quantitative and qualitative key data are summarised in a single classification sheet for each rock mass type (RMT). Typical rock mass behaviour and geotechnical risks related to non-standard events, issues that are often concealed in text parts of geotechnical reports if mentioned at all, are placed at a prominent position in geotechnical reporting. For principle relations to rock mass properties and tunnel design refer to Figure 4, for classification process, applied methods and input data to Figure 5. The geotechnical risks identified and described in the classification sheets should be considered for quantitative risk analysis, development of special design/support/construction measures, construction scheduling and the development of a project risk management plan. Case Histories Case A Hydropower Project Design Phase Rock mass classification according to the proposed rock mass characterisation scheme was recently performed for a large hydropower project in Turkey (design under progress). The 13km long power tunnel with 6.6m OD passes through complex geological conditions in an active tectonic environment. Nine rock types that will be encountered during tunnel excavation (including sedimentary, regional metamorphic, contact-metamorphic, igneous intrusive and volcanic rocks as well as fault materials of all kinds) yielded some 25 rock mass types (RMTs). Some of these RMTs are fairly similar with regard to basic rock mass parameters (e.g. shear strength, deformation modulus) and typical deformation patterns, but display distinctly different risk properties. Risks including karst, swelling, excessive tool wear, etc. are directly derived from intact rock and rock mass characteristics. Risk properties including the potential for catastrophic water inflow and for discrete displacements along active faults are interpreted from field observations, literature, seismic data, etc. and require a profound understanding of general geological correlations and engineering geological experience. Extremely rough terrain and high overburden limited the amount and methods of investigations. This constraint resulted in a more general approach, such as shown in the classification sheets for RMT-7b1, a moderately tectonised carbonaceous conglomerate (Figure 6), and for RMT-11b, clayey fault gouge material (Figure 7). The numbering system for rock mass types (RMTs) indicates the rock type (lithology) with numbers 1 to 10 (11 stands for fault materials, independently from parent rock), and the degree of tectonisation (a for slightly tectonised, b1 for moderately tectonised, b2 for highly tectonised). The power tunnel will be mechanically excavated and the identified risks will essentially influence the selection of a TBM, and the design of the segmental lining.

Rock Mass Type Lithology: Rock mass characteristics: RMT-7b1
Page 7 of 11
Conglomerate, reddish sandy/silty, calcareous matrix, cemented. Compenents (marble, recrystallised ) tectonised. Numerous, closely C high-persistence master 30 Thickly bedded to massive, moderately spaced, joints along shear zones. Locally disintegration of matrix materials. RQD typically 50-90%, always > 25% CR typically > 90%, always > 75% Anisotropy: Spacing: Persistence: Conditions: Opening: Filling: low 600mm - > 2000mm > 20m planar, smooth to rough < 5mm none Intact rock (kN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (): (MPa): (m/s): (-) GSI: 24.5 - 25.5 10 - 50 0.4 - 0.5 n=4 n=7 no data no data no data no data n=2 30 - 60 RMR: Rock mass 24 4.58 23 1.22 3000 E-05 to E-07 III (42) estimated H&B H&B H&B H&B estimated Q: Joints: Sets: Spacing: Persistence: Conditions: Opening: Filling: 3 main sets <60mm - 600mm < 1m - 3m
planar/stepped, rough to polished
Discontinuities: Bedding:
< 5mm to >10mm rare silt/clay coating Discontinuities 0 25 - 30 estimated estimated -
Parameters: Unit weight, Strength, (UCS) Cohesion, c Friction angle, Young's modulus, E Permeability, kf CAI Insitu Stress: Water:
Standard Classification:
180 - 430m overburden. insitu stress exceeding rock mass strength where overburden > 200m. Dry, where water drained by karstic systems. Potential water head above tunnel unknown. 2-10l/s per 100m tunnel length where below groundwater. Locally water inflow from open joints, fractured zones and/or solution cavities with potential for considerable increase during wet seasons. Confined water in relation to low-permeability fault zones possible, with potential for sudden and large-scale water inflow.
Rock Mass Behaviour Overbreaking to very friable, with rapidly declining deformations. Gravity controlled block / wedge failure, enhanced along sheared discontinuity planes. / Failure Modes: Stress induced failure in sheared, low-strength rock mass with disintegrated matrix, depending on insitu stress. Risks: Open, karstified masterjoints, forming large blocks in tunnel roof, prone to gravity controlled failure. Sudden and large-scale water inflow from karst cavities / open joints, where tunnel below ground water. Sudden and large-scale water inflow from karst cavities / open joints following the wet season, also along otherwise dry tunnel sections.
Photo / Sketch:
Karst cavities
Sheared rock mass with disintegrated matrix
Figure 6
Classification sheet for moderately tectonised conglomerate, rock mass type RMT-7b1.

Rock Mass Type Lithology: Rock mass characteristics: Discontinuities: Bedding: Anisotropy: Spacing: Persistence: Conditions: Opening: Filling: Parameters: Unit weight, Strength, (UCS) Cohesion, c Friction angle, Young's modulus, E Permeability, kf CAI (kN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (): (MPa): (m/s): (-) Intact rock Rock mass 20 0,26 15 0,1 100 < E-07 estimated estimated n=5 n=5 estimated estimated Joints: Sets: Spacing: Persistence: Conditions: Opening: Filling: 0 10 - 15 RMT-11b
Page 8 of 11
Fault gouge, (kakirite, cataclasite), rock fragments of various dimensions in clayey/silty matrix, matrix supported ih i sheared, 30% D disintegrated i df i crushed rock k mass, O slickensided i l j f l i h hi k 10 Completely and throughout. RQD = 0% (always) CR < 25% (always)
Discontinuities (fault planes) estimated estimated -
GSI: not applicable RMR: not applicable Q: not applicable Standard Classification: Variable overburden. Insitu Stress: Insitu stress considerably exceeding rock mass strength. Heterogeneous and asymmetric stress distribution possible, where large competent shear bodies embedded in fault gouge matrix. Water: Rock Mass Behaviour / Failure Modes: Risks: Acting as groundwater barrier, confining water circulating along fractured zones and/or karstic systems. Squeezing conditions, with pronounced, slowly declining deformations. Stress induced rock mass failure. Heavily squeezing conditions with large, slowly declining or continuous deformations. Swelling of clay minerals in fault gouge materials. High water pressures, confined water and steep gradients along interfaces of jointed rock rock mass and fault gouge materials. Stickiness of clay materials. Mixed-face conditions where competent shear bodies embedded in fault gouge materials. Discreet displacements along active faults possible.
Photo / Sketch:
Fault Zone
Clayey fault gouge
Figure 7
Classification sheet for fault gouge material, rock mass type RMT-11b.
Page 9 of 11
Case B Urban Infrastructure Tunnel - Tender Design A similar approach was applied for the tender design of a shallow tunnel passing through schists and granites that are weathered and disintegrated to various degrees. The rocks occur in close association along an intrusive interface overprinted by intense tectonic shearing. In contrast to the case history in Turkey, the alignment corridor, with maximum overburden reaching 30m, could be investigated thoroughly. Six rock mass types (referred to as geotechnical units) were defined. Typical rock mass characteristics/behaviour and failure modes for schists and granites could be observed in cut-slopes of an adjacent construction pit (see Figure 8). Typical behaviour patterns and risks for granitic rock mass have been assessed for previous infrastructure projects during the construction of some of these projects. With the drive direction already known, detailed kinematic failure analysis could be performed and modes of wedge failure are shown in schematic sketches for each rock mass type. The most relevant geotechnical properties, circumstantial conditions and rock mass behaviour modes were summarised in classification sheets, as shown in Figure 9 for geotechnical unit X3, where sheared schists are intersected by disintegrated granitic dykes. Conventional cyclic tunnel excavation was foreseen for the project. The rock mass characterisation allowed the development of routine temporary support classes as well as special measures to be employed in case of risk events (e.g. piping and erosional failure along disintegrated granitic dykes, etc.).
shear plane block from granitic dyke
Piping and erosional failure along shear plane within disintegrated granitic dyke Figure 8 Typical failure in highly sheared schists with granitic dykes, rock mass type X3 (left); and erosional failure in disintegrated granitic dyke (right).

Geotechnical Unit: Lithology: Discontinuities: Schistosity: Anisotropy: Spacing: Persistence: Conditions: Opening: Filling: Intact Rock Parameters: Density (g/cm): UCS (MPa): T (MPa): Abrasivity: Discontinuity Parameters: c (MPa): (): Standard Classification: GSI: RMR: Rock Mass Parameter: Rock Mass Characteristics: Schematic Sketch: 0 20 10-20 V Refer to report. Highly anisotropic rock mass, highly tectonised. f ( ) f estimated estimated 2.0 - 2.4 <5 < 1.5 heterogeneous, typically low estimated, no data high < 60mm 10 - 20 undulating, polished < 5mm soapy surfaces, frequently plastic clay Joints: Sets: Spacing: Persistence: Conditions: Opening: Filling:
2 main sets
Page 10 of 11
X3 Mica schists, sericitic schists, migmatitic gnaissic schists intersected by granitic dykes. Weathering grades W4, W5 prevailing.
<60mm - 600mm < 1m - 3m planar/stepped, planar, locally polished < 5mm silt/clay coating, locally plastic
Insitu Stress: Water:
Insitu stress usually exceeds overall rock mass strength. Joint water. Damp to wet, dripping to flowing from granitic dykes. Water inflow typically below 5l/s, rarely up to 15l/s per 100m. Local water inflow from pegmatitic dykes, fractured zones and/or interface jointe/soil-like rock mass may reach 10l/s to 20l/s. Water within granitic dykes likely to be confined and subject to high water pressures. Very friable, rapidly ravelling, squeezing (depending on overburden). Relaxation sliding along low-strength schistosity planes. Stress induced failures of low-strength rock mass, enhanced by heterogeneous stress distribution related to shear planes and faults. Erosion/stress induced failures enhanced in association to granitic dykes (W5/W4). Mixed face conditions.
Rock Mass Behaviour:
Remarks / Risks:
Figure 9
Classification sheet for highly tectonised schist with granitic dykes, rock mass type X3.
Page 11 of 11
Summary and Conclusions The concept for rock mass characterisation proposed in this paper combines quantitative and qualitative rock mass classification systems. The process can be individually adjusted by employing a variety of methods. Key elements including rock and rock mass properties, circumstantial influencing factors, geomechanical parameters, typical rock mass behaviour, failure modes and geotechnical risks are described in a classification sheet for individual rock mass types that are correlated to quantitative standard classification systems. All descriptions and assessments are performed according to international and/or national standards/methods, allowing for a transparent and reproducible classification process. The scheme systematically aims towards a) the definition of typical rock mass behaviour and b) the recognition and description of geotechnical risks. The product is the definition of rock mass types (RMTs) that supply the conclusive information required for tunnel design as well as for ground-related contractual issues.
Acknowledgements: The authors thank the projects Clients for the permission to publish project specific data of the case histories discussed. Further, reference is made to all parties and persons too many to be named that contributed to the concept of rock mass characterisation presented in this paper. References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Barton, N.R.: Rock Mass Classification and Tunnel Reinforcement Selection using the Qsystem. - Proc. Symp. Rock Class. Eng. Purp., ASTM Special Technical Publication 984. Philadelphia. Pp 59-88, 1988. Bieniawski, Z.T.: Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, 1989. Brosch, F.J.: Geology and Classification of Rock Masses Examples from Austrian Tunnels. Bull.Int.Assoc.Eng.Geol., no.33, pp 31-37, 1986. FIDIC: Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey, Parts I and II, First Edition, 1995. Hoek E., Brown E.T.: Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength. Int. J. Rock. Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomec. Abstr. 34(8), 1165-1186, 1997. Hoek E.: A discussion on acceptable criteria for temporary support and final linings of large span transportation tunnels in poor rock. Vancouver, March 1999. Hoek, E. & Marinos, P.: Deformation: Estimating Rock Mass Strength: Predicting Squeeze. Tunnels & Tunelling International, November 2000. ITA: ITA Recommendations on Contractual Sharing of Risks. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 3, 5 and 7, 1988 to 1992. Laufer H.: Rock Classification Methods Based on Excavation Response. Felsbau 15, Nr. 3, 1997. Mller, L.: Removing Misconceptions on the New Austrian Tunnelling Method. Tunnels Tunnelling 10, pp. 29-32, Feb. 1978. GG: Richtlinie fr die Geomechanische Planung von Untertagebauarbeiten mit zyklischem Vortrieb. Oktober 2001. NORM B 2203, Untertagebauarbeiten, Werkvertragnorm, Entwurf, 1. Mrz, 1994. NORM B 2003-1, Ausgabe 2001-12-01: Untertagebauarbeiten Werksvertragsnorm, Teil 1: Zyklischer Vortrieb. Rabcewicz, L.: The New Austrian Tunnelling Method. Water Power, pp. 453-457, Nov. 1964. Rocscience Inc.: RocLab. 2001. Schubert W.; Goricki A., Button E.: Riedmller G., Plsler P., Steindorfer A. and Vanek R.: Consistent Excavation and Support Determination for the Design and Construction of Tunnels. Felsbau, 5/2001, October 2001.

Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation - A Concept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation - A Concept

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Risk in Rock Mass Characterisation - A Concept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Course on Geotechnical Risks in Rock Tunnelling Portugal, Aveiro, April 2004