(2005). Proc. Int. AFTES Congress, Tunnelling for a Sustainable Europe, Chambery, pp.

349-358

DIFFICULTIES OF TUNNELLING UNDER HIGH COVER

IN MOUNTAINOUS REGIONS
T.G. Carter1, D. Steels2, H.S.Dhillon2 and D.Brophy2
1 2
Golder Associates, Aecon Constructors

ABSTRACT: Deep tunnels present unique geological problems that are exceptionally challenging for the design of tunnelling machines capable
of excavating in such conditions. Traversing faulted and disturbed ground at significant depth requires that tunnelling procedures be able to cope
with a huge range of difficult geological conditions. Investigating, evaluating and assessing anticipated geology ahead of tunnelling, and dealing
with encountered difficult ground conditions requires that better understanding be gained of the interaction between complex geology and stress
conditions when mining at these significant depths. Extremes of ground conditions present major contrasts to tunnelling, so much so that they
often demand use of flexible rock engineering solutions in order for the tunnel to progress. This need to adopt flexible solutions is often seen as
being at variance with the constraints imposed by the rigidity of design elements incorporated into the fabrication of a typical TBM. In this paper
extremes of experience are cited from tunnelling in the Himalayas at the Nathpa Jhakri Scheme (Figure 1) where a variety of difficult ground
conditions had to be traversed, ranging from rock-burst-prone rhyolitic units with hydrothermal water inrushes through to coping with squeezing,
very soft, soil-like fault zone infills.

RÉSUMÉ: Les tunnels profonds présentent les problèmes géologiques uniques qui sont exceptionnellement provocants pour la conception des
machines de perçage d'un tunnel capables de l'excavation en de telles conditions. Traverser la terre censurée et dérangée à la profondeur
significative exige que le tunne l procédures de ling puisse faire face à une gamme énorme des conditions géologiques difficiles. L'investigation,
l'évaluation et l'évaluation de la géologie prévue en avant du perçage d'un tunnel, et traiter dans des conditions au sol difficiles produites exige
qu'une meilleure compréhension soit gagnée de l'interaction entre la géologie et les états complexes d'effort en extrayant à ces profondeurs
significatives. Les xtremes de E du commandant actuel de conditions au sol contraste au perçage d'un tunnel, tellement de sorte qu'ils exigent
souvent l'utilisation des solutions flexibles de technologie de roche dans l'ord heu pour que le tunnel progresse. Ce besoin d'adopter les solutions
flexibles est souvent vu en tant qu'étant en désaccord avec les contraintes imposées par la rigidité des éléments de conception incorporés à la
fabrication d'un TBM typique. En cela des extrémités de papier de l'expérience sont citées du perçage d'un tunnel en Himalaya à l'arrangement
de Nathpa Jhakri (Figures 1) où une variété de conditions au sol difficiles a dû être traversée, s'étendant à partir des unités rhyolitiques roche-
éclater-enclines avec les inrushes hydrothermiques de l'eau à travers à faire face au serrage, très doux, sol-comme des remplissages de zone
faillée.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Driving tunnels through mountainous regions poses amongst the

most difficult challenges for modern tunnelling, as unforeseen
conditions are the norm rather than the exception. This is because
investigation of route alignments can be done only in a cursory
manner, as tunnel depths are generally too great to allow economic
investigatory drilling to be feasible. In consequence, regional
geological interpretation has to be the mainstay of prediction.
Interpretation of satellite imagery and aerial photographs provides
some insight into probable geologic structure, while data from
drilling that can be undertaken at the portals and from any
accessible valley sites supplemented by available outcrop
mapping, constitutes the typical total range of information on which
all prediction must be based. In order to forewarn of possible
problems and maximize drivage speeds, reliance has to be placed
on forward probing and rapid reaction to changing ground
conditions in order that effective and efficient advance rates can be
maintained in spite of varying and often difficult conditions. These
same issues also complicate initial decision-making, as to whether
or it not would be viable to drive such tunnels using a TBM.

Modern TBM's can cope with a wide variety of conditions, but

some compromises are generally necessary in order to balance
cuttability and thrust requirements against production rate and
ground support needs. Open machines with sidewall gripper pads
and large cutters provide the optimum design arrangement for
achieving the most rapid progress rates, but only function at their
very best in good ground conditions. Closed face, fully shielded
TBM’s, with telescopic articulation. provide the most versatile and
safe machines for poor and saturated ground, but compromise on
cuttability and efficiency. Such machines are not a panacea for
advancing through all ground conditions, particularly if stress or
water pressures are severe or if squeezing conditions are
encountered. Current limitations on seal design creates an upper
bound to maximum water pressures that can be resisted in any
conventional “closed” machine construction. Overcut arrangements
can be engineered to help counter problems imposed by severe
closure, but such measures can only allow relatively small Figure 1: Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Power Project Setting

Page 1 of 10
(decimetre-scale) convergence to be dealt with. In zones of
significant closure it is still possible for such machines to become
trapped. In fact, because of the length of the latest state-of-the-art
telescoping double shield machines, it might be argued that the risk
of problems occurring due to squeeze and/or closure may actually
be compounded by the use of such machines as against more
open-structured TBM’s, which have a lower rock contact area.
Figure 2: Project Location
Because major tunnelling risks can be considerable in high
mountainous terrain (such as the Himalayas – ref. Figure 1), there
is reluctance to use TBM’s for fear of running into insurmountable
trouble. Drill and blast methods are still the approach of choice,
especially if multiple cross adits can be constructed from side-hill
accesses or from adjoining valleys, so that several headings can
be worked at the same time, thus improving overall project
progress. For the Nathpa Jhakri project, in India, Figure 2, where
almost 30km. of line drive tunnelling was required to connect the
Intake Works to the Power Facilities, drill and blast was the method
of choice for all of the Contractors, despite the fact that some of the
segment lengths between cross adits were in excess of 6km.
As shown on Figure 2, the 1500 MW Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric
Power Project is located in a remote northern area of India in the
Figure 4 : HRT Layout and Geology from Desilting Complex to Wadhal Adit
upper reaches of the River Sutluj in the state of Himachal Pradesh,
(HP) almost on the Chinese border. The project has been
implemented by Satluj Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVN), a
Government of India company, formerly known as the Nathpa
Jhakri Power Corporation. The total project cost, which was in
excess of US$1.2 billion, was one third funded by the World Bank.
Aecon Constructors, through its wholly owned subsidiary, the
Foundation Company of Canada, was Managing Party of one of
the joint ventures constructing the project, responsible for
undertaking two of the main civil work contracts, totalling $620M.
These construction contracts included the Main Dam, the Intakes,
the Desilting Chambers (Figure 3) and approximately 16km of the
Headrace Tunnel. Throughout the ten years of execution of the
joint venture’s contract works execution, Golder Associates
provided geotechnical and geological engineering advice.
Figure 3: Desilting Complex
The scheme is basically a run-of-the-river power development and
the largest project identified on the Satluj for harnessing its
hydroelectric potential. A design discharge of 486 cumecs is
diverted from the river into the four intake gate arrangements, by a
61.5 m high concrete gravity dam. To exclude silt particles of up to
0.2 mm diameter from the water before it enters the Headrace
Tunnel, the Intakes feed into a complex of four Underground
Desilting Chambers (the largest in the world) through independent
approach tunnels. As is evident from Figure 3, the Desilting
Complex required significant rock engineering input in order to
safely excavate and support the four 525 m long, 27.5 m high, 16m
wide chambers and associated cross tunnels and shafts and more
3
than 1 million m of rock were removed to excavate the Complex.
From the Chambers, which are each lined with steel fibre
reinforced shotcrete, and heavily supported with a surficial rockbolt
anchorage pattern and long cable and bar anchor systems, the
water runs along a 10.15 m diameter circular section Headrace
Tunnel for 27.3 kms. to terminate in a 21 m diameter, 225 m deep
Surge Shaft. Three Pressure Shafts of 4.9 m diameter each then
take the water from the Surge Shaft to feed the six Francis Turbine
Page 2 of 10
generating units of 250 MW each set within a 225m long, 49m high
and 20m span underground powerhouse, allowing full utilization of
the approximately 425 m head created by the scheme.
Numerous technical papers describing various aspects of the
scheme have already been published elsewhere, (eg., Kumar and
Dhawan, 1999, Dasgupta et al, 1999, Hoek, 1999, 2000; Bagde,
2000, Mahajan, 2000). This paper does not discuss the overall
scheme in any detail, rather it concentrates on examining the rock
conditions encountered during excavation of the section of the
Headrace Tunnel driven by the Continental-Foundation Joint
Venture (CFJV) along the alignment configuration shown on Figure
4. While not unique, some of the conditions encountered on this
drive are exceptional and amongst the most difficult that are likely
to have to be dealt with when driving long tunnels beneath high
mountainous terrain anywhere. Over the 16,042 m long stretch of
the HRT from Stn. 0+00 at the junction point at the Link Tunnels
just downstream of the Desilting Chambers (Figure 3) to the
Wadhal Adit junction, at the extreme right hand side of Figure 4,
not only is the geology variable and complex, with numerable
faults, some of which gave rise to major convergence issues (ref.
Figure 5), but the rock cover varies from a minimum of about 90m
beneath one of the heavily faulted river crossings to a maximum of
about 1,500m adjacent to the zone of spectacular rock cliffs shown
on Figure 1, where high stress face spalling and sidewall slabbing
conditions were encountered.
Now complete, the HRT is fully concrete lined, with nominal lining
thicknesses varying from 300 mm to 500 mm, dependent on rock
quality and cover. It was constructed in four different segments,
named after local communities, from upstream to downstream, the
Nathpa, Sholding, Nugalsari and Wadhal sections, ie., extending
from left to right across Figure 4. Because of concerns regarding
the competence of the ground, and the possibility of encountering
geothermal water sources and high stress zones, and also
because of perceived poor previous TBM utilization elsewhere in
mountainous terrain, all of the tunnelling contacts for the HRT were
tendered for Drill and Blast drivage, with none of the joint venture
contactors electing to propose an alternative TBM bid. As a
consequence, each of the access and main tunnel drives were
driven drill and blast, with face production drilling undertaken with,
for the CFJV section, sixteen two-boom electric/hydraulic jumbo
3
drills working from 7 headings to complete more than 3 million m
of rock excavation for the tunnel. Most of the alignment was
excavated by the heading and bench method. However because of
the many difficulties encountered due to adverse geological
conditions, some reaches of the CFJV section of the HRT were
advanced by multiple drifting methods (Figure 5) while other
sections of the alignment further along the HRT, also in difficult
ground, were constructed with umbrella forepoling methods as
illustrated on Figure 6 (after Hoek, 2000).

Sta 11615.00

Sta 14204.00
Sta 13615.50
Sta 11602.00

Sta 13125.00

Sta 13599.75

Sta 14192.00
Sta 13438.00
Sta 13133.00
Sta 12690.00

Sta 13425.00
Sta 12702.00

Sta 16062.00
Sta 9687.00

2462.25
2446.50

1858.00
2624.00
2929.00

2637.00

1870.00
2937.00
1928.00

3360.00
3372.00
1925.00
A B C D E F

NUGALSARI D/S WADHAL U/S

NUGALSARI ADIT WADHAL ADIT
2871m 3504m
Details of EGO Work from Nugalsari to Wadhal
S. No Location Station Length Period No. of Days
A Nugulsari D/S 11602.00 11615.00 13.00 1-Feb-98 12-Mar-98 40
B Wadhal U/S V 12702.00 12690.00 12.00 26-Jul-99 11-Nov-99 109
C Wadhal U/S IV 13133.00 13125.00 8.00 26-Sep-98 5-Nov-98 41
D Wadhal U/S III 13438.00 13425.00 13.00 5-Dec-97 8-Apr-98 125
E Wadhal U/S II 13615.50 13599.75 15.75 20-Aug-97 30-Sep-97 42
F Wadhal U/S I 14204.00 14192.00 12.00 14-Oct-96 15-Jan-97 94
TOTAL 73.75 451

Figure 7 – Delays during driving through Major Fault

Zones in the Nugalsari and Wadhal HRT Sections

Overall, more that 30% of the HRT alignment encountered faults

Figure 5: Severe Closure Associated with Multi-drift
Advance through 30m wide Fault in Nathpa HRT
shears and shattered zones, some with significant groundwater.
Not only were ground conditions in the tunnels quite adverse, but in
some places high rock temperatures of up to 45°C., and
hydrothermal water inflows (at about 51°C) had to be contended
with in order to advance the headings. Even with 20:20 hindsight,
and knowledge of the conditions, deciding whether or not to drive
these tunnels by machine would still be difficult.

2.0 ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE CONDITIONS

In order to provide some guidance for future assessment of

Figure 6: Umbrella Forepole Installation in progress
through another of the major Fault Zones on the HRT
(photograph, Hoek, 2000)
possible tunnelling conditions under similar cover and through
similar rock masses, some back-analysis examination has been
undertaken of some particularly difficult segments of the HRT
alignment. This has been done principally to explore whether
various rock mass characterization approaches and semi-empirical
procedures for assessing rockmass behaviour have validity for
realistically predicting tunnelling conditions particularly from a
machine tunnelling perspective. As explained subsequently, based
on the back-analysis checks it would appear that such methods if
used with caution have application for rapidly assessing the
likelihood of encountering problematic conditions. They therefore
can be used to aid decision-making regarding whether or not a
given tunnel would be amenable to excavation using machines.
First however, as background, some additional details are
presented of the construction works and encountered conditions.

Page 3 of 10
 3.1 Back-Analysis Insights
Two of the extremes of tunnel wall stability behaviour encountered
along the HRT are briefly examined to illustrate some common,
and important inter-relationships that frequently exist between rock
mass characteristics and overburden cover in controlling the
severity of encountered problem conditions. The first back-
analysis case involves a zone of significant closure and squeezing
in the Nugalsari Section of the HRT associated with mining through
a completely granulated quartz-mica mylonite fault zone.

The second case corresponds with a segment of the HRT where

high stress conditions were encountered in a zone of brittle, but
competent silicified granite gneiss. These stress and brittle rock
conditions induced not only sidewall spalling and face instability
during the initial tunnel driving, but also lead to yield and failure of
the installed support system several weeks after the top heading
excavation face had left the area, and well before benching was
due to commence.

Figure 8 – Mudflow from RD 2630 Fault in Wadhal HRT

Figure 7 lists the locations of the most adverse faulted zones in the
Wadhal and Nugalsari sections, with Figures 8 and 9 showing
some examples of the ground conditions encountered whilst
traversing through these faults. As is evident from Figure 8, where
a major mudflow developed into the tunnel from one of the faults,
water also complicated dealing with the most adverse of these
zones. In general the inflows associated with the worst faults were
relatively small (typically less than 300 gpm (20 l/sec)). By contrast,
in some of the more blocky and brittle, faulted areas, where
extreme ground condition problems were not encountered, heavy
groundwater inflows, of up to 2000 gpm (150 l/sec) occurred
(including in some cases, hot >50°C water). In such zones,
progress rates were significantly affected, with advance often
reduced to well less than one metre per day.
Figure 10 – Disruption to Primary Rib Support
associated with benching towards Major Fault

Case 1 - Wadhal U/S RD 2630 Fault Zone

Figures 9 and 10 respectively show as-mapped geology and as-

encountered conditions in the HRT as they developed because of
stress re-adjustment due to removal of the bench as it encroached
into the area of the RD 2630 fault zone. As is evident, punching in
of the ribs occurred associated with heave and disruption of the
invert zone, but of most concern was that this was occurring some
10-15m ahead of the bench face. As a consequence of this
adverse behaviour and as part of detailed evaluation of possible
support alternatives to assist in completing the remainder of the
required excavation through this and similar fault zones, a series of

Figure 9 – Rock Conditions and Strain Analysis Approach for Figure 11 - Strain Based Ground Behaviour
Wadhal RD 2630 Fault Zone Classification (after Hoek and Marinos, 2000)

Page 4 of 10
back-analysis assessments were completed using both numerical
modelling methods and the semi-empirical approach suggested by
Hoek and Marinos (2000). As shown on Figure 9, which
summarizes the intersected fault zone geology through this critical
area, quite a number of poor rock areas existed in this section of
the HRT where adverse conditions might occur.
The effects of such zones on tunnelling behaviour can be broadly
assessed using the Hoek-Marinos closure prediction method,
allowing credible back-analysis of the possible magnitude of
convergence, in this case with σcm/po ~ 0.06 and ε >60%, (ref.
Figures 9 and 11) extreme squeezing conditions are suggested
(ref. descriptive strain zones A-E, as listed on Figure 11).
As is also evident from Figure 9, the RD 2630 fault is located
amidst an area of moderate quality rock mass where no adverse
conditions would normally be expected (and none were
encountered) and where there is no significant change in
overburden cover crossing the faulted areas. However, back-
analysis of the fault zone area, for the assessed rock mass quality
(Q ~ 0.05 with RQD = 20%, ie., equivalent RMR = 17)) indicates
that severe swelling was entirely feasible even though the
overburden cover was less than 650 m.
As is evident from the tabulation inset in Figure 7, conditions in this
Wadhal section of the HRT were amongst the most adverse of
anywhere along the HRT alignment, with up to seven major fault
zones encountered in less than 4km. Difficulties were experienced
in driving the top heading development through each of these
zones and in the particular case of the RD2630 Fault, some
600mm of convergence was back-calculated to have happened
associated with benching, when severe buckling of the ribs
occurred over a 20 metre stretch coinciding with the most adverse
section of the fault. With such significant problems occurring in the
tunnels attention was focused on attempting to do enough back-
analysis of the top heading information to be able to ensure that
sufficient understanding was gained of potential adverse rockmass
behaviour for all key fault zone areas, so that excavation and
support methods could be refined prior to benching.
Case 2 - Wadhal U/S RD 2176 - 2240
In this section of the tunnel, severe slabbing of the sidewalls and
breakout of part of the crown and haunches developed to such a
degree several weeks subsequent to excavation of the top heading
that the tunnel shape became asymmetrical with the long axis of
preferred cracking and spalling likely reflecting the orientation of
the prevailing major principal stress.
As shown in the photograph on Figure 12, a V-shaped overbreak
notch zone developed. This occurred more or less subparallel to
the tunnel axis throughout a 30-50m long section of the HRT. In
this zone, where the rock mass was of high strength and
competent, but brittle, also failure occurred of the heads and face
plates of several hundred rock bolts.
Back-analysis of stress conditions in this area indicated that given
the overburden cover, and the probable stress regime, maximum
induced tangential stresses likely significantly exceeded rockmass
strengths for much of the alignment either side of the zone that
exhibited the most problems. The fact that only this and a few other
zones of the tunnel in the highest cover areas showed a tendency
to face, crown and/or sidewall slabbing therefore become the focus
for detailed back-analysis, with the result eventually determined
that because other, more fractured, zones of the rockmass likely
could not sustain the full insitu stresses, only the most competent,
brittle zones of the rockmass appeared prone to such destressing
effects.
3.2 Implications
These back-analysis observations led to the initial development of
a series of parametric analyses being carried out to attempt to
better pre-define likely problem zones that could be encountered in
the remaining tunnelling; with the aim of determining this well
ahead of actually excavating into potential problem areas. Early
formulations utilized the Kirsch solution to rapidly determine
induced stress conditions along the tunnel alignment so as to help
determine zones where stress : rockmass strength ratios might be
adverse. This formed an initial basis for assessing whether such
zones would occur in areas where the rock would be hard and
competent, where stress slabbing and spalling might prevail, or
where the rock would be weak and deformable, where potential
squeezing could be the issue of most concern.
Subsequent enhancements to these initial approaches have now
incorporated quantitative algorithms and other empirical guidelines
from amongst others Singh, et al, 1992, 1995, Barton, et al., 1977;
Grimstad and Barton, 1995, Carter, 1990 and Kirsten, 1988. These
refinements have been generally targeted towards developing a
Figure 12 – Zone of Crown/Haunch Overstress and
Classic “Notch” Breakout Cracking
better method for rapidly ranking tunnelling conditions at early pre-
feasibility and feasibility stages. In the following paragraphs these
methods, which have been refined on a variety of projects
worldwide for tunnel alignment optimization purposes, are outlined
as a suggested approach for better developing preliminary hazard
rankings for any deep tunnelling beneath mountainous areas.
3.0 HAZARD RANKING
As a basis for utilizing the proposed approaches for ranking
tunnelling hazards, reasonable data on topography, geology and
rock quality needs to be pre-defined for each alignment alternative
that is being considered, and estimates need also to be made of
reasonable cost and excavation progress rate per rock quality type.
This then allows a semi-quantitative risk-based ranking to be
developed to:
(i) define major foreseeable geotechnical risks, along
each alignment being considered for any type of
proposed tunnelling operation;
(ii) define potential cost and schedule implications that
may be associated with each of these perceived
geotechnical risks for each proposed alignment, and
then finally
(iii) list and rank the geotechnical advantages and
disadvantages of the various alternative alignments,
(particularly as they may impact the viability of each
of the proposed scheme arrangements).
As both cost and schedule are impacted significantly by the choice
of alignment of any tunnel with respect to fault locations, river
crossings, extent of alteration effects and zones of high mountain
cover it is important that early attention is given to adequately
defining the geological conditions along each alignment corridor
being considered.
This then allows a first order ranking to be carried out to define any
potential impacts that might be sufficiently adverse as to negate the
choice of that alignment.
Page 5 of 10
A matrix tabulation, such as Table 1 allows each of the major types develop where soft deformable rocks exist, or faults have to be
of geotechnical tunnelling risks to be quantified and ranked with traversed, particularly if adverse water inflow conditions occur.
respect to each other. Here a simple qualitative scale is presented
reflecting assessed comparative tunnelling difficulty for each of the
hazards; with squeezing conditions considered to create problems
more than double the severity of those associated with slabbing;
which, in turn, are ranked as being more of a nuisance than
significant groundwater inflows, while moderate groundwater
inflows, which can usually be handling by active pumping systems
at the tunnel face are ranked as of somewhat more importance,
than zones of thin cover (on the assumption that in such zones,
other geotechnical issues will be important).

At a preliminary level such simple qualitative ranking scales will

usually suffice. With more detail and greater accuracy of risk
assessment being needed, a more quantitative approach may be
justified. At each level though, some measure of assessment of
uncertainty must also be included in the rankings in order to
account for data deficiencies and for the fact that risks might be
better characterized on one alignment than on another, simply
because more is known about one rather than the other alignment.
At a preliminary level, again it is usually sufficient to apply a simple Figure 13 – Project Uncertainty and Risk Reduction
scalar relationship to compensate for differences in availability of
geological and geotechnical knowledge for the various alignments.
In order therefore to assess the potential for such conditions to
exist, cover depths along each alignment must first be established
Parameter Ranking and then rock competence and quality through the high cover
Geological Uncertainty 1 zones evaluated. Based on interpretive geological sections
prepared along each alignment this can readily be achieved in
High Stress (max. cover thickness) terms of various stress-induced damage assessment approaches
Rock Burst Zones (km) 50 available through the Q and RMR classification schemes currently
Slabbing Zones (km) 25 used worldwide for geotechnical rock tunnelling assessments. In
order to provide base parameters so that stress-induced rock mass
Squeezing Zones (km) 100 damage effects can be examined for any particular alignment
Water Inflows under scrutiny, mean Hoek-Brown values for rock mass strength
can be ascribed for each of, in this case, five rock class divisions,
Major Inflow Zones (km) 50
as per Table 2, below.
Moderate Inflow Zones (km) 10
Limited Cover Zones (km) 5
I II III IV V
Table 1: Inferred Importace Ranking of Risks (based Q >50 Q ~ 5-50 Q ~0.5-5 Q ~ 0.01-0.5 Q <0.01
on assumed tunnel performance)
Q~100 Q~10 Q~1 Q~0.1 Q~0.01
RMR~85 RMR~65 RMR~45 RMR~25 RMR~5
3.1 Geological Uncertainty

σCM~100MPa σCM~50MPa σCM~20MPa σCM~10MPa σCM~5MPa

Although a lack of information about conditions along any given
alignment does not of itself contribute to the actual real hazards
that might be encountered along that alignment, if there is no data
available or only very limited data, then a measure of increased
uncertainty exists that assessments of the perceived risks are not
as accurate as they should be, (ref. Figure 13). This in turn
complicates reliability of schedule and/or cost estimates, as these
are based on being able to reasonably characterize the geological
conditions along each alignment.
For accurate assessment of tunnelling risks and reliable evaluation
of risk on schedules and costs, detailed geological understanding
is critical. Unfortunately, at a preliminary level very often little is
known about conditions along the majority of the alignments that
might be under scrutiny. If not recognized lack of understanding of
what is uncertainty for the various proposed alignments can lead to
unforeseen problems. Typically, in early project phases uncertainty
is reflected in the magnitude of overall risk associated with the
most “data deficient” alignments. Only by acquiring pertinent,
critical site investigation data can this “apparent risk” be reduced.
3.2 Tunnelling Problems Associated with High Stress
Two forms of tunnelling problems can occur due to encountering
high stress conditions. In brittle, competent rock masses, spalling
or, in extreme cases rock bursting, can occur. By contrast
significant convergence, tunnel closure and even squeezing can
s~0.5 s~0.1 s~0.03 s~0.005 s~0.0001
Table 2: Generalized Rock Mass Parameters by Rock Quality
(based on assumed mean quality and Hoek-Brown values)
These values have been listed using the Hoek-Brown relationship:
σ CM = σ C s
(where σCM and σC are respectively the rock mass and rock
material strengths and where s, the Hoek-Brown
brokenness index, can be related to RMR through the
expression s=exp[(RMR-100)/9], (Hoek, 1988)
Given the above tabulation and a reasonable prediction of the
geology and cover along any given alignment some assessment
can be readily made of the potential for rock-bursting and/or
slabbing to occur in any zones of high cover where competent,
high strength rock masses are expected. The potential for closure
or squeezing to develop in soft deformable zones can also be
assessed by reference to tabulated ranges of probable ground
conditions [expressed with reference to the Q-system Stress
Reduction Factor (SRF) parameter (Barton,1974,1976,1988)] with
rock cover SRF values determined using relationships published by
Kirsten (1988) and Singh (1992) modifying earlier work by Barton
et al., (1977). Development of these cover depth relationships
reflects experience gained not only from analysis of rock burst
conditions in the South African mines but also reflects experience
gained from tunnelling in the Himalayas.

Page 6 of 10
Taking the SRF criteria established by Kirsten and modifying them
still further to incorporate key aspects of a more recent
knowledgebase of information compiled by Grimstad and Barton
(1995), spalling and squeezing conditions can be usefully related to
the Q-system SRF parameter. In this context, as a means to apply
the above general approach to delineating the extent of potentially
troublesome zones along each of any alignments under study, in
both competent rock zones and in association with faults etc.,
appropriate SRF values can be computed using Kirsten’s (1988)
polynomial expressions, namely:
For fractured competent rock;
0.346 1.322 1.413
SRF = 0.244k (H/σC) + 0.176 (σC/H) ,
where k is the principal field stress ratio, H the cover
depth (m) and σC is the uniaxial compressive strength
of the intact rock (MPa).
…and…
For weak, disturbed and faulted zones;
-0.329
SRF = 1.809 Q
Table 3: Tunnel Ground Behaviour in terms of SRF and Wallrock
Stress/Strength Ratios (with Jw = 1; k ≈ 1) (modified from Kirsten,
1988 & Grimstad & Barton, 1993)
Table 4: Comparison of Original and Updated SRF
Parameter Ranges
In these relationships the applicable SRF values for the various
rock conditions and cover depths along each proposed alignment
being evaluated would be defined based on these relationships. In
doing this, it should be appreciated that these expressions are all
referenced to the original 1977 SRF scale, not the 1993 revised
scale. This is because Kirsten’s work pre-dates the 1993 revisions
made to the numerical range of the SRF parameter of the Q
system by Barton and Grimstad. Kirsten’s original tabulations and
correlation relationships must therefore always be examined in the
light of the original 1977 SRF scale. This scale has therefore been
maintained in Table 3. For completeness, however, and in order to
provide a benchmark for both sets of SRF scales, Table 4 has
been included opposite Table 3 to outline the relationships existing
between the old and new SRF values included in the current Q-
system definition tables.
While calculating SRF values for each tunnel sector helps provide
a reasonable indicator for zoning the tunnels and establishing the
potential lengths where problematic conditions might occur, and is
thus of great value for the sort of ranking requirements needed at a
preliminary level of study, it is tunnel size independent when
considered solely in terms of a rock strength to overburden stress
ratio (σcmass/σv). Similarly Singh’s (1992) σCMass /σ(V>350Q) approach,
is also tunnel size independent, as this merely relates squeezing
likelihood to the minimum overburden cover at which squeezing
⅓
may occur [viz., H > 350 Q (m), for a rock mass with strength
⅓
defined as σC.MASS = 7 γ Q (MPa)]. Applying these relationships,
which are based on collected case records from Himalayan
tunnelling (principally from the Indian subcontinent), nevertheless
provides a good second backup for checking inferred conditions
where the SRF method suggests squeezing potential.
Some better account of tunnel size and relative degree of severity
of damage can however be made if the tangential stress to wall-
rock strength ratio (σθ / σcmass) is derived for each segment of any
alignment under study by examining the alignment with reference
to cover depth and Q/RMR values for that particular tunnel
segment. This method, which was formalized by Alber, 1988 for
determining Factors of Safety (defined as σCM / σθMax ) for zoning
rock conditions that might present difficulties for TBM applications,
simply compares rock mass strength at the tunnel periphery to the
induced tangential stress, as estimated from the Kirsch solution.
For the crown the maximum tangential stress is given by σθCrown =
σv(3k - 1), where k, the horizontal to vertical stress ratio for the
various proposed alignments would be estimated as k ~ 2.0
typically for near-surface excavations, conservatively ranging down
to k ~ 0.8 potentially for the deeper, highest cover zones (ie., under
the centres and margins of the main mountain ridges), where
vertical stresses might dominate; suggesting that sidewall
conditions might be more critical, for which the Kirsch solution can
be rewritten as: σθSidewall = σv(3 - k).
While crude, application of these various semi-empirical
approaches individually or in combination is remarkably effective
for quickly determining the extent of potentially troublesome high-
stress influenced tunnelling conditions. For each alignment under
study it becomes straightforward to develop summations of rock
stress/strength damage extents for the three critical issues - burst
zones, spalling zones and squeezing zones, which then allows
easy ranking of the merits or problems of each of the tunnel
alignments under study.
3.3 Tunnelling Problems Associated with Major Water Inflows
In addition to the problems that might have be faced in faulted
zones under high cover with respect to squeezing or significant
convergence, as discussed above, another problem that may have
to be dealt with is groundwater inflow under significant pressure. If
water bearing faults are encountered during tunnelling under high
cover, then not only is the magnitude of inflow a problem, but
grouting and sealing is significantly more difficult against high
inflow pressures than grouting under low pressure heads. In valley
faulted areas, (especially where a river exists above the alignment)
significant inflows may also occur, but in these cases flow
magnitudes tend to be the problem more than pressures, as rivers
and other water bodies create essentially unlimited sources that
can become directly connected to the tunnel through fracturing.
Two forms of groundwater inflow-related tunnelling problems can
thus be envisaged – (i) high pressure, high cover inflows and (ii)
low pressure, low cover, high volume inflows. The magnitude of
the problem in each case will depend on the hydraulic conductivity
of the encountered zone and the controlling pressure gradients.
From the tunnelling perspective some of the faults interpreted to
cross the various alignments under study can be expected to yield
more water than others. Similarly, some rock units can be
expected to be of intrinsically higher permeability than others, and
therefore could potentially pose a greater groundwater inflow
problem than other units. Accordingly, when preparing preliminary
tunnel alignment drawings, some ranking needs to be completed of
Page 7 of 10
the various faults and major structure zones so that an appreciation
can be gained of the likelihood of encountering water, on perhaps a
three point scale – high, moderate and low potential inflow. Length
estimates can then be prepared of the perceivable extent of major
and/or moderate level inflows for each alignment, with the
summations then incorporated into the ranking matrix as another
key component for optimization study.
This procedure, although not totally rigorous, does allow some
rapid appraisal to be made of the extent of potentially problematic
crown cover conditions for any given rock quality. The extents of
zones of thin cover can thus be readily identified by this method
and then summed for each alignment, providing another key
parameter for inclusion as a line item within an overall hazard
ranking matrix aimed at assessing all the tunnels under study.

3.4 Problems of Tunnelling under Limited Cover

Lastly, and again as part of preparation of an overall hazard

ranking matrix, the extent of zones of thin crown cover need also to
be tabulated for each alignment option. Defining the extent of
critically thin zones (where the potential for adverse crown
behaviour might be expected due simply to the inadequacy of
crown thickness to span ratios), is of major importance for
alignment optimization where valley crossings need consideration.
This is irrespective of the potential for encountering poor quality
faulted ground conditions, associated with high groundwater
inflows in such low cover zones.

A crude stability assessment of each zone of marginal or

potentially adverse crown geometry in zones of low rock cover
where faults might exist can be simply accomplished by means of
the scaled span approach (Carter, 1992, 2000) developed from
hard rock mining experience. In this method an approximate
Factor of Safety against crown collapse, is defined in terms of the Figure 14: Example Hazard Matrix
ratio between (i) the Critical Tunnel Span Sc deemed of marginal
stability for a rockmass, of quality Q, viz:
S C = 3.3xQ 0.43 x sinh 0.0016 (Q) 4.0 HAZARD MATRIX
and (ii) the Scaled Span CS for the actual rock crown and
excavation shape geometry, appropriately scaled through the For each geological rock quality sector along each alignment of
expression: 0 .5
interest, spreadsheet calculations can then be undertaken to
⎧ γ ⎫
CS = S ⎨ ⎬ determine each of the key hazard parameters. This allows some
⎩ t (1 + S R )(1 − 0.4 cos (θ) ) ⎭ estimate to be made of the possible extent of each type of hazard
per alignment length, thereby allowing comparative ranking to be
These relationships can easily be incorporated into a spreadsheet undertaken between each of the proposed tunnel alternatives.
tabulation for each of the tunnel alignments under study so that the
stability state of the crown for each segment of each alignment can Figure 14 shows a typical hazard ranking matrix while Figure 15
be assessed. Cs and Sc values can be readily estimated for the shows some excerpts from spreadsheet tabulations illustrating the
each critical zone of low cover thickness, and the results expressed basic calculation output used for defining the various diagnostic
in terms of an approximate Probability of Failure, ie., indices for each hazard type for each alignment.
⎡ 2.9Fc − 1 ⎤
Pf = 1 − erf ⎢ ⎥ In the example shown on Figure 14, two each of the alignments
⎣ 4 ⎦ have been ranked with the same degree of geological uncertainty
reflecting the perceived equivalence of data uncertainty on a scale
where Pf = Probability of Failure (%) of 1 = low risk of surprises to 10 = high risk of unknowns.
Fc ≅ an approximate Factor of Safety; = SC/CS, and
erf[ ] is the standard error function, and where In the example spreadsheet tabulations shown in Figure 15 none of
Cs= scaled crown span, (m); S = actual tunnel span (m) the tunnels are deep enough that rock bursting is seen to be a
γ = specific gravity of the crown rock mass problem. There are indications though, that spalling is possible in
t = thickness of crown cover (pillar) over tunnel (m) some of the better quality rock units under the anticipated cover
SR = span ratio = S / L (tunnel span / strike length of depths. There is also some suggestion that mild and severe
poor ground), and θ = dip of faulted zone where closure could occur in some of the poorest ground conditions under
it crosses the tunnel (degrees) high stress, particularly in the presence of water. In ranking the

Figure 15 – Typical Tabulation for Stress State, Spalling or Squeezing Conditions, Water Inflows and Low Cover Zones

Page 8 of 10
extent of the potential problems for each alignment in this example
tabulation the total summation of “at risk” lengths for each category
have been summed to give a length value in kilometres. On Figure
14, these have then been ranked and colour coded on the following
scale … 0 – 0.1km = low risk, yellow; 0.1 - 0.5km = moderate risk,
orange; and >0.5km = high risk, red.
The same approach and ranking procedure is illustrated on Figure
14 for the prescribed extent of limited crown cover and the extent
of zones that could give rise to water inflow problems. For plotting
water inflows on the matrix table, two magnitude levels have been
considered based on the presumption that the bigger, wider faults
and those under river crossings will generate more water than
those under high cover.
Prediction of the scale of problems that might be encountered in
each of the defined high and moderate risk zones is obviously of
significant value in attempting to decide on what sort of support
procedures and potential advance rate reduction might be incurred
in traversing through such zones. These empirical ranking
procedures also help to focus attention on the key issues. IN
particular they help in defining length estimates of zones where
high magnitudes of convergence might be encountered, where
significant reductions in advance rates might occur and heavy
support costs might be anticipated.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
For the Nathpa Jhakri Scheme, empirical index analysis and
hazard ranking of the type suggested in Figures 14 and 15, when
carried out retroactively, still tends to confirm the original field
inferences that many zones of extremely heavy support pressure
requirements would be anticipated in the worst area fault zones,
with magnitudes of convergence, and potential pressure far in
excess of the typical maximums that could be tolerated by even the
latest state-of-the-art machines, thus justifying the decision to drive
the HRT conventionally, with drill and blast methods.
Figure 16: Support Pressure Estimates compared to
typical pressure handled by modern TBM (plot
modified from Barton et al., 1977; Grimstad and
Barton, 1993, and Singh, Jethwa and Dube, 1995)
Whole sections of the tunnel however would be predicted to require
lower support levels, that would be well within the pressure range
feasible to be borne by a modern TBM (ref. Figure 16). This
highlights the fact that there is a need for still further flexibility in
TBM designs to be able to cope with greater magnitudes of closure
as anticipated in such variable ground conditions.
Hybrid machine design may provide the best way forward, with the
next generation of machines being built to have the capability to
Figure 17 Broad Outline Ranges of Current Machine
Type Applicability (data from Robbins)
undertake umbrella arch forepoling with jet grouting, thereby giving
the machines greater ability to cope with much wider ranges of
ground conditions than current machines (Figure 17). Adopting the
best aspects of mechanized umbrella arch tunnel advance drilling
configurations into a conventional head design for a full face TBM,
while it will present a significant mechanical challenge for machine
manufacturers, appears to hold the most promise for advancing the
state-of-the-art in hard rock machines to a position where they
would have the capability to be able to mine through the worst
faulted ground that Himalayan (and other young mountain fold belt
– Alps, Andes etc) conditions could present them with. For the
Nathpa Jhakri situation all but four of the faults on the entire
alignment could have been machine mined by a current, state-of-
the-art machine. How easily these four very adverse faults could
have been traversed if umbrella forepoling on a TBM could have
been employed is a matter of conjecture, but some indications can
be inferred based on the more than six fold increase in progress
rates achieved in the umbrella forepoled faulted section compared
to the typical advance rates achieved with the conventional multiple
drift approach.
While comparison of actual excavation progress rates suggests
that major reductions in excavation and support time could have
been realized by adopting such methods, only when there is
flexibility in contractual arrangements can such measures be
implemented “on the fly”. Contract rigidity and inflexibility is
oftentimes a major constraint to the introduction of novel and/or
innovative measures (such as new advances in mechanized
tunnelling). This points to a worldwide need to develop
standardized tunnelling contracts which build in greater flexibility in
tunnelling contractual language so that contractors can be
encouraged to negotiate reasonable payment terms for use of
innovative approaches (not perhaps already foreseen by the
Designer). Flexible contractual language is needed that, for
instance, would allow contractors to bid a project scoped as
conventional drill and blast and not unduly penalize them for
adopting some other advanced, perhaps prototype, mechanized
ground improvement procedure or even changing to using a TBM.
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The views expressed in this paper reflect the opinions of the
authors and may not reflect those corporately held by the various
organizations involved in the construction of the Nathpa Jhakri
scheme. Acknowledgements are due to many individuals in the
various organizations involved in the project whose views and
insight have helped formulate the thoughts expressed in this paper.
Page 9 of 10
7.0 REFERENCES
Alber, M. (1988) Design of High Speed TBM Drives. Proc.
Canadian Tunnelling; pp.181 - 187. (From selected papers from
th
the 15 Can. Tunnelling Conference, Vancouver)
Bagde, M.N., (2000) Finite element analysis of underground
caverns of Nathpa Jhakri Hydel Project. Proc. Int.Conf. Tunnelling
Asia ‘2000 544 pp
Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering
Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support,
Rock Mechanics. Vol.6, pp.183-236.
Barton, N. (1976). Recent Experiences with the Q-system of
Tunnel Support Design. Proc.
Symp. on Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg,
pp.lO7-l17.
Barton, N.R. (1976). The Shear Strength of Rock and Rock Joints.
Intnl. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 1-24.
Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1977) Estimating Support
Requirements for Underground Excavations, in Design methods in
th
Rock Mechanics. Proc. 16 US Sump. On Rock Mechanics,
Minneapolis, USA, pp.163-177.
Carter, T.G., (1992) A New Approach to Surface Crown Pillar
Design. Proc. 16th Can. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Sudbury,
pp. 75-83
Carter, T.G., (2000) An Update on the Scaled Span Concept for
Dimensioning Surface Crown Pillars for New or Abandoned Mine
Workings. Proc. 4th North American Rock Mechanics Conf.,
Seattle, pp.465-472
Castro, L.A.M.; McCreath, D.R. & Kaiser, P.K. (1995). Rock Mass
Strength Determination from Breakouts in Tunnels and Boreholes.
th
8 ISRM Congress, Tokyo: 531-536.
Dasgupta, B., R. Singh and V. M. Sharma. (1999) "Numerical
Modelling of Desilting Chambers for Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric
Project," in Proceedings of the 9th ISRM Congress on Rock
Mechanics. Paris, 1999, Vol. 1, pp. 359-360. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Duncan Fama, M. E. (1993) Numerical modeling of Yield Zones in
Weak Rocks. In Comprehensive Rock Engineering. (ed.
J.A.Hudson) Vol. 2 pp. 49-75, Pergamon, Oxford.
Eberhardt, E. (2001) Numerical Modelling of Three-Dimension
Stress Rotation ahead of an Advancing Tunnel Face. Int. J. Rock
mech. Min. Sci. Vol 38, pp499-518
Fasching A. and Bofer, M. (1997) A Tunnel Under the Andes.
Tunnels and Tunnelling International. April Edition pp.34-37
2005. Proc. Int. AFTES Congress, Tunnelling for a Sustainable Europe, Chambery, pp. 349-358
Grimstad, E and Barton, N. (1993) Updating the Q-System for
NMT. Proc. Int. Symp. On Sprayed Concrete, Fragernes.
Grimstad, E and Barton, N. (1995) Rock Mass Classification and
the Use of NMT in India. Proc. Int. Conf. On Design and
Construction of Underground Structures, New Delhi, India.
Hoek, E (1999) Putting numbers to geology—an engineer's
viewpoint. Q. Jnl Eng. Geol. & Hydrogeol. vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-
19(19)
Hoek, E., (2000) Big Tunnels in Bad Rock, The Terzaghi lecture –
presented at the ASCE Civil Engineering Conf., Seattle, Oct 18-21,
2000
Hoek E and Brown E.T. (1988) The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a
1988 update. Proc.15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. (ed. J.H.
Curran), Toronto: Civil EngineeringDept., University of Toronto, pp.
31-38.
Hoek E. and Brown E.T. 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock.
London: Institutionof Mining and Metallurgy
Hoek, E. and Marinos, P. (2000). Predicting Tunnel Squeezing.
Tunnels and Tunnelling International, Part 1 – November 2000,
Part 2 – December.
Kirsten, H.A.D., (1988) Discussion Contribution relating to the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Q System. In Rock Classification
Systems for Engineering Purposes. ASTM STP 984, ed. Kirkaldie,
L., Philadelphia, pp.86-88
Kumar, R and Dhawan, A. K., (1999). Geotechnical Investigations
of Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Electric Project Proc. Workshop on Rock
Mechanics & Tunnelling Techniques, Shimla
Kumar, N., Varughese, A., Kapoor, V.K., Dhawan A.K. (2004) In
Situ Stress Measurement and its Application for Hydro-Electric
Projects—An Indian Experience in The Himalayas , Paper 1b 02 —
Sinorock-2004 Symposium, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol. 41,
No. 3
Mahajan, S., (2000) Practical application of steel fibre reinforced
shotcrete in desilting chambers of Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric
Project Proc. Int.Conf. Tunnelling Asia ‘2000 544 pp
Singh, B., Jethwa, J.L., Dube, A.K and Singh, B (1992) Correlation
between Observed Support Pressure and Rock Mass Quality. J.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol 7, #1, pp 59-
74
Singh, B., Jethwa, L.L and Dube, A.K (1995) A Classification
System for Support Pressure in Tunnels and Caverns. J. Rock
Mech and Tunnelling Technology, Vol 1, #1, pp.13-24
Page 10 of 10