IGC 2009, Guntur,

Interpretation INDIA
of Tunnel Instrumentation Data

INTERPRETATION OF TUNNEL INSTRUMENTATION DATA

Manoj Verman
Lead Geotechnical Engineer, Golder Associates, Gurgaon122 002, India. E-mail: mverman@golder.com

ABSTRACT: The paper highlights the importance of field instrumentation of underground structures and focuses on
interpretation of instrumentation data which is one of the key elements of the instrumentation process. The role of
instrumentation in support modification during tunnel construction and the importance of estimating tunnel convergence and
support pressure that occurred before installation of the instruments have been explained with the help of rock mass-tunnel
support interaction analysis. The usefulness of field instrumentation has been brought out with the help of case histories.

1. INTRODUCTION ahead of face. Increased and more sophisticated use of

Excavation of underground openings involves inherent
difficulties in defining the geologic structures and related
geotechnical properties. It is, therefore, necessary to evaluate
tunnelling conditions as they are encountered and adjust
tunnelling procedures accordingly. It is in this area of timely
identification and evaluation of unforeseen rock and soil
mass conditions that field instrumentation can help improve
both safety and economy of the underground structures during
construction and overall performance of the completed
structures. One of the key elements of the instrumentation
process is interpretation of the data available from the
instruments. The paper deals with some aspects of data
interpretation with a focus on easy to obtain parameters of
convergence and support pressure.
2. TYPICAL INSTRUMENTATION USES FOR
UNDERGROUND EXCAVATIONS
Instrumentation may be used for the following applications:
(a) Identification of rock and soil mass properties, such as,
strength, deformability, anisotropy etc.
(b) Observation of state of stress in rock mass
(c) Observation of response of rock mass to disturbances by
construction and operation of the structure
(d) Observation of adjacent structures or services either
affected or at risk due to tunnel construction
(e) Identification of hazards
(f) Working out remedial measures and verification of their
efficacy.
3. TUNNEL INSTRUMENTATION
In tunnelling, undetected or uncontrolled adjustments can
cause special problems. Due to space constraint, even minor
difficulties can result in major problems and hazards, causing
cost and time overruns. An additional factor is the widening
technological gap between state-of-art in tunnel excavation/
support and state-of-art in site characterization/prediction
instrumentation is one of the few means available for limiting
continued widening of this important technological gap.
Tunnel instrumentation can be used to obtain well distributed
and timely information on behaviour of rock mass, per-
formance of support system, suitability of specific transition,
intersections, portal areas, slopes and adjacent/overlying ground,
structures & services. Basic instrumentation, consisting of
instruments, such as, tape extensometer, borehole extensometers
and load cells, has proven economical and effective in achieving
the minimum but important objectives, namely, timely
identification and evaluation of instability, performance
monitoring of underground structure and providing basis for
design modification during construction.
4. SUPPORT MODIFICATION DURING
CONSTRUCTION BASED ON
INSTRUMENTATION DATA
Monitoring of rock mass behaviour by field instrumentation
is an important part of design and construction process of the
observational method of tunnel support design which is based
on build-as-you-go philosophy. The tunneling approach of
New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) relies heavily on
continuous field monitoring.
The observational method of tunnel support design, based on
field instrumentation, laid the foundation of what is called
the convergence-confinement method. This method is
based on the concept of rock mass-tunnel support interaction.
It involves study of the interaction between rock mass and
tunnel support using the ground reaction (response) and
support reaction curves (Fig. 1) which represent the load-
deflection behaviour of the rock mass and the support system
respectively. The point of intersection of these curves
represents the state of equilibrium, i.e., at this point the
support pressure required to limit further tunnel deformation
is balanced by the support pressure available from the
support system. The convergence-confinement method is
aimed at estimating the support pressure from the point of

996

intersection of the ground reaction curve and the support
reaction curve.
The application of the convergence-confinement method
depends on tunnel instrumentation to a great extent. The
predicted ground reaction and support reaction curves (using
approaches, such as those suggested by Verman et al. 1995a
and 1995b) are revised throughout the tunneling process on
the basis of actual measurements during construction, and the
amount of support is accordingly increased or decreased, so
as to achieve the desirable point of intersection or, in other
words, a safe and economical support system. The point of
intersection should neither be beyond the minimum value
(denoted by point D in Fig. 1) of the required support
pressure, nor be much ahead of this value. In the former case,
the support will be unsafe and in the latter, uneconomical. In
fact the curves may not intersect at all in the former case.
Fig. 1: Selection of Desirable Support from
Convergence-Confinement Method
5. TUNNEL INSTRUMENTATION
There are following four broad phases of instrumentation:
(a) Planning of instrumentation scheme
(b) Fabrication, calibration, testing and supply of instruments
(c) Installation of instruments
(d) Collection and Interpretation of data.
All these phases affect the performance of instrumentation
and it is important to be careful at all these stages for achieving
meaningful results from an instrumentation scheme. The
focus in this paper is on interpretation of data.
6. INTERPRETATION OF INSTRUMENTATION
DATA
Data interpretation is ideally carried out more or less
simultaneously with data collection. But, more often than
not, we have a situation where un-analysed data are put away
in files with intention of making the analysis later. These un-
analysed data can conceal the beginnings of dangerous
997
Interpretation of Tunnel Instrumentation Data
behaviour which may eventually become apparent from
visual inspection.
6.1 Influence of Data Collection on Data Interpretation
Quality of data available for interpretation is adversely affected
by carelessness at data collection stage. Data collection must
be made by a trained person with proper Read-out unit in
specified way at regular intervals. Importance of raw data
must be realized. Observed data must be recorded with utmost
care along with details of nearby construction activities, if any.
6.2 Data InterpretationA Few Tips
Anybody who is engaged in interpretation of instrumentation
data would do well to remember the following:
Good or bad, data always speak. One has to read between
the lines
Bad data may tell whether:
Instrument is behaving erratically, or
Data is/are manipulated, or
Data has/have been incorrectly recorded unintentionally
Good data may be used to serve the desired purpose of
instrumentation
All this requires a careful and intelligent analysis of data
Insist on raw data
Cross-check the unexpected data with data from nearby
instruments before rejecting it as incorrectly recorded.
Be doubly sure. Keep sufficient degree of redundancy of
instruments for this purpose
Analyse the data with clear purpose in mind. In any
case, first of all look for signs of instability.
6.3 Determination of Unrecorded Instrumentation Data
6.3.1 Unrecorded Data
It is often not possible to commence the closure or load cell
observations immediately after the excavation or, in other
words, right at the face. This is due to the time consumed for
installation of closure bolts and the fact that the protruding
part (for attaching the tape-extensometer) of the closure bolt
is often found bent or broken when installed close to the face
as a result of the fly rock hitting the closure bolts during
blasting. Same is the case with load cells which not only take
time for installation (the load cells are installed in the support
systemlike steel ribs or rock boltswhich is normally not
installed immediately after the excavation because of
practical difficulties), but, like the closure bolts, are also
exposed to flying rock pieces during blasting when installed
close the face.. Thus, valuable information regarding the
initial tunnel closure and support pressure immediately after
blasting is almost always lost. To overcome this problem, a
graphical method was adopted by Verman (1993) to
determine the unrecorded data.
Interpretation of Tunnel Instrumentation Data
6.3.2 Estimation of Unrecorded Data
The unrecorded data may be estimated by extrapolating the
trend line, as shown in Figure 2. This may be further
explained with an example of the Maneri Bhali Stage-II
tunnel. Figure 3 shows a plot of the radial tunnel closure with
respect to time at Ch. 1568.75 m. The first observation was
taken 12 days after the date of excavation. The missing data
of the first 12 days were obtained by first plotting the data on
a log-log scale and then by extrapolating the initially straight
line portion of the curve (Fig. 4). Extrapolation of the straight
line portion to 12 days (i.e., 12 days before the date of first
observation) on log-log scale, and conversion of the extrapolated
value to ordinary scale gives the value of the radial tunnel
closure on the date of excavation as 0.16 cm. This implies
that an additional value of 0.16 cm has to be added to the
radial tunnel closure values to account for the missing data.
The revised time versus radial closure curve is shown in
Figure 5.
Fig. 2: Extrapolation of Recorded Data to Obtain
Unrecorded Data
Fig. 3: Radial Tunnel Closure Plotted with Time from Date
of First Observation onwards at Ch. 1568.75 m in Maneri
Bhali Stage-II Tunnel
6.3.3 Significance of Determining Unrecorded Data
In the example of Maneri-Bhali Stage-II tunnel (Figs. 3 to 5),
the unrecorded trunnel closure was found to be 25% of the
maximum tunnel closure and occurred within 3.25% time
taken for the maximum tunnel closure to take place (Fig. 5).
Similar trends have been noticed in the instrumentation data
from several tunnels. The high ratio of the unrecorded data as
a percentage of the maximum data value occurring within a
short time after excavation, underlines the importance of
998
estimating these missing data, without which the tunnel
closures and support pressures are likely to be substantially
underestimated.
Another important aspect of the unrecorded data is their
influence on the observed support reaction curve and,
therefore, on the point of intersection of the ground reaction
and the support reaction curves.
Fig. 4: Radial Tunnel Closure Plotted with Time on log-log
Scale at Ch. 1568.75 m in Maneri Bhali Stage-II Tunnel
Fig. 5: Radial Tunnel Closure Extrapolated to Date of
Excavation at Ch. 1568.75 m in Maneri Bhali Stage-II
Tunnel
This is shown in Figure 6. It is often seen that the dates of
excavation, support installation, and first observation are
different. The correct coordinates of the point of intersection
C, as is clear from Figure 6, are XDOE and XDOSI, where
XDOE is the final closure extrapolated to the date of excavation,
and XDOSI is the final support pressure extrapolated to the
date of support installation. This is because while the ground
reaction curve starts at point A immediately after excavation
(or even before excavation; according to Daemen 1975, some
tunnel closure takes place ahead of the face), the support
reaction curves comes into picture only after the supports are
installed (denoted by point B). It would, therefore, be
incorrect to extrapolate both the support pressure and the
tunnel closure to the date of excavation to obtain the
observed support reaction curve. Similarly, extrapolation of
both the support pressure and the tunnel closure to the date of
 Interpretation of Tunnel Instrumentation Data

support installation would be incorrect. The support reaction
curve obtained by using the unextrapolated or, only the
recorded data is also incorrect in the same way.
time in Figure 7. Although the observation started 303 days after
excavation of full cavern width at this section, the roof
convergence was still showing a continuously rising trend,
pointing towards instability. The rock bolts installed 77 days
after the date of first observation were clearly inadequate and
the rising trend continued till a chunk of bolted rock mass
collapsed and the roof convergence stabilised. Thus,
instrumentation provided enough warning about inadequate
support and a timely action could have prevented the collapse.

Fig. 6: Influence of Unrecoreded Data on Support

Reaction Curve (SRC) and its Point of Intersection
with Ground Reaction Curve
Fig. 7: Trend of Roof Convergence in Power House Cavern
of Koyna Project, Stage-IV
7. CASE HISTORIES
The author and his former colleagues at Central Mining 7.2 Collapse Averted due to Instrumentation
Research Institute (CMRI, now known as CIMFR) and at
Advanced Technology & Engineering Services (ATES) have In a similar situation at Sardar Sarovar Project, the warning
been involved in instrumentation of several tunnels and sounded by instrumentation was heeded in time and collapse
caverns and have reported significant findings, especially in prevented. Here, the presence of an agglomerate band above
tunnels in Himalayas (Goel 2001; Jethwa et al. 1977; Jethwa the roof of the power house cavern had raised doubts about
et al. 1980; Verman 1993; Verman et al. 1997a; Verman the roof stability due to the apprehension about opening up of
et al. 1997b; Dube 1979; Dasgupta et al. 1999; Viladkar et al. the joints between the agglomerate band and surrounding
2008) where the recorded tunnel closures and support basalt as a result of the cavern excavation (Verman et al.
pressures are generally larger than those in more competent 1991). To keep a watch on the behaviour of agglomerate
rock masses in the Indian peninsula. To highlight the usefulness band, a borehole extensometer was installed from the top and
of instrumentation even with low values of these parameters, going through the band and terminating close to the cavern
some results are presented here briefly from the instrumentation roof (Fig. 8). Even after a period of more than 3 years, the
of the caverns of Koyna Hydropower Project, Stage-IV
(Maharashtra) and Sardar Sarovar Project (Gujarat).
The power house and transformer hall caverns of Koyna
Hydropower Project, Stage-IV were instrumented with several
borehole extensometers and rock bolt load cells (Verman &
Jethwa 1996). Detailed analysis of the data obtained from
each instrument was carried out. This involved the analysis
of a large data base generated over a period of more than 5
years. This led to not only the routine findings, so essential
for the design-as-you-go philosophy, but also threw up some
significant results of special interest.

7.1 Warning about Impending Rock Fall

One of these results of special interest was the warning given
by the instrumentation data about impending rock fall in
transformer hall area. Data obtained from a multi-point borehole Fig. 8: Stabilising Effect of Longer Rock Bolts in Power
extensometer installed in the roof at Ch. 62.5 m are plotted with House Cavern of Sardar Sarovar Project

999
Interpretation of Tunnel Instrumentation Data
roof convergence was showing a rising trend (Fig. 8),
although at a low rate of only 0.024 mm per month. While
the rate of increase of convergence was low, the trend was
ominous and one (or both) of the joints of agglomerate band
was slowly but surely opening up. This led to the decision of
installing longer rock bolts in order to stitch the joints and it
resulted in stabilising the rising trend (Fig. 8).
8. CONCLUSIONS
Instrumentation of und`rground openings during construction
is vital to evaluate tunnelling conditions to adjust tunnelling
procedures and support requirements accordingly. Correct
interpretation of instrumentation data is crucial for the
success of any instrumentation project. Properly interpreted
data can yield valuable information about tunneling hazards
and inadequacy or otherwise of the support system, thus
leading to a safe and economical construction.
REFERENCES
Daemen, J.J.K. (1975). Tunnel Support Loading Caused by
Rock Failure, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, U.S.A.
Dasgupta, B., Sharma, M.K.V., Verman, M. and Sharma, V.M.
(1999). Design of Underground Caverns for Tehri
Hydropower Project, India by Numerical Modelling, 9th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Paris.
Dube, A.K. (1979). Geomechanical Evaluation of Tunnel
Stability under Failing Rock Conditions in a Himalayan
Tunnel, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Roorkee, India.
Goel, R.K. (2001). Status of Tunnelling and Underground
Construction Activities and Technologies in India,
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16, pp.
6375.
Jethwa, J.L., Singh, Bhawani, Singh, B. and Mithal, R.S.
(1977). Rock Pressure on Tunnel Lining in Swelling and
Viscous Rocks, Intern. Symp. Soil-Structure Interaction,
Univ. of Roorkee, India, Jan. 1977, pp. 4550, (Pub) M/s.
Sarita Prakashan, Meerut, India.
1000
Jethwa, J.L., Singh, B., Singh, Bhawani and Mithal, R.S.
(1980). Influence of Geology on Tunneling Conditions
and Deformational Behaviour of Supports in Faulted
ZonesA Case History of Chibro-Khodri Tunnel in
India, Engineering Geology, 16 (3 & 4), pp. 291319.
Verman, M., Jethwa, J. and Singh, B. (1991). Monitoring of
a Large Underground Power House Cavity, 7th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Aachen,
Germany.
Verman, M.K. (1993). Rock Mass-Tunnel Support
Interaction Analysis, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Roorkee India, p. 267.
Verman M., Singh, B., Jethwa, J. and Viladkar, M. (1995a).
Determination of Support Reaction Curve for Steel-
Supported Tunnes, International Journal for Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, Vol.10, No. 2, pp.
217224.
Verman, M., Viladkar, M., Singh, B. and Jethwa, J. (1995b).
A Semi-Empirical Method for Design of Support
Systems in Underground Openings, International
Journal for Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 375383.
Verman, M. and Jethwa, J. (1996). Instrumentation of
Caverns of Koyna Hydro-electric Project, Stage-IV,
Indian Geotechnical Conference. Madras, India.
Verman, M., Singh, B., Viladkar, M. and Jethwa, J. (1997).
Estimation of Mobilised Cohesion around Underground
Openings, International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 851858.
Verman M., B. Singh, M. Viladkar and J. Jethwa. (1997b)
Effect of Tunnel Depth on Modulus of Deformation of
Rock Mass, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, 3, Vol. 30, pp.121127.
Viladkar, M.N., Verman, M., Singh, B. and Jethwa,
J.L.(2008) Rock Mass Tunnel Support Interaction
AnalysisPartII: Support Reaction Curves, Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Tunneling Technology.