Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Discussion

Swelling rock behaviour in a tunnel: NATM-support vs. Q-support A comparison

Rudolf Schwingenschloegl *, Christoph Lehmann
Department of Structural Engineering and Natural Hazards, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Peter Jordan Strasse 70, 1190 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 10 October 2007
Received in revised form 12 August 2008
Accepted 22 August 2008
Available online 7 November 2008
Keywords:
Classication systems
Swelling rocks
Rock support
Tunnelling

a b s t r a c t
The Q-system is one of the most applied classication tool in modern tunnelling. After an exact evaluation of the parameters the rock support can be determined via the Q-support chart. In an already
nished tunnel, mainly driven through limestone, the Q-system was tested under difcult geological conditions (shalemarl). Scope of the appraisal was a comparison of the support suggested by the Q-support
chart with the real performed support after the NATM, regarding partly massive damages. This article is
a contribution referring to the last publication on the topic tness of various engineering design tools
from [Palmstrom, A., Stille, H., 2007. Ground behaviour and rock engineering tools for underground
excavations. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22, 363376].
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the Northern Calcareous Alps (Lower Austria, Wopng) a tunnel (length 700 m), housing a conveyer belt, was driven in the
years 20002001. By two shafts (depth 140 m) pre-broken limestone reaches the main crusher situated in a small cavern at the
south-east end of the tunnel. Through the tunnel the material is
transported to a loading station (see Fig. 1).
The described tunnel can be reached by an access tunnel of
140 m length. At its end (intersection = chainage 0.0 m) the inclining advance of the tunnel started 130 m in the southern direction
while 570 m were driven in declining advance (12%) reaching to
the breakthrough to an already existing tunnel (see Fig. 3). Both
were driven by conventional heading and full face excavation
(16 m2).
1.1. Project setting
The axis of the tunnel is crossing in a right angle a thrust zone of
two tectonic units. The northern fourth is located in the Oetscher
nappe. The southern three fourths are part of the Hohe Wand
nappe. Up to tunnel chainage 292 m the declining advance passes
through the well bedded Dachstein-limestone The 130 m long
inclining tunnel section (E) to the main crusher cavern cut across
the same rock mass (see Fig. 2).
From chainage 292 m to the end of the tunnel at chainage
570 m (=breakthrough to an already existing tunnel) the tunnel

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +43 1 47654 5400/5449.

E-mail address: rudolf.schwingenschloegl@boku.ac.at (R. Schwingenschloegl).
0886-7798/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2008.08.007

passes through limestone, marl, clayey marl and shale in various

thickness.
In the limestone sections A, B, C and E tripping water
was seldom observed. In the remaining range we could nd heavy
trickling water and bottom water in different discharge. Water
conductivity in the limestone appears only in the discontinuity
sets. In the ne coarse clastic sediments water inow is located
on shear zones, crushing zones and the loosening zone.
In the limestone section we can locate the greatest overburden
with a height of 150 m. The lowest overlapping of only 70 m is
situated at the thrust zone Hohe Wand nappe overriding the
Oetscher nappe.
The tunnel has an excavating span of 5.4 m and a height of
3.95 m in the axis. Both abutments have the shape of a basket arch
(see Fig. 4).
1.2. Choice of support according to apply New Austrian Tunnelling
Method (NATM)
Referring to the forecasted rock mass four support classes were
dened by the contractor. The actual support was then slightly
modied during excavation according to the geological face mapping as well as to the feedback of the miners: if necessary the roof
was supported by temporary rock bolts as well as by shotcrete
(thickness 5 cm). Due to the geological prognosis reinforced shotcrete, steel arches and if needed permanent anchors were planned
in the clayey-marly rock mass. The actual support is shown in
Table 1.
These specications were given in accordance with the NATM.
The basic principles of this method are summarized as (after Singh
and Goel, 1999):

R. Schwingenschloegl, C. Lehmann / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

357

2.1. Limestone sections A, B, C and E (see Fig. 3)

Rock mass characteristics in the excavated limestone heading
(exposition due to a representative working face at chainage
169 m) (see Fig. 5).
Rock

Bedding

Fig. 1. Location of the tunnel.

Spacing
Joint properties
Rock mass bonding
strength
Loosening of the
rock mass
Water inow
Karst phenomena

Well bedded Dachstein-limestone with

high intact rock strength, containing rock
fragments in greenish to reddish
Distinct, 310/75, with a thickness from 1 to
7 dm
10100 cm, persistence about 1 m
Rough, uneven
Excellent to good
Minor
Dry to low wet
Minor

2.2. Shalemarl section D (292542 m) (see Fig. 3)

Rock mass properties in the excavated shalemarl heading
(exposition due to a representative working face at chainage
388 m) (see Fig. 6).
Intact rock
Bedding
Spacing
Joint properties
Rock mass bonding
strength
Rock mass behaviour
Rock mass loosening
Water inow
Inuence of the
mountain water

Shale (80%) and limestone marl (20%), both

in swelling rock zone
None, tectonically alignment (about 190/
55)
110 cm
Uneven, smooth, matt to glossy, slaty rock
fragments
Fair
Friable
Fair
None to minor
Locally; planar failure of some marl rock
blocs

Fig. 2. Extract of the geological map Hohe Wand.

 Mobilisation rock mass strength.

 Shotcrete protection to preserve the load-carrying capacity
of the rock mass.
 Extensive monitoring the deformation of the excavated rock
mass.
 Providing exible but active supports.
 Closing the invert to form a load-bearing support ring to
control deformation of the rock mass.

3. Observed damages in the period from 2002 to 2006

In 2002 the section 0292 m (mainly limestone rock mass) is
distinguished of minor to sizeable caving from the tunnel walls.
At the shotcrete lining on both tunnel walls many ssures were
found, notably at the position of the steel arches, mostly within
chainage 292542 m.
3.1. Limestone sections A and B (0190 m)

The bottom of the tunnel was constructed as 15 cm thick reinforced concrete using a specially cement rm to sulphate. According to the rock mass the length of the advance steps were varied
from 1 m to 3 m.
2. Geology of the tunnel
Depending on temporal and economic reasons the geological
engineering investigation only enfolded where possible a surface exploration. The outcome of this exploration was the assumption that the tunnel will mainly pass through well bedded
limestone. Except for a thrust zone (shalemarl) uniform bedding
and uniform rock mass conditions were expected (see Fig. 3).

In this section some places at the tunnel walls have open joints.
This is the reason for the caving of rock bodies from centimetre to
decimetre size. In order to prevent drastic loosening and deformation in the tunnel walls as well as at the roof, sealing with shotcrete
or reinforced shotcrete would be appropriate.
3.2. Limestone section C (190292 m)
In this zone the bedding planes and joints are mostly lled with
silty-clayey material. As a consequence in further addition with
mountain water the friction decreases considerably, which causes
planar failures of rock bodies (size up to 30 cm).

358

R. Schwingenschloegl, C. Lehmann / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

Table 1
Comparison of the required support; geological facts adjusted by the NATM and the Q-system, after Palmstrom and Broch (2006)
Section

Typ of support

Actual support

Support required by the Q-system

After NATM

Q-system

Reinforcement
categories

Rock classes

No support required

A, very good

No support required

C (fair)

45 cm

Systematic bolting, spacing 1.4 m

59 cm

Systematic bolting, spacing 2.4 m

59 cm

Systematic bolting, spacing 2.4 m

D (poor)

E (very poor)

E (very poor)

(After Palmstrom and Broch (2006))

(A) 070 m, limestone

(B) 70190 m, 542570 m,

limestone

(C) 190292 m, limestone

(Within D) 370 390 m,

swelling rock zone

(D) 292 542 m, shale

and marl

Shotcrete
Reinforced Shotcrete
Steel arches
Anchors
Shotcrete
Reinforced shotcrete
Steel arches
Anchors
Shotcrete
Reinforced shotcrete
Steel arches
Anchors
Shotcrete
Reinforced shotcrete
Steel arches
Anchors
Shotcrete
Reinforced shotcrete
Steel arches
Anchors

Swellex, local
5 cm, local

Swellex, local
510 cm, head area
Local

Swellex, local

Walls: 10 cm, head area: max. 15 cm

Spacing 1.30 m

Walls: 10 cm, head area: max. 15 cm

Spacing 1.3 m
SN, local

3.3. Shalemarl section D (292542 m)

Because of a too quick, inappropriate removal of the temporary
bases of the steel arches, their settlements induced cracks which
could be observed over the whole section shortly after nishing
excavation works. This damages concern the shotcrete at and near
by the steel arches.
In this platy breaking zone of tectonically damaged shales,
slight inow of mountain water mainly from the tunnel oor
induces permanent water saturation in the clayey rock mass.
Starting by chainage 420 m calc-sinter scums show mountain
water percolation through the tunnel walls causing the moistening
of the shotcrete.
3.4. Swelling rock zone, chainage 370390 m
The rst indication for a bottom uplift, aking of the concrete
oor along the drainage gully at chainage 378 m, occurred two
years after nishing tunnel excavation.
At the edge of the drainage groove, which reduces the thickness
of the bottom concrete, the initial point of an array of cracks is
situated. At the beginning of the deformation measurements in
2003 the fracture width varied from 0.2 to 2 mm.
The oor heave are supposed to be caused by a low amount of
anhydrite (0.8 vol.%) and also by a minor deposit of smectite
(4 vol.%). For the chemical detection simultaneous thermal analysis
and X-ray diffraction were used.
Hydration of anhydrite leads to a volume increase up to 60%
(alteration pressure), while water absorption of smectite causes a
swelling pressure. Because of the mountain water inow and the
unmeant leakage under the tunnel oor the alteration of anhydrite
and the swelling of the clay minerals have been occurring
permanently.
Due to the distinct damages a restoration by using a oor
pressure arch (maximum depth 2 m) was suggested. The space
between the tunnel oor and the oor pressure arch should be
lled with compressible detrital material in addition. Fig. 7
shows the actual, temporary restoration realized in winter
2005.

4. Geotechnical measurements to describe the current state of

the tunnel section 370390 m (swelling rock zone)
Already one year after completion of the tunnel (in 2001)
noticeable damages (countless ssures in the shotcrete of both
walls) occur in a section of 20 m length from chainage 370 to
390 m. The thin-shaly aking of the concrete oor along the base
of the right tunnel wall was particularly demonstrative. To detect
the rock mass deformations, an extensive measurement was done
since June 2005 by monthly monitoring 42 measurement points on
the tunnel oor as well as convergences and roof settlements in
two proles. During the survey the above-mentioned damages
increased in number and shape.
The actual knowledge shows, that the concrete tunnel oor is
gaping upward several centimetres. Therefore there is no longer
force tting contact with the ground. The authors think that the
reason for this upward movement is a high horizontal buckling
load resulting from the rock mass behaviour.
This compression load is caused on the one hand by
alteration of clay minerals and anhydrite, on the other hand
by disintegration of the wall bases and stress rearrangement
(see Fig. 8).
The maximum of the elevation movement was xed at a
measurement point, which is correlating with the main crack
found in 2003. This elevation proceeds with 58.20 mm per year,
together with a yearly convergence rate of 10.82 mm (chainage
377 m) (see Fig. 9).
The geological strength index was used to carry out an assessment for the basic rock and rock mass parameters (see Marinos
et al., 2005) (see Fig. 10).

5. Analysis of the serviceability of the Q-system concerning the

choice of support by Austrian Standard ON B 2203 to satisfy the
NATM
After a geotechnical controlling in spring 2005 and 2006
in contrast to the prognosis in the year 2000 5 sections
(A, B, C, D and E) as well as a swelling rock zone

R. Schwingenschloegl, C. Lehmann / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

359

Fig. 3. (a) Longitudinal section and geological facts. (b) Detail of the stratication in the oor swelling area.

(see Fig. 3) of different rock mass behaviour could be conned.

For these selected scopes the RMR-value and Q-value as well
as the deformation modul (Ed) were calculated. The rock mass
parameters /, c, Erm and UCS were computed with Rock Lab
1.0.
Remarks to Table 2:
 The signicant difference of the Q-values between section A
and B, although the geological conditions are roughly the
same.

 The difference between the Q-values of section B and C can be

professed by the occurrence of silty-clayey joint lling as well
as a considerably plenty of mountain water.
 Although the Q-system provides a separate evaluation for swelling rocks the discrepancy between section D and the rock
swelling zone is not reected by the Q-values, because of compensation of several parameters.
A comparison of the actual support with the support determined by the Q-system is shown in Table 1.

360

R. Schwingenschloegl, C. Lehmann / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

Fig. 4. Cross section with the suggested bottom arch (Lehmann, 2007).

6. Discussion and conclusion

Fig. 5. Typical face of the tunnel at chainage 169 m (limestone section)

(Schwingenschloegl, 2001).

Due to signicant damages the following annotations relate to a

rock mass classication which was already done ve years after
the nishing of the tunnel.
On the one hand the limestone units appeared in a strong alternation of the rock mass behaviour, here the support xing due to
the Q-system was not as exible as the NATM (see Fig. 1). On the
other hand it was not possible to assume a geotechnical limitation
of the described rock swelling zone. This zone could not be
recognised by the documentation during the excavation, since
the tunnel consists of a shalemarl rock mass over the whole section D.
In the section C the Ja-value was dened by rare occurrence
of bedding planes lled with clay and silt. The predominant
intercept of the tunnel however is free from those ne-grained

Fig. 6. Typical face of the tunnel at chainage 388 m (shalemarl section) (Schwingenschloegl, 2001).

361

Shear stress (MPa)

R. Schwingenschloegl, C. Lehmann / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.25

Hoek-Brown
Mohr-Coulomb

0.25

0.75

1.25

1.75

2.25

Normal stress (MPa)

Fig. 10. Normal stressshear stress diagram, after Roc Lab 1.0 (Hoek, 2007).

Fig. 7. Cross section provisional restoration (Lehmann, 2007).

0.090
0.080
0.070

uplift in [m]

0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000

Distance between both walls in [mm]

Fig. 8. Time-uplift diagram, measurement point 5a, uplift rate: 4.85 mm per
month (exemplarily) (Lehmann, 2007).

4608
4606
4604
4602
4600
4598
4596
4594
4592
4590
05

05

.20

2
7.0

.20

5
8.0

5
6
6
5
6
7
7
7
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
9.2
3.2
0.2
2.2
7.2
1.2
4.2
8.2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
05
24
10
14
02
18
28
06

Fig. 9. Convergence measurement, timedistance diagram, convergence rate:

10.82 mm per year (exemplarily).

components. Furthermore the value band Ja = 8 to Ja = 20 (after

Palmstrom and Broch, 2006) is too large for a serious
determination.

During the geological documentation uniformly ns of gypsum were located. Mineral analyses conrm a minor content
of clay with a sizeable ability of swelling potential. Due to
the actual cognitions from the geological tunnel documentation regarding the swelling rock phenomenon we could not
see an inuence of squeezing rocks. After empirical
approaches (Singh et al., 1992 and Goel et al., 1995a,b) there
were no squeezing conditions. In this context it is noticeable
that SRF-values are existing for swelling as well as for squeezing conditions. Though in both cases the values are largely
the same. The high bandwidth of the Ja-value and the SRF-values (SFR = 5 to SFR = 20) do not lead to a distinct
determination!
In the section A (070 m) there is almost no difference between support after the Q-support chart reinforcement category
1, rock class A (Palmstrom and Broch, 2006) and support onto
NATM (see Table 1).
In the section B (70190 m, 542570 m) there are negligible
differences in the thickness of the shotcrete (roof area), reinforcement category 1, rock class C.
At C (190292 m) there are varieties in the arrangement of
the anchors, reinforcement category 4, rock class D.
In the swelling rock zone (370390 m) signicant discrepancies are recorded in the array of the steel arches and the anchor
support, reinforcement category 5, rock class E.
Also from chainage 292 to 542 m section D an obvious difference in the conguration of the steel arches and anchors was seen;
reinforcement category 5, rock class E.
From this follows that the support after NATM and the support
after the Q-system differ only a little in good rock mass. Swelling
rock mass conditions cause major differences in the choice of support between NATM and Q-system. In our opinion the NATM allows a more adaptable support in poor rock mass classes. Using
the NATM it is possible to give a quick and a certain reaction on
the several rock mass behaviour types at each advance step
(Austrian Standard, 2001).
According to our comparison we could see that the engineering
geological evaluation of swelling rock zones in tunnelling differs
only little using NATM or Q-system.
The same aspect can be nd in the current publication of Palmstrom and Stille (2007), Table 5. Regarding this rock mass behaviour they demonstrate that the tness of the Q-system and
NATM is equivalent.
However, there is a difference in the choice of the required support (see Table 1). Using the Q-system there are only two types of
support available.
This paper is an appropriate contribution to the permanent discussion about the applicability of NATM and Q-system (NMT, Barton and Grimstad, 1994, pp. 431432).

R. Schwingenschloegl, C. Lehmann / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 356362

209.03
1.28
0.11
0.01
23.92
0.14

Within
D

RQD limit value.

35
10a

16

15

2.5

2.5

2.5

1.5

3.66

0.27

E, very
poor, 5 (6)

20
E, very
poor, 5 (6)
0.27
3.66
1.5
5
1
1
2
15
16
35
10a

8667.89
12.18
4.11
0.24
44.85
0.90
55
D, poor, 4
1.53
3.66
1.5
1
0.66
13
1
3
33
100

7.45
3.66
1.5
1
1
8
2
3
39
100
89.43

90.22

15413.93
16.90
8.62
0.59
48.32
1.53
65

27410.27
24.56
17.91
1.45
50.52
3.01
75

A, very
good, 1
C, fair, 1
93.51
3.66
1.5
1
1
1
3
3
100

070 m,
limestone
70190 m, 542
570 m,
limestone
190292 m,
limestone
370390 m,
swelling rock
zone
292542 m,
shale and marl
A

93.51

57

Uniaxial
compressive
strength(MPa)
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
Friction
angle
(deg)
Cohesion
(MPa)

GSI
value
Jr

UCS
(MPa)rc

Austrian Standard, 2001. B 2203-1 Underground works Works contract Part 1:

Cycling driving, Vienna, p. 36.
Barton, N., Grimstad, E., 1994. The Q-system following twenty years of application
in NMT support selection. Felsbau 12 (6), 428436.
Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J.L., Paithankan, A.G., 1995a. Indian experiences with Q and
RMR systems. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 10 (1), 97
109.
Goel, R.K., Jethwa, J.L., Paithankan, A.G., 1995b. Tunnelling through the young
Himalayasa case history of the Maneri-Uttarkashi power tunnel. Engineering
Geology 39, 3144.
Hoek, E., 2007. Roc Lab 1.0. Free Download, Rocscience Inc., Toronto, Ontario.
Lehmann, Ch., 2007. Untersuchung der Gebirgsdeformationen, insbesondere der
Sohlhebungen im Stollen Duernbachtal, Unpublished Report, 32 gs., Vienna,
45p.
Marinos, V., Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2005. The geological strength index: applications
und limitations. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 64, 55
65.
Palmstrom, A., Broch, E., 2006. Use and misuse of rock mass classication with
particular reference to the Q-system. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 6 (21), 575593.
Palmstrom, A., Stille, H., 2007. Ground behaviour and rock engineering tools for
underground excavations. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22,
363376.
Schwingenschloegl, R., 2001. Baugeologische Dokumentation des Foerderstollens in
Wopng

Duernbachtal,
unpublished
report,
Tunnelband
und
Ortsbrustkartierungen, IAG BOKU, Vienna.
Singh, B., Goel, R.K., 1999. Rock Mass Classication (A Practical Approach in Civil
Engineering). Elsevier. p. 267.
Singh, B., Jethwa, J.L., Dube, A.K., Singh, B., 1992. Correlation between observed
support pressure and rock mass quality. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 7, 5974.

Positioning
description

RQD

Jn

References

Section

Table 2
Arrangement of geotechnical data

RMRRMR
basic

Q-system

Ja

Jw

SRF

ESR

De

Description

GSI

MohrCoulomb t

Rock mass parameters

Global
strength
(MPa)

Modulus of
deformation
(MPa)

362