Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194 – 208

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Empirical and numerical analyses of support requirements for a

diversion tunnel at the Boztepe dam site, eastern Turkey
Zulfu Gurocak a,⁎, Pranshoo Solanki b , Musharraf M. Zaman c
a
Department of Geology, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Turkey
b
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-1024, USA
c
Research and Graduate Education, College of Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-1024, USA
Received 29 September 2006; received in revised form 10 January 2007; accepted 25 January 2007
Available online 3 February 2007

Abstract

This paper presents the engineering geological properties and support design of a planned diversion tunnel at the Boztepe dam
site that contains units of basalt and tuffites. Empirical, theoretical and numerical approaches were used and compared in this study
focusing on tunnel design safety. Rock masses at the site were characterized using three empirical methods, namely rock mass
rating (RMR), rock mass quality (Q) and geological strength index (GSI). The RMR, Q and GSI ratings were determined by using
field data and the mechanical properties of intact rock samples were evaluated in the laboratory. Support requirements were
proposed accordingly in terms of different rock mass classification systems. The convergence–confinement method was used as the
theoretical approach. Support systems were also analyzed using a commercial software based on the finite element method (FEM).
The parameters calculated by empirical methods were used as input parameters for the FEM analysis. The results from the two
methods were compared with each other. This comparison suggests that a more reliable and safe design could be achieved by using
a combination of empirical, analytical and numerical approaches.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Convergence–confinement method; Finite element method; Geological strength index; Hoek–Brown failure criterion; Rock mass
quality; Rock mass rating

1. Introduction designing tunnel supports, the RMR and Q rock mass

The design of an underground structure involves the
use of both empirical and numerical approaches.
Empirical methods are generally preferred by engineers
and engineering geologists due to practicality. In
⁎ Corresponding author. School of Civil Engineering and Environ-
mental Science, University of Oklahoma, 202 West Boyd Street, Room
334, Norman, OK 73019-1024, USA. Tel.: +1 405 301 4341; fax: +1
405 325 4217.
E-mail addresses: zgurocak@ou.edu, zgurocak@gmail.com
(Z. Gurocak).
0013-7952/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.010
classification systems have been employed by many
researchers and have gained a universal acceptance
(Barton, 2002; Ramamurthy, 2004; Hoek and Dieder-
ichs, 2006). These rock mass classification systems were
originally obtained from many tunneling case studies.
However, these empirical methods do not provide the
stress distributions and deformations around the tunnel.
Therefore, particular attention should be given to these
factors when using empirical methods. Specifically,
when conducting an analysis, the determination of the
values of stress distributions and deformations for the
rock mass in question, is very sensitive to the field
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208
Fig. 1. The location map of study area.
observations. Likewise, analytical and numerical
approaches are dependent upon the strength parameters
of associated rock masses that are used as input
Fig. 2. Geological map and cross-section of Boztepe dam site.
195
parameters when using an analytical and numerical
approach. Therefore, the stability analysis of a tunnel is
likely to suggest a safer design if a combination of
empirical, theoretical, and numerical approaches is used.
The field site used in this study is located 10 km
northwest of Yazihan, in the north of the city of Malatya,
in eastern Turkey (Fig. 1). The Boztepe dam which is
under construction on the Yagca stream is located at this
site. The dam project is designed to regulate water
drainage and irrigate the agricultural areas of the
Yazihan plain. The design of the Boztepe dam project
is under the supervision of General Directorate of State
Hydraulic Works (DSI, 1997), of Ministry of Energy
and Natural Resources in Turkey. The diversion tunnel
of the Boztepe dam has a length of 565 m, having
circular geometry with 5 m in diameter. It cuts across
basalts and tuffites. The tunnel will have a maximum
overburden of about 38 m for basalts and about 27 m for
196 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208

bedded, with bed thicknesses ranging from 300 to 600 mm

in the lower levels and 50 to 200 mm in the upper levels.
Joints within the tuffite are commonly altered and filled
with clay or calcite having 20 to 30 mm thickness.
The basalts overlying the tuffites are dark grey in
color. In the lower levels, they are mainly pillar lavas
while near the top they commonly occur as columnar
structures (Gurocak, 1999). Vesicles are rare and the
basalts are generally well-jointed. The agglomerate
member overlying the basalts is generally dark in color
and massive in structure. The individual boulders are
weakly rounded, having a maximum size of 0.7 m. This
unit also contains interlayer of tuff and basalt flows.
Overlying the agglomerate are mainly Quaternary
deposits, namely talus and alluvial materials.
During the field surveys, engineering geological map
of the Boztepe dam site and the geological cross section
along the diversion tunnel was constructed. The field
studies also included the orientation, persistence,
spacing, opening, roughness, the degree of weathering
and filling of discontinuities in the basalts and tuffites.

Fig. 3. The histograms for RQD of basalts (A) and tuffites (B). Table 1
Engineering properties of joints and bedding surfaces and their
percentage distribution
tuffites. The dam site is located within the Yamadag Properties Spacing Description Percentage
Volcanics, which is composed of basalt, tuffite and Basalt Tuffite
agglomerate. Geological mapping and geotechnical Spacing (mm) a
b20 Extremely close 5 2
descriptions were conducted in the field. spacing
The physical, mechanical and elastic properties of the 20–60 Very close spacing 33 16
rocks under consideration were determined from labo- 60–200 Close spacing 42 69
200–600 Moderate spacing 20 10
ratory testing on intact rock samples. These tests include
600–2000 Wide spacing – 3
an evaluation of uniaxial compressive strength (σc), Persistence (m)a b1 Very low persistence 33 8
Young's modulus (E), Poisson's ratio (ν), unit weight 1–3 Low persistence 56 9
(γ), internal friction angle (ϕ), and cohesion (c). The 3–10 Medium persistence 11 34
rock mass properties of the dam site were determined by 10–20 High persistence – 31
N20 Very high persistence – 14
using different rock mass classification systems.
Aperture (mm)a b0.1 Very tight 8 12
0.1–0.25 Tight 14 –
2. Geology, field and laboratory studies 0.25–0.50 Partly open 10 2
0.50–2.50 Open 16 20
The Boztepe dam site consists of various age units 2.5–10 Moderately wide 48 51
N10 Wide 4 15
ranging from the Upper Miocene to the Quaternary.
Roughnessa IV Rough undulating 11 5
Middle–Upper Miocene volcano-sedimentary rocks that V Smooth undulating 3 7
are known as Yamadag Volcanics, are exposed in the VI Slickensided 10 –
region. These rocks are a part of the extensive Miocene undulating
volcanism in the Eastern Anatolian Region. The Yamadag VII Rough planar 61 88
VIII Smooth planar 6 –
volcanites are represented in the study area by four
IX Slickensided planar 9 –
different rock units extending upwards from a sandstone– Weathering (Wc) b ≤1.2 Fresh/Unweathered 22 –
claystone through tuffite, basalt and agglomerate mem- 1.2–2 Moderately weathered 67 2
bers. As seen in Fig. 2, at the dam site, the main valley is in N2.0 Weathered 11 98
tuffite with basalt forming the plateau to the east. The a
According to ISRM (1981).
b
tuffites are dirty white or light grey colored and well- According to Singh and Gahrooee (1989).
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208 197

Fig. 4. Stereographic projection of bedding surface (A) and joint sets (B) in tuffites and joint sets (C) in basalts.

In addition, an examination was made of 1195 m of the hammer and the weathering index was calculated from the
core, from 20 boreholes drilled by the General Directorate equation proposed by Singh and Gahrooee (1989):
of State Hydraulic Works (DSI, 1997). The RQD values rc
of the basalts and tuffites were determined. The Wc ¼ ; ð1Þ
JCS
histograms shown in Fig. 3 were prepared using the
RQD divisions proposed by Deere (1964). From this where
figure, the rock quantities of the basalts have the following
distribution: 6% excellent, 14% good, 32% fair, 23% σc Uniaxial compressive strength of fresh rock
poor, and 25% very poor. Similarly, the tuffites have the (MPa), and
following distribution of rock quality: 4% excellent, 11% JCS Strength of discontinuity surface (MPa).
good, 28% fair, 21% poor, and 36% very poor.
As the study area is located in a seismically active JCS was calculated from the following equation:
region, the basalts exposed around the Boztepe dam site
contain systematic joint sets. However, tuffites are LogJCS ¼ 0:00088gR þ 1:01; ð2Þ
sedimentary rocks and contain bedding surfaces. Table 1
shows the main orientation, spacing, persistence, aperture where
and roughness of discontinuities. These were described
using the scan-line survey method following the ISRM γ Bulk volume weight (kN/m3), and
(1981) description criteria. The degree of weathering of R Hardness value from rebounding of Schmidt
the discontinuous surfaces was assessed using the Schmidt hammer.
198 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208

Table 2 methods (ISRM, 1981). Pertinent results are summa-

Laboratory tests results of basalts and tuffites rized in Table 2. The average uniaxial compressive
Properties Min Max Mean Std. err. strength of basalts is 40.64 MPa, Young's modulus is
Basalt 30.91 GPa, Poisson's ratio is 0.27, unit weight is
Uniaxial compressive strength (σc, MPa) 8.72 76.46 40.64 19.67 25.55 kN/m3, cohesion is 12 MPa and friction angle is
Young's modulus (E, GPa) 1.6 96.7 30.91 47.17 42°. The average uniaxial compressive strength of
Poisson's ratio (ν) 0.241 0.286 0.27 0.02316
tuffites is 8.21 MPa, Young's modulus is 2.23 GPa,
Unit weight (γ, kN/m3) 23.10 28.10 25.55 1.48
Cohesion (c, MPa) 12 a Poisson's ratio is 0.20, unit weight is 16.50 kN/m3,
Internal friction angle (ϕ, deg) 42a cohesion is 1.80 MPa and friction angle is 33°.

Tuffite 3. Rock mass classification systems

Uniaxial compressive strength (σc, MPa) 1.97 21.20 8.21 5.72
Young's modulus (E, GPa) 0.6 10.5 2.23 2.615
Poisson's ratio (ν) 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.02517 Rock mass classification systems are important for
Unit weight (γ, kN/m3) 12.00 22.10 16.50 0.04 quantitative descriptions of the rock mass quality. This
Cohesion (c, MPa) 1.80a in turn led to the development of many empirical design
Internal friction angle (ϕ, deg) 33a systems involving rock masses. Many researchers
Std. err.: standard error. developed rock mass classification systems. Some of
a
Values obtained by using triaxial test. the most widely used rock mass classification systems
include RMR and Q. These two classification systems
In the study area, a total of 388 bedding surfaces and are utilized in this research.
520 joint measurements were taken from tuffites and
basalts. Discontinuity orientations were processed 3.1. RMR system
utilizing a commercially available software DIPS 3.01
(Diederichs and Hoek, 1989), based on equal-area Bieniawski (1974) initially developed the rock mass
stereographic projection, and major joint sets were rating (RMR) system based on experience in tunnel
distinguished for basalts and tuffites (Fig. 4). projects in South Africa. Since then, this classification
The following major orientations of the bedding system has undergone significant changes. These
surface for tuffites were observed: changes are mostly due to the ratings added for ground

Bedding surface: 14/100 Table 3

RMR89 rating for basalts and tuffites
Joint set 1: 80/220
Joint set 2: 87/259 Classification Basalt Tuffite
parameters
Joint set 3: 77/305 Value of Rating Value of Rating
parameters parameters
The major orientations of the joint sets for basalts are Uniaxial 40.64 5 8.21 2
listed below: compressive
strength (MPa)
RQD (%) 62 12 25 6
Joint set 1: 78/192 Discontinuity 160 7.3 90 6
Joint set 2: 71/3 spacing (cm)
Joint set 3: 67/287 Discontinuity
Joint set 4: 72/99 condition
Persistence (m) 1–3 4 3–10 2
Aperture (mm) 2.50–3.00 1 2.5–10 0
According to ISRM (1981), the joint sets in the Roughness Rough-planar 5 Rough-planar 5
basalts have close to very close spacing, low persis- Filling Calcite b 5 mm 4 calcite N 5 mm 2
tence, moderate width, rough-planar and moderately Weathering Moderately 3 Highly 1
weathered character. The discontinuities in tuffites Groundwater Dry 15 Dry 15
have close spacing, medium to high persistence, condition
Basic RMR value 56.3 39
moderate width, and rough-planar and weathered Rating adjustment Very 0/−5 Fair −5
character. for joint favorable/Fair
Uniaxial compressive strength, deformability, unit orientation
weight and triaxial compressive strength tests were RMR 56.3/51.3 34
conducted in accordance with the ISRM suggested Rock mass quality Fair rock Poor rock
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208 199

Table 4
Q rating for basalts and tuffites
Classification parameters Basalt Tuffite
Value of parameters Rating Value of parameters Rating
RQD (%) 62% 62 25% 25
Joint set number (Jn) Four joint sets plus random joints 15 Three joint sets and a bedding surface plus random joints 12
Joint alteration number (Jr) Rough planar 1.5 Rough-planar 1.5
Joint alteration number ( ja) Moderately altered 6 Highly altered 8
Joint water reduction factor ( jw) Dry excavation or minor inflow 1 Dry excavation or minor inflow 1
Stress reduction factor (SRF) Medium stress 1 Low stress, near surface 2.5
Q 1.03 0.156
Rock mass quality Poor rock Very poor rock

water, joint condition and joint spacing. In order to use
this system, the uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock, RQD, joint spacing, joint condition, joint
orientation and ground water conditions have to be
known. In this study, the RMR classification system
(Bieniawski, 1989) is used and the results are summa-
rized in Table 3. This rating classifies basalt as a fair
rock mass, while tuffite as a poor rock mass.z
3.2. Q system
and very poor rock mass, respectively (Table 4). The Qc
values for basalt and tuffite are 0.42 and 0.013, respectively.
4. Estimation of rock mass properties
The rock mass properties such as Hoek–Brown
constants, deformation modulus (Emass) and uniaxial
compressive strength of rock mass (σcmass) were
calculated by means of empirical equations in accor-
dance with the RMR89, Q, Qc and GSI.

Barton et al. (1974) developed the Q rock mass 4.1. Geological strength index (GSI) and Hoek–Brown
classification system. This system is also known as the parameters
NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) rock mass
classification system. It is defined in terms of RQD, the The geological strength index (GSI) was developed by
function of joint sets (Jn), discontinuity roughness (Jr), Hoek et al. (1995). The GSI is based on the appearance of
joint alteration (Ja), water pressure (Jw) and stress a rock mass and its structure. Marinos and Hoek (2001)
reduction factor (SRF). Barton (2002) compiled the used additional geological properties in the Hoek–Brown
system again and made some changes on the support failure criterion and introduced a new GSI chart for
recommendations. He also included the strength factor heterogeneous weak rock masses. The value of GSI was
of the rock material in the system. obtained from the last form of the quantitative GSI chart,
which was proposed by Marinos and Hoek (2000).
RQD Jr Jw The Hoek and Brown (1997) failure criterion was used
Q¼ : ð3Þ
Jn Ja SRF for determining the rock mass properties of basalt at the
dam site. Hoek et al. (2002) suggested the following equa-
Recently, Barton (2002) defined a new parameter, Qc, tions for calculating rock mass constants (i.e., mb, s and a):
to improve correlation among the engineering parameters:

GSI−100
rc mb ¼ mi exp ; ð5Þ
Qc ¼ Q ; ð4Þ 28−14D
100


where σc is uniaxial comprehensive strength of intact rock. GSI−100
According to the Q classification system, basalt and s ¼ exp ; ð6Þ
9−3D
tuffite at the dam site can be considered as poor rock mass
Table 5 1 1 
GSI and calculated Hoek–Brown parameters values a ¼ þ e−GSI=15 −e−20=3 ; ð7Þ
2 6
Unit GSI mi constant mb constant s constant a constant
Basalt 48 25 3.903 0.0031 0.507 where D is a factor that depends upon the degree of
Tuffite 32 13 1.146 0.0005 0.520
disturbance to which the rock mass is subjected to by blast
200 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208

damage and stress relaxation tests. In this study, the value of Table 6
D is considered zero. The calculated GSI is and the Hoek– Selected equations for estimating deformation modulus of rock mass
Emass
Brown constants are listed in Table 5.
Author Equations Equation
number
4.2. Strength and deformation modulus of rock masses
Bieniawski For RMR N 50, (9)
(1978)
Several empirical equations have been suggested by Emass ¼ 2RMR−100
different researchers for estimating the strength and
modulus of rock masses based on the RMR, Q and GSI
Serafim and For RMR b 50, (10)
values. In this study, the strength of rock masses was Pereira
calculated from the following equation suggested by (1983) Emass ¼ 10
RMR−10
40

Hoek et al. (2002):

Hoek and rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (11)
ðmb þ 4s−aðmb −8sÞÞðmb =4 þ sÞa−1 rci GSI−10
rcmass ¼ rci ; ð8Þ Brown Emass ¼ 10 40
100
2ð1 þ aÞð2 þ aÞ (1997)


where σci is uniaxial compressive strength of the intact Read et al. RMR 3 (12)
(1999) Emass ¼ 0:1
rock, mb, s and a are rock mass constants. The strength 10
of rock masses for basalt and tuffite were determined as
10.6 and 1.08 MPa, respectively. Ramamurthy Emass ¼ Ei exp½ðRMR−100Þ=17:4 (13)
The deformation modulus of rock masses was (2001)
calculated suggested by different researchers based on
Ramamurthy Emass ¼ Ei expð0:8625 logQ−2:875Þ (14)
RMR, Q and GSI values. In this study, the equations in (2001)
Table 6 were used for determining deformation modulus
of rock masses. The calculated values of rock mass Barton (2002) Emass ¼ 10Qc1=3 (15)
deformation modulus are summarized in Table 7.
Hoek et al.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (16)
D rci GSI−10
5. Tunnel stability and support analysis (2002) Emass ¼ 1− 10 40
2 100

A reliable stability analysis and prediction of the

support capacity are some of the most difficult tasks in Ramamurthy Emass ¼ Ei exp−0:0035½5ð100−RMRÞ (17)
(2004)
rock engineering. Therefore, in the current study several
methods are used to conduct stability analysis and deter- Ramamurthy Emass ¼ Ei exp−0:0035½250ð1−0:3logQÞ (18)
mine the support capacity. For the tunnel support design (2004)
of the diversion tunnel at the Boztepe dam site, empirical,

Hoek and 1 (19)
theoretical and numerical approaches were employed. Diederichs Emass ¼ Ei 0:02 þ
1þ eð60þ15D−GSIÞ=11
The vertical stress was assumed to increase linearly (2006)
with depth due to its overburden weight, as follows: RMR = rock mass rating.
Q = rock mass quality.
rv ¼ gH; ð20Þ Qc = rock mass quality rating or normalized Q.
GSI = geological strength index.
where γ is unit weight of the intact rock in MN/m , and 3
σci = uniaxial comprehensive strength of intact rock.
H is the depth of overburden in m. Ei = Young's modulus.
The horizontal stress was determined from the D = disturbance factor.
following equation suggested by Sheorey et al. (2001):
m bEmass G The far-field stress σ0 was calculated using the
rh ¼ rv þ ðH þ 100Þ; ð21Þ
1−m 1−m following equation:

where β = 8 × 10− 6/°C (coefficient of linear thermal rv þ rh1 þ rh2

expansion), G = 0.024 °C/m (geothermal gradient), ν is r0 ¼ ; ð22Þ
3
the Poisson's ratio, Emass is deformation modulus of
rock mass, MPa. where σhl and σh2 are horizontal stresses.
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208 201

Table 7
Calculated values of deformation modulus of rock masses Emass
Modulus of rock mass (Emass, GPa)
Eq. (9) Eq. (10) Eq. (11) Eq. (12) Eq. (13) Eq. (14) Eq. (15) Eq. (16) Eq. (17) Eq. (18) Eq. (19) Avrg St. dev.
Basalt 7.6 – 5.68 15.57 2.16 1.77 7.49 5.68 13.77 12.92 6.91 7.96 4.72
Tuffite – 3.98 1.02 3.93 0.05 0.06 2.35 1.02 0.70 0.75 0.17 1.40 1.51
Avrg: average. St. dev.: standard deviation. Eq.: equation.

The 5-m-diameter tunnel was excavated at a Proof (kN/m2), was calculated by using the following
maximum depth of 38 m in basalt and 27 m in tuffite equation:
below the ground surface. The far-field stresses for
basalt and tuffite were determined as 0.53 MPa and 200 1=3
Proof ¼ Q : ð24Þ
0.22 MPa, respectively. Jr

5.1. Empirical approach The support pressure was calculated as 0.135 MPa
according to the Barton et al. (1974) approach and
Bieniawski (1974) used RMR, width of opening W 0.059 MPa according to the Bieniawski (1974) approach
(m), and unit weight of overburden γ (kN/m3) to for the basalts. However, for tuffite the corresponding
determine the support pressure. From the formula values were found to be 0.072 MPa and 0.055 MPa,
below, the support pressure Proof, is found in kN/m2: respectively. As one can see that from these results, the

 support pressure obtained from the Q criterion is greater
100−RMR than obtained by the RMR criterion and is considered
Proof ¼ W g: ð23Þ
100 more realistic.
The tunnel supports were defined in accordance with
Another approach was proposed by Barton et al. the recommendations of the RMR and Q systems.
(1974) that depends on rock mass quality, Q, and Bieniawski (1989) suggested supports for different rock
discontinuity roughness, Jr . The roof support pressure, mass classes in the RMR89 system. As noted earlier,
according to the RMR89 system on the one hand, basalts
and tuffites are fair and poor rock masses, respectively.
Table 8 Correspondingly according to the Q system on the other
Estimated support categories of basalts and tuffites hand, basalts and tuffites are poor and very poor rock
Unit Basalt Tuffite masses, respectively. A summary of the estimated supports
using the RMR89 and Q systems are presented in Table 8.
RMR RMR 56.3/51.3 34
classification Fair rock Poor rock
system Support Systematic bolts Systematic bolts 5.2. Theoretical approach
4 m long, spaced 4–5 m long,
1.5–2 m in crown spaced 1–1.5 m In this study, a theoretical approach, called the
and walls with in crown and walls
convergence–confinement technique, was used for
wire mesh in crown. with wire mesh.
50–100 mm in crown 100–150 mm in stability analysis. This methodology has been described
and 30 mm in sides. crown and 100 mm by Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (1999) for rock masses
in sides. that satisfy the Hoek–Brown criterion. A cylindrical
Q classification Q 1.03 0.156 tunnel of radius R, subjected to a uniform far-field stress
system Poor rock Very poor rock
ESR 1.6 1.6
De 3.125 3.125 Table 9
Support Systematic bolting, 4 m long bolting, Far-field stress, shear modulus of rock mass, actual critical internal
4 m long, spaced spaced 1.3–1.5 m pressure, radius of plastic zone, maximum deformation and strain
1.7 m with 40–50 mm and 90–120 mm values obtained from the convergence–confinement method
unreinforced shotcrete fibre reinforced Unit σ0 Gmass Pi Pi cr Rpl uel
r upl
r Strain
shotcrete (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (m) (mm) (mm) (%)
Excavation span; diameter or height ðmÞ Basalt 0.53 3.13 0.000049 0.000 0.00 0.211 0.000 0.0084
De ¼
Excavation support ratio ðESRÞ Tuffite 0.22 0.58 0.00191 0.0143 3.47 0.000 0.441 0.0176
202 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208

Table 10 The scaled critical internal pressure is evaluated from

Material properties of basalts and tuffites for numerical model the following equation:
1  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2
Property Basalt Tuffite
⁎
Value Pi ¼ 1− 1 þ 16S0 ; ð26Þ
16
Material type Isotropic Isotropic
Young's modulus (GPa) 7.96 1.40 in which S0 is the scaled far-field stress given by:
Poisson's ratio 0.27 0.20
Compressive strength (MPa) 10.61 1.08 r0 s
S0 ¼ þ ; ð27Þ
m parameter 3.903 1.146 mb rci m2b
s parameter 0.0031 0.0005
Material type Plastic Plastic where σ0 is far-field stress, and Pi is the scaled internal
Dilation parameter 0° 0°
pressure defined by:
m residual 1.9515 0.573
s residual 0.00155 0.00025 pi s
Pi ¼ þ ; ð28Þ
mb rci m2b

σ0, and internal pressure Pi was considered. The rock where pi is uniform internal pressure.
mass, in which the tunnel is excavated, is assumed to If the internal pressure Pi is greater than the actual
satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. critical internal pressure Picr, no failure will occur, and
The actual critical internal pressure Picr is defined as the behavior of the surrounding rock mass is elastic, and
(Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst, 2000): the inward elastic displacement urel of the tunnel wall is
given by:


⁎ s r0 −Pi
Picr ¼ Pi − 2 mb rci ; ð25Þ uelr ¼ R; ð29Þ
mb 2Gmass
where where σ0 is far-field stress, Pi is scaled internal pressure,
R is the tunnel radius and Gmass is the shear modulus of
s and mb Hoek–Brown constants, the rock mass.
σci uniaxial compressive strength, and If the internal pressure Pi, on the other hand, is less
Pi⁎ scaled critical internal pressure. than the actual critical internal pressure Picr, failure is

Table 11
Stresses and displacements before and after support for basalts and tuffites
Location Parameter Basalt Tuffite
Before support After support Before support After support
Right wall σ1 (MPa) 0.964 0.920 0.072 0.315
σ3 (MPa) 0.052 0.136 9.80e − 003 0.129
x-displacement (m) 0.205 1.79e − 004 1.20e − 003 2.22e − 004
y-displacement (m) 1.32e − 003 2.37e − 007 1.76e − 005 1.09e − 006
Total displacement (m) 0.205e − 004 1.79e − 004 1.20e − 003 2.22e − 004
Roof σ1 (MPa) 0.953 0.939 0.080 0.313
σ3 (MPa) 0.057 0.128 0.011 0.131
x-displacement (m) 1.60e − 006 1.84e − 007 1.07e − 005 2.20e − 004
y-displacement (m) 0.204e − 004 1.80e − 004 1.18e − 003 1.03e − 006
Total displacement (m) 0.204e − 004 1.80e − 004 1.18e − 003 4.37e − 004
Left Wall σ1 (MPa) 0.960 0.938 0.068 0.310
σ3 (MPa) 0.054 0.127 8.74e − 003 0.131
x-displacement (m) 0.204e − 004 1.79e − 004 1.20e − 003 2.20e − 004
y-displacement (m) 6.35e − 007 3.91e − 007 4.64e − 006 1.03e − 006
Total displacement (m) 0.204e − 004 1.79e − 004 1.20e − 003 2.20e − 004
Floor σ1 (MPa) 0.964 0.943 0.083 0.313
σ3 (MPa) 0.082 0.130 0.011 0.130
x-displacement (m) 1.06e − 006 1.74e − 007 8.03e − 006 9.32e − 007
y-displacement (m) 0.204e − 004 1.81e − 004 1.19e − 003 2.21e − 004
Total displacement (m) 0.204e − 004 1.81e − 004 1.19e − 003 2.21e − 004
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208 203

Fig. 5. Stresses around tunnel before and after support for basalts.

expected to occur. Then the radius of the broken zone Torres and Fairhurst (2000) suggested the following
Rpl is defined by: equation for calculating rock mass shear modulus:
pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
Rpl ¼ R exp2 Picr − Pi : ð30Þ Emass
Gmass ¼ ; ð32Þ
2ð1 þ mÞ
Hoek and Brown (1997) suggested the following
equation to evaluate the total plastic deformation urpl where Emass is the deformation modulus of the rock
for rock masses: mass.
qffiffiffiffiffiffi Internal pressure Pi was assumed to be zero in this
2 3
⁎
2 study for unsupported tunnel cases in basalt and tuffite.
upl P
r 2G mass
¼ 4 1−2m i
þ 15 Rpl þ  1−2m  The calculated parameters of σ0, Gmass, Pi, Picr, Rpl, urel,
R r0 −Picr 2 S0 −P⁎ R 4 S0 −Pi
⁎
i urpl and strain for basalt and tuffite are summarized in
qffiffiffiffiffiffi Table 9.


2 ⁎


Rpl 1−2m Pi Rpl The actual critical internal pressure (Picr = 0.0 MPa) is
 ln − 2 ln þ 1
R 2 S0 −P⁎ R less than the internal pressure (Pi = 0.000049 MPa) for
i
ð31Þ basalt. In this case, basalts will behave elastically and
failure will not occur. The inward elastic displacement
where R is the tunnel radius, ν is the Poisson's ratio, and of tunnel walls and strain were calculated as 0.211 mm
Gmass is the shear modulus of rock mass. Carranza- and 0.0084%, respectively. For tuffites, the actual
204 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208

Fig. 6. Stresses around tunnel before and after support for tuffites.

internal pressure (Picr = 0.0143 MPa) is higher than the
internal pressure (Pi = 0.00191 MPa). Tuffites will
behave plastically and failure is expected to occur. The
radius of plastic zone and the strain for tuffite were
calculated as 3.47 m and 0.0176%, respectively.
Hoek and Marinos (2000) suggested that for
formations with strain values less than one, few
stability problems are expected. Simple tunnel support
design methods are suggested to be used for such
cases.
5.3. Numerical approach
In order to verify the results of the empirical
analyses, a two-dimensional hybrid element model,
called Phase2 Finite Element Program (Rocscience,
1999), was used in the numerical analysis conducted
here in. The rock mass properties assumed in this anal-
ysis were obtained from the estimated values presented
in Section 4. The Hoek–Brown failure criterion was
used to identify elements undergoing yielding and the
plastic zones of rock masses in the vicinity of tunnel
perimeter. Plastic post-failure strength parameters were
used in this analysis and residual parameters were
assumed as half of the peak strength parameters.
The far-field stresses for basalt and tuffite were used
as 0.53 MPa and 0.22 MPa, respectively, as determined
in Section 5.2. To simulate the excavation of the
diversion tunnel in basalt and tuffite, two different finite
element models were generated using the same mesh
and tunnel geometry, but different material properties.
The outer model boundary was set at a distance of 6
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208 205

Fig. 7. The displacement behavior and extent of plastic zone before and after support for basalts.

times the tunnel radius. A total of 3048 three-nodded-
triangular elements were used in the finite element
mesh. The following sections were used:
Section I tunnel running through basalt
Section II tunnel running through tuffite
The required parameters and their numerical values
for basalts and tuffites are given in Table 10. For
unsupported and supported cases, total displacements
and stresses at the walls, roof and floor of the tunnel for
the two different rock types are presented in Table 11 and
Figs. 5 and 6. The total displacement behavior and extent
of plastic zone before and after support for basalt and
tuffite are given in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
It can be seen from Figs. 7 and 8 that the extent of
failure zone for basalts is less than the corresponding zone
for tuffites. The maximum total displacement values for
206 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208

Fig. 8. The displacement behavior and extent of plastic zone before and after support for tuffites.

unsupported tunnel in basalts and tuffites are 2.05e − 004
and 1.20e − 003 m, respectively. The displacement values
for basalt and tuffites are very small. However, the extent
of plastic zone and elements undergoing yielding suggest
that there would be stability problems for the tunnel
driven in basalts and tuffites. In basalts, only some yielded
elements were observed and the thickness of plastic zone
was limited, as shown in Fig. 7.
The support elements used consist of rock bolts and
shotcrete, as proposed by the empirical methods. The
properties of support elements, such as length, bolt
patterns and thickness of shotcrete are similar to those
proposed by the empirical methods. For tunnel in
basalts, 4-m-long rock bolts with 2-m spacing and 100-
mm-thick shotcrete are proposed. For tuffites, 5-m-long
rock bolts with 1-m spacing and 150-mm-thick shotcrete
 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208
Table 12
Radius of plastic zone and maximum total displacements obtained from Phase2
Unit Radius of plastic zone, Rpl (m)
Unsupported
Basalt 2.68
Tuffite 4.21
are proposed as support elements. After considering
support measures in the numerical model, not only the
number of yielded elements but also the extent of plastic
zone decreased substantially, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
The maximum total displacement values for basalt and
tuffites decreased to 1.79e − 004 and 2.20e − 004 mm,
respectively, as shown in Table 11. For basalts and
tuffites, the radius of plastic zone and the maximum total
displacements obtained from Phase2 FEM analysis for
unsupported and supported cases are presented in
Table 12.
6. Conclusions
In this study, empirical methods were used to
estimate the rock mass quality and support elements
for basalts and tuffites in the diversion tunnel at the
Boztepe dam site. Based on the information collected in
the field and laboratory, the RMR and Q classification
systems were used to characterize the rock masses.
These classification systems were also employed to
estimate the support requirements for the diversion
tunnel. The Hoek–Brown parameters and support
measure recommendations from the empirical results
were used as input in the numerical analyses.
According to the results obtained from the empirical,
theoretical and numerical analysis, there were some
stability problems for basalts. The empirical methods
recommend the utilization of rock bolts and shotcrete as
support elements for basalts. The results of theoretical
and numerical method show that basalts are expected to
have some deformations. Numerical modeling was used
to evaluate the performance of the recommended
support system. However, the results from the finite
element methods are similar to the results from the
empirical methods. When the recommended support
systems were considered, the displacements were
reduced significantly in the numerical analysis.
The empirical approach indicated that substantial
support was necessary for tuffites, and both theoretical
and numerical approaches agreed concerning the
important stability problems. However, after consider-
ing the support elements, the numerical analysis showed
that there was a considerable decrease in both the
207
Maximum total displacement (m)
Supported Unsupported Supported
2.50 2.05e − 004 1.79e − 004
2.50 1.20e − 003 2.20e − 004
number of yielded elements and the size of plastic zone
around the tunnel.
The results obtained from the empirical, theoretical
and numerical approaches were fairly comparable.
However, the validity of the proposed support systems
should be checked by comparing the results obtained by
a combination of empirical, theoretical and numerical
methods with the measurements that will be carried out
during construction.
References
Barton, N., 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39
(1), 185–216.
Barton, N.R., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 4,
189–239.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1974. Geomechanics classification of rock masses
and its application in tunneling. Proceedings of the Third
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 11A. International
Society of Rock Mechanics, Denver, pp. 27–32.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1978. Determining rock mass deformability:
experience from case histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 15, 237–247.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications.
Wiley, New York. 251 pp.
Carranza-Torres, C., Fairhurst, C., 1999. The elasto-plastic response of
underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–
Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36 (6), 777–809.
Carranza-Torres, C., Fairhurst, C., 2000. Application of the conver-
gence–confinement method of tunnel design to rock masses that
satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 15 (2), 187–213.
Deere, D.U., 1964. Technical description of rock cores for engineering
purposes. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1, 17–22.
Diederichs, M.S., Hoek, E., 1989. DIPS 3.01, Advanced Version
Computer Programme, Rock Engineering Group. Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.
General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), 1997. Planning
Report of the Boztepe Dam (Malatya), IX. Region Directorate of
the State Hydraulic Works. Elazig, Turkey.
Gurocak, Z., 1999. The investigation of the geomechanical properties
and alteration degrees of the rock units at the Boztepe (Malatya/
Turkey) dam site. Ph.D. Thesis. Firat University. Faculty of
Engineering, 106 p. (in Turkish).
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 27 (3), 227–229.
Hoek, E., Diederichs, M.S., 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43, 203–215.
208 Z. Gurocak et al. / Engineering Geology 91 (2007) 194–208
Hoek, E., Marinos, P., 2000. Predicting Tunnel Squeezing. Tunnels
and Tunneling International. Part 1 – November 2000, Part 2 –
December 2000.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Corkum, B., 2002. Hoek–Brown
failure criterion – 2002 edition. In: Hammah, R., Bawden, W.,
Curran, J., Telesnicki, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of NARMSTAC
2002, Mining Innovation and Technology. Toronto – 10 July 2002.
University of Toronto, pp. 267–273.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995. Support of Underground
Excavations in Hard Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam. 215 pp.
International Soil and Rock Mechanics ISRM, 1981. In: Brown, E.T.
(Ed.), Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring, ISRM
Suggested Methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 211.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock
mass strength estimation. Proceedings of the GeoEng2000 at the
international conference on geotechnical and geological engineer-
ing, Melbourne. Technomic publishers, Lancaster, pp. 1422–1446.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2001. Estimating the geotechnical properties of
heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull. Eng. Geol.
Environ. 60, 85–92.
Ramamurthy, T., 2001. Shear strength response of some geological
materials in triaxial compression. Int. J Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38,
683–697.
Ramamurthy, T., 2004. A geo-engineering classification for rocks and
rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41, 89–101.
Read, S.A.L., Richards, L.R., Perrin, N.D., 1999. Applicability of the
Hoek–Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke rocks.
Proceedings 9th Int. Society for Rock Mechanics Congress, Paris,
vol. 2, pp. 655–660.
Rocscience, 1999. A 2D finite element program for calculating stresses
and estimating support around the underground excavations.
Geomechanics Software and Research. Rocscience Inc., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Serafim, J.L., Pereira, J.P., 1983. Considerations of the geomechanics
classification of Bieniawski. Proceedings International Sympo-
sium Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, vol. 1.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1133–1142.
Sheorey, P.R., Murali, M.G., Sinha, A., 2001. Influence of elastic
constants on the horizontal in situ stress. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 38 (1), 1211–1216.
Singh, B., Gahrooee, D.R., 1989. Application of rock mass weakening
coefficient for stability assessment of slopes in heavily jointed rock
masses. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 3, 217–219.