Innovations in Applied and Theoretical Rock Mechanics Editors – Hassani, Hadjigeorgiou, Archibald

©2015 by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum and ISRM, ISBN 978-1-926872-25-4
13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS

M. Romana
Valencia Polytechnic University
Camino de Vera s/n Valencia Spain
(Corresponding author: mromana@stmr. es)

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
1
 13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS

ABSTRACT

RMR geomechanics classification is being used all over the World as a useful tool for tunnel pre-
design and construction. Bieniawski (1989) provided guidelines for tunnel excavation and support,
according RMR numerical values; guidelines which are now included in almost all tunnelling books,
regulations, and Internet portals. But in the last 25 years tunnelling techniques have changed and some of
the guidelines have become obsolete.. The conditions of tunnels for the 1989 guidelines application were:
horseshoe shape; 10 m width; vertical stress < 25MPa; construction by drilling and blasting. Actually a
substantial number of tunnels are mechanically excavated. The tunnel themselves are now bigger: a span of
14 m. is very common for transportation tunnels. The guidelines included the following concepts:
excavation method, rock bolts (20 mm diameter, fully grouted), shotcrete, steel sets. There is an increasing
gap between the 1989 guidelines and the practice: in many tunnels different to-the-case excavation and
support requirements are established. Bieniawski himself has published a paper (Lowson & Bieniawski,
2013) with different guidelines based in Lowson’s practice, with no explanations and/or justification.

In this paper a new set of RMR tunnelling guidelines is proposed taking account of the actual
industry conditions, and increased safety regulations. The 5 classes’ limit RMR:values (80,60,40,20) are no
more useful actually: Values of RMR (70, 50, 30) are used in practice to define quite different tunnelling
techniques. Consequently a 10 subclasses system is proposed. Each subclass covers a span of 10 RMR
points. As the number of mechanically excavated tunnels has increased a new correction factor is necessary,
according the excavation method.

The proposed 2014 RMR guidelines are for tunnels 10 to 14 meters wide, the world practice for
new roads/railways tunnels. Many tunnels for water/ services are smaller with smaller support needs.
Wider than 16 m caverns are out of the RMR system.

It is not possible, nor desirable, to propose only a value for support in each subclass. The new
guidelines propose an interval of values for certain types of support. More pessimistic values must be
chosen for wider tunnels, tunnels with lower RMR values in each class and cases when a higher safety
factor is asked for. More optimist ones are chosen for narrower tunnels, and higher RMR values. Some
alternatives are almost complementary, others are contradictory. Sometimes several different techniques
are proposed Guidelines are not automatic options. Good engineering judgment must be used when
choosing between the different alternatives. Guidelines are not mandatory suggestions.

KEYWORDS

Geomchanics classification, Slope stability, Landslide correction measures

INTRODUCTION

Use of geomechanics classification are now a almost universal practice in tunnelling works. Best
known ones are RMR system by Bieniawski and Q system by Barton. Both “rock quality numbers”: RMR
and Q are related (Barton & Bieniawski, 2008)

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
2
13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

Bieniawski (1989) published his last version of “(RMR) Geomechanics Classification guidelines
for the selection…(of) not the primary support (but) permanent support” The conditions of tunnels for
these guidelines application were: horsehoe shape; 10 m width; vertical stress < 25MPa; construction by
drilling and blasting. The guidelines included the following concepts: excavation method, rock bolts (20
mm diameter, fully grouted), shotcrete, steel sets. These 1989 guidelines are included in almost every book
and/or academic web dealing with RMR classification (to mention only one: Chapter 6 of the USA FHA
tunneling recommendations, 2009).

These guidelines are 25 years old and in these 25 years many changes have happened in tunnel
construction methods: most of road/highway tunnels are wider than 10 m; many tunnels are actually
excavated mechanically (TBM, roadheaders, rock cutting); bolting has diversified (most frequent ones are
25 mm diameter, standardized construction methods do not allow changes of bolt types, except in spacing);
shotcrete application has been robotized and have increased strength; fibercrete is frequently used in many
countries instead of shotcrete with wire mesh.. Besides tunnel safety requirements have been increased
everywhere. The concept of “low cost tunnels” is no more asked for, even in Norway (were it originated)

. The 1989 guidelines have been changed recently by Bieniawki himself in a 2013 RETC paper
(Lowson & Bieniawski, 2013) with too many practical rules and no explanations, perhaps a sequel to
Lowson’s practice in tunnel design. In tunnel construction RMR concept remain in use, all over the world,
as a tool for terrain conditions description but many different “to the case” guidelines are in use by
different professional people in different countries (see for example the recent Smig-Amitos, 2013
Tunnelling Symposium in México D.F.).

. In this paper a new set of guidelines is proposed taking account of actual tunnel construction
practice. These guidelines, previously published only in Spanish (Romana 2001), have been used for
design in many tunnels.

Bieniawski 1989 tunnel excavation and support guidelines

Table 1. Guidelines for excavation and support of rock tunnels (Bieniawski, 1989)

DIVISION OF BIENIAWSKI’S CLASSIFICATION INTO SUBCLASSES

In all successive versions Bieniawski defined RMR in terms of five classes (I, II, III, IV and V),
ranging from “very good” to “very poor”. Each class covers a twenty-point range.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
3
 13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

In practice, these classes are scarcely comparable. Class I (Very good) is rarely found because
almost massive, high quality rocks are not frequent. Class III (Average or Fair) is generally the more
common one but covers a too broad range: support needs in a tunnel with RMR = 40 vary substantially
from the needs in a tunnel with RMR = 60; the former are likely to have steel sets whereas the latter are
seldom built with them. And the shotcrete thicknesses and round lengths also will differ. Class IV (Poor) is
also too broad: a RMR = 20 tunnel would be probably mechanically excavated to cope with the precarious
terrain conditions, whilst a tunnel with RMR = 40 can be blasted; his support needs are substantial but
allow for work cycles with systematic and acceptable advance rates.

In practice we could simplify using only three characteristic RMR values (70, 50, and 30) as limits
of terrains with quite different tunnelling conditions:
1) 70-100. Very good. Almost no support;
2) 50-70. Fair. Steel sets are not needed;
3) 30-50. Poor. Substantial support;
4) 10-30 Very poor. Very heavy support or TBM

These characteristic RMR values do not coincide with the limits for the Bieniawski classes. To get
a more precise definition of excavation and support needs it is convenient to divide the 5 Bieniawski
classes into 10 subclasses, with an interval of 10 points each one, like in classifications RMR derived :
MRMR mining, (Laubscher, 1977); SMR slopes, (Romana, 1985, 1985). Table 2 shows correspondence
between 5 classes and 10 subclasses system.

Table 2. Division into subclasses of Bieniawski classification (Romana, 2000)

RMR Modified Original Bieniawski
Subclass denomination Denomination Class
100-90 Ia excellent
very good I
90-80 Ib very good
70-80 IIa good to very good
good II
60-70 IIb good to fair
50-60 IIIa fair to good
40-50 IIIb fair to poor fair III
30-40 IVa poor to fair
poor IV
20-30 IVb poor to very poor
10-20 Va very poor
0-10 Vb extremely poor very poor V
Note: Classes Ia (Excellent) and Vb (Extremely poor) are rarely, if ever, found.

EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT GUIDELINES

New guidelines for tunnel excavation and support are given in Tables 3 and 4. The following
general observations should be considered when using them:

- They are intended for tunnels and underground excavations from 10 to 14 m wide, the actual standard
width for transportation tunnels. Hydraulic tunnels are often narrower (or bigger) and hence have less
(or more) demanding support requirements, For caverns wider than 15 meters, which pose specific
problems, the optimal excavation and support methods are not necessarily as proposed in these
guidelines.
- In many countries face-support methods are implemented in weak terrains (e.g. Lunardi, 2008). The
state of stresses at the face is changed. These guidelines are not applicable in this case.
- In many countries tectonic stresses are generally lower than in Scandinavia and most transportation
tunnels cut through mountains near the summit, at depths of less than 250 m. Under such
circumstances weight-induced vertical stress prevails. These guidelines are not intended to cope with
tunnels under high tectonic stresses

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
4
13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

- Generally speaking, it is neither possible nor desirable to recommend a single support value for each
subclass, which is the reason why ranges of values are given in the proposed guidelines. The most
pessimistic value should be chosen for larger widths, the lowest RMR values and/or when working
conditions call for greater safety during construction. The most optimistic values, on the contrary, are
acceptable for narrower tunnels and/or the highest RMR values in the subclass.
- Some alternatives are complementary; others are contradictory (e.g. use of wire mesh vs. steel fibers in
shotcrete). Guidelines are not automatic options: good engineering judgment must be used when
choosing between the different alternatives. Guidelines are not mandatory rules but suggestions.
- Most of these tunnels (with widths ≥10 m) are blast-excavated, but tunnel boring machines (TBMs)
and/or “shields” are increasingly used. Bieniawski original guidelines did not consider mechanical
excavation. In this case a correction factor is necessary (Bieniawski, 1998) A second adjustment factor,
∆RMR, may be considered in addition to RMR to take account of the excavation method:
o TBM ∆RMR = 10
o Mechanical excavation ∆RMR = 5
o Careful blasting ∆RMR = 0
o Deficient blasting ∆RMR = -5/-10

Excavation

Table 3. Excavation guidelines for 10-14-m wide tunnels (Romana, 2000)

The new guidelines have been adapted to the actual tunnel excavation practice:
Full face (RMR > 60), Possible: RMR > 50. Recommended: RMR > 60
Top heading and bench (RMR > 30), Possible (with invert): 20 < RMR < 30.
Advance gallery (10<RMR<40).
Multiple drifts (RMR<30)
Invert (10<RMR<30)

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
5
 13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

Many excavation methods are possible depending on many factors, other than geotechnical ones.
The guidelines for choosing are between them are:
Open TBM (60>RMR). Open TBM (50 < RMR < 60) in short lengths of tunnels.
Blasting (RMR>40).
Road headers (30 < RMR < 90).
Ripping (RMR < 20).
Shield (RMR < 20).
Pressurized machines EPB, shields: these guidelines not applicable

At the current state of tunneling mechanization, advance round length bigger than 5 m (which are
possible at RMR > 60) are usually impractical. Round length in fair to poor quality rock varies from 4 m
(RMR = 60) to 1 m (20 < RMR < 30). Very weak rock (20 > RMR) calls for small rounds even of under 1
m (except when there are pre-support systems).

Support

The more standard bolt material is steel bar Φ=25 mm, adherence is achieved with resin or cement
mortar. Expansion bolts are becoming more popular, with some doubts on their durability. For temporary
support fiberglass or expansion rockbolts are good choices. In the guidelines bolt spacing refers to a only
indicative square grid. But during tunnel excavation this grid must be adapted in each case to proposed
bolting density and actual round length (maintaining the bolt support “capacity”). It is more practical to
refer to “bolt density” (number of bolts per square meter of tunnel surface: b/m2)

When the provisional support is to be demolished (as in pilot galleries) fiberglass or expansion
rockbolts are good choices, since both can be easily sheared

Forepoling may be helpful when RMR < 30 and is very convenient at the beginning of portal
excavation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
6
13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

Table 4. Support guidelines for tunnels 10-14 m wide (Romana, 2000)

The most common shotcrete design thicknesses are specified in the table 4. The “number of
layers” includes the initial sealing one, not necessary in very good rock. No layer should be thicker than 10
cm. Steel fibers are used at least as often as wire-mesh to reinforce the shotcrete. The guidelines
recommend reinforcement with steel fibers for fair to good quality rock and with welded wire-mesh for
weak to very weak rock.

When shotcrete is not necessary (very good quality rock), some welded wire mesh may be
advisable as protection against loose rocks, a common practice in TBM excavated tunnels.

Steel sets are frequently used when RMR < 50 (in many cases when RMR < 45). Type and the
distance between sets must be “harmonized” with local practice and rules, if any. Most usual distance
between sets is 1/1,5 meters. Smaller distances could be used when RMR < 20

TH sets are standard ones for the “Sequential Method” (formerly NATM) In the guidelines,
“flexible” sets are proposed: TH-21, light size; TH-29 medium to heavy size. “Rigid” medium to heavy
steel HEB sets are necessary where the terrain is weak and, as a rule, near the portals, for the sake of tunnel
stability.

Bernold System (or similar ones with full primary support less than 1 m from tunnel face) is also
included in the guidelines

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
7
 13th International Congress of Rock Mechanics ISRM13
10-13 May 2015, Montreal, Canada

FINAL REMARK

These guidelines have been in practice many years in the author tunnelling professional work. Besides they
have been published in Spanish and used by a number of Spanish tunnel engineers. The author address is
[email protected] .He would be grateful for any comment which confirm, or deny, them.

REFERENCES

Barton, N. & Bieniawki, Z.T. (2008). RMR and Q – Setting records straight. Tunnels and Tunnelling 2: 25-
28.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989). Engineering rock mass classifications. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1997). Quo vadis Rock Mass Classifications? Felsbau 15(3): 177-178.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2009). Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road
Tunnels – Civil Elements (FHWA-NHI-10-034). Washington DC

Laubscher, D.H. (1977). "Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses - mining applications".
Transactions of the Institution of Min. and Met., Section A, Mining industry (London) 86: 1–8.

Lowson, A.R. & Bieniawski, Z.T. (2013) "Critical Assessment of RMR based Tunnel Design Practices: a
Practical Engineer’s Approach” RETC. Washington, DC

Lunardi, P. (2008). Design and Construction of Tunnels. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Romana M. (1985). New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes. Proc. Int.
Symp. on the Role of Rock Mechanics: 49-53.

Romana, M. (2001). Recomendaciones de excavación y sostenimiento para túneles. Revista de Obras

Públicas 148 (3408): 19-28. (in Spanish)

Smig & Amitos Ed. (2013). 3er Simposio internacional sobre túneles y lumbreras en suelos y rocas.
México D. F. (in Spanish)

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014 RMR NEW GUIDELINES FOR TUNNELS
M. Romana
8