Tunnel behaviour and support associated with the weak rock masses of f l ysch

V.Marinos

Laboratory of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,School of Geology,Faculty of Sciences,Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,Thessaloniki 54124,Greece

Tunnel behaviour and support associated with the weak rock masses of f l ysch

V.Marinos*

Laboratory of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,School of Geology,Faculty of Sciences,Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,Thessaloniki 54124,Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 2 April 2014

Received in revised form

21 April 2014

Accepted 4 May 2014

Available online 14 May 2014

Flysch

Geological strength index(GSI)

Weak rock

Tunnel behaviour

Temporary support

Flysch formations are generally characterised by evident heterogeneity in the presence of low strength and tectonically disturbed structures.The complexity of these geological materials demands a more specialized geoengineering characterisation.In this regard,the paper tries to discuss the standardization of the engineering geological characteristics,the assessment of the behaviour in underground excavations,and the instructions-guidelines for the primary support measures for f l ysch layer qualitatively. In order to investigate the properties of f l ysch rock mass,12 tunnels of Egnatia Highway,constructed in Northern Greece,were examined considering the data obtained from the design and construction records.Flysch formations are classi f i ed thereafter in 11 rock mass types(I-XI),according to the siltstone -sandstone proportion and their tectonic disturbance.A special geological strength index(GSI)chart for heterogeneous rock masses is used and a range of geotechnical parameters for every f l ysch type is presented.Standardization tunnel behaviour for every rock mass type of f l ysch is also presented,based on its site-speci f i c geotechnical characteristics such as structure,intact rock strength,persistence and complexity of discontinuities.Flysch,depending on its types,can be stable even under noticeable overburden depth,and exhibit wedge sliding and wider chimney type failures or cause serious deformation even under thin cover.Squeezing can be observed under high overburden depth.The magnitude of squeezing and tunnel support requirements are also discussed for various f l ysch rock mass types under different overburdens.Detailed principles and guidelines for selecting immediate support measures are proposed based on the principal tunnel behaviour mode and the experiences obtained from these 12 tunnels.Finally,the cost for tunnel support from these experiences is also presented.

?2014 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,Chinese Academy of Sciences.Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.

1.Introduction

Since the last decades of the 20th century,there has been a rapid development in various stages of geotechnical design,analysis and computational methods.Yet,regardless of the capabilities offered by the numerical tools,the results can still involve uncertainties when parameters are used directly without considering the actual failure mechanism of the rock mass in tunnelling.Understanding the rock mass behaviours in tunnelling can ensure selecting appropriate design parameters(for rock mass and/or discontinuities)and failure criteria to be used in numerical analysis and consideration of the principles in association with tunnel support.

Engineers can design reinforced concrete or steel structures using certain checks for speci f i cally prede f i ned failure mechanism. Speci f i cally,design should consider bending moment,axial force, shear,penetration and de f l ection(serviceability limit state).In tunnelling,however,there is no speci f i c procedure to check against a prede f i ned failure mechanism.This paper points out that the f i rst step is not to start performing numerous calculations(probably misleading or useless),but to de f i ne what the potential failure mechanisms are and to qualitatively consider the support theories to account for them.This process is thus applied for the heterogeneous rock masses of f l ysch(Fortsakis,2014).

Rock mass behaviour evaluation in tunnelling and its relation with the design process have been signi f i cantly reported.Goricki et al.(2004),Schubert(2004),Potsch et al.(2004)and Poschl and Kleberger(2004)have studied rock mass behaviours with respect to design and construction experiences of Alpine tunnels and Palmstrom and Stille(2007)from other tunnels.Flysch rock iscomposed of varying alternations of clastic sediments associated with orogenesis,since it ends the cycle of sedimentation before the paroxysm folding process.Intense folding and heavy shearing with numerous overthrusts thus characterise the environment in areas of f l ysch formations.It is characterised mainly by rhythmic alternations of sandstone and pelitic layers(siltstones,silty or clayey shales),where the thickness of sandstone or siltstone beds ranges from centimetres to metres.Consequently,conglomerate beds may also be included.The main thrust movement is associated with smaller reverse faults within the thrust body.The overall rock mass is highly heterogeneous and anisotropic,and thus may be affected by extensional faulting producing mylonites.The tectonic deformation drastically degrades the quality of the rock mass,a reason that f l ysch is characterised by diverse heterogeneity(Fig.1)and the presence of low strength and tectonically disturbed structures (Fig.2).Such formations are classi f i ed into 11 rock mass types(IXI)according to the siltstone-sandstone proportion and their tectonic disturbance.

The design of tunnels in weak rock masses such as disturbed and sheared f l ysch presents a major challenge to geologists and engineers.The complex structure of these materials,resultant from their depositional and tectonic history,means that they cannot easily be classi f i ed in terms of the commonly used characterisation schemes.

The variety of geological conditions under different in situ stresses,in both mild and heavy tectonism examined here,provided signi f i cant amount of information regarding the engineering geological conditions and geotechnical behaviour of several f l ysch rock mass types.These behaviours were analysed and evaluated so as to de f i ne the geotechnical characteristics for each f l ysch type.

This study is based on experiences obtained from the design and construction of 62 mountainous twin tunnels of the Egnatia Highway in Northern Greece.The cross-section of these tunnels is 100-120 m2,constructed conventionally using the top heading and bench method.In this context,a database named“Tunnel Information and Analysis System”(TIAS)was created(Marinos,2007; Marinos et al.,2013).Using this database,the evaluation of huge geological and geotechnical data from the design and the construction of 12 tunnels is presented.These cases comprise tunnelling up to 500 m of overburden depth.

The data processed by TIAS are obtained from geological mapping(design and face mapping records),boreholes,laboratory tests, site testing,geotechnical classi f i cations(design and construction records)and designation of design parameters.Data were also collected and processed in view of the geotechnical behaviour,such as deformations,overbreak,structural failures and groundwater in f l ow.Data from detailed information on temporary support measures and tunnel construction cost were also included.The processing and evaluation of this information contributed to assessing the correlations between behaviours of the ground and the formulation and the temporary support requirements.The use of TIAS database enabled then the determination of the possible rock mass types of f l ysch and the engineering geological characterisation in terms of properties and their behaviour in underground construction(Marinos et al.,2013).

Fig.1.Moderately disturbed rock mass with sandstone and siltstone alternations in similar amounts.

Fig.2.Tectonically disturbed sheared siltstone with broken deformed sandstone layers.These layers have almost lost their initial structure,almost a chaotic structure.

2.Geotechnical properties

The development of powerful microcomputers and of userfriendly software prompted a demand on data related to rock mass properties required as inputs for numerical analysis or closeform solutions for designing tunnels.This necessity preceded the development of a different set of rock mass classi fi cations,where the geological strength index(GSI)is such a classi fi cation.The Hoek-Brown failure criterion(Hoek et al.,2002)is closely connected to the GSI,covering a wide range of geological conditions affecting the quality of the rock masses,including heavily sheared weak rock masses(Hoek et al.,1998).The GSI considered as such a tool for assessment was initially introduced by Hoek(1994)and developed by Marinos and Hoek(2000).Marinos et al.(2005) further discussed its applications and limitations.

The GSI system was extended to heterogeneous rock masses, such as fl ysch,by Marinos and Hoek(2001),and then modi fi ed by Marinos(2007),and Marinos et al.(2007,2011a)with adjustments in values and additions of new rock mass types.Flysch formations are thus classi fi ed into 11 rock mass types(I-XI)according to the siltstone-sandstone proportion and their tectonic disturbance. Hence,a new GSI diagram for heterogeneous rock masses such as fl ysch has been presented,where a certain range of GSI values for every rock mass type is proposed(Fig.3).It is highlighted again that the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and consequently the GSI value should be used when the rock mass behaves isotropically.

The case in the presence of better quality blocks along with the sheared mass may improve the“overall”rock mass strength,depending on their location and size.In the case where strong sandstone blocks are numerous and continuous and are with de f i ned geometry,the rock mass properties can be evaluated by different approaches.Such an approach,the block in matrix approach(beamrocks),has effectively described by Wakabayashi and Medley(2004).

Fig.3.The new GSI classi f i cation chart for heterogeneous rock masses such as f l ysch(Marinos,2007;Marinos et al.,2007).

Basic inputs of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion,apart from the GSI value,are the uniaxial compressive strength(σci)and the material constant(mi)that is related to the frictional properties of the intact rock.Furthermore,in order to calculate the rock mass deformation modulusErm,Hoek and Diederichs(2006)proposed a new equation,which includes the intact rock deformation modulusEi,the GSI value and a disturbance factor due to the excavation method or a distressed character of rock massD.Values of characteristic geotechnical parameters likely to prevail,for every f l ysch rock mass type(I-XI),are presented in Table 1.These values are resultant from the Roclab application(Rocscience Inc.).They are only indicative,since they cannot replace the detailed examination and the application of engineering judgement needed for each sitespeci f i c project separately.

The higherσcivalues are presented in sandstone f l ysch with a mean value of 45-50 MPa.In siltstone f l ysch,a meanσcivalue of approximately 15-20 MPa is promised.When theEiis considered,a mean value of around 13 GPa is measured for sandstone f l ysch and 45 GPa for siltstone f l ysch(Marinos and Tsiampaos,2010).Estimation of the mechanical parameters of a sheared siltstone or shale is a dif f i cult task since the strength of the intact parts can hardly be measured in the laboratory(Figs.4 and 5).Representative strength values can,however,be assessed by back analysis(Tsatsanifos et al., 2000;Marinos et al.,2006b).

In addition,it is necessary to take into account the parameters of the“intact”rock propertiesσci,miandEi,and considerer the heterogeneous rock mass as a unit.Some quantitative estimates of heterogeneous intact rock properties via laboratory tests(Mihalis et al.,2010)have already been reported.In cases when laboratory tests are not feasible,a“speci f i c weighted average”of the intact strength properties of the strong and weak layers was proposed by Marinos et al.(2011a).

The in f l uence of groundwater upon the mechanical properties of the intact rock components,more particular on shales and siltstones that are susceptible to changes in moisture content in tunnelling is very important and has to be considered in the estimation of potential tunnelling problems.

Flysch,a typical impermeable formation,has the character of presenting alternations of strong brittleness with weak rocks.The latter strongly in f l uences the development tendency of permeability due to the fracturing in the strong beds.Data collected in Northern Greece from 213 packer tests from 108 boreholes during site investigation for 8 tunnels in f l ysch environment showed the permeability values of about 4.5×10-7 m/s(Marinos et al.,2011b). The difference of different f l ysch types is very small,which can be explained with respect to the tectonic history of the f l ysch formation where a“homogenization”has achieved from the compression and folding process.The low values in the sandstone type are imposed by the barriers of the thin interlayers of siltstones,which may also intrude in major fractures of the sandstone beds.The decrease in relation to depth is progressive but with signi f i cant scatter(Marinos et al.,2011b).As a result of the low permeability, the water is not easily drained and it reduces the effective stresses and thus the shear strength of the rock mass.Many of these materials will disintegrate very quickly if they are allowed to dry out and not supported immediately.

Table 1Characteristic geotechnical parameters for each f l ysch rock mass type(I-XI).These values are indicative and have resulted from the Roclab application(Rocscience Inc.). Yet,they cannot replace the detailed examination and the application of engineering judgement adjusted for each particular project distinctly.The deformation modulusEmis calculated here based on the empirical relation of Hoek and Diederichs(2006).

Fig.4.Tectonically strongly sheared red siltstone forming a chaotic structure with pockets of clay(rock mass type X).

3.Engineering geological behaviour during tunnelling

A further classi f i cation of f l ysch rock masses based on their geotechnical behaviour(deformation due to overstressing,overbreaks or wedge failure,“chimney”type failure,ravelling and their corresponding scale)is presented hereafter.Flysch,depending on its type,can present a variety of behaviours:being stable even under a noticeable overburden depth,exhibiting wedge sliding and wider chimney type failures,or showing serious deformation even under low to medium overburden.Its behaviour is basically controlled by its main geotechnical characteristics,considering of course the in situ stress and groundwater conditions.The study of the varying behaviours of various f l ysch types was based on the large set of data from the TIAS database.

Fig.5.Tectonically strongly sheared siltstone:a chaotic structure with pockets of clay from a great thrust of different geotectonic units(Anthochori tunnel-Egnatia highway, Northern Greece).

After the identi f i cation of the failure mechanism,the suitable design parameters can be selected according to the principles of thefailure mechanism.If the behaviour of the rock mass can be considered as isotropic and is governed by stress-induced failures, the user must focus on rock mass parameters.On the other hand,if the principal behaviour type is gravity-controlled failures(e.g. wedge sliding,chimney failures,ravelling ground),the user must focus on parameters related to discontinuities.If the rock mass is weak but also anisotropic(e.g.due to schistosity or well de f i ned bedding planes),both the rock mass parameters and the persisting joint properties must be considered.

A reliable f i rst estimate of potential problems of tunnel strain can be given by the ratio of the uniaxial compressive strengthσcmof the rock mass to the in situ stresspo(Hoek and Marinos,2000).This is usually followed by a detailed numerical analysis of the tunnel’s response to sequential excavation and support stages.The strain estimation for the weak f l ysch rock mass type X of 4 different tunnel covers is shown in Fig.6.It is evident that minor squeezing (category B)can be developed in the very poor f l ysch rock mass types X and XI from 50 m to 100 m tunnel cover,while severe to very severe squeezing(categories C and D)from 100 m to 200 m cover.Undisturbed rock mass types of sandstone or conglomerate (types I and III)do not exhibit signi f i cant deformations under 500 m.

Fig.6.Deformations and tunnel support requirements for each f l ysch rock mass type (I-XI)under different overburdens.Strain categories A-E are determined according to Hoek and Marinos(2000)(see Fig.7.).

Fig.7.Strain estimation of the f l ysch rock mass type X for 4 different tunnel covers categories A-E according to Hoek and Marinos(2000).

Fig.8.Overstressed steel sets due to squeezing.Long cables have been implemented to secure stability(Driskos tunnel in Northern Greece).

More analytically,the strain estimation for one of the weakest fl ysch type for 4 different tunnel covers is shown in Fig.7(strain categories A-E according to Marinos and Hoek(2001)).An overstressed support shell due to squeezing is presented in Figs.8 and 9.

The presence of better quality blocks along the sheared mass may improve the stability of the surrounding rocks,depending on their location and size.A tunnel driven through this geomaterial requires continuous geological and geotechnical characterisation, as well as state of the art monitoring,to comprehend the complex interaction of internal block/matrix structure and their impact on the excavation and can only be conducted during tunnel construction.Such an effort was described in Button et al.(2004).

As far as the rheological characteristics of f l ysch formations are concerned,the creep potential of the sandstone formations is considered to be negligible.On the other hand,in the case of tunnel excavation in siltstone or shale formations,especially under high overburden,a time-dependent displacement or loads should be developed.

Fig.9.Overstressed support shell due to squeezing(Anthochori tunnel in Northern Greece).

A detailed presentation of the range of geotechnical behaviour in tunnelling for each f l ysch rock mass type(I-IX)based on engineering geological characteristics is presented in Fig.10.Generally,the behaviours of the f l ysch formations during tunnelling depend on 3 major parameters:(i)the structure,(ii)the intact strength of dominant rock type and(iii)the depth of the tunnel.The expected behaviour types(stable,wedge failure,chimney type failure, ravelling ground,shear failures,squeezing ground)can be illustrated in a tunnel behaviour chart(TBC)(Marinos,2012).The main failure mechanism for every f l ysch rock mass type(I-XI)is projected in a TBC chart in Fig.11.

Fig.10.Engineering geological characteristics keys for assessing tunnel instability for each f l ysch type(I-XI).

Fig.11.Modi f i ed tunnel behaviour chart(TBC)from Marinos(2012)with projections of the principal failure mechanisms for the rock mass types of f l ysch(I-XI).

Fig.12.Modi f i ed example of a Ground Characterisation,Behaviour and Support for Tunnels(modi f i ed from Marinos(2012)).Illustrated,in light characters,by an example of tunnelling in a tectonically deformed intensively folded siltstone(f l ysch rock mass type X).

Fig.12.(continued).

Apart from the characterisation in Figs.10 and 11,the estimation of the tunnel behaviour and the philosophy of the support measures should be also performed on the basis of a detailed ground characterisation.This detailed characterisation cannot ignore the geological and/or in situ characteristics dictating or in f l uencing the tunnel behaviour compared with a standardised classi f i cation (Marinos,2012).This characterisation,named“Ground Characterization,Behaviour and Support for Tunnels”(Marinos,2012) prompts user to evaluate the data in detail in order to assess the tunnel behaviour and adopt the appropriate support measures.An example of this characterisation in a tectonically disturbed f l ysch types is presented in Fig.12.

The rock mass is often considered as an equivalent“mean isotropic geomaterial”,where rock mass properties are quanti f i ed through classi f i cation systems.This assumption is usually acceptable in cases of uniformly jointed,highly tectonised or disintegrated rock mass without persisting discontinuities of stable orientation controlling the rock mass behaviour.This is the case of the types VII-IX.In the case of bedded rock masses,at a scale of the tunnel section,the engineering geological behaviour during tunnel construction is signi f i cantly controlled by the characteristics of the strati f i cation planes.This case may apply to f l ysch rock mass types IV-VI.A simulation of this anisotropic behaviour was analysed in Fortsakis et al.(2012).

4.Temporary support measures

The implementation of empirical tunnel design methods based on rock mass classi f i cation or simpli f i ed methods such as the convergence-con f i nement method should be of limited use in the design of tunnels in most of the f l ysch rock mass types.Such design cannot deal adequately with issues of face stability and the sequential excavation and installation of support.Therefore,the design of tunnels in weak f l ysch rock masses must involve the use of numerical methods.In some critical cases,like the simulation of the effectiveness of forepoling,tunnel advance and sequential support installation,three-dimensional numerical models should be used.However,in weak rock masses,the uses of sound engineering judgement and experiences from similar cases are valuable for the design and the construction of tunnel.The geotechnical properties of the material used for these analyses were calculated based on Hoek-Brown failure criterion.It should be highlighted here that in most of all cases the results of the model studies have been validated by the interpretation of convergence measurements and by the observation of the tunnel and installed support performance.Detailed principles and guidelines for selecting the immediate support measures are proposed based on the principal tunnel behaviour mode and the experiences from these 12 tunnels. In terms of permanent support concerned,different systems were presented in Fortsakis et al.(2004).

The tunnels under consideration are large in size with span of about 12 m.Apart from some cases of straightforward tunnelling in areas of good rock masses of f l ysch(types I-V),most of the studied tunnels were excavated under dif f i cult geological conditions(types VII-XI).These tunnels have been excavated using top heading and bench method.Special measures were taken to stabilise the face like forepoling or/and installation of long grouted f i breglass dowels in the face.In addition,immediate shotcreting and leaving a core for buttressing have been used in different combinations for face stabilisation.After the stabilisation of the face,the application of the primary support system,consisting of shotcrete layers,rockbolts,steel sets or lattice girders embedded in the shotcrete in various combinations was necessary to ensure the stability of the tunnel.Elephant’s foot and micropiles in rare cases were used to assist the foundation of the top heading shell and to secure stability when benching.Temporary and permanent invert closure was implemented in order to face squeezing conditions.A typical support design for weak f l ysch rock masses,using top heading and bench method,is presented in Fig.13(Marinos et al.,2006a).

Under severe squeezing,the application of yielding systems was an alternative solution.The applied system was described in Schubert(1996)and Hoek et al.(2008).In the case of tectonically sheared siltstone rock masses under high cover(e.g.up to 250 m), where tunnel squeezing is a signi f i cant problem,the pillar stability in these twin tunnels requires careful evaluation.

The wide range of engineering geological behaviour leads to a corresponding range of temporary support measures.The temporary support in the speci f i c tunnels discussed here varies from very light to very rigid or yielding.Temporary support measures concept and principles for every rock mass type are presented,based on the available tunnelling experiences,as shown in Fig.14.It is not in the scope of this paper to provide analytical support measures.This work requires detailed design analysis of the tunnel support, adapted to the in situ conditions and particularities of each project. Here,the support proposals are reasonable considerations of both the rock mass behaviour and the critical failure mechanism,which are different for every f l ysch rock mass type.The necessity,the amount and the combination of the various elements of this typical section are results of numerical analysis and the optimization is a matter of reliable monitoring.The time of constructing temporary support is related with the support principle.A quick construction of a stiff support is usually implemented in case that there is a very small tolerance for displacements,whereas a yielding support that decreases the loads corresponds to a larger time interval.

The average excavation step for the top heading excavation of fl ysch rocks is presented in Fig.15.The excavation step must be decided upon:(i)the anticipated size of wedges in the case of not tectonically stressed rock masses,(ii)the size of the wedges and the loosening prevention of the structure,in the case of disturbed rock masses without deformation problems,(iii)the prevention of structure loosening and(iv)decrease of deformation in association with the other appropriate measures in the case of weak rock masses where signi fi cant deformation is anticipated.For the cases (i)-(iii),the installation of spiles allows the increase of the excavation step.Excavation step is very dif fi cult to exceed 1-1.5 m in very weak rock masses,while a mean value for the undisturbed rock masses could be 3 m.

The cost(Euros/linear metre of tunnel)of the temporary support system for the fl ysch formations from the experience of the Egnatiahighway tunnels is projected in Fig.16.This cost is presented in accordance with the“weight”of the support category.

Fig.13.A typical support design for weak f l ysch rock masses using top heading and bench method.The necessity,the amount and the combination of various elements of this typical section are results of numerical analysis.The optimisation is a matter of reliable monitoring.For highly squeezing ground,the philosophy of a yielding support is recommended(sketch from Hoek(Marinos et al.,2006a)).

Fig.14.General directions for the immediate support measures for every f l ysch type(Marinos et al.,2011a).

Fig.15.Average top heading excavation step for f l ysch rock masses(types I,II,III,IV,V,VI,X and XI).A conglomerate mass is also projected in the last column of the diagram.

Fig.16.Cost(Euros/linear metre of tunnel)of the temporary support system for the fl ysch formations.A-D is the“weight”of the support measures(A:shotcrete and bolts;B1:shotcrete,bolts and steel sets;B2:shotcrete,bolts,steel sets and light face support measures like spilling;C:shotcrete,bolts,steel sets and forepoling and D: yielding support system).Category D was only used in one case study.

5.Conclusions

The processing and evaluation of a great amount of geological and geotechnical information,obtained from the design and construction of 12 tunnels driven in f l ysch in Northern Greece, contributed to assessing the behaviours of the ground and the formulation in association with the correlations between ground and the formulation behaviours and the temporary support required.

Flysch formations are generally characterised by strong heterogeneity in the presence of low strength and tectonically disturbed structures,which may produce heavily sheared and chaotic masses.Flysch rock masses can be composed of sandstone and siltstone beds(undisturbed to folded)and inherently weak materials subjected to strong shearing where the original structure of the rock mass is no longer recognizable.The rock mass strength parameters needed for design can be suf f i ciently estimated by the Hoek-Brown failure criterion as long as the rock mass reacts isotropically to the underground excavation.Thus,a specialised GSI chart for the heterogeneous rock masses such as f l ysch can be used.

Flysch of various types can either be stable even under noticeable overburden and exhibit wedge sliding and chimney type failures,or cause serious deformation even under low to medium overburden.The rock mass behaviour in undisturbed to moderately undisturbed structures is highly anisotropic and controlled by the orientation and properties of discontinuities,mainly the bedding, in relation to the orientation of the tunnel.As a result,there is a possibility of wedge detachment and sliding along thin siltstone layers with low shear strength.The behaviour of the disturbed structures and even more of the heavily sheared rock mass types is generally isotropic,controlled by their low strength and low modulus of deformability.These masses may develop a signi f i cant deformation,even under low to medium overburden,while at greater depths squeezing prevails.

A wide range of temporary support can be applied in f l ysch rock masses,varying from very light to very rigid or yielding under severe squeezing conditions.Speci f i c suggestions for the theory of temporary support in tunnel excavation through each f l ysch type are presented.These proposals take into account both the rock mass behaviour and the critical failure mechanism,which yet cannot replace the detailed analysis.They should be always backanalysed by engineering judgement and adjusted for each sitespeci f i c project.

Con f l ict of interest

We wish to con f i rm that there are no known con f l icts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no signi f i cantfi nancial support for this work that could have in f l uenced its outcome.

Button E,Riedmüller G,Schubert W,Klima K,Medley E.Tunnelling in tectonic melanges-accommodating the impacts of geomechanical complexities and anisotropic rock mass fabrics.Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2004;63(2):109-17.

Fortsakis P,Marigoudis N,Kavvadas M.The role of temporary support in the design of the f i nal lining.In:Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014-Tunnels for a Better Life.Foz do Igua?u,Brazil,2014(in CD).

Fortsakis P,Nikas K,Marinos V,Marinos P.Anisotropic behaviour of strati f i ed rock masses in tunnelling.Engineering Geology 2012;141-142:74-83.

Fortsakis P.Personal communication.2014.

Goricki W,Schubert G,Riedmueller G.New developments for the design and construction of tunnels in complex rock masses.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2004;41(3):497-8.

Hoek E,Carranza-Torres C,Cokcum B.Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. In:Bawden HRW,Curran J,Telsenicki M,editors.Proceedings of the North American Rock Mechanics Society(NARMS-TAC 2002)-Mining Innovation and Technology.Toronto;2002.pp.267-73.

Hoek E.Strength of rock and rock masses.ISRM News Journal 1994;2(2):4-16.

Hoek E,Carranza-Torres C,Diederichs M,Corkum B.Integration of geotechnical and structural design in tunnelling.In:Proceedings of the 56th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference.Minneapolis,USA;2008.pp.1-53.

Hoek E,Marinos P,Benissi M.Applicability of the geological strength index(GSI) classi f i cation for weak and sheared rock masses-the case of the Athens schist formation.Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 1998;57(2): 151-60.

Hoek E,Diederichs MS.Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006;43(2):203-15.

Hoek E,Marinos P.Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses,part 1:estimating rock mass strength&part 2:estimating tunnel squeezing problems.Tunnels and Tunnelling International,Part 1-November 2000.pp.45-51;Part 2-December 2000.pp.34-6.

Marinos P,Hoek E.GSI:a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation.In:Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering(GeoEng2000).Lancaster:Technomic Publishers;2000. pp.1422-46.

Marinos P,Hoek E.Estimating the geotechnical properties of a heterogeneous rock mass such as f l ysch.Bulleting of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2001;60(2):85-92.

Marinos P,Hoek E,Kazilis N,Agistalis G,Rahaniotis N,Marinos V.The tunnels of Egnatia highway,Greece.Design in a variety of rock masses under dif f i cult geological conditions.In:Proceedings of the 5th Greek Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Congress,2006.pp.517-24.

Marinos P,Marinos V,Hoek E.Geological Strength Index(GSI):a characterization tool for assessing engineering properties for rock masses.In:Mark C,Pakalnis R, Tuchman RJ,editors.Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rock Mass Classi f i cation for Underground Mining.Pittsburgh:U.S.Department of Health and Human Services;2007.pp.87-94.

Marinos V.Assessing rock mass behaviour for tunneling.Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2012;18(4):327-41.

Marinos V,Fortsakis P,Prountzopoulos G.Estimation of rock mass properties of heavily sheared f l ysch using data from tunnelling construction.In:Proceedings of the 10th IAEG International Congress.Nottingham,United Kingdom;2006. paper number 314,in CD.

Marinos V,Fortsakis P,Prountzopoulos G.Estimation of geotechnical properties and classi f i cation of geotechnical behaviour in tunnelling for f l ysch rock masses.In: Anagnostopoulos A,Pachakis M,Tsatsanifos C,editors.Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering(Vol.1); Athens,Greece,2011.pp.435-40.

Marinos V,Fortsakis P,Prountzopoulos G,Marinos P.Permeability in fl ysch-distribution decrease with depth and grout curtains under dams. Journal of Mountain Science 2011b;8(2):234-8.

Marinos V.Geotechnical classi fi cation and engineering geological behaviour of weak and complex rock masses in tunnelling.PhD Thesis.Athens:Geotechnical Engineering Department,School of Civil Engineering,National Technical University of Athens(NTUA);2007(in Greek).

Marinos V,Marinos P,Hoek E.The geological strength index-applications and limitations.Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2005;64(1): 55-65.

Marinos V,Prountzopoulos G,Fortsakis P,Koumoutsakos D,Korkaris K,Papouli D.“Tunnel information and analysis system”:a geotechnical database for tunnels. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2013;31(3):891-910.

Marinos V,Tsiampaos G.Strength and deformability of speci f i c sedimentary and ophiolithic rocks.In:Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Geological Society of Greece(Vol.XLIII);Patra,Greece,2010.pp.1259-66.

Mihalis I,Parathyras A,Prountzopoulos G,Papazachariou A,Schwarz L.The tunnels of Panagia-Anilio section of the new Kalambaka-Ioannina-Igoumenitsa railway.Evaluation of geotechnical investigation.In:Proceedings of the 6th Hellenic Conference on Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering(Vol.2); Volos,Greece,2010.pp.343-50(in Greek).

Palmstrom A,Stille H.Ground behaviour and rock engineering tools for underground excavations.Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2007;22(4):363-76.

Poschl I,Kleberger J.Geotechnical risks in rock mass characterization.Tunnels and Tunnelling International,Part 1-May 2004.pp.37-9.Part 2-October 2004. pp.36-8.

Potsch M,Schubert W,Goricki A,Steidl A.Determination of rock mass behaviour types,a case study.In:EUROCK2004 and 53th Geomechanics Colloquium.VGE; 2004.

Schubert W.Basics and application of the austrian guideline for the geomechanical design of underground structures.In:EUROCK2004 and 53th Geomechanics Colloquium.VGE;2004.

Schubert W.Dealing with squeezing conditions in Alpine tunnels.Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1996;29(3):145-53.

Tsatsanifos CP,Mantziaras PM,Georgiou D.Squeezing rock response to NATM tunneling:a case study.In:Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground.Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema;2000.pp.167-72.

Wakabayashi J,Medley EW.Geological characterization of mélanges for practitioners.Felsbau Rock and Soil Engineering-Journal for Engineering Geology, Geomechanics and Tunneling 2004;22(5):10-43.

Dr.V.Marinosis Assistant Professor of Engineering Geology in the Department of Geology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.He got Bachelor degree in Geology from the National University of Athens,a Master of Science degree of Engineering Geology with Distinction as well as a diploma DIC from Imperial College and a PhD in geotechnical engineering from the National Technical University of Athens.His research interests cover engineering geological assessment and geotechnical characterisation of weak and complex rock masses,assessment of their behaviour and support in tunnelling,creation of geotechnical database for tunnels,rock slope stability assessment,evaluation and analysis of ground movement in mines and evaluation of landslide hazard analysis.Dr.V. Marinos has published 61 papers in the f i eld of Engineering Geology,Geotechnical Engineering and Hydrogeology-Engineering Geology in peer-reviewed scienti f i c journals and conferences.He has participated in 13 granted research programs.He has been consulting in design and construction on engineering geological topics for major engineering projects(metro works and mountain tunnels,dams,road works and landslides)under a variety of geological conditions.Dr.V.Marinos has over than 150 citations of his research work in international journals and international conferences, inclusions in the design speci f i cations of metro works with sections of his research work and use of parts of his work(geotechnical characterisation of weak and complex rock masses with the GSI system)in the design of large engineering works.Dr.V.Marinos is an active member of several professional bodies and learned international societies like the IAEG,ISSMGE,ISRM(member of the Soft Rock Commission),National Committee of Tunnels and Underground Structures and the International Association of Hydrogeology and other national scienti f i c Committees.

*Tel.:+30 2310998518.

E-mail addresses:marinosv@geo.auth.gr,vmarinos14@gmail.com.

Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,Chinese Academy of Sciences.