2014 RMR New Guidelines for Tunnels

"RMR geomechanics classification is being used all over the World as a useful tool for tunnel predesign 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."