Vol. 10 No.

2 2003

LINE INFRASTRUCTURE
Line infrastructure and the role of engineering
geology in analysing overbreak, part I
theoretical considerations
ir.Robrecht.M. Schmitz - Géomécanique et Géologie de l’Ingénieur -
Université de Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils 1 - B53/, [email protected]

1 Introduction tunnel driving with respect to the discontinuities of the

Overbreak is a considerable cost factor in underground massif or by poor blasting or by selecting a tunnel cross-
construction. Up to date there are no efficient methods section inappropriate for the particular rock mass. This
to predict the overbreak in tunnels. Therefore it is diffi- overbreak can be found in the roof as well as in the floor
cult for the appointed engineering geologist to find out of the tunnel. It includes the few cm around the blast
ways to reduce it. A literature survey was started to holes shattered by the explosion. It is produced upon
understand overbreak and to investigate its rock me- first blasting thus always near the tunnel front in con-
chanical background. Some of the results are presented trast to secondary overbreak or rock burst.
in this contribution. The practical application of this
knowledge will be discussed by S. Viroux in the follow- - Scaling
ing issue of the Ingeokring newsletter. It is assumed in this contribution that scaling after blast-
ing does not produce any additional overbreak.
2 Engineering geological definition of overbreak
There is no general accepted definition of overbreak, - Secondary Overbreak (instantaneous but initially cin-
for some it is the gap expressed in m, m² or m³ between ematically not admissible)
the theoretical, planned excavation profile and the di- This overbreak is often considered to be the “fault” of
mensions of the excavation that was made. Someone the miners or the technical staff in contrast to the “geo-
has to pay for this overbreak thus depending on which logical” overbreak discussed above. The “secondary”
side you are the definitions will be slightly different. In overbreak will not take place instantaneously thus there
this contribution the classification based on is a notion of “time”. This can be:
geomechanical considerations forwarded by Müller - a real time effect related to stress redistribution in a
(1978) will be followed: rock mass that behaves viscously, or
- retarded with respect to the initial blasting, because
- “Genuine” overbreak the “genuine” overbreak, scaling after blasting or vi-
This overbreak (or underbreak) is formed by the exca- brations during the installation of initial support after
vation of the rock mass leaving a void, which modifies the first blasting round causes additional stress or modi-
the cinematic admissibility of individual rock blocks, fies the geometry, thereby allowing additional rock fall
permitting some of them to leave the rock mass matrix. to take place. This kind of overbreak is predominantly
This process is “instantaneous”. Note that by blasting gravity driven, thus can be found in the roof area and
new discontinuity sets are formed, thus new rock blocks can be counteracted to a large extent by selecting the
form, which weren’t present in the original massif in- appropriate support and supporting technique and by
vestigated characterised (of course) by a thorough site applying it directly after blasting.
investigation. This indicates already that the analysis
of the overbreak and its reduction cannot be part of - Cave-in
“fire and forget” engineering geology that focuses only Whereas overbreak and secondary overbreak bring
on the site investigation phase, but requires a about additional and substantial cost (see section 3),
geomechanical counsel on a frequent basis. This “genu- cave-ins are disasters that must be prevented by all
ine” overbreak is often called “unavoidable” in the sense means. Cave-ins are often confused with overbreak
that it cannot be countered by intelligent support after because they can (not a necessity) occur near to the
blasting like the secondary overbreak discussed below. tunnel front. Many engineers presume that there is a
Therefore one likes to call this kind of overbreak “geo- relationship between the stability of the rock mass and
logical overbreak” in the sense that it is not the fault of the overbreak, they think that less stable rock masses
the miners or the technical staff in the tunnel. This is (or rock masses with a shorter stand-up time) produce
not correct because one can take influence on this geo- larger overbreak than more stable rock masses (with a
logical overbreak by selecting the wrong direction of longer stand-up time). In fact the contrary happens:

31
 Ingeokring Newsletter

stable rock masses consist often out of large rock blocks applied in order to obtain the minimum excavation size
and have a large discontinuity spacing. Therefore, the in due time (Müller 1978). This type of overbreak is
unavoidable, primary, overbreak can be large. Contrary
rock masses that are less stable have a very small dis- applied at the moment in the Sedrun stretch of the new
continuity spacing, they can be excavated with less Gotthard base tunnel (WT 2003).
harsh methods, even without blasting, with a very small
overbreak (Müller 1978). The confusion is based on the 3 Why should an engineering geologist care?
fact that less stable rock masses have a larger tendency Because:
to produce secondary overbreak and cave-ins. i) of his inquisitive nature, he is interested in all matters
concerning geology and engineering.
- Rock burst ii) overbreak costs money.
Rock bursts are formed by the sudden release of stored The engineering geologist needs to convince the
elastic energy, they are known to occur in deep tunnels tunnel constructor that he is cheaper than the
and mines (Bräuner 1981). Although rock bursts are very overbreak. Therefore he needs to know what type of
important phenomenon having a large death-toll, they overbreak most frequently occurs and how much it will
will not further be discussed in this contribution. cost.
If the final support is rigid then underbreak will not be
- Overbreak related to off set accepted because a minimum excavated size is required.
Another form of overbreak is not related to collapse, Because in addition underbreak is more expensive to
fall or cave in of rock mass but to the restricted working remove than overbreak (Viroux 2003) overbreak is more
space underground. The drills used to drill the contour frequent than underbreak. Tradition has that the client
holes have a non-zero thickness that create an off-set is willing to pay for a defined overbreak, considered as
of 0.2 to 0.4 m as shown in figure 1. the “geological” overbreak. Therefore in general
“gaps” are created and the major expenses of overbreak
are related to the filling this gap with concrete in
tunnelling and waste-rock etc. in mining. The costs
depend on the size of the “gap” to be filled up. What is
the size of overbreak in general?:
Overbreak in % diameter (Wahlstrom 1973, Müller 1978,
Kolymbas 1998):
- 7.5 % Chippis (CH) tunnel
- 10% Simplon (CH) tunnel
- 6 - 38% for tunnels in general
- 10% average drilled and blasted tunnels
- 25% in fractured rock or if blasted incorrectly
Figure 1. Overbreak related to the offset of drills - 22% in biotite schist and gneiss, 16% in shale, 7% in
- Overbreak by intentional over excavation in rock granite, 16% in closely jointed granite, 31% closely
masses with “genuine” plasticity: spaced horizontal joints section of the Orberts tunnel
One has to distinguish between: Colorado
- Genuine plasticity in e.g. mylonites and clays. In rock - 5 - 10cm in compact stable rock mass with few fractures
masses showing real plasticity new rock mass material or in fractured rock with small discontinuity spacing if
will follow in the places where rock mass is extruded support is correctly selected and swiftly installed
into the excavation, the risk of large overbreak is low, - up to 50 cm in compact stable rock mass with large
contrary the underbreak can be significant (Müller scale fractures at large discontinuity spacing
1978). - 15 - 30 cm in fractured, unstable, rock prone to cave
- 1/6 of the diameter of excavation during blasting in
- Pseudoplasticity: in rock masses that are stratified, rock mass with smooth planar discontinuity surfaces
foliated or fractured, pseudoplasticity is very high if
the degree of separation is high or the discontinuity The expenses include the additional concrete, the time
infill is lubricant. In rock masses showing needed to shotcrete all the voids and the time lost that
pseudoplastic behaviour all asymmetric features given could have been used to drill the following blast holes
by the discontinuity matrix will become more and more or to install appropriate support.
asymmetric in time and thereby the overbreak increases. Müller (1973) gives some examples:
- tunnel in general: reduction of overbreak of 10 cm
As long as the rock mass plasticity provokes along the (average dimensions) reduces expenses equal to twice
circumference a gradual and regular decrease of the the cost of the explosives
excavated section, overbreak must deliberately be - shaft: small overbreak, 28% excavation profile and
reduction of 23% concrete could be saved

32
 Vol. 10 No. 2 2003

- tunnel Zillertal (AU): additional 5 m³/m tunnel (average

35 cm) In general explosives should be used in underground
excavation as tool to dissect the rock mass and not as
- Viroux (2003) states that the expenses to fill up
a “bomb” (Bouvard et al. 1988). This is reflected in
overbreak equals or doubles those (including labour
appropriate ratings for the MBR blasting adjustment
time etc.) of the designed shotcrete support.
(Bieniawski 1984): for machine boring no correction for
It is clear that overbreak is expensive and that in the
damage is required but for poor conventional blasting
light of progress of engineering geology one should
correction for severe damage must be made. What does
not content oneself with the large margin as they are
actually happen during blasting to make this the most
used in general today.
overbreak-prone excavation method? During
excavation with blasting the vibrations cause a
4 Factors affecting overbreak
momentary annulation of the friction between
The excavation method
discontinuity faces, the rock blocks loose contact and
Regarding all excavation methods:
the form of the excavated section is indented. The form
- drilling and blasting
is given by the intersection of the planned excavation
- hammer and chisel
profile and the dominant discontinuities (Müller 1978).
- sawing
- roadheader
excavation by drilling and blasting produces most
overbreak (see figure 2).

Figure 2. 1 Granite in Alps, excavation by drilling and blasting, the overbreak is clearly visible. 2) The same
formation but excavated with a TBM. Only the traces of the cutter disks are visible in 2b). In 3) an example of
excavation by water in a Devonian limestone show cave. The excavation follows the dip of the strata. Excavation
with a roadheader in clay stone is shown in 4). Even in a close up 4b) only the traces of the cutter head can be seen
but no other substantial overbreak. 5) Mine in carbonate rocks, in Alps, excavation by hammer and chisel 5b) no
overbreak only traces of tools. Of all excavation techniques, drilling and blasting produces most overbreak
Does this mean that there is no overbreak with the - in a bored tunnel the limit of the cross section follows
other excavation techniques? the path of the tools, thereby a circular cross section is
No, according to Müller (1978): during mechanical created as planned.
excavation without blasting, thus non-vibrating - in a tunnel excavated with a roadheader, pick hammer
excavation, cavities that follow a zone of weakness in or tunnel shovel the pathways of the tools create a
the rock or a discontinuity are only a local exception surface less adapted to the planned section.
with a maximal extent in the order of decimetres. Only if - if the degree of separation is large and the rock
very smooth planar discontinuities with an strength high than the excavation with a roadheader
unfavourable orientation with respect to the excavation can loosen rock blocks from the rock mass matrix and
are present then parts of the rock mass can fall from the produce overbreak (Müller 1978).
roof. But in general:

33
 Ingeokring Newsletter

Although blasting causes apparently the largest lost this experience and an individual discontinuity
overbreak there is still a tremendous difference in the guided drilling is nearly impossible. An adaptation of
amount of overbreak created by poor and by good the drilling scheme although theoretically possible, is
blasting. not performed in praxis because neither:
- time, nor
What is the effect of poor blasting on overbreak? - stimulus
The effect of poor blasting will cause higher overbreak, is available.
depending on the number of discontinuities, their The hereby caused disadvantages like:
strength, strength of the rock matrix etc.. Some examples - larger overbreak
are shown in figure 3. - more cave-ins
- reduced stability
How does one recognise poor blasting? - increased water inflow caused by loosing up
This is quite simple one should have a look at half- are balanced by:
casts (see figure 4) which are present if the blasting - faster advance => better utilisation of the available
was good. In France reduction of payment follows if a stand-up time
certain percentage of half-cast length cannot be found - more accurate in directionality => better pre-splitting
in the tunnel walls after blasting (Bouvard et al 1988). without substantially increasing drill time
The disadvantages of drilling with a jumbo increase if
the geology becomes more complicated, unpredictable
and variable (Müller 1978).

What can be done in the post-jumbo era:

Some adaptations that can be made even today with
the less flexible and adaptive drilling tools are:
A) a reduction of the depth of pull. The difference be-
tween good and poor blasting lies not in the use of high
(shatter) explosives, that are (contrary to common be-
lieve) beneficial, but in a too large depth of pull (Müller
1978).
B) good blasting e.g. pre-splitting or smooth blasting
C) some simple adaptation of the drill scheme to fit the
geological conditions example (see e.g. figure 5 and 6).

Figure 3: In this figure it is shown how poor blast-

ing effects the amount of overbreak significantly in
all type of rock masses

Figure 5. The inclination of the blast holes to make

the cut should be inclined taking the discontinuities
of the rock mass into consideration.
Figure 4: Evidence of accurate blasting: half pipes
in LST. Place St Lambert, Liège.
What can be done to spare the rock mass during blast-
ing:
First of all adaptation of the drill scheme to fit the geo-
logical conditions (Müller 1978) were made in the pre-
jumbo area by experienced miners. They were special-
ists and took the geological conditions into account,
especially those of the discontinuity matrix. Today’s
mechanised drilling, often done by rock-ignorant staff

34
 Vol. 10 No. 2 2003

Stress/strength rock (mass) ratio

If the rock strength is high one needs large amount of
explosives to excavate the rock. If a large amount of
explosives are used the rock mass is loosened up
considerably. If the degree of separation of the
discontinuity matrix is high this leads to large overbreak
values. But if the rock strength is low due to e.g.:
- weathering
- retrogressive metamorphism
it is possible to excavate close to the planned profile
with very small deviations of 3cm.
Thus if the compressive strength of the rock matrix is:

< 25MPa, then the rock will break more easily along
Figure 6. If the bedding planes strike at an angle material bridges in the rock => less overbreak,
between >0 <90° with respect to tunnel axis then especially if the degree of separation is low. However,
the rock will break more easily on the left side, if the rock strength is low the overbreak is low and the
thus here less charge is needed. risk of cave-ins or secondary-overbreak rises.

Overbreak and primary stress > 25MPa, then a lot of explosives are needed to break
The height of the in situ stress has little influence on the rock along material bridges but this will only
the overbreak but the relation between major and minor increase the
stress and the stress condition with respect to the rock degree of separation and cause more overbreak, the
strength does. If the stresses are anisotropic (s3/s1>2), more if the degree of loosing up and the initial degree
a condition that prevails usually in shallow tunnels, the of separation are high (Müller 1978). These effects are
tendency towards: shown in figure 11.
- larger overbreak
- larger secondary overbreak Overbreak and water
- asymmetric excavations Water affects especially secondary overbreak. Water:
increases with respect to isotropic stress (s3/s1<2) of- - reduces the strength of the infill material of the
ten found at greater depths. In the latter case the discontinuities
stresses work from all sides on the tunnel and the rock - generates seepage forces
blocks can form an irregular arch, leading to less - exerts hydrostatic stress
overbreak (Müller 1978). By these processes the fall of friable and small rock
fragments into the excavation accelerates to such an
extent that even with swift working and suitable support
unavoidable overbreak is produced. In loosened up
rock masses with small a discontinuity spacing, high
degree of separation of the rock blocks and a
lubricating discontinuity infill, the overbreak can reach
a value surpassing the overbreak that would have
occurred under dry conditions several times (Müller
1978).

Excavation form and overbreak

The better the form of the discontinuity matrix and the
in
situ stress is followed the less overbreak will be created.

Square versus round tunnel

If for example the discontinuities are horizontal a square
tunnel form can be applied with less overbreak as is
Figure 7. The direction of the principle stress has
shown in figure 8. In general if vertical or horizontal
influence on the position where overbreak will form
discontinuities are dominant rectangular profile are
in the tunnel: the overbreak obtains a maximum
suggested (Müller 1976).
value at the intersection of line 3 with the tunnel
circumference

35
 Ingeokring Newsletter

Discontinuities: fractures and overbreak

Almost every stratified rock breaks readily along bed-
ding planes. Therefore the bedding planes constitute a
source of mechanical weakness. In schist cleavage
planes have a similar effect. Sections of tunnels in
closely jointed and faulted rocks tend to be characterised
by considerable overbreak if excavated by drilling and
blasting (Wahlstrom 1973). The difference in overbreak
between thick and thin bedded inclined layers is shown
in figure 10. According to figure 8 it is obvious that any
attempt to create a circular tunnel in a rock mass with
active and persistent joint sets intersecting the tunnel
axis at 45° produces irregular and asymmetric overbreak.

Figure 8. Schnalstal (I). If the bedding is horizon-

tal, the shape of the tunnel can be square.
Eggenschlucht (I)
Pointed arch form:
In layered (fractures, bedding planes, etc.) the shape
of the excavation in the roof will be elliptical /pointed
arch with the long axis perpendicular to the apparent
dip of the layering (see figure 9), the stress
concentration is increased in the sharp corner, the Figure 10: Overbreak decreases with decreasing
confinement of the rock blocks is increased, and thereby bedding thickness. Again an example demonstrat-
the stability of the underground opening is increased. ing that the RMR is not directly related to the
A pointed arch imitates nature. overbreak. Passeirertal (I).

Egg-shaped and circular profiles: Summary

Egg formed and circular excavation profiles are best A summary of the coupled parameters: rock matrix
suited if: strength, discontinuity spacing, number of
- several (more than one) discontinuity families are discontinuity families and apparent dip on the
present, with overbreak is given in figure 11.
- inclined position to the tunnel

Profile ending in sharp corners:

Where the circumference is more sharply curved a
larger arching effect occurs in the rock mass, and the
rock blocks are tightly held in place, which would fall
out if e.g. the roof would have been designed more flat
(Müller 1976).

Figure 9. Shape of stable excavation with respect

to the apparent dip of the layering,

36
 Vol. 10 No. 2 2003

Figure 11. In this figure a summary is given of the coupling between: the number of discontinuity families,
thickness of the rock blocks, apparent dip and strength of the rock matrix. With the aid of this overview different
qualitative observations can be made:
- If the apparent dip rotates from near horizontal to vertical the amount and position of the overbreak changes.
The largest overbreak can be found in steeply inclined layers.
- If the strength of the rock mass increases and the apparent dip is near horizontal there will be no overbreak in
tunnels with a rectangular form
- If the strength of the rock matrix decreases to zero, in all cases cave-in will result.
- If the number of discontinuity families increases and the strength of the rock matrix is not too weak the overbreak
is generally small.
- etc.

5 Task of the engineering geologists:

Structural analysis 3d: Degree of separation

In the analysis up to now it was assumed that the rock
blocks are dissected from the rock mass matrix by a
discontinuity parallel to the paper. The degree of sepa-
ration in this plane is 1, i.e. there are no rock bridges left.
In reality is of course not very common (see figure 12).
Figure 12. The only difference between the figure
on the left and the one the right is the degree of
separation.

37
 Ingeokring Newsletter

To quantify this difference in overbreak shown in figure i) at a very large spacing between two parallel
12 one needs three parameters: discontinuities of 1 family the overbreak = 0 because
the spacing is larger than the diameter of the tunnel
i) discontinuity frequency of a discontinuity family ii) at a very close discontinuity spacing the overbreak
(figure 13). is near zero because now one deals more with a soil
than with a rock, in which as discussed before the
overbreak is negligible, the cave-in risk, however is
increased.

Figure 13. Only the spacing of the discontinuities

does not give reliable information on the amount of
overbreak that can be expected. Figure 15. Prediction of the amount of overbreak on
ii) the form of the rock blocks (figure 14) the basis of the average discontinuity spacing, the
form of the rock blocks, and the degree of separa-
tion of the rock blocks from the rock mass matrix
(x).
Based on figure 15 one can observe that:
- the more cubic shaped the rock blocks are
- the larger the degree of separation is,
the larger the overbreak will be. The maximum overbreak
will be attained at an intermediate discontinuity spacing.

This method has recently be applied in a tunnel under

Figure 14. Next to the information about the construction by the university de Liège (Viroux 2003).
discontinuity spacing the form of the rock blocks
has to be determined. special case large degree of separation x = 1
iii) the degree of separation x (Pacher 1959, Müller In a special case the procedure described above can be
1958,1959). A summary of the theoretical background simplified (especially the determination of the
of the degree of separation can be found in Schmitz volumetric degree of separation is quite labour and time
(2003). intensive, and time is not always available for the
geologist in situ to describe the outcrop after each blast
With the three parameters mentioned above: the degree because the mucking must start as well): if
of separation, the form of the rock blocks, and the - the degree of separation is large (the rock blocks are
discontinuity spacing it is possible to give a free dissected blocks)
quantitative prediction of the amount of overbreak like - the form of the rock blocks is cubic
the one Müller (1978) has developed (see figure 15). - the strength of the rock matrix is high (i.e. rock blocks
do not split due to excavation or fall)
Note that the graph in figure 15 has two theoretic points: an excavation in this rock mass will follow the rock
block boundaries. It is not possible to position the

38
 Vol. 10 No. 2 2003

depends on the strength of the rock bridges. The

charge in such a way that the rock blocks are dissected strength of the rock bridges depend on the degree of
without being loosened from the rock mass matrix. separation and on the rock strength. One has to
distinguish in this case between:
The average overbreak in this case (Müller 1978): α) Strong rocks. If they behave in a brittle way during
- is equal to the average discontinuity spacing if the a blasting round, the rock will take up the stress by
fractures are closely spaced (<< diameter tunnel) continuous failure along existing path of weakness like
- (overbreak in the roof) can be determined by the fractures. If these are extended to the next fracture,
measuring the length between the outcrop of a the rock blocks will be separated, x = 1, and the
discontinuity in one tunnel wall to the continuation of overbreak can be approximated by the method
the discontinuity in the opposite wall (=discontinuity described above. If not the overbreak can be estimated
length roof) = dlr. This length should be determined by a linear interpolation of the values that would have
taking the 3D orientation into account. If this is not been obtained at x = 1 and x < 0.7.
possible it can be estimated using the information in β) Weaker rocks: In weaker rocks it is not the position
2D. The average overbreak in the roof is approximately of the discontinuities that determine the form of the
equal to 1/4 * dlr, that in the floor equals 1/3 * (average excavation but more the position of the blast holes. In
overbreak roof). This approach is based on the this case the overbreak will attain values between half
assumption that the rock blocks will fall if: and one time the average discontinuity spacing.
- they are fully separated from the rock mass matrix,
and if Special case low degree of separation ( 0 < x < 0.7)
- their centre of mass lies within the planned excavation If the degree of separation x, lies between 0 and 0.7, the
profile. This simple method approached the actual overbreak will be only a fraction of that if x = 1, the
overbreak in tunnels very well (Müller 1978). For more value will attain at maximum some cm (Müller 1978).
complicated rock block assemblages the overbreak can
be simulated by using base friction models as is shown
Structural analysis 3d: Direction of tunnelling
in fig 16.
The discontinuities of the rock mass do not have an
arbitrary orientation, but they are often organised in
families. The number of families is related to the
geological history. The use of families is a simplification
that cannot be tolerated in some cases. This decision
must be made by the engineering geologist. The
stereographic projection is the most used method. After
statistical treatment the orientation of the
discontinuities must always be considered in relation
to the direction of tunnel driving (AFTES 2003). Thus,
not only the presence of discontinuity planes on which
sliding is possible are important but their orientation
with respect to the tunnel.
An example of the three dimensional character of
overbreak is shown in figure 17. A horse shoe shaped
tunnel is driven with an azimuth of 105°. The tunnel
will experience some overbreak but nothing compared
to the situation if it is driven at an azimuth of 15° (see
figure 17).

Figure 16. Two methods to estimate the average

overbreak

Special case intermediate degree of separation ( 0.7

< x < 1)
If the degree of separation is smaller than 1 the rock
blocks are not entirely separated from each other nor
from the rock mass matrix i.e. rock bridges exist between
the individual rock blocks. In this case the overbreak is
a factor f smaller than in the case x = 1. The value of f

39
 Ingeokring Newsletter

- Average overbreak in the roof of the tunnel in rock

masses with loose (x=1), high strength rock matrix, is
approximately equal to 1/4*ldr
- Average overbreak in the floor of the tunnel in rock
masses with loose (x=1), high strength rock matrix, is
approximately equal to 1/12*ldr
- Average overbreak in rock masses with partial fixed
rock blocks (0.7<x<1), high strength rock matrix, can be
obtained by a linear interpolation of the value at x=1
and x<0.7.
- Average overbreak in rock masses with fixed rock
blocks (<0.7*x) with cubic form, high strength rock
matrix, is only a fraction of the overbreak if x=1, often
only several cm

7 Abbreviations
MBR modified basic RMR
RMR rock mass rating
1/4ldr average length of one discontinuity outcrop
to the other end in the excavated space (in
2D) divided by 4
x = xrα = Volumetric share of discontinuity planes
of discontinuity family α (m²/m³) or short: the
degree of separation of rock blocks from the
Figure 17. Same discontinuity orientation, other
rock mass matrix
tunnel orientation, much more overbreak deter-
mined using a simple spreadsheet TunnelDip.
8 Literature
6 Conclusion AFTES 2003. Recommandations relatives à la
- It is a mistake to believe that if the RMR increases the caractérisation des massifs rocheux utile à l’étude et à
overbreak decreases at all times or vice versa la réalisation des ouvrages souterrains. Tunnels et
- Rock masses with a low RMR are prone to cave-in, ouvrages souterrains. N° 177. Mai/Juin 2003.
not to overbreak BIENIAWSKI, Z.T. (1984) Rock mechanics design in
- Not all the distance between the circumference of the mining and tunnelling. A.A. Balkema. Rotterdam.
excavation and the planned excavation profile is BOUVARD-LECOANET, A., COLOMBET, G.,
overbreak. It can be either an instantaneous “genuine” ESTEULLE, F. (1988) Ouvrages Souterrains. Presse de
overbreak, secondary overbreak or cave-in or rock burst l’école nationale des Ponts et Chaussées. Paris.
- Of all excavation techniques blasting produces most BRÄUNER, G. (1981) Gebirgsdruck und Gebirgsschläge.
overbreak. 2. Auflage. Verlag Glückauf.
- Overbreak is influenced by the presence of water, in GOODMAN, R.E., SHI, G-H. (1985) Block theory and
situ stress, rock strength, layer thickness, number of its application to rock engineering. Prentice-Hall.
discontinuity families, persistency of the JOHANSEN, J., MATHIESEN, C.F. (2000) Modern
discontinuities, orientation of the discontinuities with trends in Tunnelling and Blast Design. Balkema.
respect to the tunnel, infill etc. Most of these elements Rotterdam.
are coupled. These effects are summarised in figure 11. KOLYMBAS, D. (1998) Geotechnik - Tunnelbau und
- Overbreak is a 3D phenomenon and the orientations Tunnelmechanik. Springer.
of the discontinuities should be analysed in relation to MÜLLER L. (1958) Geomechanische Auswertung
the orientation of the tunnel. gefügekundlicher Details. Geologie und Bauwesen.
Jahrgang 24. H. 1. S.4.
Rules of thumb: MÜLLER L. (1959) Der Mehrausbruch in Tunneln und
- Average overbreak in rock masses with loose (x=1) Stollen. Sonderabdruck aus Jahrgang 24, Heft 3-4, 1955,
rock blocks with cubic form, high strength rock matrix, Geologie und Bauwesen.
is approximately equal to the average discontinuity MÜLLER L. (1978) Der Felsbau. Dritter Band. Enke
spacing Verlag. Stuttgart.
- Average overbreak in rock masses with loose (x=1) PACHER, F (1959) Kenziffern des Flächengefüges.
rock blocks with cubic form, low strength rock matrix, Geologie und Bauwesen. Vol. 24. Nr 3/4.
is approximately equal to half the average discontinuity PRINZ (1997) Abriss der Ingenieurgeologie. Enke Verlag
spacing Stuttgart.

40
 Vol. 10 No. 2 2003

SCHMITZ, R.M. (2003) Determination of the degree of

separation of rock masses according to Pacher &
Müller-Salzburg. Unpublished internal report. Available
upon request: [email protected]
STINI, J (1950) Tunnelbaugeologie. Springer. Wien.
TERZAGHI, K (1946) Rock defects and loads on Tunnel
Supports. In: Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports by:
R.V. Proctor & T.L. White. Youngstown. Ohio.
TunnelDip (2003) Spreadsheet to visualise the
orientation of the discontinuities with respect to the
tunnel. Available upon request:
[email protected]
VIROUX, S (2003) Caractérisation géotechnique de
l’apparition de hors profils lors du creusement d’un tun-
nel. MSc-Eng thesis. Department: GéomaC. Université
de Liège.
WAHLSTROM, E.E. (1973) Tunneling in Rock. In:
Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 3. Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company.
WT (2003): Mastering of Squeezing Rock in the Gotthard
Base. World Tunnelling. June 2000.

41