Bull Eng Geol Environ (2012) 71:761769

DOI 10.1007/s10064-012-0444-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Evaluation of rock bursting phenomena in a tunnel

in the Himalayas
K. K. Panthi

Received: 1 March 2012 / Accepted: 9 September 2012 / Published online: 20 October 2012
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Abstract Tunnels passing beneath deep rock cover

(overburden) are subject to instabilities caused by induced
rock stresses. In a relatively unjointed massive rock mass
the instability is associated with rock spalling/rock bursting, while if the rock mass is weak, schistose, sheared and
deformed, squeezing is more likely. This paper reports a
study which reviews stress-induced instability along the
Parbati II headrace tunnel, evaluates the rock mechanical
properties directly linked to the stress-induced instabilities
and back-calculates the magnitude of the in situ stress state
using finite element numerical modeling. An attempt is
made to evaluate the magnitude of the tectonic horizontal
stress component and to estimate the rock burst depthimpact. It is emphasized that more cases of tunnel damage
should be studied to verify the applicability of the proposed
equations and to establish the approximate range of the
horizontal tectonic stress component along the Himalayan
chain.

Larticle presente une revue des instabilites resultant des

contraintes induites observees le long de la galerie
damenee de Parbati II. Il evalue les proprietes mecaniques
directement liees a` ces instabilites et, par retro-analyse,
calcule letat de contrainte in situ a` partir dune simulation
numerique par elements finis. Une tentative est faite pour
evaluer lintensite de la composante horizontale des contraintes dorigine tectonique et pour estimer la profondeur
critique dapparition des phenome`nes de decompression
violente. Il est souligne que davantage de dommages en
tunnel devraient etre etudies pour verifier lapplicabilite
des equations proposees et pour etablir les plages de variation de la composante horizontale des contraintes dorigine tectonique le long de la chane himalayenne.

Keywords Rock burst  Impact-depth  In situ stress 

Back analysis

Introduction

Resume Les tunnels sous forte couverture rocheuse sont

sujets a` des instabilites resultant des contraintes induites a`
grande profondeur. Dans un massif rocheux de roche dure
et relativement peu fracturee, linstabilite se traduit par des
ecaillages et de la decompression violente. Dans un massif
rocheux de roche tendre, schisteuse ou en zones de cisaillement, linstabilite se traduit par de la forte convergence.

K. K. Panthi (&)
Department of Geology and Mineral Resources Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Sem Srlands vei 1, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
e-mail: krishna.panthi@ntnu.no

Mots cles Decompression violente  Profondeur critique 

Etat de contrainte in situ  Retro-analyse

Three key engineering geological factors directly influencing the stability of tunnels or underground caverns are
rock mechanical properties, in situ stress conditions and
groundwater inflow through fractures and weakness/fault
zones. Tunnels passing through areas of high rock cover
(overburden) may be subject to instabilities related to
induced rock stresses. In relatively unjointed and massive
strata, if the rock mass strength is less than the induced
stresses the instability may be mainly associated with rock
spalling or rock bursting. On the other hand, if the rock
mass is weak, schistose, sheared, deformed and thinly
foliated/bedded; squeezing is the most likely scenario
(Panthi 2012). The determination of the magnitude and
direction of the in situ rock stress is therefore necessary for

123

762

a meaningful assessment of the instability likely to be

caused by induced stresses in tunnels and underground
openings (Hudson and Harrison 1997).
This paper discusses stress-induced instability along the
headrace tunnel segment between Adit 1 and Adit 2
(Figs. 1, 2) of the Parbati II hydro-electric project in
Himachal, India and the 2D finite element numerical
modeling used to back-calculate the magnitude of the
in situ stress state. In addition, an attempt is made to
evaluate rock burst impact-depth along the periphery of
two headrace tunnel sections. The study included laboratory testing of rock mechanical properties, measured rock
burst impact-depth, and data from an existing tunnel and
used the relationships proposed by Hoek et al. (2002),
Martin and Christiansson (2009) and Panthi (2006a).

Background to the Parbati II project

The Parbati II hydro-electric project is a run-of-river
scheme located in Kullu district in the Himachal, India,
which will harness the hydro potential of the lower reaches
of the Parbati River utilising a head of 862 m. The reservoir has the storage potential to run the power plant at a
maximum installed capacity of 800 MW for 4 h a day
during the low flow season (NHPC 2000). A diversion
dam, a 31.37 km long headrace tunnel and twin inclined
penstock pressure shafts, each 1.54 km long, will convey
water from the Parbati River to a semi-underground powerhouse located on the right bank of the Sainj River near
Suind village (Fig. 1).

K. K. Panthi

As shown in Fig. 1, the headrace tunnel consists of five

different construction Adits. Much of the headrace tunnel
excavation has already been completed using drill and
blast, apart from the section upstream of Adit 2 which is
being excavated by TBM.
The project was divided into three lots (civil work contracts). Construction lot PB. 2 includes the civil works contract for the 21.23 km middle segment of the headrace tunnel
(HRT) from Chainage 3.5 to Chainage 24.73 km (Figs. 1, 2).
The longest headrace tunnel segment (13.36 km) is between
Ch 6.1 (Adit 1 junction) and Ch 19.46 km (Adit 2 junction).
For environmental reasons, this segment of tunnel was
undertaken using drill and blast (DBM) to approximately
Ch 10 km, while the 9.05 km headrace tunnel stretch
upstream from Adit 2 (between Ch 19.46 and 10.3 km)
is being excavated using a TBM (Fig. 2).
The TBM tunnel was designed as a 6.8 m diameter
circular excavation, whereas the DBM tunnel is an inverted
D shape with a bottom width of 7.6 m. Rock bolts, steel
rings and wire mesh provided the main temporary support
for the TBM excavation, while systematic rock bolting,
steel fibre shotcrete, steel arch ribs and in some places,
steel plates provided the temporary support for the DBM
section (Panthi 2006b).
Geology of the project area
The project area is located in the so called Kulu Window
(lesser Himalayan rock formation). The area is structurally
bounded by a major fault system in the Himalayas known
as the Main Central Thrust (MCT). The Kulu Window

Fig. 1 Location and layout plan of the Parbati II hydroelectric project (re-produced from NHPC 2000)

123

Tunnel rocks burst in Himalayas

763

Fig. 2 Geological cross-section of the Parbati II headrace tunnel

consists of crystalline to meta-sedimentary sequences

including granitic gneiss, mica gneiss, biotite and quartzite
schist, quartzite, slate, phyllite and dolomite (NHPC 2000).
Being surrounded by the MCT, the rocks in the project area
have undergone intense deformation and are heavily
influenced by faulting, folding, shearing and jointing.
Much of the headrace tunnel passes through steep slopes,
high mountains and deep valleys, often very weathered.
The mountains and valleys below 3,000 m asl are generally
covered with thick forest vegetation (Panthi 2003).
Rock mass conditions along the headrace tunnel
The headrace tunnel passes mainly through four categories
of rock sequences biotite schist, carbonaceous phyllite,
Manikaran quartzite and schistose granite gneiss (Fig. 2).
The biotite schist is intercalated with small bands of
quartzite schist. The carbonaceous phyllite is highly
deformed, schistose and micro-folded. The schistose
granite gneiss is occasionally intercalated with small bands
(110 m thick) of chlorite/talcose mica schist. However,
the Manikaran quartzite is relatively fresh, massive and
brittle. The headrace tunnel crosses several major and
minor weakness zones. The major weakness zones represent contact zones between different rock formations
including a prominent tectonic shear fault (NHPC 2000).
The TBM reach of the headrace tunnel begins at
approximately chainage 19.46 km at the Adit 2 junction
located on the left bank slope of Hurla Nala and ends at
approximately chainage 10 km downstream of Adit 1. This
headrace tunnel segment passes through two main rock
formations, the schistose granite gneiss and the Manikaran
quartzite. Similarly, the DBM tunnel downstream from
Adit 1 (from chainage 6.1 km) passes through three rock
formations: biotite schist, Manikaran quartzite and carbonaceous phyllite (Fig. 2). At the surface, the rock mass
between Adit 1 and Adit 2 has three prominent joint sets
with occasional random joints. The foliation joints (Jf) and
cross joints (J1) and (J2) have mean orientations of N150E/
65NE, N060E/70NW and N105E/20SW, respectively.
Joints in the Manikaran quartzite are either tight or filled
with silt material. On the other hand, joints in the granite

gneiss, biotite schist and carbonaceous phyllite are filled

with highly sheared mica clay (Panthi 2006b).
It was predicted that the headrace tunnel between Adit 1
and Adit 2 would pass through seven major and minor
weakness zones (Panthi 2003). It was also predicted that
the tunnel would experience different intensity stress
induced instability and problems related to groundwater
inflow at the boundary between the granite gneiss and the
Manikaran quartzite. Most of the predicted weakness zones
were met during the tunnel excavation, albeit with some
variation in the exact locations. The tunnel excavation from
Adit 1 downstream was completed using DBM and stopped
at chainage 10 km. The TBM excavation of the headrace
tunnel from Adit 2 upstream is ongoing; three of five
predicted weakness zones having been successfully bored
(Panthi 2011).

Review of stress induced instability

According to the Norwegian rule of thumb (Selmer-Olsen
1965) rock spalling/rock burst is likely to occur once
overburden (rock cover) above the tunnel exceeds
approximately 500 m. The extent of this type of failure is
likely to be severe, even if the tunnel runs parallel to the
valley side with a slope angle exceeding 25. In the case of
Parbati II, the rock cover along 40 % of the headrace
tunnel length exceeds this threshold. The main rock formations along this tunnel reach are biotite schist, phyllite
and Manikaran quartzite. As shown in (Figs. 1, 2), the
headrace tunnel runs through steeply dipping valley side
slopes (3050) up to chainage 9 km, with the rock cover
reaching its maximum of 1,500 m at chainage 9.25 km.
No noticeable rock spalling/rock burst occurred up to
chainage 7.5 km and the excavation progressed with only
minor plastic deformation (tunnel squeezing). The headrace tunnel up to this chainage passes mainly through
biotite schist and a small band of carbonaceous phyllite
between chainage 7.4 and 7.5 km. In this area, minor
squeezing (2.5 % was recorded), which was not considered
significant with an overburden of some 750 m. This is
probably due to the fact that the carbonaceous phyllite

123

764

includes some 30 % quartz minerals. However, after chainage 7.5 km, when the very brittle and massive Manikaran
quartzite was encountered (appeared), severe rock burst
began to occur continuously in the valley side roof of the
headrace tunnel (Fig. 4 left). The extent of the rock burst
was very severe and resulted in loss of life as well as
considerable panic among the workforce, such that progress was as low as 10 m in a month (Panthi 2009).
Similarly, TBM excavation from Adit 2 (upstream from
chainage 19.46 km) went smoothly up to chainage
16.02 km with only minor popping and squeezing between
chainage 16.02 and 15.99 km; the tunnel deformation
never exceeding 2.5 %. However, from chainage 15.99 to
chainage 15.56 an abrasive, brittle and massive quartzite
was encountered, similar to the rock formation 7.5 km
downstream (Fig. 2) and extensive splitting occurred along
the springing line (Fig. 3 right).
However, the quality of this quartzite abruptly changed
to an intensely fractured rock mass at chainage 15.56 km,
where a collapse occurred. Concrete filling of the over
break was undertaken ahead of the TBM cutter ring and
tunnel excavation continued until chainage 15.40 km. A
water bearing zone was hit, while probing through the left
wall crown of the tunnel face and the TBM excavation
came to a halt due to excessive inflows of water mixed with
silt. Three and half important years were lost due to this
incident (Panthi 2009) and it was not until April 2010 that
the groundwater inflow was fully controlled.

K. K. Panthi

is somewhat difficult and ideal conditions are required to

achieve representative back-calculation results (Panthi
2011), i.e:
1.

2.
3.

The tunnel should have a circular shape with no

noticeable blasting damage in the tunnel periphery
(preferably TBM excavation)
Reliable laboratory test results for the rock mechanical
properties should be available
The tunnel should be in the elastic-brittle failure limit

In this case the headrace tunnel upstream of Adit 2 was

being excavated using a TBM such that the tunnel had a
circular shape. The laboratory test results for the rock
mechanical properties of the Manikaran quartzite were
available (Table 1). As minor rock splitting (Fig. 3 right)
occurred along the spring line of the tunnel at around
chainage 15.7 km, the tunnel could also be considered to
be at the elastic-brittle failure limit. The rock splitting
indicates the major principle stresses (r1) are oriented
vertically and intermediate (r2) and minor (r3) principle
stresses are oriented horizontally.
Rock mechanical properties
Rock mechanical properties, in particular rock strength and
deformability properties, are key in the back-calculation of
in situ stress magnitudes. Table 1 gives the test results for the
Manikaran quartzite and indicates less favourable material
from chainage 7.5 to 9.25 km (upstream of the Jutogh thrust)
compared with the material upstream of Adit 2.

Evaluation on the state of stresses

Inputs for back calculation of stresses
The magnitude of principle stresses in the rock mass may
be established by two means; in situ stress measurement
and back-calculation using numerical modeling. The latter

Representative input variables (Table 2) were estimated

based on the rock mechanical properties given in Table 1

Fig. 3 Rock burst along headrace tunnel in Manikaran quartzite. Damage in drill and blast tunnel in the valley side roof around chainage 8.6 km
(left) and damage in TBM tunnel in the spring line around chainage 15.7 km (right)

123

Tunnel rocks burst in Himalayas

765

Table 1 Mean values of laboratory tested mechanical properties of

Manikaran quartzite
Mechanical properties

Adit 1 DS

Adit 2 US

Specific weight, MN/m3

0.026

0.026

Intact rock strength (UCS) (rci), MPa

150

175

Elasticity modulus (Eci), GPa

60

65

Poissons ratio (m)

0.18

0.2

Strength anisotropy coefficient

1.05

1.1

Mode of failure

Brittle

Brittle

Table 2
Estimated mean values of input variables for chainage 8.1
(DBM) and 15.7 km (TBM)
Description

Estimated values
Chainage
8.1 km

Chainage
15.7 km

Ground surface elevation, m

2,992

2,930

Rock cover above tunnel, m

810

775

Geological strength index

70

70

Material constant (mi)

20

20

Disturbance factor (D)

0.8

Reduced material constant (mb)

6.85

6.85

Constant (s)

0.035

0.035

Constant (a)

0.501

0.501

Peak friction angle (), deg

53.7

53.7

Cohesion (c), MPa

5.75

6.25

Tensile strength (rt), MPa

1.1

1.1

Deformation modulus (Ecm), GPa

12.2

14.3

relationships proposed by Hoek et al. (2002) and Panthi

(2006a) and the actual rock mass quality conditions
observed in the tunnel. Reduced material constant (mb),
constant (s), cohesion (c), peak frictional angle () and
tensile strength (rt) were calculated using Rock Data. The
deformation modulus (Ecm) was calculated using the relationship proposed by Panthi (2006a), which is relevant to
the schistose rock mass of the Himalaya and is expressed
as:
Ecm

1
 Eci  r0:5
ci
60

weight (c) and the rock cover (h). At chainage 15.7 km, the
rock cover is 775 m and the Manikaran quartzite has a
specific weight of 0.026 MN/m3 (Table 1). This gives a
vertical gravity stress (r1) of 20.2 MPa. Concerning horizontal principle stresses, based on the failure shown in
Fig. 3 right it can be assumed that one of the horizontal
stresses is oriented perpendicular to the length axis of the
headrace tunnel (in plane) and another parallel to the length
axis of the headrace tunnel (out of plane). The magnitude
of the horizontal stress (rh) is unknown and may be
expressed by the following equation:
v
 rv rtec
rh
2
1v
where m is Poissons ratio, rv is gravity stress (in this case
also the major principle stress r1) and rtec = tectonic
horizontal stress (locked-in stress).
The Himalayan region is tectonically active. The magnitude of total tectonic horizontal stress varies considerably
and depends upon geographical location, geological environment (homogeneity in the rock mass) and distance from
the main tectonic fault systems of the Himalaya. The
general trend of horizontal tectonic stress orientations
based on seismicity records along the Main Frontal Thrust
(MFT) of the Himalaya are shown in Fig. 4.
As shown in Fig. 4, the tectonic horizontal stress is at
approximately N065E in the project area (far western part
of the Himalayan chain), while between Adits 1 and 2 the
approximate azimuth of the tunnel is N005E (Figs. 1, 5).
This means that the horizontal tectonic stress (rtec) is at
approximately 60 to the headrace tunnel alignment
between Adit 1 and Adit 2. As the rock splitting occurred
along the springing line at chainage 15.7, the intermediate
and minimum principle stresses are perpendicular and
parallel to the tunnel axis, respectively.
Based on these assumptions and the data in Tables 1
and 2, back-calculation of the perpendicular (in plane)
horizontal stress was carried out using the MohrCoulomb

where Eci is the Youngs modulus of intact rock and rci is

the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock.
Back-calculation of in situ stresses at chainage 15.7 km
As discussed, the Manikaran quartzite at chainage 15.7 km
failed along the spring line (Fig. 3 right) and hence the
major principle stress should theoretically be represented
by the gravity alone, i.e., r1 is the product of the specific

Fig. 4 Approximate horizontal tectonic stress orientation based on

World Stress Map (2008). Note: stress tensors, and international
boundary are not in true scale

123

766

Fig. 5 Rosette giving orientation of horizontal stresses and headrace

tunnel alignment between Adit 1 and Adit 2

failure envelope and Phase 2 finite element code. From the

rock splitting along the springing line at chainage 15.7 km,
it can be assumed that the factor of safety is close to or just
below one. In order to achieve yield at this position, three
different stress ratios (i.e., 0.6, 0.55 and 0.5) were used in
the numerical modeling (Fig. 6) with a constant vertical
major principle stress (r1) and two different input variables
of the rock mass properties representing the maximum and
mean values from Table 2.
As seen in Fig. 6 (upper part) no yielding occurred with
horizontal to vertical stress ratios of 0.6, 0.55 and 0.5 and
the maximum rock mass properties. However, when the

K. K. Panthi

mean values for the rock mass properties were used,

yielding occurred for all three horizontal to vertical stress
ratios. The simulation also indicated a considerable reduction in the safety factor to close to or below one along and
near the periphery of the circular tunnel. The yielding (both
tension and shear) for a horizontal to vertical stress ratio of
0.5 appears more symmetric than the other two (Fig. 6),
with the yielding concentrated along the springing line and
a safety factor as low as 0.89. As a consequence, this stress
ratio is considered representative for the splitting (failure)
that occurred at chainage 15.7 km. With this stress ratio of
0.5, the horizontal stress component perpendicular to the
length axis of the headrace tunnel (in plane) should be
approximately 10.1 MPa, which is 50 % of the total vertical
stress. This means the horizontal tectonic stress component
perpendicular to the length axis of the headrace tunnel at
chainage 15.7 km can be calculated using Eq. 2. In addition, as the total (resultant) tectonic stress (rtec) has an
azimuth of N065E (Fig. 5), the magnitude of rtec can also
be calculated using vector tensor and simple trigonometry.
Table 3 gives details of the calculation results using
Eq. 2 and Fig. 5 and indicates a horizontal tectonic stress
of 7.5 MPa at this far western part of the Himalayan chain.
It must be appreciated, however, that this value can only be
considered valid for those areas where the rock mass is
massive and no de-stressing, intense fracturing or shearing
has occurred.

Fig. 6 Strength factor counters and yielding conditions achieved by Phase 2 numerical modeling for three different horizontal to vertical ratios
and two different rock mechanical property variables for chainage 15.7 km

123

Tunnel rocks burst in Himalayas

767

Table 3 Summary of back calculated approximate in situ stresses at

chainage 15.7 km
Descriptions

Adit 1 DS (MPa)

Total gravitational stress (in this case r1)

20.2

Total in plane stress (in this case r2)

10.1

In plane tectonic stress component (r2tec)

5.6

Total horizontal tectonic stress component (rtec)

7.5

Out of plane tectonic stress component (r3tec)

1.9

Total out of plane stress (in this case r3)

7.6

Analysis of the topographic effect at chainage 8.1 km

While excavating through the Manikaran quartzite downstream from chainage 7.5 km (Fig. 2), severe rock burst
occurred along the valley side roof of the headrace tunnel
after almost every alternate blasting round, generally concentrated at a distance of between 6 and 10 m from the
tunnel face (Panthi 2006b).
The laboratory tested and estimated mean values of rock
mass properties (Tables 1, 2) and the back-calculated
horizontal tectonic stress perpendicular to the length axis of
the headrace tunnel (5.6 MPa) at chainage 15.7 km were
used as inputs to determine the magnitude of the in situ
rock stresses at chainage 8.1 km. At this chainage, the
headrace tunnel has 810 m of rock cover and a valley slope
inclination of c. 40. The topographic model developed to
simulate stress conditions using Phase 2 is shown in Fig. 7.
It can be seen that the stress orientation is greatly influenced by topography; the major principle stress path
effectively following the topography with an inclination of
about 70 at the tunnel location. The magnitude of the
stress tensor was found to be about 19.5 MPa. Similarly,
the minor in-plane stress, which is perpendicular to the
major one, has a magnitude of 8.1 MPa.

Analysis on rock burst depth-impact

A rock burst is a phenomenon, similar to a seismic event,
which occurs in a brittle and isotropic rock mass when the
rock mass strength (rcm) is less than the magnitude of
maximum tangential compressive stress (rh-max). Prior to
the excavation the rock mass is at a state of equilibrium,
but once the tunnel is excavated, re-distribution of the
in situ stresses occurs at the tunnel periphery. During this
re-distribution process the maximum stress is at the tunnel
periphery, which is parallel or close to parallel to r1.
Rock bursts cause significant damage at the tunnel
periphery and present a significant danger to the workforce.
The rock burst depth-impact reaches its maximum where
the maximum tangential stress is concentrated and depends

Fig. 7 Topographic stress state as simulated for chainage 8.1 km

upon the magnitude of the maximum tangential stress, the

brittleness characteristics (mineral composition) of the rock
and the rock mass strength. Figure 8 shows rock burst
depth-impact measured at chainage 8.1 and 15.7 km. The
rock burst depth-impact measured to the right side roof
(above springing line) at chainage 8.1 km was c. 1.4 m,
while along the springing line at chainage 15.7 km it was
0.45 m.
Estimating the severity of rock burst depth-impact is
crucial in order to build a strategy on the application of
rock support, in particular the length and type of rock
anchors to be applied to achieve sufficient safety while
tunneling. Martin and Christiansson (2009) proposed a
relationship (Eq. 3) to calculate rock burst depth-impact
(Sd) based on the tunnel radius (r) and the ratio between
maximum tangential stress (rh-max) and rock mass spalling
strength (rsm).


rhmax
sd  r  0:5 
 0:52
3
rsm
Martin and Christiansson (2009) considered the
magnitude of in situ spalling strength for glacially eroded
massive Scandinavian crystalline rocks lies between 55 and
65 % of the intact rock strength (rci), while the laboratory
tested crack initiation strength lies between 40 and 50 % of
the intact rock strength. Comparison of the crack initiation
values measured in laboratory uniaxial tests and the
spalling rock mass strength by Martin et al. (1999)
suggests that the crack initiation provides a lower bound
limit for the rock mass spalling strength and in crystalline
rocks frequently occurs between 0.4 and 0.6 of the mean
uniaxial compressive strength.

123

768

K. K. Panthi

Fig. 8 Magnitude of rock burst depth-impact at chainage 8.1 (left) and 15.7 km (right)
Table 4 Calculated results of rock burst depth-impact (Sd) for
chaninage 8.1 and 15.7 km
Descriptions

For chainage
8.1 km

For chainage
15.7 km

Headrace tunnel radius, m

In plane maximum principle stress
(in this case r1), MPa

3.8
19.5

3.4
20.2

In plane minimum principle stress

(in this case r3), MPa

8.1

10.1

Intact rock strength (rci), MPa

150

175

In plane maximum tangential stress

(rh-max), MPa

50.4

50.5

Rock mass strength (rcm or rsm),

MPa

30.6

38.6

Rock burst depth-impact (Sd), m

1.15

Conclusion

0.46

Equation 3 was used to determine the rock burst depthimpact (Sd) for the rock mass of the Himalayas based on the
mechanical properties of the Manikaran quartzite presented
in Table 1, the back-calculated in situ stress magnitude and
the Kirsch equation (Eq. 4) for calculating maximum tangential stress (rh-max). In view of the ongoing tectonic activity
and no glaciation effect in the region, the use of a rock mass
spalling strength (rsm) of between 0.4 and 0.6 of the intact
rock strength was considered to be too optimistic for the
Himalayas, hence rsm was calculated using Eq. 5 proposed
by Panthi (2006a), see also Panthi and Nilsen (2007).
rhmax 3r1  r3
rcm

r1:5
ci
60

4
5

The results of the computations are presented in

Table 4, which indicates that Eq. 3 in combination with

123

Eqs. 4 and 5 provide fairly comparable results with the

measured rock burst impact-depth shown in Fig. 8 and
hence may be useful to approximate the rock burst depthimpact for the rock mass of the Himalaya. However, it is
difficult to ascertain the reliability of such an estimation
based on only two cases. More importantly, while the rock
mass strengths calculated using Eq. 5 are relevant to the
weak, highly schistose, sheared and thinly foliated/bedded
rock mass in the study area, further work is required to
assess its relevance for other tunnel damage in the
Himalayas.

Instability caused by induced stresses is a serious issue in

the Himalayas. Establishing both magnitude and direction
of in situ stresses is a basis for assessing the stability
condition of underground openings. The back-calculated
in situ stresses at chainage 15.7 km of the Parbati II
headrace tunnel indicated that the tectonic component of
the locked-in horizontal stress is approximately 7.5 MPa.
Similar back calculation should be carried out in other
tunnel projects in the region to verify these results and also
to establish the approximate range of the horizontal tectonic stress component along the Himalayan chain. It is
emphasized here that schistocity, shearing, degree of
weathering and tunnel location along the Himalayan chain
greatly influences the in situ stress. The more homogeneous
and intact the rock mass, the more reliable will be the backcalculated results.
The attempt made to assess rock burst impact-depth
using Eqs. 3, 4 and 5 looks promising. However, it is too
early to be confident of the reliability/applicability of the

Tunnel rocks burst in Himalayas

approach used in this study as the rock burst depth-impact

is influenced by many factors, such as extent of schistocity
and the mineralogical composition of the rock mass. More
data records representing different rock formations and
locations should be collected and used to verify and
improve the validity of the proposed equations.

References
Hoek E Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Proceeding of the
NARMSTAC Conference, Toronto, vol 1, pp 267273
Hudson JA, Harrison JP (1997) Engineering rock mechanics an
introduction to the principle. Pergamon Press, New York
Martin CD, Christiansson R (2009) Estimating the potential for
spalling around a deep nuclear waste repository in crystalline
rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:219228
Martin CD, Kaiser PK, McCreath DR (1999) HoekBrown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels.
Can Geotech J 36(1):136151
NHPC (2000) Geological dataParbati II hydroelectric project stage II,
Himachal, India. Contract agreement for civil and hydro-mechanical works for headrace tunnel and associated works (PB-2), vol 8.
National Hydroelectric Corporation Ltd. (NHPC), India
Panthi KK (2003) Field visit and laboratory test report on TBM
section of headrace tunnel, Parbati II Hydroelectric Project,
Himachal. Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), Norway

769
Panthi KK (2006a) Analysis of engineering geological uncertainties
related to tunneling in Himalayan rock mass conditions. Doctoral
theses at NTNU 2006:41, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Norway ISBN 82-471-7826-5
Panthi KK (2006b) Evaluation and analysis of geological adversity
for headrace tunnel between Adit 1 and Adit 2. Parbati II
Hydroelectric Project, Himachal (evaluation report)
Panthi KK (2009) Appropriateness of open TBM in the Himalayan
rock mass conditionsa case study. Proceedings of the ISRM
Regional Symposium EUROCK 2009, Cavtat Croatia, 2831
October 2009, pp 815820
Panthi KK (2011) Assessment on stress induced instability in a tunnel
project of the Himalaya. Proceedings of the 12th ISRM
International Congress on Rock Mechanics. Harmonizing Rock
Engineering and the Environment, Beijing, October 2011,
pp 17771782
Panthi KK (2012) A probabilistic approach in assessing tunnel
squeezinga discussion based on tunnel projects from Nepal
Himalaya. Proceedings of the 46th US Rock Mechanics/
Geomechanics Symposium to be held in Chicago, 2427 June
2012
Panthi KK, Nilsen B (2007) Uncertainty analysis of tunnel squeezing
for two tunnel cases from Nepal Himalaya. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 44:6776
Selmer-Olsen R (1965) Stability of tunnels in valley sides (in
Norwegian). IVA-meddelande. vol 142, Stockholm, p 7783
World Stress Map (2008) World stress map based on the database
release 2008. http://www-wsm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/pub/stress_
data/stress_data_frame.html

123