WORLD TUNNEL CONGRESS, IGUASSÚ FALLS, BRAZIL, MAY 14, 2014

QUO VADIS TUNNEL ENGINEERING?

PREDICTING THE UNPREDICTABLE

MEMORIAL CLOSING LECTURE by PROFESSOR Z T RICHARD BIENIAWSKI

"The Illiterate of the 21st century will NOT be

those who cannot read and write, but those
who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn."

Alvin Toffler, Futurist

It is my distinct pleasure to visit Brazil for the second time and I thank
President Hugo Rocha and Chairman Celestino for their kind invitation to
deliver this Closing Lecture – an honor, which I highly appreciate.
My first visit to Brazil took place a long time ago, in 1974 during the 2nd
International Congress on Engineering Geology in Sao Paulo but I remember it
vividly because my friend, the late Victor de Mello, a brilliant professor and
engineer showed me around the site of your world-famous ITAIPU dam (8 km
long!) and powerhouse (a record 14,000 MW) and I learned much from that
visit. What also helped to keep it in my memory was that next I attended a
football match in Rio de Janeiro at the equally famous Maracaná Stadium – the
largest in the world for over 170,000 spectators! As a former football player and
an aficionado, I was simply overwhelmed!
Today I am privileged to view Brazil from another angle: that of the
Theme to which this Congress is dedicated: "Tunnels for a Better Life", and my
function is to assess whether the mission of all of us here, organizers, authors,
participants and exhibitors, was achieved in terms of this Theme, and also to
identify what significant directions of development might we expect in the
future.
In this task, I am assisted by the thoughtful Alan Muir Wood Lecture and
the Keynote Addresses delivered during the Opening Session.
 I had the honor to know personally Sir Alan Muir Wood and we have met
on many occasions going back to his time in South Africa working on the 80-km
water-carrying Orange-Fish Tunnel, and also during his term of office as the
first President and Founder of the International Tunnelling Association. We
became friends, although he was my senior by some 15 years, and we kept in
contact while I was vice-chairman of the newly formed SANCOT (South
African National Committee on Tunnelling). During a
number of social hours Sir Alan shared with me his
views on what one should expect from attending a
World Tunnel Congress! Well, have YOU thought
about it? He, an accomplished engineer and leader but
also – being of a Scottish heritage with a great sense of
humor – he said to me: "With so many congresses and
  colloquia and symposia taking place every year, I
demand of the people that I send to attend: 'bring me
back just one and only one good idea which I can use and I will pay all of your
travelling expenses plus throw in a bottle of wine'!"
I liked it so much that – today – I have selected three areas of tunnel
engineering for you to choose, and will scrutinize what ideas have emerged
from each, and how they relate to the Congress theme. For this reason, I
encompassed the three options under my bold title: "Quo Vadis Tunnel
Engineering? Predicting the Unpredictable".
By the way, the phrase "Quo Vadis" is a famous Latin expression meaning
"Where Are You Going?" used to indicate a future destiny. It is based on a book
by the Polish Nobel Prize author, Henryk Sienkiewicz (1895).
For us here, to answer our QUO VADIS, I re-state this prediction:
"The Illiterate of the 21st century will NOT be those who cannot read and write,
but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn." Alvin Toffler, Futurist

This message will be an umbrella for my Closing Lecture.

The topics I selected for your consideration are:

(1) Tunnel Design Methodologies,
(2) Education for new cadres of tunnel engineers and planners, and
(3) Site investigation expenditures needed for effective tunnel design and
construction.

  2 
 Immediately you might ask: "Why predicting the unpredictable? Is this
reasonable and possible to do at all – within our life span?
The answer is: Certainly! And it has been done before
on an even grander scale!
Please consider this Figure showing the title of a
book published not so long ago: "The next 500 Years (!) –
Life in the Coming Millennium" by Adrian Barry. The
author maintains that there is a rule about predicting the
future, namely, that events only seem extraordinary at the
time when they are predicted, never after they have
happened. Thus the present seems "ordinary" to us and the
future appears "fantastic." But the present was once
  someone else's future, and the future will be someone else's
present. Thus when Brazil was discovered, people were
filled with wonder, but today they see it as an exciting and interesting place
where millions of people live.
If you are a little confused, consider the next Figure, which is much closer
to our profession: "The next 50 years of the ISRM and anticipated future progress in
Rock Mechanics" by John Hudson, president (2007-2011) of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics. He pointed out that Hippocrates, the Greek
physician (460-377 BC), used a method for predicting the future which is
summarized as:

"Consider the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future".

Accordingly, based on what has been achieved in the past, and knowing
what the state of the art is today, let us identify the major problems in the three
areas I mentioned above, the problems, which need to be solved in the future.
 

  3 
Hudson believes that predicting the future is not only possible but also
interesting, "because it encompasses relevant questions relating to the nature of
the rock engineering community, storage and disseminating knowledge and the
impact of the increase in computing power." To this, I would add the impact on
the society and the environment of the positive influence of the use of tunnels -
the theme of our Congress.

Emerging Methodologies and Principles of Tunnel Design

"It is not the things we don't know that cause us problems,
but the things we think we know for sure."
General Dwight Eisenhower

Yes, this quotation is to remind us that we are all

quite sure how we design tunnels, but we should always
keep an open mind for new ideas. In this respect, our ITA
  Founder Alan Muir Wood insisted on the importance of
applying scientific principles to engineering design. This
was emphasized in his book "Tunnelling: Management by Design", published in
2002. This Congress had an abundance of good presentations dealing with the
subject of TUNNEL DESIGN and it seems every tunnel engineer has their own
approach to design. In fact, the ITA had a Working Group devoted to this
subject and the ISRM did likewise.

 
   

Tunnel design has been treated extensively in various textbooks over the
years by a number of authors: "Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and
Tunneling" (1984) and "Design Methodology in Rock Engineering" (1992).
Recently, Xia-Ting Feng and John A. Hudson published their book “Rock
Engineering Design" (2011).

  4 
 This latest books points out that the subject of design methodology "is
now experiencing and will continue to experience major developments in the future
because of new capabilities provided by the use of computer programs that can model the
rock behavior in new and more insightful ways."
In this spirit, the Systems Design Methodology for Rock Engineering was
proposed two decades ago (Bieniawski 1992) and is depicted in Figure 1. It was
used subsequently by Feng and Hudson as a basis for a modified approach.
At the same time, at this Congress and at the last 2013 Rapid Excavation
and Tunnelling Conference, a considerable number of papers describing
important tunneling projects did not describe specifically any tunnel design
methodology used, or only provided a superficial mention. One of the reasons
for it is that there is no requirement by the Owners/Planners nor by
government agencies to disclose a standard design procedure because it does
not exist, except the European Union Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Design,
which allows a number of exceptions.
The intent of the Eurocodes is to unify the
design methodology. They replace the 27 existing
national building codes in Europe with one building
code covering the entire European Union. In total,
there are 58 parts and 5500 pages. Eurocode 7
defines the design of 'geostructures'. The design
principles and methods are unified, but nationally
varying conditions (such as rock mass strength and
predominant stress field) can be taken into account
 
via National Annex Documents (NADs). Many
countries lack a NAD suitable for rock engineering,
but the United Kingdom has produced one.
The Eurocodes do not explicitly state how to design rock excavations, but they
define the minimum requirements for design.
I believe the need for unified design methodologies will become more
pronounced as the subject of underground nuclear waste disposal, a sensitive
political issue, will come to the fore calling for verifiable tunnel design
principles and methodologies, as it did temporarily in the USA during the site
selection program at the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage Site.

  5 
  6 
 In the meantime a workable compromise has emerged with the approach
reported from Spain by Dr Celada and his team introducing the DEA (Diseño
Estructural Activo) concept, translated as "Interactive Tunnel Design
Methodology". This is depicted as three charts of Figure 2 below, dealing with
the three phases of DEA: Site Characterization, Design Procedure, and Tunnel
Construction. The details and advantages are discussed elsewhere (Celada
2011).

 
 
The advantages of the Interactive Structural Design (DEA) concept as a design
methodology for tunnels are:
(i) Increased safety during construction due to tunnel deformations being confirmed
by stress-strain analyses assessing each support type;
(ii) Opportunity to compare analytical calculations with the actual measured
deformations thus providing reliable values of the convergence, which reflects the
behavior of rock masses; &

  7 
 (iii) Minimization of instrumentation in the tunnel
because the control of rock mass behavior is based
on only measurements of the convergence.
In considering different design
methodologies, we can benefit much by
exchanging ideas derived from mining - civil
engineering interaction. This is important
because I have observed that it is not often that
civil engineers relate closely to mining
technology and vice versa. In fact, I was
fortunate to be equally involved in both these
disciplines and learned that here are many
practical considerations, which are different
when designing tunnels in mining and in civil
engineering. Our founder Alan Muir Wood
(1979) believed that these differences in practice
  arise from different traditions, different
acceptable standards and different regulations
as well. However, in my opinion there are some essential differences in the
design of mining and civil engineering tunnels:
(1) most civil engineering tunnels are virtually permanent (e.g. underground railways, water
tunnels, etc.) while mining tunnels are temporary, although, of course, some mining tunnels
can have a service life of several decades;
(2) civil engineering tunnels serve mainly the general public whereas mining tunnels are
used only by trained miners;
(3) the total length of tunnels in mines exceeds many-fold the length of tunnels excavated for
civil engineering purposes and it is not surprising, therefore, that more exacting standards
are employed in civil engineering than are in mining engineering (for example in site
exploration, in excavation, in support, etc.);
(4) ground conditions in mining are better known because of the mining activities over a
number of years while civil engineering structures are usually placed in ground needing
detailed site exploration;
(5) civil engineering structures are generally at shallow depths (less than 500 m below
surface) with the influence of the field stress being frequently neglected and the absence of a
well-developed compressive stress field giving rise to the dominant effect that geological
factors have in civil engineering - in mining the stress field is of paramount importance;
(6) since mining is a dynamic process, mining excavations are subjected to changing stress
conditions and this necessitates different rock reinforcement than for static stress situations –
civil engineering tunnels, in general, do not experience changing stress conditions;

  8 
(7) mining aims at increasing profits and funds are less available for design investigations
than in civil engineering; and
(8) civil engineering sites can often be selected for their superior rock conditions, whereas in
mining the ore location dictates the site.

The special area where mining has made most significant progress
concerns the maximum extraction of ore or coal compatible with acceptable
criteria for stability. Thus mining case histories in Figure 3 were most essential
when compiling data of the stand up time for unsupported underground
excavations.

Figure 3. The stand up time of tunnels constructed by drilling and blasting as a

function of RMR (Bieniawski 1989). Black squares represent mining cases.

I would like to suggest that, in the spirit of Alan Muir Wood's

recommendation of taking home "one thought provoking idea", we should
make a resolution such as this: "Be specific when describing the chosen tunnel
design methodology and use it as a check-list (similar to what a pilot does
prior to take off) to ensure that all aspects of the undertaking are
incorporated."

  9 
 Training Tunnel Engineers and Educating Planners/Owners
"Each modern profession worthy of its name requires
three elements: Theory, Education and Practice.
The reason: they are needed to guarantee its capacity
for renewal and development."
Philosopher Herbert Simon (1969)

With reference to the above quotation, the profession of tunnel

engineering, supported by the science of rock mechanics, certainly may pride
itself on having theory as one of its elements and the presence of magnificent
tunnels and other underground works provides plenty of proof for well-
established practice in our field, going back to the times of King Hezekiah (700
BC) whose tunnel is mentioned in the Bible (2 Kings 20:20).
But what about the element of education, that is, of training new cadres of
tunnel engineers and engineering geologists, and educating non-technical
planners and owners who control the purses of our projects?
The Brazilian organizers of this Congress have presented all of us with a
challenge as well as an objective for this gathering here at the lovely Iguassu
Falls. In setting the theme "Tunnels for Better Life", they state in the
introduction to the Program: "The WTC 2014 comes at an important moment of
development in South American countries…tunnels can provide a better life for
the population…Brazil and Latin America have the opportunity to prove that
this is possible…the technical community must show authorities the
applications tunnels can have and how they can improve the population's
quality of life …and to spread tunneling culture."
Have we made a start at this Congress to achieve these aims and what
should we do next?
Yes, there are a number of note-worthy papers (see Bibliography)
indicating the importance of tunnels in our lives, while preserving the precious
surface for the population to enjoy leisure, work and quality living.
But two challenges remain: (i) training new tunnel engineers and
engineering geologists through dedicated degree programs and continuing
education which are currently lacking at most technical universities, not only in
South America but also in the developed countries of Europe and North
America. I can speak from first-hand experience having taught in the USA and
in Spain, Great Britain and in Poland; the fact is that, with some exceptions,
there are few dedicated professional programs for tunnel engineering as
universities struggle and compete for subject allocations. What there is are

  10 
broad degree programs in civil engineering or mining engineering but not for
specialists in tunnel engineering.
To be more specific, a recent study (2010) on "Education in Underground
Science and Engineering" by the Rock Mechanics Foundation, stated its findings
as follows:
"The current status is that graduate education in rock engineering does
not have a broad base of support among institutions of higher learning. For
example, among the approximately 200 civil engineering departments studied,
less than 10% have substantial graduate programs in rock mechanics; those
with geotechnical programs are mainly focused on soil mechanics. Most
universities with mining departments do have rock mechanics, those are few in
number and departments tend to be small."
In essence, rock engineering education has not been well-recognized or
established in the universities, and the numbers of both students and instructors
may be shrinking. What might come is enhanced need for education due to
growing needs in mining and petroleum industries, which in turn may lead to a
renewed interest in rock engineering.
Nevertheless, at this Congress, an excellent initiative took place during
the pre-Congress ITA Training Session about tunnels for energy. Its 16 hours of
classes, delivered by professionals, aimed to enhance the education and training
of graduate students and young professionals.
In addition, a guide to tunnelling education was listed in the journal
Tunnels & Tunnelling, June 2010, p.32 (but some courses discontinued by 2014):
(1) Master in “Tunneling and Underground Space” at Warwick University
in England; duration: 12 months, tuition fee: £7,050 for EU;
(2) Master in “NATM-Engineer” at jointly Graz University and Leoben
University, Austria; duration: 2 years, tuition fee: €16,000;
(3) Online “Certificate in Tunneling” at the University of Texas at Austin;
duration: 2 years, tuition fee: $15,000;
(4) Post-Master degree course in “Tunnelling and TBMs” at Politecnico di
Turino, Italy; duration: 12 months, tuition fee: €5,000; and
(5) Master of “Advanced Studies in Tunnelling” at Ecole Polytechnique de
Lausanne, Switzerland; duration: 10 months, tuition fee: CHFr18,000.
Also on record are Master degree courses at the AGH University of
Science and Technology in Kraków, Poland, in the College (Wydzial) of
GeoEngineering.

  11 
 All of the above are very worthy initiatives but they are still only
exceptions to the current stagnation status in rock tunneling training and
education.
The second challenge is to educate non-technical persons involved in
planning tunneling projects or being owners or government officials
administering underground projects. These people long to be better informed
about the finer aspects of tunneling, applications and use, as well as cost control
– but where should they seek such education? I believe that the tunneling
community should provide such opportunities.
So, once again, in the spirit of Alan Muir Wood's vision, please make a
note of this "thought-provoking idea #2": explore further possibilities for
improving training of young tunnel engineers – men and, yes, women – as well;
if you are a professor or a teacher, take the initiative at your institution of
higher learning, if you are in the tunneling business, help secure funds for a new
industrial course; if you are neither: write articles to the press and the media
suggesting action for the benefit of the society. Finally, for all of us at this
Congress: let us support the concept of "continuing education" for tunnel
engineers and engineering geologists, and "short courses" for non-technical
tunnel planners, administrators and government officials to become better
acquainted with our field and its practitioners.

When is "Enough" sufficiently Enough for Tunnel Site Investigations?

"Not all experience is necessarily good.
We must learn only the best practices -
those used most widely in the most
successfully competitive firms"
John Dixon (1991)

We often plan the scope of site investigations based on our experience

with similar projects. The quotation above warns us to be careful, as not all
experience is necessary good.
When I look back on my 50 years of involvement in rock engineering
(since 1963) I notice a peculiar trend, which concerns me - site investigations for
tunnels. In the first two decades of my tunneling activities, I saw tremendous
developments of new site investigation techniques and the increasing scope of
site investigation programs based on the understanding that spending sufficient
time and money in the early phases of a tunneling project will ultimately save
on design and construction, will provide increased safety and will avoid costly

  12 
disputes or corrections of wrong guesses. Oddly enough, in the past two
decades I noticed precisely the opposite trends: as the owners/planners tried to
trim their budgets and tunnel designers competed for projects, the first thing
cut to reduce costs and completion times, was the scope of site investigations.
Increasing more emphasis was placed on computer modeling both to impress
the owners with colorful graphics and to demonstrate having "cutting edge"
technologies.
In fact, a stage was reached where the sophistication of analytical
modeling far exceeded the level of reliability of the input data on rock mass
properties from limited site investigations. All of this leads to a question, which
has been asked before but which is more pressing today because of the
emergence of mega-tunneling projects: "When is enough ENOUGH" for tunnel
site investigations? Let us look at some examples. In the 1980's I carefully
compiled the relevant data from a number of projects during an era of major
growth of the tunneling industry.
An example of detailed costs of a tunneling project
The case of the Elandsberg project in South Africa serves as an example of
a successful design methodology featuring an efficient cost-benefit approach
(Bieniawski 1992,p.123-127). In view of the fact that the rock engineering
investigations were so extensive in scope and so ambitious in effort, it may
indeed be asked what were the direct benefits of the exploratory tunnels and
enlargements and what were the costs involved in this design case. As said
earlier, because the author realized the uniqueness of the project from the start,
he kept a design diary recording the technical events, personal observations,
design decisions, and costs. Some of this information has been published
(Bieniawski, 1976; 1984) and the permission of the owner has been
acknowledged.
The justification for the in situ trials lies in the fact that there was no other
reliable way than a full scale test enlargement to predict the maximum rock
spans for the powerhouse. In addition, in view of the unusual depth of
weathering, i.e. 60-100 m below surface, through which the outlet (tailrace)
tunnels had to pass, a tailrace test enlargement was necessary for the most
economic tunnel design. Moreover, only a large in-situ test such as a radial
press test could determine reliably whether a concrete lining, instead of steel,
was acceptable for the penstocks. This alone saved the owner about $260,000 (in
1977 dollars).
Apart from these justifications of the exploratory excavations, there were
direct benefits, namely the tunnels could be utilized when actual construction

  13 
started. For example, the access tunnel to the exploratory works would be
enlarged to construct the eventual main access tunnel. Most of all, the rock
conditions would be so well known that the element of risk of 'unforeseen
conditions' would be removed from the contractor's bid thus resulting in a
substantially lower overall contract price. As far as the costs of the design
investigations are concerned, the total costs including the site characterization
program and exploratory tunnels were 2.8% of the civil construction costs of the
project, as listed below. The cost of the rock engineering investigations alone
(design and data analyses, equipment, and drilling of test boreholes in adits)
was $670,600 or only 0.6% of the civil construction costs.
The full cost details are listed below (in 1980 dollars):
Mechanical and electrical installations $133,000,000 (41.6%)
Surface facilities 63,800,000 (19.9%)
Civil construction 119,700,000 (37.4%)
Design costs 3,353,000 (1.05%)
(2.8% of civil construction)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Overall costs $319,853,000 (100%)
Details of the design costs totaling $3,353,000:
Pilot tunnels and test adits: 1,995,000 (59.5%)
Drilling for geologic site characterization: 687,400 (20.5%)
Design and data analyses (3 years): 368,600 (11.0%)
Rock mechanics equipment: 168,000 (5.0%)
Test boreholes in adits: 134,000 (4.0%)
It is concluded from this project that well planned, well executed design
investigations were performed over 40 years ago (!) using a range of tests and
methodologies that would be hard to match even today. In fact, the author's
involvement on this project provided him with such a wealth of design
experience that it could be used on any modern project without fear of being
out-of-date. On the contrary, some recent design investigations on major
projects do not even come close to those conducted at Elandsberg so long ago.
For example, no plate bearing tests of this scope have been performed in the
United States in the past decade!
At the same time, the US National Committee on Tunneling Technology
(USNC/TT) published a major study in 1984 entitled "Geotechnical Site
Investigations for Underground Projects": Review of Practice and Recommendations"

  14 
and concluded with these guidelines: "Expenditures for geotechnical site
exploration should average 3% of the estimated project cost." Today typical
levels are less than 1%, which is totally incompatible with the over 10% average
of project costs being doled out in payment of legal claims, usually for
unexpected subsurface conditions.
However, this recommendation requires considerable planning and
justification, stated as follows by the USNC/TT: "The geotechnical site
investigations cannot predict every problem that may be encountered, and attempts to
do so generally result in programs that are disproportionately expensive for the value
received. For every underground project, cost-benefit is a key element. Increasing the
level of effort and funds for exploration is demonstrably beneficial and cost-effective."
Below is further cost information on a range of other tunneling projects.

  15 
 Could somebody in the audience share with me the relevant comparisons
of expenditures on site investigations from projects in South America,
particularly from Brazil, please?
Let us consider another example. First of all, we have major deficiencies
with the lack of measurements of in situ stresses in the overburden and of the
rock mass strength and deformability. Seldom do we hear of a tunneling project
where the complete state of stress was measured, say, by a CSIR triaxial cell or a
'doorstopper' cell. Ironically, when disputes rage today among energy experts
about the issues of "fracking", how many hydraulic fracturing measurements
are actually made for tunnel stress determinations? Moreover, rock mass
strength is never measured, only estimated, using empirical strength criteria.

   

Rock mass deformability, or the in situ modulus, is another example of

current deficiencies. Can you point out a recent large-scale test such as the plate
bearing test or a large block test conducted in your country?
In fact, they are not commonly in use. Instead, we are using correlations
(figures below) based on rock mass quality which, however, are only as good as
can be confirmed by actual in situ measurements performed on the given
project.
So, once again, in the spirit of Alan Muir Wood's vision, please make a
note of this "thought-provoking Idea #3: "Let us ensure that sophistication of
analytical modeling matches the reliability of the input data on rock mass
properties – best determined from dependable field tests!"

  16 
Figure 4. Correlation between RMR and the modulus of deformation of rock masses EM
(Palmström & Singh 2001)

  17 
Figure 5. Improved correlation for determining the modulus of deformation of rock masses
EM as a function of RMR and intact rock modulus Ei (Lowson 2013).

Figure 6. A strength criterion for rock masses as a function of RMR and uniaxial
compressive strength of rock material (Kalamaras and Bieniawski 1995). Experimental data
are from in situ shear strength tests in Japan reported by Aydan and Dalgic (1998).

Quo Vadis Tunnel Engineering

Having identified three aspects worthy
for identifying as "thought-provoking ideas",
the question arises how they meet the
objectives of the Theme of the Congress and
how they were addressed by the individual
papers on the program. Moreover can we
predict, as promised in my title, what the
future holds for developments in the areas of
tunnel design methodologies, education of
 
tunnel engineers and owners and in site
characterization programs?

  18 
 In essence, how will we help the Congress Organizers in achieving the
mission stated in the main Theme?
Well, first the good news is that the Congress Organizers selected an
excellent theme: "Tunnels for a Better Life" because this has just received
special attention elsewhere under the cover "The World in 2014". I direct you to
this SLIDE-18, the cover of the leading international news magazine THE
ECONOMIST, presenting the most significant and expected developments for
this year.
On page 123, is the article:
"Great Bores of Tomorrow: Record
length of tunnels will be dug in
2014." It predicts a length of over
1000km of tunnel to be constructed
this year, and emphasizes – guess
what? – yes, the benefits of
tunneling and underground space
development! It concentrates on the
 
use of boring machines, which we
know as TBMs, and singles out
their potential in Latin America, as
an answer, among others, to dealing with "traffic-choked cities." It encourages
governments to be "more adventurous" with tunnel projects and concludes with
the prediction: "An exciting future beckons for tunnel boring."
In terms of coverage by the papers presented at this Congress, dealing
with the three areas I discussed, the topic of DESGN received most attention
with 38 papers actually emphasizing this term in their titles.
At the same time, NO PAPERS dealt with education and training of
tunnel engineers and non-technical personnel. Perhaps, at the next Congress,
WTC 2015 in Dubrovnik, a special session might be devoted to this topic? I
challenge our organizing friends from Croatia to consider this, please!
Finally, site investigations for tunneling were addressed in many papers,
presenting varied scopes of tests and studies, but I could not find guidance to
answering the question: "When is enough, enough?" to compare with an earlier
statement by Feng and Hudson (2011): "Currently there is no international
procedure for checking suitability of rock engineering design, but it is likely to
be implemented in the future. Site information auditing as a component of the
overall technical auditing will be a key element for validation of rock
engineering design methodology."

  19 
PREDICTIONS:
Something Expected and Something New
Let us now consider what might lie ahead in terms of our future
challenges, particularly in South America. And let us remember the quotation I
presented at the beginning, from the futurist Alvin Toffler:

"The Illiterate of the 21st century will NOT be those who cannot read and write,
but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn."

Something Expected: Consistent with the current trend, we can expect

and predict that the use of TBMs and further mechanization of tunneling
operations will grow considerably in the future. I recommend, as one priority,
the development of techniques able to assess rock mass conditions ahead of
TBMs as construction proceeds in real-time.
As underground excavations will become larger, longer, deeper and
more complex, they will also become more difficult to execute and will be more
expensive. [I remember the times when a TBM cost a few million dollars; last year the
Seattle machine cost $80 million] Hence tunnel design will be more challenging and
will dictate more extensive site investigations, including large-scale field tests,
and exploratory pilot tunnels. In essence, reliable input data from field tests to
determine rock mass properties will be fully justified to match the
sophistication of computer modeling techniques.
[Note latest tunneling news from Seattle: the largest TBM in the world
($80 million machine of 17.52m diameter) by HITACHI is shut down
since December 6 for repairs]

Something New: In South America, where the lore of the Andes was
enshrined in poems and songs, such as he Peruvian "El Cóndor Pasa" by
composer Daniel Alomía Robler and sang by Simon & Garfunkel, tunnels can
be expected to be built for accessing the great reserves of copper, silver, gold
and the strategic minerals needed for new technologies. These tunnels will be
placed at greater depths than currently, in conditions where rock-bursts and
high water pressures will hinder them. I read that rockbursts were observed
during the construction of the Olmos Trans-Andean Tunnel in Perú.
I remember flying over the Andes from Chile to Argentina, and back by
another route, and seeing the vast expanse of these mountains - some 500 km in
width. Increasing mining in the Andes will necessitate better access. New and

  20 
better railroads and highways will be essential, which in turn, will call for more
tunnels to avoid steep gradients and sharp curvatures of roads and rail tracks.
The Pascua Lama gold mine comes to mind.
In addition, certain geotechnical practices will have to be revised; not only
by more extensive site investigations as mentioned earlier to provide reliable
input data for design purposes, but also by developing improved modeling to
include the effects of plastification under great stresses, and to incorporate
post-failure mechanisms, as well as - in special cases - deal with coupled
problems of a mechanical-hydro-thermal-chemical nature.
For tunnel boring machines (TBMs), the use of which will be more
extensive, the challenges will be to bore tunnels under high rock pressures and
high water pressures, both in hard rock and in soft ground conditions; these
challenges are simply extraordinary. Thus we need to acquire improved
understanding of, and the ability to predict the effects, of ground stresses and
their changes, and of the phenomenon of rock-bursts and the measures for their
amelioration.
The planned Aconcagua Bi-Oceanic corridor – a rail link – between
Argentina and Chile is an example of a project in planning faced with these
issues.
In all this, the potential of geophysical techniques should not be
overlooked. They will become more extensive due to their rapid development
as technologies improve.
Finally, monitoring and convergence measurements during construction
will become indispensible under more difficult conditions.

CONCLUSIONS
In concluding this presentation, I wish to congratulate the Congress
Organizers for making this occasion such a significant event for the tunneling
community and for increasing the awareness of society at large to the benefits
and achievements of our profession.
We have shown that in the future we need to pay better attention to
tunnel design methodologies, to better education of new tunnel engineers as
well as non-technical planners and administrators, and to better cost-benefit
driven site investigations.

  21 
 Today, the time has come for me "to ride into the sunset" which means
that after a long career, I need to "hang up my hard hat" and this is my last
venue to leave you with a farewell message. As I happily conclude my
professional activities in the theory and practice of tunnel As I happily conclude
my professional activities in the theory and practice of tunnel design and
construction, I say "happily" because I have discovered a personal secret to
achieving full satisfaction in my chosen profession and I want to share it with
you. The secret is simply to involve your spouses or life partners in your work;
my wife of 50 years of marriage has always been at my side editing my books,
papers and often finding ways to improve them, as well as listening to my
presentations at many conferences. In fact, she is here with me at this time not
just as an accompanying person but also as a partner in technical matters.
Believe me, a happy spouse is a fine investment for a successful and enjoyable
tunneling career!

This photograph was taken last year on our 50th Wedding Anniversary, so
my wife tolerated my tunneling “addiction” for all these years!
And on this note, as we are about to adjourn for the Gala Banquet, may I
suggest that you contemplate, in the spirit of Alan Muir Wood, just what is that
ONE best idea that you have acquired at this Congress, and please share it with
your companions at the Gala. It will inspire others to share and discuss their
best ideas with you! And who knows? When you get back to your office, and
share your best idea with your boss, you might even win a bottle of fine wine!

  22 
 The future of tunneling seems secure to me and I wish to leave you in
high spirits with this quotation:
"Enthusiasm is the greatest asset in the world;
it beats money, and power and influence." Henri Chester

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aydan, O, and Dalgic, S, 1998. Prediction of deformation behavior of Bolu tunnels through 
squeezing rocks. Proc. Reg. Symp. on Sedimentary Rock Engng. Taipei, Taiwan, 228–233. 
Barton, N. and Bieniawski, Z.T. 2008. Setting the record straight about RMR and Q. Tunnels &
Tunnelling, v. February, p.26-29.

Berry, A. 1996. The Next 500 Years. W H Freeman & Co,, New York

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses. The Civil Engineer in
South Africa, v.15, p.335-343.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1984. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. A A Balkema,
Rotterdam.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: a Complete Manual. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1992. Design Methodology in Rock Engineering. A A Balkema, Rotterdam.

  23 
Bieniawski, Z.T., Celada, B.; Aguado, D. and Rodríguez, A. 2011. Forecasting tunnelling
behavior. Tunnels & Tunnelling, v. August, p.39-42.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 2011. Misconceptions in the applications of rock mass classifications and
their corrections. www.geocontrol.es, link to: Bieniawski's Window.

Bieniawski, Z.T., Celada, B.; Tardáguila, I. and Rodríguez, A. 2012. Specific energy of
excavation in detecting tunneling conditions ahead of TBMs. Tunnels & Tunnelling, v.
February, p.65-68.

Celada, B. 2011. Manual de Túneles y Obras Subterráneas. Madrid: UPM. Capítulo 23. p.850-854.

Celada, B., Tardáguila, I. and Vrona, P. 2014. Innovating Tunnel Design by an Improved
Experience-based RMR System. Proc.World Tunnel Congress, ITA, Brazil, pp.60-68.
Feng, X and Hudson J A 2011. Rock Engineering Design. CRS Press, Leiden.

Hudson J A 2012. The next 50 years of ISRM and anticipated future progress in rock
mechanics. Harmonizing Rock Engineering with Environment, Taylor & Francis, London,
47-55.

Lowson, A.R. and Bieniawski, Z.T. 2013. Critical assessment of RMR-based tunnel design
practices: A practical engineer’s approach. Proc. RETC 2013. Washington, DC: Society
of Mining Engineers, p.180-198.

Lowson, A.R. and Bieniawski, Z.T. 2012. Validating the Yudhbir-Bieniawski rock mass
strength criterion. Proc. World Tunnel Congress, ITA, Bangkok.

Kalamaras, G and Bieniawski, ZT, 1995. A rock mass strength concept incorporating the
effect of time. Proc. 8th ISRM Congress, Tokyo, Sept., 295-302.
Muir Wood, A. 2002. Tunneling: Management by Design. E & F N Spon, London.

Palmström, A. 1995. Characterising rockburst and squeezing by the rock mass index. In
Design and Construction of Underground Structures, New Delhi, 23 - 25 February 1995.

Palmström, A. and Singh, R. 2001. The deformation modulus of rock masses. Tunnelling and
Undreground Space Technology, v.16, 115-131.

Serafim, J. L. and Pereira, J. P. 1983. Considerations of the geomechanics classification of

Bieniawski. Proc.Symp. on Enginnering Geology, Lisbon, v. I, 33-44.
Stacey, T. R. 2013. Dynamic rock failure and its containment – a Gordian Knot design
problem. Rock Dynamics and Applications. Taylor & Francis, London, 57-70.

  24