Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
N. Barton, T. By, P. Chryssanthakis, L. Tunbridge, J. Kristiansen, F. Løset, R. Bhasin, H. Westerdahl, G. Vik (1994)
Predicted and measured performance of the 62 m span Norwegian Olymphic ice hockey cavern at Gjøvik, 194
(2007)
The Norwegian method of tunnelling—a challenge for support design. XIV European conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering
N Barton, E Grimstad (1994)
Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel supportTunn Tunn , 26
M Vandevall (1990)
Dramix—tunnelling the world,1991 edition
N. Barton, E. Grimstad, G. Aas, O. Opsahl, A. Bakken, E. Johansen (1992)
NORWEGIAN METHOD OF TUNNELLING, 5
(1976)
Unsupported underground openings. Rock Mechanics Discussion Meeting, Befo
Kveldsvik, K. Karlsrud (1995)
SUPPORT AND WATER CONTROL IN OSLO, 8
(2012)
Assessing pre-injection in tunnelling
Chehab Salih (2020)
Final ResultsInternational Aviation Law for Aerodrome Planning
N. Barton (2002)
Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel designInternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39
(2009)
Permanent waterproof tunnel lining based on sprayed concrete and spray-applied double-bonded membrane
W. Ward, P. Tedd, N. Berry (1983)
THE KIELDER EXPERIMENTAL TUNNEL: FINAL RESULTSGeotechnique, 33
R. Galler, E. Schneider, P. Bonapace, B. Moritz, M. Eder (2009)
The New Guideline NATM – The Austrian Practice of Conventional TunnellingBHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, 154
(2012)
Defining NMT as part of the NATM SCL debate
Z. Bieniawski (1989)
Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering
N. Barton (1996)
Investigation, design and support of major road tunnels in jointed rock using NMT principles
N. Barton, E. Grimstad (1994)
ROCK MASS CONDITIONS DICTATE CHOICE BETWEEN NMT AND NATMTunnels and Tunnelling International, 26
N. Barton (2007)
Future Directions For Rock Mass Classification And Characterization - Towards a Cross-disciplinary Approach
(1993)
Updating of the Q-System for NMT
N. Barton, E. Quadros (2015)
Anisotropy is Everywhere, to See, to Measure, and to ModelRock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 48
N. Barton, E. Grimstad (1995)
The Q-system following twenty years of application in NMT support selectionInternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 5
N. Barton, R. Lien, J. Lunde (1974)
Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel supportRock mechanics, 6
N. Barton, B. Buen, S. Roald (2002)
STRENGTHENING THE CASE FOR GROUTINGTunnels and Tunnelling International, 34
For many decades, a tunnelling method has been in use which effectively minimizes the use of concrete, which should be one of the goals in our CO2-producing planet. We call the method NMT (Norwegian Method of Tunnelling) and emphasize its ‘single-shell’ characteristics, to distinguish it clearly from double-shell NATM (the so-called New Austrian Tunnelling Method), which is recommended to have (ASG, NATM: the Austrian practice of conventional tunnelling 2010): shotcrete, mesh, lattice girders, rock bolts (if in-rock), drainage fleece, membrane, and the final load bearing and often steel-reinforced concrete lining, including the invert when in poor rock conditions. This tunnelling method is inevitably several times more expensive, uses many times the volume of concrete, takes longer to build, and requires at least a ten times larger labour force than single-shell NMT. The single-shell tunnels for road or rail or hydropower or water transfer, or for large caverns for storage of oil or food, or for hydropower machine and transformer halls, can be made stable by judicious application of a well-used (>2000 case record based) the so-called Q-system of rock mass quality estimation. The latter encompasses a rock mass quality scale from 0.001 (equivalent to a serious fault zone, where we also may need a local concrete lining) to 1000 (equivalent to massive unjointed rock) where careful blasting will remove the need even for shotcrete. In general, rock masses where we need tunnels or caverns will lie closer to ‘mid-range’ (i.e. closer to Q = 1 which is described as ‘poor quality’). Here we would need combinations of corrosion-protected rock bolts and high quality fibre-reinforced shotcrete, with stainless steel or polypropylene fibres. We may also need systematic high-pressure pre-injection of micro-cement and micro-silica, which may add 20% to the (low) starting cost of the NMT excavation. Written as B + S(fr) in short-hand, NMT has rock bolt c/c spacing in metres and shotcrete thickness in centimetres, as specified by the range of Q values and excavation dimensions. The details are also affected by the planned use. For instance, at our record-breaking Olympic cavern of 60 m span (for housing 5400 spectators or later concert goers), B = 2.5 m c/c + S(fr) 10 cm were (and remain 25 years later) the stabilizing and permanent measures of support and reinforcement. Deformation monitoring and distinct element (jointed rock) numerical verification showed 7–8 mm of maximum deformation in the arch. The moderate Q value range of quality of 2–30 (poor/fair/good) and RQD = 60–90 indicated a well-jointed gneiss, which had only moderate UCS = 90 MPa compressive strength.
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions – Springer Journals
Published: Aug 21, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.