This thesis analyzes the potential systematic errorin the characterization of the rock mass quality in borehole and tunnel mapping. The difference when assessing the rock mass quality refers to the fact that the characterization performed on drilled rock cores are commonly done on-meter length, while the tunnel section can be up to 20-25 m wide. At the same time, previous studies indicate that the engineering geologist tends to characterize the rock mass quality during tunnel excavation with a conservative estimation of the parameters defining the rock mass quality to ensure a sufficient rock support. In order to estimate this possible systematic error produced by the size difference when assessing the rock mass quality, a simulation was performed within a geological domain, representative of Stockholm city. In the simulation, each meter of the tunnel section was given a separate value of the rock mass quality, randomly chosen from a normal distribution representative for the studied geological domain. The minimum value was set to represent the characterized rock mass quality for that tunnel section. The results from the simulation produced a systematic error due to the difference between the geological domain, reproducing the borehole mapping, and the simulated values, representing the tunnel mapping. The results showed a systematic error in the RMR basic index around 15 points in average, which compared to the difference of 5-7 points obtained in Norrström and the Norrmalm tunnels in the Stockholm Citylink project recently constructed, are found to be excessive. However, in the simulation, it was assumed that (1) the results obtained were the same in the bore hole mapping and in the tunnel mapping, (2) with the only difference of the engineer geologist assigning to the tunnel section the lowest RMR basic value, and (3) that there was no spatial correlation between the quality RMR basic index. After analyzing the three assumptions the simulation was based upon, the absence of spatial correlation was found to be the most significative, which indicate that spatial correlation in rock mass quality needs to be included if a more correct value should be obtained.

In the construction of a tunnel, the characterization of the rock mass is performed in three different steps, in the pre-investigations, in the engineering geological forecast and in the tunnel mapping during construction. There has in previous work been observed that discrepancies exist between the results from these different steps, with a tendency to assign poorer rock mass quality in the tunnel mapping than in the pre-investigations and in the engineering geological forecast. One example is the work done by Kjellström [1] on the Cityline where the divergence in rock mass quality was analyzed between the different steps. If a divergence exists between the engineering geological forecast and the actual conditions observed in the tunnel mapping, it will influence both planning and budget. It is therefore important that the engineering geological forecast is as close as possible to the actual rock mass conditions in the field. The aim of this thesis was, using the case study of the Northern Link, to analyze those discrepancies in the rock mass quality estimated in the characterization and in the classification between the mapping of drill cores, the engineering geological forecast and the tunnel mapping thus complementing the work by Kjellström [1]. The aim was also identifying which parameters included in the Q-system that causes these discrepancies The analysis of the results showed that it is difficult to make the engineering geological forecast and the actual mapping match for every single meter, but that the overall correlation between them was good. The methodology used in the characterization and classification in the different phases (drill-core mapping, engineering geological forecast, tunnel mapping) may to some extent explain this divergence. The parameters Jr, Jn and Ja, included in the Q-system were the ones identified as having the largest influence on the discrepancies. In future work, it is recommended that focus is given on these parameters. A way to improve future engineering geological forecast for tunnel contracts would be to have a better follow up of the engineering geological forecast and to have standardized guidelines on how to assess clearly the value of the Q parameters in each phase (for the drill cores as well as for the actual mapping). The reduction of those differences would then lead to a better planning and budget management in future tunnel projects in Sweden.