ROCK MASS PROPERTIES FOR TUNNELLING

Similar documents
MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: CERTIFICATE IN ROCK MECHANICS PAPER 1 : THEORY SUBJECT CODE: COMRMC MODERATOR: H YILMAZ EXAMINATION DATE: OCTOBER 2017 TIME:

An introduction to the Rock Mass index (RMi) and its applications

Rock Failure. Topics. Compressive Strength Rock Strength from Logs Polyaxial Strength Criteria Anisotropic Rock Strength Tensile Strength

Empirical Design in Geotechnical Engineering

Open Pit Rockslide Runout

Session 3: Geology and Rock Mechanics Fundamentals

Deformability Modulus of Jointed Rocks, Limitation of Empirical Methods and Introducing a New Analytical Approach

Collection and use of geological data in rock engineering

Estimates of rock mass strength and deformation modulus

LICENTIATE THESIS. Evaluation of rock mass strength criteria. Catrin Edelbro

Calculation of periodic roof weighting interval in longwall mining using finite element method

Behaviour of Blast-Induced Damaged Zone Around Underground Excavations in Hard Rock Mass Problem statement Objectives

Table of Contents Development of rock engineering 2 When is a rock engineering design acceptable 3 Rock mass classification

Module 5: Failure Criteria of Rock and Rock masses. Contents Hydrostatic compression Deviatoric compression

HIGHWALL STABILITY DUE TO GROUND VIBRATIONS FROM BLASTING. Dr. Kyle A. Perry Dr. Kot F. Unrug Kevin Harris Michael Raffaldi

THE VOUSSOIR BEAM REACTION CURVE

Estimation of Rock Mass Parameters using Intact Rock Parameters

Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction

Seismic analysis of horseshoe tunnels under dynamic loads due to earthquakes

ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE

NNN99. Rock Engineering for the Next Very Large Underground Detector. D. Lee Petersen CNA Consulting Engineers

Introduction and Background

Failure and Failure Theories for Anisotropic Rocks

Rock Material. Chapter 3 ROCK MATERIAL HOMOGENEITY AND INHOMOGENEITY CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MATERIAL

EOSC433: Geotechnical Engineering Practice & Design

A Document on ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ROCK-MASS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Compiled by Mahendra Singh

Application of Core Logging Data to generate a 3D Geotechnical Block Model

Pillar strength estimates for foliated and inclined pillars in schistose material

A brief history of the development of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion

Numerical analysis of K0 to tunnels in rock masses exhibiting strain-softening behaviour (Case study in Sardasht dam tunnel, NW Iran)

STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF ROCKS AND ROCK MASSES 4. FAILURE CRITERIA FOR INTACT ROCKS AND ROCK MASSES

SYLLABUS AND REFERENCES FOR THE STRATA CONTROL CERTIFICATE. METALLIFEROUS MINING OPTION Updated November 1998

In situ fracturing mechanics stress measurements to improve underground quarry stability analyses

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND ROCK ENGINEERING

GROUND RESPONSE AND SUPPORT MEASURES FOR PIR PANJAL TUNNEL IN THE HIMALAYAS

Instructional Objectives. Why use mass classification? What is rock mass classification? 3 Pillars of empirical design and rock mass classification

ON THE FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN WEAK ROCKS

SYLLABUS AND REFERENCES FOR THE STRATA CONTROL CERTIFICATE COAL MINING OPTION

Effect of intermediate principal stresses on compressive strength of Phra Wihan sandstone

DESCRIPTION OF THE TESTS AND DATA USED IN THE CALIBRATION OF THE RMi

Assessing Parameters for Computations in Rock Mechanics

Influence of foliation on excavation stability at Rampura Agucha underground mine

EXAMINATION PAPER MEMORANDUM

Numerical modelling for estimation of first weighting distance in longwall coal mining - A case study

3D numerical simulation of a mine using cohesionsoftening, hardening behavior

Rock Joint and Rock Mass Shear Strength

Correlation of Revised BQ System in China and the International Rock Mass Classification Systems

Module 9 : Foundation on rocks. Content

Application of a transversely isotropic brittle rock mass model in roof support design

The effect of dip of joints on the axial force of rock bolts

Stability Assessment of a Heavily Jointed Rock Slope using Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods

Some Aspects on the Design of Near Surface. Tunnels - Theory and Practice. Thomas Marcher¹, Taner Aydogmus²

COMPARING THE RMR, Q, AND RMi CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Module 6: Stresses around underground openings. 6.2 STRESSES AROUND UNDERGROUND OPENING contd.

Excavation method in Goushfill mine

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

Rock Mass Characterization of Ajabanoko Iron Ore Deposit, Kogi State Nigeria

Rock parameters for blasting on the highway Split-Dubrovnik

Application of rock mass classification systems as a tool for rock mass strength determination

Building on Past Experiences Worker Safety

Weak Rock - Controlling Ground Deformations

Rock Mechanical Aspects of Roadheader Excavation

A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR CHARACTERIZING THE COMPLEX GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT FOR DESIGN OF THE NEW METRO DO PORTO

Quantitative Classification of Rock Mass

Underground Excavation Design Classification

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND ROCK MECHANICS

Comparison of six major intact rock failure criteria using a particle flow approach under true-triaxial stress condition

Defining the role of elastic modelling in underground mine design

Numerical Approach to Predict the Strength of St. Peter Sandstone Pillars acted upon by Vertical Loads A case study at Clayton, IA, USA.

The effect of installation angle of rock bolts on the stability of rock slopes

Geology 229 Engineering and Environmental Geology. Lecture 5. Engineering Properties of Rocks (West, Ch. 6)

A brief history of the development of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion

Further Research into Methods of Analysing the October 2000 Stability of Deep Open Pit Mines EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

H.Öztürk & E.Ünal Department of Mining Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

7. Foundation and Slope Stability

TBM "Boreability" in Hard Rock

The effect of discontinuities on stability of rock blocks in tunnel

Sanct Barbara Hydropower Project: Pre-Feasibility Data Report. Tunnelling Contracts Risk Management

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 10 (4) (2017) Research Article

Three-dimensional inelastic numerical back-analysis of observed rock mass response to mining in an Indian mine under high-stress conditions

Geological and geotechnical approach for excavation of large unlined rock cavern

Haulage Drift Stability Analysis- A Sensitivity Approach

Rock Mechanics and Seismology Laboratory

Three-Dimensional Failure Criteria Based on the Hoek Brown Criterion

NUMERICAL MODELING OF BRITTLE ROCK FAILURE UNDER DYNAMIC STRESS LOADING. N. Golchinfar and M. Cai

Analysis of Controlling Parameters for Shear behavior of Rock Joints with FLAC3D

Geotechnical & Mining Engineering Services

Numerical models on anisotropy of rocks

Analysis stability of rock slope at left bank of South portal of North tunnel Da Nang Quang Ngai expressway

3D ANALYSIS OF STRESSES AROUND AN UNLINED TUNNEL IN ROCK SUBJECTED TO HIGH HORIZONTAL STRESSES

ROCK MASS CHARATERISATION: A COMPARISON OF THE MRMR AND IRMR CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS. G P Dyke AngloGold Ashanti 1

Geotechnical data from optical and acoustic televiewer surveys

Analysis of tunnel considering Modified Mohr-Coulomb criterions

Establishing a Methodology for the Assessment of Remnant Stability Using Recorded Seismic Events on Harmony Mines

Applicability of geomechanical classifications for estimation of strength properties in Brazilian rock masses

The Transmission Gully Project: Method for Assessing Seismic Stability of Large Rock Cuts In Steep Terrain, Considering Topographic Amplification

THE USE OF RMi IN DESIGN OF ROCK SUPPORT IN UNDERGROUND OPENINGS

BLOCK SIZE AND BLOCK SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Finite difference modelling in underground coal mine roadway

Relationship between RMR b and GSI based on in situ data

Transcription:

ROCK MASS PROPERTIES FOR TUNNELLING Robert Bertuzzi 2 nd November 2017 1

Driver Estimating the strength and deformation characteristics of a rock mass for tunnel design is generally based on empiricism as it is simply not practical to test the rock mass at a scale large enough. However, the database from which empirical methods are derived and against which analytical methods are tested, is rather limited in terms of large rock masses.

Presentation Intact rock strength Defect strength Rock mass classification Rock mass strength Rock mass modulus

Depth (m) Intact rock strength Numerous criteria Mohr-Coulomb Barton Griffith Drucker-Prager Wiebols-Cook Hoek-Brown Extension strain Bieniawski Lade Christensen You Zhou (H-B in 3D) UCS (MPa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 4

Major Principal Stress, s 1 [MPa] Major Principal Stress, s 1 [MPa] 300 300 300 Hawkesbury Sandstone Brisbane Tuff Brisbane Phyllite 280 280 280 260 260 260 240 240 240 220 220 220 200 200 200 180 180 s 1 [MPa] 180 160 160 160 140 140 140 120 120 120 100 100 100 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 20 20 20 0 0 0-20 0 20 40 60 80 100-20 0 20 40 60 80 100-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Minor Principal Stress, s Minor Principal Stress, s 3 [MPa] 3 [MPa] s 3 [MPa] 5

s 1 [MPa] s 1 [MPa] Intact rock strength criteria 1000 Any of the assessed criteria can provide good fits to tight test data Outlier test data, particularly UTS or BTS values, can significantly affect each of the criteria s parameters. The variation in test data swamps the differences in criteria. Even when all the criteria provide very good fits to the data based on the r 2 and SEE values and on the overall shape of the envelopes, many of the criteria are poor estimators of strength in the low stress region where many civil structures, such as tunnels, operate. The Hoek-Brown criterion over-predicts the tensile strength Curve-fitting following the Mostyn-Douglas method which allows for a variable a SEE - standard error of estimate Darley Dale Sandstone 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 Data 50 H-B (Mostyn & Douglas): 45 sc=10.6mpa mi=11.82 a=0.5 r2=0.991 Hoek-Brown: sc=9.3mpa mi=13.57 40r2=0.991 3D Hoek-Brown: sc=10mpa mi=12.65 r2=0.991 Lade: 35 a =9.97 h1 = 1000 m = 0.551 r2 =0.989 Wiebols-Cook: 30 sc = 13.4MPa phi = 22.8 r2=0.975 Christensen: sc = 10 MPa; st = 0.9 25MPa; r2=0.989 20 15 10 5 6 s 3 [MPa] Data H-B (Mostyn & Douglas): sc=79.9mpa mi=22.73 a=0.444 r2=0.983 Hoek-Brown: sc=79.3mpa mi=15.13 r2=0.979 3D Hoek-Brown: sc=79.3mpa mi=15.1 r2=0.979 Wiebols-Cook: sc = 152.8MPa phi = 26.3 r2=0.926 Christensen: sc = 160 MPa; st = 3.5 MPa; r2=0.909 Lade: a =34.89 h1 = 92380 m = 0.866 r2 =0.907 0-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 s 3 [MPa]

Defect strength Defect continuity dominates rock mass properties Less than 1% of intact area in the plane of a defect is equivalent to heavy support systems 7

Defect strength φ = JRC log 10 JCS σ n + φ r Description [50 to 300 mm scale] Slickenside or Polished i Addition to b Very smooth, reflects light 0 Smooth Roughness not detected with finger +2 Defined ridges (slightly rough) Fine to medium sandpaper feel +6 Small steps (rough) Medium to coarse sandpaper feel +10 Very rough Very well defined ridges, steps +14 8

9

Defect stiffness 10

Rock mass classification Terzaghi rock load Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Rock Structure Rating Rock Mass Rating (RMR) Mining RMR Slope RMR Rock Mass Index, Q Sydney Classification System Geological Strength Index (GSI) Rock Mass Index (RMi) 11

GSI 12

13

Hawkesbury sandstone Reefton greywacke Ashfield shale Otago schist 14

Quantified GSI 100 Quantified GSI = Chart GSI ± 10 80 r2=0.679 60 40 20 0 Greenland Group Greywacke / argillite Otago Schist Ashfield Shale Hawkesbury Sandstone 0 20 40 60 80 100 Chart GSI 15

Rock mass strength Numerous criteria Massive brittle rock - Damage initiation spalling limited (DISL) s 1 = (0.33 to 0.5)s c +(1.4 to 2.6)s 3 Plane of weakness Barton-Bandis Hoek-Brown Cohesion weakening Friction strengthening Synthetic Rock Mass 16

The Hoek-Brown rock mass criterion based on very limited test work from Panguna andesite (23), the largest samples of which had 22.5 (572mm) diameters Hoek-Brown σ 1 σ c = σ 3 σ c + m σ 3 σ c + s σ 1 = σ 3 + σ c m σ 3 σ c + s a a = 0.5 to 0.65 for rock mass 17

Hawkesbury Sandstone Tunnels Upper Canal Tunnels Cataract 1880s by drill & blast, 3.2 m wide x 2.6 m high, horseshoe shaped, maximum depth of 70 m Devines 1880s by drill & blast, 2.85 m wide x 2.5m high, horseshoe shaped, maximum depth of 17 m Malabar Outfall Tunnel Excavated between 1986-1990 by roadheader 644 m long 1:4 decline, 5.3 m wide x 5.0 m high, arched roof, up to 175m depth, although the roof failure occurred at 100 m depth Sydney LPG Storage Cavern Excavated between 1996 2000 by drill & blast Four parallel galleries each 230 m long, 11 m wide x 14 m high, arched roofs, 124 m depth Northside Storage Tunnel Three TBM drives excavated between 1998 2000 7 km of 3.8 m diameter, depth 80 m 9 km of 6.5 m diameter, depth 60 m Cross City Tunnel 4 km of 6.0 m diameter, depth 80 m Excavated between 2003 2005 by roadheader 2 km long ventilation tunnel, 5.1 m wide x 5.5 m high, very slightly curved roof, 58 m depth Lane Cove Tunnel Excavated between 2004 2006 by roadheader 2.1 km long road tunnel of 9 m and 12.5 m width x 6 m high, very slightly curved roof, 20-40 m depth 18

σ 1 (MPa) σ 1 (MPa) 18 18 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 1m3: sc=22.2mpa, mi=12 Rock mass: sc=22.2mpa, m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501 Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3 6 1m3: sc=22.2mpa, mi=12 6 Damage initiation: sc=22.2mpa, m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25 Cataract - failed 4 2 Rock mass: sc=22.2mpa, m=4.11, s=0.0357, a=0.501 Initial spalling: 6.66MPa + 2s3 Damage initiation: sc=22.2mpa, m=0.0972, s=0.0081, a=0.25 Cataract - stable (close) Devines - stable (close) CCT - stable (close) 4 2 Devines - failed CCT - failed Elgas - failed LCT - failed Malabar - failed Elgas - stable (close) NST - failed 0-1 0 1 2 3 4 LCT - stable (close) Malabar - stable (close) 0-1 0 1 2 3 4 σ 3 (MPa) NST - stable (close) σ 3 (MPa) 19

Pillar Load [MPa] Tributary Area Coal pillars C p = K w0.46 h 0.66 C p = Constant 0.64 + 0.36 w h [MPa] s 1 = (0.33 to 0.5)s c +(1.4 to 2.6)s 3 Damage initiation 25 Collapsed Pillars 20 FoS = 1.85 15 Australia 10 South Africa South Africa - weak USA - squeeze USA - massive 5 USA - local bursting India Cp UNSW linear 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 w/h = R 20

21

Proposed strength criterion for coal pillars Damage initiation threshold m b = 0.1296, s = 0.0081, a = 0.25 Spalling limit m b = 5.33, s = 0, a = 0.75 Macro-scale shear failure m b = 1.47, s = 0.07, a = 0.5 Maximum confined strength σ 1 σ 3 σ c = 0.6 range 0.5 and 0.7 22

Hard rock mines Underground mines Limestone Iron ore Sandstone Laboratory samples Stripa granite Lac du Bonnet granite Artificially jointed granite Quartzite Phyllite Other Ok Tedi core testing 23

Hard rock mines Current Equations (Hoek et al. 2002) Proposed Equations m b = m i e GSI 100 28 14D m b = m i e GSI 100 38 24D s = e GSI 100 9 3D s = e GSI 100 12 6D Τ Τ a = 1 2 + 1 6 e GSI 15 e 20 3 a = min[1, 1 2 Τ 1.0 + e ( GSI 10) 15 ] 24

Proposed m b /m i v GSI 25

Proposed s v GSI 26

Proposed a v GSI 27

Rock mass modulus The in situ test methodology and in situ stress need to be considered when assessing the reliability of in situ rock mass modulus. A further conclusion is that the more reliable estimates of in situ rock modulus are those derived from tests that engage larger volumes of rock; stepping from flat jack and plate load testing to seismic refraction tests and back-analysis of convergence data. 28

Em [GPa] Em [GPa] 20 18 16 14 100 12 10 8 Palmstrom Nejati et a 6 4 80 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 GSI 60 D = 0.5 Palmstrom & Singh (2001) Nejati et al (2014) 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 GSI 29

30

Back-analysing modulus u r = Kσ v E a I 1 + σ v E a I 2 u θ = Kσ v E a I 3 + σ v E a I 4 Anisotropy E a E = 1 + ν A + B cos 2θ A = 1 2 2ν E E 1 + ν + 1 ν 2 + E E E E 1 ν2 1 E E ν 2 2 1 ν G G ν E E + 2 E E 1 E ν 2 E 1 ν 2 2 E E E E 1 ν2 1 E E ν 2 B = 1 2 1 ν2 E E E E 1 ν2 1 E E ν 2 2 1 ν G G ν E E + 2 E E 1 E ν 2 E 1 ν 2 31

32

M2 & Castle Hill crossover Hawkesbury Sandstone E h = E v = 4500 to 6750 MPa, say 5500 MPa K = 2.7 to 3.1, say 3.0 Ashfield Shale E h = 720 MPa, E v = 1000 MPa K = 1.7 33

34