Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
This paper was prepared for presentation at MINEFILL2007, held in Montreal, Quebec, April 29 – May 3, 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by a MINEFILL2007 Technical Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by MINEFILL2007 and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
MINEFILL2007 Organizing Committee, the CIM, Queen’s University or McGill University. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes
without the written consent of MINEFILL2007 is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: Bulkhead failure is a core geotechnical risk that is an inherent feature of any mining method employing paste or
hydraulic fill. Historically within Australia the design of bulkheads has relied on simplified analytical solutions. Three-
dimensional numerical modeling provides a method to explicitly model the actual bulkhead geometry, bulkhead construction
materials and wall-rock interface. In 2005/06 a collaborative project involving six Australian paste and hydraulic fill operations
using sprayed Fibrecrete/Shotcrete/Aquacrete bulkheads was conducted. This paper presents the findings of this study. Topics
described include review of currently used analytical bulkhead design methods and their limitations, a description of the FLAC3D
Shotcrete Bulkhead Model, comparison of the numerical model results with common analytical solutions, and verification of the
modeling methodology against actual bulkhead failures.
2
Compressive strength of mortar MPa 11.0
masonry wall (Hendry, 1981; Martini, 1997; Sinha,
b dimension b m 4.0
thickness h m 0.46 1978). A particular problem applying a yield line
Plastic moment mp MNm/m 0.291
solution to a masonry wall is the orthotropic nature
mp = σ h2
c 8
Pressure at Failure wp MPa 0.436
of masonry structures. This is observed clearly in
*One masonry wall of these dimensions and properties tested to destruction failed at 750 kPa
the failure pattern illustrated in Figure 4.
Implied safety factor = 1.72
material properties and loading conditions. 30 25 0.2 7.5 0.0 37 32 2.9 0.0
3
30 FLAC3D (UCS = 30 MPa)
COHESION
ZERO
1.5
15
LOCALIZATION BANDS
OBSERVED IN ACTUAL UCS
TEST ON CONCRETE 1
10
0.5
5
0
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Plastic Strain (% )
Axial Strain (% )
30
Round Panel Test. 25
20
Tensile strength degraded
15
to zero indicating location
of tension cracks 10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Net Deflection (mm)
2000
1500
Fig. 11. Corner levers in simply supported slabs (Macgregor, 1000 wp =
48mp
L2
1997). 500 mp = σ t
h2
4
0
Figure 12 illustrates the predicted ultimate load for 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Barricade Thickness, h (m)
0.8 1 1.2
12000
Ultimate load, Wp (kPa)
8000 wp = 4τ
h Fig. 17. Failure mechanism of bulkhead with a shear interface
L
6000
boundary condition.
4000
5.3. Affect of Bulkhead Geometry and Bulkhead
2000
Arching
A 5 × 5 m flat horseshoe-shaped bulkhead of
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Barricade Thickness, h (m)
varying thickness, with 30 MPa UCS shotcrete, was
Fig. 15. Ultimate shear load for a 5 × 5 m square, 30 MPa constructed to simulate a typical bulkhead shape
shotcrete bulkhead. constructed in situ. Bulkheads with a thickness of
0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.8 m were analysed. Figure 18
Figure 16 illustrates the ultimate load predicted for
illustrates the ultimate load predicted for a fully
a 0.5 m and 0.8 m thick bulkhead with a shear-
fixed and simply supported flat horseshoe bulkhead
interface boundary condition.
compared to a square bulkhead. For the fully fixed
5000
4500
Yield Line Solution (Beer, 1986) y = 4943.9x 1.6846
boundary condition, the horseshoe shape results in a
4000
Calibrated Yield Line Solution (Beer, 1986)
Model
Interface Flat Square Barricade
3000
5000
Yield Line Solution (Beer, 1986) y = 5682x 1.7857 y = 5268.3x 1.7891
2500
4500 Calibrated Yield Line Solution (Beer, 1986)
500 2500
0 2000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1500
Barricade Thickness, h (m)
1000
Fig. 16. Ultimate load for a simply supported, fully fixed and 500
shear interface 5 × 5 m square, 30 MPa shotcrete bulkhead. 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Barricade Thickness, h (m)
Figure 17 illustrates the failure mechanism of a Fig. 18. Ultimate load for simply supported and fully fixed 5 ×
bulkhead with a shear interface at the bulkhead wall 5 m square and horseshoe, 30 MPa shotcrete bulkheads.
rock boundary. Bending of the bulkhead material
causes rotation and high normal stress at the front A separate model was constructed to simulate a 5 ×
edge of the bulkhead. This high normal stress 5 m horseshoe-shaped bulkhead with an arched face
prevents sliding along the interface, eventually (radius of curvature of 6.5 m). Figure 19 illustrates
leading to shear/compression failure at the front the ultimate load predicted for the arched face
edge and separation at the back edge of the bulkhead compared to the flat horseshoe bulkheads
bulkhead-wall rock interface. Failure at the front with a shear interface boundary condition.
edge of the bulkhead reduces the moment carrying Due to the arched shape of the bulkhead, all forces
capacity of the bulkhead, leading to increased within the bulkhead remain in compression, while
bending and then localized tension failure on the bending of the arched bulkhead generates a thrust at
front face and compression failure on the back face the wall abutments, as illustrated in Figure 20. This
of the bulkhead. The shear-interface boundary results in a higher ultimate load for the same flat
condition provides a more realistic representation of bulkhead thickness.
the actual bulkhead–wall rock system than the
5000
4500
Yield Line Solution (Beer, 1986) tests. As observed in situ, yielding is predicted to
Calibrated Yield Line Solution (Beer, 1986)
y = 5632.9x1.1786
propagate from the bulkhead–wall rock contact.
Interface Flat Horseshoe Barricade
3500
Ultimate load, Wp (kPa)
3000
2000
1500
1000
500