FROMEMPIRICISM,THROUGHTHEORY, TOPROBLEMSOLVINGINROCK ENGINEERING

Nick Barton
Leopold Mller Lecture, Beijing ISRM Congress, 2011 6th

Beaumont TBM Tunnel, 1880 : wedge-failure, stress-failure, tidal influence. Three TBM photos separated by 150 m. 1

Thedeformationresistanceofthematerialbridges takeseffectatmuchsmallerdeformationsthan thejointfriction:thisjointfrictionmakespartlyup forloststrength.(Mller,1966). Ourrockmasses45yearslatercontinuetorelyon jointfriction,despitetodaysdownloadable continuumwishfulthinking andtheassumed relevance of: c+n tan (or its non-linear versions) Why not c then n tan (degrade cohesion, mobilize friction) (as in parts of Canada, Sweden, India, Norway)?

JINPINGI(305mDAM)
CHALLENGESINANOVER STEEPENEDCANYON (solvedbydesignersCHIDI) Justupthisvalleyisamuch smallerfeaturealsodeserving ourrockmechanicsattention!

WHYTHEOVERBREAK /POTENTIALINSTABILITY? BecauseofadverseJn,Jr,Ja (JRC,JCS,r), Jw, SRF and dip/dip direction/gravity/density

HOWDIDTHESEPARAMETERSMATERIALISE,andHOW HAVETHEYBEENUSED? SOMETOPICStobeDISCUSSED:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

SINGLETENSIONFRACTURES 40,000BLOCKS SHEARSTRENGTHCRITERIA(20JRC,UCSJCS) INFLUENCEOFBLOCKSIZE SLOPES,CAVERNSANDBOREHOLESWITHMODELS UDECBBVALIDATIONFROMASPECIALCAVERN CHALLENGINGQUESTIONFROMACLIENT Q Q,QTBM,BBAPPLICATIONS,SELECTEDCASES Q,S(mr),S(fr),B(c/c),Qc(=Qxc /100)CC,FC(c,)
6

9. DEGRADECC,MOBILIZEFC,notc+ n (tan) 10.OTHERTOPICS SEEPAPER!

ANIDEALIZED,DISCONTINUOUS START,IN1966
(ImperialCollege)

IncludesearlyLB,L
(luckybreaks,lessons)
7

DST on 200 artificial tension fractures in a variety of brittle model materials

(Barton, 1971)

LESSON#1 LACKOFACTUAL COHESIONUNLESS STEPPED(secondary) FRACTURESARETESTED

Luckybreak#1( =nodecimalplaces)
=n .tan [ 20.log(UCS/n )+30 ]

10

2DJOINTEDROCKMASS Tensionfracturemodelsfor rockslopes(atImperial College)19681969. Nuclearpower cavern investigations(atNGI)1977 1978.

11

APh.D.studyof(unexpectedlystable)steepexcavated 12 rockslopes with40,000blocks,andthreejoint sets.

Seesomelargeblockswithoverclosed fractures. Notealsothatthenormalstressonthecritical(dipping) jointsmostlyreduces asaresultofexcavatingsteepslopes.

13

OVERCLOSED(O.C.) SHEARTESTS
LESSON#2
EXPLAINEDWHYTHESE STEEPSLOPESWERE SO STABLE. DSTWITHSHEARINGunder normalstressof1xn, after prior normalload applicationof: 1xn(=conventional) 4x n (=O.C),8xn(=O.C) Why arewe not doing O.C. 14 DSTin RockMechanics?

Rockbridgesofcourse. Perhapsalsooverclosed wherejointed???

15

Opinion/Hypothesis Themultipleinfluencesofblock sizearenotyettakencareofvery wellinournumericalmodelling? Physicalmodelsthatfollowhere:

Artificial,butsomeusefullessons Theyarephysical,notconceptual
16

BIAXIAL LOADING Scaleeffect investigations 250,1000,or 4000blocks.

Lesson#3
Always got rotational failureswith smallblocks
17

Lesson#4 2DROCKMASS :SHORTESTBLOCKSIDES:

HIGHESTSTRENGTH ........(DSTsamples=L4) (L4>L3>L2>L1) (BartonandHansteen,1979)

18

STRESSSTRAIN BEHAVIOUR:250,1000or4000BLOCKS. Lesson#5LINEARITYOF4000blocksmodel (partiallylinear?:1000blocks)Lesson#6......highPoisson ratio)

19

SUCCESSIVEHALVINGOFTHEBLOCKSIZE HASDRAMATIC ROTATIONAL(degreeoffreedom)EFFECTS,ALSOWITHUDECMC.

Shen,B.&Barton,N.1997.Thedisturbedzonearoundtunnelsinjointedrockmasses.

20

10

ThefirstUDECBBmodel! Sectorrelatedshear despiteisotropicstress.

(MarkChristiansson,Itasca/NGI,1985)

ANALYTICALMOHRCOULOMB JOINTSHEARLOCATIONS
( Shen andBarton,1997).
21

RESEARCHWITHROCKJOINTS PROVIDESASOLUTION TONONLINEAR SHEARSTRENGTH

22

11

130jointsamples.Roughness measurementandtilttest. (BartonandChoubey,1977)

23

TILTTESTTHEORY

(BartonandBandis,1990)
24

12

130rockjointsamples (BartonandChoubey 1977) Threecurvedpeakshear strengthenvelopes shown: 1.Maximumstrength withJRC=16.9 2.Meanparameters

JRC=8.9, JCS=92MPa r=28

3.Minimumstrength withr =26

25

COMPARING DSTMEASURED PEAKSHEAR STRENGTH

withtiltand pushtest predictions

nrange involved: 0.001MPa (tilt) 1.0MPa (DST) =x1000
26

13

27

Luckybreak#3
Note:theoriginaltensionfracture basedequation(1971)was:
= n . tan [ 20. log( UCS/ n ) + 30 ]

JRC
SOFTWARE PLEASE

JCS

b (now r)

TO THOSE WHO HAVE PERFORMED PH.D.s AND ARE SELLING

NOTE IT IS r since 1977 !!

28

14

VISUALMATCHINGOFROUGHNESS forJRCHASOBVIOUSLIMITATIONS
(BartonandChoubey,1977)

29

JCS>UCS(?)

JCS<UCS
30

15

SCALEEFFECTSFOR INDIVIDUALJOINTS

31

Tilttests repeated atdifferent scale thereis almostno damage. Note: JRC1 <JRC2
(Bartonand
Choubey, 1977)

32

16

Bandis 1980Ph.D.

(Luckybreak#4!) Aheadoftheirtime scaleeffect investigations.

Onesetofmanyjoint replicatests.

33

Theangularcomponentsofpeakshearstrength,with asperitystrength(SA),andpeakdilationangle(dn ),each included.(Barton,1971)

34

17

Theasperitycomponent SA (Barton,1971andBandis,1980) meansthatJRC (orr) cannotbebackcalculatedby subtractingdilation(dn)frompeakstrength,asdoneby some!r or b would then be dangerously too high
(and/or JRC would be incorrect).
35

SCALEEFFECTS
REDUCTIONOF of JRCandJCS withblocksize
Ln >L0

(Bandis,Dearman,Barton,1981)

36

18

Welljointed wedge. Remainsin place becauseof thehigher shear strengthof the smaller component blocks?

Inthiscaselargerblock(s)
(andfundamentallylowershearstrengthtoo)

38

19

39

Noteuseof twocoresfor
(unweathered)

b
Three cores cause wedging and false (high) values r = (b 20) +20 r5/R5
40

20

SHEARSTRENGTHofINTACTROCK
NEWCRITERIONBASEDONOLD (1976)CONCEPT
(Luckybreak#5)

41

Criticalstateconcept recentlyusedbySingh etal.,2011asbasisfor improvedstrength criterionforintact rock. Thesimplecorrect curvatureformulation, indicateshowmuch deviationfromMohr Coulombisnecessary tomatchthestrong curvatureuptothe criticalstate.
(1 =33 andfigure Barton,1976,2006).

Theyfoundthat 3 (critical) c

21

INTOTHEFIELD!! CHARACTERIZATIONOFJOINTING, DEFORMABILITY,ATMAJORDAM SITES

IRAN:KARUNIV230m,BAKHTIARY325m TURKEY:DERINERDAM249m CHINA:BAIHETANDAM277m(12.6MW)
43

Youneedtohirearockclimbingengineeringgeologygroup tocharacterisethemajorjointplanesthatdefinethetwo majorwedgesthatyourcompanyareworriedabout

44

22

Somekiloslighter,andnottellinghiswifethereason,Iranian colleagueM.Zargari isprofilingmajorjointMJ67, KarunIVDam,Iran

45

Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)

JRC=0.5 JRC=1 JRC=2 JRC=3 JRC=4 JRC=5 JRC=6 JRC=8 JRC=10 JRC=12 JRC=16 JRC=20 F6a-ZA-B1 F6a-ZA-B2 F6a-ZA-B3 F6a-ZA-B4 F6a-ZA-B7 F6a-ZA-B8 F6a-ZA-B11 F6a-ZA-B13 JRC=22 JRC=24 JRC=26 JRC=28 JRC=30

1000.00

100.00

Amplitude of Asperities (mm)

10.00

Forthevery rough bedding plane,used a/L method Mean JRCn =11

(for2mblocksize)

1.00

0.10 0.1 1 10

Length of Profile (m)

46

23

Indexcharacterizationofjoints atnuclearwasteprojects:
BWIP(basaltwasteisolationproject)USA HTMblocktestincrystallinerock(TerraTek) YuccaMountain/NevadaTestSite/GTunnel AECL/URLManitoba(byothers) UKNirex Sellafield (NGI/Atkins) SKB:Stripa,sp,Simpevarp,Forsmark, (NB/NGI)
47

48

24

HTMBLOCK TEST 1980,1981 TERRATEK

(Lesson#X)
Conducting aperture (e) reduction with temperature alone
49

Barton, N. 2007. Thermal over-closure of joints and rock masses and implications for HLW repositories. Proc. of 11th ISRM Congress, Lisbon. Thermal over-closure so far ignored in numerical modelling and nuclear waste studies??
50

25

COLUMNARJOINTINGCONCERNS ATAMAJORDAMSITEINCHINA
(Baihetan)

51

52

26

THESTORYFROMINSIDE

53

RECORDINGOF ROUGHNESSFORJRC ESTIMATION,70to140m intothecanyonwalls.

(Mayneedstrippingtothis competentrockdepth)

RECORDINGOF SCHMIDT HAMMER REBOUNDFORJCS ESTIMATION

54

27

APPLICATIONOFJRCANDJCSto ROCKMASSDEFORMABILITY UNDERSTANDING and MODELLING

55

DEC with rigid blocks 1975

(Cundall,Voegele andFairhurst,1977)

Soon to be followed (in 1980) by UDEC, then UDEC-BB (in 1985) (see next example and contrast to continuum model)

56

28

Cundall andCundallbutthechoiceisclear!
(NGImodellingbyLisaBacker)

57

Stressclosureand scaleeffectshear tests.Bandis etal.1981

and1983

TheN,Scomponents inpotentialrockmass loaddeformation mechanisms.

(Barton,1986)

Thereisplateload/ blocktestevidence forthesethreeP typecurves.

58

29

UDECBBsimulations
(Chryssanthakis,NGI)

EMPHASISESWHY DISCONTINUUM ANALYSESGIVEMORE EXCITEMENT/INTEREST/ VALUE/REALISM thananalyseswithout joints!

59

QSYSTEM(Luckybreak#7)
SINCE1974QHASACTUALLYBECOMEASYSTEM, SINCETHEREARENOWSEVERALCOMPONENTS. (About1500caserecordsintotal) Qrockmass classification,Qhistograms(LB#8) QforhelpingtoselectNMTsupport(sb,B,Sfr,RRS) QC forcorrelatingwithVP andEMASS QTBM forTBMprognosis QSLOPE forselectingsafeslopeangles(inprogress) QcsplitintoCCandFC(if continuum modelling)
60

30

EXAMPLEOFSLOPEANGLEMATCHEDTO GEOTECHNICALPROPERTIES(ortolocalQslope:0.1, 1.0,10).(Panamaexpansionproject,2011.PCAphoto)

Why/howwasQdeveloped?
BecauseofaquestiontoNGIin1973: Whyare(our)Norwegian undergroundpower housesshowingsuchavarietyof deformations?
(fromNorwegianStatePowerBoard/STATKRAFT)

QuestionpassedtoNB.Answergivenafter6 monthsofQsystemdevelopment!
VARIABLES:Rockmass quality,support type/quantity, span/height,depth,stress. 212caserecords used.B,S(mr),B+S(mr),CCA.
62

31

VARIABLEWORLDNEEDSBROADREACHCLASSIFICATIONMETHOD
63

Strengthcontrast,moduluscontrast, constructabilitycontrast(15years/1year)! 0.0011000, or 595, or F6F1 ???

64

32

Grimstad and Barton,1993 (Norwegian conference), Bartonand Grimstad,1994 (Austrian conference).

TheQsystemismoststronglyassociatedwithsingleshell NMTsolutions: (B+Sfr +watercontrol)inmostly betterrock,costabout1/5xdoubleshell NATM, e.g.20,000US$/mcomparedto100,000US$/m 65 (Costsfrommanycountries).

RRS isa flexible

(until bolted)

lattice girder. 3D effect because ofS(fr) arches.

66

33

QUESTION: SHALLOW METROor DEEP METRO?

MIXEDFACE ORROCK?
5mPERWEEK OR20mPER WEEK?

COST DIFFERENCE MAYBE5:1 (atleast)

67

RELATIVECOST FORTUNNELEXCAVATIONANDSUPPORT (Barton,Roald,Buen,2001) potentialbenefitsofpregrouting,especiallyifQ 0.1

34

QHISTOGRAMMETHOD oflogging (briefexamples)

69

Kiruna LKABOscar caving project.

SomedetailsofrockmassQ characterization,andapre1993 Qsystemtemporarysupport assessment. Barton,1987NGIcontract report.).

NotetheearlyuseofQ parameterhistogram loggingusedbyNBinthe last25years.

70

35

Q - VALUES: Q (typical min)= Q (typical max)= Q (mean value)= Q (most frequent)=

B L O C K
50 40 30 20 10 00 10

(RQD 10 100 71 85
V. POOR

/ / / / /

Jn) 20.0 2.0 9.6 9.0

POOR

* * * * *

(Jr 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.5

/ / / / /
FAIR

Ja) 5.0 1.0 2.8 2.0

* * * * *

(Jw 0.50 1.00 0.69 0.66

GOOD

/ SRF) = Q / 5.0 = 0.010 / 1.0 = 100.0 / 1.5 = 1.78 / 1.0 = 4.68

EXC

RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm

20 FOUR

30

40 THREE

50

60 TWO

70

80 ONE

90

100 NONE

THERESULTOFQ HISTOGRAMLOGGINGOFSIX CORESATAPLANNEDMETRO PROJECTINHONGKONG. DEVIATEHOLESashere!

S I Z E S

80 60 40 20 00

EARTH

Jn
Number of joint sets

20

15

12

0,5 DISC.

(r) and T A N

T A N

150 100 50 00

FILLS

PLANAR

UNDULATING

Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 3 4

80 60 40 20 00 20 13

COATED UNFILLED HEA

Ja
Joint alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75

(p)

A C T I V E S T R E S S

150 100 50 00 0.05 200 150 100 50 00

20 15

EXC. INFLOWS

HIGH PRESSURE

DRY

Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

SQUEEZE

STRESS / STRENGTH

SRF
Stress reduction factor
10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

71

Q - VALUES: Q (typical min)= Q (typical max)= Q (mean value)= Q (most frequent)=

B L O C K
800 600 400 200 00 10

(RQD 10 100 50 45
V. POOR

/ / / / /

Jn) 20.0 3.0 10.9 15.0

POOR

* * * * *

(Jr 1.0 3.0 1.6 1.5

/ / / / /
FAIR

Ja) 12.0 1.0 3.5 1.0

* * * * *

(Jw 0.20 1.00 0.68 0.66

GOOD

/ / / / /

SRF) 20.0 0.5 5.4 2.0

EXC

= Q = 0.000 = 200.0 = 0.26 = 1.49

RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm

20 FOUR

30

40 THREE

50

60 TWO

70

80 ONE

90

100 NONE

S I Z E S

1000 800 600 400 200 00

EARTH

Jn
Number of joint sets

20

15

12 PLANAR

3 UNDULATING

0,5 DISC.

T A N (r) and T A N (p)

800 600 400 200 00

FILLS

Jr
Joint roughness - least favourable 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 COATED 3 4

1000 800 600 400 200 00 20 13

UNFILLED HEA

J&Kraillink,Kashmir. Here12m/2years.

Ja
Joint alteration - least favourable 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75

A C T I V E S T R E S S

2000 1500 1000 500 00 0.05 800 600 400 200 00

20 15 10

EXC. INFLOWS

HIGH PRESSURE

DRY

Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

SQUEEZE

STRESS / STRENGTH

SRF
Stress reduction factor
5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

72

36

HowdotheQparameterhistograms change,asdepthisincreasedinthe samerocktype?

CHARACTEROF SAPROLITEANDSOIL

37

LOGGEDCHARACTEROF NEARSURFACE SANDSTONES

LOGGEDCHARACTER OFDEEPERSANDSTONES

38

Qsystemlinkagestoparametersusefulfor designare basedonsound,simple empiricism,thatworksbecauseitreflects practice,andthatcanbeusedbecauseitcan beremembered.Itdoesnotrequireblack boxsoftwareevaluation.

77

VELOCITYMODULUS PERMEABILITYQVALUE CHALLENGES, ATBAKHTIARYDAMSITE,IRAN (PROJECTED325m)

78

39

Howtocharacterize voids? Velocitymodulus permeabilityQvalue correlationdifficulties.

79

Upper diversion tunnel: top heading

80

40

Q - VALUES: Q (typical min)= Q (typical max)= Q (mean value)= Q (most frequent)=

B L O C K
100 80 60 40 20 00 10

(RQD 10 100 73 80
V. POOR

/ / / / /

Jn) 15.0 2.0 6.0 4.0

POOR

* * * * *

(Jr 0.5 4.0 2.0 2.0

/ / / / /
FAIR

Ja) 6.0 0.8 1.6 1.0

* * * * *

(Jw 0.66 1.00 0.99 1.00

GOOD

/ SRF) = Q / 5.0 = 0.007 / 1.0 = 266.7 / 1.1 = 13.74 / 1.0 = 40.00

EXC

RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm

20 FOUR

30

40 THREE

50

60 TWO

70

80 ONE

90

100 NONE

S I Z E S

120 100 80 60 40 20 00

EARTH

Jn
Number of joint sets

Indiversiontunnel Qm.f.=40 Qmean =14 Nextsteps: 1.ConvertQtoQc

(WhatUCS?)

20

15

12 PLANAR

0,5 DISC.

(r) and T A N

T A N

150 100 50 00

FILLS

UNDULATING

Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 COATED 3 4

200 150 100 50 00 20 13

UNFILLED HEA

Ja
Joint alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75

(p)

A C T I V E S T R E S S

1.
300 200 100 00 0.05 300 200 100 00
20 15

400

EXC. INFLOWS

HIGH PRESSURE

DRY

Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

2.ConverttoVp 3.ConverttoEmass

SQUEEZE

STRESS / STRENGTH

SRF
Stress reduction factor
10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

Rev.

Report No.

Figure No.

BAKHTI ARY DAM HEPP UPPER DI VERSI ON TUN

B h l N D

NB&A #3
b D t

81

82

41

ExtractingUCSfromQc (nearsurfacemodulionly)

83

Fewpagesonly!

QTBM

84

42

Gradients = (-) m

TheQTBMmethodwasalsodevelopedviacaserecords(145cases,1000kmofTBM)
Schematic Geology Schematic Geology Z4 Z3 Z4 Z2 Z3 Z1 Z2 0 Z1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5000 1500 5000 2000 5004 500 1500 5000 2000 500 5 5 LITHOLOGY LITHOLOGY Z5 Z5 5 Z6 Z6 6 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 7 7 Z9 Z9 8 8

Z 10 Z 10 Z 11 9 10 11 Z 9 10 500 500

Class 1 granitic gneiss Class 1 INPUT DATA granitic gneiss INPUT DATA

ZONE LENGTH ZONE LENGTH

RQD Jn RQD Jn
100.0 100.0 2.0 2.0

Jr

Jr

Ja Ja
1.0 1.0

Jw SRF Jw SRF
1.00 1.00 1.0 1.0

3.0 3.0

- m 1 RQD0 - m 1 RQD0(g/cm )
-0.19 100.0 -0.19 100.0

(g/cm 2.8 ) 2.8

VP VP (km /s) (km /s)

Gradients = (-) m mobilization

85

(MPa)

c c

(MPa) 250.0 250 0

(MPa) (MPa)

I50 I50

F
(tf)

CLI CLI
5.0 50

q
%

(tf) 32.0 32 0

% 35.0 35 0

(MPa) (MPa) 8.0

(m )

80

(m 10.0 ) 10 0

n %n % 1.0

10

86

43

87

WHYTBMDELAYSINFAULTZONES?
Theoempirical reasons.Lackofbeliefgetspaidfor!

88

44

THEO EMPIRICAL REASONSWHYFAULTZONESARESO DIFFICULTFORTBM

Weneedthreebasicequations: 1. AR=PRxU (allTBMmustfollowthis) 2. U=Tm (duetothedeceleratingadvanceratewithtime) 3. T=L/AR (obviouslytimeforlengthLmustbeproportionalto 1/AR) Thereforewehavethefollowing: 4. T=(L/PR)(1/1+m) (from#1,#2and#3) 5. ThisisVERYimportantforTBMsincemisstronglyrelatedtoQ values..inFAULTZONES. 6. Itisimportantbecauseverynegative()m valuesmake(1/(1+m) TOOBIG 89

BUTQ CAN BE IMPROVED BY PRE-GROUTING ! (IMPROVE m.....to less negative value)

90

45

Schematic Geology Schematic Geology ZZ 4 4 33 2000 2000 ZZ 5 5 44 500 500 ZZ 6 6 55 ZZ 7 7 66 ZZ 8 8 77

ZZ 2 2 ZZ 1 1 00 11 22 500 1500 500 1500 5000 5000 55 LITHOLOGY LITHOLOGY

ZZ 3 3

ZZ 9 9 88

ZZ 10 10 99

ZZ 11 11 10 10 500 500

Class 11 granitic gneiss Class granitic gneiss INPUT DATA INPUT DATA

ZONE LENGTH ZONE LENGTH

RQD RQD
100.0 100.0

JJ n n
2.0 2.0

JJ r r
3.0 3.0

JJ a a
1.0 1.0

JJ w w
1.00 1.00

SRF SRF
1.0 1.0

--m 1 1 m
-0.19 -0.19

RQD0 RQD0
100.0 100.0

(g/cm) (g/cm)

VV P P
(km/s) (km/s)

2.8 2.8

c c
250.0 250.0
(MPa) (MPa)

I50 I

50

FF
32.0 32.0
(tf) (tf)

(MPa) (MPa)

CLI CLI
5.0 5.0

qq
35.0 35.0
% %

(MPa) (MPa)

D D
10.0 10.0
(m) (m)

8.0 8.0

1.0 1.0
91

nn % %

92

46

PHYSICAL(2D)MODELSofROCK CAVERNS,ASFORERUNNERTO UDECBBFLEXIBILITY

93

94

47

Fractureoverclosurefrompreviousstressstate:new excavationsdonotreversethedeformationdirection.

95

Postseismicloadingresult(0.2to0.5g)

96

48

Physical andFEM modelling(Barton and Hansteen,1979) suggestedpossible heave resultingfrom largecavern constructionnearthe surface.. .dependedonjoint patternandhorizontal stresslevelinthe physicalmodels.
97

GJVIKCAVERN
INCREASEOFLARGESTCAVERN SPANBYALMOST2x

98

49

Gjvikcavern:anextension of1974Qsystemdatabase. (Qmin,Qmean, andQmax valuesof1,12,30 loggedinthecavern) RQD=6090%,UCS=90MPawastypical.

99

100

50

GJVIKCAVERNJOINTGEOMETRYASSUMPTIONS inputdata,boundarystresses
Barton,N.,By,T.L.,Chryssanthakis,P.,Tunbridge,L.,Kristiansen,J.,Lset,F.,Bhasin,R.K., Westerdahl,H.&Vik,G.1994.Predictedandmeasuredperformanceofthe62mspanNorwegian OlympicIceHockeyCavernatGjvik.Int.J.RockMech,Min.Sci.&Geomech.Abstr.31:6:617641. Pergamon.

101

TOPHEADINGTOOWIDETOOBSERVEFROMONELOCATION

102

51

103

Thefinalmodelled7to9mm(downwardsdirected)deformations matchedtheunknown(tobemeasured)resultalmostperfectly.
(UDECBBmodellingbyChryssanthakis,NGI)

104

52

DEFORMATIONRECORDSFROMMPBXANDLEVELLING
= 7 to 8 mm was typical. Construction period: week 24 to week 50, following arrival of access tunnels (top and bottom). BxHxL = 62 x 24 x 90 = 140,000 m3

105

CONTINUUM(??) MODELLING
106

53

Borehole stability studiesat NGI.

(JointIndustry Project).Addiset al.,SPE,1990.

Drillinginto 1 > 2 >3 loaded cubes

0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 m

of model sandstone

107

Physicalmodel:layered,byBandis 1987,threeFRACOD models 10 byBaotang Shen,2004,twoUDECBB models,Hansteen,NGI,1991. 8

54

Jinping II(D+B) ISRMNewsJournal Physicalmodel boredunderstress(NGI) Jinping II(TBM) ISRMworkshop(NB)

Logspiral shear modes

109

NEEDforCHANGE
CONVENTIONAL continuummodelling methods. Poorsimulationwith MohrCoulombor Hoek andBrown strengthcriteria.
(Hajiabdolmajid,Martin andKaiser,2000 Modellingbrittlefailure, NARMS.)

Sowhyperformedby somanyconsultants?
110

55

Degradecohesion,mobilizefriction:excellentmatch.
(Hajiabdolmajid,MartinandKaiser,2000Modellingbrittlefailure,NARMS.)
11 1

WHYSCISSORS?

112

56

CC and FC from Qc:

Qc = Q x UCS/100)
= cohesive strength ( the component of
the rock mass requiring shotcrete)

x frictional strength ( the component of the rock mass requiring bolting). Cut Qc into two halves c and !?

CC =

RQD 1 c Jn SRF 100

Jr FC = tan 1 Jw Ja

113

GSIbased algebrafor c and contrasted with Q-based empiricism Note: shotcrete needed when low CC, bolting needed when low FC.

57

RQD Jn 100 90 60 30

Jr

Ja 1 1 2 4

Jw 1 1 0.66 0.66

SRF 1 1 1 2.5

Q 100 10 2.5 0.13

c 100 100 50 33

Qc 100 10 1.2 0.04

FC CC MPa Vp km/s Emass GPa 63 45 26 9 50 10 2.5 0.26 5.5 4.5 3.6 2.1 46 22 10.7 3.5

2 2 1 9 12 1.5 15 1

Fourrockmasseswithsuccessivelyreducingcharacter:more joints,moreweathering,lowerUCS,moreclay.
LowCCshotcretepreferred LowFC boltingpreferred

115

FLAC3D c+tan (left) cthen tan (below)

(BartonandSuneet Pandey,2011)

New approaches:
cthen tan (notnew,butrare!) Comparingmodelled andmeasured displacementswithpreinstalled MPBX. BackcalculatingQfromempirical equations,aswellasloggedQ.

116

58

v =

SPAN v 100 Q c
h = HEIGHT 100 Q h c
2

Units: SPAN, HEIGHT, v and h (millimetres) Rock stresses and rock strengths (MPa). (But over-simplified central trend is (mm) SPAN(m)/Q from many hundreds of case records, many from Taiwan).

SPAN ko = HEIGHT

h v

117

Cthen tanphi (asusedinBartonandPandey,2011)

118

59

PleasenoticethenicedryNMTtunnel(=singleshell) inpreinjectedshales @<20,000US$/meter.

119

60