Tunnelling in Brittle Rock Mass Conditions

Tunnelling in Brittle Rock
Mass Conditions
Spalling Instabilities
Giovanni Barla
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering
Lecture Outline
Introduction
Laboratory Results
Field Evidence
Modelling Brittle Failure
Case Study
Conclusions
Introduction
Definitions
BRITTLE FAILURE
BRITTLE FAILURE takes place around
underground openings in massive to
moderately jointed rock masses
subjected to high in situ stresses. It
manifests itself in the form of spalling
resulting in a revised stable geometry
with the onset of V-shaped notches. The
extent and depth of failure is a function
of the in situ stress magnitudes relative
to the rock mass strength
BRITTLE FAILURE
The onset of wall yield due to boundary
compression around an underground
opening is one of the primary design
issues in hard rock tunnelling at depth by
tunnel boring machines or conventional
excavation methods. In this lecture we
will discuss spalling instabilities,
although in cases the interest need be
centred on dynamically induced tunnel
failures such as rockbursts
BRITTLE FAILURE
Mine by Experiment at the URL, Canada (1990-1995)
Roof Tensile Failure
Sidewall Spalling
Laboratory Results
The starting point in the

understanding of this type of
behaviour is to analyse
laboratory test results on
cylindrical samples
It is worth to notice that a
significant contribution to this
understanding has been derived
from recent discrete element
simulations of Lac du Bonnet
granite (Diederichs et al.2004)
Laboratory Testing
Testing
Equipment
Spring
Model
Linear
Rock
Rock Specimen
Specimen
Non
linear
Unstable crack
propagation
11
peak
peak
A
A IV
III
B
cd
cd
Stable crack
propagation
ci
ci
II
cc
cc
33
Peak
Linear elastic
deformation
Crack closure
11
Stages of stress-strain and acoustic response

in uniaxial testing (Bieniawski 1967, Eberhardt et al. 1998)
Major thresholds within a

stress-strain test on rock
samples coupled with acoustic
emissions monitoring
Crack closure, cc
cc
Crack initiation, ci
ci
Crack damage, cd
cd
Peak strength, peak
peak
Laboratory Testing
No feedback
resistance
Diederichs et al. 2004
Dilating
crack
Feedback
confinement
Induced hoop
compression
Excavation Boundary
Small hole in plate
Biaxial
Biaxial tests
tests run
run for
for Politecnico
Politecnico di
di Torino
Torino
at
at Dresden
Dresden University
University
Biaxial
Biaxial tests
tests run
run for
for Politecnico
Politecnico di
di Torino
Torino
at
at Dresden
Dresden University
University
Field Evidence
Brittle Failure
Field Observations
ProcessLocalised
zone
Process
Process
stabilised
by confining
Buckling
damage
zonetip
zone
stress at notch
Stage IV - Stabilization: Development of the notch stops

Stagethe
III notch
- Spalling
: Development
the process
zone leads
when
geometry
provides of
sufficient
confinement
to
to the II
of zone
thin
slabs.
These
thin
slabs
form
Stage
stabilize
the
Dilation:
process
Shearing
at
the :and
notch
crushing
tip.
This
usually
occurs
means
inby:
a
Stage
Iformation
-- Damage
Initiation
Critically
oriented
flaws
shearing,
splitting
Themaximum
thickness
oftangential
the
slabs
there
is
a slight
tear-drop
like curvature
to dilation
the notch
shape.
very
narrow
process
zone.
Extensive
at
the
are
exploited
inand
thebuckling.
zone
of
varies.size
The
thickest
slabs
formthe
asnotch
the zone
notch
its
Alternatively,
if the
slabs
flanks reaches
are of
heldthe
in
grain
scale
occurs
infrom
this
process
stress.
The
process
initiates
at
the
boundary
maximum
size. Near
the notch
the slabs are
curved
place
by artificial
support,
notchtip
development
will
also stop
tunnel
Martin et al. 1997
The notch development is a 3D process which

is directly linked to the tunnel advance
Stages IV
III
II
V
Tunnel Advance
Initiation
Tunnel Longitudinal Section

Martin et al. 1997
Brittle Failure
Field Observations
1.0
df/a
max
df
= 1.25
- 0.51 0.1
a
c
0.8
0.6
Df Depth of overbreak
0.4
0.2
2a
0.2
+
+
+ +
0.4
0.6
max/c
0.8
1.0
Kaiser et al. 1995
This collection of available tunnel

overbreak data shows that
(1) Stress induced fracturing initiates at
approximately 0.3-0.5 cc and the critical
deviatoric stress for yield is essentially
independent of confining stress
(2) No overbreak occurs at a maximum
boundary stress equivalent to 40% of the
compressive strength. This is a lower bound
strength as unfailed tunnels are not plotted
Shear Failure
Slope of Spalling Limit

depends on Heterogeneity,
Surface Effects, Damage,
Stress Rotation
1/c
Distributed Damage
and Acoustic Emission
Axial Splitting
Spalling
Failure
Damage
Threshold (m=0)
Tensile Failure
Damage Initiation
Threshold depends on
Mineralogy, Grain Size,
Bond Type
In situ
Strength
Diederichs et al. 2004
3/c
Brittle Failure Modelling
A number of possible
approaches
(1)
(1) Phenomenological
Phenomenological Models:
Models: use
use
appropriate
appropriate constitutive
constitutive equations
equations which
which
should
should describe
describe the
the brittle
brittle failure
failure processes
processes
based
based on
on back
back analysis
analysis of
of carefully
carefully
documented
documented case
case histories
histories
(2) Micromechanical Models: account for

microscopic aspects of rock fracture and/or
crack propagation mechanisms
We discuss (1) only
One common approach to estimate the yield

potential and the depth of disturbance for a
tunnel is the Hoek and Brown Criterion for
rock mass
11
= + cc mbb
+ s
cc
''
1
1
33
cc
''
3
3
''
3
3
Standard uniaxial
compressive
strength
s
mbb
11
Costants which
depend upon the
characteristics of
the rock mass
determined using
the GSI index
33
It is found that this approach

is of limited reliability to
predict brittle failure for rock
masses of good quality,
typically GSI > 70-75
mb=0 Model
At low confinement levels, the accumulation
of significant rock damage, equivalent to loss
of cohesion (i.e. mbb=0), ocurs when 11- 33 =
1/3 to 1/2 cc (i.e. when s= 0.11 to 0.25)
11/
/ cc
1.5
1.5

- = s c = 0.33-0.50 c

1.0
1.0
'
1
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
1/2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5 1.0
1.0
33/
/ cc
'
3
Kaiser et al. 2000
CWFS Model
The cohesive strength is gradually
destroyed by tensile cracking and crack
coalescence. The frictional strength can be
mobilized only when the cohesive strength
is significantly reduced
aa
III
IV
II
Onset of
microcracking
cr
ci
Strength components
are strain- dependent
Frictional
Strength
aa
Hajiabdolmajid et al. 2002
Case Study
Pont Ventoux - Susa Hydropower System

DIAMETER: 4.75 m
TOOLS: 35 cutting disks
MAXIMUM THRUST: 6950 kN
TOTAL POWER: 895 kW
Free Flow Tunnel
Pont Ventoux - Susa

Hydropower System
F2 - Clarea
Length
Pont-Ventoux
F2 Length
Free Flow Tunnel
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
RMR6
Overburden [m]
Val Clarea F2 LENGTH
40
30
20
10
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
0
6000
Chainage [m]
Ground Surface
Gravity
Spalling
RMR 6
Instability of rock wedges occurs with Rock Mass Quality

Index RMR < 55
Spalling instability is observed to take place when the
overburden is greater than 500-600 m and RMR > 65
SECTION 1 (530-545 m)
Fault
Spalling
3
Spalling
The overbreak zones give the directions of 1
and 3 . From Flat Jack measurements the Stress
Ratio is in the range 0 25 to 0 50
SECTION 2 (550-565 m)
Spalling
Spalling
The overbreak zones give the directions of 1
and 3 . From Flat Jack measurements the Stress
Ratio is in the range 0 25 to 0 50
Intact Rock
(Ambin Formation)
500
Peak
400
1 - MPa
Gneiss
300
Residual
200
100
-10
10
ci
ci=135MPa
15
20
33 - MPa
25
30
mii=8.1
35
1 - MPa
Rock Mass
(Ambin Formation)
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
-10 0
Mohr-Coulomb
Criterion
Gneiss
Hoek-Brown
Criterion
GSI=70
Ed=36.7GPa
10
mbb=2.8
30
50
33 - MPa
70
s=0.04
90
Elasto-Plastic
Ideally Brittle
Elastic
Ideally Plastic
11/
/ cc
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
/ cc
0.5 1.0
1.0 33/
m=0 and CWFS

Models
sb=0.25, c=80MPa
Folding
Directions
Tunnel Axis
3D Discrete Fracture Network model created by the Fracman code

with plot of joint sets. This is typical of rock conditions on the right wall
J1
J2
J3a
TUNNEL
FACE
J3b
(b)
(a)
Detail of deterministic model
Detail of DFN model
YIELDED BLOCKS AND SHEAR DISPLACEMENTS

AROUND THE TUNNEL
LEFT WALL
Q =10
CH 2359 m
Q = 0.007
(a)
Q =10
Q =0,007
(b)
RIGHT WALL

Tunnelling in Brittle Rock Mass Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnelling in Brittle Rock Mass Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnelling in Brittle Rock Mass Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnelling in Brittle Rock

Mine by Experiment at the URL, Canada (1990-1995)

Roof Tensile Failure

The starting point in the

Stages of stress-strain and acoustic response

Major thresholds within a

Diederichs et al. 2004

Small hole in plate

Stage IV - Stabilization: Development of the notch stops

Martin et al. 1997

The notch development is a 3D process which

Tunnel Longitudinal Section

Kaiser et al. 1995

This collection of available tunnel

Slope of Spalling Limit

Diederichs et al. 2004

Brittle Failure Modelling

(2) Micromechanical Models: account for

We discuss (1) only

One common approach to estimate the yield

It is found that this approach

Kaiser et al. 2000

Pont Ventoux - Susa Hydropower System

Free Flow Tunnel

Pont Ventoux - Susa

Free Flow Tunnel

Val Clarea F2 LENGTH

Instability of rock wedges occurs with Rock Mass Quality

m=0 and CWFS

3D Discrete Fracture Network model created by the Fracman code

Detail of DFN model

YIELDED BLOCKS AND SHEAR DISPLACEMENTS

You might also like