INTRODUCTION
Himalayan region is endowed with huge
hydropower potential. Numerous rivers and
streams traverse through these hilly regions. The
design of foundations of dams in rocky strata
includes determination of bearing capacity,
settlement analysis and sliding/slope stability
analysis. Bearing capacity and settlement analysis
involve the ability of the rock foundation to support
the imposed loads without shear failure and
without excessive settlements. Sliding stability
analysis involves the ability of the rock foundation
or slope to resist the imposed loads without
shearing or sliding. Both analyses must be
coordinated and satisfied in the design. For
performing theses analyses shear strength
parameters viz. cohesion and frictionangle are
used as input parameters. There are two major
categories of analysis, a) Analysis at the concrete
foundation and rock joint interface and b) Analysis
at the rock over rock interface. Henceforth,
Page 1 of 9
Table 1. Details
of joint sets in
right bank drift
[3]
Sl.
Joint
Orientation
Description
3
J3
N90 to
N100/65to 85
Rough
planar
J1
Smooth
1
(foliation
N 00 to N350/4070
4
J4
N290 to
Rough
joint)
planar
2
J2
N335 to
N340/5080
Rough
planar
N310/60to80
planar
5
J5
N290toN310/35t
o50
Rough
planar
(foliation
6
J6
N10 to N30/20to
40
Rough
planar
joint)
2
J2
N40 to N60/40 to
80
Rough planar
3
J3
N185 to N200/17
to
Rough planar
7
J7
N30 to N60/40
to75
Rough
45
4
J4
N240 to N270/65
to
Rough planar
planar
80
Table 2. Details
of joint sets in
left bank drift
[3]
5
J5
N240toN260/10
to
Rough planar
20
Sl.
Joint
Orientation
Description
1
J1
N 00 to N350/20
to 80
Smooth planar
6
J6
N160 to
N180/80to
Rough planar
85
7
J7
N330 to N335/40
to
Rough planar
75
of IS 7746:1991
and ISRM:
1981 [1,2].
Fig.1 shows the
schematic
diagram of the
testsetup as
given in IS
7746:1991 [1].
8
J8
N130 /70
Rough planar
9
J9
N155 to N165/35
Rough planar
to40
TEST
PROCEDURE
Insitu shear
tests at rockrock and
concrete rock
interfaces are
conducted at the
dam axis site of
proposed
hydroelectric
project at
Amochu
(Bhutan). The
tests are
conducted in
two drifts named
as DR5 on right
bank and DL6
on left bank.
Blocks of rock
mass for R/R
interface test
and concrete
blocks for C/R
interface test are
prepared for
testing purpose
as per provisions
Fig.1 Schematic
diagram of insitu shear test
setup [1].
Following step
by step testing
procedure is
carried out on
the site:
Diamond wheel
chisel and
hammer along
with rock
breakers are
used to separate
the rock mass of
block size
(70cm 70 cm
35 cm) from
the parent rock
to create R/R
interface. Steel
frame of 20 mm
thickness MS
plate is placed
over the block
and then it is
filled with
cement grout.
to prepare side
and top reaction
pads and
strengthened by
RCC. The care
is taken to keep
the top and side
reaction pads
concentric with
the block. It
For C/R
should be noted
interface, the
that the
rock surface is
horizontal
leveled as much reaction pad has
as possible by
to be prepared
removing all
such that it does
undulations with not break during
the help of a
the application
chisel and a
of horizontal
hammer. The
thrust.
rock breaker is
also used in case Vertical load is
of hard rock.
applied using a
After leveling
200 tones
the rock surface, capacity
the concrete
hydraulic jack.
blocks (70 cm x Hallow
70 cm x 35 cm) cylinders of
are prepared by aluminum alloy
using steel
are used to fill
mould. All the
up the gap
blocks are cured between the top
for 28 days
reaction pad and
before the test.
the
20 mm thick MS
plates are used
Page 2 of 9
hydraulic
jack. Shear
force is
applied by
another 200
tones
capacity
hydraulic
jack from
the side
reaction pad
Normal
loads of 20,
25, 30, 35
and 40 tones
were
applied in
the five
tests,
respectively.
The shear
load is
applied at an
0
angle of 15
with the
horizontal
so that the
sheared
plane
coincides
with a plane
of weakness
in the rock.
This is
achieved by
two wooden
wedges of
appropriate
geometry
placed
across the
jack.
Five such
blocks for
R/R
interface
and C/R
interface are
prepared.
Each block
is tested for
a particular
normal
stress which
is kept
constant
during the
test. The
shear force
and
displacemen
t of block
are
measured
and
recorded
during the
test. The
vertical,
horizontal,
and lateral
displacemen
ts of the
block,
produced
during the
test are
measured by
9 dialgauges, 4
for normal
displacemen
t, 3 for shear
displacemen
t, and 2 for
lateral
displacemen
t.
The
observations
are recorded
till failure
and
continued
even after
the failure at
which no
further rise
or fall in
shear
strength is
observed
with
increasing
shear
displacemen
t to get the
information
regarding
residual
frictional
resistance.
ASSUMPT
ION
Interpretatio
n of the test
results are
based on the
following
assumptions
:
Effect of
pore water
pressure is
implicitly
taken as the
tests are
conducted
in the
saturated
condition.
Complete
interface
area is
involved in
the process
of shearing.
Shear
strength is
governed by
MohrCoulomb
criteria only.
All the
reaction
pads are
infinitely
stiff and not
prone to any
deformation.
The rock
mass has
been
considered
to be ideally
intact i.e.
without
cracks and
voids.
FORMULA
TION
Normal
stress (n)
and shear
stress () are
obtained,
respectively,
from applied
normal load
(Pna) and
applied
shear load
(Psa) during
the test,
using the
Eq. 1 and 2.
Ps
Psa cos
(1)
Where, Ps,
Pn
(2)
n
Pn , A, and
, are net
shear force,
net normal
force, gross
crosssectional
area of the
interface,
and
inclination
of the
applied
shear force,
respectively.
It is worth
mentioning
here that to
keep the
normal
stress
constant (as
required in
the specified
test
procedure),
the applied
normal force
is reduced
by an
amount Psa
sin after
each
increment in
the applied
shear force.
TEST
RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSI
ON
The test data
is collected
in terms of
applied
shear load
and
observed
shear
displacemen
t at the
applied
constant
vertical
load. This
exercise is
then
repeated for
five vertical
loads as
shown in
Table 3
Table 3.
Applied
vertical load
and
correspondi
ng test
sequence
Test No.
Vertical
load
Test No. 1
20 ton
Test No. 2
25 ton
Test No. 3
30 ton
Test No. 4
35 ton
Test No. 5
40 ton
The
collected
data is used
to derive the
shear stress
(using Eq.
1) and
correspondi
ng shear
displacemen
t. Further,
the plots of
shear stress
versus shear
displacemen
t are
prepared for
R/R
interface at
right bank
drift (after
here DR5),
R/R
interface at
left bank
drift (after
here DL6),
C/R
interface at
DR5, and
C/R
interface at
DL6 as
shown in
Figs. 2 to 5,
respectively
[3].
Figs. 2 to 5
are clear
depiction of
the shear
behavior of
the
interfaces.
Initially,
required
shear stress
for shear
displacemen
t increase
and it
reaches at a
peak value
that is
known as
peak shear
strength.
After this
point,
curves start
showing an
asymptotic
behavior
and shear
stress
reduces to a
Page 3 of 9
value known as
residual shear
stress. Table 4
shows the shear
displacement
achieved at the
peak shear
stress, values of
peak shear
stress and
residual shear
stress for
specified
normal load,
corresponding
to R/R
interfaces.
Fig. 2: Shear
stress V/S shear
displacement
plot or R/R
interface shear
tests in drift
DR5
Fig. 3: Shear
stress V/S shear
displacement
plot for R/R
interface shear
tests in drift
DL6
Fig. 4: Shear
stress V/S shear
displacement
plot for C/R
interface shear
tests in drift
DR 5
Fig. 5: Shear
stress V/S shear
displacement
plot for C/R
interface shear
tests in drift
DL6
Table 4.
Comparison of
shear
displacement
curves for
various normal
loads at R/R
interface
Applied
Shear
Peak
shear
Residual
stress (mm)
Tonnes
DL 6
DR 5
DL
DR 5
DL
DR 5
6
6
displacement at
normal
stress
shear
stress
20
9.80
12.86
5.94
6.79
4.67
6.36
peak
shear
25
14.21
17.20
5.91
7.88
5.13
6.70
load
(kg/cm2)
(kg/cm2)
30
1.17
7.60
6.70
11.04
5.91
10.25
35
7.53
12.84
6.31
11.43
5.91
9.85
40
12.01
9.89
9.46
13.01
7.69
11.83
Table 5.
Comparison of
shear
displacement
curves for
various normal
loads at C/R
interface.
load
(kg/cm2)
(kg/cm2)
stress (mm)
Tonnes
DL 6
DR 5
DL
DR
DL
DR
6
5
6
5
Applied
Shear
Peak shear
Residual
displacement at
normal
stress
shear stress
peak shear
20
11.30
7.59
4.66
4.13
3.95
3.23
25
5.19
12.61
5.19
5.93
4.45
4.82
30
14.20
12.26
5.32
3.59
4.26
3.20
35
8.69
11.96
6.58
5.59
5.92
5.26
40
13.88
11.81
7.12
7.13
6.00
5.99
Similarly, Table
5 above shows
the shear
displacement
achieved at the
peak shear
stress, values of
peak shear
stress and
residual shear
stress for
specified
normal load,
corresponding
to C/R
interfaces. The
comparative
study based on
the Figs. 2 to 5
and Tables 4&5
leads to
following
important
observations:
There is no
definite trend of
observed shear
displacement (at
peak shear
stress) with
applied vertical
load. The reason
might be
Page 4 of 9
the
presence of
discontinuit
y on the
rock
surface in
the form of
joints or
cracks.
There is an
increasing
trend (not
necessarily
monotonou
s for
example
See DR5)
in peak
shear stress
with the
applied
vertical
stress.
Similarly
there is an
increasing
trend in
residual
shear stress
with the
applied
vertical
stress.
Observatio
n (b) and
(c), suggest
that the
peak and
residual
shear
strength of
the rock
mass
increases
with the
applied
normal
stress. This
conclusion
supports
the use of
Coulumb
criteria in
the
determinati
on of shear
strength
parameters
at the
interface.
SHEAR
STRENG
TH
PARAME
TERS
In selecting
shearstrength
parameters
for rock,
the analysis
should not
be limited
to a single
approach,
rather
should
incorporate
several
approaches
into the
selection
process.
Compariso
n of values
obtained
from
several
alternative
approaches
, together
with a
thorough
understandi
ng of rock
mechanics
principles
and
prerequisite
s will
provide the
necessary
basis for
selection of
meaningful
shearstrength
parameters.
However,
as
discussed
above in
the present
paper, the
Coulumb
criterion of
shear
strength (f)
is used as
given in Eq.
3.
f
c n
tan
(3)
Where, c is
cohesion,
n is
applied
normal
stress, and
is angle of
friction at
the
interface, is
used as the
governing
behavior
for the
interpretati
on of the
shear test
results in
the present
study. The
shear
stresses at
the failure
and the
residual
shear
stresses are
plotted
against the
correspondi
ng normal
stresses.
Then, this
data set is
used to fit
the
Equation 3
and to
determine
the
cohesion
(c) and
friction
angle ().
Figs. 6 to
11, show
the scatter
plots of
shear stress
(f) (peak
and
residual)
versus
normal
stress (n)
and the
best fit
lines for
C/R
interface in
DL6, DR5 and
combined
DL6 &
DR5, R/R
interface in
for C/R
interface in
drift DR5
Fig. 8:
Shear stress
V/S normal
stress plot
for C/R
interface in
combined
DR5 &
DL6
Fig. 6: Shear
stress V/S
normal stress
plot for C/R
interface in
drift DL6
Fig. 9:
Normal
stress V/S
shear stress
plot for R/R
interface in
drift DL6
Fig. 7: Shear
stress V/S
normal stress
versus plot
Page 5 of
9
Angle,
(kg/cm2)
(kg/cm2)
r
(degree)
(degree)
DR263.00
0.65
55.50
0.21
53.50
5
Fig. 10:
Shear stress
V/S normal
stress plot for
shear tests on
R/R interface
in drift DR5
Table 6.
Shear
Strength
Parameters
on rock
rock
interface
Location of
Peak Shear
Strength
Residual Shear
Drift
Parameters
Strength
Parameters
Drift.
RL
Cohesion,
Friction
Cohesion,
Friction
No.
(m)
c
Angle,
cr
DL6
245.00
1.83
39.10
1.28
36.00
Combined
0.73
50.70
0.24
48.30
DR5 & DL6
Table 7. Shear
Strength
Parameters on
concreterock
interface
Location of
Peak Shear Strength
Residual Shear
Drift
Parameters
Strength
Parameters
Drift.
RL (m)
Cohesion,
Friction
Cohesion,
Friction
263.00
1.62
33.30
0.94
32.70
5
No.
c (kg/cm2)
Angle,
cr (kg/cm2)
Angle,
(degree)
r
DL6
245.00
2.13
34.80
1.66
31.70
Combined
1.57
36.10
1.06
33.82
DR5 & DL6
(degree)
DR
cohesion and
frictionangle
for both R/R
and C/R
interfaces.
There are also
variations in
peak and
residual shear
strength
parameters.
These
variations show
that there are
abrupt changes
in various
geological and
mechanical
rock mass
properties from
one bank to
other. However,
there are cases
where the shear
strength
parameters are
almost similar
in magnitude
on the left bank
and the right
bank for both
R/R and C/R
interfaces [4,5].
Further, it is
recommended
that the average
values for a
particular dam
site may be
obtained by
plotting data
from both the
banks together
rather than
taking an
arithmetic
average of
cohesion and
friction values
from both the
banks as it may
give better
representative
values (See
Figs. 8 &11).
INTERPRETA
TION OF
SHEAR
STRENGTH
PARAMETER
S
Two major
design issues
viz. stability of
the rock and
stability of the
dam over rock
are of central
importance
during the dam
construction.
Thus, R/R
interface values
are required for
stability
analysis of the
rocks while
C/R interface
values are
required for the
stability of the
dam
foundation.
Being on the
conservative
side, designer
may like to use
the lowest
observed values
of shear
strength
parameters for
the above two
cases. However,
this may not be
the case as the
rock mass is not
homogeneous
throughout the
dam axis. In
view of this, a
combined
analysis of the
values obtained
from left and
right bank is
proposed in the
present study.
For illustration
purpose, Tables
8&9 show the
shear strength
of R/R and C/R
interfaces,
respectively, for
40 ton of
vertical load
(which is
applied on 70
cm x 70 cm
block). These
values are
determined
using Eq. 3 and
using the shear
strength
parameters as
given in Tables
6&7.
Page 6 of 9
Drift
Strength
Shear
Table 8.
Shear
strength on
(kg/cm2)
rock to rock Strength
interface (for
40 ton of
vertical load)
(kg/cm2)
Location of
Peak Shear
Residual
Drift
Strength
Shear
(kg/cm2)
Strength
DR5
6.99
6.18
DL6
7.80
6.70
Combined
DR5 & DL6
7.52
6.53
In case of
R/R
(kg/cm )
interface, the
right bank
DR5
12.53
values are
11.24
47.97%
higher as
DL6
compared to
8.47
the left bank
7.21
values.
Combined DR Similarly,
5 & DL6
values
10.70
determined
9.40
by residual
shear
Table 9.
strength
Shear
parameters
Strength on
are 55.93%
concrete to
higher as
rock
compared to
interface (for
the left bank
40 ton of
values.
vertical load
Therefore, it
seems better
to use
Location of
individual
Peak Shear
bank
Residual
2
stability
analysis due
to this large
relative
variation in
the shear
strength for
R/R
interface. For
C/R case, the
relative
variation is
quite small
as compared
with R/R
case.
Variation is
of the order
of 10 %.
Hence, the
combined
values of
shear
strength
parameters
may be used
instead of
using
separate
values on
separate
banks for
foundation
design.
Lesser
variation in
concrete
over rock
may be due
to uniformity
in the
concrete
surface as
compared to
the rock over
rock case.
Residual
shear
strength
parameters
may be
utilized for
long term
stability
analysis [6,
7].
SHEAR
STRENGT
H
PARAMET
ERS FOR
PHYLLITE
S AT
OTHER
H.E.
PROJECTS
The shear
strength
parameters
obtained
from
different
project sites
in India and
Bhutan have
been
discussed [5,
8, & 9] for
rock to rock
and concrete
to rock
interfaces
based on insitu test
data. A list
of shear
strength
parameter
values for
the Phyllite
rock is
shown in
Table 10
from various
sites in India
and Bhutan
which also
includes the
data from
the present
study.
For R/R
interface,
internal
friction angle
values range
0
from 36 to
Further, if
we assume a
vertical load
of 40 ton on
70 cm x 70
cm block
0
70 while for then for the
C/R
lowest and
interface,
highest set
this ranges
of values of
0
from 31 to c and for
0
66 , which is Phyllites,
respectively,
of almost
shear
same order
strength is
of
4.71 and
magnitude.
So, it seems 24.93 2
kg/cm
that for
(using Eqn.
Phyllites,
3). It is
values of
analyzed
internal
that the
friction are
of the order maximum
contribution
of 30 to 70
degress. For of cohesion
value in
R/R
shear
interface,
strength is
cohesion
values range about 10%
only.
from 0 to
2
Therefore, it
2.70 kg/cm
is concluded
while for
that the
C/R
maximum
interface,
shear
this ranges
strength gain
from 0 to
in Phyllites
2
2.13 kg/cm , is due to
which is also internal
of almost
friction only.
same order
Due to low
of
cohesion
magnitude.
values for
So, it seems Phyllite rock
that for
mass, it is
Phyllites,
suggested
cohesion
that shear
values are of keys, rockthe order of anchoring,
0 to 2.5
or rock
2
bolting may
kg/cm .
be provided
to attain the
desired
factor of
safety
against
sliding [10,
11]. Based
on this
observation,
shear
strength
Equation 3
can be
approximate
d as
Equation 4
for Phyllites,
which
ignores the
cohesion
value.
varies from
30 to 70
degrees and
shear
strength will
vary by 4.8
times within
this range of
internal
friction.
Further, this
huge
variation in
shear
strength due
to internal
friction,
strengthens
our view
about
conducting
separate
stability
n tan
analysis for
(4)
both the
Based on the banks
limited
available
data in Table
10, tan
varies from
0.58 to 2.75,
if it is
assumed that Page 7 of 9
Table 10. Shear strength parameters from different projects in India and Bhutan for Phyllites
RockRock Interface
ConcreteRock Interface
S.
Name of
Rock
Peak
Residual
Peak
Residual
No.
the Project
Type
Values
Values
Values
Values
C
0
Cr
0
C
0
Cr
0
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
1.
Chamera Dam Project
Phyllites
0.13
53.30
0.00
49.50
(India), [9].
2.
Greater Shillong Dam
Phyllites
0.27
70.00
0.01
69.00
0.25
66.00
0.01
62.00
(India), [9].
3.
Sankosh Main Dam
Phyllites
0.17
60.00
0.00
57.00

(Bhutan), [9].
4.
Amochu (Right Bank),
Phyllites
0.07
55.50
0.02
53.50
0.16
33.30
0.09
32.70
Bhutan, [3].
5.
Amochu ( Left Bank ),
Phyllites
0.18
39.10
0.13
36.00
0.21
34.80
0.17
31.70
Bhutan, [3].
CONCLUSION
CSMRS
report on
InSitu
Shear
Strength
Parameter
s of Rock
Mass in
Right
Bank
Drifts at
Dam Site
of
Amochu
Project,
Bhutan,
2011.
Singh,
Rajbal
(2007).
Field
Shear
Test,
Chapter
11 of
Engineeri
ng in
Rocks for
Slopes,
Foundatio
ns and
Tunnels,
Ed. Prof.
T.
Ramamurt
hy, pp.
256264.
Singh,
Rajbal and
Sharma,
V.M.
(1990).
Determina
tion of
Foundation
Deformabil
ity and
Shear
Strength
Characteris
tics of a
Concrete
Dam,
Indian
Geotechnic
al
Conference
(IGC90),
Bombay,
pp. 371
373.
Barton, N.
and
Choubey,
V. (1977).
The shear
strength of
rock joints
in theory
and
practice.
In:
Journal,
Rock
Mechanic
s The
Internatio
nal
Society for
Rock
Mechanic
s, Vol 10,
No. 12,
pp 154.
Bhandari
K.K.,
Verma
V.K.,
Singh
Rajbal,
Jeur S.D.
and
Thosar
S.P.
(2004),
Stabilisat
ion of
Rock
Mass with
MAI
anchors at
Tala
Hydroelec
tric
Project in
Bhutan,
Journal of
New
Building
Materials
and
Constructi
on World,
Issue11,
pp. 3641.
Singh,
Rajbal,
Dev, Hari
and
Dhawan,
A.K.
(2000).
Characteri
sation of
Foundatio
n Rock for
a Concrete
Gravity
Dam,
Indian
Geotechni
cal
Conferenc
e IGC2000,
Mumbai,
pp. 6768.
Singh,
Rajbal
(2009).
Measurem
ent of In
situ Shear
Strength of
Rock
Mass,
Journal of
Rock
Mechanics
and
Tunnelling
Technology
, ISRMTT,
Vol. 15, No.
2, pp.131
142.
Design of
Tunnel
Support,
Rock
Mechanic
s Vol. 6,
No. 4, pp
189236.
ISRM
(1987)
Internatio
nal
Society for
Rock
Mechanic
s
Suggested
Methods
for Rock
bolt
Testing.
Page 9 of
9
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.