Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;

Wandi Abraham Bayowa

Rock Mechanics Assignment 1


A 6 m diameter tunnel is to be constructed at a depth of 500 m in a rock mass composed of rhyolite. The
estimated horizontal stresses are about 2.2 times the vertical stress.
Lab tests on rhyolite core give an average uniaxial compression strength of 185 MPa, based on 23 samples,
with a standard deviation of 35 MPa. Testing of 276 samples of N-size core gives an average point load index
of 7.2 MPa, with a standard deviation of 2.3 MPa. Generally, the rock mass is expected to be of high quality
with widely spaced joints, and the drilling results seem to confirm this view as RQD values are consistently in
the range of 85% to 95% with fresh, unweathered, relatively rough joint faces. However, the drift is expected
to cross two zones (Zone A and Zone B) of lower quality rock; each zone is about 200 m wide.
ZONE A: When excavating through the Zone A, water inflow under moderate pressure is expected, entering
through joints spaced at about 1.2 to 1.5m on average and with some rather soft, weathered material at the
faces of the joints. Downhole inspection using a borehole camera suggests that the joints are only slightly
open, and moderately rough. Drilling has been done through this zone with N-size equipment and each
separate core run has been carefully logged. Overall, the drilling succeeded in recovering only 73 m of core
from a 100 m length of drilling, and of the 73 m that were recovered, the total length of core pieces greater
than 100 mm in length was 46 m.
ZONE B: Zone B was found by a different engineering geologist, who reports that pretty poor ground
conditions should be expected in this area, associated with the presence of a fault zone. She expects that at
least four or five intersecting joint sets will be present, with some zones of completely crushed fault gouge.
Previous shearing of the fault zone has formed slickensides along the flat joint surfaces, which are coated with
chlorite. The zone contains high-pressure water that can be expected to flow into the tunnel as it is excavated.
Overall, she says she would characterize this area as representing an extensive single zone of weakness
containing some chemically disintegrated rock.
(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)
(e)

From the information provided, summarize values of both RMR (Rock Mass Rating) and Q
(Tunnelling Quality) that you estimate to be valid within the three rock mass "zones".
Use the rock mass classifications to estimate the standup time for an unsupported tunnel and also
estimate support requirements, if needed.
For the purposes of preliminary design, you have been asked to develop estimates of the strength
envelopes for the three rock mass conditions around the drift, i.e., representing the "normal"
conditions as well as the conditions in the two zones of poorer quality rock which the exploration
drilling has identified. Show all three estimated strength envelopes on an appropriate plot.
Use Kirsch equations or Phase2 to predict the elastic stresses over radial distances of 0 to 4 m from
the top and from the side of the tunnel.
Combine (c) and (d) on an appropriate plot(s) and comment on your findings.

Submit a short report in memo format. Clearly presents your main rock mass strength and tunnel
performance recommendations/concerns in the three rock masses, with accompanying logic. This report
should also include your plots. (5-page maximum)

PART A and B)

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;
Wandi Abraham Bayowa

Figure 1. Schematic
representation of the
general zone, representing
Zone A, B and C.

CHARACTERISTICS
ZONE C:

OF

Point Load Index = 7.2


High Quality Rock mass with widely spaced joints
RQD = 85% - 95%
Unweathered
Relatively rough joint faces

Obtaining of the RMR and Q of zone C, in function of Table 12.1: The Rock Mass Rating
system (after Bieniawski, 1989) and Table 12.2: Q-system parameters (Hudson and
Harrison; Engineering Rock Mechanics, an introduction to the principles):
Rock Mass Rating

Correlation with the Table of Rock Mass Rating (RMR)


Point Loaded Index = 7.2
12
RQD = 85% - 95%
17
Spaced Joints =
15
RMR=81
Conditions of discontinuities =
30
Ground water =
7

In function of the table and the result of Rock Mass Rating, we can obtain the conclusion
that the zone C is characterized by VERY GOOD ROCK, and getting that result, we can
conclude that the Rock is Class #I with an average stand-up time equal to 20 yr for 15m
span.
Q-System of Rock Mass Classification
Applying the formula of Q-System
RQD = 85%

Q=

RQD J r J w

J n J a SRF

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;
Wandi Abraham Bayowa

85 1 1

0.5 1 1
Q=(170)(1)(1)
Q=

Jn = 0.5

Jr = 1
Ja = 1
Jw = 1
Q=170
SRF = 1
In function of the table and the result of Q-System, we can conclude that the Zone C, the
Rock is EXTREMELY GOOD, it means (and also in function of RMR) that we DO NOT
REQUIRE ANY KIND OF SUPPORT.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ZONE A:

Pressure moderate (water inflow under)


Joints spaced = 1.2 to 1.5 m
Joints slightly open
Soft
Moderately rough
Whetered material

Rock Quality Designation


n

RQD=100
i=1

xi
L

RQD=

46 m
( 100 )=46
100 m

Rock Mass Rating

Correlation with the Table of Rock Mass Rating (RMR)


Point Loaded Index = 7.2
12
RQD = 46%
8
RMR=67
Spaced Joints =
15
Applying the adjustment for
Conditions of discontinuities =
25
discontinuity orientation (67-5)
Ground water =
7
RMR=62

In function of the table and the result of Rock Mass Rating, we can obtain the
conclusion that the zone A is characterized by GOOD ROCK, and getting that result,
we can conclude that the Rock is Class #II with an average stand-up time equal to 1
yr for 10m span.

Q-System of Rock Mass Classification


Applying the formula of Q-System
RQD = 46%
Jn = 0.5
Jr = 1
Ja = 2

RQD J r J w

J n J a SRF
46 1 0.66
Q=

0.5 2 1
Q=(92)(0.5)(0.66)
Q=

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;
Wandi Abraham Bayowa

Jw = 0.66
Q=30.36
SRF = 1
In function of the table and the result of Q-System, we can conclude that the Zone C, the
Rock is GOOD, it means (and also in function of RMR) that we NEED THE NEXT
SUPPORTS: EXCAVATION= Top heading and bench 1.0-1.5m advance in top heading.
Install support concurrently with excavation, 10m from face; ROCK BOLTS=
Systematic bolts 4-5m long, spaced 1-1.15m in crown and walls with wire mesh;
SHOTCRETE= 100-50mm in crown and 100mm in sides; STEEL SETS= Light to
medium ribs spaced 1.5m where required.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ZONE B:

Pretty poor ground conditions


Fault zone
High pressure water (flow into the tunnel)
4 or 5 intersecting joints sets
Zone completely crushed fault gouge
Slickensides along the flat joint surface
Chemical disintegrated rock (Chlorite alteration)

Rock Mass Rating


Correlation with the Table of Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
Point Loaded Index = 7.2
12
RQD = 25%
3
RMR=27
Applying the adjustment for
Spaced Joints =
5
discontinuity orientation (27-5)
Conditions of discontinuities =
10
Ground water =
0
RMR=22
In function of the table and the result of Rock Mass Rating, we can obtain the conclusion
that the zone A is characterized by POOR ROCK, and getting that result, we can conclude
that the Rock is Class #IV with an average stand-up time equal to 10h for 2.5m span.
Q-System of Rock Mass Classification
Applying the formula of Q-System
RQD = 25%
Jn = 45

RQD J r J w

J n J a SRF
25 0.5 0.33
Q=

45 4 2.5
Q=(0.55)(0.12)(0.13)
Q=

Jr = 0.5
Ja = 4
Jw = 0.33
Q=0.0085
SRF = 2.5
In function of the table and the result of Q-System, we can conclude that the Zone B, the
Rock is EXCEPTIONALLY POOR, it means (and also in function of RMR) that we NEED

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;
Wandi Abraham Bayowa

THE NEXT SUPPORTS: EXCAVATION= Full face, 1-1.5 advance. Complete support
20m from face; ROCK BOLTS= Locally, bolts in crown 3m long, spaced 2.5m with
occasional wire mesh in crown; SHOTECRETE= 50mm in crown where required.
PART C)
v= ?
Considering the weight of Rhyolite () and the deep (z),
we obtain the Vertical Stress as:

V =z MPa

And if:
= 26.5 KN/m3
z = 500 m

H= 2.2 v

Then:

V =13.25 MPa

V =( 0.0265 )( 500 )

If Horizontal Stress is equal to 2.2 times Vertical Stress,


then:

H =2.2 ( 13.25 MPa )

H =29.15 Mpa

Hoek-Brown Criteria for the strength envelopes


1= 3 + m c 3 + S c2
We need to consider the uniaxial test applied in the lab. It says that in uniaxial compression
test, 3 = 0, it means, the minimum stress. With this we can obtain the next formula:
1= S c2
Zone C:
If:
S= 0.189
c = 185 MPa
2
1= 0.189 ( 185 MPa )

1=80.43 MPa

Zone A:
If:
S= 0.0205
c = 185 MPa

MAXIMUM STRESS

1= 0.0205 ( 185 MPa )


1=26.49 MPa

MAXIMUM STRESS

Zone B:
If:
S= 0.00198
c = 185 MPa
1= 0.00198 ( 185 MPa )
1=8.23 MPa

MAXIMUM STRESS

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;
Wandi Abraham Bayowa

PART D)
Kirsch Equations

PARAMETERS
V= 13.25MPa
H= 29.15MPa
a= 3m
r= 3+ [0-4m]
k= 2.2

FORMULA

[ ( )

V
a2
3 a4
=
( 1+ K ) 1+ 2 + ( 1K ) 1+ 4 cos 2
2
r
r

For radial distance = 0


= 90 (Top)

For radial distance = 3


= 90 (Top)

] [

3(3)4
3(3)4
13.25 V
32
13.25
32
( 1+ 2.2 ) 1+ 2 + ( 12.2 ) 1+ 4 cos ( 290
=)
( 1+ 2.2 ) 1+ 2 + ( 12.2 ) 1+ 4 cos ( 29
2
2
3
3
6
6
=6.6 MPa [ ( 3.2 ) ( 1+1 ) +(1.2)(1+3)(1) ]
=6.6 MPa [( 3.2 ) ( 1.25 ) + (1.2 )( 1.1 9 ) (1 ) ]
=6.6 MPa ( 4+1.43 ) =32.6 MPa
=6.6 MPa ( 6.4 +4.8 ) =73.92 MPa
=

( )

= 0 (Sidewalls)

=6.6 MPa ( 6.44.8 )

=10.56 MPa

= 0 (Sidewalls)

=6.6 MPa ( 41.43 )

For radial distance = 1


= 90 (Top)

( )

=20.58 MPa

For radial distance = 4


= 90 (Top)

] [

3(3)4
3(3)4
13.25
32
13.25
32
=)
( 1+ 2.2 ) 1+ 2 + ( 12.2 ) 1+ 4 cos ( 29
=
( 1+ 2.2 ) 1+ 2 + (12.2 ) 1+ 4 cos ( 290
2
2
7
7
4
4
=6.6 MPa [ ( 3.2 ) ( 1+1.56 ) + (1.2 )( 1.95 ) (1 ) ]
=6.6 MPa [( 3.2 ) ( 1.18 ) + (1.2 )( 1.1 0 ) (1 ) ]
=6.6 MPa ( 4.99+2.34 ) =48.4 MPa
=6.6 MPa ( 3.78+ 1.32 ) =33.7 MPa

( )

= 0 (Sidewalls)

=6.6 MPa ( 4.992.34 )

=17.49 MPa

=6.6 MPa ( 3.781.32 )

3(3)4
13.25
32
( 1+ 2.2 ) 1+ 2 + ( 12.2 ) 1+ 4 cos ( 290 )
2
5
5
=6.6 MPa [ ( 3.2 ) ( 1.36 ) + (1.2 )( 1.39 ) (1 ) ]
=6.6 MPa ( 4.352+1.668 ) =39.7 MPa

( )

= 0 (Sidewalls)

=6.6 MPa ( 4.3521.668 )


=17.7 MPa

= 0 (Sidewalls)

For radial distance = 2


= 90 (Top)

( )

=16.2 MPa

Made by: Jess Omar Machorro Bretn; Eva Betchelin Wakerkwa; Ferdinand Simson Yasirori; John Wickliff Fouw;
Wandi Abraham Bayowa

CONCLUSIONS
For first instance, we can see that there are 3 main zones: ZONE C, characterized by a
RMR and Q as very Good Rock with a high resistance and that do not need any kind of
support for much time (20yr for 15m span). The results from Strength criteria and Kirsch
equations say us that the major principal stress ( 1), in Kirsch equations, 0 m of radial
distance, is less than Strength Criteria ( 1=80.43MPa > = 73.92MPa), it means that the
tunnel structure can hold for a long time the major stress induced by rock weight and
gravity; ZONE A, Characterized by a RMR and Q as Good Rock with minor resistance and
need support for increase the stand-up time. The results from Strength criteria and Kirsch
equations say us that the major principal stress ( 1), in Kirsch equations,0 m of radial
distance, is more than Strength Criteria ( 1=26.49MPa < = 73.92MPa), it means that the
tunnel structure need more support, because principal stress is less and the tunnel could
not hold for long time; ZONE B, characterized by a RMR and Q as Poor Rock with any
resistance and need more and higher quality of support to increase or maintain a good
stand-up time. The results from Strength criteria and Kirsch equations say us that the major
principal stress (1), in Kirsch equations,0 m of radial distance, is more than Strength
Criteria (1=8.23 MPa < = 73.92MPa), it means that is a dangerous zone of the tunnel
structure and we need to build efficient support.

REFERENCE
Aimiyinun. In-situ stress [online]. Obtained from: http://wenku.baidu.com/link?
url=z_huWGIPrzmGVziqoqV8m4R-94h3a7NPQ2yCBppYfJYr_nNMClqD14EBEs8I9kTFoBqCWhQko08tZpBjZV_zSyNIJK0nKj6ZfXv0n
BqZg3 . November 20, 2015.
BRADY, B.H.G.; BROWN, E.T. Rock Mechanics for underground mining. Third edition.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2005.
CHI, Xiuwen. Rock Mechanics &Rock Engineering, Course Reader & Notes. 2011.
GIBSON, W.H. Rock Mass Strength derived from Rock Mass Characterization. SRK
Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Updated version of the paper published in
the Journal of Australian Geomechanics Vol 41 No March 2006. Obtained from:
http://www.srk.com/files/pdfs/rock_mass_strength_gibson_rev_2.pdf . November 23, 2015.
HUDSON, John A.; HARRISON, John P. Engineering rock mechanics an introduction to the
principles. Pergamon.
EBERHARDT, Erick. Rock Engineering practice and design. Lecture 8: Stress analysis
around underground openings.