Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
This report details the analysis of a planned excavation of a permanent 50m long tunnel,
with a specified cross section of 10m x 5m at a 1000m depth below surface. Provided
geotechnical information has been incorporated into the design, and used to offer support
recommendations which have subsequently been further verified through comparisons
with stability results derived from the use of several rock mechanics software programs
(Examine2D, RocSupport, Phase2, UnWedge, RocLab). This investigation has been
conducted for two tunnels of both South East (225o) and South West (135o) orientations; to
evaluate the potential effects of different K-ratios due to a variation in in-situ stress and the
influence held by discontinuities on the changing directions. For clarity, stereonets outlining
the layout of both joint sets, tunnel orientations and bedding have been produced; included
in the appendix (Figure A). Finally, comments related to the final design in terms of tunnel
shape, and specific support recommendations have been provided.
Note: numbered figures (1, 2, 3) are included in this report, and lettered figures (A, B, C) can
be found in the attached appendix.
Examine 2D
Examine 2D has been used to model both proposed excavation orientations. In addition to
varying the in-situ stresses, the software allowed for the inclusion of joints and bedding
input according to the provided dip and dip directions relative to both tunnel orientations.
Excavations were modelled according to the provided data using Hoek-Brown
(UCS,GSI,mi,D) and Barton-Bandis (JCS, JRC, residual friction angle) variables, and were
specified to 1000m depth.
Factor of Safety
Figure B shows the factor of safety analysis for the south western tunnel orientation, with a
K-Ratio of 1.5. The factor of safety has been visualised through a contour system
highlighting areas of likely potential failure due to the direction and magnitude of the stresses
acting upon the excavation. Expected low stresses in the roof (FoS of 0.2) and to a lesser
extent, the floor (FoS 0.4) can be seen, but a key issue can be seen in the equally low factor
of safety in the right sidewall. It is assumed that this is only not apparent in the left hand side
due to the specific placement of joints which have been approximated and that the
sidewall holds potential to be equally threatening. This low factor of safety would lead to
spalling or potentially collapse of the wall, requiring the installation of support.
The south eastern excavation has similar threats to stability as identified in the south west;
shown in Figure C. As before, low stability can be seen in the sidewall as well as the ceiling,
with an additionally unstable floor.
Despite having around 30% less in-situ stress acting on it, the south eastern orientation
appears to be more unstable than the south west the reverse of what was expected at the
outset of design. This has been attributed to the difference in the dip of the bedding; the SW
drive includes horizontal bedding versus the 15o dipped bedding of the SE drive. This dip
results in the creation of more hazardous local pockets of instability, as the bedding gets into