Wilham G.

Louhenapessy - 2014
Hasil analisa Metode Elemen Hingga dalam disain penyangga Terowongan:
Perbandingan dengan Metoda Empiris

Wilham G. Louhenapessy1

ABSTRACT

Kelemahan dari Sistim Penyangga batuan dari Klasifikasi Institut Geoteknik

Norwegia (NGI) atau Q adalah sbb: (a) kurang diperhitungkannya arah kekar
terhadap permukaan galian terowongan; (b) tidak diperhatikan pengaruh waktu;
(c) masih memakai kriteria elastis (Mohr-Coulomb) dan (d) kurang analisa
pengaruh air didalam masa kekar batuan. Paper ini menawarkan suatu metode
yang lebih rasional dengan mempertimbangkan pengaruh-pengaruh tersebut
diatas berdasarkan rekasyasa numerik: Metode Elemen Hingga Multilaminate
untuk masa kekar batuan/joint rock (Zienkiewicz-Pande 1977). Akan ditampilkan
diagram-diagram bunga (Rose Diagrams), tabel-tabel disain, Indeks Keruntuhan
dan kurva-kurva yang berguna untuk praktek rekayasa pembuatan terowongan,
tanpa shotcrecte linning. Dalam hal ini dipostulasikan keruntuhan batuan
disebabkan oleh dua pilihan runtuh: (1) runtuhnya batuan intak (intact rock) atau,
(2) runtuhnya batuan berkekar (joint rock). Studi numerik terfokus pada
terowongan lingkaran, dengan sebuah kedalaman, berbagai tekanan lateral,
berbagai arah kekar dan dua kriteria runtuh: kriteria runtuh Mohr-Coulomb dan
Papaliangas (Brittle-Ductile).
Kata kunci: Multilaminate Model, tunnel support, Rose Diagrams, Failure
Indices, Q-value, Mohr-Coulomb and Papaliangas criterion (Model
Multilaminate, Penyangga terowongan, Diagram Bunga, Indeks Keruntuhan,
Nilai Q, kriteria runtuh Papaliangas dan Mohr-Coulomb).

Consulting Engineer, Jakarta. - Email: wilham.george@gmail.com

APPENDIX A : Papaliangas failure criterion (Papaliangas et.al. 1996)

Table A.1. Non-dilational friction angle, m , for various type of rock
Sandstone : ranging from 26.2o to 41.6o;
Siltstone : ranging from 22.5o to 36.6o
o
o
Limestone: ranging from 34.6 to 48.6 ;
Granite : ranging from 27.7o to 37.3o

Figure A.1. Figures of failure line and joint friction angle

APPENDIX B : Normal and tangential stiffness of joint rock
We first define unit joint stiffness in the standard way. A direct test of a rock joint specimens in the
laboratory. At first, normal stress, n, is applied and the specimen shortens as the asperities in the joint
deform (n). The joint normal deformation, n, can be plotted against the applied normal stress as
illustrated in Figure B-1(a). It is worthy to note that n, is compressive only.
Now, consider a shear stress, s, is being applied horizontally (x direction) and producing a joint
tangential deformation, s, as shown in Figure B-1 (b). The ratio of increment of the stress deformation at
the initial stage gives the elastic stiffness of the rock joint.

Figure B.1. Typical stress-relative displacement curve

The local compliance matrix,

, of a set of rock joints is represented by,

(B-1)

Where f is the frequency of joints or number of joint / metre (Pande et.al. 1990),

is the normal

stiffness and
is the tangential stiffness (Figure B-1). The local compliance is transformed to a
global system using the transformation matrix, T, as

(B-2)

The cumulative compliance for n joint sets,

, is
(B-3)

and the compliance of the rock mass, Crm becomes,

(B-4)

where

is the conventional elasticity matrix of the intact rock

(B-5)

Therefore, the stiffness matrix of rock mass,

, is reduced to
(B-6)

By assuming that the intact rock is isotropic and elastic and by knowing the properties of the joint rock,
their number, orientation and spacing of joints, the elasticity matrix of the jointed rock mass can be
computed explicitly.
APPENDIX C: Decision sequence algorithm to produce Failure indices
(Louhenapessy 2000)

APPENDIX D:. Fluidity Parameter for viscoplastic analysis