Nick Barton
Leopold Mller Lecture, Beijing ISRM Congress, 2011 6th
Beaumont TBM Tunnel, 1880 : wedge-failure, stress-failure, tidal influence. Three TBM photos separated by 150 m. 1
Thedeformationresistanceofthematerialbridges takeseffectatmuchsmallerdeformationsthan thejointfriction:thisjointfrictionmakespartlyup forloststrength.(Mller,1966). Ourrockmasses45yearslatercontinuetorelyon jointfriction,despitetodaysdownloadable continuumwishfulthinking andtheassumed relevance of: c+n tan (or its non-linear versions) Why not c then n tan (degrade cohesion, mobilize friction) (as in parts of Canada, Sweden, India, Norway)?
JINPINGI(305mDAM)
CHALLENGESINANOVER STEEPENEDCANYON (solvedbydesignersCHIDI) Justupthisvalleyisamuch smallerfeaturealsodeserving ourrockmechanicsattention!
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
SINGLETENSIONFRACTURES 40,000BLOCKS SHEARSTRENGTHCRITERIA(20JRC,UCSJCS) INFLUENCEOFBLOCKSIZE SLOPES,CAVERNSANDBOREHOLESWITHMODELS UDECBBVALIDATIONFROMASPECIALCAVERN CHALLENGINGQUESTIONFROMACLIENT Q Q,QTBM,BBAPPLICATIONS,SELECTEDCASES Q,S(mr),S(fr),B(c/c),Qc(=Qxc /100)CC,FC(c,)
6
ANIDEALIZED,DISCONTINUOUS START,IN1966
(ImperialCollege)
IncludesearlyLB,L
(luckybreaks,lessons)
7
Luckybreak#1( =nodecimalplaces)
=n .tan [ 20.log(UCS/n )+30 ]
10
11
13
OVERCLOSED(O.C.) SHEARTESTS
LESSON#2
EXPLAINEDWHYTHESE STEEPSLOPESWERE SO STABLE. DSTWITHSHEARINGunder normalstressof1xn, after prior normalload applicationof: 1xn(=conventional) 4x n (=O.C),8xn(=O.C) Why arewe not doing O.C. 14 DSTin RockMechanics?
15
Lesson#3
Always got rotational failureswith smallblocks
17
18
19
20
10
ANALYTICALMOHRCOULOMB JOINTSHEARLOCATIONS
( Shen andBarton,1997).
21
22
11
23
TILTTESTTHEORY
(BartonandBandis,1990)
24
12
13
27
Luckybreak#3
Note:theoriginaltensionfracture basedequation(1971)was:
= n . tan [ 20. log( UCS/ n ) + 30 ]
JRC
SOFTWARE PLEASE
JCS
b (now r)
14
VISUALMATCHINGOFROUGHNESS forJRCHASOBVIOUSLIMITATIONS
(BartonandChoubey,1977)
29
JCS>UCS(?)
JCS<UCS
30
15
SCALEEFFECTSFOR INDIVIDUALJOINTS
31
Tilttests repeated atdifferent scale thereis almostno damage. Note: JRC1 <JRC2
(Bartonand
Choubey, 1977)
32
16
Bandis 1980Ph.D.
33
34
17
Theasperitycomponent SA (Barton,1971andBandis,1980) meansthatJRC (orr) cannotbebackcalculatedby subtractingdilation(dn)frompeakstrength,asdoneby some!r or b would then be dangerously too high
(and/or JRC would be incorrect).
35
SCALEEFFECTS
REDUCTIONOF of JRCandJCS withblocksize
Ln >L0
(Bandis,Dearman,Barton,1981)
36
18
Welljointed wedge. Remainsin place becauseof thehigher shear strengthof the smaller component blocks?
Inthiscaselargerblock(s)
(andfundamentallylowershearstrengthtoo)
38
19
39
Noteuseof twocoresfor
(unweathered)
b
Three cores cause wedging and false (high) values r = (b 20) +20 r5/R5
40
20
SHEARSTRENGTHofINTACTROCK
NEWCRITERIONBASEDONOLD (1976)CONCEPT
(Luckybreak#5)
41
Criticalstateconcept recentlyusedbySingh etal.,2011asbasisfor improvedstrength criterionforintact rock. Thesimplecorrect curvatureformulation, indicateshowmuch deviationfromMohr Coulombisnecessary tomatchthestrong curvatureuptothe criticalstate.
(1 =33 andfigure Barton,1976,2006).
Theyfoundthat 3 (critical) c
21
44
22
45
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10 0.1 1 10
46
23
Indexcharacterizationofjoints atnuclearwasteprojects:
BWIP(basaltwasteisolationproject)USA HTMblocktestincrystallinerock(TerraTek) YuccaMountain/NevadaTestSite/GTunnel AECL/URLManitoba(byothers) UKNirex Sellafield (NGI/Atkins) SKB:Stripa,sp,Simpevarp,Forsmark, (NB/NGI)
47
48
24
(Lesson#X)
Conducting aperture (e) reduction with temperature alone
49
Barton, N. 2007. Thermal over-closure of joints and rock masses and implications for HLW repositories. Proc. of 11th ISRM Congress, Lisbon. Thermal over-closure so far ignored in numerical modelling and nuclear waste studies??
50
25
COLUMNARJOINTINGCONCERNS ATAMAJORDAMSITEINCHINA
(Baihetan)
51
52
26
THESTORYFROMINSIDE
53
27
55
Soon to be followed (in 1980) by UDEC, then UDEC-BB (in 1985) (see next example and contrast to continuum model)
56
28
Cundall andCundallbutthechoiceisclear!
(NGImodellingbyLisaBacker)
57
29
UDECBBsimulations
(Chryssanthakis,NGI)
59
QSYSTEM(Luckybreak#7)
SINCE1974QHASACTUALLYBECOMEASYSTEM, SINCETHEREARENOWSEVERALCOMPONENTS. (About1500caserecordsintotal) Qrockmass classification,Qhistograms(LB#8) QforhelpingtoselectNMTsupport(sb,B,Sfr,RRS) QC forcorrelatingwithVP andEMASS QTBM forTBMprognosis QSLOPE forselectingsafeslopeangles(inprogress) QcsplitintoCCandFC(if continuum modelling)
60
30
Why/howwasQdeveloped?
BecauseofaquestiontoNGIin1973: Whyare(our)Norwegian undergroundpower housesshowingsuchavarietyof deformations?
(fromNorwegianStatePowerBoard/STATKRAFT)
QuestionpassedtoNB.Answergivenafter6 monthsofQsystemdevelopment!
VARIABLES:Rockmass quality,support type/quantity, span/height,depth,stress. 212caserecords used.B,S(mr),B+S(mr),CCA.
62
31
VARIABLEWORLDNEEDSBROADREACHCLASSIFICATIONMETHOD
63
64
32
66
33
67
34
69
35
(RQD 10 100 71 85
V. POOR
/ / / / /
* * * * *
/ / / / /
FAIR
* * * * *
RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm
20 FOUR
30
40 THREE
50
60 TWO
70
80 ONE
90
100 NONE
S I Z E S
80 60 40 20 00
EARTH
Jn
Number of joint sets
20
15
12
0,5 DISC.
(r) and T A N
T A N
150 100 50 00
FILLS
PLANAR
UNDULATING
Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 3 4
80 60 40 20 00 20 13
Ja
Joint alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75
(p)
A C T I V E S T R E S S
EXC. INFLOWS
HIGH PRESSURE
DRY
Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1
SQUEEZE
STRESS / STRENGTH
SRF
Stress reduction factor
10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5
71
(RQD 10 100 50 45
V. POOR
/ / / / /
* * * * *
/ / / / /
FAIR
* * * * *
/ / / / /
20 FOUR
30
40 THREE
50
60 TWO
70
80 ONE
90
100 NONE
S I Z E S
EARTH
Jn
Number of joint sets
20
15
12 PLANAR
3 UNDULATING
0,5 DISC.
FILLS
Jr
Joint roughness - least favourable 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 COATED 3 4
UNFILLED HEA
J&Kraillink,Kashmir. Here12m/2years.
Ja
Joint alteration - least favourable 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75
A C T I V E S T R E S S
EXC. INFLOWS
HIGH PRESSURE
DRY
Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1
SQUEEZE
STRESS / STRENGTH
SRF
Stress reduction factor
5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5
72
36
CHARACTEROF SAPROLITEANDSOIL
37
LOGGEDCHARACTER OFDEEPERSANDSTONES
38
77
39
80
40
(RQD 10 100 73 80
V. POOR
/ / / / /
* * * * *
/ / / / /
FAIR
* * * * *
RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm
20 FOUR
30
40 THREE
50
60 TWO
70
80 ONE
90
100 NONE
S I Z E S
120 100 80 60 40 20 00
EARTH
Jn
Number of joint sets
20
15
12 PLANAR
0,5 DISC.
(r) and T A N
T A N
150 100 50 00
FILLS
UNDULATING
Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 COATED 3 4
UNFILLED HEA
Ja
Joint alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75
(p)
A C T I V E S T R E S S
1.
300 200 100 00 0.05 300 200 100 00
20 15
400
EXC. INFLOWS
HIGH PRESSURE
DRY
Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1
2.ConverttoVp 3.ConverttoEmass
SQUEEZE
STRESS / STRENGTH
SRF
Stress reduction factor
10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5
Rev.
Report No.
Figure No.
NB&A #3
b D t
81
82
41
ExtractingUCSfromQc (nearsurfacemodulionly)
83
Fewpagesonly!
QTBM
84
42
Gradients = (-) m
TheQTBMmethodwasalsodevelopedviacaserecords(145cases,1000kmofTBM)
Schematic Geology Schematic Geology Z4 Z3 Z4 Z2 Z3 Z1 Z2 0 Z1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5000 1500 5000 2000 5004 500 1500 5000 2000 500 5 5 LITHOLOGY LITHOLOGY Z5 Z5 5 Z6 Z6 6 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 7 7 Z9 Z9 8 8
Z 10 Z 10 Z 11 9 10 11 Z 9 10 500 500
Class 1 granitic gneiss Class 1 INPUT DATA granitic gneiss INPUT DATA
RQD Jn RQD Jn
100.0 100.0 2.0 2.0
Jr
Jr
Ja Ja
1.0 1.0
Jw SRF Jw SRF
1.00 1.00 1.0 1.0
3.0 3.0
- m 1 RQD0 - m 1 RQD0(g/cm )
-0.19 100.0 -0.19 100.0
(MPa)
c c
(MPa) (MPa)
I50 I50
F
(tf)
CLI CLI
5.0 50
q
%
(tf) 32.0 32 0
% 35.0 35 0
(m )
80
(m 10.0 ) 10 0
n %n % 1.0
10
86
43
87
WHYTBMDELAYSINFAULTZONES?
Theoempirical reasons.Lackofbeliefgetspaidfor!
88
44
90
45
ZZ 3 3
ZZ 9 9 88
ZZ 10 10 99
ZZ 11 11 10 10 500 500
Class 11 granitic gneiss Class granitic gneiss INPUT DATA INPUT DATA
RQD RQD
100.0 100.0
JJ n n
2.0 2.0
JJ r r
3.0 3.0
JJ a a
1.0 1.0
JJ w w
1.00 1.00
SRF SRF
1.0 1.0
--m 1 1 m
-0.19 -0.19
RQD0 RQD0
100.0 100.0
(g/cm) (g/cm)
VV P P
(km/s) (km/s)
2.8 2.8
c c
250.0 250.0
(MPa) (MPa)
I50 I
50
FF
32.0 32.0
(tf) (tf)
(MPa) (MPa)
CLI CLI
5.0 5.0
qq
35.0 35.0
% %
(MPa) (MPa)
D D
10.0 10.0
(m) (m)
8.0 8.0
1.0 1.0
91
nn % %
92
46
93
94
47
Fractureoverclosurefrompreviousstressstate:new excavationsdonotreversethedeformationdirection.
95
Postseismicloadingresult(0.2to0.5g)
96
48
Physical andFEM modelling(Barton and Hansteen,1979) suggestedpossible heave resultingfrom largecavern constructionnearthe surface.. .dependedonjoint patternandhorizontal stresslevelinthe physicalmodels.
97
GJVIKCAVERN
INCREASEOFLARGESTCAVERN SPANBYALMOST2x
98
49
99
100
50
GJVIKCAVERNJOINTGEOMETRYASSUMPTIONS inputdata,boundarystresses
Barton,N.,By,T.L.,Chryssanthakis,P.,Tunbridge,L.,Kristiansen,J.,Lset,F.,Bhasin,R.K., Westerdahl,H.&Vik,G.1994.Predictedandmeasuredperformanceofthe62mspanNorwegian OlympicIceHockeyCavernatGjvik.Int.J.RockMech,Min.Sci.&Geomech.Abstr.31:6:617641. Pergamon.
101
TOPHEADINGTOOWIDETOOBSERVEFROMONELOCATION
102
51
103
Thefinalmodelled7to9mm(downwardsdirected)deformations matchedtheunknown(tobemeasured)resultalmostperfectly.
(UDECBBmodellingbyChryssanthakis,NGI)
104
52
DEFORMATIONRECORDSFROMMPBXANDLEVELLING
= 7 to 8 mm was typical. Construction period: week 24 to week 50, following arrival of access tunnels (top and bottom). BxHxL = 62 x 24 x 90 = 140,000 m3
105
CONTINUUM(??) MODELLING
106
53
of model sandstone
107
54
NEEDforCHANGE
CONVENTIONAL continuummodelling methods. Poorsimulationwith MohrCoulombor Hoek andBrown strengthcriteria.
(Hajiabdolmajid,Martin andKaiser,2000 Modellingbrittlefailure, NARMS.)
Sowhyperformedby somanyconsultants?
110
55
Degradecohesion,mobilizefriction:excellentmatch.
(Hajiabdolmajid,MartinandKaiser,2000Modellingbrittlefailure,NARMS.)
11 1
WHYSCISSORS?
112
56
x frictional strength ( the component of the rock mass requiring bolting). Cut Qc into two halves c and !?
CC =
Jr FC = tan 1 Jw Ja
113
GSIbased algebrafor c and contrasted with Q-based empiricism Note: shotcrete needed when low CC, bolting needed when low FC.
57
RQD Jn 100 90 60 30
Jr
Ja 1 1 2 4
Jw 1 1 0.66 0.66
SRF 1 1 1 2.5
c 100 100 50 33
FC CC MPa Vp km/s Emass GPa 63 45 26 9 50 10 2.5 0.26 5.5 4.5 3.6 2.1 46 22 10.7 3.5
2 2 1 9 12 1.5 15 1
Fourrockmasseswithsuccessivelyreducingcharacter:more joints,moreweathering,lowerUCS,moreclay.
LowCCshotcretepreferred LowFC boltingpreferred
115
New approaches:
cthen tan (notnew,butrare!) Comparingmodelled andmeasured displacementswithpreinstalled MPBX. BackcalculatingQfromempirical equations,aswellasloggedQ.
116
58
v =
SPAN v 100 Q c
h = HEIGHT 100 Q h c
2
Units: SPAN, HEIGHT, v and h (millimetres) Rock stresses and rock strengths (MPa). (But over-simplified central trend is (mm) SPAN(m)/Q from many hundreds of case records, many from Taiwan).
SPAN ko = HEIGHT
h v
117
118
59
119
60