Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 JUSTIFICATION
1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM (KEY QUESTION)
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 MAIN OBJECTIVE
1.4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
3
3
7
7
7
7
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 ROCK MECHANICS
2.3 GEOMECHANICS
2.3.1 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
2.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
2.5 TUNNEL LINING
2.5.1 THE NEW AUSTRIAN TUNNELLING METHOD (NATM)
2.6 THE DESIGN OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS FOR TUNNEL LINING
2.6.1 TUNNEL GEOMETRY
2.6.2 TUNNEL MECHANICS
2.6.3 STEEL ARCHES
2.6.4 ROCK BOLTS
2.6.5 SHOTCRETE
2.7 CONCLUSION
8
10
10
11
19
21
22
26
26
27
30
31
32
32
3.0 METHODOLOGY
34
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 DESIGN STEPS AND PROCEDURES.
34
34
39
39
40
40
40
43
43
43
44
44
45
56
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
62
6.1 CONCLUSION
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
62
62
REFERENCES
74
Figure 1.1: The room and pillar method of mining (extracted from civil
engineering vol. II underground mining methods and equipment, S. Okubo
and
J. Yamatomi).........................................................................................................................7
Figure 1.2: Portal 5, Ngezi mine, Zimplats..........................................................................8
Figure 2.1: Drill and blast process (extracted from tunnelling in rocks inaugural lecture by
Zhao Jian, 24 May 2007)....................................................................................................11
Figure 2.2: Procedure for measurement and calculation of RQD (After Deere, 1989).....16
Table 1.1: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter A: General area geology.............................18
Table 2.2: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter B: Joint pattern, direction of drive.............18
Table 2.3: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter C: Groundwater, joint condition.................19
Figure 2.3, estimated support categories based on the tunnelling quality index Q (After
Grimstad and Barton 1993)................................................................................................21
Figure 2.4, concept of movement of loosed rock toward a tunnel of width B, height Ht and
transfer of rock load, Hp (Terzaghi, 1946)..........................................................................30
Figure 2.5, forces acting on tunnel support in inclined strata (Terzaghi, 1946).................31
Figure 2.6, Deflection of stress around a circular opening................................................31
Figure 3.1, Geomechanics system, rock load height method.............................................38
Figure 3.2, NCB system, triangular loosened zone method...............................................38
Figure 3.3, Terzaghi system, loosed zone method.............................................................39
Figure 3.4, the Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach rock load height
method................................................................................................................................39
Figure 4.1, Ngezi mine location and surrounding infrastructure (extracted from portal 5
feasibility study page 3).....................................................................................................42
Figure 4.2, schematic diagram showing location of resource areas, portal 1-10 (an extract
from portal 5 feasibility report, page 4).............................................................................44
Table 4.1: Typical Geological Section..............................................................................47
Figure 4.3, Ngezi mine portal 5 position............................................................................48
Table 4.2, typical geotechnical properties..........................................................................49
Table 4.3, Ground condition classification.........................................................................49
Table 4.4, Typical Geological Section..............................................................................50
Table 4.5.............................................................................................................................51
Table 4.6.............................................................................................................................52
Table 4.7.............................................................................................................................53
Table 4.8.............................................................................................................................54
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
Table 4.9.............................................................................................................................56
Table 4.10...........................................................................................................................57
Table 5.1: Design properties, values and conclusions........................................................59
Figure 5.1 (a), top hat connection......................................................................................60
Figure 5.1(b), top hat connection.......................................................................................61
CHAPTER 1 (ONE)
1.2 Justification
The increase in exploration and mine development in Africa has been
primarily focussed on gold, diamond and Platinum exploration.
Undoubtedly, there is still great scope for these commodities, but riding on the back of
improving base metal prices, this sector could see an increase in activities. Zimbabwe is
one of the few countries that have tremendous potential for base metal and industrial
mineral deposits hence the reason why one of the largest mining group of companies,
Impala Platinum (Implats), operating as Zimplats in Zimbabwe has invested a great deal
in the Zimbabwean mining sector. This means that a lot of human resource has been and
is being enrolled into the mining sector, hence the need to provide civil and infrastructure
facilities for the sector, especially at the Mhondoro-Ngezi Mine. Each year sees the Ngezi
mine expanding from one portal to another hence the need to construct civil facilities (e.g.
ore pass, raise bores, substations, tunnel linings, silos, etcetera) and infrastructure
buildings (e.g. training centres, laboratories, stores, sheds, shelters etcetera).
Ngezi mine is a mine in Zimbabwe which is mining the PGM (platinum group metals)
using the room and pillar method for extracting the ore. The Ngezi mine has four portals
that are functional and a fifth portal which is to be opened in due course, i.e. portal 5.
Portal 1 to 4 already exist and have suitable tunnel linings which were designed according
to the respective rock mass classification based on the rock deformation tendencies, the
RMR (Rock Mass Rating), the RQD (Rock Quality Designation) index, the RSR (Rock
Structure Rating) and the rock tunnelling quality index, Q. Portal 5 which is to be opened
soon will require a tunnel lining which should also be suitable for the existing rock
structure.
The tunnel lining project at the Ngezi mine was initially done as a result of the rock
failing to withstand its own weight and external pressures which resulted in the collapse
of the mine at portal 1. From a health and safety point of view, it meant that workers were
being exposed to risk of injury or death. On production, plant and equipment were at risk
of being destroyed and also the mining process was affected because of the blocked
access. It was therefore necessary for Zimplats to initiate a tunnel supporting strategy for
the Ngezi mine for areas being mined which have an incompetent rock mass.
The mining method done at the Ngezi mine is the room and pillar, shown in
fig
1.1 on the next page. The Room and Pillar method currently being used in
P3
will be adopted for P5. The 9 dip contour has been identified as the
boundary of the Room and Pillar operations as trackless vehicles do not operate optimally
at gradients above 9. Alternative methods have been identified for trial mining in the
steeper areas that range from + 9 to -18. The room and pillar method works in such a
way that the pillars of the original bedrock are left to support rock pressure and to protect
personnel, plant and equipment. Drill jumbos are usually used for driving crosscuts and
connecting these crosscuts. Blasted ore is then mucked and hauled by LHD (load haul
dumps). However, sometimes these pillars are not able to withstand rock load and are
susceptible to collapse hence there is need to support the tunnel with rock bolts and
shortcrete, were necessary, with a reinforced concrete tunnel lining and steel sets.
Figure 1.1: The room and pillar method of mining (extracted from civil engineering vol. II underground mining
methods and equipment, S. Okubo and J. Yamatomi)
It is therefore the authors desire to design a relevant tunnel lining structure For the Ngezi
mine portal 5 which will ensure that the tunnel does not collapse during its life span. The
tunnel lining to be designed by the author will only be constructed on the portions with
extremely weak rock masses, were shotcrete and rock bolts alone cannot support the
tunnel. At the same time, this same design can be used, or modified were necessary to suit
a different location, with more or less the same ground conditions as those at portal 5,
were mines are facing the risk of collapse anywhere in Zimbabwe. The design will also
pave way to tunnelling technology and tunnel lining researches at NUST and in
Zimbabwe for transport, infrastructure and national monuments tunnel constructions.
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
The design of tunnels in rock because of the very complex nature of rock
masses and the difficulties encountered with their characterisation currently
utilizes three main approaches: analytical, observational, and empirical.
The discussions of these methods will be outlined in chapter 2. Design data will be
mainly gathered from portal 3 which is presumed to have the same conditions as those
likely to be met at portal.
CHAPTER 2 (TWO)
2.0 Literature review
2.1 Introduction
When a tunnel is bored through a rock, by either drilling and blasting (D&B) or by the
use of a tunnel boring machine (TBM), it should be determined whether the rock will
need to be supported or it will be self-supporting, if it needs to be supported then the type
of support should be determined. TBMs are used for large rock tunnel projects and drill
and blast for the smaller rock tunnel projects especially in mining.
Zhao Jian professor of rock mechanics and tunnelling in his inaugural lecture of 24 May
2007 briefly describes a tunnelling procedure:
Rock tunnelling involves,
Rock excavation to make a hole and is primarily driven by rock excavation machine
technology.
Rock support to sustain the hole. Support technology is a largely driven science
together with support material technology. This is the procedure of tunnel lining.
The above description by Zhao Jian briefly outlines the basic processes of tunnelling and
tunnel lining. Modern rock tunnels are excavated by primarily two methods. The drill and
blast (D&B) and the tunnel boring machine (TBM). Drilling and blasting involves drilling
a charge holes advancing into rocks and using explosives to blast the rocks. The tunnel
boring machine (TBM) is a complex set of equipment assembled to excavate a tunnel.
The TBM includes the cutterhead, with cutting tools and muck buckets, systems to supply
power, cutterhead rotation, and thrust; a bracing system for the TBM during mining,
equipment for ground support installation, shielding to protect workers, and a steering
system. Back-up equipment systems provide muck transport, personnel and material
conveyance, ventilation, and utilities.
Fig 2.1 below shows a brief description of a drill and blast process which is
utilised by the Ngezi mine. First a hole is drilled and charged and then
blasting follows, the tunnel is then given sufficient time for ventilation to
take place before mucking out the ore.
Figure 2.1: Drill and blast process (extracted from tunnelling in rocks inaugural lecture by Zhao Jian, 24 May
2007)
2.3 Geomechanics
The corner-stone of any practical rock mechanics analysis is the geological data base
upon which the definition of rock types, structural discontinuities and material properties
is based. Even the most sophisticated analysis can become a meaningless exercise if the
geological information upon which it is based is inadequate or inaccurate.
Evert Hoek (1995) says The methods for the collection of geological data have not
changed a great deal over the past 25 years and there is still no acceptable substitute for
the field mapping and core logging. There have been some advances in the equipment
used for such logging. The emergence of geological engineering or engineering geology
as recognised university degree courses has been an important step in the development of
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
in
engineering.
Once the geological data have been collected, computer processing of this data can be of
great assistance in plotting the information and in the interpretation of statistically
significant trends by using the program DIPS1 developed at the University of Toronto.
Surface and down-hole geophysical tools and devices such as borehole cameras have
been available for several years and their reliability and usefulness has gradually
improved as electronic components and manufacturing techniques have been improved.
However, current capital and operating costs of these tools are high and these factors,
together with uncertainties associated with the interpretation of the information obtained
from them, have tended to restrict their use in rock engineering. It is probable that the use
of these tools will become more widespread in years to come as further developments
occur.
2.3.1 Rock Mass Classification
During the feasibility and preliminary design stages of a project, when very little
detailed information on the rock mass and its stress and hydrologic characteristics is
available, the use of a rock mass classification scheme can be of considerable benefit.
At its simplest, this may involve using the classification scheme as a check-list to
ensure that all relevant information has been considered. At the other end of the
spectrum, one or more rock mass classification schemes can be used to build up a
picture of the composition and characteristics of a rock mass to provide initial estimates
of support requirements, and to provide estimates of the strength and deformation
properties of the rock mass.
It is important to understand that the use of a rock mass classification scheme does not
(and cannot) replace some of the more elaborate design procedures. However, the use
of these design procedures requires access to relatively detailed information on in
situ stresses, rock mass properties and planned excavation sequence, none of which
may be available at an early stage in the project. As this information becomes
available, the use of the rock mass classification schemes should be updated and used
in conjunction with site specific analyses. (Evert Hoek, 1995)
Mahtab and Grasso (1992) define the term "rock mass" as the rock fabric and all the
joints it contains. Evert Hoek in his rock engineering course notes (1995) outlines how
rock masses are classified. He gives seven categories by which rock masses can be
classified, which are:
Figure 2.2: Procedure for measurement and calculation of RQD (After Deere, 1989)
ii. Parameter B, Geometry: Effect of discontinuity pattern with respect to the direction of
the tunnel drive on the basis of:
Joint spacing.
Joint orientation (strike and dip).
Direction of tunnel drive.
Table 2.2: Rock Structure Rating: Parameter B: Joint pattern, direction of drive.
iii. Parameter C: Effect of groundwater inflow and joint condition on the basis of:
Overall rock mass quality on the basis of A and B combined.
Joint condition (good, fair, poor).
Amount of water inflow (in gallons per minute per 1000 feet of tunnel).
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
Q=
RQD Jr Jw
Jn
Ja SRF
Where
RQD is the Rock Quality Designation
Jn
is the joint set number
Jr
is the joint roughness number
Ja
is the joint alteration number
Jw
is the joint water reduction factor
SRF is the stress reduction factor
Parameter Jn, Jr, Ja, Jw and SRF shall be obtained from field investigations that shall be
undertaken by the author and presented in chapter 4.
Dr Evert Hoek in his rock engineering course notes classifies Tunnel reinforcement
according to rock mass quality into 9 categories according to the summary given by
Grimstad and Barton, 1993 as shown in fig 2.3 shown on the next page.
REINFORCEMENT CATEGORIES
Unsupported
Spot bolting
Systematic bolting
Systematic bolting with 40-100mm unreinforced shortcrete
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 50 90mm, and bolting
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 90-120mm, and bolting
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 120mm 150mm, and bolting
Fibre reinforced shortcrete, 150mm, with reinforced ribs of shortcrete and
bolting
Cast concrete lining.
Figure 2.3, estimated support categories based on the tunnelling quality index Q (After Grimstad and Barton
1993)
Hence in a nutshell, the basic design of a support structure for a tunnel in a rock depends
on the classifications of the rock mass in order to come up with a proper design so as not
to over design or under design.
dry, damp, wet, dripping, and flowing. If actual water pressure data are
available, these should be stated and expressed in terms of the ratio of
the
water pressure to the major principal stress. The latter can be either
measured or determined from the depth below surface, i.e., the vertical stress increases
with depth at 1.1 psi per foot of the depth below surface. (Z. T. Bieniawski 1990)
It is common practice to not design for external hydrostatic pressure where feasible. This
is done by specifying weep holes to keep external hydrostatic pressures from developing
against tunnel linings. (Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Risk Assessment report,
November 2008) on this notion the author shall provide weep holes for the lining and not
design for the external hydrostatic pressure.
tunnel lining, utilizing the inherent ability of the rock to support itself, is
preferable to a rigid one. In practice, a combination of rockbolts and
shotcrete is used to prevent excessive loosening in the rock mass but
allowing it to deform sufficiently to develop arching and self-support characteristics. The
problem with this approach is, however, that it requires special contractual provisions:
these may be suitable for the European practice for which they were evolved many years
of trial and error, but are not easily adaptable to the established U.S. contracting
procedures. (Z. T. Bieniawski, 1986)
2.5.1 The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)
The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) is an approach or philosophy integrating
the principles of rock mass behaviour and the monitoring of this behaviour during tunnel
excavation. The word method is not a very proper choice of word usage, as the NATM is
not a set of specific excavation and support techniques. Instead the NATM involves a
combination of many established ways of excavation and tunnelling, but the difference is
the continual monitoring of the rock movement and the revision of support to obtain the
most stable and economic lining. The NATM is not a simple employment of shotcrete as
support. Rabcewicz, 1964 said, a new tunnelling method- particularly adapted for
unstable ground- has been developed, which uses surface stabilisation by a thin auxiliary
shotcrete lining, suitably reinforced by rock bolting and closed as soon as possible by an
invert. Systematic measurement of deformation and stresses enables the required lining
thickness to be evaluated and controlled.
Below is a description given by Dr Erik Eberhardt in his module Tunnelling and
Underground Design of 2012:
Mobilisation of strength: the inherent strength of the soil/ rock surrounding the tunnel
should be conserved and mobilised to the maximum extent possible (i.e. controlled
deformation of the ground is required to develop its full strength). Primary support is
directed to enable the rock to support itself. It follows that the support must have suitable
load deformation characteristics and be placed at the correct time.
Primary support: minimisation of ground loosening and excessive deformation may be
achieved in various ways, but generally a primary support system consisting of systematic
rock bolting and a thin semi flexible shortcrete lining is used. It is essential that it is
placed and remains in physical contact with the ground and deforms it.
Flexible support: the NATM is characterised by versatility/ adaptability leading to flexible
rather than the rigid tunnel support. Thus strengthening is not by a thicker concrete lining
but a flexible combination of rockbolts, wire mesh and steel ribs. The primary support
will partly or fully represent the total support required and the dimensioning of the
secondary support will depend on measurement results.
(pi)r2 to calculate the area of a circle (or in this case, an infinitesimally thin
slice through a circular tunnel), it can be shown that doubling the diameter
(2r) of a circular tunnel results in four times the area (2r) of the slice. This
means that doubling the diameter of a tunnel requires removing four times as much rock.
This rock, up to the point of excavation, had been in equilibrium with the surrounding
rock, and had been supporting it. In addition, the surface area of the tunnel is doubled,
and so the forces in the rock which are trying to bring down the tunnel are now acting
over twice as large an area. It is for this reason that the use of supports is much more
important in larger tunnels than in smaller ones. Often, in cases where tunnels are to be
driven into rock of questionable competence, very small tunnels are driven first and then
carefully enlarged and supported during the enlarging process. (Wahlstrom, 1973)
2.6.2 Tunnel Mechanics
The two concepts in mechanics which most apply to tunnelling are stress and strain.
Stress may simply be thought of as a force applied on a body, and strain may simply be
thought of as that body's deformational response to the stress. For instance, consider
placing a heavy book on top of a grape. The stress is the force of gravity and the mass of
the book, and the strain is the reaction of the grape to the stress, namely, flattening.
Staining of the book by the grape juice is a chemical process, and is not considered in this
paper. Stress and strain models are used by most tunnel engineers to determine the
feasibility of a particular excavation. However, recent models have begun to move away
from a stress-and-strain focus. The focus of some of the newer models is the distortional
strain energy stored in the rock masses. The reason for this is that energy is a scalar, and
thus has no direction, so that the analysis may be performed without regard to the
directions of the stress and strain acting on the rock body. (Matsumoto and Nishioka,
1991)
Jim St. Marie in the consideration of stress and strain puts the dynamic nature of a
material into three classes of ideal behaviour, and all real materials behave in some
combination of the three.
1. Hookian solid-body (elastic) behaviour: In elastic behaviour, the strain is completely
proportional to the stress applied, so that a plot of stress vs. strain yields a straight line.
2. St. Venant's solid-body (plastic) behaviour: In plastic behaviour, an applied stress will
not result in any strain until a certain stress is reached (yield point). At this point, only
strain increases. Reduction of the stress to below the yield stress will result in the
cessation of the strain.
3. Newtonian liquid (viscous) behaviour: In viscous behaviour, the rate of strain is
proportional to the stress applied. That is, as the stress applied increases, the deformation
does not increase, but the rate at which the body deforms does.
Figure 2.4, concept of movement of loosed rock toward a tunnel of width B, height Ht and transfer of rock load,
Hp (Terzaghi, 1946)
Tunnels are sometimes cut with flat roofs when excavated in strongly laminated rock, in
order to take advantage of the rock's tendency to separate on those planes. However, it is
rarely the case that laminated rocks are found in a pristine state with their bedding planes
parallel and horizontal. Inclined bedding planes in stratified rocks pose a great problem,
in that there is a great tendency for the rock to move along the bedding planes and thus
slide into the tunnel (Jim St. Marie 2011) as indicated in Figure 2.5 below, modified
from Terzaghi (1946). The steep angle of the bedding planes with respect to the tunnel
will result in the wedge-shaped rock body (aed) sliding into the tunnel and putting stress
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
on the support (ac). The lateral force, P, can be estimated from the mass of
the
sliding rock body and the angle which it makes with the tunnel support.
According to King (1996), the load on the tunnel and supports depends on
the
strike and dip of the strata, and tunnels will have to be cut more narrowly in the event of
steeply inclined stratified rocks. (Jim St. Marie 2011)
Figure 2.5, forces acting on tunnel support in inclined strata (Terzaghi, 1946)
In general, rocks have a high resistance to crushing. King (1996) states that the walls of a
tunnel will not fail as a result of compression except at great depth - more than 2000 feet
(600 m) for softer sandstones and more than 19,000 feet (5800 m) for the strongest rocks.
However, the rocks are still under an immense amount of stress, and the rock left standing
after tunnel or cavern excavation must bear a greater load than before, as illustrated in
Figure 2.3 from Terzaghi. This point is further illustrated in Figure 2.6 below, from
Herget (1988). The grid lines represent the principal plane-strain stresses around a
circular tunnel after excavation. The crowding of the trajectories at the sides indicates an
increase in compression, and the widening at the top and bottom indicates a decrease in
compressive stress. This implies that the walls of a tunnel, not the roof, would be more
susceptible to failure. This is the mechanical basis of the rockburst phenomenon.
Of all the hazards associated with mining, rockbursts are perhaps the most terrifying. A
rockburst is the sudden, violent dislocation of slabs of rock in a tunnel, usually from the
walls, but also potentially from the roof or even floor. Considered to be a "mininginduced seismic event," a rockburst can release enormous amounts of energy, and some
have been measured at 4 on the Richter scale (Jha and Chouhan, 1994), and one
rockburst was recorded by a seismological station 1200 miles distant. The danger is
obvious and quantifiable: In a three-year period in the Kolar gold-field in India,
rockbursts accounted for 50% of all fatalities. (Obert and Duvall, 1967)
One of the primary causes of rockbursts is obviously stress. The forces necessary to
shatter tons of rock require the input of stress. The other primary factor is the rock type.
An interesting point about rock bursts is that they do not occur in weak rocks. It is
thought that the pressures which can cause a rockburst are slowly released in the weaker
rocks by semi plastic adjustments. (Wahlstrom, 1973) The rocks affected are nearly
always hard, strong, and brittle. These rocks may have an unconfined compressive stress
of 15,000 to 60,000 psi (100-400 MPa) and a Young's modulus (modulus of elasticity) of
6x10^6 to 14x10^6 psi (40,000 to 90,000 MPa) In the United States, the most common
location for rockburst phenomena seems to be the Coeur d'Alene mining district of
northern Idaho, where the galena mines run over a mile deep into the quartzites of the
Revett Formation of the Belt Supergroup. (Obert and Duvall, 1967; Jim St. Marie, 2012)
Mathematically, it can be shown that the strain energy per unit volume, defined as the
(normal stress)2/2E, where E is the Young's modulus, or the ratio of stress to strain. The
maximum strain energy per unit volume would be C0/2E, where C0 is the uniaxial
compressive stress. (Obert and Duvall, 1967) All other things being equal, the weakest
rocks would be the least likely to burst, because they would reach their failure point far
before they could store enough strain energy to produce a violent failure. (Jim St. Marie,
2012) Considering that notion, the author is not going to worry about rockbursts as the
rock being dealt with at portal 5 is anticipated to be very weak rock.
Steel ribs are used for reinforcement of weaker tunnel sections, and give rigid to
semi-rigid support. The ribs are made from I-beam or H-beam structural steel bent
to conform to the requirements of a particular tunnel cross-section.
The design of steel arches based on the notion of the unstable rock wedge in the
crown or possible asymmetrically, to be supported by the arch. The arch is
buttressed against the rock around the remainder of the periphery of the tunnel, to
limit bending stresses. The design of the foot-blocks is vital to the success of the
system of support, in relation to bearing capacity of the ground, which may be
weakened by the disturbance caused by the tunnel excavation. The weakness of
steel arch support concerns the load at which failure may occur by lateral buckling
and torsion.
Timber may be used for packing between the beams and the rock. However,
providing continuous bedding against the rock may considerably increase the
load-bearing capacity of the arches. A means for achieving this objective is the
inserting between the rock and arch a bolster made of porous fabric filled with a
weak sand/cement grout.
Steel bolts are frequently set in holes drilled into the rock to assist in supporting
the entire roof or individual rock slabs that tend to fall into a tunnel. Rock bolts
maintain the stability of an opening by suspending the dead weight of a slab from
the rock above by
By preventing key blocks becoming loosened so that the strength and integrity of
the rock mass is maintained.
If the characteristics of the rock are such that the bolts will suffice in supporting
the roof or parts thereof, the use of bolts is both safe and economical.
The effective use of bolts requires some understanding of the natural forces that
exist underground. In an underground excavation all downward-acting forces are
transmitted to the walls of the excavation. Most of the rock above the excavation
is supported by natural arch action that bears on the walls. The arch suspends the
remaining rock below the arch. If this suspended rock lacks sufficient strength, it
sags and tension cracks develop. As the cracks work up into the roof, weakening
the suspended strata, rock begins to fall all at once or over an extended period of
time. If the rock is strong enough and free of large slips and cracks, the rock that
is subject to falling usually should not exceed one-third of the width of the roof. It
is this rock that bolts can support.
2.6.5 Shotcrete
Pneumatically applied mortar and concrete are increasingly being used for the
support of underground excavations. The effectiveness of a shotcrete is
determined by its compressive strength, bond strength, flexural strength and
modulus of elasticity. A layer of shotcrete 150mm thick around a tunnel 10m in
diameter can carry a load of 500 kN / m corresponding to a burden exceeding
20m of rock. A combination of rock bolts and shotcrete has proved an excellent
temporary support for all qualities of rock.
Shotcrete has advantages and disadvantages. Traditionally, shotcrete's quicksetting properties have been achieved by the injection of high-alkaline additives at
the spraying nozzle. However, this method has always had its drawbacks. The
resulting concrete is highly porous, and lacks strength. Caustic dust from the
additives can cause skin and lung problems, and represents a health hazard to
construction workers.
(The above information on the support elements for tunnel lining was extracted from an
untitled power point file from an unrecognised source on google.com.)
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
2.7 Conclusion
For the previous tunnel linings I was merely using experience as a civil
engineer, but one major assumption I adopted which may be useful to you is
assume a rock load at a depth of 3m (Stephen Norton, 2013)
to
In conclusion, for the tunnel lining design, the author is going to use the empirical
approach and observational approach. The empirical approach is convenient as it is the
one which relates to experience encountered at previous projects to the conditions
anticipated at the current project. P1, P2, P3 and P4 have tunnel linings and the author
will consider their designs in order to come up with the best design for portal 5, since the
conditions at P5 are not fully explored but just presumed to be similar to those of P3.
The observational approach is an important tool for the author in his design since it is
based on observations and monitoring of tunnel behaviour during construction and the
mining process thereby selecting or modifying the support structure as the project
progresses. Support can be adjusted during construction to meet the changes in ground
conditions according to position and how blasting and the mining process will be done at
any particular position. Support can be adjusted from cast concrete lining and steel sets
for extremely weak rock to shotcrete and rock bolts for fairly competent and very
competent rock mass. The analytical approach is not the best of approaches to be used for
design in the case of portal 5. Analytic modelling can be achieved only when material
parameters, constitutive equations and boundaries are appropriately defined or modelled,
which makes the use difficult for portal 5.
The author is going to design only for the worst case scenario of the rock mass for the
tunnel; other cases are in the scope of the mine geologists and the mine rock engineers.
An amalgamation of the empirical approach and the observational approach shall be used
in order to come up with a design that is both economical and reliable.
CHAPTER 3 (THREE)
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the project methodology, which essentially consists of the
evaluation methods, as well as the design procedures to be undertaken by the author in
designing a permanent support structure for the weak rock mass in portal 5 Ngezi mine.
The author has compiled information from various sources and various disciplines
considering the logic behind each step and justifying each stage in order to come up with
a reasonable set of procedures to be followed for the tunnel lining design. Basically there
are three approaches that exist for the design of tunnel support structures, empirical,
analytical and observational methods. The author has come up with a combination of the
three approaches for each of the particular design stages.
be
impact the tunnel or change the general design but large inflow and
exceptionally large flow results in large hydrostatic pressures and
these should be included in the design.
2. Calculating the rock load exerted by the rock mass on the tunnel.
Four different methods will be used to calculate the load being exerted by the rock on the
tunnel.
Geomechanics rock mass classification system.
National Coal Board (NCB) loosened zone approach.
Terzaghi design method.
Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach.
HP =
100RMR
W
100
P = HP W
Where, RMR is the rock mass rating,
W is the tunnel width
Hp is the rock mass height above tunnel which has effect on the tunnel
is the rock mass density
National Coal Board (NCB) loosened zone approach
Hp = (1-1.5) W
P=(
W
2
P=
W
2
Figure 3.4, the Whittaker and Hodgkinson loosened zone approach rock load height method
Hp = W
P=(
W
2
An average of the four methods will be taken as the load exerted by the rock mass on the
tunnel. The rock load is the basis for the design of the support elements therefore it is one
of the major aspects to be considered for the tunnel support design.
3. Determine the dimensions of the tunnel easy for tunnel support design calculations,
analysis and construction, but also close to the tunnel dimensions proposed by the mining
engineers, and then come up with a working drawing.
4. Determine the stress strain behaviour of the rock load on the boundary of the tunnel
(tunnel analysis by a suitable Finite Element Analysis Method)
5. Determine the steel arch beam section shape, size and spacing by using a suitable
modelling software or technique. Among the suitable softwares that can be used by the
author is FLAC, PLAXIS, or ABAQUS.
6. Design the reinforced concrete thickness and grade and come up with a relevant
bending schedule for the walls and the roof.
7. Design the base plates and the strip footings.
8. Design the weep holes, conduit, and drain for ground water and any other water that
can exist in the tunnel to eliminate the need of considering hydrostatic pressure in the
design.( this step is valid only if there is minimum inflow into the tunnel. If inflow is
large or largely excessive then hydrostatic pressure needs to be considered.)
9. Determine a suitable stabilised fill/slab for the floor of the tunnel with a suitable slope
to allow for water to flow into the drainage.
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
Chapter 4 (FOUR)
4.0 Site investigations and presentation of results
4.1 Site investigations
Zimplats owns mineral rights on the Ngezi tenements which form part of the Great Dyke
in Zimbabwe. The tenements extend for a distance of 30km and are located in the
Sebakwe Sub Chamber. The Ngezi Mine is located in the south of this sub chamber.
Current operations at the Ngezi Mine consist of an open pit producing about 100ktpm and
underground operations at Portal 2 (P2) producing 80ktpm (0.96Mtpa). In addition
Portal 1 (P1) and Portal 4 (P4) are building up to production levels of 125ktpm
(1.5Mtpa) and 190ktpm (2.3Mtpa) respectively. Ore from the open pit and P2 is crushed
on surface nearby and transported by road train to the SMC 77km to the north. The open
pit is nearing the end of its life. The ore from P1 and P4 (2.3Mtpa) will be crushed in
close proximity to their respective portal, as will be the case for Portal 5 (P5). It is
planned to construct a concentrator in the vicinity of P4 to cater for the processing
shortfall at SMC.
The current Ngezi mine site is situated 170km by tarred road south west of Harare. SMC
(Silo Metallurgical Complex) is situated 77km north of the current mine site and 80km
from Harare. The surrounding infrastructure for the Ngezi mine is shown in fig 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1, Ngezi mine location and surrounding infrastructure (extracted from portal 5 feasibility
study page 3)
4.3 Geology
4.3.1 Regional Geology
The Great Dyke is a layered mafic-ultramafic complex that transects the Zimbabwean
Archaean Craton in a NNE trending direction. The dyke is highly elongate, slightly
sinuous, 550km long with a maximum width of 12km. The Great Dyke developed
initially as a series of discrete magma chamber compartments which coalesced as the
chambers filled. The chamber coalesced below the Main Sulphide Zone (MSZ) and so
prior to erosion taking place the MSZ would have been continuous along the length of the
dyke.
The dyke is divided into two major successions, a lower ultramafic sequence dominated
from the base upwards by cyclic repetitions of dunite, harzburgite and bronzitite
(pyroxenite) and an upper mafic sequence consisting mainly of gabbro and gabbronorite.
Much of the mafic sequence has been eroded away.
The MSZ is preserved in a continuous zone stretching 90km from Lake Manyame to
Ngezi Dam known as the Hartley Complex. The Hartley Complex straddles two subchambers, Darwendale and Sebakwe: the Ngezi project lies towards the south of the
Sebakwe Sub-chamber.
The Ngezi project covers an area of about 30km in a NNE direction. Zimplats intend to
exploit the area with a series of up to 10 decline systems commonly referred to as portals.
(See Figure 3.2 on the next page). The orebody at P5 is very similar to that at P2 and P4
and forms a shallow syncline that dips at between 9 and 18 on the east and western
extremities and dips from 9 to flat towards the centre of the syncline. The mining method
at P1, P2, P3 and P4 where the dip of the orebody is <9is mechanised Room and Pillar at
a stopping width of 2.5m. This mining method has been successful and has therefore been
adopted for P5. The mining method for the steeper portions of the syncline has yet to be
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
defined, although a project to trail mine the steeper areas has been
authorised to commence. Access from surface to the P5 mining area will be
via
2 declines developed at 8 below the horizontal. Each decline will split; one
will intersect the reef horizon at the 9 dip contour (Access Decline) while the other is
developed in the footwall 30m below the reef horizon, this decline will house the
conveyor ore handling system (Waste Decline). The 30km stretch area is a highly
faulted area therefore support of the structure at the portals is very necessary.
There are accordingly four parallel declines from the split, two on reef for trackless
vehicle movement, one for the conveyor and one for servicing the conveyor. Ore will be
loaded by LHD close to the working face and tipped into diesel trucks that will haul to
ore passes above the conveyor system. Ore will be fed onto the conveyor via an apron
feeder and sacrificial belt. Ore will be crushed on surface and placed in a silo pending
transport by conveyor to the new concentrator or by road train to SMC. Ventilation will
be disseminated through the 4 declines and raise bored holes (RBHs) situated adjacent
to the declines and exhausted through RBHs located near the top of the mine
the
predominantly near vertical faults has precluded detailed mapping of these faults prior to
mining. The north-western corner of the potential P5 footprint near to Mulota Hill has
been excluded from the Resource because the profiles in this area are disputed. Typically
they have a single high gold value, little or no platinum and wide and sometimes elevated
palladium grades. The relationship between the disruption and the silicification at Mulota
Hill is not yet understood. There appears to be extensive faulting around this zone.
There are scattered local disruptions to the metal profile. Aplite and dolerite dykes and
coarse grained bronzitite layers are responsible for most of these. Some are particularly
enigmatic and can only be located by assay; they have a very subtle increase in grain size
in the disrupted zone and often have more obviously coarse material in the hanging wall.
It is not yet understood to what extent these zones join up but it is assumed that they are
small discontinuous bodies. Drilling and geological investigation continues. P5 is an upthrown block between two boundary faults. Geological lineaments have been computed
as a result of an aeromagnetic survey. The properties of these lineaments are currently not
well understood.
According to the topography, resistivity and the drilling that has been completed in the
initial area planned to be mined, faulting will be encountered. However thereafter the
mining area, for a number of years will be relatively be un-faulted. Close spaced drilling
to determine the details of the initial faulted area continues. There appears to be more
intense faulting northwards near to and east of the Mulota disruption. More drilling will
be required to determine the nature of this faulting before mining reaches this area.
Description
4-15
+50
Gabbro norite
Pegmatite
22
Websterite
Bronzitite
14
Bronzitite
Some of the geological information used in layout design for portal 5 has been derived
from investigations at P1, P2, and P4 and from observation of the pillar behaviour at P3.
Additional information from laboratory testing samples obtained from P5 exploration
holes summarised in the table below extracted from the rock mass explored shown in fig
4.3 above.
Property
Mean
Standard
deviation
Number of
samples
233
39
14
142
12
14
Poissons ratio
0.22
0.02
14
Tensile strength(MPa)
20.6
1.5
12
Density(KN/m3)
32.8
0.3
13
Hoek-Brown (m)
12
8.8
24
Reports and observations at P2 indicate that the rock mass is very blocky and that MRMR
values may tend to lie in the range from mid 30 to lower 40. These are significantly lower
than the observed in the P4 geotechnical cores and the rock mass at P5 will likely be
worse than that of P2 and P4.
A classification audit on the ground conditions has been undertaken at P2 indicates the
following distribution:
Table 4.3, Ground condition classification
Ground class
Area (m2)
(%)
A (Good)
3,258
1.1
B (Fair)
116,161
38.5
C (Poor)
181,899
60.5
D (Very Poor)
744
0.3
Total Area
302,093
100
Description
4-15
+50
Gabbro norite
Pegmatite
22
Websterite
Bronzitite
14
Bronzitite
Tables that begin from table 4.5 to table 4.10 give the determined value for the particular
parameter in question and the relevant value of that parameter is in bold font different
from the rest of the other value. The actual calculations of the parameters and properties
are presented on the working sheets attached at the end of this chapter.
Table 4.5
Description
Value
RQD
Notes
Very poor
0-25
Poor
25-50
Fair
50-75
Good
75-90
Excellent
90-100
If RQD is
reported as
10,
including 0, a
nominal value of 10 is used
to evaluate Q
Table 4.6
Jn
0.5-1.0
Se
e
12
15
20
Table 4.7
Jr
Discontinuous joints
Smooth undulating
1.5
Smooth, planar
1.0
0.5
Table 4.8
Joint
alteration
number
Ja
0.75
r
Degrees
approx
Values of r the
residual
friction angle,
are intended as
25-35
2.0
25-30
3.0
20-25
an
approximate
guide to the
mineralogical
properties of
alteration
products, if
present.
8-16
Description
Value
Notes
Ja
Degrees(approx.)
4.0
25-30
6.0
16-24
8.0
12-16
thick)
J
8.0-12.0
6-12
6.0
8.0
8.0-12.0
6-24
5.0
10.0-13.0
P&R
6.0-24.0
Table 4.9
Jw
Approx. water
pressure(kgf/cm
)
1.0
1.0
0.66
1.0-2.5
0.5
0.33
2.5-10
2.5-10
1.
Factors See to F
are crude
estimates;
increase Jw if
drainage installed.
0.2-0.1
10
0.10.05
10
2. Special
problems caused
by ice formation
are not
considered
Table 4.10
SRF
10
5.0
2.5
7.5
5.0
2.5
5.0
intersect the
excavation
NB. All bold values in tables represent the evaluated values for portal 5.
Groundwater conditions can be safely concluded as wet. No actual water discharges or
pressure could be calculated as the condition is generally wet or dripping and not flowing
which would have made it very difficult to come up with a detailed groundwater
hydraulics model.
Chapter 5 (five)
Value
Conclusion
27%
52%
40
0.34
1.6
Inserts at the end of this chapter include the calculations of these rock mass classification
values and the tables in the appendix give the relevant conclusion for each value that has
been calculated.
The rock mass at portal 5 is a very poor or weak rock mass hence supporting the tunnel
with reinforced concrete and steel sets is going to be required. The support structure is
very necessary for the roof and walls of the tunnel. Since there is no and will be no
overburden pressure from the floor of the tunnel designing a support structure there on
will not be very necessary. However for drainage purposes and the easy movement of
workers and vehicles, (trucks, load haul dumps, utility vehicles e.t.c), a platform for
vehicular movement may be designed. The ground water conditions are not adverse
therefore it is safe to design weep holes in order to relieve any hydrostatic pressure from
the rock mass.
structure and will utilize the fact that for weak rock, it may crush along any
plane and the circular geometry will provide maximum stability better than
flat roof.
5.5 Drainage
The rock strata is a water bearing geological formation so water will be discharging onto
the tunnel lining structure and also water will be coming from the rock on the underside
of the tunnel. It is therefore wise to design the tunnel wall and roof with weep holes so
that water will not build up in the structure but will discharge outside through the weep
holes and into a conduit which will then discharge the water into a drainage which will
transport the water into a sump, hence there is need to design for the weep holes, conduit,
drain and sump.
5.5.1 Weep holes
The entry of large quantities of water from the tunnel face or from the rock surrounding
the tunnel is one of the most troublesome problems which can be encountered in
underground construction. Although it is sometimes difficult to predict the location and
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
the extent of water problems and to specify how these problems should be
dealt with.
Since the student is not going to be designing for the external hydrostatic pressure on the
walls and roof of the tunnel, weep holes have to be provided; these will keep external
hydrostatic pressure from developing against the tunnel. These will act as the pressure
release facilities as water will discharge from the rock strata into the weep holes, weep
holes can be installed through the concrete lining to drain the surrounding groundwater
into the tunnel.
The weep holes consist of a 2.5-inch-diameter PVC solid pipe into which a 1.5-inch
perforated PVC pipe was inserted provided at regular intervals of 1m. The inserted pipe
was wrapped with two layers of geotextile filter fabric prior to insertion into the larger
pipe. The geotextile filter fabric also covers the interior end of the inserted pipe.
5.5.2 Drain
Drain will be designed as open channel and should be capable of transporting the water
from the conduits and the groundwater which will flow into the drain because of the
sloping ground to the sump.
5.5.3 Sump
Factors should slope at 45 to direct settled solids to the sump inlet.
Sump pits are to be a minimum of 750mm deep and 0.25m area, therefore if the
student uses the minimum sump sizes then if the sump is designed as square,
l = 0.25m
l = 0.25
l = 0.5m
And h = 0.75m
Sump pit is to be fitted with a tightly fitting removable cover of aluminium
Sump pit will be constructed of concrete.
Sump pit is to be fitted with an opening to accept 100mm drain with the invert of
the pipe located above the centre of the sump pit height.
Sump pit is to be placed on an even well compacted surface.
5.6 Superstructure
5.6.1 Brackets
Brackets are flat steel plates bolted to the steel columns and the steel arches so as to keep
e structure in position and avoid any movements during concrete pouring and in e event
of possible rock falls or earth disturbances or vibrations.
the
CHAPTER 6
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto
a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
M't:7:25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
6.2 Recommendations
APPENDIX A
Table 6.5: Guideline for excavation and support of 10m span rock tunnels in accordance
with the R.M.R. system (after Bieniawski 1989)
Rock mass
class
Excavation
Rock bolts
(20 mm
diameter, fully
grouted)
I - Very
good rock
RMR: 81100
Full face,
3 m advance.
II - Good
rock
RMR: 6180
Full face,
1-1.5 m advance.
Complete support 20 m
from face.
Locally, bolts in
crown
3 m long, spaced
2.5 m with
occasional wire
mesh.
50 mm in
crown
where
required.
None.
III - Fair
rock
RMR: 4160
Systematic bolts
4 m long, spaced
1.5 - 2 m in
crown and walls
with wire mesh
in crown.
50-100
mm in
crown
and
30 mm in
sides.
None.
Shotcrete
Steel sets
from face.
IV - Poor
rock
RMR: 2140
Systematic bolts
4-5 m long,
spaced 1-1.5 m
in crown and
walls with wire
mesh.
100-150
mm in
crown
and
100 mm
in sides.
Light to
medium ribs
spaced 1.5 m
where
required.
V Very
poor rock
RMR: < 20
Systematic bolts
5-6 m long,
spaced 1-1.5 m
in crown and
walls with wire
mesh. Bolt
invert.
150-200
mm in
crown,
150 mm
in sides,
and 50
mm on
face.
Medium to
heavy ribs
spaced 0.75 m
with steel
lagging and
forepoling if
required.
Close invert.
Table 6.6 1: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.6 2: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Tunnel lining for underground mine.
Table 6.6 3: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.6 4: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.6 5: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.6 6b: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
Table 6.7: Classification of individual parameters used in the tunnelling Quality index
(After Barton et al 1974)
APPENDIX B
References
1. Abad, J., Celada, B., Chacon, E., Gutierrez, V. and Hildago, E.
Application of Geomechanics Classification to Predict the Convergence of
Coal Mine Gallaeries and to Designer Supports. Proceedings, 5th
International Congress of Rock Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Melbourne, Australia, April, 1983, pp. E15-E19.
2. Baczynski, N. Rock Mass Characterization and Its Application to Assessment of
unsupported underground openings, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1980, 233
3. Barton, N. Application of Q-System and Index Tests to Estimate Shear Strength and
Deformability of Rock Masses. Proceedings. International
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, Laboratorio
Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, September 1983, Vol. II,
pp. 11-51-11-70.
4. Bieniawski, Z. T. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 15, 1978, pp. 237248.
5. Bieniawski, Z. T. The Geomechanics Classification in rock engineering applications.
Proceedings, 4th International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Montreux, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1979, Vol. 2, pp. 51-58.
6. Bieniawski, Z. T. Rock mass classifications - state of the art and need for
standardization. Transportation Research Record, No. 783, Washington,
DC, 1981, pp. 2-9.
7. Bieniawski, Z. T. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling, A. A. Balkema
Publishers, Rotterdam/Boston, 1984, 272 p.
8. Cameron-Clarke, I. S. and Budavari, S. Correlation of rock mass classification
parameters obtained from borecore and in situ observations. Engineering Geology., Vol.
17, 1981, pp. 19-53.
Tunnel lining for underground mine.