11th Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics Ribeiro e Sousa, Olalla & Grossmann (eds)

2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-45084-3

A realistic approach to estimate stand-up time
T. Ramamurthy
Angron Geotech Pvt. Ltd., Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, India
ABSTRACT: Estimation of stand-up time soon after excavation in underground is necessary to gain time to clean up the
debris and to erect at least a temporary support. The stand-up time is a function not only of rock mass parameters but also of
the geo-environment and excavation technique. Over the years charts have been evolved between rock mass classifications,
width of unsupported excavation and stand-up time by Lauffer, Bieniawski and Barton et al. An expression is now proposed
to estimate directly the stand-up time taking care of, most of the factors affecting it and it has been verified with the existing
data to justify its adoption in practice.
1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of stand-up time as the bridging action period
in underground excavation was first introduced by Lauffer
(1958). It is the time taken by the rock mass above the crown
to transmit the overburden pressure to the side walls without
undergoing excessive noticeable deformation or collapse in
the absence of any temporary support. The stand- up time for
maximum un-supported span was suggested for seven levels
of descriptive rock mass classification varying from category
A to category G. Class-A is a very good intact rock similar to
the first category proposed by Terzaghi (1946) and Class-G is
a very poor rock corresponding to Terzaghis squeezing rock.
This concept was perused further, modified and linked to rock
mass classifications like Q-System by Barton et al (1975) and
to RMRby Bieniawski (1976). An updated version of the chart
linking stand-up time, un-supported excavation and RMRwas
proposed by Bieniawski (1993). The limiting boundaries of
total collapse and no-support requirements have been some
what enlarged.
Initially Barton et al. (1974) related the maximum unsup-
ported span (S
u
) to the excavation support ratio (ESR) and
rock mass quality, Q-value as
Later on Barton et al. (1975) suggested the limits of un-
supported span of tunnel and stand-up time by linking Q-
values in a chart form as indicated in Fig. 1. The limits as
suggested by Lauffer (1958) are also incorporated in this fig-
ure, (Biemiawski 1984). Fromthis figure it is observed that the
ratio of the maximum to the minimum un-supported spans is
about 6 for the same class of rock mass when the ratio of maxi-
mum to minimum stand-up times for the corresponding spans
and rock mass is about 5. Bieniawski (1993) presented the
updated version of 1976 chart as indicated in Fig. 2. Recent
information from Lauffer (1988) has also been included by
Bieniawski (1993) and shown to full within the modified lim-
its suggested by him. This chart suggests that the ratio of the
maximum to the minimum un-supported spans is about 6 and
the corresponding ratio of stand-up times is about 12 for the
same class of rock. In these figures , along with RMR and
Q values, corresponding values of joint factor, J
f
, are also
Figure 1. Stand-up time and classification of rock mass with
unsupported span.
Figure 2. Stand-up time and classification of rock mass with
unsupported span.
757
indicated to assess the maximum un-supported span length
of tunnel for the desired Stand-up time. The joint factor was
linked to RMR and also to Q-values as follows (Ramamurthy
2004)
2 FACTORS EFFECTING STAND-UP TIME
The un-supported span, also called the effective span, is the
span between the advancing face and the nearest support pro-
vided or the width of the excavation between the side walls,
which ever is larger. When the crown stress is higher than
the side pressures, tensile stress is likely to develop in the
zone above the crown resulting progressive fracturing, loos-
ening and collapse, if left unsupported. Often near wedge or
parabolic loosened mass collapses leaving cavity in the crown.
The rate of this loosening and the time taken to collapse will
depends on the rock mass parameters, geo-environmental fac-
tors and excavation techniques adopted. That is, the stand-up
time is influenced by the effective span, compressive strength
and modulus of rock mass in the immediate vicinity of the
excavation, in situ stress state, water/seepage pressure extent
of loosening of rock mass by blasting/mechanical excavation,
joint orientation with respect to the direction of excavation,
shape of excavated face/space and provision of immediate
temporary support. The modulus of rock mass controls the
deformation of the loosened mass to collapse. The effect
of joint system including the joint material is considered in
assessing the compressive strength and modulus of rock mass.
Further more,
1. if the joints are perpendicular to the direction of excava-
tion, higher stand-up time results compared to joints being
parallel,
2. higher joint frequency will result less stand-up time,
3. circular shape will result higher stand-up time,
4. mechanical excavation with TBM and road header will
result high stand-up time than with drilling and blasting
excavation,
5. high power factor adopted in drilling and blasting opera-
tions will result less stand-up time,
6. provision of shot Crete with rock bolts will result higher
sand-up time compared to simply supporting with shot
Crete or steel ribs.
Byconsideringthe major factors whichare easilyassessable
and responsible to control the stand-up time, the following
expression is proposed
where
M
rj
=Modulus ratio of rock mass reflecting combined influ-
ence of compressive strength (
cj
) and tangent modulus
(E
tj
) i.e. E
tj
/
cj
S
u
=Effective span in meters
p
o
=In situ stress in t/m
2
u =Seepage pressure in t/m
2
k
s
=Constant linked to M
rj
as per Table 1
t
f
=Stand-up time in years.
Table 1. Suggested values of constant, k
s
.
M
rj
500 200 100 50
k
s
100 5 1/5 1/100
Figure 3. Compressive strength of jointed rock with joint factor.
Figure 4. Modulus of jointed rock with joint factor.
The M
rj
values of rock mass are linked to that of intact rock
through joint factor, J
f
, as follows (Ramamurthy, 1993, 2001,
2004),
where
J
n
=joint frequency per meter depth of rock mass
n =joint inclination parameter as per Table 2 for U-shaped
and shoulder shaped anisotropies in weakly bedded and
strongly bedded rocks respectively,
758
Table 2. Values of n for different joint inclinations, .
Values of n
,
degrees U-shaped Shoulder shaped
0 0.82 0.85
10 0.46 0.60
20 0.11 0.20
30 0.05 0.06
40 0.09 0.12
50 0.30 0.45
60 0.46 0.80
70 0.64 0.90
80 0.82 0.95
r =joint strength parameter =tan
j
; if cohesion or cemen-
tation exists along the critical joint, its effect is converted
to equivalent friction,
i, j =subscripts represent intact and jointed rocks,
respectively.
The value of k
s
and reflects the combined influence of blast-
ing, shape of tunnel face, its orientation with respect to the
joint system and also for converting t
f
, the stand-up time, in
to years.
3 EVIDENCE
A number of cases have been examined for different diame-
ters of tunnel, in situ stress, seepage pressure in very strong to
very weak rock masses. The results are meaningful, compara-
ble and acceptable and cover the range of values given under
the limiting boundaries indicated by Bieniawski (1993). To
obtain safe working values one may apply a factor of safety of
2 or 3 either to the unsupported span or to the sand-up time,
depending upon the openness of the joints, existence of joints
parallel to the direction of excavation and the extent of loos-
ening of immediate rock mass due to blasting operation. For
values of t
f
estimated from Eq. 4 less than an hour immediate
collapse of rock mass from the crown may be expected. A few
example are presented to show the effectiveness of Eq. 4 in
the following.
Example
1. With out seepage pressure (u =0); overburden, h =100 m
Overburden, h =300 m; p
o
=750 t/m
2
II. With seepage pressure, u =50% of overburden,
Overburden,
Overburden,
4 CONCLUSIONS
Estimation of stand-up time in the underground excavation is
to enable removal of the executed rock mass and conveniently
erect at least a temporary support. To account for all the factors
influencing the stand-up time is not achievable yet, but most
prominent factors controlling the stand-up time are considered
and an expression is proposed. It has been verified to estimate
reliably the stand-up time in underground works in weak and
strong rock masses.
759
REFERENCES
Barton, N. Lien, R. & Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classification
of rock masses for design of tunnels support, Rock Mechanics,
6:4:183236.
Barton, N. Lien, R. & Lunde, J. 1975. Estimation of support require-
ments for underground excavation. Proc 16th Symp. Design
Methods in Rock Mechanics. Minn. Publ. ASCE, New York,
163177 and Discussion at 234241.
Bieniaswski, Z.T. 1984. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and
Tunelling, AA Balkema, Rotherdam.
Bieniaswski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineer-
ing. Proc. Symp. Expl. Rock Engg. Johannesburg, A.A. Balkema,
Captown, 1:97106.
Bieniaswski, Z.T. 1993. Classification of rock masses for engineer-
ing: The RMR system and future trends. Comprehensive Rock
Engg., 3:553573, Ed. JA Hudson, Pergamon Press, U.K.
Lauffer, H. 1958. Gebirgsklassifizierung fur den stollenbau. Geo-
logic and Bauwesan, 24: 1:4651.
Lauffer, H. 1988. Zur Gebirgsklassifizierung bei frasvortieben.
Felsbau, 6: 137149.
Ramamurthy, T. 1993. Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic
rocks. Chapt.13, Comprehensive Rock Engg., 1:313329, Ed.
JA Hudson, Pergamon Press U.K.
Ramamurthy, T. 2001. Shear strength response of some geological
materials in triaxial compression. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci.,
38:683697.
Ramamurthy, T. 2004. A Geo-engineering classification for rocks
and rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci., 41:89101.
Terzaghi, K. 1946. Rock defects and load on tunnel support, rock
tunneling with steel supports, eds. RV Proctor and T White,
Commercial Shearing Co. Youngstown, Ohio, pp.1599.
760