Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FOR MONITORING
FIELD PERFORMANCE
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION
FOR MONITORING
FIELD PERFORMANCE
John Dunnicliff
Geotechnical Instrumentation Consultant
Lexington, Massachusetts
Gordon E. Green
Geotechnical Engineer
Seattle, Washington
r
UNt\!tRS\l'i U
'" '.
"Lr'~I..I\U
UBHAKY
v
\i'llf\i L
[I]
WILEY
A Wiley-Interscience Publication
John
New York
Chichester
Wiley &
Sons
Brisbane
Toronto
Singapore
Dunnic1iff, John.
Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance/
John Dunnic1iff with the assistance of Gordon E. Green.
"A Wiley-Interscience publication."
ISBN 0-471-09614-8
1. Engineering geology-Instruments. 2. Soils-Testing.
I. Green, Gordon E. II. Title.
TA705.D86 1988
624.1'51'028-dcI9
87-27709
Printed in the United States of America
10987654321
To the manufacturers of
geotechnical instruments,
without whom there would be no
geotechnical instrumentation
for monitoring field performance
FOREWORD
Every geotechnical design is to some extent hypothetical, and every construction job involving earth
or rock runs the risk of encountering surprises.
These circumstances are the inevitable result of
working with materials created by nature, often before the advent of human beings, by processes seldom resulting in uniform conditions. The inability
of exploratory procedures to detect in advance all
the possibly significant properties and conditions of
natural materials requires the designer to make assumptions that may be at variance with reality and
the constructor to choose equipment and construction procedures without full knowledge of what
might be encountered.
Field observations, including quantitative measurements obtained by field instrumentation, provide the means by which the geotechnical engineer,
in spite of these inherent limitations, can design a
project to be safe and efficient, and the constructor
can execute the work with safety and economy.
Thus, field instrumentation is vital to the practice of
geotechnics, in contrast to the practice of most
other branches of engineering in which people have
greater control over the materials with which they
deal. For this reason geotechnical engineers, unlike
their colleagues in other fields, must have more than
casual knowledge of instrumentation: to them it is a
working tool, not merely one of the components of
research.
Notwithstanding its vital role, instrumentation is
not an end in itself. It cannot guarantee good design
or trouble-free construction. The wrong instruments in the wrong places provide information that
may at best be confusing and at worst divert attention from telltale signs of trouble. Too much instrumentation is wasteful and may disillusion those
who pay the bills, while too little, arising from a
desire to save money, can be more than false economy: it can even be dangerous.
Every instrument installed on a project should be
selected and placed to assist in answering a specific
question. Following this simple rule is the key to
successful field instrumentation. Unfortunately, it
is easier to install instruments, collect the readings,
and then wonder if there are any questions to which
the results might provide an answer. Instrumentation is currently in vogue. Some design agencies
and many regulatory bodies mandate instrumentation whether the results might be useful or not. It is
a widely held dogma, for instance, that every earth
dam should be instrumented, in the hope that some
unsuspected defect will reveal itself in the observations and give warning of an impending failure. Part
of the criticism directed at Teton Dam following its
failure was paucity of instrumentation. Yet, it is
extremely doubtful that any instrumental observations could have given timely warning of the particular failure that occurred. Instruments cannot cure
defective designs, nor can they indicate signs of impending deterioration or failure unless, fortuitously,
they happen to be of the right type and in the right
place.
The engineer should bring the best knowledge
and judgment to bear on every geotechnical problem that arises and should analyze the quality of the
information on which a design is based. The engineer should judge not only the way the design will
function if the information is essentially correct, but
how the gaps or shortcomings might influence the
performance of the project. Then, and only then,
can specific items be identified that will reveal
whether the project is performing in accordance
with design assumptions or, if not, in what significant way the performance differs. Then the critical
vii
viii
FOREWORD
sure that dependable data can be obtained throughout the period when the observations are needed.
Usually, the most dependable devices are the simplest.
If one can with sufficient accuracy make a direct
visual observation with a graduated scale, then a
micrometer should not be used. If one can use a
micrometer, a mechanical strain gage should not be
used. If one can use a mechanical strain gage, an
electrical one should not be used. Mechanical instruments are to be preferred to electrical devices
and simple electrical devices depending on simple
circuits are to be preferred to more complex electronic equipment. That is, where a choice exists,
the simpler equipment is likely to have the best
chance for success.
Nevertheless, simple instruments are sometimes
inappropriate and more complex ones must be
used. An open standpipe may be the simplest device for observing a piezometric level, but the point
at which the pore pressure needs to be measured
may be located where direct access is impossible. A
more sophisticated arrangement is then necessary.
If one wishes to determine the state of stress in a
mass of rock, there is no choice but to install
sophisticated equipment to make measurements at
a considerable distance from the position of the observer, and the strains likely to be observed will be
too small to detect by any mechanical device. Thus,
nothing but a sophisticated system will serve.
Not all sophisticated systems are equally reliable. Equipment that has an excellent record of performance can be rendered unreliable if a single
essential but apparently minor requirement is overlooked during the installation. The best of instruction manuals cannot provide for every field condition that may affect the results. Therefore, even
slavish attention to instructions cannot guarantee
success. The installer must have a background in
the fundamentals of geotechnics as well as knowledge of the intricacies of the device being installed.
Sometimes the installer must consciously depart
from the installation manual.
The installer must also want desperately to do
the job well and must often work under difficult and
unpleasant conditions, trying to do precision work
while surrounded by workers whose teamwork or
operation of equipment is being interrupted, or
working the graveyard shift in an attempt to reduce
such interruptions. Dedication of this sort is the
price of success, and it is rarely found at the price
tendered by the lowest bidder. Moreover, the in-
ix
FOREWORD
B.
PECK-
PREFACE
This is intended to be a practical book for use by
practitioners. There is information for all those who
plan or implement geotechnical instrumentation
programs: owners, project managers, geotechnical
engineers, geologists, instrument manufacturers,
specialty geotechnical contractors, civil engineers,
and technicians. The book should also be helpful to
students and faculty members during graduate
courses in geotechnical engineering.
A practical book about geotechnical instrumentation must go beyond a mere summary of the technical literature and manufacturers' brochures: it must
hold the hands of readers and guide them along the
way. This need has created two difficulties for me.
First, my own practical experience is that of one
person and does not arm me to write a comprehensive guide on my own. I have tried to fill this gap by
drawing on the experience and opinions of many
colleagues, who are identified elsewhere.
Second, it is certain that, soon after publication
of this book, I will alter some of my opinions as my
experience increases. I am well aware that the subject of geotechnical instrumentation is a contentious
subject, made so by strongly held views among
practitioners and by vested commercial interests.
The guidelines in this book are an attempt to convey
the "best ways" as I see them today. You, the
reader, will have your own experience and your
own best ways, which may differ from mine. I
therefore have a plea: when you see possibilities for
improving the content of this book, send me reasonable evidence. My address is in the Directory of
the American Society of Civil Engineers. Not only
will I learn from you, but I will try to disseminate
the improvements, perhaps ultimately in a second
edition of this book.
Length restrictions have strongly influenced the
contents. There is no attempt to describe every instrument, either currently available or described in
published papers. Some available instruments are
not well suited to their intended purpose, and the
xi
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION
FOR MONITORING
FIELD PERFORMANCE
Part 1
Introduction
Part 1 is intended to serve as a general introduction. Chapter 1 sets the stage for the
book, describing the role of geotechnical instrumentation and giving a historical
perspective and a look into the future. It is hoped that Chapter 1 will motivate the
reader toward a deeper study of the subject. Chapter 2 presents an overview of key
aspects of soil and rock behavior, targeted for the practitioners who become involved with geotechnical instrumentation programs and who do not have formal
training in soil or rock mechanics.
CHAPTER 1
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION:
AN OVERVIEW
1.1. WHAT IS GEOTECHNICAL
INSTRUMENTATION?
The engineering practice of geotechnical instrumentation involves a marriage between the capabilities
of measuring instruments and the capabilities of
people.
There are two general categories of measuring
instruments. The first category is used for in situ
determination of soil or rock properties, for example, strength, compressibility, and permeability,
normally during the design phase of a project. Examples are shown in Figure 1.1. The second category is used for monitoring performance, normally
during the construction or operation phase of a project, and may involve measurement of groundwater
pressure, total stress, deformation, load, or strain.
Examples are shown in Figure 1.2. This book is
concerned only with the second category.
During the past few decades, manufacturers of
geotechnical instrumentation have developed a
large assortment of valuable and versatile products
for the monitoring of geotechnically related parameters. Those unfamiliar with instrumentation might
believe that obtaining needed information entails
nothing more than pulling an instrument from a
shelf, installing it, and taking readings. Although
successful utilization may at first appear simple and
straightforward, considerable engineering and planning are required to obtain the desired end results.
FIELD PERFORMANCE?
,<)
,b,
,d,
figure 1.1. wmpks of measuring instrumenU IOf in situ determin<ltion of soil or rock properties: (ol)
Pie:zocone: combined static cone ,lind pore pressure probe (courtesy of Geotechniques International,
Inc., Middleton, MAl; (b) V.lne sM;1Ir equipment (courtesy of Ceonor AIS, Oslo, Norway); Ie) self-boring
pressu~ter (courtesy of Cambridg~ Insilu, CamtN-idse. Engl.lnd);.OO (d) borehole deformation gage
(courtesy of Geokon, Inc., lebanon, NH).
Basic capabilities required for instrumentation personnel are reliability and patience, perseverance, a
background in the fundamentals of geotechnical engineering, mechanical and electrical ability, attention to detail, and a high degree of motivation.
instrument procurement on a low-bid basis will remain a stumbling block to good field performance.
1.5. WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?
(bl
(.,
(d)
(.,
"
..
(f)
Fillure 1.2. Enmpla of mnSllrins instruments for m<woitorinll flCld perlorTJUlRCt: (ill) twin-luM hrdr"l.Ilic piezometer (coortesy of CMIKhnkaJ Instruments (U.K.) ltd., leamington SpJi, Engl,lnd); (bl
vibr.ting win! pie:zomete... (cour1~ of TtlemK, Asn~rti, Fr.nct); Ie) vibrililinl wire slressmeler
(courtesy of Geokon, Inc., ~non. NH); (d) ~ cell (courtesy of Proceq 5A, Zurich, 5wilzm.nd);
It) embedment t.llrth prnstJre celt (courtesy of Thof Intenwotioml, loc., Seatde, WA); (0 surfacemounted vibtatins wire strain PIe (cou rtesy of 'rad Gage, a Division of Klein As.soci.JIles, Inc., Salem,
NH); (g) multipoint fiKed borehole exlensometer (courtesy of Soillnslrumenls ltd., Ucklield, England);
;lIId (h) inclinometer (courtesy of Slope Indicator Company, Se.JIule, WA).
,h)
figure 1.4 . Delennination of load in a steel strut, using a mKh.anical str.llin gage. Open cui for sta tion in day. Chiago Subw.JIy,
1948 (courtesy of R.J.1!)h B. Peck).
rational and systematic manner. and therefore planning procedures are emphasiz.ed in this book .
Users of geotechnical instrumentation oOcn have
a misconception of the size of the industry that
manufactures instruments for performance monitoring. It is not a large industry: it is in faCI very
small . The manufacturing industry employs be
tween 300 and 400 people worldwide. and the total
annual volume of sales is about 30 million U.S. dol
lars. This misconception sometimes leads to unreasonable expectations on the part of users: we
cannot expect the manufacturers to make large expenditures on research. development. and testing of
special instruments, unless justified by the size of
the market. (fthe market is small . special funding is
needed.
Figur~ 1.6. Ilttollling fixed em~nkment extensometer with vibr.ting wire tr.nsducer. Balderkead Dam, England, 1963 (courtesy of
Arthur D. M. Penm.Jn).
WHERE ARE WE
NOW~
Figure 1.7. Manomeler panels for twin-tube hydraulic piezometers. Plover Cove Main Dam, Hong
ICong, 1965 (.lifter Dunnicliff. 1968). Reprinted by permission of tnstitulion of Civil Engioeers, London.
This book includes chapters that descri be available methods for monitoring various gcotcchnically
related paramete rs. The fo llowing is a summary rating of our current abilit y to obtain reliable measurements of these parameters . in order of increasing
reliability:
Total stress in soil and stress c hange in roc k
Groundwater pressure
Load and strain in st ructural me mbers
Deformalion
Temperature
f,&ure I .B. Inst.lllling fixed embankment u tensometers in emboIInkment cbm. ludinglon Pumped Storage Projed, ludington,
MI,1 972.
10
11
12
1.1 5. Re.l ing inclinometer during construction of underw,ter test fill , Chell: Up kok Replacement Airport. Hong Kong.
1'81 (courtesy of leo O. Handfel!),
tation is likely to play an inc reasing role in providing a check on these advanced analytic predictions.
Full benefit can be achieved from geotechnical instrumentation programs only if every step in the
planning and execution process is taken with great
care. The analogy can be drawn to a chain with
many potent ial weak li nks: this chain breaks down
wit h greater faci lity and frequency than in most
other geotechnical engineering endeavors. The
links in the chain are defined in Chapter 26: their
strength depends both on the capabilities of mea suring instruments and the capabilities of people. The
success of performance monitoring will be maximized by maximi zing the strcngth of each link .
CHAPTER 2
ments of rocks or minerals that have not been altered by chemical decomposition. Inorganic silt is a
fine-grained soil with little or no plasticity and can
generally be classified as cohesionless. Organic silt
is a fine-grained soil with an admixture of organic
particles and behaves as a plastic cohesive soil.
Clay is a cohesive soil consisting of microscopic
and submicroscopic particles derived from the
chemical decomposition of rock constituents.
2.1.3. Stress and Pressure
~~~"..::~lH!b~~4--.., Mineral
skeleton
7~d:::[:;~~"4,:.~I---=-
Pore spaces,
pores, or
voids
13
14
Porous
Pinon
piston
.'.:. .
in plan , of 1 square inch. Figure 2.3b shows an analogy in whic h the resistance or the mineral skeleton
to compression is represented by a spring, and the
porous piston is replaced by an impenneable piston
with a valved orifice. The o rifice represents the resistance to the fl ow of water thro ugh the soil. The
piston is assumed to be weightless. and the water is
incompressible. Initiall y, the valve is closed . The
spring has a stiffness of 10 Ib/in .. meaning that a
force of 10 pounds is requ ired to produce an axial
Fine
orifice.
with
Wtlltr
surface
10lb
valve
Cont.iner
. Sa turated
soil..
L_ _ -""=--_-'=', Spring
with
Iti llness
101blin.
I.'
Idl
'"
1.1
I"
'"
15
BEHAVIOR OF SOIL
Table 2.1. Sharing of Applied Force
Figure 2.3
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Condition
Initial
10 lb force
applied
Piston
descended
0.4 in.
Piston
descended
0.8 in.
Piston
descended
1.0 in.
Valve
Position
Force on
Piston
(lb)
Force Carried
by Spring
(lb)
Force Carried
by Water
(lb)
Closed
Closed
0
10
0
0
0
10
Open
10
Open
10
Open
10
10
total stress
(J"
+ u.
,.
~ 10~~1"--~~:::::o==="------------~ 10 N,
~
1o~------~~~------~ ,
0
Time
"
1.1
Timtl
Ibl
figure 2.4. (al Shari ng of applied force and stress. (b) Volume
change.
crease as consolidation progresses. Because an increase of effective stress means that the grains
within the mineral skeleton are pressing more
tightly together, it becomes increasingly harder to
cause sliding between the grains. As an analogy , a
brick can be placed on a concrete floor and pushed
sideways to cause it to slide. If a second brick is
now placed on top of the fi rst brick, it takes more
sideways force to cause sliding. It is therefore ev ident that the ability of a soil to resist sliding is related to the effective stress: the larger the effective
Groundwater
leve l
...J.:"":'" __ .:::._
.'
, , ..
""'
... 1 :
Clay
, ,,
,,
Three venical pipes.
with perforations
near bottom
,, ,,
BEHAVIOR OF SOil
Original
ground
s u r f _ a c eI
'.
Groundwater .. ,:i-',',','::
,~,
::>1
:.,::
:::' ;':'iJl;:;': >,
-C~-~"-! C~
',,': Sand',
.' ....
.. '
.'
I
I I
UtI)
Clay
(e)
I I
LJ
(b)
U(2)
(d)
ure 2.6 shows the condition soon after fill placement, when consolidation is not yet complete;
therefore, excess pore water pressures exist in the
clay and the groundwater is no longer in equilibrium. The four perforated pipes in Figure 2.6 are
installed such that soil is in intimate contact with
the outsides of the pipes. Pipe (b) is perforated
throughout its length; the remaining pipes are
perforated only near the bottom. Because of the
high permeability of sand, excess pore water pressures in the sand dissipate almost immediately and
do not exist there. As in Figure 2.5, pipe (a) indicates the groundwater level. Pipes (c) and (d) indicate the pore water pressures in the clay at locations (1) and (2). The water level in pipe (c) is
shown lower than in pipe (d) because more dissipation of pore water pressure has occurred at level (1)
than at level (2): the drainage path for excess pore
water pressure is shorter, and therefore the rate of
dissipation is greater. In the case illustrated, pipe
(b) is likely to indicate the groundwater level because the permeability of the sand is substantially
greater than that of the clay: excess pore water
pressures in the clay will cause an upward flow of
water from the clay to the sand, via the pipe.
In the more general case of a perforated pipe
installed through two or more strata, either with
perforations throughout or surrounded with sand
throughout, an undesirable vertical connection between strata is created, and the water level in the
17
pipe will usually be misleading. This situation is discussed further in Sections 9.1 and 9.12.2, and pipe
(b) should not be used in practice.
Pipe (b) is called an observation well. Pipes (a),
(c), and (d) indicate pore water pressure and its
dissipation within the sand or clay and are called
piezometers. Details of both types of instrument are
given in Chapter 9. As a general rule, piezometers
are sealed within the soil so that they respond only
to changes of pore water pressure at a local zone,
whereas observation wells are not sealed within the
soil, so that they respond to changes of groundwater pressure throughout their length.
2.1.10. Positive and Negative Pore
Water Pressures
All references to pore water pressures in earlier
parts of this chapter have been to pressures that are
above atmospheric pressure. These are called positive pore water pressures. As shown in Figures 2.4a
and 2.6, pore water pressure can be increased by
applying a compressive force to the soil. The example of placing fill for a highway embankment has
been given. Pore water pressure can also increase
when a shear force is applied to a soil in which the
mineral skeleton is in a loosely packed state. When
the array shown in Figure 2.7a is sheared, it decreases in volume. When the pore spaces are filled
with water, and water is prevented from leaving,
pore water pressure will increase. As a practical
example, consider a foundation failure of an embankment on soft ground, with a foundation of
loose alluvial material. The material beneath the toe
is subjected to lateral shear forces as the embankment is constructed. These shear forces cause deformation, increased pore water pressure, and decreased strength, and therefore increase the
tendency toward failure.
Pore water pressure can also be negative,
defined as pore water pressure that is less than atmospheric pressure. Negative pore water pressure
can sometimes be caused by removing a compressive force that has been applied to a soil. For example, when an excavation is made in clay, the soil
below the base of the excavation is unloaded, causing an initial decrease of pore water pressure, which
may become negative. Pore water pressure can also
decrease when a shear force is applied to a soil in
which the mineral skeleton is in a densely packed
state. When the array shown in Figure 2.7b is
sheared, it increases in volume. If the pore spaces
18
~~~~)!"''''
Point A
(pressure = Pa)
force
Shear_-....
-+-----Pa
.:'
::.
Container
Straw
Water
Pa>Pw
(a)
(a)
Shear
force
_--...!~~~~~~~~~~
po
Air in pore space at pressure u a
Shear
force
,'P-::~~oLWater
in pore space at
pressure U w
(b)
Figure 2.7. (a) Positive and (b) negative pore water pressure
caused by application of shear force.
are filled with water, and additional water is prevented from entering, pore water pressure decreases. As a practical example, consider the excavation of a slope in overconsolidated clay. Pore
water pressure decreases as a result of unloading,
but significant additional decrease can be caused by
the development of lateral shear forces. These
shear forces cause deformation, a temporary decrease in pore water pressure, and a temporary increase in strength.
2.1.11. Pore Gas Pressure
In an unsaturated soil, both gas and water are present in the pore spaces, and the pressure in the gas is
called the pore gas pressure. As with pore water
pressure, pore gas pressure act in all directions with
equal intensity. Examples of unsaturated soil include compacted fills for embankment dams and organic soil deposits in which gas is generated as organic material decomposes. When the gas is air, the
term pore air pressure may be used.
The pore gas pressure is always greater than the
pore water pressure. Consider the analogy of a
straw placed in a container of water, as shown in
(b)
Figure 2.8. Pore gas and pore water pressure: (a) straw in container of water and (b) element of unsaturated soil.
BEHAVIOR OF SOIL
19
Figure 2.9 depicts a load applied to a footing foundation located on a soil mass. In the upper figure,
the load is substantially less than that required to
cause failure. The footing transfers the stress to the
soil, causing the soil to compress in the vertical
direction, and the footing settles. In the lower
figure, a larger load is applied to the footing, stressing the soil and causing a rotation that tends to push
the adjacent block of soil out of the ground, as if it
were a rigid body. This movement is opposed by the
shearing resistance of the soil along the potential
failure surface. In a cohesionless soil, this shearing
resistance is frictional, and the magnitude of friction
depends directly on the normal stresses against the
potential failure surface. In a cohesive soil, this
shearing resistance is often purely cohesive, independent of the normal stresses during the shearing
process but dependent on the history of previous
effective stresses.
Deep Foundations
20
So i I co m presses
(a)
Load
Upper block
slides on
lower block
(b)
Figure 2.9. Behavior of a footing foundation: (a) settlement of footing and (b) bearing failure.
,
Load
J
:i3
n
~
~
Shearing resistance
opposes sliding
of pile against soil
~,
Development of
"point" bearing
BEHAVIOR OF SOil
21
Force caused
. . . . - by active earth
~ pressure pushing
on wall
.'
o
Force caused
by passive
earth pressure
...
:c:.:.
'.0.
o.
f f f f
resistance
opposes
movement
I -----
Shearing resistance
opposes sliding
Bearing stress
holding wall up
When compared with retaining walls, braced excavations differ in their mobilization of earth resistance because significant sliding or tilting toward
the excavation is not permitted. The wall of a
braced excavation may be braced against the opposite wall with cross-lot bracing, braced against the
bottom or the adjacent wall with rakers, or held in
place by tieback anchors that pull against the soil
outside the excavation. Stresses against a braced
wall are greater than against a retaining wall because the passive pressure is greater. However, if
bracing is properly installed, deformation of the soil
is small and buildings on adjacent sites may therefore experience only small settlements and little distress. When a deep braced excavation is made in
soft soil, soil tends to move into the bottom of the
excavation: this is called bottom heave, and special
construction techniques may be required to control
deformation.
Embankments
Shearing
resistance
opposes
movement
22
Transverse
crack
(a)
:J :l
{J, Q
Deformation
c:::>
(b)
Figure 2.14. Behavior of an embankment on soft ground: (a) rotational slide along arc and (b) settlement and lateral bulging of soft
foundation.
cially silty sand, an earthquake can cause the foundation to liquify and flow, as with the near failure of
the San Fernando Dam in California.
Even if the design of the dam is adequate, the
weight of the embankment dam on the underlying
soil or rock must be considered. Heavily loaded soil
under the dam may settle, and there will be downward and lateral movements of the base of the
dam. Moreover, even well-compacted fill material
will experience settlements when loaded with overlying material. and poor compaction procedures
will result in greater settlements. If the crest of the
dam is initially level, with time it will settle, and the
center of the dam will settle the most. If the abutments are steep, the settlements may put the crest
of the dam in tension, as shown in Figure 2.15, possibly causing cracks transverse to the axis of the
dam.
Soft Ground Tunnels
BEHAVIOR OF ROCK
Settlement trough
~hitfiiiiKWfNIQi'l!!,*HMW,*HIiWlIIIWtNiliiWIJm.WIlAw/IA'lfHIi&fJ&ill"MiJW//liIIiWAVH)
--------------r
Settled
surface
Soil movement
Tunnel
lining
Grout or
gravel fill
Figure 2.16. Behavior of a soft ground tunnel. Note that soil also
tends to move toward the face of the tunnel.
profile below the original water level, and in cohesive soils this will cause the initiation of consolidation settlements. In cohesionless soils, the increased stresses will tend to cause immediate
strains in the soil and therefore settlement.
23
24
25
BEHAVIOR OF ROCK
Contours of rock
quality index
I ntact rock or
rock material
(microtexture,
see ,Figure 2,17)
OJ
'v;
""u
.2
CIl
Typical
rock block
Rock mass
( macrostructure)
Discontinu ities,
set 2
0,1 '1===~=f=X=x======~
0,01
0.1
Point load strength, MPa
26
bility, whereas joints that dip steeply into the excavation may well be a source of sliding failures.
Other characteristics of discontinuities such as
roughness, continuity, and the presence or absence
of a clay infilling determine the shear strength of the
discontinuity surfaces. Roughjoints with no infilling
are strong compared with smooth, slickensided,
and clay-filled fault planes.
BEHAVIOR OF ROCK
Rotational failure
Wedge slide
27
Slab slide
Toppling failure
Figure 2.20. Primary mechanisms of rock slope failure (after Hoek and Bray, 1974). By permission of
the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy.
Foundations on rock are rarely subject to generalized or rotational failures such as outlined in Section 2.1.13 for footing foundations on soil. Generalized failure is a real possibility only in the case of
foundations near the crest of a rock cut, which can
be considered as a special type of slope stability
problem. Slopes in rock are discussed in the next
subsection.
Differential settlement, however, remains a potential problem. Settlement magnitudes are again
governed by the presence and characteristics of discontinuities. They depend on whether the discontinuities are closely or widely spaced, open or tight,
filled or unfilled. Foundation loading may cause
open discontinuities to close, unless they have been
filled with a suitable grout.
Slopes in Rock
Yield and failure of rock around underground openings occur by a variety of mechanisms, depending
on the stress levels, groundwater conditions and
rock characteristics, the shape and size of the open-
28
Gravitational failure
(caving and raveling)
Rockburst
---r'
-+
4-
4---
Figure 2.21. Primary mechanisms of yield and failure of underground openings in rock.
intact rock is exceeded by the magnitudes of excavation-induced stresses. Classic examples occur in
South African mines at depths approaching 2-3
miles (3-5 km) where even the high-strength
rocks are incapable of sustaining the stresses that
develop.
Squeezing behavior is characteristic of rock
masses that are overstressed but relatively weak or
closely jointed. The rock mass yields by shearing
along weak discontinuity surfaces or by crushing or
distortion of the rock blocks. Tunnel closures in
excess of 3 ft (1 m) have been recorded, for example, by convergence monitoring in the Austrian
Alps.
Swelling behavior is encountered when the minerals of the rock are themselves of a swelling variety. Clay minerals are the most common in this category. Some shales contain montmorillonite and
similar clay minerals that adsorb water, expand,
and eventually generate high pressures on tunnel
liners and support systems. Swelling problems are
also experienced in anhydrite rock types that convert to gypsum when wetted.
BEHAVIOR OF ROCK
29
riods, sometimes of years or decades. Hydroelectric turbine pits in Niagara have suffered from stress
relief closure. The inward movement in one pit has
been monitored monthly since 1905, and total
movement has exceeded 4 in. (100 mm), sufficient
to cause severe misalignment problems and shattering of a cast iron support strut.
560
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Wilson, S. D., and P. E. Mikkelsen (1977), "Foundation Instrumentation-Inclinometers" (color video tape, film
and reference manual), U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Implementation Division,
Office of Research and Development.
Wilson, S. D., and P. E. Mikkelsen (1978), "Field Instrumentation," in Landslides, Analysis and Control, Transportation
Research Board, Special Rep. 176, Chap. 5.
Windsor, C. R., and G. Worotnicki (1986), "Monitoring Reinforced Rock Mass Performance," submitted to International
Symposium on Large Rock Caverns, Helsinki.
Wissa, A. E. Z., R. T. Martin, and J. E. Garlanger (1975), "The
Piezometer Probe," in Proceedings of the ASCE, Specialty
Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, ASCE, New
York, Vol. I, pp. 536-545.
Wnuk, S. P., Jr. (1981), "On the Use of Bonded Weldable Strain
Gages for Field Measurements in Hostile Environments," in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Measurements in Hostile Environments, British Society for Strain
Measurements, Edinburgh.
Wolf, S. (1973), Guide to Electronic Measurements and Laboratory Practice, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wolfskill, L. A., and C. Soydemir (1971), "Soil Instrumentation
for the 1-95 MIT-MDPW Test Embankment," J. Boston
Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 58, No.4, pp. 193-229.
Wolosick, J. R., and A. 1. Feldman (1987), "Reliability of Bending Moments Backcalculated From Inclinometer Measurements," Geotech. News, Vol. 5, No.3, Sept.
561