Rockmass Strength Properties

D.J.
Hutchison - 2000
Rock and Rockmass Properties
Lecture 4
Earth 691B: Rock Engineering
Materials used with kind permission
of Dr Jean Hutchison, Queens U
D.J. Hutchison - 2000
Rockmass
Strength

Strong
Massive

Fair
Discrete Joints

Weak
Low Integrity
Relative Properties
Stope
Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1996
Hutchinson, 2000
Hoek, 2000
s=1
Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion
a
ci
b ci
s m
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
o
o
o o o
3
3 1
'
' '
Generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion for jointed rock masses:
Where:
o
1
and o
3
are maximum and minimum effective stresses at failure
m
b
is the value of the Hoek-Brown constant m for the rockmass
s and a are constants which depend upon the rockmass characteristics
o
ci
is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock pieces
(11.1)
Generation of Mohr-Coulomb parameters
from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
Use Equation 11.1 to generate triaxial test results
Statistical curve fitting of data, using Equation 11.2:
B
ci
tm n
ci
A
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
o
o o
o t
'
(11.2)
Where:
A and B are material constants
o
n
is the normal effective stress
o
tm
is the tensile strength of the rockmass (Equation 11.3), reflecting
the fact that the rock particles are interlocked and not free to dilate
|
.
|
\
|
+ = s m m
b b
ci
tm
4
2
2
o
o
(11.3)
Estimation of Rockmass Strength
Three rockmass properties are required:
o
ci
: uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock pieces

m
i
: value of Hoek-Brown constant m for
these intact rock pieces

GSI for the rockmass
Intact Rock Strength
For intact rock, Equation 11.1 simplifies to:
5 . 0
3
3 1
1
'
' '
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
ci
i ci
m
o
o
o o o
(11.4)
For tests conducted in the range of
0 < o
3
< 0.5o
ci
and at least 5 tests
on each rock type
Hoek, 2000
Testing UCS for Weak Rock
Generally very difficult to do as samples
will contain several discontinuities within
their volume.
Very high skill level and specialized
equipment only available in a few places in
the world is required.
Use Point Load Test where load is applied
normal to the bedding plane orientations. If
the rock is very weak, and the platens indent
the rock, these tests are invalid.
Hoek, 2000
Foliated rocks display
an anisotropic response
to triaxial testing
Influence of Sample Size
Hoek, 2000
18 . 0
50
50
|
.
|
\
|
=
d
c cd
o o
Grade
*
Term UCS
(MPa)
Point
Load
Index
(MPa)
Field estimate of strength Examples
R6 Extremely
strong
> 250 > 10 Specimen can only be chipped with a
geological hammer
Fresh basalt, chert, diabase, gneiss,
granite, quartzite
R5 Very strong 100 to 250 4 to 10 Specimen requires many blows of a
geological hammer to fracture it
Amphibolite, sandstone, basalt,
gabbro, gneiss, granodiorite,
limestone, marble, rhyolite, tuff
R4 Strong 50 to 100 2 to 4 Specimen requires more than one
blow of a geological hammer to
fracture it
Limestone, marble, phyllite,
sandstone, schist, shale
R3 Medium
strong
25 to 50 1 to 2 Cannot be scraped with a pocket
knife, specimen can be fractured with
a single blow from a geological
hammer
Claystone, coal, concrete, schist,
shale, siltstone
R2 Weak 5 to 25 ** Can be peeled with a pocket knife
with difficulty, shallow indentation
made by firm blow with point of a
geological hammer
Chalk, rocksalt, potash
R1 Very weak 1 to 5 ** Crumbles under firm blows with point
of a geological hammer, can be
peeled by a pocket knife
Highly weathered or altered rock
R0 Extremely
weak
0.25 to 1 ** Indented by thumbnail Stiff fault gouge
** Point load tests on rocks with a uniaxial compressive strength < 25 MPa are likely to yield highly ambiguous results.
Table 11.2: Field estimates of uniaxial compressive strength
* Grade according to Brown (1981).
Coarse Very fine
Conglomerate Claystone
(22) 4
Breccia
(20)
Marble
9
Migmatite
(30)
Gneiss Slate
33 9
Granite
33
Granodiorite
(30)
Diorite
(28)
Gabbro
27
Norite
22
Agglomerate
(20)
Sandstone Siltstone
19 9
* These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of m
i
will be significantly different if
failure occurs along a weakness plane.
Table 11.3 (Hoek, 2000): Values of m
i
for intact rock, by rock group. Values in parenthesis are estimates.
Rock type Class Group
Medium Fine
Texture
Greywacke
Spartic
(10)
Gypstone
7
Chalk
(18)
Coal
(8 to 21)
16
Hornfels
(19)
Amphibolite
25 to 31
Schist
4 to 8
Rhyolite
(16)
Dolerite
(19)
Breccia
(18)
Micritic
8
Anhydrite
13
Quartzite
24
Mylonite
(6)
Phyllite
(10)
Obsidian
17
(19)
Dacite
(17)
Andesite
Tuff
(15)
Clastic
Non-clastic
Organic
Carbonate
Chemical
19
Basalt
Sedimentary
Metamorphic
Non foliated
Slightly foliated
Foliated*
Igneous
Light
Dark
Extrusive pyroclastic type
Very fine
Claystone
4+/-2
Shale
(6+/-2)
Marl
(7+/-2)
Dolomite
(9+/-3)
Chalk
7+/-2
Slate
7+/-4
Peridotite
(25+/-5)
Siltstone
7+/-2
Gypsum
(29+/-3)
* Conglomerate and breccia may have a wide range of m
i
values, depending upon the nature of the cementing material, and
the degree of cementation. Hence their values may range from values similar to that of sandstone to those of fine grained
sediments (even < 10).
Rock
type
Class Group
Fine
Texture
Gabbro
Granite
32+/-3 25+/-5
(8+/-2)
Marble
9+/-3
Amphibolite
26+/-6
Migmatite
Hornfels
(19+/-4)
Metasandstone
(19+/-3)
Diorite
Schist
12+/-3
(29+/-3)
Granodiorite
Micritic Limestone
(9+/-2)
Anhydrite
12+/-2
Quartzite
20+/-3
Gneiss
28+/-5
Phyllite
(7+/-3)
Tuff
(13+/-5)
Clastic
Non-Clastic
Carbonate
Slightly foliated
Foliated**
Organic
Non foliated
Hypabyssal
Volcanic
Lava
Pyroclastic
Greywacke
(18+/-3)
Evaporite
Breccia
*
Crystalline
Limestone
(12+/-3)
Spartic Limestone
(10+/-2)
22
Dark
27+/-3
Dolerite
(16+/-5)
Norite
Coarse Medium
Sandstone
17+/-4
Conglomerate
*
Porphyry
(20+/-5)
Diabase
(15+/-5)
Rhyolite
(25+/-5)
Andesite
25+/-5
Dacite
25+/-3
Basalt
(25+/-5)
** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of m
i
will be significantly
different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
M
e
t
a
m
o
r
p
h
i
c
Light
Plutonic
I
g
n
e
o
u
s
Agglomerate
(19+/-3)
Breccia
19+/-5
Hoek and Marinos, 2000
Geological Strength
Index: GSI
Hoek, 2000
Strength of jointed rockmass
depends on:
properties of intact rock
pieces, and
upon the freedom of these
pieces to slide and rotate
under different stress
conditions,
controlled by the
geometrical shape of the
intact rock pieces as well as
the condition of the
discontinuities separating the
pieces
GSI
|
.
|
\
|

=
28
100
exp
GSI
m m
i b
5 . 0
and
9
100
exp
: 25 For
=
|
.
|
\
|

=
>
a
GSI
s
GSI
200
65 . 0
and
0
: 25 For
GSI
a
s
GSI
=
=
<
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters
Hoek, 2000
Hoek, 2000
Cohesive and Frictional Strength
Hoek, 2000
Deformation Modulus
For poor quality rockmasses, where o
ci
< 100:

|
.
|
\
|

=
40
10
10
100
GSI
ci
m
E
o
Effect of water on rockmass strength
Reduction in strength of rock, particularly
shale and siltstone.
Pressure: why?
This may not be much of a problem during
excavation, because water pressures in the
surrounding rock are reduced to negligible
levels. If groundwater pressures are re-
established after the completion of the final
lining, then consider in design.
Water handling.
Post-failure Behaviour:
Very Good Quality Hard
Rockmass
Hoek, 2000
Average Quality Rockmass
Hoek, 2000
Very Poor Quality
Rockmass
Hoek, 2000
Uncertainty in
Rockmass
Strength
Estimates:
INPUT
Hoek, 2000
Uncertainty in
Rockmass Strength
Estimates: OUTPUT
Hoek, 2000
Practical Examples of Rockmass Property Estimates:
Massive Weak Rock, Braden Breccia, El Teniente Mine
Hoek, 2000
Hoek, 2000
Massive Strong Rockmasses,
Rio Grande Pumped Storage Scheme
Hoek, 2000
D.J. Hutchison - 2000 Hoek, 2000
Average Quality Rockmass, Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric
Partially completed 20 m
span, 42.5 m high
underground powerhouse
cavern of the Nathpa Jhakri
Hydroelectric Project in
Himachel Pradesh, India.
The cavern is approximately
300 m below the surface.
Average Quality Rockmass, Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric
Hoek, 2000
Poor Quality Rockmass at Shallow Depth: Athens Metro
Hoek, 2000
Poor Quality Rockmass at Shallow Depth: Athens Metro
Hoek, 2000
Hoek, 2000
Poor Quality
Rockmass under
High Stress
Poor Quality Rockmass under High Stress
Hoek, 2000
Figure 11.28: Results of a numerical
analysis of the failure of the rock mass
surrounding the Yacambu-Quibor tunnel
when excavated in graphitic phyllite at a
depth of about 600 m below surface.
Figure 11.29: Displacements in the rock
mass surrounding the Yacambu-Quibor
tunnel. The maximum calculated
displacement is 258 mm with no support
and 106 mm with support.

Rockmass Strength Properties

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rockmass Strength Properties

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

D.J.

S-ar putea să vă placă și