C.

Derek Martin
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Rock masses

1
Core logging

Traditional core logging BIPS: Borehole image

Terzaghi’s 1946 Classifications

Intact rock contains neither joints nor hair cracks. Hence, if it breaks, it breaks across sound rock.
On account of the injury to the rock due to blasting, spalls may drop off the roof several
hours or days after blasting. This is known as a spalling condition. Hard, intact rock may
also be encountered in the popping condition involving the spontaneous and violent
detachment of rock slabs from the sides or roof.

Stratified consists of individual strata with little or no resistance against separation along the
Rock boundaries between the strata. The strata may or may not be weakened by transverse
joints. In such rock the spalling condition is quite common.

Moderately contains joints and hair cracks, but the blocks between joints are locally grown together
jointed or so intimately interlocked that vertical walls do not require lateral support. In rocks of
this type, both spalling and popping conditions may be encountered.
Rock
Blocky and consists of chemically intact or almost intact rock fragments which are entirely separated
Seamy Rock from each other and imperfectly interlocked. In such rock, vertical walls may require
lateral support.
Crushed chemically intact rock has the character of crusher run. If most or all of the fragments
Rock are as small as fine sand grains and no recementation has taken place, crushed rock below
the water table exhibits the properties of a water-bearing sand.
Squeezing slowly advances into the tunnel without perceptible volume increase. A prerequisite for
Rock squeeze is a high percentage of microscopic and sub-microscopic particles of micaceous
minerals or clay minerals with a low swelling capacity.

Swelling rock advances into the tunnel chiefly on account of expansion. The capacity to swell seems
Rock to be limited to those rocks that contain clay minerals such as montmorillonite, with a high
swelling capacity.

2
Downie Slide Drainage Tunnels

•Shallow tunnels
•Disturbed rock mass
•Foliated gneiss & schist

Terzaghi’s Blocky and Seamy

3
Effect of water

Large quantities of water cause problems in tunneling

4
Terzaghi’s intact rock

Lauffer’s Standup time (1958)

● Lauffer (1958) proposed that the stand-up time for

an unsupported span is related to the quality of the
rock mass in which the span is excavated. In a tunnel,
the unsupported span is defined as the span of the
tunnel or the distance between the face and the
nearest support, if this is greater than the tunnel
span. Lauffer's original classification has since been
modified by a number of authors, notably Pacher et al
(1974), and now forms part of the general tunnelling
approach known as the New Austrian Tunnelling
Method.

For hard rocks Standup time is not an issue

5
Deere’s 1969 Rock Quality Designation

Classification schemes for tunnels

After G.Russo, G.S. Kalamaras & P. Grasso, 1998

● geomechanical classes - represent rock mass of

different qualities, characterized by a set of well-
defined geomechanical properties;

● behavior categories - express the deformation

responses of the cavity upon excavation,
corresponding to different combinations of the
geomechanical and in-situ stress conditions

● technical classes - directly associated with the

different project solutions (in terms of typical
sections of excavation and support).

6
Elements of “Modern” Empirical Methods

Rock Mass Rating

RMR = A1+A2+A3+A4+A5 + B
= 0 to 100

Worst to Best
1 to 15% A1 = Uniaxial Strength
3 to 20% A2 = RQD
5 to 20% A3 = Joint Spacing
0 to 30% A4 = Condition of Joints
0 to 15% A5 = Groundwater
0 to -12% B = Joint Orientation

7
Rock Quality Index: Q and Q’
For Characterization
For Tunnel
RQD Jr Jw
Support
Q = Jn x Ja x SRF Q’

RQD = Rock Quality Designation

Jn = Joint Set Number
Jr = Joint Roughness Number
Ja = Joint Alteration Number
Jw = Joint Water Reduction Number
SRF = Stress Reduction Factor

Empirical Rockmass Properties

8
Modified Rockmass Quality Index, Q’

Q’=10

Q’=1000

Q’=0.5 Q’=5

Rock mass Quality and Velocity

9
 Rock Mass Modulus

Note: Based largely on projects at depth

from 0 to 200m

Rock mass Quality and Confined Modulus

After Hutchinson & Diederichs 1996

eg:
Rock-
mass
Modulus
(stiffness)

10
Empirical Stand-up Time Assessment

Rockmass Quality and Critical Span

11
Experience Based Design

eg:from Civil Engineering

Experience

Design Philosophy

Demands an understanding of the failure process.

12
Rock mass strength

Hoek-Brown failure criterion

(developed for confined conditions around tunnels)
σ 1 = σ 3 + mσ cσ 3 + sσ c 2
Intact rock strength
σ1 mi= Lab
s=1

Rock mass
σc strength

σ3

m & s are derived from empirical charts that are m ~ Friction

related to rock mass quality RMR & Q s ~ Cohesion

GSI

Hoek:
“These papers introduced the concept of the
Geological Strength Index (GSI) as a
replacement for Bieniawski’s RMR. It had
become increasingly obvious that
Bieniawski’s RMR is difficult to apply to
very poor quality rock masses and also
that the relationship between RMR and m
and s is no longer linear in these very low
ranges. It was also felt that a system based
more heavily on fundamental geological
observations and less on ‘numbers’ was
needed.”

13
GSI & Hoek-Brown failure envelope
Geological Strength Index
Hoek-Brown
Failure Criterion
a
 σ 
σ 1 = σ 3 + σ ci  mb 3 + s 
 σ ci 
µ ¶
GS I ¡ 100
m b D m i exp
28
µ ¶
GS I ¡ 100
s D exp
9

GSI – mi values – Igneous rocks

14
GSI – mi values – Metamorphic rocks

GSI – mi values – Sedimentary rocks

15
GSI + Block size

How to incorporate “Modes of Failure”

GSI
Classification

Rock mass
Ground Response

16
17
18
19
20
21
SKB’s Site Selection Process

A challenge for Site Characterization

* Depth 0 to 1000 m
* Plan about 2 km2

Sites 1 & 2

Sites 3

22
SKB’s Rock Mechanics Model Project

● How confidently can we predict geological

and geoEngineering information

Example from Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden

● Provide each team with 3 Borehole logs

● Teams were asked to assess:

1. The in-situ stress distribution
2. The Q and RMR distribution
3. The calculated rock mass strength

In a volume of 50 m x 50 m x 150 m

Major Structure

EW-1a

NE-2

EW-1b

NE-1

EW-3

23
Aspo HRL

Drill & Blast

420m level
Spot bolts & Shotcrete
450m level

TBM
No Support

Development of a Fracture Model

24
Discrete Fracture Model
3D Network 2D Network

UDEC Strength
140

120

Vertical stress (MPa)

100

80

60

40
sigy [MPa]

20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Vertical deformation (m)

3D Block modelling

A common software tool in mining:

e.g, Vulcan, Datamine, Surpac, GoCad, etc

Petteri Somervuori
Gridpoint Finland Oy

25
The Major Fracture Zones at Aspo

Target volume

26
Drillhole information

RMR statistics

27
Variogram – RMR along a borehole

Block modelling - inverse distance

28
RMR - kriging interpolation

Kriging variance - smaller close to drillholes

29
Kriging variance versus distance

6
kriging variance

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Average_distance_to_samples (m)

SurPac

30
3Dec

31
Conclusions

● Rock mass characteristics are described

using ranges of values

● Geostatistics hold much promise for

estimating the distribution of rock mass
properties

● Existing software such as Surpac and

GoCad facilitate the development of a
geological model and the associated
GeoEngineering data.

32