Rock Engineering

Practice & Design

Lecture 5:
Kinematic Analysis II
(Underground)

1 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Author’s Note:
The lecture slides provided here are taken from the course
“Geotechnical Engineering Practice”, which is part of the 4th year
Geological Engineering program at the University of British Columbia
(V
(Vancouver, Canada).
C d ) The
Th course covers rock k engineering
i i andd
geotechnical design methodologies, building on those already taken
by the students covering Introductory Rock Mechanics and Advanced
Rock Mechanics.
Mechanics
Although the slides have been modified in part to add context, they
of course are missing the detailed narrative that accompanies any
l
lecture. It is also
l recognizedd that
h these
h lectures
l summarize,
reproduce and build on the work of others for which gratitude is
extended. Where possible, efforts have been made to acknowledge
th vvarious
the ri us ssources,
urc s with
ith a list of
f references
r f r nc s being
b in provided
pr vid d att the
th
end of each lecture.

Errors, omissions, comments, etc., can be forwarded to the

author at: erik@eos.ubc.ca

2 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Underground Instability Mechanisms
When considering different
failure mechanisms
underground, we generally
di i
distinguish
i h b
between those
h
that are primarily
structurally-controlled and
those that are stress
stress-
controlled. Of course some
failure modes are composites
of these two conditions, and
others
th may involve
i l the
th effect
ff t
of time and weathering on
excavation stability.

99)
Marttin et al. (199
3 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Underground Instability Mechanisms

1

Unstable

Wedge

000)
In-Situ
In Situ Stress

Kaisser et al. (20

Stress Path
Relaxation
3
4 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Residual Strength
For the residual strength condition,
condition any cohesion is lost once displacement
has broken the cementing action. Also, the residual friction angle is less
than the peak friction angle because the shear displacement grinds the
minor irregularities
g on the rock surface and p
produces a smoother, lower
friction surface.

5 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Discontinuity Shear Strength - Example
The following tests were obtained in a series of direct shear tests
carried out on 100 mm square specimens of granite containing
clean,, rough,
g , dry
y joints.
j

Direct shear
Di h tests give
i
normal and shear
values which may be
plotted directly.

6 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Discontinuity Shear Strength - Example

Plotting the peak

strength data we can
see th
thatt it takes
t k ththe
form of a bilinear
strength envelope.

7 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Discontinuity Shear Strength - Example

 At higher normal stresses,

however,, these asperities
p
are sheared.

+ i

The initial slope of this

envelope has an apparent
friction angle of (+i).

8 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Discontinuity Shear Strength - Example

 = 30° basic friction angle

Thus…. roughness angle

i = 45°-30° = 15°
+ i = 45
45°

9 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Discontinuity Shear Strength - Example

If we were to repeat
this for the residual
r strength values...

10 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Structurally-
Structurally -Controlled Instability Mechanisms
Structurally-controlled instability means that blocks formed by
discontinuities either fall or slide from the excavation periphery as
a result of the body y forces (usually
y g
gravity)
y enabled byy the
process of excavation. To assess the likelihood of such failures, an
analysis of the kinematic admissibility of potential wedges or
planes that intersect the excavation face(s) can be performed.

97)
arrison (199
Hudson & Ha
11 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Kinematic Analysis – Underground Wedges
The minimum requirement to define a discrete block is four non-
parallel planes, which give rise to a tetrahedral block. In terms of
the instability
y analysis,
y such a block can be formed byy three
discontinuity planes and one plane representing the excavation
periphery. On a hemispherical projection, these blocks may be
identified as spherical triangles where the plane of projection
represents theh excavation
i surface.
f

G n that a tetrahedral block exists,,

Given
there are three kinematic possibilities to

Hudson & Harrrison (1997)

be examined: the block falls from the
roof; the block slides (either along the
line of maximum dip of a discontinuity,
or along the line of intersection of two
discontinuities); or the block is stable.

12 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Analysis of Kinematic Admissibility - Falling
Falling occurs when a block detaches from the roof of an
excavation without sliding on any of the bounding discontinuity
planes. In the case of gravitational loading, the direction of
movementt is
i vertically
ti ll downwards.
d d

This is represented on the

projection as a line with a dip
of 90º, i.e. the centre of the
projection Thus
projection. Thus, if this point

7)
Hudson & Harrrison (1997
falls within the spherical
triangle formed by the
boundingg discontinuities,, falling
g
is kinematically admissible.

H
13 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Analysis of Kinematic Admissibility - Sliding
Kinematic
Ki ti methods
th d usedd to
t analyze
l blocks
bl k sliding
lidi from
f the
th roof,f
either on one discontinuity plane (planar failure) or on a line of
intersection (wedge failure), generally consider the spherical
triangle and whether any part of it has a dip greater than the angle
of friction.
Assuming that each
d
discontinuity plane
l has
h the h
same friction angle, the
sliding direction will occur
along
l n a line
lin off mmaximum
ximum dip
(either that of a plane or a
line of intersection of two
planes) No other part of the
planes).
spherical triangle represents
a line of steeper dip than
these candidates.
Hudson & Harrison (1997)

14 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Analysis of Kinematic Admissibility - Sliding
However, not all lines of maximum dip on a stereonet projection
will be candidates for the sliding direction. Although some
planes/lines of intersection may be dipping at angles greater than
th friction
the f i ti angle,
l sliding
lidi is
i nott kinematically
ki d i ibl if the
ti ll admissible th li
line
of maximum dip is outside the spherical triangle formed by the
intersecting planes (i.e. the wedge).

The
h spherical
ph r ca triangle,
tr ang ,
therefore, represents the
region of kinematically
admissible directions of
movement and any other
direction represents
directions directed into the
Hudson & Harrison (1997)
rock surroundingg the block.

15 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Analysis of Kinematic Admissibility - Sliding

… hence, the shaded blocks

above
b represent
p s nt ((a)) planar
pl n sliding
slidin
along 2; and (b) wedge sliding
along 31.

… of course, if the spherical

triangles fall completely outside the
friction circle,, then the blocks are
identified as being stable.

16 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Geometrical Analysis of Maximum Wedge Volume
Once a series of joint sets have been identified as potentially
forming tetrahedral wedges, several questions may arise as to
whether they will be problematic or not:

in the case of a falling wedge, how much support will be required to

hold it in place (what kind of loads on the added support can be
expected,
p , how dense will the bolting
g pattern
p have to be,, etc.);
);

in the case of a sliding wedge, do the shear stresses arising due to

gravitational forces exceed the shear strength along the sliding
surface,
f i.e.
i provided
id d by
b friction
f i ti and d sometimes
ti cohesion
h i (in(i the
th fform
of intact rock bridges or mineralized infilling), and if so, how much
support will be required to stabilize the block, how dense will the
bolting pattern have to be, etc..

In both cases, the volume/weight of the maximum wedge that may

form is required. This can be determined through further
geometrical
t i l constructions.
t ti

17 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Geometrical Analysis of Maximum Wedge Volume

To calculate the maximum wedge volume:

1) Identify the joint planes/great circles

on the stereonet plot that form the
wedge. In this example, the three
persistent, planar discontinuity sets
have dip directions/dips of: (1) 138/51,
138/51
(2) 355/40, (3) 219/67.

Together, these joints are known to

form wedges within the horizontal,
horizontal
planar roof of an excavation in
sedimentary rock.

The stereonet construction is finished

by drawing lines passing through the
corners of the spherical triangle and
centre of the stereonet.
Priest (1985)

18 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Maximum Wedge Volume

2) On a separate sheet of paper,

construct a scaled plan view, where the
width of the window represents the
width of the excavation. As such, the
analysis will consider the largest block
that could be released from the
excavation roof.
In this particular example, the roof is
025°
rectangular in shape, is 6 m wide, and
has it’s long axis orientated at an
azimuth of 025
025°.
Given that the great circle
representing the horizontal plane
through the tunnel coincides with that
of
f the
h stereonet projection, it is
convenient to construct the window
aligned parallel to the tunnel axis.

19 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

 Maximum Wedge Volume

3) On the scaled window, mark an

arbitrary horizontal reference line
and starting point. For example,
about halfway along the western
margin of the roof.
Inspection of the spherical triangle
in the stereonet plot suggests that
the corner of the face triangle horizontal
reference line
formed by planes 2 and 3 will touch
the western margin of the roof, and
the corner formed by planes 1 and
2 will touch the eastern margin when
the largest possible tetrahedral
block is considered.
As such, the arbitrary reference
point can represent the corner of
the face triangle formed by planes
2 and 3.

20 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

 Maximum Wedge Volume
4) The lines associated with
planes 2 and 3 can now be
added to the window
60°
construction byy counting
g off
ff
the angles between the
horizontal reference line on
the stereonet plot (at 025°)
and the diametral lines for
planes 2 and 3 (striking at
085° and 129°,
respectively).
These angles
an les can then be
transferred to the window 60°
construction and measured
off relative to the starting 2
point and reference line
along the western margin of
the roof.

21 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

 Maximum Wedge Volume
4) The lines associated with
planes 2 and 3 can now be
added to the window
construction byy counting
g off
ff
the angles between the
horizontal reference line on 104°
the stereonet plot (at 025°)
and the diametral lines for
planes 2 and 3 (striking at
085° and 129°,
respectively).
These angles
an les can then be
transferred to the window
construction and measured 104°
off relative to the starting
point and reference line
along the western margin of
the roof. 3

22 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

 Maximum Wedge Volume

5) The point where the line

for plane 2 intersects the
eastern margin
g of the roof
in the window construction
represents the corner of 37°
the face triangle formed
byy planes
p 1 and 2. Thus,
the line for plane 1 can be
added by measuring the
angle between the two
1
planes on the stereonet
p
and transferring it to the 37°
window construction.
The outline/trace of the 2
wedge on the tunnel roof
is now complete.

23 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

 Maximum Wedge Volume

6) The next step is to add the

corner edges
g of the wedge g
to complete the 3-D trace
of the tetrahedron in the
window construction box.
This can be done following a
apex
similar procedure by
transferring the lines of
intersection between the
planes (i.e.
(i e I12, I23, I13)
and their measured angles
from the stereonet to the
window construction.

24 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Maximum Wedge Volume

7) Since this construction can be

completed graphically by overlaying
the stereonet with the window
construction or geometrically by
construction,
measuring the angles off the
stereonet and transferring them
onto the window construction,
several checks can be made to find
any errors that may have arisen.

The final step involving the finding

of the location of the wedge’s
wedge s apex
also gives a valuable check since
the area of the triangle of error apex
formed by these converging lines is

85)
a measure of any imprecision in the

Priest (198
construction.

25 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Maximum Wedge Volume

8) The dimensions of the face triangle

appearing on the excavation surface
can now be scaled off directly from
the construction. It’s area, Af, can
be found by taking any pair of
adjacent sides and their included
angles:

This gives a face area of 10.1 m2.

985)
Priest (19
26 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition
Maximum Wedge Volume
9) The areas of the three internal
block surfaces can be found in a
similar way from the edge lengths
and appropriate internal angles:

985)
Priest (19
… geometrical
properties of a
tetrahedral
h d l block
bl k.

27 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Maximum Wedge Volume

10) To find the volume of the wedge,

the wedge height and the face area
are required. The face area, Af,
h already
has l d been
b found.
f d The
h wedge
d
height, h, is given by:

which for this example problem

comes to 1.47 m.

The volume,
Th l V,
V of f the
th tetrahedral
t t h d l
block is then given as:

985)
Priest (19
resulting in a block volume of
approximately 5 m3.

28 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Maximum Wedge Volume

11) Now assuming a unit weight of 25

kN/m3 for sedimentary rock, the
block would have a weight
g of
approximately 124 kN.
By dividing this value through by
the face area, it can be seen that
a support pressure of only 12.3
12 3
kN/m2, distributed over the face
triangle, would be required to keep
it in place.
This support pressure could, for
example, be provided by rock bolts
anchored beyond the block at a
distance of 2 to 3 m above the
excavation roof.

29 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Key Block Analysis
The underlying axiom of block theory is that the failure of an excavation
begins at the boundary with the movement of a block into the excavated
space. The loss of the first block augments the space, possibly creating
an opportunity
t it f for th
the failure
f il of
f additional
dditi l bl
blocks,
k with
ith continuing
ti i
degradation possibly leading to massive failure.

As such,
such the term key-block
key block identifies any
block that would become unstable when
intersected by an excavation. The loss of a
key-block does not necessarily assure 3
subsequent block failures, but the 2
prevention of its loss does assure stability. 1

Key block theory therefore sets out to

Key-block
establish procedures for describing and
locating key blocks and for establishing
their support requirements.
Goodman & Shi (1995)

30 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Wedge Analysis – Computer
Computer-
-Aided
The 3-D nature of
wedge problems (i.e.
size and shape of
potential wedges in
the rock mass
surrounding an
opening) necessitates
a set off relatively
l l
tedious calculations.
While these can be
performed by hand,
hand
it is far more
efficient to utilise
computer-based
t h i
techniques.

((Rocscience – Unwedge)
g )

31 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Computer-
Computer-Aided Wedge Analysis in Design

The speed of computer-aided

wedge analyses allow them to be
employed
p y within the design
g
methodology as a tool directed
towards "filter analysis". This is
carried out during the preliminary
design to determine whether or
not there are stability issues for
a number of different problem
configurations
g (e.g.
g a curvingg
tunnel, different drifts in the
development of an underground
mine, etc.).

(Rocscience – Unwedge)

32 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Lecture References
Goodman, RE & Shi, GH (1995). Block theory and its application. Géotechnique 45(3): 383-423.
Hoek, E, Kaiser, PK & Bawden, WF (1995). Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Balkema: Rotterdam.
Hudson, JA & Harrison,
Hudson Harrison JP (1997).
(1997) Engineering Rock Mechanics – An Introduction to the Principles .
Elsevier Science: Oxford.
Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, D, Sharpe, J & Steiner, W (2000). Underground works in
hard rock tunnelling and mining. In Proceedings, GeoEng2000, Melbourne. Technomic Publishing:
Lancaster pp.
Lancaster, pp 841-926.
841 926
Martin, CD, Kaiser, PK & McCreath, DR (1999). Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the depth
of brittle failure around tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(1): 136-151.
Priest,, SD ((1985).
) Hemispherical
p Projection
j Methods in Rock Mechanics. George
g Allen & Unwin:
London.

33 of 33 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition