See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303857470

Common Core: Core logging procedures for characterization of complex

rockmasses as input into geomechanical analysis for tunnel design

Article in Tunnels and Tunnelling International · February 2015

CITATIONS READS

5 265

3 authors:

Jennifer J. Day Mark S. Diederichs

Queen's University Queen's University
69 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS 277 PUBLICATIONS 9,837 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

D. Jean Hutchinson
Queen's University
162 PUBLICATIONS 2,695 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer J. Day on 06 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 NORTH AMERICAN EDITION
February ~ March 2015

The official publication of the Tunnelling Association of Canada

EARLY Construction
completed

DELIVERY
on first
tunnel under
the San
Francisco
Bay

TAC AGM r Core logging

001tunNA0215cover.indd 1 29/01/2015 14:31

 T E C HNI C A L / EIS EN S T EIN
COMMON CORE
In an effort to advance
characterization practices
for complex rockmasses,
Jennifer Day, the 2014
Eisenstein Memorial
Scholarship winner, Mark
Diederichs, and Jean
Hutchinson, all of Queen’s
University’s Geological
Sciences and Geological
Engineering department in
Kingston, have developed
and tested several new
core logging procedures
that account for healed
structures that are present
in such rockmasses
R
OCKMASS CHARACTERIZATION
is an essential component
of geotechnical design for
tunnelling infrastructure. Bid-stage
design for tunnels relies heavily
and often exclusively on borehole
characterization for data inputs. The
nature of data collected for conventional
geotechnical characterization of drill
core is often directed by inputs defined
by empirical rockmass classification
systems, such as Q (Barton et al., 1974)
Jennifer Day
Jennifer is a Ph.D. candidate in Geological
Engineering at Queen's University
Mark Diederichs
Mark is a professor and supervises graduate
researchers within the Geomechanics Group
Jean Hutchinson
Jean is the head of the Geological Sciences and
Geological Engineering Department
26 | Tunnels | February ~ March 2015
026_032tunNA0215tac scholar.indd 26
M E M O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP
Geological strength index (GSI)
for jointed blocky rock masses
Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with soft clay
Slickensided, highly weathered surfaces with compact
From the lithology, structure and observed
Smooth, moderately weathered and altered surfaces
discontinuity surface conditions, estimate
Rough, slightly weathered, iron-stained surfaces
the average GSI based on the descriptions
in the row and column headings.
coatings or fillings of angular fragments
Alternatively, from logged RQD values and
Very rough, fresh unweathered, surfaces
joint condition ratings (from Bieniawski,
1989), estimate GSI = 1.5 JCond89+RQD/2
based on the scales attached to the chart axes.
For intact or massive rock with GSI>75, check
for brittle spalling potential. For sparsely jointed
rock with GSI>75, failure will be controlled by
coatings or infillings
Surface conditions
structurally defined blocks or wedges. The
Hoek-Brown criterion should not be used for
either of these conditions.
Very Good
Very Poor
This chart applies to tunnels of about 10m
span and slopes <20m high. For larger caverns
Good
Poor
Fair
and slopes consider reducing GSI to account
for decreasing block interlocking. Decreasing surface quality
40
Blocky - well interlocked
80
undisturbed rock mass made
35
up of cubical blocks formed by
Decreasing interlocking
70
three sets of intersecting joints
Very Blocky - Interlocked,
30
60
partially disturbed rock mass,
multi-faceted angular blocks
25
50
formed by 4 or more joint sets
Scale B
20
Blocky, disturbed/seamy - folded
with angular blocks formed by many
15
intersecting joint sets. Persistence of
30
bedding planes or schistosity
10
Distintegrated - poorly inter-
20
locked, heavily broken rock mass
5
with mixture of angular and rounded
10
rock pieces
0
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Scale A
Above: Figure 1.
The Geological and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1976, 1989). When
Strength Index these systems were introduced, no practical numerical tools
(GSI) chart for routine use were available so design relied on an empirical
process. Since then, numerical modelling has become a very
powerful and ubiquitous design tool. Numerical methods have
grown from their early elastic and homogenous continuum
behaviour to having complex elasto-plastic and fully discrete
capabilities. The advancement of modelling has allowed for
more detailed analyses, including technically challenging
underground excavations in more complex rockmasses, leading
to significant improvements to design practice.
While significant improvements in the level of sophistication
of numerical tools have been achieved, conventional core
logging practices, whose procedural design predates numerical
analysis, have not made similar advancements. Conventional
core logging practices do not capture the sophisticated data
required for numerical input parameters, especially in complex
rockmasses such as nodular sedimentary rock or hydrothermally
altered rock, where the geological features that exert significant
controls on rockmass strength are ignored in common
classification systems.
Geological settings with complex rockmasses contain healed
structures such as nodules and veins that exist within joint-
bounded blocks of traditionally “intact” rock. Previous work
by the authors suggests that these healed or partially healed
www.tunnelsonline.info
30/01/2015 10:44
 EIS E N S T EIN M E M O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP / T E C HNI C A L

Table 1. Detail of tested core logging methods

Data Collected Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4
Drill Run Data
From (m), To (m) x x x x
Core recovery x x x x
Rockmass Data
Strength estimate (R0-R6) X X X X
Subordinate strength estimate X X X
RQD X X X X
Fracture spacing (m) X
Number of fractures X X X
Length of pieces X X X
Number of pieces X X X
Total length X X X
Structural Data
Number of joint sets X X X X
Joint roughness (Jr) X
Joint alteration (Ja) X
Joint condition (Jcond) X
Principal roughness X X X
Secondary roughness X X X
Joint Roughness Coeff. (JRC) X X X
Principal alteration X X X
Secondary alteration X X X
Principal infilling: X X X
type, thickness (mm), quality
To Secondary infilling: X X X
type, thickness (mm), quality
Rock Data
Lithology X X X
Mineralization X X X
Alteration X X X
Phase X X X
Geotechnical unit X X X
Intrablock Structure
Block size mode (cm) 2b X X
Type 2b X X
Strength class (1, 2, 3) X X
Thickness (mm): max, min, X
Alteration halo (type) X
Moh’s hardness X
Orientation Data
Depth (m) 1b* 4b**
Alpha (degrees) 1b* 4b**
Beta (degrees) 1b* 4b**
Source: Authors
*For interblock structure, **For interblock & intrablock structure

structures (termed intrablock structure) within joint-bounded previously proposed methods to estimate
blocks (where the joints are the interblock structure) have a the strength of a rockmass that contains
significant impact on rockmass strength. The authors have both interblock and intrablock structure:

www.tunnelsonline.info February ~ March 2015 | Tunnels | 27

026_032tunNA0215tac scholar.indd 27 30/01/2015 10:44

 T E C HNI C A L / E IS EN S T EIN M EM O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP

at the structural scale using GSI (Day 250

Generalized Hoek-Brown Criterion (Hoek et al. 2002)
et al. 2012a, 2012b), and at the intact
drill core scale using intact strength
parameters (Day et al. 2013b). 200
In an effort to advance rockmass

(MPa)
characterization practices for complex
rockmasses, the authors have developed

1
150
and tested several new core logging

Major principal stress,

procedures that account for healed
structures that are present in such
rockmasses. 100
When compared to conventional Intact (GSI=100)
methods, there are increasing amounts GSI interblock only (59)
of detail in the recorded data for 50
Composite GSI* (54)
each method. Data from several drill
Conventional GSI (39)
core sections is used to discuss the
implications of each method in terms of 0
level of detail, logging time, and cost. -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Minor principal stress, (MPa)
An example of a 15m section of core in 3

nodular sedimentary limestone is used

in this paper to illustrate the applicable
core logging methods in the context of
numerical models of a nuclear waste
storage excavation.
INCLUDING INTRABLOCK
STRUCTURE IN ROCKMASS
CHARACTERIZATION
The method developed for GSI
in complex rockmasses in Day et
al. (2012b) is summarized here,
as applied to the linearized and
quantified GSI chart by Hoek et al.
(2013). Conventional use of the GSI
system dictates that when evaluating
a rockmass that contains interblock
and intrablock structure, the worst
cases from each block size and joint
condition ranking should be combined
to give an overall GSI value for the
rockmass. Using the hypothetical
example shown in Figure 1, the
combination of the interblock structure
(square) and intrablock structure
(diamond) would give a conventional
worst case GSI value of 39 (white
circle). This method has been shown
Above: Figure in field observations to underestimate the rockmass strength
2. Generalized and a new method is proposed here which calculates a more
Hoek-Brown realistic GSI value, Composite GSI (GSI*), for a rockmass that
(Hoek et al. contains both interblock and intrablock structure, of 54 as
2002) strength shown by the green circle in Figure 1.
envelopes The effect of GSI values on the Hoek-Brown strength
reflecting the envelopes for the hypothetical cases shown on the GSI chart
various GSI in Figure 1 is shown in Figure 2, as well as the equations for
ratings for the the Hoek-Brown strength criterion.
hypothetical In the updated GSI chart by Hoek et al. (2013), GSI values
example can be determined quantitatively by summing the two linear
scales representing the discontinuity surface conditions
Below: Figure 3. (scale A) and the interlocking of rock blocks defined by these
Classification intersecting discontinuities (scale B) (see Figure 1).
of rock sample
failure mode (1)
during testing
(modified after According to Hoek et al. (2013), scale A can be estimated
Marambio et al. using the 4th Factor for Joint Condition (JCond76 or JCond89)
(1999)). in Bieniawski’s RMR classification (Bieniawski 1976; 1989) or
Joint Roughness (Jr) and Joint Alteration (Ja) from Barton’s
Q classification (Barton et al. 1974), as shown in Equation
(2). Likewise, scale B can be estimated using the Rock Quality
Designation (RQD) by Deere (1963) as in Equation (3). Scale B
can also be estimated using the quantified GSI chart by Cai et
al. (2004), as shown in Equation (4).

(2)
Failure mode:
(a) Failure (c) Failure (3)
through the through
rock several veins (4)

The new Composite GSI method for intrablock structure

is described below with Equations (5) to (7). For a rockmass
(b) Failure (d) Failure containing multiple, distinct suites of structure, an effective
across the across only block size B* can be calculated from the individual spacings for
rock and vein one vein each discontinuity set, while a weighted composite value for A*
can be obtained considering the relative contribution of each
structural set to rockmass integrity.
In Equations (5) and (6), A1, B1 apply to the first system
(e.g. a clean, rough set of interblock structure), A2, B2
apply to the second system (e.g. an infilled, smooth set of

28 | Tunnels | February ~ March 2015 www.tunnelsonline.info

 EIS E N S T EIN ME M O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP / T E C HNI C A L

of intact samples with and without it

300 Lab test data Intact peak Intact residual Intrablock peak
should be selected for laboratory testing
Intrablock M-C Intrablock M-C residual Intrablock H-B residual
in order to more accurately capture the
rockmass behaviour. CODELCO-Chile
El Teniente Division has addressed this
250
issue by developing a methodology to
include intrablock structure in laboratory
testing (Marambio et al. 1999), shown
Peak Intact H-B
(MPa)

200 Peak Intrablock M-C in Figure 3. Here, intrablock structure is

UCS=113MPa
t =3.9MPa recognized as a main contributor to rock
mi =17 cpeak =13MPa
1

s=1
peak =41º
strength and geotechnical data for the
Major principal stress,

a=0.4 different failure modes provides a more

GSI=100 Peak Intrablock H-B
150 UCS=54MPa, mi =14 comprehensive understanding of rock
B
s=1, a=0.5 t H- properties for numerical design.
GSI=100 a l I ntac 50
du I=
Resi d on GS
base INCORPORATING
B
100
t rablo
ck H- INTRABLOCK STRUCTURE
In
ua l
Resid on GSI=5
0 INTO CORE LOGGING
based Four core logging procedures with
50
increasing levels of data capture were
Residual Intrablock M-C
t=0MPa, cres=0.5MPa, res=32º
developed to compare the effectiveness
of the data collected in each for
In situ stress geotechnical design decisions (Day et
0 al. 2014). The methods were tested
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 using drill core in a hydrothermally
Minor principal stress, 3 (MPa) altered porphyry deposit in northern
Chile, as well as exploration boreholes
interblock structure), An, Bn apply to the nth system (e.g. Above: Figure in a magmatic Ni-Cu sulphide deposit
intrablock structure). This method becomes a powerful tool for 4. Peak and at an active mine in Sudbury, Canada.
rockmasses that contain multiple, distinct systems of structure, residual strength Data for each logging method was
because each structure can be considered individually before envelopes for collected from drill core sections each
being combined into a single value that describes the entire intact rock (H-B) measuring 20m long.
rockmass (Day et al. 2013a). In this scenario, any number and intrablock The four logging methods and sub-
of structures (e.g. third, fourth, nth) can be included in the structure (H-B methods are described as follows, and
calculations. For Composite GSI (GSI*): converted to M-C) outlined detail in Table 1.
used in models.
Peak intact ■ Method 1: Traditional classification
(5) \ strength envelope for empirical design (Q and RMR
is a regression systems), for basic numerical models
fit from tensile, ((1a) unoriented and (1b) oriented
UCS and triaxial core);
(6) test data, and ■ Method 2: (2a) State of practice
peak intrablock geotechnical logging (based on
(7) strength is the method used by GeoBlast in
the minimum Chile), plus (2b) basic information
Incorporating intrablock structure into lab testing boundary of the about intrablock structure (veins in
Intrablock structure is typically ignored by geotechnical loggers lab test data unoriented core only);
because they are generally trained only to assess fractures. ■ Method 3: Method 2a for interblock
Moreover, to follow conventional strength testing guidelines, structure plus moderate detail
intact samples containing intrablock structure are deliberately of intrablock structure (veins in
excluded as much as possible from laboratory strength testing. unoriented core only);
In a rockmass with pervasive healed structure, selecting ■ Method 4: Method 2a for interblock
the few intact samples without intrablock structure is not structure plus high detail of
representative of the rockmass. Instead, intrablock structure intrablock structure for extremely
should be included in geotechnical core logging and a variety detailed numerical models ((4a)
unoriented and (4b) oriented core).
Table 2. Relative logging times (normalized to method 1)
The block size measurement of
Core Logging Method Unoriented Oriented
intrablock structure is an assessment of
1. Conventional: Q+RMR 1 3.2 spacing between veins. Only veins that
2. State of practice 1.2 3.5 are visible around the full circumference
of the drill core are included. The
3. Method 2 + basic veins 1.9 4.2 measurement is systematically taken
4. Method 2 + detailed veins 2.1 11.9 from the top inflection point of the vein
around the outside of the drill core in
Source: Authors
order to avoid double counting veins.

www.tunnelsonline.info February ~ March 2015 | Tunnels | 29

026_032tunNA0215tac scholar.indd 29 30/01/2015 10:44

 T E C HNI C A L / E IS EN S T EIN M E M O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP

The type of intrablock structure recorded

refers to mineralogical composition.
The types of veins are classified by Homogeneous GSI
strength (“Strength Class”) based on a equivalent continuum
qualitative assessment of mineralogy
and the quality of the bond between FEM elements (red)
Discrete fracture network
the vein and the wall rock. This becomes JJoints (black)
important for vein mineralogies that can
be rockmass strengthening (e.g. quartz),
but only if the bond to the wall rock is Excavation
very good and the vein and wall rock
Excavated Veins (purple)
appear fused together.
The thickness, alteration halo (if
present), and Moh’s hardness rating each
provide additional information about the
intrablock structure.
The logging methods from 1 to 4
consider increasing amounts of data, but
take increasing time to complete (see
Table 2). Measuring orientation data (as Major principal stress, 1(MPa) Total displacement (m) Yield mesh elements
in methods 1b and 4b) adds a significant
amount of time to the logging process.
The relative data collected and the time
required to log are significant decision
making factors regarding schedule
and budget for any project, and it is -8.5
0
important to understand the added 27.5 0.02
0.05
benefit (if any) of each piece of data 63.5
0.07
that is included in the core logging 99.5 0.09
0.1
procedure to the subsequent design 135.5
0.14
process. 171.5 0.16

To put the importance of logging

time into context, two examples of
current industry core logging times and
cost that are quoted for contracts are
as follows: a North American consulting
company quotes USD 120-160 per Top: Figure 5. method (FEM) software, Phase2 (Rocscience, 2013b). The
hour for core logging projects with an (left) Schematic excavation was modelled in two different rockmasses defined
estimated rate of 40m per 10-hour day of the general and by input data from the applicable core logging methods, 1 and
(~USD 30-40/m) for oriented core and idealized model 3, discussed above. While the intact rock properties and in-situ
100m per 10-hour day (~USD 12-16/m) geometry used stresses remain constant, the types, geometries, and strength
for unoriented core. A typical Chilean for all models. properties of the rockmass structure vary.
consulting company quotes USD 15 to (right) Detail of a
65 per meter, depending on contracts, composite FEM Model setup
with an estimated rate of 30-50m per model. This idealized repository excavation example was assumed to
day (mix of oriented and unoriented be approximately 500m deep and in an in-situ stress state
core). Based on these estimates, costs of Above: Figure 6. with ratios of 2:1 ( H: v) and 1.6:1 ( h: v). The intact strength
core logging can range from USD 12,000 Major principal properties for the rock material represent a nodular argillaceous
to USD 65,000/km. If the logging rate stress, total
decreases due to collection of more displacement, Table 3. Intact rock properties
detailed data, the core logging costs and yielded
element results Generalized Hoek-Brown
could easily exceed USD 100,000/km. Peak Residual
for all models. Parameters
IMPLICATIONS OF DATA INPUT Unit weight (MN/m3) 0.026 N/A
FOR NUMERICAL MODELS Intact Young’s Modulus (GPa) 40 N/A
To apply the core logging methods
and test the design implications in Poisson’s Ratio 0.3 N/A
a sedimentary geological setting, a Unconfined Compressive 113 N/A
numerical analysis of a proposed tunnel Strength, ci (MPa)
section in an underground repository mi / mb 17 2.85
for high level nuclear waste (HLW)
s 1 0.0039
storage was conducted. Input data was
based on a 15m drill core section of a a 0.4 0.506
nodular limestone. Numerical models of GSI 100 50
the tunnel with vertical canister storage
Source: Authors
were created using the finite element

30 | Tunnels | February ~ March 2015 www.tunnelsonline.info

026_032tunNA0215tac scholar.indd 30 30/01/2015 10:44

 EIS E N S T EIN
Table 4. Interblock and intrablock properties (peak / residual)
Structure type Subvertical joints
Average spacing (m) 13
Normal stiffness (MPa/m) 16,000
Shear stiffness (MPa/m) 12,000
Tensile strength (MPa) - 0.01 / 0
Cohesion (MPa) - 0.05 / 0
Friction angle (°) - 26 / 24
Joint Wall Compressive 55
Strength, JCS
Joint Roughness Coefficient, JR 10
Residual friction angle, r 31
Source: Authors
limestone and are based on published values (NWMO 2011) as
shown in Table 3. The peak strength values were selected based
on a linear regression fit from tensile, Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS), and triaxial laboratory test data, as shown in
Figure 4. Rockmass parameters are specified using the GSI and
Hoek-Brown (H-B) approach (Hoek et al. 2002). Alternatively
the strength envelopes can be simplified to equivalent linear
Mohr-Coulomb envelopes (M-C).
A schematic of the general model geometry and boundary
conditions for both models is shown in Figure 5.
The geometry and properties of structures in the discrete
fracture network, and the corresponding GSI value in the
References
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering
classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock
Mech., Vol. 6: p189-236.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock
engineering. In Exploration for rock engineering, Proc. of the
Symp., Cape Town (Ed. Bieniawski), Balkema,1: 97-106.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classifications. New
York: Wiley.
Cai, M., P.K. Kaiser, H. Uno, Y. Tasaka, and M. Minami. 2004.
Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus and strength of
jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 41: 3-19.
Day, J. J., Hutchinson, D. J., and Diederichs, M. S. 2014.
Challenges in characterization of complex rockmasses, using drill
core, as input into geomechanical analysis for tunnel design. World
Tunnel Congress 2014 – Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
Day, J.J., Diederichs, M.S., and Hutchinson, D.J. 2013a.
Incorporation of geostructural data into discrete analysis for
tunnel design. World Tunnel Congress 2013 Geneva, Switzerland.
Day, J.J., Duran, F.I., Diederichs, M.S., and Hutchinson,
D.J. 2013b. Accounting for rockmass structure in open pit and
underground mine design. 47th U.S. Rock Mech. Symposium,
ARMA, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Day, J.J., Hutchinson, D.J., and Diederichs, M.S. 2012a. A critical
look at geotechnical classification for rock strength estimation.
46th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, ARMA, Chicago, IL, USA.
Day, J.J., Walton, G., Diederichs, M.S., and Hutchinson, D.J.
2012b. The influence of structure on rockmass strength at depth.
22nd National Conference of the Tunnelling Association of
Canada, Montreal, QC, Canada.
www.tunnelsonline.info
026_032tunNA0215tac scholar.indd 31
ME M O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP / T E C HNI C A L
Bedding Itrablock nodules
1.5 0.1
35,000 40,000
10,000 20,000
3.9 / 0
13 / 0.5
41 / 32
homogenous equivalent continuum,
vary between models. The continuum
section of the model is included to
lessen the computation time required
for the models and was calculated
using the Composite GSI approach for
the applicable suites of interblock and
intrablock structure.
Joint and vein properties
The model based on logging method 1
only considers interblock structure: joints
Deere, D. U. 1963. Technical description of rock cores for
engineering purposes Felsmechanik und Ingenieurgeologie (Rock
Mechanics and Engineering Geology), 1 (1): 16-22.
Goodman, R.E. 1968. Effect of joints on the strength of tunnels -
research on rock bolt enforcement. Technical Report No. 5, Omaha
District, Corps of Engineers.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-Brown
failure criterion – 2002 Edition. Proc. NARMS-TAC 2002, Mining
Innovation and Technology. Toronto, Canada. pp. 267-273.
Hoek, E., Carter, T. & Diederichs, M. S., 2013. Quantification of
the Geological Strength Index Chart. San Francisco, CA, USA, 47th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA.
Lan, H., Martin, C.D., and Hu, B. 2010. Effect of heterogeneity
of brittle rock on micromechanical extensile behaviour during
compression loading. J. Geophys. Res., 115, B01202.
Marambio, F, Pereira, J & Russo, A 1999, 'Comportamiento
Estudio Propiedades Geotécnicas Proyecto Pipa Norte', Internal
report SGL-280/1999 of the Superintendence Geology, CODELCO-
Chile El Teniente Division [in Spanish].
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). 2011.
Geosynthesis. NWMO DGR-TR-2011-11.
Pitts, M. and Diederichs, M.S. 2011. The effect of joint condition
and block volume on GSI and rockmass strength estimation. 14th
Pan-Am. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng., CGS, Toronto,
Canada.
Read, J. and Stacey, P. 2009. Guidelines for Open Pit Slope
Stability. Australia: CSIRO.
Rocscience Inc. 2013b. Phase2 Version 8.014 – Finite Element
analysis for excavations and slopes. www.rocscience.com, Toronto,
Canada.
February ~ March 2015 | Tunnels | 31
30/01/2015 12:36
 REINFORCEMENT IN SHOTCRETE × ROADWAYS

At EPC, we’ve built our reputation on the strength of our

people and on the quality of our products, which have been
tried and tested by major corporations and engineering
experts worldwide.
T E C HNI C A L / E IS EN S T EIN M E M O RI A L S C H O L A R S HIP
BarChip macro synthetic fibre has replaced steel fibre in over
60 major tunnelling projects around the world for road, rail
and water infrastructure. Including;
and bedding. The selection
Caldicott Road of stiffness
Tunnel - USA intrablock structure allows the rockmass to accommodate more
and strength
Devils Slide Road Tunnel -aided
properties was USA by displacement. Rockbolt design for this excavation example
information in Read and Stacey (2009)
The Helsinki West Metro - Finland
and Pitts and Diederichs (2011), and the
Atlantic Subsea Road Tunnel - Norway
values are shown in Table 4.
VISIT US AT RETC 2013
based on the conventional logging approach, method 1, may
underestimate the length required for rockbolts to be effective,
if the real rockmass behaviour is closer to that with intrablock
The model based on method 3
WWW.ELASTOPLASTIC.COM
contains both interblock and intrablock
BOOTH 1802
structure.
Overall, these models show that different levels of structural
structure. The intrablock stiffness detail, associated with different levels of core logging
properties were selected with help resolution in terms of data depth and breadth, produce
from Goodman (1968), and strength significant variations in predicted rockmass response around an
properties of the intrablock structure excavation.
were selected as the lower bound
World’s
World’’s Leader
Leade
er in
regression fit of laboratory testing data, DESIGN IMPLICATIONS
as shown in Figure 4. The numerical example of a deep underground repository
Underground Grouting
The intrablock structure was modelled Serving
excavation discussed Your
in thisComplete
paper shows that Packer
the input Needs
data

Equipment
explicitly using Voronoi joint networks,
which create polygonal shapes with high
based on different core logging methods has a significant
• Inflatable Packers:
influence on the results of rockmass behaviour.
angularity and in an irregular pattern, Pressure
Conventional Grout,
logging Wireline,
methods Water
which Well,only
consider Environmental,
and are widely accepted for modelling For 1.5” I.D. to 13” I.D. + Hole Diameter
interblock structure were compared to methods developed
microstructures in rock (e.g. Lan et al.
Cable 2010).
& Rock Bolts
• authors
by the that consider
Mechanical both interblock and intrablock
Packers
structure.
The Call usthese
detail of with all your
logging methods,packer questions!!
from traditional
Void Fillings
Void FEM numerical model results Toll Free: 1-888-572-2537
rockmass classification parameters to current state of practice
Several observations can be made from conventional logging and detailed intrablock data in oriented
Waterpr
theoofing
Waterproofing
models representing each of the Fax:but
core, increases significantly, 253-770-0327
the time required for logging
core logging methods 1 and 3. Detailed also increases.
Shaft views
Sealing
of the model results, in terms of Email:
While info@QSPPackers.com
the models discussed in this paper show that
the maximum principal stress ( 1), total or visit
greater detail our WEB
in logging results SITE:
in more geologically accurate
displacement, and yielded mesh elements numericalwww.QSPPackers.com
models, there are consequences for the cost and
are shown in Figure 7. schedule of a project.
There is a significant increase in total Further analysis of the core logging data that was collected
displacement around the excavation Prompt
by the authors is neededShipping
to makein US & International
recommendations for a
when intrablock structure is included in balance of detail gainedUsually in just
and time spentone
thatday!
is necessary for
the models since the weaker planes of accurate and useful geotechnical design

www.tunnelsonline.info
Visit us at RETC
Underground Heavy
Equipment Rentals
Kevin McDowell

Booth
…the #411
#411
ultimate tunnelling resource B. McDowell Equipment Limited
2018 Kingsway Blvd.
Sudbury, Ontario
Canada P3B 4J8
Bus: +1 (705) 566-8190
Making grouting profitable for over 50 ye
years
ears Fax: +1 (705) 566-6401
E-mail: sales@bmcdowell.com

www.chemgrout.com
www
w.chemgrout.com
.chemgrout.coom www.bmcdowell.com

708.354.7112

32 | Tunnels | February ~ March 2015 www.tunnelsonline.info

026_032tunNA0215tac
View publication stats scholar.indd 32 30/01/2015 12:37