mehanika stijena-dostignuća i aktualni problemi - · pdf filerock mechanics-achievements and...
TRANSCRIPT
Rock mechanics-achievements and current problems Mehanika stijena-dostignuća i aktualni problemi
Prof. em. Ivan Vrkljan
Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Rijeka President of Croatian Geotechnical Society ISRM Vice President at Large (2011-2015)
Foundation of the ISRM Some of actual rock mechanics and rock
engineering problems - Rock behaviour characterisation - In situ stress and residual stress in intact rock - What is the Strength of a Rock Mass?
Rock mechanics position in Eurocode 7 Polemics in rock mechanics community Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM Conclusions
Content
Foundation of the ISRM
Geology Engineering geology Rock mechanics
Malpasset, 1958 450 people were killed
Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized
Critical mass of knowledge about the behavior of rock masses have been reached.
Technologies of excavation and stabilization have begun to significantly affect on the rock engineering and rock mechanics.
The hardline of experts in the field of soil mechanics that rock mechanics should be developed within the soil mechanics.
Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized
For rock mechanics recognition, next circumstances are specially important:
Bjerrum, Terzaghi i Casagrande, august, 1957. (ISSMFE officers)
Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized
1910-1964: 60 slides were recorded in cuts along the Panama canal. These slides were predominantly controlled by structural
discontinuities. 1936: Karl Terzaghi on the first international conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in 1936 : ‘The catastrophic slopes of the deepest cut of the Panama Canal showed that we were overstepping the limits of our ability to predict the consequences of our actions ....’
The early 1960s were very important in the development of rock engineering world-wide.
Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized
Panama Canal
Circumstances in which the rock mechanics has been recognized
Müller officially registered the ISRM with the name
„Internationale Gesellschaft für Felsmechanik“ Correspondence between Bjeruma, as Vice ISSMFE President,
shows that Müller registered Society only when Terzaghi gave his consent.
Terzaghi was Müller’s professor and he wanted that new Society to be born with his agreement.
Müller and ISMFE leadership wished that two Societies have a close collaboration.
Foundation of the ISRM
ISRM Constitutional Meeting, Salzburg, 25 May 1962. Voting.
Foundation of the ISRM
ISRM Constitutional Meeting, Salzburg, 25 May 1962. Head table with Müller and Pacher
Foundation of the ISRM
Prof. Josef Stini Engineering geol.
(1993-1958)
Prof. L. Müller Rock mechanics
(1908-1988)
Prof. Karl von Terzaghi Soli mechanics
(1883-1963) It is truly remarkable that the founders of the disciplines of Engineering
geology, Soil mechanics and Rock mechanics - each now represented by International Society were all from Austria.
Foundation of the ISRM
ISRM 50-years anniversary celebrations
started in October 2011 in Beijing, had a peak during the Eurock2012 in Stockholm, and finish in October 2012 during the 61st Geomechanics
Colloquy in Salzburg, the same city where it was formed in 1962.
The celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the ISRM
ISRM 50th Anniversary Commemorative Book 1962-2012
A number of activities took place during this year of celebrations, among which the publication of the
ISRM 50-years anniversary celebrations
Salzburg, 2012. Dr Franz Pacher, the only living member of the ISRM founders
ISRM 50-years anniversary celebrations
Leopold Müller Award
The award is made once every four years in recognition of distinguished contributions to the profession of rock mechanics and rock engineering
Prof. Leopold Müller
Evert Hoek CANADA, 1991
Neville Cook USA, 1995
Herbert Einstein USA 1999
Charles Fairhurst USA, 2003
Ted Brown AUSTRALIA, 2007
Nick Barton UN KINGDOM , 2011
Leopold Müller Award Recipients of the Müller Award
John A. Hudson UN KINGDOM , 2014
John Hudson
John Franklin
• More than 50 Suggested methods have been published • 18 ISRM commission and 3 Joint Technical Committee are active
ISRM Suggested Methods
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
SUGGESTED METHODS are NOT standards They are explanations of recommended procedures to follow in the various aspects of rock characterisation, testing and monitoring. However, the SMs can be used as standards on a particular project if required, but they are intended more as guidance.
ISRM Suggested Methods
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM Suggested Methods are presented with standardized formats, each of which has the following contents: (1) Introduction and history of the suggested method, (2) Scope, (3) Apparatus, (4) Procedure, (5) Calculations, (6) Reporting, (7) Final credits, (8) Acknowledgments, and (9) References.
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM Suggested Methods
1981 edited by E.T. Brown Rock characterization, testing & monitoring
Yellow Book
The first collection of the Suggested Methods of the ISRM was edited by Professor Ted Brown and published by Pergamon Press in 1981.
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM Suggested Methods
Editors: R. Ulusay and J.A. Hudson. The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974-2006 40 methods
Blue Book
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM Suggested Methods
Free for ISRM members!
Orange Book
Editor, R. Ulusay SMs 2007 – 2014.
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
21 separate new and upgraded ISRM Sms
ISRM Suggested Methods
Online lecture
The ISRM Online Lecture series was launched in 2013. Every three months, experts in different fields of rock mechanics were invited to give a lecture on a specific topic.
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
ISRM ISRM President 2015-2019. Dr. Eda Freitas de Quadros, Brazil
First woman as president of ISRM or ISSMGE in 75 years
ISRM achievements of the past 50 years
The aim of FedIGS The aim of FedIGS is enhance cooperation between international geo-engineering societies.
FedIGS
The three founding sister societies are
1. ISSMGE (International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering),
2. IAEG (International Association for Engineering Geology) and
3. ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics).
More recently
4. IGS (The International Geosynthetics Society) joined the group
and others are being invited to join.
FedIGS
The current position of the FedIGS
FedIGS operates at low level of activity without secretarial assistance and with only 3 JTC’s. (Joint Technical Committee)
JTC1 - Natural Slopes and Landslides JTC2 - Representation of Geo-Engineering Data JTC3 - Education and Training
FedIGS
The historic meeting of the Presidents of the sister Societies in Lisbon where it was decideed in principle FedIGS (2007)
FedIGS
Some of actual rock mechanics and
rock engineering problems
We have a wide range applications to the rock mechanics and the design in rock engineering.
We deal with natural material.
Different behaviour of same rock in different conditions.
Actual problems
We are faced with several problems:
Wide range of applications
• Foundation, • Slope, • Tunnel, • Mine (underground and open pit), • Geothermal energy, • Petroleum engineering, • Waste disposal.
Actual problems
Rock mass is natural material
• Discontinuous • Inhomogeneous • Anisotropic • Not Elastic
acronim: DIANE
Rock is unlike many other artificial materials, like concrete or steel, or soil, mainly due to discontinuous character.
• Pre loaded
Actual problems
We deal with deformed and fractured rock It is important to understand the sequence of fracturing Modeling and design techniques require structural geology information
to be explicitly included in computer model
Rock mechanics and structural geology
Actual problems
Past FUTURE Structural Geology
Interpretation of natural processes that have created the rock structures we see today
Prediction of natural geohazards, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslips
Rock Mechanics Interpretation of past engineering practice: past successes, and past failures
Prediction of the rock mass response to engineering perturbations
Hudson 2012, Beijing
Rock mechanics and structural geology subject of interest
Actual problems
Natural fracture Artificial fracture
Rock slabbing and spalling
Actual problems
Different behavior of the same rock around shallow and deep tunnels
Garvity induced failure Failure controlled by rock mass structure
Stress induced failure causing slabbing and spalling, sqeezing
Actual problems
Gravity induced behavior – discontinuity controlled blocks Mechanism: gravity induced failing, sliding or rotating of blocks into the excavation, along discontinuities with potential for local shear failure.
Important parameters:
• number, orientation and distance of discontinuities or degree of fracturing, • waviness, • roughness persistence, • tension and shear strength in general, • strength and deformability of the rock material, • water pressure, • primary stress conditions.
Actual problems
Stress induced behavior Mechanism: the loading of the rock mass due to secondary stresses around the excavation exceeds the rock mass strength.
Important parameters:
deformation and strength parameters of intact rock, discontinuities and rock mass.
Goricki
Actual problems
Squeezing Shear failure mode
Spalling, slabbing High uniaxial stress
Stress induced behavior
σ3=O
Actual problems
Different behavior of the same rocks in the vicinity of the excavation
1- Uniaxial stress
1 2- Traiaxial stress
2 3- Tensile stress
3
Actual problems
Axial strain εax
σax
Ductile
Brittle
Traiaxial test
σ1
σ1
σ3
σ3
σ3
σ3
Deformability and strength in function of the lateral pressure
Confining pressure increasing
σ3= 0
σ3≠0
σ3≠0
σ3≠0
Actual problems
“True” rock behaviour – a primary geomechanics challenge
Rock behaviour characterisation
Geological data collection
Laboratory and in situ testing
Rock mass characterization and classification (Q, RMR, GSI, joint properties, in situ stress, water, …)
Selection of excavation and support alternatives
Numerical methods
Empirical methods
Gravity-driven failure
Stress-driven failure
Excavation and support design
Rock mass behaviour ?
Rock mass behaviour ?
Rock mass behaviour ?
Rock mass behaviour ?
Site characterisation approach for standard geo-engineering projects
Kaiser and Kim, 2008.
Rock behaviour characterisation
Peter Kaiser, Canada
From shallow to deep tunnelling, costly mistakes can be made because the rock behaviour may change and the rock may behave in an unexpected manner. Rock may behave differently when unconfined (near an excavation) or when confined (in the core of a pillar). Hence, it is not sufficient to just provide a geological and a rock mass model; it is necessary to translate the knowledge gained from geological to rock mass and then to rock behaviour models.
Rock behaviour characterisation
Rock behaviour models
Geological model
Rock mass model
Rock behaviour
model
Site characterization
?
Kaiser:
Distinction by failure or behaviour mode is often ignored or even misrepresented by the chosen numerical model. Almost exclusively, the most commonly recognised behaviour modes are related to shear failure; either along block boundaries or through the rock mass. The effects of tensile failure or spalling are rarely anticipated and correctly modelled, and thus not properly described.
Distinction by failure or behaviour mode is very importnt!
Rock behaviour characterisation
Distinction by failure mode
Kaiser:
axial strain εax
σax Before failure After failure
Failure envelopes are smooth forms (linear and nelienaran)
Simultaneously mobilisation of cohesion nad friction
c+ σtanΦ Is this approach correct? Observations show that it IS NOT!
c+= φστ tan
5,0'3'
3'1 1
++=
ciici mσσσσσ
σ
τ (σ1)
(σ3)
Failure criterion Rock behaviour characterisation
p'
q'
1,5% εax
4% εax
7,5% εax 12% εax
0,75% εax
Transition from a cohesive to a
frictional yield mode (Schmertman i Osterberg, 1960.)
the frictional strength component dominates at large strains and high confinement.
the cohesive strength component dominates at low strains and at low confinement (p’)
Bi-linear failure envelope of over-consolidated clays
Rock behaviour characterisation
σ 1/ σ
c
σ3/σc
Tension
Axial splitting
Triaxial state (shear failure)
S-shaped failure criteria
much beter describes the behavior of rock
mass in situ
Intact rock strength
Spalling failure
In situ strength
Deamage threshold
Rock behaviour characterisation
Kaiser, 2008.
tensile type failure shear type failure
Rock behaviour characterisation
Triaxial tests
H-B criterion
Failure criterion of limestone
Faculty of civil engineering Rijeka
0,1 UCS
ACS UCS
σ3
σ1
GSI=50
Spalling limit σ1/ σ3~10
GSI=100 Intact rock
Rock behaviour characterisation
tensile type failure shear type failure
c+= φστ tan
Cohesion + friction
Cohesion than friction
a
cibci sm
++=
σσσσσ
'3'
3'1
Rock behaviour characterisation
Mohr-Coulomb
Hoek & Brown
τ
σ
τ
σ
In more general terms, the fundamental shear strength equation with strain-independent parameters
τ = c +σ ' tanφ is not applicable over the entire confinement range for brittle rocks and thus may be misleading when applied to rock mechanics problems.
Rock behaviour characterisation
Kaiser P.K., 2010, How highly stressed brittle rock failure impacts tunnel design, Eurock-2010-Laussane, Switzerland, p.p. 27-38.
Kaiser:
Barton was interviewed by Vrkljan during Barton's stay in Croatia from 1 to 6 June 2011.
“Conventional continuum modelling with ‘c plus σ’ tan φ’ (linear or non-linear) does not describe rock mass baviour good enough. So all the ‘colour’ in consultants and students appendices showing ‘plastic zones’ are actually better omitted, until a general improvement of method is adopted ‘c than σ’ tan φ’ (degrade cohesion and mobilize friction at different strains)”.
Rock behaviour characterisation
In situ stress and residual Stresses in the Intact Rock
World Stress Map, 2008 (Tectonic scale and regional stresses)
In-situ Rock Stress
In engineering practice, we have little benefit from this map because we operate in a small area (site scale).
Tectonic scale and regional stresses Site scale Excavation scale Borehole/measurement scale Microscopic scale
In-situ Rock Stress
Scale effect on the in-situ stress
Principal stresses are parallel and perpendicular to the free surface.
Principal stresses are locally parallel and perpendicular to the fracture surface.
Geological effect- rock fracture will change the orientation and size of the principal stress
The Influence of a free face Engineering effect- excavation surfaces
Rock mass
Fracture
σ1 σ3
σ1 σ3
In-situ Rock Stress
The Influence of a free face
In-situ Rock Stress
2
3
1 2
3
1
The Influence of a free face
In-situ Rock Stress
Hermosillo, Mexico
The Influence of a free face
In-situ Rock Stress
Cracks in concrete
Carrara marble quarries in Italy
Residual stresses
Finlandia City Hall, Helsinki (2001). The new marble panels clearly bowed in less than 1 year after the old marble panels had been replaced. Almost all of the old panels were bowing concave, however the new panels bow convex! In both cases the marble type was a Carrara marble.
Hudson, 2009
Residual stresses
ZAGREB - Croatia Carrara marble
Residual stresses
ZAGREB - Croatia Carrara marble
Residual stresses
What is the Strength of a Rock Mass?
Müller and Pacher, were interviewed the same day when ISRM has been founded on a Salzburg radio station. In the interview, the reporter asks: “Do we know the strength of rock?” Müller replied: “For rock (specimens) tested in the laboratory, yes”.
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Müller: For a rock mass, no. This is what we need to determine. This is why we need an International Society for Rock Mechanics.”
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Müller’s central question “What is the strength of a rock mass?”
How far we have come in answering the question?
What is the strength of a rock mass?
What is the Strength of a Rock Mass? Progress in answering Müller’s (implicit) question
Vienna-Leopold-Müller Lecture, 2010.
Charles Fairhurst
What is the strength of a rock mass?
How to solve problem of discontinuous character of rock mass and scale effects?
Large in-situ test (Plate load teste, large flat Jack test, test chambre)
Back analysis based on observations
Numerical analysis
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Discontinuum analysis has been introduced to rock mechanics in 1971. Peter Cundall, then a student of Prof E. Hoek at Imperial College, London presented the paper: “A Computer Model for Simulating Progressive Large Scale Movements in Blocky Rock Systems” Cundall and his colleaguse have cotinued to develop the “discrete element method” for modelling of jointed rock to the present time.
The Synthetic Rock Model (SRM)
What is the strength of a rock mass?
The rock mass is assumed to be composed of two principal components:
intact rock a system of joints
Synthetic Rock Model (SRM)
Constitutive behavior of the intact rock should be determined from standard laboratory tests in which the ‘complete stress-strain response’ is observed.
σax
εax
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Synthetic Rock Model (SRM)
Rock mass Fracture Representation (DFN) Discrete Fracture Network
Intact Rock Representation
(PFC) Particle Flow Codes
The intact rock is represented in the model by an assembly of circular discs or spheres bonded at the contacts. The joints are introduced into the intact rock model through the Smooth Joint Model (SJM) which allows slip and opening on joint planes.
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Comparison of the discontinuum (SRM) and continuum (FLAC) analyses (Fairhurst, 2010)
In the FLAC continuum analysis discontinuous slip along joints This comparison is encouraging. The expectations from SRM are great.
Synthetic Rock Model (SRM) 40,225 discontinuities 330,000 particles 38,656 blocks
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Computer methods now allow us to consider virtually many of the rock mechanics questions that have been raised over the last 50 years.
Advances in computer power and disconinuum modelling provide a more rational framework for rock rengineering than current empirical rules.
The critical next step to advance rock machanics and rock engineering is to obtain field-scale data to verifay and improve numerical predictions. Urgent attention should be given to developing cost-effective ways to obtaing such data.
Fairhurst about Synthetic Rock Model (SRM)
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Many empirical rules have been develeoped due to complex mechanical behaviour of the rock mass.
An important limitation of empirical rules is that they should not be
used outside the boundaries within which these laws were developed. That is not always respected.
When the better theoretical framework becoming available, we will have to check these rules.
Until then, empirically approach will play an important role in rock
mechanics and rock engineering.
Empirical approach
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Bieniawski: RMR-Rock Mass Rating
Barton: Q system; Shear strength of discontinuities Hoek & Brown: Rock mass failure criteria; GSI
Empirical approach
What is the strength of a rock mass?
The foundations of the Millau viaduct in France (François Schlosser )
Hoek-Brown failure criteria
Empirical approach
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Empirical methods still find wide-spread use today
Olympic games 1994
The worlds largest cavern hall for public use
Height : 25 m Length: 91 m Width: 62 m
Q system, Barton
Empirical methods still find wide-spread use today
Empirical approach
What is the strength of a rock mass?
Rock mechanics position in Eurocode 7
2010 The Eurocode 7 or EC7, EN-1997-1:2004 (CEN, 2004), became the Reference Design Code (RDC) for geotechnical design – including rock engineering design – within the European Union (EU).
Eurocode 7
2018-2020 The next version of EC7 will be written between now and 2018, and will then be published in 2018 for adoption in 2020.
EC7 has been also adopted by a number of other countries beyond the EU. On this way it is becoming a key design standard for geotechnical engineering worldwide.
Eurocode 7
Impact of Eurocode 7 worldwide
1980 Agreement between the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) and the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE). 1981 ISSMFE established an ad hoc committee for this task. 1987 ISSMFE produced a ‘draft model for Eurocode 7. 1990 Work was transferred to CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation / European Committee for Standardisation), and in particular CEN’s Technical Committee TC250.
Eurocode 7
Harrison et al, 2015.
EC7 development has been undertaken from the point of view of foundations and retaining structures on and in soils.
Eurocode 7
In EC7 development, ISRM and IAEG have not been formally involved.
It is now widely recognised that EC7 is in many ways inappropriate – and in some circumstances inapplicable – to rock engineering. ISRM Commission on Evolution of Eurocode 7 http://www.isrm.net/gca/?id=1143
Maintenance period was aimed at improving the applicability and ease-of-use of the EC7. Maintenance period started in 2011 and will conclude in 2020 with the publication of a revised version of EC7.
Eurocode 7
Maintenance work programme 2011-2020
Eurocode 7
http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/MaintenanceWP
.gif
The Eurocode maintenance work programme
2011 CEN/TC250/SC7 established 14 Evolution Groups (EGs) to identify how EC7 could be improved.
John Harrison (Secretary of EG 13)
Andrew Bond (chairman TC250/SC7)
Eurocode 7
Eurocode 7
EG Title Members (Convenor/Secretary) 0 Management and oversight Andrew Bond (Chairman SC7) 1 Anchors Eric Farrell (Ireland) 2 Maintenance and ease-of-use Bernd Schuppener (Germany) 3 Model solutions Trevor Orr (Ireland) 4 Numerical methods Andrew Lees (Cyprus) 5 Reinforced soil Martin Vanicek (Czech Republic) 6 Seismic design Giuseppe Scarpelli (Italy) 7 Pile design Christian Moormann (Germany) 8 Harmonization Andrew Bond (Chairman SC7) 9 Water pressures Norbert Vogt (Germany) 10 Calculation models Christos Vrettos (Germany) 11 Characterization Lovisa Moritz (Sweden)) 12 (Tunnelling) To be decided 13 Rock mechanics John Harrison (UK/Canada) 14 Ground improvement Paolo Croce (Italy)
Eurocode 7
identify deficiencies in EC7 with regard to rock engineering design and construction practice;
bring these deficiencies to the attention of CEN/TC250/SC7 and the other Evolution Groups;
inform the rock mechanics community of the maintenance cycle, in order to ensure that CEN/TC250/SC7 obtains as much practical feedback on the use of EC7 as possible.
Harrison et al, 2015.
Rock mechanics EG 13 tasks
Eurocode 7
Preliminary Workshop at the Eurock 2012 conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Workshop on the “Applicability and application
of Eurocode 7 to rock engineering design” at the Eurock 2014 conference in Vigo, Spain.
Evaluation Group 13 (EG) activity
Andrew Bond (chairman TC50/SC7) Evaluation of Eurocode 7 Delft workshop, 30 Nov-1 Dec 2011
Eurocode 7
SC7's highest priorities for development in next revision of EN 1997
1. Harmonization (Simplify/reduce number of Design Approach; Revise/harmonize NDPs following review of countries' National Annexes)
2. Incorporate recent research results and technical studies (Add/improve guidance on ground water pressures; numerical models; selection of characteristic parameters; use of EN 1997 with EN 1998for seismic design)
3. Sustainability (Remove conservatisms from connection with structural Eurocodes; provide better treatment of consequence/ reliability clases)
4. New part of Eurocode 7 (Reinforced soil, rock mechanics, tunnelling) 5. Simplification of rules (Revise EN 1997-2 to remove material readily
found elsewhere; revise/remove text duplicated scross ENs 1997-1 and 2.
2014 ISRM Commission on the Evolution of Eurocode 7 has been established. The inaugural meeting of the Commission was held in Vigo, Spain during the EUROCK 2014.
Eurocode 7
ISRM activities related to EC7
http://www.isrm.net/gca/?id=1143
Eurocode 7
Tunnelling in EC7
Geotechnical category 2 Tunnels in hard, non-fractured rock and not subjected to special water tightness or other requirements.
Is there are non-fractured rock?
Schubert: In EC 7 tunnels in general belong to the category 3 structures, requiring detailed investigation and analysis.
Eurocode 7
Harrison et al, 2015.
Limit State Design (LSD)
However, it is not clear that current rock engineering design practice can satisfy this requirement.
EC7 requires designs to adhere to the principles of Limit State Design.
Eurocode 7
Ferrero, A.M., Sofianos, A., Alejano, L.R., 2014, Critical review of Eurocode-7 regarding rock mass characterization. Eurock 2014 Workshop, 26th May, Vigo, Spain, pp.
Rock mass characterization
EC7 does not give details on rock mass characterization and on how the rock discontinuities should be considered in order to quantify the degree of fracturing and anisotropy.
Prescriptive measures Rock mass classification systems
Eurocode 7
Lamas et al, 2014.
Empirical prescriptive measures is allowed in EC7 “ in design situations where calculation models are not available or are not necessary”.
1. Which type of geotechnical structures? 2. Does design by prescriptive measures (classification
systems) can be apply only to EC7 category 1 or also to geotechnical category 2?
Schubert calls for reducing the use of these techniques
Polemics in rock mechanics community
NATM New Austrian Tunnelling Method
Neue Österreichiche Tunnelbaumethode (Neue Österreichiche Tunnelbauweise)
Polemics in rock mechanics community
1944 Rabcewicz, idea 1948 Rabcewicz, patent 1956 Venezuela, first use 1963 Birthday of NATM L. Rabcewicz, L. Müller and F. Pacher ("fathers" of the NATM).
Kovári NATM
At the Rabcewicz-Geomechanical Colloquium held in Salzburg in 1993, on the occasion on the thirtieth anniversary of the birth of the NATM, professor K. Kovári criticized the NATM concept.
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Prof. Kovári and Prof. Likar, Ljubljana, 2000
Prof. Kalman Kovári, (ETH Zürich), 1993. Lecture given at the Rabcewicz-Geomechanical Colloquium in Salzburg,
Octobre 14, 1993
NATM rests not on an established theoretical foundation, but rather on two
fundamental misconceptions (fundamental error).
Polemics in rock mechanics community
1. The rock mass (ground) becomes part of the support structure.
2. NATM theory can optimize the design of the tunnel lining following the so-called Fenner-Pacher ground reaction curve.
Terzaghi Fillunger
Polemics in rock mechanics community
The University blamed Fillunger, who then committed suicide by opening the gas jets in the bathroom, with his wife Margarete Gregoritsch 08.03.1937.
It seems that the remaining scientific and professional community observed these events without too much interest.
According to Prof. Gudehus, the polemic between Prof. Kovári and Austrian experts was exceeded only by the well know polemic between Terzaghi and Fillunger, which ended quite tragically.
Polemics in rock mechanics community
The rock mass (ground) becomes part of the support structure
Kovári: NATM alone allows the ground to act as a structurally supporting component
“The New Swimming Technique is based on the concept that by activation of uplift
the water becomes a supporting medium”.
Kovári: NATM ignores the achievements of those to whom credit is due for recognizing and clearly formulating this fundamental law of tunnelling: Ritter (1879), Engesser (1882), Wiesmann (1912), Maillart (1923), Mohr (1956).
NATM
TUNNELLING METHOD 1
………………………..
TUNNELLING METHOD 2
TUNNELLING METHOD X
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Kovári: According to the official definition of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method, the concept of tunnelling is replaced by the concept of the NATM.
Correct NATM definition according to Kovári
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING METHOD 1
NATM
………………………..
TUNNELLING METHOD 2
TUNNELLING METHOD X
Polemics in rock mechanics community
A critical discussion of the NATM within its own framework of ideas is not possible. Its terms are so ambiguous that they defy close examination. If one considers the NATM as a whole, however, not only is it not free from criticism, it is simply groundless.
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Kovári:
Conclusions regarding the NATM edifice of thought
Does the NATM really exist ?
Austrian experts Kovári, (ETH Zürich), 1993
YES NO
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Polemics in rock mechanics community
50 Anniversary of NATM
ITA-Austria 2012
http://www.austrian-tunnelling.at/download/NATM_Buch.pdf
Austrian Tunnelling Association
Name?
Polemics in rock mechanics community
NATM
Sequential Excavation technique
Conventional tunneling method
Barton Hoek Bieniawski Schubert
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Barton (Q) and Bieniawski (RMR) Hoek (GSI) Schubert Barton (Q); Bieniawski (RMR); Hoek (GSI)
Palmstrøm Barton (Q)
Palmstrøm
Polemics about classification systems
Palmstrøm Barton
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Potential users of the Q-system should carefully study the limitations of this system as well as other classification systems they may want to apply, before taking them into use.
Many of the comments given on the limitations apply also to other classification systems having similar input parameters as Q.
A solution often used in works on rock engineering is to link Q values to other classification systems - or opposite - applying correlation equations. This is a procedure we strongly do not recommend.
Palmstrøm:
Polemics in rock mechanics community
“Of more concern to me these days is the absurdity of the algebraic equations linked to GSI (which is only RMR (minus 5?) anyway. I do not believe, nor ever will believe, that one can look at a picture and ‘classify’ a rock mass. The childrens-method of diagram recognition is entirely innapriopriate to the challenges of describing the anisotropic water-bearing medium that we call rock masses”.
Barton (Q) Hoek (GSI)
Barton was interviewed by Vrkljan during Barton's stay in Croatia, June 1 to 6, 2011.
Barton (Q) Hoek (GSI)
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Barton: It is time to question this wide-spread method, and the absurdly complex algebra ‘links’ to parameters, that are not actually empirically based.
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Are classification systems outdated? ISRM-EUROCK-2013, Wrocław , Poland. Some Remarks On Current Rock Engineering Design Practices ISRM-EUROCK-2012, Stockholm, Sweden.
Schubert Barton; Bieniawski
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Selection of parameters, weighting and rating is experience under specific conditions.
Could this experience be used in other conditions?
Classification parameters are universally applied to all rock mass types.
Classification systems
Schubert:
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Some classification systems are extended to tunnel design tools by including additional parameters.
Tunnel designs based on such systems necessarily are inaccurate and sometimes even entirely wrong!
This approach does not consider different behavioural modes of the ground and its interaction with excavation and support.
Classification systems and tunnel design
Schubert:
Polemics in rock mechanics community
Risk oriented design approaches are becoming more common. The call for engineering approaches to tunnel design and construction continuously spreads. With the current state of the art in engineering and legal as well as insurance issues in mind, abandoning empirical methods, such as classification system should be abandoned as quickly as possible.
Classification systems and tunnel design
Schubert:
Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM
Rock engineering
Underground structures will be bigger, deeper and will be built in difficult geotechnical conditions
Mining • Open pit deeper than 1000 m • Underground excavations at depths
greater than 3000 m • Oil drilling deeper than 10000 m
Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM in the next 50 years
Mon Terry, Švicarska
DUSEL - Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory URL - Underground research laboratory
Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM in the next 50 years
Rock mass characteriztion
Underground laboratories will play a major role in field validation of theoretical development
MODELLING
Discontinuum modeling DEM - Discrete Element Method SRM - Synthetic Rock Mass Model
Coupled Models DECOVALEX Development of Coupled Models and Their Validation Against Experiments Project Chair: J.A. Hudson and
Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM in the next 50 years
We have great expectations from the:
Randa in the Matter valley – Switzerland May 1991, rockslides of approximately 30 million cubic meters of debris
MONITORING
Expectations of rock mechanics and ISRM in the next 50 years
Monitoring of the in situ behavior of the rock mass is extremely important:
New techniques will accelerate the collection of quality data.
Conclusions
Since ISRM foundation, significant advances have been
made in a number of relevant areas or rock mechanics and rock engineering.
“True” rock behaviour is still a primary geomechanics challenge.
Close interaction with engineering geology is essential for optimum advance.
Developing better methods of characterising the geometry and mechanical properties of the fractures should be the main goal of structural geology.
Geophysical methods promises although are still not as successful as in medicine.
Conclusions
Conclusions
We need more integration of subjects (e.g., fully-coupled numerical modelling that captures all the required variables, parameters and mechanisms).
Underground laboratories will play a major role in field validation of theoretical development.
Neural network ‘intelligent’ computer programs should be used more often.
More integration of science and engineering is necessary.
We need more international co-operation.
Thank you!
Kovari, K., (1993), Is there a NATM, Geomechanical Colloquium, Salzburg. Kovari, K., (1994), On the Existence of the NATM: Erroneous Concepts behind the New Austrian
Tunnelling Method, Tunnel 1/94 p. 16-25. Golser, J., (1996), Controversial Views on NATM, Felsbau 14/96, pp. 60-75. Kolymbas, D., (200), Reply to Prof. K. Kovári’s criticism. Hudson, J.A. (2011). The next 50 years of the ISRM and anticipated future progress in rock mechanics. In
Proc. 12th ISRM International Congress on Rock Mechanics "Harmonizing Rock Mechanics and the Environment" 18 - 21 October 2011, Beijing, China, p.p.47-55.
Harrison, J.P.,Alejano, L., Bedi, A., Ferrero, A.M., Lamas, L., Mathier, J-F., Migliazza, R., Olsson, R., Perucho, A., Sofianos, A., Stille, H., Virely D., (2015), Rock engineering design and the evolution of eurocode 7: the critical six years to 2020; ISRM Congress 2015 Proceedings - Int’l Symposium on Rock Mechanics.
Ferrero, A.M., Sofianos, A., Alejano, L.R., (2014), Critical review of Eurocode-7 regarding rock mass characterization. Eurock 2014 Workshop, 26th May, Vigo, Spain.
Kaiser, P.K., Kim B-H., (2008), Rock Mechanics Challenges in Underground Construction and Mining, Keynote lecture - SHIRMS 2008, Perth, Australia.
Schmertmann, J.H., and Osterberg, J.O. (1960), An experimental study of the development of cohesion and friction with axial strain in saturated cohesive soils. In Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder, Colo. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 643–694.
References
Kaiser, P., (2008), Rock mechanics challenges in underground construction and mining; Australian centre for geomechanics, Newsletter Volume No 3,1 December 2008.
Kaiser P.K., (2010), How highly stressed brittle rock failure impacts tunnel design, Eurock-2010-Laussane, Switzerland, p.p. 27-38.
Hudson J.A. (2010), Stresses in rock masses: A review of key points Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions – Soft Rocks and Karst (Eurock 2009), Vrkljan (ed), nTaylor & Francis Group, London, p.p.61-72.
Fairhurst, C. (2010), First Vienna-Leopold-Müller Lecture: What is the strength of a rock mass? Progress in answering Müller’s (implicit) question. Proc. 5th Colloquium, Rock Mechanics –Theory & Practice, Vienna, 26–27.
Andrew Bond (chairman TC50/SC7), Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Delft workshop, 30 Nov-1 Dec 2011
Ferrero, A.M., Sofianos, A., Alejano, L.R., (2014), Critical review of Eurocode-7 regarding rock mass characterization. Eurock 2014 Workshop, 26th May, Vigo, Spain.
Lamas,L.,Perucho, A., Alejano, L., ( 2014), Some key issues regarding application of Eurocode 7 to rock engineering, Eurock 2014 Workshop, 26th May, Vigo, Spain,
References
Palmstrom, A., Broch, E., (2006), Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular reference to the q-system. Published 2006 in Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, vol. 21, pp. 575-593.
Palmstrøm, A., Milne, D. and Peck, W. 2001. The reliability of rock mass classification used in underground excavation and support design. GeoEng2000 Workshop, Discussion Leaders, ISRM News Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, August, 2001.
Schubert, W., (2013), Are classification systems outdated? Rock Mechanics for Resources, Energy and Environment (eUROCK 2013) – Kwasniewski & Łydzba (eds) © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London.P.P. 831-834.
References