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

net/publication/222766942

Cavern roof stability - Mechanism of arching and stabilization by rockbolting

Article in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · July 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0886-7798(02)00010-X

CITATIONS READS

90 1,612

3 authors, including:

Einar Broch
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
64 PUBLICATIONS 2,052 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Einar Broch on 08 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx

2

Short communication
3 Cavern roof stability—mechanism of arching and stabilization by

f
4 rockbolting

oo
5 Ziping Huanga, Einar Brocha,*, Ming Lub
a
6 Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Geology and Mineral Resources Engineering, N-7034, Trondheim, Norway
b
7 SINTEF Civil and Environmental Engineering, Trondheim, Norway

Pr
8 Received 25 February 2002; accepted 14 March 2002

15

16
17
18
Abstract

ed
For stabilizing of rock cavern roof arches, tensioned rockbolts should be used with caution since they may have a negative
influence on the stability of the arch. A proper design of rockbolts should therefore be based on a clear understanding of both
the features of rockbolt reinforcement and the mechanism of the rock roof arch structure. For this purpose the mechanism of a
ct
19 rock cavern roof arch is studied and effects of different types of rockbolts are evaluated. Numerical modeling of rockbolt support
20 of the Xiaolangdi powerhouse cavern as well as application of arching theory are carried out with the objective to study the
21 effects of fully grouted rockbolts and tensioned cable anchors in reinforcing the cavern roof and walls, and on the forming of the
22 roof arch. 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
re

23 Keywords: Stabilizing; Mechanism; Rockbolt; Reinforcement

24
25 45
1. Introduction induce tensile stress oryand sliding along masonry joints
or

should be avoided. So, when a decision has to be made 46

26 In stabilization of rock masses, rockbolting of caverns in choosing between grouted rockbolts or highly ten- 47
27 and tunnels is a routine practice throughout the world sioned cables for the stabilizing of rock roof arches, this 48
nc

28 as the bolts are inexpensive, flexible to apply in chang- principle should be kept in mind. The reinforcement 49
29 ing ground conditions of underground excavation and must function efficiently as expected. 50
30 easy and fast to install. Rockbolting contributes to the In practical rock support design, empirical rules are 51
31 modern rock support system, which is based on assisting still widely used with confidence even though the design 52
32 rock mass to form a self-supporting rock structure such may be conservative. Analytic solutions are useful to 53
U

33 as a rock cavern roof arch. Rockbolts reinforce and identify the important parameters in the design and to 54
34 mobilize the inherent strength of the rock mass by verify the results of numerical modeling under simplified 55
35 offering confining pressure, increase the stiffness of the conditions. Numerical methods are more and more 56
36 rock, contribute shear resistance to the rock joints or applied for excavation and support design of large 57
37 discontinuities and suspend loosed rock blocks. caverns with the help of different software. 58
38 A proper design of rockbolts for reinforcement of a The Xiaolangdi Multipurpose Dam Project is located 59
39 cavern roof lies in a full understanding of the effect of in the middle reach of the Yellow River, Henan, China. 60
40 rockbolts as well as the mechanism of rock structures. The installed capacity is 1800 MW. The supporting and 61
41 The mechanism of rock cavern roof arching may inherit stability of the underground powerhouse cavern has 62
42 from the voussoir arch when the roof is formed by been taken as an example for this study. 63
43 underground excavation. The voussoir arch has ‘unlim-
44 ited’ compressive strength. However, conditions that 2. Mechanism of roof arch forming and reinforcing 64
874
875 *Corresponding author Tel.: q47-73-594-616; fax: q47-73-594-
876 814. In this chapter, items contributing to the forming of a 65
877 E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Broch). natural rock roof arch and factors required to reinforce 66

0886-7798/02/$ - see front matter 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 8 6 - 7 7 9 8 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 0 1 0 - X
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx
2 115
excavation. The horizontal stress offers compressive
stress to directly enhance the bearing capacity of the 116
rock mass, compact the rock block to form the rock 117
voussoir arch, so that extra support may not necessarily 118
be beneficial for the arch forming. The favorable effect 119
of the reasonable in-situ horizontal stress in roof arch 120
forming was found also by Gerdeen et al. (1977) in 12
analysis of the stability of the bolted mine roof. Fortu- 122
nately, this condition is often satisfied. However, for 123

f
shallow openings, careful evaluation of in-situ stress is 124

oo
3 Fig. 1. A typical voussoir arch application.
imperative since it is beyond the curve region. 125
67
In the classical arch theory, an assumption has been 126
the roof arch are investigated based on the classical made that the masonry material is infinitely strong. 127
68 voussoir arch theory. Case study and numerical modeling There is in fact no question about an overall criterion 128
69 results are used to determine the forming of the natural of strength. Rather it is the shape of the structure that 129

Pr
70 roof arch. The mechanism of reinforcing rock roof arch must be examined. As Heyman (1995) pointed out, the 130
71 is analyzed to identify factors that contribute to the stability of the structure will be assured primarily by its 13
72 reinforcement. Rockbolt design is focused on the length shape, and not at all (or only very marginally) by the 132
73 to space ratio based on limit analysis of a reinforced strength of the component material. Thus, it is essential 133
74 rock arch. Arch action and the failure mode based on to design and excavate the arch shaped roof. 134
75 the safe theorem is presented. Arch thrust line with Apart from the experimental experience on natural
76
77
78
79
consideration of in-situ horizontal stress and the thick-
ness of the arch ring are derived. A complete scenario
for design of reinforced roof arch is given. Finally
conclusions are drawn.
ed rock cavern roof arch forming reported by Bergman and
Bjurstrom (1983), evidences of natural arch forming
were given by Hibino et al. (1983). A typical example
of a natural roof arch formed is at Gjøvik ice hockey
cavern constructed in 1991 in Norway. The cavern has
135
136
137
138
139
ct
140
80 2.1. Voussoir arch action and application to the rock span of 61 m and height of 24 m. The rock cover varies 14
81 engineering from 25 to 50 m. The quality of rock mass (Precambrian 142
gneiss) is fair to good with Q value from 4 to 40. Major 143
re

82 Voussoir arch (Fig. 1) action arises directly from the horizontal stress was approximately 3.5 MPa. The max- 144
83 properties of the material. For voussoir arch, masonry imum vertical stress is 1 MPa, at location 5 m above 145
84 blocks are laid in weak mortar or placed one on another the roof surface. Numerical studies predicted a maxi- 146
85 to form the arch. This method of construction ensured mum roof displacement of 5–10 mm. The cavern exten- 147
or

86 that the structure would sustain no tension and sliding someters gave maximum deformation of 7 mm. Some 148
87 between blocks. Stability of the whole arch is assured initial episodes of slight heave (arching upwards) are 149
88 by the compaction under gravity of the various elements found adjacent to excavation faces due to the high in- 150
89 and high capacity of compressive strength of masonry situ stresses (Broch et al., 1996). 6–12 m long boltsy 15
nc

90 blocks. Coulomb, in his memoir on statics in 1773, cables with spacing 2.5=2.5 m were used. Broch et al. 152
91 examined the behavior of the masonry structure in the (1996) suggest a shorter bolt of 3–4 m will do the 153
92 light of three assumptions as (Westergaard, 1964; Hey- support job since the measured load in the bolts is very 154
93 man, 1972). low and occurs only in a limited length of the bolt. 155
94
U

95
96
97 ● masonry has no tensile strength;
99
100
98 ● masonry has an unlimited compressive strength; and 2.2. Roof arch reinforcing 156

101
102
103 ● sliding failure does not occur.
Due to excavation a plasticytensile zone may be 157
104 induced which leads to failure of the rock mass. In 158
105 The challenge of applying mechanics to help under- addition, joints or fractures may form loosened rock 159
106 standing the behavior of rock masses in-situ and to blocks that tend to fall out and change the geometry of 160
107 design rock arches in such situations differs from that the roof arch. If adequate support is not provided, 16
108 in masonry arch constructed by use of rock block cut aggressive air or water can cause further deterioration 162
109 and removed from its natural environment. of the exposed rock. Water may build up water pressure 163
110 Compared with construction of a masonry arch, a that increases tensile stress in discontinuities, further 164
111 rock cavern roof arch can be established by excavation dilates the joints, decreases the shear strength of the 165
112 due to the existence of the in-situ horizontal stress. The joints and causes both tensile stress and sliding within 166
113 in-situ horizontal stress is favorable to maintain the arch the arch. The presence of joints or discontinuities and 167
114 shape by decreasing the roof subsidence during benching the weathering will decrease the compressive strength 168
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx 3
7
8

f
oo
Pr
9 Fig. 2. Reinforced Rock Arch (RRA) composed of Reinforced Rock Units (RRU).

169 207
of the rock. All these are in contradiction with the arch gs
170 assumptions. sAŽ1yey4mk0Lys.s Ž1yey4mk0Hys. (1)
4mk0
171
172
173
174
175
And thus, every effort should be made to prevent
these from happening. Roof bolting oryand lining are
designed to provide confining pressure to improve the
bearing capacity of the rock, to eliminate the tensile
stress and resist sliding along joints in order to keep the
ed Re-arranging Eq. (1) and defining an equivalent
height of rock to the average confining pressure offered
by the rockbolting, HsssA yg, give a normalized con-
fined pressure
208
209
210
211
212
ct
blocks in place to form an integrated reinforced roof y4mk0Hys 213
176 Hs T 1 1ye
177 arch. s s sfŽHys,Lys,f,k0. (2)
s Ags 4mk0 1yey4mk0Lys
178 With increase of s3, the peak strength increases, there
where 214
re

179 is a transition from typically brittle to fully ductile

180 behavior with plastic deformation, the region incorpo- sAsTyA, average confining stress offered by rockbolts. 215
216
181 rating the peak strength widens and the progressive Hssequivalent (rock) height of the confining pressure 217
182 strain-softening post-failure behavior is alot more impor- offered by rockbolts. 218
219
or

183 tant. Sliding along the joints is possible if the rock is Asarea of reinforced rock unit (s 2 for a rockbolt pattern 220
184 free to displace normal to the joint surface. But under with s=s spacing). 221
222
185 confinement, the normal displacement required to move T srockbolt tension force. 224
223
186 along such a jagged joint path requires additional energy 225
nc

187 input. Thus, it is not uncommon for a fissured rock to Assume a large Hys (e.g. 20) value in rockbolting 226
188 achieve an increase in strength by 10 times the amount design. Then the variation of Hs ys with Lys and f for 227
189 of a small increment in mean (confining) stress (Good- k0s0.4, k0s0.8 can be plotted as shown in Fig. 3. As 228
190 man, 1989). the rockbolts density (Lys) increases to some extent the 229
191 Among the idealized analytical solutions on the design
U

confining pressure decreases and approaches a minimum 230

192 of reinforced rock structures, Lang et al. (1979), Lang value. And thus, very long boltsycables are not neces- 231
193 and Bischoff (1984) have made very useful efforts to sarily beneficial for reinforced roof arch forming. The 232
194 provide a rational basis for explanation of rockbolt length-to-spacing ratio of rockbolts (Lys) should be 233
195 design. Rockbolts installed around an underground open- greater than two for marginal safety factor and less than 234
196 ing is assumed to create a reinforced rock arch (RRA, three for effective in systematic rockbolting, except 235
197 ‘ABCD’ in Fig. 2) that is composed of contiguous rock instability caused by individual falling rock blocks or 236
198 reinforced units (RRU, ‘abcd’ in Fig. 2). Suppose the wedges. 237
199 rock roof arch is static determined, the roof unit has The rockbolt support for the Xiaolangdi underground 238
200 deformed to the extent that the shear strength has been power house includes 6 and 8 m rockbolts, each type 239
201 fully mobilized. By using Mohr–Coulomb strength cri- of bolt with a spacing of 3=3 m, and tensioned 25 m- 240
202 terion, the required average stress at the surface can be cables with spacing 4.5=6 m. The 8 and 12 m bolts 241
203 derived. For a reinforced roof unit with a bolt having a give an effective spacing of 1.5 m, thus an average Ly 242
204 length of L, the average confining pressure sAsTyA s of 6.6, which is conservative. The extra use of the 25 243
205 offered by the rockbolt is m long cable is obviously not rational according to the 244
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx
13
14

f
oo
15 Fig. 3. Relations of Hsys and Lys.
245 280

Pr
x x
preceding analysis. This is in agreement with the numer-
246 ical modeling. xds | 0
qŽx.xdxy |
0
qŽx.dx,

Ly2 Ly2 28
2.3. Arch action
247
xbs | 0
qŽx.xdxy | 0
qŽx.dx,

248
249
250
251
252
2.3.1. Line of thrust
The action of the arch can be described by the line
of thrust. The thrust line is a polygon representing the
equilibrium of given loading. The thrust line for a
general shape of underground cavern roof arch may be
ed weigh centriad of the half of the load
g s unit weight of the rock mass.
H s horizontal component of the thrust in the arch.
1
282
283
284
285

286
ct
H9sHy k0ghbyb
253 derived based on limit equilibrium analysis, considering 2
254 the roof arch is statically determined being a limit state,
255 then the limit position of the thrust line is going through L s span of the arch. 287
Comparing Eq. (4) with Eq. (3), shows that the 288
re

256 the three hinges (A,B,C).

257 The vertical load gq(x) includes the weight of the presence of the horizontal in-situ stress will cause the 289

258 arch itself and a symmetricly distributed load coming thrust line higher than that pure vertical load is consid- 290

259 from the loose rock above the roof arch. The horizontal ered, and the higher the k0 value, the higher the thrust 29
line. This is in agreement with the numerical modeling 292
or

260 load is from the in-situ stress component and simplified

261 as a constant point load, k0ghbyb, at any segment of the shown in Fig. 13. 293

262 arch, where k0 is the lateral stress ratio, hb, yb is the 2.3.2. Thickness of voussoir arch 294
263 overburden at the arch vault and the rise of the arch, The stability against collapse of funicular voussoir 295
nc

264 respectively. The roof arch has unit width along the arch requires the thrust line within the ‘middle third’ 296
265 longitudinal axis of the opening. Both loads are assumed area of the arch ring. For various profiles of voussoir 297
266 symmetric, otherwise, non-symmetrical load will in arches, it is necessary to determine a minimum thickness 298
267 general form a fourth hinge and lead to the failure of of the voussoir arches, which comprise the ring the 299
268 the arch. thrust line does not pass outside. Following Inglis
U

300
269 Under vertical loads only, the thrust line of the left (1963), Irvine (1981) gave the answer for the classical 30
270
271 part of the arch is Roman voussoir arch assuming the collapse mechanism 302
272 V Wx illustrated in Fig. 4.
ys xy Žxyxd. (3) 303
H H The general results of the critical voussoir thickness 304
t and the angle locating the hinge at the intrados u as a 305
273 Including the horizontal in-situ stress component gives
function of the overburden c and radius R, is given in 306
307
274
275 the thrust line of the left part of the arch
Fig. 5. An analytical solution for infinite overburden is
276 V Wx given as 308
309
ys xy Žxyxd. (4)
H9 H9 B E
310
ussiny1D1y y3Gs35.3(
C F

(5)
277
278 where 31
t B E
279 x s2D7y4y3Gs0.144
C F

(6)
R
Wxs | 0
gqŽx.dx
The thickness of the arch has its limited value of 312
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx 5
19
20

f
oo
Fig. 4. (a) Definition for the Roman arch; and (b) assumed collapse mechanism showing hinge locations and thrust line (adopted from Irvine,

Pr
21
22 1981)
313 338
approximately 0.144 times the radius of the arch even and tension and sliding along joints may develop within
314 there is unlimited overburden. For Rs18.8 m, the the rock mass near the roof surface after excavation. 339
315 minimum thickness of the arch will be 2.7 m. It is noted The shear failure in weak discontinuities and shear 340
that a threefold increase in tyR is associated with only
316
317
318
319
320
a 50% increase in u. This indicated that the location of
the hinge at the intrados varies little even for widely
differing forms of the arch, implying the critical of the
arch rib in stability.
ed failure due to incomplete arch forming is common
(Stille, 1992). Reinforcement of the rock roof arch is
imperative. The use of fully grouted rockbolts is effec-
tive to prevent the sliding, opening and offer confining
pressure fast than the point anchored rockboltycable that
341
342
343
344
345
ct
321 In Eq. (6) the horizontal load is not considered. With can not offer shear resistance before significant shearing 346
322 an increase in the horizontal in-situ stress, a thicker arch has already taken place. 347
323 is required to accommodate the ring that the thrust line
324 is kept inside. It is then deduced that the high horizontal 3. Effects of rockbolts 348
re

325 in-situ stress may not always be beneficial to the roof

326 arch forming. A favorable magnitude of the horizontal Rockbolts functions as reinforcement to increase the 349

327 stress should be related to a certain size of the span. shear strength or bearing capacity of the rock mass by 350
providing confining stress as well as tensile and shear 351
or

328 2.3.3. Arch action application in rock engineering resistances to the rock mass and the rock joints. The 352
329 The numerical modeling results show that the rock apparent mechanical response of rockbolting has been 353
330 cavern roof arch is characterized by a uniform major categorized as various reinforcement effects by many 354
331 principal stress zone near the roof surface. The action authors through their studies of cases of applications of 355
nc

332 of roof arch is indicated by this stress zone that transmits rockbolts in practical rock supports as well as in exper- 356
333 the loads from the crown to the springing and further imental tests (Panek, 1962a,b; Rabcewicz, 1964, 1969; 357
334 down to the sidewalls. The significance is that the roof Rabcewicz and Golser, 1973; Egger, 1973; Bjurstrom, 358
335 arch is a self-supported rock structure. 1974; Gerrard, 1983; Stillborg, 1984; Aydan, 1989; 359
In the case that the rock mass is highly fractured and Spang and Egger, 1990; Holmberg, 1991; Stjern, 1995).
U

336 360
337 jointed, uniaxial strength of rock mass can be quite low The effects of rockbolting are summarized in Fig. 6. 361
26
27

28 Fig. 5. tyR vs. cyR and tyR vs. u relation curves.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx
32
33

f
oo
Pr
34 Fig. 6. Effects of rockbolts.
362 382
As the rock obeys the Mohr–Coulomb strength cri- arch that is inherently stable may be expected near the
363 terion, the incremental confining stress by the rockbolts roof surface as shown in Fig. 8. 383
364
365
366

367
contributes to the bearing capacity of the rock that can
be expressed by the form

D
fE
2G
B
Ds1sNfDs3stan2C45(q FDs3
ed
(7)
From the different concepts of arch forming an impor-
tant conclusion is that when a natural rock arch is
established in the rock mass near the roof surface, it
may not be rational to install highly tensioned systematic
cables in the cavern crown. Further analyses are given
384
385
386
387
388
ct
in the following numerical modeling of the rockbolt 389
368 The increase in strength of the rock can also be support of the Xiaolangdi underground powerhouse cav- 390
369 represented in terms of an increased cohesive strength ern by use both the UDEC and the DIANA code. And 39
370 of the rock, Dc,
re

372
the classical voussoir arch theory is applied to investi- 392
*
s1sNfs3q2c yNf, where c scqDc,Dc * gate the mechanism of the rock roof arch forming and 393

1 reinforcing. 394
s Ds3yNf (8)
2
or

4. Numerical modeling of rockbolts in stabilizing 395

373 With regard to the arch forming, traditional concept Xiaolangdi powerhouse cavern 396
374 is based on that a loose zone exits below a natural arch
375 fairly high from the roof surface. Tensioned grouted 4.1. Geology and rock support 397
nc

376 rockbolts are used to reinforce the ‘loose zone’ and

377 build an artificial voussoir arch near the surface (Lang, The underground powerhouse cavern is situated in 398
378 1962), as shown in Fig. 7. However, a large cavern roof sedimentary rocks of fair to good quality (Qs8–12) 399
379 is generally designed as an arch shape with favorable with overburden of 85–115 m, see Fig. 9. The measured 400
380 horizontal in-situ stress and is excavated carefully by compressive strength of the rocks is in the order of 60– 40
U

381 smooth blasting. Under such conditions, a natural roof 150 MPa, and the assumed friction angle is 41–468, 402

38 43

39 Fig. 7. Loosened zone under arch line in a mine flat roof. Fig. 8. Natural arch forming nearest to the roof surface. 44
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx 7
48 74

f
oo
Pr
49 Fig. 9. Profile of powerhouse.
403
Fig. 10. Displacement (in mm) contour and deformed geometry— 75
model F1 with DIANA. 76
27–338, 10–208 for the intact rocks, the joints and the
430
404 clay intercalation, respectively (YRCC, 1994). The lat-
a. Response of the rock mass to excavation-mechanism 431
405 eral in-situ stress ratio (k0) is approximately 0.8. There
of roof arching. 432
406 are several clay intercalations with thickness of 1 to 20
● The maximum value of roof subsidence and down- 433
434
407
408
409
410
411
mm parallel with bedding planes. The existence of the
clay intercalations became a major concern for the
stability of the cavern crown. This leads to a total of
345 1500 kN tensioned 25 m long cable anchors
installed along the whole cavern roof, in addition to
ed stream displacement is approximately 5.3–6.7 and
19.7–22.9 mm for intact rock model F, see Table
1 and Fig. 10.
● The displacements of the downstream wall are
greater than that of the upstream wall, the maxi-
435
436
437
438
439
440
ct
441
412 systematic 6–8 m long rockbolts spacing 1.5=1.5 m,
mum value occurs at the lower part of the down- 442
413 and 20 cm wire mesh shotcrete.
stream wall. 443
444
● Plastic zones extend to more than 20 m in the 446
445
4.2. Numerical modeling of rockbolts support
re

414
walls and to a maximum depth of 5 m in the roof, 447
see Fig. 11. 448
449
415 The objective of the numerical modeling is to find a
● 10–18 m deep tensile zones are calculated in the 451
450
416 rational rockbolts support design in stabilization of the
walls. And a tensile zone of 5 m deep in the roof 452
or

417 Xiaolangdi underground powerhouse roof arch and the

exists only in jointed rock mass model K1 in the 453
418 walls. This is achieved by simulation of different geo-
UDEC modeling. Even after rockbolting, there are 454
419 logical models in combination with rockbolting alterna-
still tensile zones in the walls of considerable size. 455
456
420 tives. Base on the geological structures, the geological
● Fig. 12 indicates that the arch shaped roof of the 457
458
models consist of intact rock model (F), stratified rock
nc

421
powerhouse fits the elliptical rock ring surrounding 459
422 mass model (E) and jointed rock mass model (K).
the opening, and thus leaves a limited range of the 460
423 Rockbolting alternatives include no support at all (1),
plasticytensile zone. The high walls do not fit it. 461
462
424 only fully grouted rockbolts (3) and both tensioned
● A natural roof arch with approximately 5 m thick 463
464
425 cables and grouted rockbolts (7).
uniform stress zone near the roof surface may be
U

465
established by the favorable in situ stress, the good 466
426 4.2.1. General results
quality of rock and the arch shape of the roof. 467
468
427 The following results are obtained with the UDEC
● A new concept of invert principal stress cone is 470
469
428 and the DIANA modeling.
429 proposed to determine the location and thickness 471
54
Table 1
55
56 Displacement (mm) calculated in the UDEC and the DIANA modeling

57 Model k0 UDEC DIANA

58
Crown Ups. wall Downs. wall Crown Upstr. wall Downstr. wall
59
66 F1 0.8 6.7 19.1 22.9 5.3 16.6 19.7
67 F7 0.4 8.4 13.6 20.0 6.6 6.9 16.1
68 F7 0.8 6.1 17.4 20.9 4.4 11.8 17.8
69 F7 1.0 5.5 20.1 22.1 3.4 15.4 20.8
70
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx
80
81

f
oo
82 Fig. 11. Plastic zone in rock mass—model E1, E3, E7 with UDEC.

472 508
473 of the roof arch, as shown in Fig. 16. to the mechanism of the coupling of roof defor-
474 ● The mechanism of coupling of the deformation of mation with wall deformation in the cavern with 509

Pr
476 roof and the deformation of walls in the cavern a high wall. Further more, the cables also 510
477 with high walls is found by studying the effect of increase the roof settlement. Cases support these 51
478 horizontal in-situ stress on the cavern excavation results include those in the UDEC and DIANA 512
479 and of the tensioned cables in the roof. modeling in this study, the physical model test 513
481 and the FE modeling carried by Hehai university 514
b. Characteristics of rockbolting in stabilization of the (YRCC, 1994).
483
485
486
488
489
powerhouse.
● The systematic untensioned fully grouted rockbolts
reduce the roof subsidence and the wall displace-
ments to 3.9–6.4 mm, 15–20.9 mm, respectively
ed iii.The cables cause irregular stress distribution and
stress concentration in the arch. The extra
upward support force may rotate rock blocks in
a way that resists the forming of arch, induce
515
517
519
520
52
ct
490 in model F3. The rockbolts provide a compatible, sliding along joints and tensile stress. These turn 522
491 natural way to reinforce the cavern roof arch. out contrary to the expectations. 523
492 Further evidences include that the grouted rockbolts iv.Further evidences show that small stress changes 525
493 efficiently reduce the plastic zone, tensile zone and were taking place in the roof during benching 527
re

494 opening of the clay intercalations in the roof. because the load built up in the rockbolts in the 528
496 ● The additional systematic tensioned 25 m-cables in crown is low and within a limited (2 m) range 529
498 the roof may be not rational because from the roof surface, therefore the strength of 530
499 i. A natural roof arch may be already formed and the rockbolts is not considerably mobilized. And 53
or

501 after systematic rockbolting, the roof arch is small loads change in the tensioned cables in the 532
502 stable. So the additional tensioned cables may roof. 533
503 only have marginal reduction in the roof 535
504 settlement. ● The rockbolt should be long enough to facilitate 537
nc

506 ii.The cables may increase wall displacements due the maximum shear stress that may develop and to 539

86
87
U

88 Fig. 12. Minor principal stress contour with tensile zone (red) in the rock mass around the powerhouse cavern-model F1, F3, F7 with DIANA.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx 9
540 602
cross-critical joints with reasonable anchorage situ horizontal stress in the forming of a natural roof
541 length. The critical joint might be defined by its arch is investigated. The cavern roof shape is studied 603
542 critical location less than double thickness of the by comparing an arch roof with a flat roof. The visual- 604
543 rock roof arch. When a joint is located beyond the ization of the stress field in the rock mass of the roof 605
544 critical location, no special attention should be paid from the modeling results is helpful and is employed to 606
545 if the rock roof arch is ensured. identify the roof arch. With regard to the rockbolting 607
547 ● The systematic untensioned fully grouted rockbolts reinforcement of the roof arch, the effect of the rockbolts 608
549 with length of 6–8 m are efficient in support of and the tensioned 25 m-cables on the arch stability is 609
550 the Xiaolangdi powerhouse crown. And even the analyzed. Table 1 shows the increase in horizontal in- 610

f
551 length could be reduced to 4;6 where no clay situ stress causes decrease in the roof displacement 611

oo
552 intercalation is expected. A closely spaced rock- coupling with the increase in the inward displacement 612
553 bolts will be more efficient than a longer rockbolt of the walls. 613
554 to stabilize the roof arch formed by the rock blocks. To get insight about the effect of the horizontal stress 614
555 The length of the rockbolts should be longer for on the roof arch forming, the strengthystress contour 615
556 supporting the walls. and the principal stress vectors are visualized in Fig. 14. 616

Pr
558 ● It is rational to design the rockbolting in a way Under high horizontal stresses (k0s0.8 and 1.0) a 617
560 that the reinforcement is helpful to form a uniform- uniform arch shaped compressive stress zone near the 618
561 ly reinforced rock ring surrounding the cavern. roof surface is formed as a result of stress readjustment 619
563 to fit the arch shape after the excavation. The higher the 620
565 c. Plastic zone in the rock mass k0 value, the thicker the arch. The uniform compressive 621
stress in both radial and circumferential directions char-
568
569
570
571
572
Fig. 11 shows the plastic zones in the rock mass
surrounding the powerhouse complex. Base on empirical
rules, Schach et al. (1979) gives a bolt length of 6.2 m
for the cavern with span of 26.2 m; Barton et al. (1974)
ed acterizes the roof arch. Beyond the roof arch, there may
be the ground arch or the rock mass. Under low
horizontal stresses of k0s0.4, there is not a uniform
compressive stress zone in the roof due to lack of
horizontal bearing pressure, the rock mass is subject to
622
623
624
625
626
ct
627
573 results in 5.93 m; Lang (1962) results in 6.5 m. These falling. So a stable roof arch as well as the ground arch 628
574 seem reasonable as the bolt length matches the depth of may not be formed. 629
575 the plastic zone of 3–5 m in the cavern roof. In model Fig. 14 illustrates a natural rock arch located approx- 630
re

576 E3, the rockbolts of 8–12 m are conservative. In model imately 10 m above the flat roof surface. A real loosened 631
577 E7, the 25 m-cables in the crown are too long to be zone is formed below the natural rock arch, which 632
578 rational. It is obvious that, it is the walls with great cannot transmit any load to the abutments and should 633
579 depth of plastic zone rather than the crown that require be either suspended by systematic rockboltsycables to 634
or

580 longer rockbolts. form an artificial roof arch, or simply excavated. In the 635
581 d. Tensile zone in the rock mass later case, it is necessary to remove the loosened rock 636
582 Among all models, a 5 m deep tensile zone in the in accordance with a designed arch line such as that 637
583 roof is found only in model K1 with UDEC and it is drawn in Fig. 15. Then a natural rock roof arch will be 638
nc

584 eliminated by the rockbolts in model K3. The extra use expected near the arch shaped roof surface, as shown in 639
585 of the tensioned 25 m-cables in model K7 seems useless Fig. 13 (k0s0.8, 1.0). Figs. 14 and 15 640
586 in reducing this tensile zone. In contrast with the In Fig. 16, a concept of invert principal stress cone 641
587 situation in the roof, tensile zones extend up to 10–18 is proposed to determine the location and thickness of 642
588 m in the downstream wall in models E1, F1 and K1
U

the rock cavern roof arch. The invert principal stress 643
589 with both UDEC and DIANA, see also Fig. 12. And cone is defined so that within the cone the principal 644
590 after support, there are still tensile zones of considerable stresses are vertical and horizontal only. Beneath the 645
591 size in the walls. cone the location and the thickness of arch is then 646
determined. This concept has been applied to models 647
592 4.2.2. Roof arch forming and identification E1 and K1. 648
593 In the preceding study of the response of the rock
594 mass and rockbolts to the excavation it comes out that 4.2.3. Roof arch reinforcing 649
595 a self-supported roof arch may have been established by During the natural roof arch forming, the stress 650
596 the excavation. Since the rockbolts have a limited effect readjustment in the rock mass causes rotation and 651
597 on the cavern roof displacement, loads building up in deformation of rock blocks. In highly fractured or jointed 652
598 the rockbolts installed in the crown is low and within a rock mass, the movements may cause a significant 653
599 limited range from the roof surface. The plastic zone change of the rock arch geometry, sliding along joints 654
600 extends to only several meters in the crown. To verify and tensile stress. So emphasis should be put on key- 655
601 the forming of the cavern roof arch, the role of the in- stone bolting, systematic bolting-aiming at knitting rock 656
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx
92
93

f
oo
Pr
ed
ct
94 Fig. 13. Strengthystress contour and principal stress vector—model F1 (k0s0.4, 0.8, 1.0).
657 666
blocks together to keep the arch geometry complete in the arch. During the process rockbolts play an important
order to form the natural segmented or voussoir arch of role to keep the deformation or rotation as small as
re

658 667
659 rock. possible by improving the strength of the rock mass and 668
660 The strengthystress contour plots demonstrate that the resisting the opening and shearing of rock joints. 669
661 natural roof arch is reinforced without any distortion of In contrast, it is also shown that the cables cause 670
stresses by untensioned rockbolts. Because during the irregular stresses in the arch and stress concentration at
or

662 67
663 reinforcement procedure, the load building up in rock- 104
664 bolts is compatible with the deformation or rotation of
665 the rock mass. In other word: a natural way of forming
nc

98
U

99 Fig. 14. Strengthystress contour in flat roof in model F1-traditional Fig. 15. Stress vector in flat roof in model F1 (assumed flat roof in 105
100 natural arch-high above the flat roof surface. model F1). 106
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx 11
110
111

f
oo
Pr
112

672
ed
Fig. 16. Definition of principal stress cone in model F1.
700
ct
arch ribs because of the existence of the area between regarded as so poor that systematically installed; ten-
673 cables that apply high tension forces to the rock blocks sioned cables should be needed in addition to the 701
674 nearby. Furthermore, the tensioned cables passing systematic rockbolts and shotcrete. 702
re

675 through the arch apply additional internal support pres- Regardless of that efforts are made to use the data 703
676 sure on the roof surface that may form upward forces available to verify the numerical analyses done in the 704
677 to the rotated rock blocks. The upward force counteracts previous section. The first monitoring data were from 705
678 the forming of the arch as shown in Fig. 17a,b. The three multiple-point borehole extensometers installed in 706
or

679 presence of the clay intercalation probably provides the cavern roof in three sections after the top heading 707
680 spaces for such a rotation. The unfavorable rotation of excavation and the installation of the tensioned 25 m- 708
681 the rock blocks and the upward moving of the keystone cables were completed. These data are valuable to 709
682 in the arch has potential to induce sliding along joints identify the influence of benching excavation on roof 710
nc

683 and tensile stress or even opening of the joints as shown subsidence. 711
684 in Fig. 17c,d. Important conclusions are as follows. 712
713
685 Because a reinforced rock cavern roof arch is not ● During benching excavation a maximum roof settle- 714
686 freestanding like an arch bridge, the high tensioned ment of 2 mm was recorded. It is not as much as 716
687 cables will cause large outward deformation and lead to
U

what was expected in the report of rock support 717

688 failure of the arch if there is a weakness zone behind design (YRCC, 1994), and it confirms the results of 718
689 the roof arch. Again the presence of the clay intercala- model F. 719
690 tions in the crown might help to provide such a ● Small stress changes were taking place in the roof 721
691 condition. and the cavern roof arch is self-supported. So that 723
small displacement is recorded in the roof. Therefore, 724
692 5. Instrumentation the extra use of tensioned cables may not have been 725
necessary. This is in agreement with the numerical 726
693 With regard to measurements in the Xiaolangdi pow- modeling results. 727
694 erhouse, most of the instruments were installed late ● The cavern roof has uplift movement during the first 729
695 during the excavation. For such a large and important benching excavation and then settle down. This is in 731
696 project, the delay of the installation may simply indicate agreement with the results of model E7 in the DIANA 732
697 that the geological conditions in the area in question modeling. 733
698 were regarded as being generally good. Consequently ● The monitored maximum displacement occurs at 735
699 the stability of the cavern roof should not have been lower part of the downstream wall, which coincides 737
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx
116
117

f
oo
Pr
118

738
with both the UDEC and the DIANA modeling
ed
Fig. 17. Natural rock arch destroyed by upward force (arrows indicate forces).

then subsidence during the benching as described in the

757
ct
739
740 results. previous section. 758
742
741 ● From the monitored data, it is deduced a maximum The predicted displacement of approximately 20-mm 759
743 of 6 mm roof subsidence at vault and 15 mm inward at downstream wall in model F with both UDEC and 760
displacement of Downstream wall during excavation. DIANA is also comparable with the value of 15 mm at
re

744 76
745 If the deduced values are correct, the intact rock El. One hundred and thirty two meters in the down- 762
746
747 model F gives a proper modeling result. stream wall deduced from the monitored data. Both the 763
UDEC and the DIANA modeling predict the maximum 764
748 displacement at the lower part of the down stream wall,
or

765
749 Due to lack of observed roof subsidence during top which is in agreement with the monitored data. 766
750 heading, comparison between monitored and modeled
751 roof settlement can only be made for the duration of the 6. Conclusions 767
benching. Fig. 18 shows the roof subsidence monitored
nc

752
753 by borehole extensometer BX10-1 and numerical mod- Results indicate that the additional use of systematic 768
754 eling results in model E1, E3, E7 with DIANA. It shows tensioned cables may not be rational to the stability of 769
755 that model E7 predicts the deformation pattern during the roof where a natural and reinforced roof arch has 770
756 benching excavation. There is an uplift of the roof and already been formed. The cables are neither efficient 77
U

122
123

124 Fig. 18. Roof subsidence monitored and modeled in DIANA.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Huang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology xx (2002) xxx–xxx 13
772 816
nor safe due to inducing stress concentration and trig- Heyman, J., 1972. Coulomb’s an essay in the history of civil
773 gering the mechanism of coupling of the roof subsidence engineering. Cambridge University Press, Memoir on Statics. 817
Heyman, J., 1995. The stone skeleton-structural engineering of 818
774 and wall displacement. masonry architecture. Cambridge University Press, pp. 160. 819
775 With a certain magnitude of in-situ horizontal stress, Hibino, S., Motojima, M., Kanagawa, T., 1983. Behavior of rocks 820
776 reasonable quality of the rock mass and arch shaped around large caverns during excavations, Proc. 5th Congr. ISRM. 821
777 roof, a natural rock cavern roof arch may be established Melbourne, pp. D199–202 822
778 near the roof surface by the excavation. The visualiza- Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavation in Rock. 823
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London. 824
779 tion of the stress field by the numerical modeling is Holmberg, M. 1991. The mechanical behavior of untensioned grouted 825
780 helpful to verify and identify the location and thickness rock bolts. Ph.D. thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.

f
826
781 of the roof arch. Efforts should be made to reinforce the Inglis, C., 1963. Applied mechanics for engineers. Dover Publications 827

oo
782 fractured rock mass and to avoid tensile stress and Inc, New York. 828
783 sliding along the rock joints in the roof. Irvine, H.M., 1981. Cable Structures. The MIT Press. 829
Lang, T.A., Bischoff, J.A., 1984. Stability of reinforced rock structure. 830
784 For the jointed hard rock, short and closely spaced In: Brown, E.T., Hudson, J.A. (Eds.), Design and performance of 831
785 fully grouted rockbolts are preferable to tensioned cables underground excavations. British Geotechnical Society, London, 832
786 in reinforcement of the rock roof arch. Tensioned cables pp. 11–18. 833

Pr
787 may be used to suspend large rock wedges or blocks Lang, T.A., Bischoff J.A., Wagner, P.L. 1979. A program plan for 834
788 locally. determining optimum roof bolt tension: Theory and application of 835
rock reinforcement systems in coal mines, Vol 1, Leeds, Hill and 836
Jewett, Inc., San Francisco. Report prepared for the U.S. Bureau 837
789 7. Uncited reference of Mines, Contract no. J0285006. p. 256. 838
Lang, T.A., 1962. Theory and practice of rock bolting. Transactions 839
of the AIME 220, 333–348. 840
790

791

792
Hoek and Brown, 1980

References ed
Aydan, O. 1989. The stabilization of rock engineering structures by
Panek, L.A. 1962a. The effect of suspension in bolted bedded mine
roof. USBM, RI 6138.
Panek, L.A. 1962b. The combined effects of friction and suspension
in bolting bedded mine roof, USBM, RI 6139.
Rabcewicz, L. 1964. New Astrian Tunnellng Method. Water Power,
453.457 (Nov 1964), 511–515 (Dec 1964), 19–24 (Jan 1965).
841
842
843
844
845
ct
846
793 rockbolts. Ph.D. thesis. Nagoya Univeristy, Japan.
Rabcewicz, L. 1969. Stability of tunnels under rock load. Water 847
794 Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of
Power, 225–229 (June), 266–273(July), 297–302 (Aug). 848
795 rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6,
Rabcewicz, L., Golser, J. 1973. Principal of dimensioning the sup- 849
796 183–236.
porting system for the New Austrian Tunneling Method. Water 850
re

797 Bergman, Sten G.A.B, Bjurstrom, Sten, 1983. Swedish experience of Power, March, 88–93. 851
798 rock bolting. Proc. of the Int. Symp. On Rock Bolting, Abisko, pp. Schach, R., Garshol, K., Heltzen, A.M., 1979. Rock bolting-a practical 852
799 243–255. handbook, Norwegian Inst. of Rock Blasting Techniques. Pergamon 853
800 Bjurstrom, S. 1974. Shear strength of hard rocks reinforced by Press, Oxford. 854
801 grouted untensioned bolts. Proc. 3rd Congr. ISRM, Denver, pp.
or

Spang, K., Egger, P., 1990. Action of fully-grouted bolts in jointed 855
802 B1194–1199. rock and factors of influence. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 23, 201–229. 856
803 Broch, E., Myrvang, A.M., Stjern, G., 1996. Support of large rock Stillborg, B. 1984. Experimental investigation of steel cables for rock 857
804 caverns in Norway. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 11, reinforcement in hard rock. Ph.D. thesis. Lulea˚ Univeristy, Lulea, ˚ 858
805 11–19. Sweden. 859
nc

806 Egger, P. 1973. Rock stabilization. Rock Mechanics, Courses and Stille, H. 1992. Keynote lecture: rock support in theory and practice. 860
807 Lectures, Udine, pp. 241–297. In: Kaiser, McCreath eds, Proceedings of Rock support in mining 861
808 Gerrard, C. 1983. Rock bolting in theory, Proceedings of the Inter- and underground construction, Balkema, Rotterdam. 862
809 national Symposium on Rock Bolting. Stjern, G. 1995. Practical performance of rock bolts. Ph.D. Thesis, 863
810 Gerdeen, J.C. et al. 1977. Design Criteria for Roof Bolting Plans Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, 864
811 Using Fully Resin-Grouted Non-tensioned Bolts ro Reinforce Norway. 865
U

812 Bedded Mine Roof, USBM, Contract No. Js366004, Michigan Westergaard, H.M., 1964. Theory of elasticity and plasticity p. 176. 866
813 Technological University, Vol. IV. Dover Publications, New York. 867
814 Goodman, R.E., 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. John Wiley YRCC 1994. Rock Support Design of Xiaolangdi Underground 868
815 and Sons, New York, pp. 72–73. Powerhouse. Yellow River Conservancy Commission, P.R. China. 869
870

View publication stats