Empirical design of span openings in weak rock

This thesis presents ground control best practices in weak rock environments including an augmentation to the existing Span Design curve by adding 463 case histories of RMR76 values ranging from 25 to 60. A Neural Network analysis of this data has been added and compared to the existing Span Design...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ouchi, Andrea Miyuki
Format: Others
Language:English
Published: University of British Columbia 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2429/2398
id ndltd-LACETR-oai-collectionscanada.gc.ca-BVAU.-2398
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-LACETR-oai-collectionscanada.gc.ca-BVAU.-23982013-06-05T04:16:51ZEmpirical design of span openings in weak rockOuchi, Andrea MiyukiRock mechanicsWeak rockSpan designGround supportFactor of safetyThis thesis presents ground control best practices in weak rock environments including an augmentation to the existing Span Design curve by adding 463 case histories of RMR76 values ranging from 25 to 60. A Neural Network analysis of this data has been added and compared to the existing Span Design data of 292 case histories. Ground support is almost always used in weak rock environments, though the type of support used can vary widely. The development of the weak rock augmented Span Design Curve has also been calibrated to four different support categories; Category A: Pattern Friction Sets, Category B: Pattern Friction Sets with Spot Bolting of Rebar, Category C: Pattern Friction Sets with Pattern Rebar Bolts and Category D: Cablebolting, Shotcrete, Spiling, Timber Sets or Underhand Cut and Fill. Category A is considered “Unsupported” with an average Factor of Safety less than 1.2. Categories B, C and D are considered “Supported” with average Factors of Safety greater than 1.2. All categories are compared the original Critical Span Design Curve presented by Lang (1994). However, only Category A can be accurately compared to the original Critical Span Design Curve as it is “Unsupported” as well. Category A yields good results, however, Categories B, C and D do not, but still demonstrate that spans can remain stable at lower RMR76 values. Design of underground man-entry type excavations in North America relies heavily upon empirical analysis. This design requires a higher Factor of Safety than other non-man entry type excavations. A comparison of the calculated ½ span failure Factor of Safety between all the categories is also presented. The contribution this research provides to the mining industry is the "Unsupported" Weak Rock Updated Span Design Curve and awareness pertaining to the potentially detrimental effects of using resin grounted rebar in weak rock masses and the false sense of security that the use of resin grouted rebar may instill. It is also shown that spans in the “Unstable” zone of the new “Unsupported” Weak Rock Updated Span Design Curve can possibly be stabilized if detailed engineering design is applied to obtain “Supported” status.University of British Columbia2008-09-29T21:04:59Z2008-09-29T21:04:59Z20082008-09-29T21:04:59Z2008-11Electronic Thesis or Dissertation5707696 bytesapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/2429/2398eng
collection NDLTD
language English
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Rock mechanics
Weak rock
Span design
Ground support
Factor of safety
spellingShingle Rock mechanics
Weak rock
Span design
Ground support
Factor of safety
Ouchi, Andrea Miyuki
Empirical design of span openings in weak rock
description This thesis presents ground control best practices in weak rock environments including an augmentation to the existing Span Design curve by adding 463 case histories of RMR76 values ranging from 25 to 60. A Neural Network analysis of this data has been added and compared to the existing Span Design data of 292 case histories. Ground support is almost always used in weak rock environments, though the type of support used can vary widely. The development of the weak rock augmented Span Design Curve has also been calibrated to four different support categories; Category A: Pattern Friction Sets, Category B: Pattern Friction Sets with Spot Bolting of Rebar, Category C: Pattern Friction Sets with Pattern Rebar Bolts and Category D: Cablebolting, Shotcrete, Spiling, Timber Sets or Underhand Cut and Fill. Category A is considered “Unsupported” with an average Factor of Safety less than 1.2. Categories B, C and D are considered “Supported” with average Factors of Safety greater than 1.2. All categories are compared the original Critical Span Design Curve presented by Lang (1994). However, only Category A can be accurately compared to the original Critical Span Design Curve as it is “Unsupported” as well. Category A yields good results, however, Categories B, C and D do not, but still demonstrate that spans can remain stable at lower RMR76 values. Design of underground man-entry type excavations in North America relies heavily upon empirical analysis. This design requires a higher Factor of Safety than other non-man entry type excavations. A comparison of the calculated ½ span failure Factor of Safety between all the categories is also presented. The contribution this research provides to the mining industry is the "Unsupported" Weak Rock Updated Span Design Curve and awareness pertaining to the potentially detrimental effects of using resin grounted rebar in weak rock masses and the false sense of security that the use of resin grouted rebar may instill. It is also shown that spans in the “Unstable” zone of the new “Unsupported” Weak Rock Updated Span Design Curve can possibly be stabilized if detailed engineering design is applied to obtain “Supported” status.
author Ouchi, Andrea Miyuki
author_facet Ouchi, Andrea Miyuki
author_sort Ouchi, Andrea Miyuki
title Empirical design of span openings in weak rock
title_short Empirical design of span openings in weak rock
title_full Empirical design of span openings in weak rock
title_fullStr Empirical design of span openings in weak rock
title_full_unstemmed Empirical design of span openings in weak rock
title_sort empirical design of span openings in weak rock
publisher University of British Columbia
publishDate 2008
url http://hdl.handle.net/2429/2398
work_keys_str_mv AT ouchiandreamiyuki empiricaldesignofspanopeningsinweakrock
_version_ 1716586813875814400