Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 2395–2413 | Cite as

Influence of Stope Excavation on Drift Convergence and Support Behavior: Insights from 3D Continuum and Discontinuum Models

  • Navid Bahrani
  • John Hadjigeorgiou
Original Paper
  • 246 Downloads

Abstract

Numerical modeling is an important tool in rock engineering. The choice for a particular numerical method is based on its capacity to represent the problem boundary conditions, the material behavior, and the pertinent rock mass failure mechanisms. It follows that there could be more than one numerical method suitable for a particular problem. In this respect, the selection of a particular method will be dictated by a series of technical and practical trade-offs. This paper addresses issues associated with the simulation of jointed rock masses and ground support by employing both continuum and discontinuum numerical methods. The focus is on the explicit simulation of a jointed rock mass and the implementation of ground support using a three-dimensional numerical code based on the distinct element method. 3DEC was used to generate continuum and discontinuum rock mass models, which were calibrated based on field instrumentation data from the George Fisher mine, in Australia. In particular, the investigation focused on the response of the ground support system, consisting of both reinforcement and surface support elements, to stress changes associated with the excavation of nearby stopes. The main difference between the constructed continuum and discontinuum 3DEC models was the representation of the rock mass at the location of the instrumented drift. In the continuum model, an equivalent continuum rock mass model, with the ubiquitous-joint (UJ) constitutive model, was used, whereas in the discontinuum model, joints were simulated explicitly. In this case study, it was observed that the adopted discontinuum modeling approach provided more realistic results than the continuum model with the UJ constitutive model, in terms of the drift convergence, support behavior, and depth of yielded zone due to the excavation of stopes near the instrumented section of the drift.

Keywords

Ground support Jointed rock mass Distinct element method (DEM) Drift convergence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG) provided the field data required to conduct this research. Gordon Sweby from ACG is gratefully acknowledged for many discussions on the instrumentation and in interpreting and comparing the results between FLAC3D and 3DEC models. The authors would further like to thank Dr. Jim Hazzard from the Itasca Consulting Group for providing technical support on 3DEC modeling. This research was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Itasca Consulting Group through its Itasca Education Partnership (IEP) program.

References

  1. Bahrani N, Hadjigeorgiou J (2017) Explicit reinforcement models for fully-grouted rebar rock bolts. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(2):267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech 10:1–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouzeran L, Furtney J, Hazzard J, Lemos JV, Pierce M (2016) Advanced 3DEC bolt model for simulation of ground support performance in highly fractured and bulked rock masses. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on ground support in mining and underground construction, Lulea, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. Capes GW (2009) Open stope hanging wall design based on general and detailed data collection in rock masses with unfavorable hangingwall conditions. Dissertation, University of SaskatchewanGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark IH (2011) Simulation of rock mass strength using ubiquitous joints in 3D. In: Proceedings of continuum and distinct element numerical modeling in geomechanics, Minneapolis, paper 06-05Google Scholar
  7. DeGraff PH, Hyett AJ, Lausch P, Bawden WF, Yao M (1999) Investigations into the distribution of load along cable bolts—a field trial using ‘SMART TECHNOLOGY’, an aid to successful ground support design. In: Proceedings of the ISRM congress, Paris, pp 1273–1277Google Scholar
  8. Hajiabdolmajid V, Kaiser PK, Martin CD (2002) Modelling brittle failure of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(6):731–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halim IS, Chen WP, Ilsley R (2008) Initial support design for tunnels in horizontally bedded sedimentary rock. In: North American tunneling: proceedings of the North American tunneling conference, San Francisco, SMEGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ismael M, Konietzky H (2017) Integration of elastic stiffness anisotropy into ubiquitous joint model. Procedia Eng 191:1032–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Itasca (2013) 3DEC—3 Dimensional Distinct Element Code. Ver 5.0. Itasca Consulting Group Inc, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson R, Lau JSO (1990) The effect of specimen size on the laboratory mechanical properties of Lac du Bonnet grey granite. In: Cunha P (ed) Scale effect in rock masses. Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 165–174Google Scholar
  14. Jager AJ, Ryder JA (2002) A textbook on rock mechanics for tabular hard rock mines. SIMRAC, BraamfonteinGoogle Scholar
  15. Karampinos E, Hadjigeorgiou J, Hazzard J, Turcotte P (2015) Discrete element modelling of the buckling phenomenon in deep hard rock mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 80:346–356Google Scholar
  16. Kazakidis V, Diederichs M (1993) Understanding jointed rock mass behaviour using a ubiquitous joint approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 30(2):163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lan H, Martin CD, Andersson JC (2013) Evolution of in situ rock mass damage induced by mechanical-thermal loading. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(1):153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavoie T (2011) An analytical geomechanical upscaling approach for modelling jointed rock mass behaviour using ubiquitous joints. Dissertation, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Lilley CR, Roberts T, Putzar G, Beck DA (2013) Dynamic simulations of excavations with yielding bolts. In: Potvin Y, Brady B (eds) Ground support 2013: seventh international conference on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 525–538Google Scholar
  20. Lorig LJ, Varona P (2013) Guidelines for numerical modelling of rock support for mines. In: Potvin Y, Brady B (eds) Ground support 2013: seventh international conference on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 81–106Google Scholar
  21. Malmgren L, Nordlund E (2008) Interaction of shotcrete with rock and rock bolts—a numerical study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:538–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petit J-P (1988) Normal stress dependent rupture morphology in direct shear tests on sandstone with applications to some natural fault surface features. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 25:411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pratt HR, Black AD, Brown WS, Brace WF (1972) The effect of specimen size on the mechanical properties of unjointed diorite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 9:513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rocscience (2011) RS2 Version 8.0—finite element analysis for excavations and slopes. www.rocscience.com, Toronto, ON, Canada
  25. Saiang D, Malmgren L, Nordlund E (2005) Laboratory tests on shotcrete-rock joint in direct shear, tension and compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(4):275–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sainsbury BL, Sainsbury DP (2017) Practical use of the ubiquitous-joint constitutive model for the simulation of anisotropic rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(6):1507–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sainsbury B, Pierce M, Mas Ivars D (2008) Simulation of rock mass strength anisotropy and scale effects using a Ubiquitous Joint Rock Mass (UJRM) model. In: Proceedings of the continuum and distinct element numerical modeling in geo-engineering, Minneapolis, paper 06-02Google Scholar
  28. Sainsbury DP, Sainsbury BL, Sweeney E (2016) Three-dimensional analysis of complex anisotropic slope instability at MMG’s Century Mine. Min Technol 125(4):212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Starfield AM, Cundall PA (1988) Towards a methodology for rock mechanics modelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 25(3):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sweby G, Dight P, Potvin Y (2016a) A numerical modelling case study—correlation of ground support instrumentation data with a three dimensional inelastic model. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on ground support in mining and underground construction, Lulea, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  31. Sweby G, Dight P, Potvin Y, Gamble N (2016b) An instrumentation project to investigate the response of a ground support system to stoping induced deformation. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on ground support in mining and underground construction, Lulea, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  32. Vakili A, Sandy MP, Mathews M, Rodda B (2013) Ground support design under highly stressed conditions. In: Potvin Y, Brady B (eds) Proceedings of the seventh international conference on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 551–564Google Scholar
  33. Vermeer PA, De Borst R (1984) Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. Heron 29(3):1–64Google Scholar
  34. Villaescusa E (1997) Rock mechanics studies at the George Fisher Project. Technical Report, Mount Isa Mines LimitedGoogle Scholar
  35. Vlachopoulos N, Diederichs MS (2014) Appropriate uses and practical limitations of 2D numerical analysis of tunnels and tunnel support response. Geotech Geol Eng 32:469–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton G (2017) Scale effects observed in compression testing of standard granite including post-peak strength and dilatancy. Geotech Geol Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0377-7 Google Scholar
  37. Walton G, Diederichs M, Punkkinen A, Whitemore J (2016) Back analysis of a pillar monitoring experiment at 2.4 km depth in the Sudbury Basin, Canada. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 85:33–51Google Scholar
  38. Wiles TD (2006) Reliability of numerical modeling predictions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(3):454–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Resource EngineeringDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Lassonde Institute of Mining, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations