Revisiting the assessment of squeezing condition and energy absorption of flexible supports: A mine development case

Abstract A vast majority of assessment methods for squeezing condition are generally based on empirical studies. The empirical studies rely on the existence of the case data and when the database is expanded, the existing studies can be revised accordingly. In this research, 35 data points were collected from mine development openings with a large depth range and variable support systems were considered to modify pre-existing squeezing condition assessment methods. Together with the chart modifications, new equations were proposed by linear multiple regression method to predict the convergence of the underground openings. The ratio of support pressure to vertical stress was the major parameter for the modifications. Another contribution is the involvement of support energy absorption which was calculated based on support pressure and the radial displacement of the support. The energy to be absorbed by the support systems was correlated with depth, strength and rock mass classification ratings. It must be noted that the energy absorption is pronounceable for flexible or yielding supports and not for rigid or heavy support systems. The limitations and shortcomings of the modifications and new approaches are also provided.

[1]  R. K. Goel,et al.  Indian experiences with Q and RMR systems , 1995 .

[2]  G. Barla Tunnelling under squeezing rock conditions , 2002 .

[3]  Nick Barton,et al.  Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel design , 2002 .

[4]  Giovanni Battista Barla,et al.  Analysis of the behaviour of a yield-control support system in squeezing rock , 2011 .

[5]  L. Turanli,et al.  Comparative evaluation of steel mesh, steel fibre and high-performance polypropylene fibre reinforced shotcrete in panel test , 2004 .

[6]  Xianda Feng,et al.  Predicting Tunnel Squeezing Using Multiclass Support Vector Machines , 2018 .

[7]  Mahendra Singh,et al.  A multiple-graph technique for preliminary assessment of ground conditions for tunneling , 2017 .

[8]  K. Terzaghi,et al.  Rock tunneling with steel supports , 1946 .

[9]  Rafael Jimenez,et al.  A linear classifier for probabilistic prediction of squeezing conditions in Himalayan tunnels , 2011 .

[10]  K. Kovári,et al.  Basic considerations on tunnelling in squeezing ground , 1996 .

[11]  G. Russo,et al.  An update of the “multiple graph” approach for the preliminary assessment of the excavation behaviour in rock tunnelling , 2014 .

[12]  H.A.D. Stacey,et al.  Energy-absorbing capacity of reinforced shotcrete, with reference to the containment of rockburst damage , 1995 .

[13]  Evert Hoek,et al.  Big Tunnels in Bad Rock , 2001 .

[14]  Mahendra Singh,et al.  Critical strain and squeezing of rock mass in tunnels , 2007 .

[15]  R. K. Goel Tunnelling through weak and fragile rocks of Himalayas , 2014 .

[16]  Ping Cao,et al.  Support technology of deep roadway under high stress and its application , 2016 .

[17]  S. Sakurai,et al.  LESSONS LEARNED FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS IN TUNNELLING , 1997 .

[18]  I. F. Öge Prediction of Top Coal Cavability Character of a Deep Coal Mine by Empirical and Numerical Methods , 2018, Journal of Mining Science.

[19]  Evert Hoek,et al.  HOEK-BROWN FAILURE CRITERION - 2002 EDITION , 2002 .

[20]  H.A.D. Kirsten EQUIVALENCE OF MESH- AND FIBRE-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE AT LARGE DEFLECTIONS , 1993 .

[21]  Ebrahim Ghasemi,et al.  Prediction of Squeezing Potential in Tunneling Projects Using Data Mining-Based Techniques , 2018, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.

[22]  Bhawani Singh,et al.  Correlation between observed support pressure and rock mass quality , 1992 .

[23]  Giovanni Battista Barla,et al.  Full-face excavation of large tunnels in difficult conditions , 2016 .

[24]  Xiaoping Zhou,et al.  Visco-plastic deformation analysis of rock tunnels based on fractional derivatives , 2019, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology.

[25]  G. Vik,et al.  Predicted and measured performance of the 62 m span Norwegian Olymphic ice hockey cavern at Gjøvik , 1994 .

[26]  Ö. Aydan,et al.  The squeezing potential of rock around tunnels: Theory and prediction with examples taken from Japan , 1996 .

[27]  Georg Anagnostou,et al.  Evaluation of higher capacity segmental lining systems when tunnelling in squeezing rock , 2017 .

[28]  Z. T. Bieniawski,et al.  Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering , 1989 .

[29]  Bei Jiang,et al.  Mechanical properties of square-steel confined-concrete quantitative pressure-relief arch and its application in a deep mine , 2016 .

[30]  Carlos M Carranza-Torres,et al.  Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using the generalized form of the hoek-brown failure criterion , 2004 .

[31]  Hani S. Mitri,et al.  Design guidelines for steel arch supports in underground mining , 1991 .

[32]  E. Hoek,et al.  Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses , 2000 .

[33]  İbrahim Ferid Öge,et al.  Prediction of cementitious grout take for a mine shaft permeation by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and multiple regression , 2017 .

[34]  Feng Gao,et al.  Rock creep modeling based on discontinuous deformation analysis , 2013 .

[35]  K. K. Panthi,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of tunnel squeezing for two tunnel cases from Nepal Himalaya , 2007 .

[36]  Hani S. Mitri,et al.  Full scale testing of steel arch tunnel supports , 1996 .

[37]  M. Viladkar,et al.  Prediction of Ground Behaviour for Rock Tunnelling , 2018, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[38]  Evert Hoek,et al.  Quantification of the Geological Strength Index Chart , 2013 .

[39]  E. Hoek Tunnel support in weak rock , 1998 .