11th October, 2012

Aritra Banerjee M.Tech (Geotech.) (1st Year) Enrolment No: 12521006

Contents
Introduction Proposed Initiation of the Damage Process Approaches for Analysis of Damage Process Cohesion Loss due to Damage Process Proposed Criterion for Damage Initiation Conclusion

Introduction
Fracture in compressive stress field is of great concern.

Our understanding of the damage and failure processes in brittle rock masses in deep excavation has improved in the last 2 decades.
In 1996, Castro proposed that under high compression, stress-induced damage processes begin around the opening
by nucleation and growth of extension fractures within intact rocks. Also, the presence of jointing has little effect on the initiation of the damage process as compared to low in-situ stress zone. So, lab test on intact specimens can be used to assess initiation of rock damage.
3

Introduction (Contd.)
In 2008, Kaiser and Kim, found that depending on rock confinement, spalling (or brittle failure) dominates over shear failure. For studying extension fracturing, several theoretical micromechanical models are reviewed. Damage initiation (DI) criterion is developed and verified by analysing excavation response at Neutrino Observatory in Sudbury, Canada.

Proposed Initiation of Damage Process

Moderately Jointed Rock Mass consist of rock containing upto 4 sets of discontinuities having
low persistence,

not generally interconnected, but closely spaced.

Classified as Good Quality, RMR values > 70 or Q value >20

At greater depth (high in-situ stresses), due to lack of kinematic freedom, movement of wedges and discontinuities, have minor effect on damage initiation.

Damage onset is controlled by

inherent strength properties of intact rock and
their relationship to the magnitude and orientation of induced deviatoric stresses.
5

Proposed Initiation of Damage Process (Contd.)

Extensive investigation and literature reviews suggest that initiation of damage process is dominated by
Nucleation

Propagation of extension fractures.

Extension Fracturing
exhibits clean surfaces (no shear displacements) nucleate from stress concentrators forms at low angle (< 10) is sensitive to changes in the magnitude and direction of major principal stress(s1) (Castro ,1996).

Approaches for Analysis of Damage Process

2 Approaches:
Micromechanical Approach
considers growth of individual extension fractures from an existing stress concentrator (existing discontinuity, pore, or grain boundary). applies fracture mechanics principles to mathematically estimate the local stress distribution around the existing crack.

Empirical Approach
empirically match the field observations recorded around deep South African tunnels.

Micromechanical Approach
Several crack models have been used to explain the onset of cracking on a microscopic scale.

Fig : Examples of crack models used to study the nucleation of extension cracks
8

Micromechanical Approach (Contd.)

Fig : Examples of crack models used to study the nucleation of extension cracks

Micromechanical Approach (Contd.)

Sliding and the open crack models are the ones most commonly used. Both models can predict the initiation of damage due the growth of extension cracks (or wing cracks) from local indirect tensile stress concentrations around the tips of stress concentrators.

Fig: Sliding and Open Crack Models

10

Micromechanical Approach (Contd.)

Difference b/w these 2 models:
Sliding crack model estimates the induced principal stress around an inclined crack before the nucleation of extension cracks. So, friction is considered. Open crack model extension crack growth occurs when local st > intrinsic cohesive reserve or resistance of the rock material (i.e. prediction in uncracked state).

Open crack models were found to better represent extension fracturing at the field scale, as shear deformation is resisted at high in-situ stresses.
11

Micromechanical Approach (Contd.)

Considerations for DI Criterion:
Rock is heterogeneous material
consisting of anisotropic crystals and structural weakness at all levels.

Under compressive loading, extension cracks nucleate when the induced st > a critical value (depends on material property). Open crack model (assumption).

Induced st at a point is driven by a linear function of (s1 - s3) at that point.

The driving force is linearly proportional to the local principal stress difference, expressed as (s1 - as3), where a (> 3, generally) is a constant for a given stress concentrator shape and orientation.

12

Micromechanical Approach (Contd.)

Considerations for DI Criterion (Contd.):
Co-axial Stress - neglected in sliding models cannot simulate growth of extension cracks that do not close under stress and/or are approx. aligned to direction of s1. Open Crack Model: Cohesion component of the intact rock is fully mobilized at the onset of damage or crack initiation. In addition to this geometric effect on the induced stresses, the major principal stress has to exceed the cohesion reserve of the material.
For the nucleation of extension cracks s1 > (6 to 10) times s3.

As per Trollope's model (1968),

In brittle rocks, stress level (ssc) at which stable crack growth occurs in UCS tests is proportional to 3 to 5 times the tensile strength, depending on n.
13

Empirical Approach
Observations from 3 - 4 m wide square or D-shaped tunnels and ore pass system in gold mines of S.A., shows that
extension fracturing is controlled by major principal far-field stress.

Onset of rock mass damage starts when:

s1 field > 0.2 sc (Hoek, Brown, 1980) or, For D-shaped tunnels, max stngt > 0.25 to 0.4 sc

By Back-analysing 20 km of tunnels (Wiseman, 1979),

Degree of fracturing, f

(3s 1 field s 3 field )

sc

14

Cohesion Loss due to Damage Process

Loss of cohesion
overall integrity is maintained, but locally the continuity is gradually lost because the bonding between grains or particles of the rock is gradually broken.

Fracture initiation & damage accumulation processes cause a reduction of the intrinsic cohesion of the intact, hard rock.

Macrofracture formation changes the internal structure of the rock mass and degrades its cohesion reserve.
Verified by lab. compression tests on coarse-grained Wombeyan marble, by applying temperature stresses.
15

Cohesion Loss due to Damage Process (Contd.)

Fig :Triaxial test results on intact and granulated Wombeyan marble (Gerogiannopoulous, Brown 1978) and Hoek-Brown (1988, 2002)
16

Cohesion Loss due to Damage Process (Contd.)

Loss of Cohesion due to Cyclic Loading By applying a compressive cyclic loading in the Lac-duBonnet granite specimens, a gradual loss of cohesive strength occurred by
decreasing the cohesion reserve from the intact rock to a residual value without mobilizing the frictional component.

Damage initiation occurred when the load first exceeded about 30 to 40% of the Lac-du-Bonnet granite peak strength.

17

Cohesion Loss due to Damage Process (Contd.)

Loss of Cohesion due to Brazilian tests A stress rotation research project was started at the Geomechanics Research Centre at Laurentian University in Canada. Hypothesis : with stress rotation, reopening of existing cracks and the nucleation and propagation of new cracks in different directions will cause a decrease in Brazilian tensile strength (Gramberg, 1989).

18

Cohesion Loss due to Damage Process (Contd.)

Types of stress rotation (both, diametral loading every 22.5):
1. Stress rotation in 1 direction 0 to 90 diametral loading, again stressed to failure at 0 (Granite & Norite) . 2. Stress rotation in 2 directions preloading from 0 to 90 and 90 to 0 (Norite).

Brazilian Tensile strength reduced by 20% for Granite samples and 15 20% for Norite samples.

19

Loss of Cohesion due to Brazilian tests (Contd.)

Fig: Brazilian tensile strengths for granite and norite samples with and without pre-loading.
20

Proposed Criterion for Damage Initiation

Onset of damage in high in-situ stressed and low confinement condition for jointed rock mass is dominated by development and propagation of extension fractures.

Salient Features:
a. Lab tests on intact specimens can give valid information b. Cohesive reserve and tensile strength decreases with damage initiation. c. e. Cohesive reserve is directly proportional to ssc. d. Extension crack nucleate when st > critical stress (comp. loading)

st is driven by a linear function of (s1 s3).

21

Proposed Criterion for Damage Initiation (Contd.)

Kaiser (2008) and Martin & Christiansson (2009)
a tri-linear or S-shaped (linear) failure envelope best represents the rock mass behaviour.

Fig: Tri-linear behaviour of rock mass

22

Proposed Criterion for Damage Initiation (Contd.)

Proposed zones of rock mass damage initiation can be estimated by , (s1 s 3 ) s sc
where, ssc is in the range of 25 % to 40 % of sc (Bruce, 1966).

Successfully predicted depth of DI zones in 2070 m deep Sudbury Neutrino Observatory cavern area, S.A.
average ssc = 76 MPa (34 % of sc) ( Castro, McCreath, 1996).

ssc can be estimated using UCS with strain gauges.

has been used earlier by Tresca (1864), Wiseman(1979); Martin & Read (1996) for analysing rock mass around Mine-by Test Tunnel at AECL, Canada.
23

Criterion of the form (s1 s3) = a critical constant

Conclusion
Field experience showed that
extension fracturing is dominant in damage initiation within the intact rock in a moderately jointed rock mass.

Also, at SNO, presence of jointing has little effect on initiation of damage initiation process.

Lab tests on intact specimens can give valid information

DI criterion can be applied to elastic numerical analysis to identify potential DI zones around deep openings. Estimation of areal extent and depth of potential DI zones assists the design of openings excavated in a moderately jointed, highly stressed brittle rock mass.
24