ISSN 1229-2427 (Print) ISSN 2288-646X (Online) http://dx.doi.org/10.7843/kgs.2014.30.7.41 한국지반공학회논문집 제30권 7호 2014년 7월 pp. 41 ～ 53
JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY Vol.30, No.7, July 2014 pp. 41 ～ 53
절리형성 암반지층 굴착벽체 작용토압에 대한 절리 점착강도의 영향
Effect of Joint Cohesive Strength on the Earth Pressure against the Support System in a Jointed Rock Mass
손 무 락1 Son, Moorak
솔로몬 아데도쿤2 Solomon Adedokun
Abstract
This study examined the magnitude and distribution of the earth pressure on the support system in a jointed rock mass by considering different joint shear strength, rock type, and joint inclination angle. The study particularly focused on the effect of joint cohesive strength for a certain condition. Based on a physical model test (Son and Park, 2014), extended parametric studies were conducted considering rock-structure interactions based on the discrete element method, which can consider the rock and joint characteristics of rock mass. The results showed the earth pressure was strongly affected by the joint cohesive strength as well as the rock type and joint inclination angle. The study indicated that the effect of joint cohesive strength was particularly significant when a rock mass was under the condition of joint sliding. This paper investigates the magnitude of joint cohesive strength to prevent a joint sliding for each different condition. The test results were also compared with Peck’s earth pressure, which has been frequently used for soil ground. The comparison indicated that the earth pressure in a jointed rock mass can be significantly different from that in soil ground. This study is expected to provide a better understanding of the earth pressure on the support system in a jointed rock mass.
요 지
본 연구는 절리형성 암반지층 굴착벽체 작용토압의 크기 및 분포에 대해서 절리의 점착강도, 암석종류 및 절리경사각을
달리하여 조사하였다. 본 연구는 특히 절리 점착강도의 영향에 대해 초점을 두었다. 실내모형실험(Son and Park, 2014)에
근거하여 암석과 구조물의 상호작용을 고려하면서 확장된 매개변수 연구를 수행하였다. 이 때 매개변수 연구는 암석과
절리의 거동특성을 고려할 수 있도록 개별요소법에 근거하여 수행하였다. 연구결과 굴착벽체에 작용하는 토압은 암석 및
절리경사각 뿐만아니라 절리 점착강도에 의해서 크게 영향을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 절리 점착강도의 영향은 특히 절리가
활동될 수 있는 조건에서 크게 나타났다. 본 연구에서는 서로 다른 조건에서 절리의 활동을 방지하기 위한 절리 점착강도의
크기를 조사하였다. 연구결과는 또한 토사지반에서의 토압산정을 위해 자주 이용되는 Peck의 경험토압과도 비교되었다.
비교결과 절리형성 암반지층에서 발생하는 토압은 토사지반에서의 토압과는 크게 다를 수 있다는 것을 나타냈다. 본 연구결
과는 향후 절리형성 암반지층 굴착벽체 작용토압에 대해 보다 나은 이해를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.
Keywords : Rock excavation, Support system, Earth pressure, Joint cohesive strength, Rock type, Joint inclination angle, Rock-structure interaction
1 정회원, Member, Prof., Department of Civil Engrg., Daegu Univ., Tel: +82-53-850-6527, Fax: +82-53-850-6529, [email protected], Corresponding author, 교신저자 2 비회원, Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engrg., Daegu Univ.
* 본 논문에 대한 토의를 원하는 회원은 2015년 1월 31일까지 그 내용을 학회로 보내주시기 바랍니다. 저자의 검토 내용과 함께 논문집에 게재하여 드립니다.
Copyright © 2014 by the Korean Geotechnical Society
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Sand Soft to medium clay Stiff fissured clay (a) Apparent earth pressure (Peck, 1969)
Sand Temporary support in stiff clay Permanent support in medium clay (b) Apparent earth pressure (Tschebotarioff, 1973)
Fig. 1. Apparent earth pressure for soils
1. Introduction
The number of open cuts and underground excavations are increasing gradually due to the development and upgrading of existing and new infrastructure. The surrounding environment is often affected by these excavation works, which can cause several problems. In particular, a mis- calculation of the earth pressure on the excavation walls can result in collapse of the support systems in open cuts, which can lead to substantial time loss, financial damage, work stoppages, legal action, and compensation. On the other hand, an excessively conservative design of a retaining structure can add unnecessary cost to a project. Accordingly, the safety and economic considerations of the support systems are essential, for which it is important to understand the earth pressure acting against an excavation wall during the excavation process, together with the ground-wall interactions.
The earth pressure on the retaining walls caused by ground excavation works have been examined by several studies through experimental, analytical and numerical assessments (Peck, 1969; Bjerrum et al., 1972; Tschebotarioff, 1973; Lambe and Whitman, 1978; Potts and Fourie, 1986;
Liao and Neff, 1990; Wong et al., 1997; Hashash and Whittle, 2002; Worden and Achmus, 2013). Most existing studies on the earth pressure focused mainly on the soil ground (sand and clay). Fig. 1 shows the apparent earth pressure envelopes suggested by Peck (1969) and Tschebotarioff (1973), which are used widely for the support systems in soil ground. The earth pressure from a faulted or jointed rock mass behind an excavation wall was assessed using the force polygon method for a wedge block, and Prakash and Saran (1966) suggested a method for calculating the earth pressure that makes use of the force equilibrium for a wedge block. This method, however, does not consider ground-wall interactions and cannot provide the distribution
Fig. 2. Test preparation for physical model (Son and Park, 2014)
of the earth pressure along the wall.
Few studies have examined the rock strata to determine the earth pressure characteristics by considering the ground- wall interactions and joint characteristics, which are important parameters affecting the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure. This might be due to the general mis- conception that rock strata are under better conditions than soil ground. Recently, Son (2013), and Son and Park (2014) reported the results of the earth pressures in jointed rock masses. Their results clearly showed that the earth pressure can be higher for rock strata than soil ground when the rock and joint characteristics are under unfavorable conditions, such as a joint condition that induces sliding and a weathered joint and rock condition. On the other hand, the earth pressure might be much lower than the soil ground when the rock conditions are favorable.
This study extended the previous studies, focusing on the effects of the joint cohesive strength for different rock type and joint inclination angle. Numerical parametric studies were conducted by varying the joint cohesive strength together with the rock type and joint inclination angle. The advantages of numerical analysis are that various conditions can be considered easily with limited time, cost, and space, and reproducible analyses are possible.
This characteristic allows the effects of rock and joint on the earth pressure to be investigated in various conditions.
This study results are expected to provide a better under- standing of the earth pressure on the support system in
a jointed rock mass and of appropriate measure to prevent a joint sliding in rock mass.
2. Numerical approach and parametric study
The numerical approach in this study is similar to the previous studies (Son, 2013 and Son and Park, 2014), and the following gives a brief description. The approach was verified by the numerical simulation of a physical model test (Figs. 2 and 3) and the details of the verification are reported elsewhere (Son and Park, 2014). The numerical approach was extended to this parametric study, which considered joint cohesive strength as well as rock type and joint inclination angle on the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure against the support systems in jointed rock masses.
The 2-D Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC, 2004), which can allow large displacements between the blocks, was adopted. The rock blocks, wall and struts were simulated as separate elastic units. The joints between the rock blocks and the interfaces between the walls and rocks were modeled using the Coulomb slip model, in which when the contact shear stress exceeds the contact shear strength the contact loses its strength and sliding occurs.
The analysis model for this study was 68.8 m × 31.5 m, and the excavation wall, which was a soldier pile and timber lagging wall, was installed to a depth of 20.5 m (Fig. 4). The excavation width was assumed to be 20 m
Fig. 3. Comparison between the physical model test and numerical simulation (Son and Park, 2014)
Fig. 4. Numerical modeling of single layered rock (joint inclination angle = 60°)
and the final excavation depth was 19 m. A strut-supported system was used because the apparent earth pressure (Peck, 1969), which was compared with this study’s results, was obtained from many sets of comprehensive measurements of the strut-supported excavation walls.
This study considered the various arrangements of rock type and joint condition (Table 1). The joint inclination angle was measured in the anticlockwise direction from the horizontal plane, and the joint spacing was assumed
to be 1 m. To reflect the general excavation procedure in the field, eight stages of excavation were carried out to obtain the distribution and magnitude of the earth pressure.
Before the first excavation, the initial equilibrium was obtained with an earth pressure coefficient of 0.5 at rest.
At this stage, the boundary condition was a roller at each end of the two vertical boundaries and at the bottom boundary. After ensuring the initial equilibrium condition, all the displacements were reset to zero, and the wall was
Table 1. Controlled parameters for extended numerical analysis Joint and wall
Rock type
Joint shear condition Joint inclination (°)
Joint spacing Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (°) (m)
Hard rock 0, 50, 150, 250, 350, 450 50 0, 30, 60, 90 1.0
Slightly weathered rock 0, 50, 150, 250, 350 40 0, 30, 60, 90 1.0
Moderately weathered rock 0, 50, 150, 250 35 0, 30, 60, 90 1.0
Fig. 5. Sequential excavation stages in numerical simulation
installed to a depth of 20.5 m. The first excavation was conducted up to 1.0 m, followed by installation of the first strut at 0.5 m over the excavation line. After the first excavation, additional excavation work was performed every 3 m, followed by strut installation every 3 m, which is 0.5 m above each excavation line. Wall stabilization was confirmed after each excavation stage. The final excavation was carried out up to 19.0 m, and the strut was not installed at the final stage (see Fig. 5).
Although the shape of a typical excavation wall (e.g.
soldier pile and timber lagging wall) might have little effect on the earth pressure and displacement in the field, provided that flexural stiffness is equivalent, numerical analysis can have considerable effects on the result because of the stress composition in modeling. The shape of the actual wall was difficult to simulate identically by numerical analysis. To address this issue, this study transformed the excavation wall to a simple section representing the equivalent
Table 2. Properties of wall, rocks, joints, and interfaces in the extended numerical analysis
Rock type
Wall Rock and joint
Interface between rock and wall
Rock Joint
EwIw
(Mpa.m4) Er
(MPa) ν γt
(kN/m3) σt
(kPa) c (kPa)
(°)
r
(°) kn
(MPa/m) ks
(MPa/m) c, σt
(kPa) δ (°)
kn
(MPa/m) ks
(MPa/m)
Hard
rock 23.20 1.0×105 0.2 26.5 0
0, 50, 150, 250,
350, 450
50 35 2.33×105 0.96×105 0 33 2.33×105 0.96×105
Slightly weathered
rock
23.20 1.0×104 0.22 25.5 0
0, 50, 150, 250,
350
40 32 2.33×104 0.96×104 0 33 2.33×105 0.96×105
Moderately weathered
rock
23.20 1.0×103 0.25 24.5 0 0, 50,
150, 250 35 31.5 2.33×103 0.96×103 0 23 2.33×103 0.96×103
EwIw= flexural stiffness of wall; γt = unit weight of rock; Er = elastic modulus of rock; ν = Poisson’s ratio; c = cohesion of joint or interface; σt = tensile strength of joint or interface; = friction angle of joint or interface; r = residual friction angle of joint or interface; δ = friction angle of interface; kn = normal stiffness of joint or interface; ks = shear stiffness of joint or interface
Fig. 6. Transformed section in numerical modeling
flexural stiffness of the wall (see Fig. 6). Table 2 lists the properties of the wall, rock, joint, and interface used in the numerical parametric studies.
3. Result analysis
The influence of joint cohesive strength on the magnitude and distribution of the earth pressure in jointed rock mass was examined, and the results of the investigation are discussed below.
Fig. 7 compares the apparent earth pressures for hard rock due to the varying joint cohesion and joint inclination angle with Peck’s empirical earth pressure based on the sand ground with a friction of = 35°. The apparent earth pressure ratio in the figure is the ratio of the induced earth pressure from the numerical test to Peck’s empirical earth pressure for the sand ground. Fig. 8 compares the total earth pressure ratios between the induced earth pressure from the numerical analysis and Peck’s empirical earth pressure for the sand ground.
For a joint inclination angle of 0°, the induced earth pressures for all levels of joint cohesion were very small
and similar. The earth pressures were much lower than Peck’s earth pressure, and the total earth pressure ratio (the induced earth pressure/ Peck’s earth pressure) was only 0.01 for all levels of joint cohesion (see Fig. 8)
For a joint inclination angle of 30°, the induced earth pressures were similar to those of a joint inclination angle of 0°. The total earth pressure ratio was only 0.02 for all levels of joint cohesion.
For a joint inclination angle of 60°, where joint sliding was induced, the induced earth pressures were dependent on the joint cohesion. For the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa, the earth pressure was very small and similar to those of the joint inclination angles of 0° and 30°. On the other hand, when the joint cohesion was lower than 50 kPa, the earth pressure increased significantly due to joint sliding. The total earth pressure ratio was only 0.02 for the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa, but it increased to about 0.71 for the joint cohesion lower than 50 kPa.
For a joint inclination angle of 90°, the induced earth pressures were very small and similar regardless of the joint cohesion. The earth pressures were similar to those observed at joint inclination angles of 30°, and the total
Fig. 7. Comparison of the apparent earth pressure ratio for hard rock (C = joint cohesive strength)
Fig. 9. Comparison of the apparent earth pressure ratio for slightly weathered rock (C = joint cohesive strength) (Continued) Fig. 8. Comparison of the total earth pressure between the numerical tests for hard rock and Peck’s empirical earth pressure
earth pressure ratio was only 0.02.
These results clearly indicated that the effect of joint cohesion on earth pressure was not considerable where there was no joint sliding, but it was significant when the joint inclination angle was under the condition of joint sliding. In addition, the results can be utilized to design a reinforcement system to prevent a joint sliding.
Fig. 9 compares the apparent earth pressures for slightly weathered rock due to the varying joint cohesion and joint inclination angle with Peck’s empirical earth pressure based on the sand ground with a friction of = 35°. Fig.
10 compares the total earth pressure ratios between the induced earth pressure from the numerical analysis and Peck’s empirical earth pressure for the sand ground.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the apparent earth pressure ratio for slightly weathered rock (C = joint cohesive strength)
Fig. 10. Comparison of the total earth pressure between the numerical tests for slightly weathered rock and Peck’s empirical earth pressure
For a joint inclination angle of 0°, the induced earth pressures were similar regardless of the joint cohesion but the earth pressures were higher than those of hard rock with a joint inclination angle of 0°. The induced earth pressures were far lower than Peck’s earth pressure, and the total earth pressure ratio between the induced earth
pressure and Peck’s earth pressure was 0.11 for all levels of joint cohesion (see Fig. 10).
For a joint inclination angle of 30°, the induced earth pressures were slightly higher than those with a joint inclination angle of 0°, but the earth pressures were similar for all the joint cohesion. The total earth pressure
Fig. 11. Comparison of the apparent earth pressure ratio for moderately weathered rock (C = joint cohesive strength) (Continued)
ratio was about 0.13 for all levels of joint cohesion.
For a joint inclination angle of 60°, the induced earth pressures showed a significant difference according to the joint cohesion. For the joint cohesion higher than 250 kPa, the induced earth pressures were very small and similar to those with joint inclination angles of 0° and 30°. On the other hand, when the joint cohesion was lower than 150 kPa, the earth pressure increased significantly due to joint sliding. The total earth pressure ratio was about 0.14 for the joint cohesion higher than 250 kPa, but it increased to about 0.8 for the joint cohesion lower than 150 kPa.
For a joint inclination angle of 90°, the induced earth pressures were similar to those of the joint inclination angles of 0° and 30°, even though the earth pressures were slightly higher. The total earth pressure ratio was 0.16 for all levels of joint cohesion.
As in hard rock, the results clearly indicated that the effect of joint cohesion on earth pressure was significant when the joint inclination angle was under the condition
of joint sliding.
Fig. 11 compares the apparent earth pressures for moderately weathered rock due to the varying joint cohesion and joint inclination angles with Peck’s empirical earth pressure based on the sand ground with a friction of = 35°. Fig.
12 shows the total earth pressure ratios between the induced earth pressure from the numerical analysis and Peck’s empirical earth pressure for the sand ground.
For a joint inclination angle of 0°, the induced earth pressures for all levels of joint cohesion were similar, but were considerably higher than those of hard and slightly weathered rock. The induced earth pressures were lower than Peck’s empirical earth pressure and the total earth pressure ratio was about 0.61.
For a joint inclination angle of 30°, the induced earth pressures were slightly higher than those with a joint inclination angle of 0°. The total earth pressure ratio was about 0.65.
For a joint inclination angle of 60°, the induced earth
Fig. 11. Comparison of the apparent earth pressure ratio for moderately weathered rock (C = joint cohesive strength)
Fig. 12. Comparison of the total earth pressure between the numerical tests for moderately weathered rock and Peck’s empirical earth pressure
pressure was dependent on the magnitude of joint cohesion.
A higher earth pressure was induced for the joint cohesion lower than 50 kPa, but the earth pressure decreased clearly at the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa. When compared with hard and slightly weathered rocks under the same
joint sliding condition, the induced earth pressure was higher than those of hard and slightly weathered rocks.
The total earth pressure ratio was about 0.9 for the joint cohesion lower than 50 kPa and it decreased to about 0.69 for the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa.
For a joint inclination angle of 90°, the induced earth pressure was similar to those with the joint inclination angles of 0° and 30°, but the induced earth pressure was slightly higher. When compared with a joint inclination angle of 60°, the induce earth pressures were similar for the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa. The total earth pressure ratio decreased from 0.77 to 0.72 with increasing joint cohesion.
These results indicated that as the rock type became worsened the induced earth pressure increased significantly, but the effect of the joint cohesion and joint inclination angle was less significant.
4. Conclusions
The magnitude and distribution of the earth pressure on the support system in a jointed rock mass were examined by considering different joint shear strength, rock type, and joint inclination angle. The study particularly focused on the effect of joint cohesive strength. The following conclusions were drawn:
(1) This study clearly indicated that the effect of joint cohesion on earth pressure was not considerable where there was no joint sliding, but it was significant when the joint inclination angle was under the condition of joint sliding. The study investigated the magnitude of joint cohesive strength to prevent a joint sliding for each different condition. The results can be utilized for evaluating a joint sliding condition and designing a reinforcement system to prevent a joint sliding.
(2) For hard rock, the joint cohesion had little effect on the induced earth pressure at the joint inclination angles of 0°, 30° and 90°, where no joint sliding was induced, and the total earth pressure ratio (the induced earth pressure/ Peck’s earth pressure for soil ground) was only 0.02. However, for the joint inclination angle of 60°, where joint sliding was induced, the induced earth pressure was dependent on the joint cohesion and the total earth pressure ratio decreased from 0.71 for the joint cohesion lower than 50 kPa to 0.02 for the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa.
(3) For slightly weathered rock, the effect of the joint cohesion was similar to that of hard rock, even though the induced earth pressure was higher than that of hard rock. The total earth pressure ratio was 0.11～
0.16 for the joint inclination angles of 0°, 30° and 90°, where no joint sliding was induced. However, for the joint inclination angle of 60°, where joint sliding was induced, the total earth pressure ratio decreased from 0.8 for the joint cohesion lower than 150 kPa to 0.14 for the joint cohesion higher than 250 kPa.
(4) For moderately weathered rock, the induced earth pressure increased significantly compared to those of hard and slightly weathered rocks, regardless of the joint cohesion and joint inclination angle. The total earth pressure ratio was 0.61～0.77 for the joint inclination angles of 0°, 30° and 90°, where no joint sliding was induced. However, for the joint inclination angle of 60°, where joint sliding was induced, the total earth pressure ratio decreased from 0.9 for the joint cohesion lower than 50 kPa to 0.69 for the joint cohesion higher than 150 kPa.
(5) The magnitude and distribution of the earth pressure on the support system in a jointed rock mass were affected significantly by the joint cohesive strength as well as the rock type and joint inclination angle.
The test results were also compared with Peck’s earth pressure, which has been frequently used for soil ground. The comparison indicated that the earth pressure in a jointed rock mass can be significantly different from that in soil ground. This study suggests that the magnitude and distribution of the earth pressure in a jointed rock mass should be assessed by considering rock and joint conditions together with rock-structure interaction.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (grant number: 2013-0616).
References
1. Bjerrum, L., Frimann Clausen, C. J., and Duncan, j. M. (1972), Earth pressure on flexible structures: a state-of-the-art-report. Proc.
5th European Conf. Soil Mech., Madrid, 2, pp.169-196.
2. Chae, Y. S. and Moon, I. (1997), Earth pressure on retaining wall by considering local soil condition. Korean Geotechnical Society
’94 fall conference paper, pp.129-138.
3. Haahash, Y. M. A. and Whittle, A. J. (2002), Mechanism of load transfer and arching for braced excavations in clay. Journal of Geoteh. and Geoenviron. Eng., Vol.128, No.3, pp.187-197.
4. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2004), Universal Distinct Element Code, User's Manual, Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A
5. Jeong, E. T. and Kim, S. G. (1997), Case study of earth pressure distribution on excavation wall of multi-layered soil. Korean Geotechnical Society ’97 spring conference paper, pp.78-80.
6. Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1978), Soil mechanics, SI version, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
7. Laio, S. S. C. and Neff, T. L. (1990), Estimating lateral earth pressure for design of excavation support, Proceedings, Design and Performance of earth retaining structures, ASCE special conference, Ithaca, New York, pp.489-509.
8. Peck, R.B. (1969), “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground.
State-of-the-Art report”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City,
State-of-the Art Volume, pp.225-290.
9. Potts, D. M. and Fourie, A. B. (1986), A numerical study of the effect of wall deformation on earth pressures. Intern. Journal of Numerical Ana. Methods in Geomech. Vol.10, No.4, pp.383-405.
10. Son, M. (2013), Earth pressure on the support system in jointed rock mass, Canadian Geotech. Journal, Vol.50, No.5, pp.493-502.
11. Son, M. and Park, J. (2014), Physical model test and numerical simulation of excavation walls in jointed rock masses, Canadian Geotech. Journal, 10.1139/cgj-2013-0081
12. Tschebotarioff, G. P. (1973), Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures. 2nd Ed., MGH.
13. Wong, I. H., Poh, T. Y., and Chuah, H. L. (1997), Performance of excavations for depressed expressway in Singapore, Journal of Geoteh. and Geoenviron. Eng., Vol.123, No.7, pp.617-625.
14. Worden, F. T. and Achmus, M. (2013), Numerical modeling of three-dimensional active earth pressure acting on rigid walls, Computer and Geotechnics, Vol.51, pp.83-90.
15. Yoo, C. S. and Kim, Y. J. (2000), “Deep excavation in soil, including rock with layers on retaining wall and apparent horizontal displacement of earth pressure”, Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society, Vol.
16, No. 4, pp. 43-50.
Received : April 23rd, 2014 Revised : July 1st, 2014 Accepted : July 16th, 2014
