Scribd
Upload
152 views

Lecture12 (RockFoundation)

The document discusses various factors that influence the stability of rock foundations, including the effect of structural geology features like joints and fractures, common failure mechanisms in rock like shear and friction, and investigation methods used for rock foundations and tunneling projects like borehole drilling, core sampling, and geophysical surveys. It also examines analysis methods for piles in rock, bearing capacities of shallow rock foundations, and settlement of single rock piles.

Uploaded by

chouszesze
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
152 views

Lecture12 (RockFoundation)

The document discusses various factors that influence the stability of rock foundations, including the effect of structural geology features like joints and fractures, common failure mechanisms in rock like shear and friction, and investigation methods used for rock foundations and tunneling projects like borehole drilling, core sampling, and geophysical surveys. It also examines analysis methods for piles in rock, bearing capacities of shallow rock foundations, and settlement of single rock piles.

Uploaded by

chouszesze
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 49

1

Lecture 12
Rock Foundation
2
Effect of structural geology on
foundation stability
Rock Bridges
Increase in confining pressure
Duncan Wyllie (1992) Foundations
on Rock. Chapman and Hall.
3
Loading condition on rock
foundation
4
5
Common foundation treatment
6
Importance of assessing length and
spacing of discontinuities
Rock bridges,
discontinuous joints
Continuous joints
7
Fracture Length and Spacing
L
terminated
.
2
fractures of number N
fractures of number N
mapped being face of height H
length mean approx L
H
N
N
L
t
t
=
=
=
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
fracture of trace and direction mapping between angle
fractures of number N
fracture length trace L
spacing mean approx S
N
L
S
t
=
=
=
=
=

ng intersecti
.
sin
8
Governing Failure Mechanisms
controlling design parameters
Settlement
Shear
Friction
Interface Friction
Punching
Shear
Shearing along
joint
9
Piles in Rock
(Bearing Capacity)
10
Is this the real picture?
Material gets better with
increase in depth?
30 m rock cover for deep
tunnel
300 400 m Sensitive Zone
Geological Cross Section Inferred
from Linear Interpolation of two
adjacent Boreholes
Piles in Rock
(Presence of
Discontinuities)
Geoguide 2
11
An exceptional case:
Tunnel E
To To Kwa Wan
Tunnel invert at 130 mPD
Deep weathering zone with sub-vertical joints encountered between
Ch. 4314 m and Ch. 4368 m (54 m)
Five mucks of sand and gravel were disposed
Fortunately ground was dry
12
LHSW CROWN RHSW
Between Ch. 4314 m and Ch. 4342 m
(28 m) Grade IV/V
Between Ch. 4342 m and Ch. 4368 m
(26 m) Grade III/IV
Full circle of ribs and lagging,
shotcreting, pre-grouting were
employed
Kaolin and Manganese Oxides in joints
13
Sample of
CDG/HDG taken
from Tunnel E
Approx. Ch. 4341 m
20 June 2000
14
Adequate GI for Foundation work in Hong
Kong: 1 m to 10 m spacing
GI information available at GIU, Jockey
Club Research and Information Center
15
Ground Investigation for Foundation Work
British Standard BS5930 : 1999 on Code of Practice in Site Investigations
suggests a general spacing of 10 m to 30 m for the investigation stations.
Geoguide 2: Although no hard and fast rules can be laid down, a relatively close
spacing between points of exploration, e.g., 10 to 30 m, will often be appropriate
for structures. For structures small in plan area, exploration should be made at a
minimum of three points if possible. Where a structure consists of a number of
adjacent units, one exploration point per unit may suffice.
Ground Investigation for Trenchless Work (Tunneling)
Ground investigation works really start only after construction began
Probing
Coring ahead of tunnel
Pilot tunnel
Interpretation between boreholes significantly difficult
Many other tools are used to assist interpretation
16
Other Ground Investigation Tools used During Tunneling
SSDS = Strategic Sewage
Disposal Scheme
HATS = Harbor Area
Treatment Scheme
Direction of Flow
SSDS (now renamed as HATS) Stage I Tunnel Route
17
A
D
C
B
F
G
E
Tunnel F: Long Hole Core from Ch. 3580 m to 2865 m (715
m) to identify the material of the Tolo Channel Fault before
excavation (Tunnel F from west to east and LHC from east
to west)
LHC jammed after 715 m of core recovered, did not reach
the Fault
Tunnel F: Geophysical Survey, Microgravity Survey and
Tomography carried out (interpretation inconclusive)
Tunnel B: Long Hole Core from Ch.
4570 m to 4390 m (180 m); stopped to
avoid bringing inflow into the cored
hole
Tunnel B: Geophysical Survey to
check any presence of marine mud
deposited above the Eastern Harbor
Crossing Tube
18
Seepage/Consolidation Problem
Zero allowable settlement
19
Piles in Rock
(Presumable
Value to account
of discontinuities)
20
Piles in Rock
(Discontinuities)
21
Piles in Rock
(Jointed Rock Mass)
22
Piles in Rock
(Jointed Rock Mass
as 2 layers)
23
Piles in Rock
Correlation between
UCS and Point Load
Strength Index
J=Ratio of Rock Mass
Deformation Modulus
to Intact Rock
Deformation Modulus
24
Piles in Rock (Socket
Resistance Capacity)
25
Piles in Rock
Code of
Practice 2004
26
Piles in Rock
UCS
q
max
= ultimate shear
stress in rock socket
Ref.: Ng, C. et al (2001)
27
What is the physical
relationship between UCS
and shaft resistance?
Piles in Rock
28
Piles in Rock
29
Piles in Rock
30
Increase
in depth
Shaft resistance is confining
stress dependent which may
be a function of UCS.
Piles in Rock
(Distribution of Skin
and End Resistance)
31
Settlement of Single Piles
32
Settlement of Single Piles
33
Settlement of Single Piles
34
Settlement of Single Piles
35
Settlement of Single Piles
36
Joints
Joints
Settlement of Single Piles
37
Settlement of Single Piles
38
Settlement of Single Piles
39
Settlement of Single Piles
40
Pile Foundation in Rock (Ignoring
Confining Stresses at Depth)
41
GENERALIZED HOEK-BROWN CRITERION
42
43
Pile Depth 25 m

3
=0.74 MPa

1
=7.6 MPa
Pile Depth 50 m

3
=1.50 MPa

1
=11.3 MPa
Pile Depth 75 m

3
=2.25 MPa

1
=14.1 MPa
K=1.0
44
Pile Depth 25 m

3
=0.74 MPa

1
=7.6 MPa
Pile Depth 50 m

3
=1.50 MPa

1
=11.3 MPa
Pile Depth 75 m

3
=2.25 MPa

1
=14.1 MPa
Allowable
=11.3/3.0=3.7 MPa
Allowable
=7.6/3.0=2.5 MPa
FOS=3.0
Allowable
=14.1/3.0=4.7 MPa
Effect of Confining Stresses NOT
considered in current practice
Deformation of Joint control (NOT
strength control)
Blocky Rock with
good joint surface
Granite
Pile Depth 75 m

3
=2.25 MPa

1
=30.0 MPa
Pile Depth 50 m

3
=1.50 MPa

1
=25.0 MPa
Allowable
=30.0/3.0=10.0 MPa
Allowable
=25.0/3.0=8.3 MPa
45
Shallow Foundation in Rock (Effect of Confining Stresses on Bearing Capacity)
For highly fractured rock, use soil
mechanics principles (active and
passive wedges)
At limit equilibrium,
active
passive
B A 1 3
=
The strength of fractured rock mass is assumed:
( )
A zone on acting stress principal major
rock of strength e compressiv unconfined
s m
A
r u
r u r u
= =
=
+ + =
1 1
) (
3
2
1
2
) ( 3 ) ( 1
intact


( )
B zone in rock of strength
mass rock of strength e compressiv uniaxial s
r u m u
= =
= =
3
2
1
2
) ( ) (
fractured


( )
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
+ + =

2
1
2
1
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
2
) ( ) ( ) ( 1
1 1 ms s
s m
r u
m u r u m u r u A


Triaxial Test
Unconfined
compression test
for Q=0
) ( 3 m u A
=
) (m u

Significant increase in bearing


capacity with an increase in small
confining stresses
46
factor correction shape C
FOS
ms s C
f
r u f
a
=
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
=

1
2
1
2
1
) (
2
1
1
1 1
Sowers (1970)
q The allowable bearing pressure =
47
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Bedded Formation
active
passive
( )
( )
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
=
=
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2
45 tan
2
45 tan
2
1
1
tan
1
tan tan 2
2
0 2
2
1
0 2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1 3
2
2
2
2
1
3



N
N
set of cohesion c
set of cohesion c
FOS
N
c
N
q
N
c
N
B
q
A
a
s A
s
q
A 1

Weight of wedge sliding up


resisted by shearing resistance of
joint sets 1 and 2
Rock contains sets of fractures that form one or more
sliding surfaces of the wedge
Shape and size of wedge formed is a function of the
orientation of fractures and length of fractures
Mechanism controlled by sliding of the passive wedge
Ladanyi and Roy (1971)
48
Governing Failure Modes of
Foundation on Sloping
Ground
49
Dam Abutment
Q

Q
N
Q
S
P

d
f
r
f
) cos( ) 90 cos(
) sin( ) 90 sin(
tan
force Driving
force Resisting
0
0
P Q P r
P Q P
r
d
r
Q W f
Q W N
N cA f
f
f

+ =
+ =
+ =
=
=

You might also like