Rodc Mechanics as a Guide for Efficient Utilization of Natural Resources, Khair fed)

Q 1939Bakema.Rotterdam. ISBN 90 6191 871 5

Rock classification for portal design

G.K.Rogers& C.Haycocks
Department ofMining and Minerals Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic and State Universit)!
Blacksburg, Va., USA

ABSTRACT: The portal, which is the near-horizontal, surface point of

entry to an underground excavation, can often be an exceedingly
difficult area in terms of ground control. Surface and subsurface
failures at portals, as discerned during a study involving over 300
case histories, are unfortunately, common. To aid in the engineering
evaluation of portals, the Geomechanics Classification System was
appended with discontinuity orientation assessment values and
support/excavation guidelines. Also, a design model utilizing RMR
predicted rock loads in conjunction with half-dome theory is proposed
for the most common type of portal failure. Other pertinent comments
and recommendations relating to portal stability are included.

1. INTRODUCTION

The portal zone (Figure 1) is a frequently overlooked and often

difficult area in terms of ground control. Failures of rock and
support during the 'turning-under process' re&q&arly occur in high
angle approach cuts and the initial subsurfikce portion of the portal.
These problems are exacerbated by the wsatherad, anisotropic, and
stress-relieved nature of most near-sureace rock masses.
To facilitate portal design for aithar mining or civil
applications, the Geomechanics (RMR) Classification System was
appended to aid in the evaluation of the external and internal
stability requirements. These modifications are based on a portal
database utilizing over 300 case studies (Rogers & Haycocks, 1988),
comments from industry designers/oontractors, and critical field
observations. Furthermore, a design model, based on half-dome theory
and the RMR rock load concept, is suggested for the most common type
of portal failure. The resulting integration of rock slope and
subsurface engineering is necessary for a safe but efficient, long-
term mortal deeinn.

2. CLASSIFICATION

Since the initial introduction of the Geomechanics (e.g. Rock Mass

Rating or RMR) Classification System (Bieniawski, 1973), the concept
has been expanded For the engineering evaluation of a variety of
 PORTAL A X I S PERPENOlCULAR TO S U P

'ACE

VIEW ORIENTATION

PORTAL ENTRY

Figure 1. External and Internal Views of a Portal in a 4 5 O ~ o c k

Slope (Rogers & Haycocks, 1989).
specialized areas ranging from dam foundations to rock slopes
(Bieniawski, 1984). Current research involving the stability of
portals in rock slopes (Rogers & Haycocks; 1988, 1989) acknowledged a
need for the rapid evaluation of proposed, existing, and abandoned
portals in terms of stability assessment and support requirements.
To accomplish this task, information pertinent to portals was
gleaned from an extensive literature review, industry contacts, and
field investigations. Support system designs, excavation
methodologies, and back analyses of portal failures from this
database formed the basis for upgrading existing classification
system support/excavation guidelines. In particular, it is
interesting to note that even though the existing support guidelines
from various empirical methods (e.g. RMR, Q, Modified Terzaghi, Corps
of Eng., etc.) are considered conservative, data from portal failures
indicate that more conservative measures are routinely warranted,
especially within approximately 1 to 5+ diameters inby and outby the
portal interface (Barton, et al, 1974; Rose, 1982; U.S. Army Corps of
Eng., 1978, 1980).
A discontinuity orientation adjustment table (Table 1) was
established, via a back-analysis of both active and abandoned portals
in conjunction with a correlation of possible failure types for
certain ranges of diplstructure orientations, to aid in the
evaluation of the external rock slopes, especially those which form
the approach cut. Note that even high quality rock masses with an
unfavorable dip assessment will require support or slope re-design to
mitigate the assessment adjustments. Indeed, this is the specific
purpose of the orientation adjustment, to delineate zones in the
approach cut or overall surrounding slope which necessitate
excavation design modifications or require additional support. The
final support and slope design should be based upon standard rock
slope stability analysis techniques and any unique project
restraints.
Next, as to the internal stability assessment, portal (for portals
i 30 ft. diameter) supportlexcavation guidelines (Table 2) are given
for the various RMR classes. These guidelines are slightly more
conservative than the existing RMR or Q System support
recommendations. This additional degree of support is deemed
necessary in order to thwart the commonly encountered portal failures
which occur in the highly variable and often adverse conditions
confronted in near-surface rock masses. Figure 2 illustrates typical
rock boltlanchor installations at portals.
The most common type of portal failure (e.8. > 36+ X of
acknowledged portal failures), that of 'Crown Face Overbreak' (Figure
2), may be modelled for design purposes with the assumption of a
parabolic half-dome. This half-dome, bounded by the crown face and
crown, has been observed to extend approximately 0.5D (D = diameter)
inby the portal interface into the portal entry and is defined by
(Figure 3):

(after Zhou, 1988)

where: d
W
-
I
maximum height of half-dome,
width of half-dome (e.g. portal diameter),
O(- pillar loading angle = angle of draw.
 Table 1. Asseesment of Discontinuity Orientation Upon Rock Slope
Stability for Portal Approach Cuts (Rogers & Haycocks, 1989).

NOTES: This table is based on experience and case

studies involving field assessment of rock slopes
adjacent to portals with near vertical face-a
Discontinuity cimrecteristics (e.g. wv-s,nf2ing,
continuity, etc.) anU face angle8 lvwer than dip ralubs
may nec~~sitatm assusmant Ipodificatiom. M r s 3 e p
with a significant unreinforcd in sihr wwity(s) (e.g.
abandonad mine, cam, ate.) a minimum &uction of one
RHR rook class (a. -
20 pU.) is mi trrd until
relevance of &he cavity to s h p e st~biLi .
additioml ineorma%oa baaolact. a v a i l a r m the actual
Future
modification8 are expected for this tantayive table.

Furthermore, research indicates that the height of the parabolic

half-dome, d, at the portal interface, is approximately equal to the
RMR based rock load height, ht, given by:

(2) ht - [(I00 - RMR)/lOO]b (Unal, 1983)

where: ht --
height of rock load,
RMR
b -rock mass rating,
tunnel (e.g portal) diameter.

Hence,

(3)
 Table 2. Portal ( 30' ~ia.' ) ~xcavation/SupportGuidelines for
the Geomechanics Classification System.

1e.
E % ~ A
D. Full lath
- -~

-
mad..
Omd Rxk nmI lder vlaia. 1 ParllMar Li&tcmm l + D
2.
RR: SO 61 - -f Z+a Da-.tap Miq
MI b~ltm/am~mm e I+ D
la. Pattern blt.
2 - b i n . m c r m 6
crm tra 2 in m
imnlcute; rib.:
in I-. f . . ~
rib. @ 3 6 ft. -
ad baach. Cranr
beach. sprt
-
0.5 l + D 1-
.pssde&-slr.
w/prti.l
la*.
Pads. wlmcsb cn c m .
cmnr f r a . d
rib. .
3. Fair bd Ruo uder vlmia. 2+ Rrhter 4 - 6 i n . m c m 6 Hsdimtobwrg
RR. 60 - 41
k",",' in. on uppr slap z:lZi2
mtid. hm - 1+ D3l is P 0.5
m n sDaced @
imr/wter rib. E -
steel sets 2 L
ft. center6 v/hrll
- -
rmods. c m , c& tam,
d inxrlcuter
rib.
Ruo \rider vlmin. 2+
D-. Tm
Perimeter
bltm/urbot. @ 1.5
6 -
12+ in. m
c m . c m facs.
auu F 2 ft.

-
erntstr wlrul1
Steel a Dn-ut
slop. 2+ 6'0
w-hall r cmn, f r a . RillhTd
fa-, rppsr coacntairrnrt
slap 6 i u m l a ~ t e r slab. miaLolead
rib. 'Mditiol~l
81- aehon n

--
Invs*

-
w.pci-1.
5. very poor -2
RR: c 20
nmn ~ d e wlmih
-k D-.
r
~bo
2 ~aiimtar
wu~rrbon e2
3+ D m. Pattern
- -.cram
8-2b+kr.m
t-.
m
X
-L=
II
a
typ
r

Z3. ad t a d o r
P i l o t -1
drifts. bolt. oa tnmsaa E
I+ D 1QP at
-/ortar
-slap.
W
Ol in. m
.
rib.. 2 %
2- 5IODOlt..
6
6
2+ i&-m Huy steel-imu m
rra.RsillhTd 2 ft. OSOM.
mamtm ian+t w l m l .ta?l m

2 .s -
1 I m u f f i c i e dat. 5x
y-iq r
1s avsr 30 ft. diemter.
Z b w r ra c u .
3 Dr 11 ad b l a t tnclmiw a 8 tha mat d~ usd -1 oxcavatirn slathod..

Since the majority of portal 'Crown Face Overbreak' failures occur

in the 'Fair' to 'Very Poor8 rock classes (e.g. RMR of 60 01, the -
half-dome height, d, will range from 0.4 to 1 times the portal
diameter. Thus, with the portal diameter and a RMR rating, a support
mystem can be designed to reinforce this critical portal half-dome
area, thereby averting this particular portal failure mode.
 ROWN FACE FAILUR

CROWN FACE

PORTAL ENTRY

l NVERT RIGHT INNER R I B J

Figure 2. Crown Face Overbreak Failure (Rogers 6 Haycocks, 1988).

PORTAL HALF-CCME

PORTAL ENTRY

PORTAL HALF-DOME

VOLUME - 0.2S)r(W/2)2d -f-

CROWN FACE

Figure 3. Portal Half-Dome Model.

3. CONCLUSIONS
The recommended analysis sequence, a combination of empirical and
analytical methods, for portals in rock slopes is (Rogers 6 Haycocks,
1988) :
a) Geologic Characterization of Site,
b) Overall Slope Stability,
C) Slope Stability in the Immediate Portal Area, and
d) Underground Excavation/Cavity Stability.
 Joint orientation adjustment assessments for high angle portal
slopes have been suggested for use with existing rating values for
slopes in the RMR system (Rogers & Haycocks, 1989).
Support/excavation guidelines are suggested for the five rock mass
classes in the RMR System. Empirical design methods should always be
cross-checked with other empirical methods such as the Q System which
has an internal adjustment for portals (e.g. J n x 2).
The most common type of portal failure, that of 'Crown Face
Overbreak', may be modelled for support design purposes utilizing
parabolic half-dome theory in conjunction with the RMR predicted rock
load height.
Since the portal typically only composes a small percentage of the
total project in terms of excavation length, construction time, and
cost (e.g. typically projected at 3 -
6%), a conservative approach
using multiple support systems is highly recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on work supported by the Mining and Mineral

Resources Research Institute. Opinions, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations herein presented are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor. Caee study
information/identification is restricted.
The authors would especially like to thank the staff members of all
the cooperating mining, quarrying, and tunnelling companies, as well
as the various state and federal agencies who have made many valuable
contributions to this ongoing research project.

REFERENCES

Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. 1974. nEngineering

Classification of Rock M a s ~ e sfor the Design of Tunnel Support.
RockMechanfcs. Vof. 6, NO. 4. pp. 183-236.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. "Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock

Masses." Transactions. South A f r i c a n n of C i v U
M. Vol. 15, NO. 12. pp. 335-344.

Bieniawski, Z.T. 1984. Rock.Mechanice Dee* in Mininn

andT
A.A.u nn
Balkema. el
Boston. in
272 pp. n.

Pratt, H.R., Stephenson, D.E., Zandt, G., Bouchon, M., and Hustrulid,
W.A. 1979. "Earthquake Damage to Underground Facilities."
Chapter 2.
.- SME-AIME. New York, New York. pp. 19-51.

Rogers, G.K. and Haycocks, C. 1988. 'Portal Stability in Rock."

ence on in w .West
Virginia University. August 3-5. Morgantown, WV. 8 pp.

Rogers, G.K. and Haycocks, C. 1989. "The Stability of Rock Slopes

with In Situ Cavities." 1989 ec
n- on
wand May 22-26. Lexington, Kentucky. 6 pp.
Rose, D. 1982. "Revising Terzaghi's Tunnel Rock Load Coeficients."
Chapter 95. Ptoceedinns 23rd Sp- of m . SMB-
AIME. New York, NY. pp. 953-960.

Unal, E. 1983. I)esiPn Guid-of sd- fpy

Coal.
Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Tunnels in in. EM

1110-2-2901. 1982 Revision. Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Rock Relnfo.rcemant. 1110-1-

2907. Engineering and Design. 15 February. Office of the Chief
of Engineers. Washington, D.C.

Zhou, Yingxin. 1988. Desinninn for Uooer Seam S-litv in Multi-

.- Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Mining and
Minerals Engineering. Virginia Polytechnic and State University.
Blacksburg, VA. May. 202 pp.