Tunnel support design by comparison of empirical and finite element analysis of the Nahakki Tunnel in Mohmand Agency, Pakistan

• Autorzy: Riaz A. , Jamil S. M. , Asif M. , Akhtar K.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/sgem-2016-0008

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper analyses the geological conditions of study area, rock mass strength parameters with suitable support structure propositions for the under construction Nahakki tunnel in Mohmand Agency. Geology of study area varies from mica schist to graphitic marble/phyllite to schist. The tunnel ground is classified and divided by the empisical classification systems like Rock mass rating (RMR), Q system (Q), and Geological strength index (GSI). Tunnel support measures are selected based on RMR and Q classification systems. Computer based finite element analysis (FEM) has given yet another dimension to design approach. FEM software Phase2 version 7.017 is used to calculate and compare deformations and stress concentrations around the tunnel, analyze interaction of support systems with excavated rock masses and verify and check the validity of empirically determined excavation and support systems.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

rock mass strength parameters; rock mass classification; FEM analysis; Phase2; tunnel support design

• Wydawca: De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: Vol. 38, nr 1
• Strony: 75--84
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 13 poz., tab., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Riaz A.

• National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan (NUST)

autor

Jamil S. M.

• National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan (NUST)

autor

Asif M.

• NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE)

autor

Akhtar K.

• NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE)

Bibliografia

• [1] Palmström A., Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality designation (RQD), Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, 2005, 20, 362–377.
• [2] Barton N., Lien R., Lunde J., Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of rock support, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 1974, 6(4), 189–236.
• [3] Bieniawski Z.T., Engineering rock mass classifications, John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
• [4] Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Corkum B., Hoek–Brown failure criterion, 2002 Edition, Proceedings of NARMSTAC Conference, Toronto 2002.
• [5] Brown E.T., Rock Characterization, testing and monitoring: ISRM Suggested methods, E.T. Brown (ed.), Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
• [6] Kersten Lecture: Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Diederichs M.S., Corkum B., Integration of geotechnical and structure design in tunneling. Proceedings University of Minnesota 56th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Minneapolis 2008.
• [7] Naghia T., Kristina J., Design consideration for an underground room in a hard rock subjected to a high horizontal stress field at Rana Gruber, Norway, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 2013, 38, 205–212.
• [8] National Engineering Services Pakistan limited (NESPAK), Technical feasibility report Nahakki Road Tunnel 2013.
• [9] Phase2, ver. 7.017, 2006, A two-dimensional elasto-plastic finite element program and its user’s manual, by RocScience Inc, Toronto-Canada, 2006.
• [10] Goodman R.E., Engineering geology: rock in engineering construction, John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
• [11] RocLab, ver. 1.031, 2007. A software program for determining rock mass strength parameters based on the generalized Hoek–Brown failure ctriterion, by RocScience Inc., Toronto-Canada 2007.
• [12] Sonmez H., Ulusay R., A discussion on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion and suggested modification to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies, Yerbilimleri (Earth Sciences), 2002, 26, 77–99.
• [13] Vlachopoulos N., Diederichs M.S., Appropriate uses and limitations of 2D numerical analysis of tunnels and tunnel support response, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2014, Vol. 32, 2, 469–488.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.