Nelson

Rock Engineering
for a
Megaton Detector
Charles Nelson
CNA Consulting Engineers
Overview
Rock engineering 101

Cavern size & shape
Construction methods
Feasibility
Historical projects
Numerical modeling
Empirical design
Other considerations
January 2002
CNA Consulting Engine
Rock Engineering 101

Rock material strong, stiff, brittle
Weak rock > Strong concrete
Strong in compression, weak in tension
Postpeak strength is low unless confined
Rock mass behavior controlled by

discontinuities
Rock mass strength is 1/2 to 1/10 of rock
material strength
Discontinuities give rock masses scale

effects
January 2002
Massive rock
Rock masses with few
discontinuities, or
Excavation dimension
< discontinuity spacing
January 2002
Jointed or blocky
rock
Rock masses with
moderate number of
discontinuities
> discontinuity spacing
January 2002
Heavily jointed rock

Rock masses with a
large number of
discontinuities
>> discontinuity
spacing
January 2002

Rock stresses in situ
Vertical stress weight of overlying rock
~27 Kpa / m 16.5 MPa at 610 m
~1.2 psi / ft 2,400 psi at 2000 ft
Horizontal stress controlled by tectonic forces

(builds stresses) & creep (relaxes stresses)
At depth, v h unless there are active tectonic forces
January 2002

What are the implications for large cavern
construction?
Find a site with good rock
Characterizing the rock mass is JOB ONE
Avoid tectonic zones & characterize in situ
stresses
Select size, shape & orientation to minimize
zones of compressive failure or tensile stress
January 2002
Cavern size & shape
January 2002
Cavern Size & Shape
January 2002
Construction methods
Drill & blast
Small top headings
Install rock support
Large benches
January 2002
Is a 106 m3 Cavern Feasible?

Previous cavern projects
Numerical modeling
Empirical design methods
January 2002
Is a 106 m3 Cavern Feasible?

Volume (cubic meters)
1,000,000
800,000
Existing
NG Caverns
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0
January 2002
20
40
60
80
Span (m)
100
120
Numerical Modeling
January 2002
Failure Zones, Cylindrical Cavern
Strong
January 2002
Intermediate
Weak
Failure Zones, Straight Cavern
Strong
January 2002
Intermediate
Weak
Empirical design methods

Appropriate during feasibility assessments
Require classification of the rock mass
Most commonly used today:
Bieniawski RMR rating
NGI Q rating
NGI Q rating used in the following
January 2002
Rock Quality Assumptions

Q=100
One joint set; rough, irregular, undulating joints with tightly
healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling; dry or
minor water inflow; high stress, very tight structure
Q=3
Two joint sets plus misc.; smooth to slickensided, undulating
joints; slightly altered joint walls, some silty or sandy clay
coatings; medium water inflows, single weakness zones
Q=0.1
Three joint sets; slickensided, planar joints with softening or
clay coatings; large water inflows; single weakness zones
January 2002
Rock Quality
Q=100
January 2002
Q=3
Q=0.1
Rock Quality
January 2002
Rock Quality
January 2002
Rock Quality
January 2002
Rock support methods

Rockbolts or cable bolts
Provides tensile strength & confinement
Shotcrete
Sprayed on concrete
Provides arch action, prevents loosening, seals
Concrete lining
Used when:
Required thickness exceeds practical shotcrete thickness
Better finish is needed
January 2002
Rockbolt Length vs Cavern Span

Rockbolt Length (m)
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cavern Span (m)

Empirical Data Cavern Spans
January 2002
Rockbolt Spacing vs Rock Quality

Rockbolt Spacing (m)
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
NGI "Q" Rating

Empirical Values
January 2002
Examples
Shotcrete Thickness (mm)
Shotcrete Thickness vs Rock Quality

400
300
200
100
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
NGI "Q" Rating

Empirical Values
January 2002
Examples
Cost Categories
Excavation
Haulage
Support
Access Tunnel
Ancillary Space
Mobilization,
Bond, etc.
Permits, Fees,
Eng, etc.
January 2002
Cost Conclusions
Costs are sensitive to:
volume
rock quality
Costs are insensitive to:

Cavern shape
Costs are moderately sensitive to:

Horizontal vs. vertical access (within ranges
considered)
January 2002
Challenges
Find the best possible rock in an acceptable
region
Find a site with feasible horizontal access
Explore co-use opportunities
Develop layouts amenable to low cost
excavation methods
Give Geotechnical considerations as much
weight as possible
January 2002
U.G. Space Considerations

Common facilities (infrastructure & usable
space)
Cavern shapes & sizes
Laboratory-experiment relationship
Special needs
January 2002
Common Facilities
January 2002
Common Facilities
What common facilities are
beneficial/desirable?
Power, water, sewer, communications
Machine shop, assembly areas??
Storage, clean rooms??
How should common space be allocated

between underground & aboveground?
Administration, storage
January 2002
Common Facilities
Radon control
Should the whole lab have radon control or
just certain areas?
What is the best means? Sealing? Outside air?
Lab cleanliness standards

100? 1,000? 10,000?
What standards for what spaces?
What are the requirements for the various
experiments?
January 2002
Compact vs. Open Layout?

Compact layout
Allows more interaction
Common space is more usable
Reduced infrastructure costs
Reduced cost to provide multiple egress ways
Preserves underground space
January 2002
Compact Layout
January 2002
Compact vs. Open Layout?

Open layout
Better isolation
Reduced impact during expansion
Essential to create a Master Plan that will

guide lab development
January 2002
Cavern Shapes
Use simple shapes, e.g. rural mailbox

Avoid inside corners
Avoid tall, narrow shapes
Roof costs the most
January 2002
Cavern Shapes
January 2002
Cavern Shapes
Avoid complex intersections
Avoid closely spaced, parallel excavations
Overexcavation & underexcavation are
common
January 2002
Laboratory-Experiment Issues
What are the issues?
Different sources of funding
Shared responsibilities
Shared liabilities
Users/tenants rights
Conflict resolution
Decommissioning (escrow funds?)
Private tenants?
January 2002
Specific examples
How many caverns does the lab provide?
0? 1? 2? More?
Cavern sharing?
Large caverns are cheaper
Shared caverns create conflicts
What is the logical boundary between labprovided services and experiment-provided

services?
Power, heating & cooling, clean rooms
Storage space, assembly space
January 2002
Other Experience
Kansas City, MO, converted limestone mines
widely used for warehouse & manufacturing
January 2002
Underground Owners:
Interact with building code officials
Prepare & enforce design / construction
standards
Control tenant improvements
Control occupancy
Restrict structural modifications
January 2002
Underground Owners:
Restrict chemicals & hazardous materials
Require regular maintenance
Provide labor or preferred contractors for
improvements
Typically make all improvements
January 2002
What is not the same?

Funding
Typical UG space, tenants pay
For NUSL, lab funding & experiment funding
are separate
Special needs
Typical UG space, special needs limited
For NUSL, everything is special
January 2002
What is not the same?

Common space
Typical UG space, limited common space
For NUSL, extensive common space
Shared space
Typical UG space, share only infrastructure
For NUSL, experiments may share caverns
January 2002
Special Needs
Shape
Shielding
Clean rooms, clean lab?
Radon control
Magnetic field cancellation
Power use or reliability
Heat generation
January 2002
Special Needs (cont.)
Water supply
Flammable detector materials/gasses
Suffocating gasses
Occupancy
Hours of access
January 2002
Salt Cavern
January 2002
Hard Rock Cavern
January 2002
January 2002

Nelson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nelson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nelson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Engineering

Rock engineering 101

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

Rock mass behavior controlled by

Discontinuities give rock masses scale

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

Heavily jointed rock

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

Horizontal stress controlled by tectonic forces

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern size & shape

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern Size & Shape

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

Is a 106 m3 Cavern Feasible?

CNA Consulting Engine

Is a 106 m3 Cavern Feasible?

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

Failure Zones, Cylindrical Cavern

Failure Zones, Straight Cavern

Empirical design methods

NGI Q rating used in the following

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Quality Assumptions

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock support methods

CNA Consulting Engine

Rockbolt Length vs Cavern Span

Cavern Span (m)

CNA Consulting Engine

Rockbolt Spacing vs Rock Quality

NGI "Q" Rating

CNA Consulting Engine

Shotcrete Thickness (mm)

Shotcrete Thickness vs Rock Quality

NGI "Q" Rating

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

Costs are insensitive to:

Costs are moderately sensitive to:

CNA Consulting Engine

CNA Consulting Engine

U.G. Space Considerations

CNA Consulting Engine