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

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

Massive rock
Rock masses with few
discontinuities, or
Excavation dimension
< discontinuity spacing

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

Jointed or blocky
rock
Rock masses with
moderate number of
discontinuities
Excavation dimension
> discontinuity spacing

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

Heavily jointed rock

Rock masses with a
large number of
discontinuities
Excavation dimension
>> discontinuity
spacing

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Engineering 101

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern size & shape

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern Size & Shape

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Construction methods
Drill & blast
Small top headings
Install rock support
Large benches

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Is a 106 m3 Cavern Feasible?

Previous cavern projects
Numerical modeling
Empirical design methods

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Numerical Modeling

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Failure Zones, Cylindrical Cavern

Strong
January 2002

Intermediate

Weak
CNA Consulting Engine

Failure Zones, Straight Cavern

Strong
January 2002

Intermediate

Weak
CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Quality

Q=100

January 2002

Q=3

Q=0.1

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Quality

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Quality

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Rock Quality

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Rockbolt Spacing vs Rock Quality

Rockbolt Spacing (m)

0
0.01

0.1

10

100

NGI "Q" Rating

Empirical Values

January 2002

Examples

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Cost Categories
Excavation
Haulage
Support
Access Tunnel
Ancillary Space
Mobilization,
Bond, etc.
Permits, Fees,
Eng, etc.

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

U.G. Space Considerations

Common facilities (infrastructure & usable
space)
Cavern shapes & sizes
Laboratory-experiment relationship
Special needs

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Common Facilities

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Compact Layout

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern Shapes

Use simple shapes, e.g. rural mailbox

Avoid inside corners
Avoid tall, narrow shapes
Roof costs the most

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern Shapes

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Cavern Shapes
Avoid complex intersections
Avoid closely spaced, parallel excavations
Overexcavation & underexcavation are
common

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Other Experience
Kansas City, MO, converted limestone mines
widely used for warehouse & manufacturing

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Underground Owners:
Interact with building code officials
Prepare & enforce design / construction
standards
Control tenant improvements
Control occupancy
Restrict structural modifications

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Underground Owners:
Restrict chemicals & hazardous materials
Require regular maintenance
Provide labor or preferred contractors for
improvements
Typically make all improvements

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

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

CNA Consulting Engine

Special Needs

Shape
Shielding
Clean rooms, clean lab?
Radon control
Magnetic field cancellation
Power use or reliability
Heat generation

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Special Needs (cont.)

Water supply
Flammable detector materials/gasses
Suffocating gasses
Occupancy
Hours of access

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Salt Cavern

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

Hard Rock Cavern

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine

January 2002

CNA Consulting Engine