13.08.2013 Views

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 8.7 Free body diagrams <strong>and</strong><br />

notation for analysis of voussoir beam<br />

(after Diederichs <strong>and</strong> Kaiser, 1999a).<br />

EXCAVATION DESIGN IN STRATIFIED ROCK<br />

distributions of normal stress <strong>and</strong> shear stress in the roof bed were generally consistent<br />

with the voussoir beam model proposed by Evans (1941), <strong>and</strong> considered below.<br />

One notable difference was observed between the Evans model <strong>and</strong> the results of<br />

the numerical study. This was that bed separation, proposed by Evans to include<br />

the complete excavation span, was indicated over only the centre of the span in the<br />

computational analysis.<br />

8.4 Roof design procedure for plane strain<br />

A design procedure for roof beams was developed by Evans (1941) <strong>and</strong> modified<br />

by Beer <strong>and</strong> Meek (1982). Subsequently Sofianos (1996) <strong>and</strong> Diederichs <strong>and</strong> Kaiser<br />

(1999a) noted some limitations in a simplified version of Beer <strong>and</strong> Meek’s method presented<br />

by Brady <strong>and</strong> Brown (1985) <strong>and</strong> proposed alternative ways of tackling the static<br />

indeterminacy of roof bed analysis. The design procedures proposed here draw on the<br />

approaches of Evans, Brady <strong>and</strong> Brown, Diederichs <strong>and</strong> Kaiser, <strong>and</strong> Sofianos. More<br />

comprehensive analyses are reported by Sofianos (1996) <strong>and</strong> Diederichs <strong>and</strong> Kaiser<br />

(1999a). It should be noted that the solution procedures of Sofianos <strong>and</strong> Diederichs<br />

<strong>and</strong> Kaiser assume different conceptual models for a roof beam, <strong>and</strong> consequently<br />

the results of analyses of static stability <strong>and</strong> beam deflection differ considerably. A<br />

valuable discussion of the differences between the two models is provided by Sofianos<br />

(1999) <strong>and</strong> Diederichs <strong>and</strong> Kaiser (1999b). The analysis which follows immediately is<br />

based on the formulation of Diederichs <strong>and</strong> Kaiser, which is a revision <strong>and</strong> extension<br />

of that proposed by Brady <strong>and</strong> Brown (1985).<br />

The voussoir beam model for a roof bed is illustrated in Figure 8.7a, <strong>and</strong> the forces<br />

operating in the system are defined in Figure 8.7b. The essential idea conveyed in<br />

the figures is that, in the equilibrium condition, the lateral thrust is not transmitted<br />

either uniformly or axially through the beam cross section. The section of the beam<br />

transmitting lateral load is assumed to be approximated by the parabolic arch traced<br />

on the beam span. Since various experimental investigations support the intuitive<br />

230

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!