Rock Mechanics/Geophysics

Larry Costin, Sandia National LabsPaul Young, University of Toronto

Discussion Points

November 12, 2004

DUSEL Workshop

Path Forward

• Identify the “big questions” that can be addressed by DUSEL in a unique way

• Develop a “roadmap” for evolution of experiments & facilities

• Define infrastructure requirements• Integrate with other groups to identify experiment

sets with compatible infrastructure requirements• Identify significant education outreach

opportunities

We are here

Motivation• Significant trend toward greater utilization of underground space

– Critical infrastructure– High hazard facilities– Environmental protection– Urban development

• Current engineering practice has heavy reliance on empirical design rules– Influence of discontinuities– Environmental factors– Time-dependent behavior– Lack of characterization methods for spatial variability

• Few opportunities for long-term R&D efforts

The Big Questions?• Long-term degradation processes – physical, chemical, coupled –

leading to weakening, rock fall, collapse over many years.• Effect of spatial variability of rock mass properties on in situ

stresses and stability of openings. • Characterizing spatial variability. Validation of methods.• Measurement of in situ stresses.• TMHC(B) coupled processes and model validation.• Validation of mechanics concepts – DEM methods.• Geophysical imaging and/or characterization of discontinuities

and other features affecting rock mass behavior. • Data fusion – can we improve detection and characterization with

data from multiple sensor types?

Unique Opportunities?

• Ability to mine through – ground truth validation of measurement and characterization methods.

• Long-term access for science. Ability to make measurements/observations over many years.

• Deep earth geophysics observatory. • International collaboration.

URL Experience

• Excavation scale testing for numerical model validation – Mine-by Experiment

• Tunnel Sealing eXperiments to simulate radioactive waste repository conditions –TSX

• Seismic methods used for remote detection and quantification of damage

Monitoring and Modelling Results: URL Mine-by

Moment magnitude

PFC synthetic seismicity

0

48 days

Potyondy and

Cundall, 2001

-2.2

-3.7

Recorded seismicity

PFC simulationExcavatio

n damage

Hazzard et al, 2000

URL Tunnel Sealing Experiment (TSX)• Phases: Excavation (1997/98); Pressurisation (1999/02); Heating (2003);

Cooling and Depressurisation (2004).• Scale: Seal 20m x 4.4m x 3.5m

URL TSX Induced Seismicity (1997 – 2003) – Response to Excavation, Pressurization, and Heating

• High rate of MS activity during excavation.

• Decay of MS events with pressurisation.

• Increase around chamber again, especially in the roof, during heating.

A : Tunnel Excavation

B : Bulkhead Key Excavation

C : Bulkhead Seal Construction

D : Chamber Fill and Pressurization to 2MPa

E : Chamber Pressurization to 4MPa

F : Chamber Heating to 80°C

0

1

2

3

01

/02

/97

20

/08

/97

08

/03

/98

24

/09

/98

12

/04

/99

29

/10

/99

16

/05

/00

02

/12

/00

20

/06

/01

06

/01

/02

25

/07

/02

10

/02

/03

29

/08

/03

Dis

tan

ce

to

Ch

am

be

r W

all

(m)

A B C D E F

• 95% of the events occur within 1.4m of the chamber wall.

• Events during heating do not extend further than during excavation

URL TSX Seismic Velocity Measurements 1997-2003: Temporal Changes to Rock Properties

Raypath P6_R13-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

30/0

5/19

97

29/0

8/19

97

28/1

1/19

97

27/0

2/19

98

29/0

5/19

98

28/0

8/19

98

27/1

1/19

98

26/0

2/19

99

28/0

5/19

99

27/0

8/19

99

26/1

1/19

99

25/0

2/20

00

26/0

5/20

00

25/0

8/20

00

24/1

1/20

00

23/0

2/20

01

25/0

5/20

01

24/0

8/20

01

23/1

1/20

01

22/0

2/20

02

24/0

5/20

02

23/0

8/20

02

22/1

1/20

02

21/0

2/20

03

23/0

5/20

03

22/0

8/20

03

Vel

oci

ty C

han

ge

(m/s

)

-5.5

-4.5

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

% C

han

ge

in Y

ou

ng

s M

od

ulu

s

Raypath P4_R8

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

30/0

5/19

97

29/0

8/19

97

28/1

1/19

97

27/0

2/19

98

29/0

5/19

98

28/0

8/19

98

27/1

1/19

98

26/0

2/19

99

28/0

5/19

99

27/0

8/19

99

26/1

1/19

99

25/0

2/20

00

26/0

5/20

00

25/0

8/20

00

24/1

1/20

00

23/0

2/20

01

25/0

5/20

01

24/0

8/20

01

23/1

1/20

01

22/0

2/20

02

24/0

5/20

02

23/0

8/20

02

22/1

1/20

02

21/0

2/20

03

23/0

5/20

03

22/0

8/20

03

Vel

oci

ty C

han

ge

(m/s

)

-3

-1.5

0

1.5

3

4.5

% C

ha

ng

e i

n Y

ou

ng

s M

od

ulu

s

• Raypath P6_R13

• Large decrease as clay key excavated and bulkhead built.

• Peaks due to evaporation experiment.

• Increase during heating.

• Raypath P4_R8

• Increase during excavation.

• Decrease during pressurization.

• Large increase during heating.

-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

30/0

5/19

97

29/0

8/19

97

28/1

1/19

97

27/0

2/19

98

29/0

5/19

98

28/0

8/19

98

27/1

1/19

98

26/0

2/19

99

28/0

5/19

99

27/0

8/19

99

26/1

1/19

99

25/0

2/20

00

26/0

5/20

00

25/0

8/20

00

24/1

1/20

00

23/0

2/20

01

25/0

5/20

01

24/0

8/20

01

23/1

1/20

01

22/0

2/20

02

24/0

5/20

02

23/0

8/20

02

22/1

1/20

02

21/0

2/20

03

23/0

5/20

03

22/0

8/20

03

-5.5

-4.5

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Vp Vs

E Clay Key Excavation

Clay Bulkhead Built Sand in Chamber

Water in Chamber Pressure Increase

Temperature Increase

SW NE

P4

R8

SW NE

R13P6

How do Earthquakes Scale?

Mw = -4 Mw = 8

URL AE

(Mw~-7 to -5)

URL MS

(Mw~-4 to -1)(from McGarr, 1999)

Stre

ss D

rop

Moment Magnitude

Some questions left unanswered

• Can we use geophysical techniques to estimate permeability?

• How do we predict and validate the long term strength and behaviour of fractured rock?

• How do earthquake processes scale?