LO BUENO....

1
LO MALO....

2
Y LO FEO.

3
 CONCEPTOS
GEOMECÁNICOS
FUNDAMENTALES

4
 MODELOS
CONCEPTUALES
BÁSICOS

5
 R()

R    Ro  

MATERIAL ISOTROPO
6
 R1

R() 

R2

R2  R    R1  

MATERIAL ANISOTROPO
7
 R()


R1 R2

R2  R    R1  

MATERIAL DIRECCIONAL
8
MATERIAL HOMOGENEO
9
MATERIAL HETEROGENEO
10
MATERIAL CONTINUO
11
MATERIAL DISCONTINUO
12
6” 1.5 m

MATERIAL REAL
13
 Carga
Carga

Carga
ELASTICO ELASTO-PLASTICO RIGIDO-PLASTICO

Deformación Deformación Deformación

Carga

Carga
Deformación Deformación

COMPORTAMIENTO
CARGA-DEFORMACION-RESISTENCIA
14
CONTINUO
HOMOGENEO
ISOTROPO
LINEALMENTE
ELASTICO

GRANITO MASIVO
UNDERGROUND RESEARCH LABORATORY
PINAWA, MANITOBA
CANADA
ISRM News Journal (1992,93)

Ejemplo Práctico 01.1

15
CONTINUO
HOMOGENEO
ISOTROPO
LINEALMENTE
ELASTICO

GRANITO MASIVO
UNDERGROUND RESEARCH LABORATORY
PINAWA, MANITOBA
CANADA
ISRM News Journal (1992,93)

Ejemplo Práctico 01.2

16
DIscontinuo
ANISOTROPO
NO
ELASTICO

CALIZAS PLEGADAS
MINA A RAJO ABIERTO
LATINOAMERICA
(1999)

Ejemplo Práctico 01.3

17
 CONCEPTOS DE
MACIZO ROCOSO
Y
EFECTOS DE ESCALA

18
 RESISTENCIA UNIAXIAL DE UN TESTIGO DE DIAMETRO 50 mm 1.5
0 .2
 UCSd   50 
    
Mármol
1.4 Caliza

 UCS50   d 
Granito
Basalto
RESISTENCIA UNIAXIAL DEL TESTIGO

Lava Basaltica-Andesítica
1.3 Gabro
Norita


Diorita cuarcífera

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
DIAMETRO DEL TESTIGO (mm)

19
 (a) (b)

EJEMPLO DE RUPTURA CON CONTROL ESTRUCTURAL QUE IMPIDE CONSIDE-

RAR EL RESULTADO OBTENIDO COMO VALIDO O REPRESENTATIVO DE LA
RESISTENCIA DE LA ROCA “INTACTA”.

20
TIPOS DE ROCA
Y SUS
PROPIEDADES

21
CLASIFICACION GEOLOGICA:
INTRUSIVAS (Granito / Diorita / Monzonita / Gabro / Diabasa)
Rx IGNEAS
EXTRUSIVAS (Riolita / Dacita / Andesita / Latita / Basalto)

CLASTICAS (Brecha / Conglomerado / Arenisca / Lutitas)

Rx SEDIMENTARIAS
NO CLASTICAS (Caliza / Dolomita / Yeso / Carbón / Coquina)

NO FOLIADAS (Cornalina / Cuarcita / Mármol / Antracita)

Rx METAMORFICAS ALGO FOLIADAS (Gneiss / Migmatita / Anfibolita / Milonita)

FOLIADAS (Pizarra / Filita / Esquistos)

22
CLASIFICACION GEOTECNICA:
Carbonatos y Sales Solubles Halita / Yeso / Calizas
Micas y Minerales Planos Esquistos
Rx Textura Cristalina Minerales Bandeados Gneiss
Minerales Duros Tamaño Uniforme Granito / Diorita / Gabro / Sienita
en una Matriz Fina Basalto / Rioliota
Rocas Muy Cizalladas Milonita / Serpentinita

Cementante Estable Areniscas Siliceas / Limonitas

Cementante algo Soluble Conglomerados & Areniscas Calcíticas
Rx Textura Clástica Cementante Soluble Conglomerados & Areniscas Yesíferas
Cementante Débil o Cementación Incompleta Areniscas Débiles / Tobas
No Cementadas Areniscas Arcillosas

Duras e Isotrópicas Basaltos

Rx de Grano Duras e Isotropicas (Micro) Anisotrópicas (Macro) Lutitas Cementadas
Muy Fino Duras Anisotrópicas Esquistos / Filitas
Blandas o Tipo Suelo Esquistos / Lutitas / Creta

Rocas Orgánicas Carbón / Esquistos Bituminosos / Coquinas / Turbas

23
PROPIEDADES DE LA ROCA INTACTA:

Porosidad, n (%)
Propiedades Peso Unitario,  (ton/m3) o (kN/m3)
Indice Relaciones de Fase
Degradabilidad

Tracción, TS o ci (MPa)

Resistencia Compresión Uniaxial, UCS o ci (MPa)
Compresión Triaxial, c (MPa) y  (grados)
Propiedades Deformabilidad Velocidad Prop. Ondas, VP y VS (m/s)
de Ingeniería Módulos Elásticos, E (GPa) y 
Conductividad Hidráulica
Otras Propiedades

24
RELACIONES DE FASE

Hunt (1984)

25
Pesos Unitarios Típicos de Algunas Rocas
Roca  (ton/m3) Roca  (ton/m3)
Andesitas 2.5 a 2.8 Anfibolitas 2.7 a 3.1
Areniscas 2.0 a 2.8 Basaltos 2.8 a 3.0
Brechas Igneas 2.7 a 2.9 Calizas 1.8 a 2.9
Carbón 0.7 a 2.0 Creta 1.9 a 2.3
Cuarcitas 2.5 a 2.9 Dacitas 2.5 a 2.8
Diabasas 2.6 a 3.0 Dioritas 2.7 a 3.0
Dolomitas 2.7 a 2.9 Esquistos 2.0 a 2.7
Gabros 2.8 a 3.1 Gneiss 2.6 a 2.9
Granitos 2.5 a 2.9 Granodioritas 2.6 a 2.9
Gravas Cementadas 1.9 a 2.1 Hematitas 4.5 a 5.3
Ignimbrita Cinerítica 1.4 a 1.8 Ignimbrita Cristalina 2.0 a 2.3
Lutitas 2.0 a 2.8 Mármol 2.1 a 2.9
Mica-Esquistos 2.5 a 2.9 Mineral de Hierro 4.0 a 5.5
Pizarras 2.5 a 2.8 Pórfidos 2.4 a 2.8
Riolitas 2.2 a 2.7 Sal 2.0 a 2.0
Tobas 1.5 a 2.0 Yeso 2.2 a 2.4

26
 ENSAYOS TIPICOS PARA DETERMINAR
LA RESISTENCIA DE LA ROCA INTACTA

Tracción Indirecta Compresión Uniaxial Compresión Triaxial

- Resistencia en tracción - Resistencia uniaxial - Resistencia al corte

- Módulos elásticos

27
Goodman (1989)

28
 100

Percentage uniaxial compressive strength Porphyry

Andesite
80 Quartz-monzonite porhpyry
Andesite

60

40

20

0
Light Moderate Intense Very Intense

Quartz -sericite alteration

29
Table 1:
FIELD ESTIMATES OF UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Grade Term
 ci Point Load
Index Field Estimate of Strength Examples
(MPa) (MPa)

Extremely Specimen can only be chipped with a geological Fresh basalt, chert, diabase, gneiss,
R6 > 250 > 10 hammer. granite, quartzite
Strong

Very Amphibolite, sandstone, basalt, gabbro,

Specimen requires many blows of a geological
R5 100 - 250 4 - 10 hammer to fracture it
gneiss, granodiorite, peridotite , rhyolite,
Strong tuff

Specimen requires more than one blow of a

R4 Strong 50 - 100 2 - 4 geological hammer to fracture it
Limestone, marble, sandstone, schist

Medium Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife,

R3 25 - 50 1 - 2 specimen can be fractured with a single blow Concete, phyllite, schist, siltstone
Strong from a geological hammer

Can be peeled with a pocket knife with difficulty,

Chalk, claystone, potash, marl, siltstone,
R2 Weak 5 - 25  shallow indentation made by firm blow with point
shale, rocksalt
of a geological hammer

Very Crumbles under firm blows with point of a geo-

R1 1 - 5 
logical hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife
Highly weathered or altered rock, shale
Weak

Extremely
R0 0.25 - 1  Indented by thumbnail Stiff fault gouge
Weak

 Grade according to Brown (1981)

 Point load tests on rocks with a uniaxial compressive strength below 25 MPa are likely to yield highly ambiguous results.

30
USO DEL ENSAYO DE CARGA
PUNTUAL PARA ESTIMAR LA
RESISTENCIA EN COMPRESIÓN
UNIAXIAL DE LA ROCA.

Bieniawski (1984)

31
RESISTENCIA EN COMPRESION TRIAXIAL

Hoek & Brown (1980) Method to estimate the strength

of rock masses

Hoek (1983) Modified the method

Hoek & Brown (1988) Updated the method

Hoek et al. (1992) Modified the method to be applied

to very poor quality rock

Hoek et al. (1995-1998) Developed the GSI index

This paper presents the Hoek-Brown criterion in a form that has been
found practical for surface mines, where rock mass properties are
particularly sensitive to stress relief and blast damage.

32
GENERALIZED HOEK-BROWN CRITERION
a
  
'
     ci  mb
' '
 s 
3
(1)
1 3
  ci 
 1'  '
, 3 are the maximum and minimum efective stresses at
failure

mb is the value of the Hoek-Brown parameter m for the

rock mass

a , s are constants which depend upon the rock mass cha-

racteristics

 ci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock

pieces

33
Eq. (1) can be used to generate a series of “triaxial test” values,
simulating full-scale field tests, and a curve fitting process can be used
to derive an equivalent Mohr envelope given by:

B
    tm
'

  A ci  n
 (2)
  ci 

A , B are material constants

 n' is the normal effective stress

 tm is the tensile strength of the rock mass

34
In order to use the Hoek-Brown criterion for estimating the strength of
jointed rock masses, three “properties” of the rock mass have to be
estimated:

(1) The uniaxial compressive strength  ci of the intact rock

pieces

(2) The value of the Hoek-Brown constant mi for these intact

rock pieces

(3) The value of the Geological Strength Index GSI for the
rock mass

35
INTACT ROCK PROPERTIES
For the intact rock pieces that make up the rock mass eq. (1) simplifies
to:
0.5
 3  '
     ci  mi
' '
 1 (3)
  ci
1 3

The relationship between the principal stresses at failure for a given
rock is defined by two constants, the uniaxial compressive strength  ci
and a constant mi .

Wherever possible the values of these constants should be determined

by statistical analysis of the results of a set of triaxial tests.

36
 Table 2:
VALUES OF THE CONSTANT mi FOR INTACT ROCK
NOTE THAT VALUES IN PARENTHESIS ARE ESTIMATES

Texture
Rock
Class Group
Type
Coarse Medium Fine Very Fine

Claystones 4 ± 2
Conglomerates (21 ± 3) Siltstones 7 ± 2
Clastic Sandstones 17 ± 4 Shales (6 ± 2)
Breccias (19 ± 5) Greywackes (18 ± 3)
SEDIMENTARY

Marls (7 ± 2)
Crystalline Limestones (12 ±
Carbonates 3)
Sparitic Limestones (10 ± 2) Micritic Limestones (9 ± 2) Dolomites (9 ± 3)

Non-Clastic Evaporites Gypsum 8 ± 2 Anhydrite 12 ± 2

Organic Chalk 7 ± 2

Hornfels (19 ± 4)
METAMORPHIC

Non Foliated Marble 9 ± 3 Quartzites 20 ± 3

Metasandstone (19 ± 3)

Slightly Foliated Migmatite (29 ± 3) Amphibolites 26 ± 6

Foliated * Gneiss 28 ± 5 Schists 12 ± 3 Phyllites (7 ± 3) Slates 7 ± 4

Granite 32 ± 3 Diorite 25 ± 5
Light
Granodiorite (29 ± 3)
Plutonic Gabbro 27 ± 3
Dark Dolerite (16 ± 5)
Norite 20 ± 5
IGNEOUS

Hypabyssal Porphyries (20 ± 5) Diabase (15 ± 5) Peridotite (25 ± 5)

Rhyolite (25 ± 5) Dacite (25 ± 3)

Lava Obsidian (19 ± 3)
Andesite 25 ± 5 Basalt (25 ± 5)
Volcanic
Pyroclastic Agglomerate (19 ± 3) Breccia (19 ± 5) Tuff (13 ± 5)

* For specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of mi will be significantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
37
DETERMINACION DE LOS
MODULOS ELASTICOS.

Lambe & Whitman (1969)

38
RELACIONES ENTRE LOS
MODULOS ELASTICOS.

Hunt (1984)

39
MODULOS “DINAMICOS”

Hunt (1984)

40
 Lambe & Whitman (1969)
Goodman (1989)

41
42
Dowding (1985)

43
 Calculo de las Propiedades de la Roca Intacta:

(1) Realizar ensayos de compresiónm uniaxial (5 a 10) para

determinar UCS y los módulos elásticos E y .

(2) Realizar ensayos triaxiales para un mínimo de 5 presiones de

confinamiento, y de modo que se alcance ewl 40% al 50% de
UCS. Se recomienda repetir a lo menos una vez cada ensayo
(o sea 2 ensayos x cada presión de confinamiento).

(3) Utilizar estos resultados para determinar los parámetros del

criterio de Hoek-Bown. Se recomienda emplear el software
ROCDATA y usar el método simplex. Deberá verificarse que los
resultados son razonables (e.g. mi < 36).

Ejemplo Práctico 03.1

44
Ejemplo Práctico 03.2

45
ESTRUCTURAS
Y SUS
PROPIEDADES

46
PARAMETROS GEOMETRICOS

MANTEO
DIRECCION DE MANTEO
TRAZA O EXTENSIÓN
ESPACIAMIENTO
GAP

47
Máquina de corte directo fija en laboratorio (tomada Máquina de corte directo portátil (tipo Hoek, tomada de
de Franklin & Dusseault (1989)). Franklin & Dusseault (1989)).

Ensayo de corte directo in situ sobre planos de

estratificación, en un talud de reservorio en Grecia
(tomada de Franklin & Dusseault 1989)). Esquema del montaje típico de un ensayo de corte
directo in situ (tomada de Franklin & Dusseault (1989)).
48
Montaje para la ejecución
de ensayos de corte
directo sobre estructuras
con un área expuesta de
unos 400 cm2.

49
Estructura antes del ensayo. Estructura después del ensayo.

50
 RESISTENCIA
 
CONDICION PEAK

AK
PE
Curva carga-deformación
para un valor dado del es-

A
CI
fuerzo normal efectivo.

EN
ST CONDICION RESIDUAL
SI
RE

AL
I DU
RE S
peak T ENCI
A
IS
RES
cpeak

res
cres

n
51
METODO DE BARTON-BANDIS:

 MAX =   tan(  b + JRClog(JCS/))

 MAX =   tan(  equiv )


MAX RESISTENCIA AL CORTE
 ESFUERZO NORMAL EFECTIVO
 b ANGULO “BASICO” DE FRICCION (  b   r )

JRC COEFICIENTE DE RUGOSIDAD

JCS RESISTENCIA EN COMPRESION UNIAXIAL
DE LA PARED DE LA ESTRUCTURA

52
53
METODO DE BARTON-BANDIS:
 equiv  70°

0.01  /JCS  0.30

ESTRUCTURAS SIN RELLENO

ESTRUCTURAS SIN DESPLAZAMIENTO PREVIO

54
EFECTO DE ESCALA EN LA RESISTENCIA AL
CORTE DE LAS ESTRUCTURAS.
55
EL AUMENTO DE LA EXTENSION DE LA ESTRUCTURA PRODU-
CE TRES EFECTOS PRINCIPALES: REDUCE LA RUGOSIDAD, RE-
DUCE LA DILATANCIA, E INCREMENTA EL DESPLAZAMIENTO
NECESARIO PARA MOVILIZAR LA RESISTENCIA PEAK.

56
EFECTO DE ESCALA EN EL PARAMETRO JRC

57
EFECTO DE ESCALA EN EL PARAMETRO JCS

58
 55

50

LA SALBANDA ARCILLOSA
A N G U L O D E F R IC C IO N ( g r a d o s )

45
SE HACE MUY IMPORTANTE

40

35

30

25

20

15
0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
E X T E N S IO N D E L A D IS C O N T IN U ID A D , L ( m )

Efecto de escala en el valor peak del ángulo de fricción de estructuras de

distinta extensión, conforme con lo valores reseñados por Pusch (1997).

59
 PROPIEDADES “TIPICAS”

Joints c = 75 a 150 kPa  = 30o a 35°

Joints en Roca Argilizada c = 25 a 100 kPa  = 22o a 30°

Fallas con Salbanda Arcillosa c = 0 a 50 kPa  = 18o a 25°

Zonas de Falla con Salbanda c = 25 a 75 kPa  = 20o a 30°

y Roca Brechizada

60
 Interpretación Práctica de la Información Geológica:

(1) Obtener la definición de dominios estructurales y el patrón

característico de cada dominio: Sets, Orientación, Trazas,
Espaciamientos, Rellenos, Competencia.

(2) Obtener mapa de estructuras mayores.

(3) Obtener características de infiltración de aguas subterráneas.

Ejemplo Práctico 04.1

61
Ejemplo Práctico 04.2: RAJO SUR SUR de DIVISION ANDINA (cortesía Suptcia. Geología Mina)

62
 Modos de Falla con Control Estructural
(Hoek & Bray (1981))

Ejemplo Práctico 04.3: RAJO SUR SUR de DIVISION ANDINA (cortesía Suptcia. Geología Mina)

63
MACIZOS ROCOSOS
Y SU
CARACTERIZACIÓN

64
EL PROBLEMA ES DEFINIR UNA CALIFICACION
DE LA COMPETENCIA DEL MACIZO ROCOSO QUE
PERMITA EL ESCALAMIENTO:

Prop. Macizo Rocoso = Fact. Escala  Prop. R. I.

RQD
FF
RMR (Bieniawski)
Factor de Escala
RMR (Laubscher)
Q
GSI

65
Modo de Cálculo del RQD
(Deere (1989))

Ejemplo Práctico 05.1

66
Indice RMR
Bieniawski (1989)

67
Indice RMR
Laubscher (1996)

68
Rock Mechanics Notes
(Hoek (2000))

69
Rock Mechanics Notes
(Hoek (2000))

70
Rock Mechanics Notes
(Hoek (2000))

71
72
Rock Mechanics Notes
(Hoek (2000))

73
GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX
The strength of a jointed rock mass depends on the properties of the
intact rock pieces and also upon the freedom of these pieces to slide
and rotate under different stress conditions. This freedom is controlled
by the geometrical shape of the intact rock pieces as well as the
condition of the surfaces separating the pieces. Angular rock pieces
with clean, rough discontinuity surfaces will result in a much stronger
rock mass than one which contains rounded particles surrounded by
weathered and altered material.

The Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced by Hoek (1994) and

Hoek et al. (1995) provides a system for estimating the reduction in
rock mass strength for different geological conditions.

This system is presented in Table 3, for blocky rock masses, and Table
4 for schistose metamorphic rocks.

74
Table 3:
Characterisation of a blocky rock masses
on the basis of particle interlocking and
discontinuity condition.
After Hoek, Marinos and Benissi (1998).

75
Table 4:
Characterisation of a schistose metamorphic
rock masses on the basis of foliation and
discontinuity condition.
(After M. Truzman, 1999).

76
AL CALIFICAR LA COMPE-
TENCIA DEL MACIZO ROCO-
SO ES PRECISO CONSIDE-
RAR UN RANGO DE VALO-
RES, YA QUE DIFICILMENTE
ESTA CORRESPONDERA A
UN SOLO VALOR.

77
CALIFICACION GEOMECANICA DE MACIZOS ROCOSOS:
- Roca granítica relativamente competente
- Presenta una resistencia en compresión uniaxial de 80 a 120 MPa.
- El índice RQD se ubica en el rango de 50% a 75%.
- Presenta de 4 a 8 fract./m, las que se observan planas o poco
ondulosas (escala métrica), y de poca rugosidad (escala
centimétrica).
- Los sistemas estructurales definen bloques de roca con un tamaño
típico del orden de 0.5 m, mayoritariamente con forma cúbica.
- El macizo rocoso se encuentre seco.

Ejemplo Práctico 06.1

78
GENERALIZED HOEK-BROWN CRITERION
a
  
'
     ci  mb
' '
 s 
3
(1)
1 3
  ci 
 1'  '
, 3 are the maximum and minimum efective stresses at
failure

mb is the value of the Hoek-Brown parameter m for the

rock mass

a , s are constants which depend upon the rock mass cha-

racteristics

 ci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock

pieces

79
Eq. (1) can be used to generate a series of “triaxial test” values,
simulating full-scale field tests, and a curve fitting process can be used
to derive an equivalent Mohr envelope given by:

B
    tm
'

  A ci  n
 (2)
  ci 

A , B are material constants

 n' is the normal effective stress

 tm is the tensile strength of the rock mass

80
In order to use the Hoek-Brown criterion for estimating the strength of
jointed rock masses, three “properties” of the rock mass have to be
estimated:

(1) The uniaxial compressive strength  ci of the intact rock

pieces

(2) The value of the Hoek-Brown constant mi for these intact

rock pieces

(3) The value of the Geological Strength Index GSI for the
rock mass

81
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion, which assumes isotropic rock and
rock mass behaviour, should only be applied to those rock masses in
which there are a sufficient number of closely spaced discontinuities,
with similar surface characteristics, that isotropic behaviour involving
failure on multiple discontinuities can be assumed. When the structure
being analysed is large and the block size small in comparison, the
rock mass can be treated as a Hoek-Brown material.

Where the block size is of the same order as that of the structure being
analysed or when one of the discontinuity sets is significantly weaker
than the others, the Hoek-Brown criterion should not be used.

In these cases, the stability of the structure should be analysed by

considering failure mechanisms involving the sliding or rotation of
blocks and wedges defined by intersecting structural features. Figure
2 summarises these statements in a graphical form.

82
 Intact Rock
Specimens
USE EQ. 3

One Joint Set

DO NOT USE
HB CRITERION

Two Joint Sets

DO NOT USE
HB CRITERION

Many Joints
USE EQ. 1
WITH CAUTION

Heavily Jointed Rock Mass

USE EQ. 1

Figure 2: Idealised diagram showing the transition from intact to a

heavily jointed rock mass with increasing sample size.

83
Once the Geological Strength Index has been estimated, the
parameters that describe the rock mass strength characteristics, are
calculated as follows:

 GSI  100 
mb  mi exp 
 14 a 28 

 GSI  100 
s  0 o exp 
 6 a 9 

GSI
a  0.5 o 0.65 
200

84
For better quality rock masses (GSI > 25), the value of GSI can be
estimated directly from the 1976 version of Bieniawski’s RMR, with the
groundwater rating set to 10 (dry) and the adjustment for joint orientation
set to 0 (very favourable). If the 1989 version of Bieniawski’s classification
is used, then GSI = RMR89’ - 5 where RMR89’ has the groundwater rating set
to 15 and the adjustment for joint orientation set to zero.

For very poor quality rock masses the value of RMR is very difficult to
estimate and the balance between the ratings no longer gives a reliable
basis for estimating rock mass strength. Consequently, Bieniawski’s RMR
classification should not be used for estimating the GSI values for poor
quality rock masses (RMR < 25) and the GSI charts should be used
directly.

85
DEFORMATION MODULUS
Serafim and Pereira (1983) proposed a relationship between the in situ
modulus of deformation and Bieniawski’s RMR. This relationship is based
upon back analysis of dam foundation deformations and it has been found
to work well for better quality rocks. However, for many of the poor quality
rocks it appears to predict deformation modulus values that are too high.

Based upon practical observations and back analysis of excavation

behaviour in poor quality rock masses, the following modification to
Serafim and Pereira’s equation is proposed for:

 GSI  10 
 ci  
Em  10  40 
(12)
100

86
Figure 5: Deformation modulus versus Geological Strength Index GSI.

87
Note that GSI has been substituted for RMR in this equation and that the
modulus Em is reduced progressively as the value of falls below 100.

This reduction is based upon the reasoning that the deformation of better
quality rock masses is controlled by the discontinuities while, for poorer
quality rock masses, the deformation of the intact rock pieces contributes
to the overall deformation process.

Based upon measured deformations, eq. 12 appears to work reasonably

well in those cases where it has been applied. However, as more field
evidence is gathered it may be necessary to modify this relationship.

88
MODULO DE DEFORMABILIDAD:
E = ESEISMIC (Deere et al. (1967)).

E = 2RMR - 100 (RMR > 50, Bieniawski (1978)

E = 10((RMR – 10)/40) (Serafim & Pereira (1983))

EMIN = 10log(Q)

EMEAN = 25log(Q) (Barton (1983))

EMAX = 40log(Q)

89
 
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
VFIELD / VLAB , RQD
90
STRESS RELAXATION
When the rock mass adjacent to a tunnel wall or a slope is excavated, a
relaxation of the confining stresses occurs and the remaining material
is allowed to expand in volume or to dilate.

This has a profound influence on the strength of the rock mass since,
in jointed rocks, this strength is strongly dependent upon the
interlocking between the intact rock particles that make up the rock
mass.

As far as the authors are aware, there is very little research evidence
relating the amount of dilation to the strength of a rock mass. One set
of observations that gives an indication of the loss of strength
associated with dilation is derived from the support required to
stabilize tunnels. Sakurai (1983) suggested that tunnels in which the
‘strain’, defined as the ratio of tunnel closure to tunnel diameter,
exceeds 1% are likely to suffer significant instability unless adequately
supported.

91
This suggestion was confirmed in observations by Chern et al. (1998)
who recorded the behavior of a number of tunnels excavated in Taiwan.

They found that all of those tunnels that exhibited strains of greater
than 1 to 2% required significant support. Tunnels exhibiting strains as
high as 10% were successfully stabilized but the amount of effort
required to achieve this stability increased in proportion to the amount
of strain.

While it is not possible to derive a direct relationship between rock

mass strength and dilation from these observations, it is possible to
conclude that the strength loss is significant.

92
An unconfined surface that has deformed more than 1 or 2% (based
upon Sakurai’s definition of strain) has probably reached residual
strength in which all of the effective ‘cohesive’ strength of the rock
mass has been lost.

While there are no similar observations for rock slopes, it is reasonable

to assume that a similar loss of strength occurs as a result of dilation.

Hence, a 100 m high slope which has suffered a total crest displace-
ment of more than 1 m (i.e. more than 1% strain) may start to exhibit
significant signs of instability as a result of loss of strength of the rock
mass.

93
BLAST DAMAGE
Blast damage results in a loss of rock mass strength due to the
creation of new fractures and the wedging open of existing fractures by
the penetration of explosive gasses.

In the case of very large open pit mine blasts, this damage can extend
as much as 100 m behind the final row of blast holes.

In contrast to the strength loss due to stress relaxation or dilation,

discussed in the previous section, it is possible to arrive at an
approximate quantification of the strength loss due to blast damage.

This is because the blast is designed to achieve a specific purpose

which is generally to produce a fractured rock mass that can be
excavated by means of a given piece of equipment.

94
Figure 6 presents a plot of 23 case histories of excavation by digging,
ripping and blasting published by Abdullatif and Cruden (1983). These
case histories are summarised in Table 5. The values of GSI are
estimated from the data contained in the paper by Abdullatif and
Cruden while the rock mass strength values were calculated assuming
an average slope height of 15 m.

These examples shows that rock masses can be dug, obviously with
increasing difficulty, up to GSI values of about 40 and rock mass
strength values of about 1 MPa.

Ripping can be used up to GSI values of about 60 and rock mass

strength values of about 10 MPa, with two exceptions where heavy
equipment was used to rip strong rock masses.

Blasting was used for GSI values of more than 60 and rock mass
strengths of more than about 15 MPa.

95
Table 5:
Summary of methods used to excavate rock masses with a range of uniaxial compressive strength values,
based on data published by Abdullatif and Cruden (1983).

Rock Mass Strength,  C M

GSI Excavation Method
( MPa )
85 86 Blasting
85 117 Blasting
77 64 Blasting
77 135 Blasting
77 84 Blasting
76 54 Blasting
71 35 Blasting
69 15 Blasting
68 17 Blasting
68 30 Blasting
67 42 Ripping by D9L bulldozer
67 33 Ripping by D9L bulldozer
58 2.4 Ripping by track loader
57 9.5 Ripping by 977L track loader
51 0.8 Ripping by track loader
42 1.2 Digging by 977L track loader
40 0.5 Digging by wheel loader
34 0.5 Digging by hydraulic face shovel
25 0.3 Digging by 977L track loader
25 0.2 Digging by wheel loader
24 0.2 Digging by hydraulic backhoe
19 0.1 Digging by D9 bulldozer
19 0.1 Digging by 977L track loader

96
Figure 6: Plot of rock mass strength versus GSI for different excavation methods, after
Abdullatif and Cruden (1983).

97
Consider the case of an open pit slope excavated in granodiorite. The
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock is  ci = 60 MPa and the
Geological Strength Index is GSI = 55. For granodiorite, Table 2 gives
the value of mi = 30. Substitution of these values into the spreadsheet
given in the appendix, for a single 18 m high bench, gives a rock mass
strength  cm = 5.7 MPa. In order to create conditions for easy digging,
the blast is designed to reduce the GSI value to below 40 and/or the
rock mass strength to less than 1 MPa. In this case the controlling
parameter is the rock mass strength and the spreadsheet given in the
appendix shows that the GSI value has to be reduced to about 22 on
order to achieve this rock mass strength.

In another example of a 15 m high slope in weak sandstone, the

compressive strength of the intact rock is  ci = 10 MPa, mi = 17 and
GSI = 60. These values give a rock mass strength  cm = 1.4 MPa and
this is reduced to 0.7 by reducing the GSI to 40. Hence, in this case,
both the conditions for efficient digging in this soft rock are satisfied
by designing the blast to give a GSI value of 40.

98
 Figure 7: Diagrammatic representation of the transition between the in situ
rock mass and blasted rock that is suitable for digging.

Figure 7 summarizes the conditions for a muckpile that can be dug

efficiently and the blast damaged rock mass that lies between the
digging limit and the in situ rock mass. The properties of this blast
damaged rock mass will control the stability of the slope that remains
after digging of the muckpile has been completed.

99
The thickness D of the blast damaged zone will depend upon the design
of the blast. Based upon experience, the authors suggest that the
following approximate relationships can be used as a starting point in
judging the extent of the blast damaged zone resulting from open pit
mine production blasting:

• Large production blast, confined and with litle or no control D = 2.0 to 2.5 H

• Production blast with control but blasting to a free face D = 1.0 to 1.5 H

• Production blast, confined but with some control, e.g. one or more D = 1.0 to 1.2 H
buffer rows

• Production blast with some control, e.g. one or more buffer rows, D = 0.5 to 1.0 H
and blasting to a free face

• Carefully controlled poduction blast with a free face D = 0.3 to 0.5 H

100
EN LA PRACTICA SE ESTA UTILIZANDO CADA VEZ MAS EL METODO DE
HOEK & BROWN, CON LAS CONSIDERACIONES SIGUIENTES:

SE DETERMINAN LOS PARAMETROS mi Y ci EN BASE A UNA

CUIDADOSA INTERPRETACION DE LOS RESULTADOS DE ENSAYOS
TRIAXIALES SOBRE TESTIGOS DE ROCA “INTACTA” (USUALMENTE
UTILIZANDO ROCKDATA).

SE DETERMINA EL RANGO DE VALORES PROBABLES PARA EL INDICE GSI

(USUALMENTE 15 A 20 PUNTOS).

SE DETERMINA EL RANGO DE PRESIONES DE CONFINAMIENTO Y SI SE

TRATA DE UN MACIZO BIEN TRABADO O NO.

SE ESTIMA LA INCERTEZA ASOCIADA A CADA PARAMETRO Y SU POSIBLE

FUNCION DE DISTRIBUCION.

SE EVALUAN LAS PROPIEDADES DEL MACIZO ROCOSO UTI-LIZANDO LA

METODOLOGIA PROPUESTA POR HOEK (1998,99).

101
PROBLEMAS :
EL METODO NO SIEMPRE ES APLICABLE.

SE DEFINE UNA RESISTENCIA ISOTROPICA.

PARA MACIZOS MASIVOS Y COMPETENTES EL METODO

DEBE APLICARSE EN FORMA “FLEXIBLE”.

PARA MACIZOS DE MALA CALIDAD GEOTECNICA, POBRE-

MENTE TRABADOS Y POCO CONFINADOS EL METODO
PUEDE SOBREVALUAR LA RESISTENCIA.

EN EL CASO DE ROCAS ESQUISTOSAS O FOLIADAS EL

METODO DEBE APLICARSE MUY CUIDADOSAMENTE.

102
ZONIFICACIÓN
GEOTECNICA

103
 BLOCKY ROCK MASS + FAIR TO GOOD JOINT CONDITION
BLOCKY ROCK MASS + FOOR JOINT CONDITION
VERY BLOCKY ROCK MASS + GOOD JOINT CONDITION
VERY BLOCKY ROCK MASS + FAIR TO POOR JOINT CONDITION
BLOCKY AND SEAMY ROCK MASS + FAIR TO GOOD JOINT CONDITION
BLOCKY AND SEAMY ROCK MASS + POOR TO VERY POOR JOINT CONDITION
CRUSHED ROCKS MASS + FAIR JOINT CONDITION
CRUSHED ROCKS MASS + POOR TO VERY POOR JOINT CONDITION

Ejemplo Práctico 07.1: ZONIFICACIÓN GEOTECNICA

DE MINA CHUQUICAMATA EN
TERMINOS DEL INDICE GSI

(cortesía Suptcia. Ingeniería Geotécnica)

104
Ejemplo Práctico 07.2: ZONIFICACIÓN GEOTECNICA RAJO SUR SUR de DIVISION ANDINA EN TERMINOS DEL
INDICE GSI (cortesía Suptcia. Geología Mina)
105
Ejemplo Práctico 07.3: ZONIFICACION GEOTECNICA DEL II PANEL DE LA MINA
RIO BLANCO EN TERMINOS DEL INDICE RMR
(cortesía Suptcia. Geología Mina, División Andina)
106
Ejemplo Práctico 07.4: ZONIFICACION GEOTECNICA DEL SECTOR DON LUIS EN TERMINOS DEL INDICE RMR
(cortesía Suptcia. Geología Mina, División Andina)

107
RUPTURA DE LA ROCA
Y DEL MACIZO ROCOSO

108
Esquema que ilustra la trituración de la roca y la generación de nuevas fracturas
debido a una tronadura (tomada de Hagan et al. (1978)).

109
110
MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME

111
 Mecanismo de Ruptura por Flexión

MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME

112
EFECTO DE LAS PROPIEDADES
DE LA ROCA INTACTA

113
Peso Unitario Energía Requerida

Atenuación
Porosidad Trituración
% Finos

Fricción Interna Atenuación

Resistencia Energía Requerida

114
 EFECTO DE LAS
CARACTERISTICAS DEL
MACIZO ROCOSO

115
BLOCOSIDAD Y RESISTENCIA DEL BLOQUE TIPICO

PRECAUCION !

MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME

116
HETEROGENEIDADES

MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME

117
HETEROGENEIDADES

BLASTING TECHNOLOGY, Sen (1995), UNSW Press

118
HETEROGENEIDADES

MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME

119
EFECTO DE LAS
ESTRUCTURAS

120
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
121
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
122
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING
Hustrulid, W. (1999)
A. A. Balkema

MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS

López et al. (1994)
IGME

123
124
125
 “TRONADURABILIDAD”
DEL MACIZO ROCOSO

(ROCK MASS BLASTABILITY)

126
Indice de Tronadurabilidad de Lylli (1986):

1
BI    RMD  JPS  JPO  SGI  H 
2
BI Indice de tronadurabilidad
RMD Descripción del macizo rocoso
JPS Espaciamiento de las estructuras
JPO Orientación de las estructuras
SGI Influencia del peso específico
H Dureza de la roca

127
128
Predicción de la Fragmentación Cunningham (1983,87):

19 / 30
1/ 6  
_
 0 .8 115
X  AK Qe  
 SANFO 
X Tamaño medio de los fragmentos (cm)
A Factor que depende el tipo de roca
8 para rocas de resistencia media
10 para rocas duras algo fisuradas
13 para rocas duras muy fisuradas

Qe Masa de explosivo (kg)

SANFO Potencia del explosivo respecto al ANFO

129
 A  0.06   RMD  JF  RDI  HF 

JF  JPS  JPA

RMD Descripción del macizo rocoso

JPS Espaciamiento de las estructuras verticales
JPA Angulo de inclinación de las estructuras
RDI Influencia de la densidad de la roca
HF Factor asociado a la dureza de la roca

130
131
DAÑOS INDUCIDOS
EN EL
MACIZO ROCOSO

132
133
134
RMRDAÑO = CBRMR

135
136
137
138
139
140
 EFECTOS
DINAMICOS

141
142
143
BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING AND CONTROL, Dowding, C. (1985), Prentice-Hall
144
BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING AND CONTROL, Dowding, C. (1985), Prentice-Hall
145
146
BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING AND CONTROL
Dowding, C. (1985)
Prentice-Hall

147
 PPV
 
VP
PPV  E
 
VP

148
RMRDAÑO = CBRMR

149
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
150
MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME
151
Hendron (1977)

152
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
153
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
154
 1200

Vp = 127 mm/seg
Vp = 381 mm/seg
Vp = 635 mm/seg
1000
Collahuasi
Kg de Anfo o Equivalente por Retardo Ext. Collahuasi

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distancia desde la carga, (m )

Cortesía Grupo Geotécnico DMDIC

155
Cortesía Grupo Geotécnico DMDIC
156
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATIONS
Dowding, C. (1996), Prentice-Hall
157
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATIONS
Dowding, C. (1996), Prentice-Hall
158
TRONADURAS
CONTROLADAS

159
MANUAL DE PERFORACION Y VOLADURA DE ROCAS, López et al. (1994), IGME
160
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
161
BLASTING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN PIT MINING, Hustrulid, W. (1999), A. A. Balkema
162
 RESULTADOS DE PRE-CORTE EN IGNIMBRITA

Cortesía Grupo Geotécnico DMDIC

163
 DISEÑO DE LA TRONADURA DE PRE-CORTE EN IGNIMBRITA
Banco Doble de 30 m, Tiros de 61/2”

Cortesía Grupo Geotécnico DMDIC

164
 Tronaduras Controladas en Roca Cuarzo-Sericítica
TRONADURA : 127 A N1 + Precorte
EXPANSION : 28 N
FECHA TRONADURA : 21 de Septiembre de 2000
FECHA PRECORTE : 21 de Septiembre de 2000
PALA : 093
NUMERO DE TIROS : 70 (6 1/2” producción)
61 (6 1/2” precorte)
ALTURA BANCO : 26 m
MALLA PERFORACION : 6 x 6 m (producción en 6 1/2”)
6 x 3 (buffer en 6 1/2”)
2,0 m (Espaciamiento Precorte)
SECUENCIA DE SALIDA : Hacia el Rajo
RETARDOS : Entre filas 130 ms
Entre tiros producción 35 ms
Entre tiros buffer 17 ms
TONELAJE A REMOVER : 124.000 Ton (c/q)
EXPLOSIVO : 27.300 Kg
FACTOR DE CARGA : 220 (gr/Ton)
DENSIDAD DE CARGA : 0,58 (Kg/m^2)

DISEÑO PLANTA DISEÑO PERFIL

2 m (espaciamiento precorte)
1m

LP

6m
3m 26 m

6m
80°

PERFORACION EN 6-1/2” PRECORTE EN 6-1/2” 0 m(p)

1 m(p)

Cortesía Sr. Luis Olivares, Suptcia. Ingeniería Geotécnica División Chuquicamata

165
 Tronaduras Controladas en Roca Cuarzo-Sericítica

TRONADURA : 114 A N3 + Precorte

EXPANSION : 28 N
FECHA TRONADURA : 13 de Octubre de 2000
PALA : 093
NUMERO DE TIROS : 98 (6 1/2” producción)
56 (6 1/2” A 75º Precorte)
ALTURA BANCO : 26 - 27 m
MALLA PERFORACION : 6,0 x 6,0 m (producción en 6 1/2”)
6,0 x 3,0 (buffer en 6 1/2”)
1,5 m (Espaciamiento Precorte)
SECUENCIA DE SALIDA : Hacia el Rajo
RETARDOS : Entre filas 42 ms
Entre tiros producción 0 - 17 ms
Entre tiros buffer 17 ms
TONELAJE A REMOVER : 178.000 Ton (c/q)
EXPLOSIVO : 35.100 Kg
FACTOR DE CARGA : 197 (gr/Ton)
DENSIDAD DE CARGA : 0.74 (Kg/m^2)
DISEÑO PERFIL
1m
DISEÑO PLANTA
1,5 m

LP
26 m

3m 6m

6m
75°

0 m (p)
1 m (p)

Cortesía Sr. Luis Olivares, Suptcia. Ingeniería Geotécnica División Chuquicamata

166
 Tronaduras Controladas en Roca Cuarzo-Sericítica
CONCLUSIONES

• Basados en la caracterización geotécnica y estructural de esta unidad geotécnica, la cual presenta una
competencia media y considerando que corresponde a un material de carácter masivo, la condición estructural
NO afecta en forma importante el resultado de la tronadura en la Orientación Norte-Sur del rajo, es que podemos
efectuar pre-cortes con alta inclinación, incluso alcanzando valores de 80°. Para el caso de la orientación Este-
Oeste (Sector Norte), la inclinación del pre-corte debe ser 70°, dada la condición de Falla Plana.

• El especiamiento del pre-corte utilizado corresponde a 2 metros para una inclinación de 80° y diámetro 6-1/2”, y
la densidad de carga para éste corresponde a 0.58 Kg/m 2. Para el caso de espaciamientos de 1.5 metros e
inclinado a 75° la densidad de carga corresponde a 0.78 Kg/m 2. Por lo tanto, la densidad de carga para un diseño
de pre-corte debe considerar estos rangos utilizados.

• De las 2 tronaduras analizadas, las cuales corresponden a las mejores resultados obtenidos en esta unidad
geotécnica, se utilizaron valores de Factores de Carga que variaron entre 180 a 220 gramos por tonelada.

• Respecto de la secuencia de salida de las tronaduras, el resultado en cuanto a desplazamiento de la pila y daño
indica que debe iniciarse hacia el rajo utilizando 130 ms entre filas, 35 ms entre los tiros de producción y 17 ms
entre los tiros buffer.

• El diseño de la perforación consideró 3 filas de 6-1/2” para ambas tronaduras y se obtuvieron muy buenos
resultados tanto en los parámetros geoténicos, de planificación y operacionales, como pudimos observar en las
gráficas presentadas. Por otro lado el resultado visual es claro, el cual propone que la utilización de este tipo de
tronaduras es la que se debe emplear para lograr cumplir con el diseño geotécnico de taludes y además ver
oportunidades de mejoras en el negocio minero de Chuquicamata.

Cortesía Sr. Luis Olivares, Suptcia. Ingeniería Geotécnica División Chuquicamata

167
Mount Rushmore Memorial, South Dakota, USA. Esculpido por G. Borglum
entre 1927 y 1941 (6.5 años de trabajo efectivo). Cada cabeza tiene unos 18 m.
National Geographic, Oct. 1956 / Encyclopaedia Britannica

168
 La cubierta de roca degradada
por intemperización se removió
mediante tronaduras controla-
das (dinamita).

A medida que se obtenía la for-

ma deseada se disminuía el es-
paciamiento entre tiros y el fac-
tor de carga.

Las últimas pulgadas se remo-

vieron me-diante perforación y
cincelado.

Goodman, R. (1989):
INTRODUCTION TO ROCK MECHANICS
2nd ed., J. Wiley & Sons

169
ASPECTOS GEOMECÁNICOS
DE LA TRONADURA EN
MINAS SUBTERRÁNEAS

170
1918, Minas de carbón en USA,
preparando una tronadura.
National Geographic, Nov. 1918

171
Cavidad generada en sal por una explosión nuclear de 3.1 KT, a una
profundidad de unos 360 m, en Nuevo Mexico, USA.
Judd (1964)
172
Tronaduras controladas de excelente calidad en el desarrollo del Nivel 240 del
Underground Research Laboratory, en granito masivo (Manitoba, CANADA).

Martin & Simmons

(1992)

173
Holmberg et al. (2001)

174
Holmberg et al. (2001)

175
Holmberg et al. (2001)

176
Holmberg et al. (2001)

177
Holmberg et al. (2001)
178
Holmberg et al. (2001)
179
Holmberg et al. (2001)
180
Holmberg et al. (2001)
181
Holmberg et al. (2001)
182
Holmberg et al. (2001)
183
 A1 A2 Punto de apoyo

Avance de la socavación

Transmisión de carga
(concentración de esfuerzos)
Material
quebrado

Zona de daños y fracturas

(produce dilatancia, lo que “carga” la caja)

Galería del Nivel de Producción

184