Volume 8 • Number 2 May 2004

NEWS J URNALINTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ROCK MECHANICS

S o c i é t é I n t e r n a t i o n a l e d e M é c a n i q u e d e s R o c h e s

I n t e r n a t i o n a l e G e s e l l s c h a f t f ü r F e l s m e c h a n i k

Message from the ISRM President, Nielen van der Merwe . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Joint Technical Committee on Landslides & Engineered Slopes . . . . 6

Reports from ISRM Vice Presidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Australasia & Europe

Failure Around Tunnels and Boreholes and Other Problemsin Rock Mechanics, a letter from Nick Barton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Cylindrical Cavities in Creeping Strata by Joachim Klein. . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ARTICLES

Corporate Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

ISRM Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9The Application of Geophysics to Rock Engineering

News from the ISRM Board andSecretariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

National Group News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Coming Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

Members of the new ISRM Board and the Secretariat pause together at the 10th International Congress, September 2003.

2

All Corporate Members of the ISRM arelisted in every issue of the NewsJournal, under headings that describetheir main activities. If you wish to belisted under another category (or cate-gories) please contact the editor.

A—SUPPLIERS OF ROCK MECHANICS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALSFATZER AG GEOBRUGG Romanshorn, SwitzerlandGEOKON INC. Lebanon, USAGEOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS AUSTRALIA PTY LTDBayswater, AustraliaGLÖTZL Rheinstetten, GermanyINTERFELS Bad Bentheim, GermanyLABORATÓRIO NACIONAL DE ENGENHARIA CIVIL(LNEC) Lisbon, PortugalMESY GEO-MESS SYSTEME GMBH Bochum, GermanyMTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION Eden Prairie, USAOYO CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanROCTEST LTD Montreal, CanadaSLOPE INDICATOR CO. Seattle, USASOL EXPERT INTERNATIONAL Nanterre, FranceSOLEXPERTS AG Schwerzenbach, SwitzerlandB—SUPPLIERS OF ROCK MECHANICS SERVICESATLAS COPCO ROCK DRILLS AB Orebro, SwedenCOYNE ET BELLIER Paris, FranceFATZER AG GEOBRUGG Romanshorn, SwitzerlandGEOSOLVE—SOLUÇOES DE ENGENHARIA GEOT-ECNIA E TOPOGRAFIA, LDALisboa, PortugalGEOSCIENCE LTD. Falmouth, UKINGENIEURSOZIETAT PROF. DR. KATZENBACH Frankfurt am Main, GermanyLABORATOIRE CENTRAL DES PONTS ETCHAUSSÉES Paris, FranceLABORATÓRIO NACIONAL DE ENGENHARIA CIVIL(LNEC) Lisbon, PortugalLEHRSTUHL FÜR INGENIEURGEOLOGIE UNDHYDROGEOLOGIE Aachen, GermanyMÉCASOL Paris, FranceMESY GEO-MESS SYSTEME GMBH, Bochum, GermanyOYO CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanROCK ENGINEERING PTY LTD Rosanna, AustraliaROCTEST LTD Montreal, CanadaSLOPE INDICATOR CO. Seattle, USASNOWY MOUNTAINS ENG. CORPORATION CoomaNorth, AustraliaSOL EXPERT INTERNATIONAL Nanterre, FranceSOLEXPERTS AG Schwerzenbach, SwitzerlandTOKYO CIVIL CONSULTANT, Tokyo, Japan

C—CONSULTANTSAMBERG INGENIEURBÜRO, Regensdorf-Watt, SwitzerlandCARL BRO TEKNIKKONSULT AB, Eskilstuna, SwedenCHUO KAIHATSU CORPORATIONTokyo, JapanCOYNE ET BELLIER Paris, FranceDIA CONSULTANTS CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanELECTRICIDADE DE PORTUGALLisbon, PortugalGEODATA SRL Torino, ItalyGEOSCIENCE LTD, Falmouth, UKGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE Kowloon, Hong KongGRIDPOINT FINLAND OY Espoo, FinlandHANSHIN CONSULTANTS CO. LTD.Osaka, JapanHOKKAIDO ENGINEERING CONSULTANT CO. LTD

Hokkaido, JapanHOKUDEN SANGYO CO. LTD Toyama, JapanIDOWR ENGINEERING CO. LTD. Tokyo, JapanINGENIEURSOZIETAT PROF. DR. KATZENBACH,Frankfurt am Main, GermanyITASCA CONSULTING GROUP INC. Minneapolis, USAKAWASAKI GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING Tokyo, JapanKISO-JIBAN CONSULTANTS CO. LTDTokyo, JapanLAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL GMBHFrankfurt am Main, GermanyLEHRSTUHL FÜR INGENIEURGEOLOGIE UNDHYDROGEOLOGIE Aachen, GermanyMÉCASOL Paris, FranceMEIJI CONSULTANTS CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanMESY GEO-MESS SYSTEME GMBH, Bochum, GermanyNEWJEC, Inc. Osaka, JapanNIPPON KOEI CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanNITRO CONSULT AB Stockholm, SwedenNOTEBY Oslo, NorwayPROF. DIPL. ING. H. QUICK, Darmstadt, GermanySIMECSOL Paris, FranceSLOPE INDICATOR CO. Seattle, USASNOWY MOUNTAINS ENG. CORPORATIONCooma North, AustraliaSOL EXPERT INTERNATIONAL Nanterre, FranceSOLEXPERTS AG Schwerzenbach, SwitzerlandSONDOTÉCNICA ENGENHARIA DE SOLOS S.A.Rio de Janeiro, BrazilSTEFFEN, ROBERTSON & KIRSTEN INC. Johannesburg, South AfricaSUMIKO CONSULTANTS CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanSUNCOH CONSULTANTS CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanTYRÉNS Sundbyberg, SwedenWEST JAPAN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC.Fukuoka, JapanYACHIYO ENGINEERING CO. LTD Tokyo, Japan

D—CONTRACTORSBESAB BETONGSPRUTNINGS ABGöteborg, SwedenBESIX S.A. Brussells, BelgiumCETU CSE CO. Bron, FranceFUJITA CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanGEOSCIENCE LTD. Falmouth, UKHAZAMA-CORPORATION Ibaraki, JapanINDUBEL--INDUSTRIAS DE BETAO S.A. Lisbon, PortugalJAPAN UNDERGROUND OILS Tokyo, JapanKAJIMA CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanMAEDA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanMITSUI CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanNISHIMATSU CONSTRUCTION CO. LTDTokyo, JapanNITTOC CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanOBAYASHI CORP. Tokyo, JapanSATO KOGYO CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanSHIMIZU CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanSKANSKA AB Danderyd, SwedenSLOPE INDICATOR CO. Seattle, USASNCF Paris, FranceSOL EXPERT INTERNATIONAL Nanterre, FranceSOLEXPERTS AG,Schwerzenbach, SwitzerlandTAISEI CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanTHE ZENITAKA CORPORATION Osaka, JapanTOBISHIMA COPORATION Tokyo, JapanTODA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Tokyo, Japan

E—ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANIESCHUGOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC.

Hiroshima, JapanELECTRICIDADE DE PORTUGAL Lisbon, PortugalELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT CO. LTDTokyo, JapanHOKURIKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC.Toyama, JapanKYUSHU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Fukuoka, JapanPOWER REACTOR & NUCL. FUEL DEV. CO. Tokyo,JapanSHIKOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC.Kagawa, JapanTHE CHUBU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Nagoya, JapanTHE HOKKAIDO ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Sapporo, JapanTHE KANSAI ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Osaka, JapanTOHOKU ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Sendai, JapanTOKYO ELECTRIC POWER CO. INC. Tokyo, JapanTOKYO ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES CO. LTDTokyo, Japan

F—MINING COMPANIESCSIR MINING TECHNOLOGYAuckland Park, South AfricaLKAB Luleå, SwedenMINES DE POTASSE D’ALSACE Wittelsheim, FranceMITSUI MINING & SMELTING CO. LTD Tokyo, JapanNITTETSU MINING CO. LTD. Tokyo, JapanSOMINCOR Castro Verde, Portugal

G—EDITORSNIPPON PUB. ENG. CO. Tokyo, JapanSWETS & ZEITLINGER PUBLISHERSLisse, Netherlands

H—RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONSBHP STEEL Wollongong, AustraliaBIBLIOTHEEK KONINKLJKE SHELL Rijswijk, The NetherlandsCENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICPOWER INDUSTRY, Chiba, JapanCENTRO DE ESTUDO DE GEOLOGIA EGEOTECNIA DE SANTO ANDRE Santo Andre,PortugalCSIRO DIV. OF GEOMECHANICS Melbourne, AustraliaFGU Zurich, SwitzerlandLABORATOIRE CENTRAL DES PONTS ETCHAUSSÉES Paris, FranceLABORATÓRIO DE ENGENHARIA DE MACAULABORATÓRIO NACIONAL DE ENGENHARIA CIVIL(LNEC) Lisbon, PortugalLEMO Oeliras, PortugalMININGTEK Auckland Park, South AfricaNORWEGIAN ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORYOslo, NorwaySLOPE INDICATOR CO. Seattle, USASOLEXPERTS AG Schwerzenbach, SwitzerlandSWEDISH ROCK ENGINEERING RESEARCH —SVEBEFO Stockholm, Sweden

I—GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTSGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE Hong KongINSTITUT NATIONAL DE L’ENVIRONNEMENTINDUSTRIEL ET DES RISQUES (INERIS) Verneuil en Halatte, FranceLABORATÓRIO DE ENGENHARIA DE MACAULABORATÓRIO NACIONAL DE ENGENHARIA CIVIL(LNEC) Lisbon, PortugalPAT LABORATORIO GEOTECNICO SERVIZIO GEO-LOGICO, Trento, ItalySKANSKA AB Danderyd, Sweden

ISRM Corporate Members

continued on page 23

3

Volume 8, Number 2 — May 2004Senior Editor

Prof. Nielen van der Merwe, President ISRMHead of Department of Mining EngineeringUniversity of Pretoria 0002Republic of South AfricaTel: (+27) 12 420 2443Fax: (+27) 12 420 4242E-mail: nielen@postino.up.ac.za

Contributing EditorSend news of meetings and publications to:N. F. GrossmannISRM Secretariat, c/o LNEC101 Avenida do BrasilP–1700–066 Lisboa, PortugalTelephone: 351.21.844.3385Fax: 351.21.844.3026

ISRM SecretariatSend articles, advertising and other material to:Dr. Luìs Nolasco Lamas, Secretary-GeneralE-mail: llamas@lnec.ptMaria de Lourdes Eusébio, Executive SecretaryE-mail: isrm@lnec.ptThe ISRM Secretariat, LNEC101 Avenida do BrasilP–1700–066 Lisbon, PortugalTelephone: 351.21.844.3419Fax: 351.21.844.3021

ISRM Homepagehttp://www.isrm/nethttp://www.lnec.pt/ISRM/

Back issues ($8) are available from the Secretariat.

NEWS J URNALINTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ROCK MECHANICS

S o c i é t é I n t e r n a t i o n a l e d e M é c a n i q u e d e s R o c h e s

I n t e r n a t i o n a l e G e s e l l s c h a f t f ü r F e l s m e c h a n i k

Rocha MedalA Bronze Medal and cash prize has been awardedannually since 1982 by the ISRM to honour thememory of Past President Manuel Rocha and to rec-ognize outstanding young researchers in the fieldof Rock Mechanics.

The award shall be for an outstanding doctoralthesis in rock mechanics or rock engineering. Thethesis must have qualified the candidate for a doc-torate or the equivalent. To be considered for theaward, a candidate must be nominated within twoyears of the date of the official doctoral degree cer-tificate. The nomination should be submitted tothe appropriate ISRM Regional Vice-President byregistered letter, and may be presented by the nom-inee, the nominee’s National Group or some otherperson or organization acquainted with the nomi-nee’s work. The nomination should include the fol-lowing supporting information:u A one page curriculum vitae, including name,

nationality, nominee’s place & date of birth;position, address, telephone & fax numbers;u A thesis summary in one of the official lan-

guages of the Society, preferably English, ofabout 5,000 words, detailed enough to conveythe full impact of the thesis, and accompaniedby selected tables and figures, with headingsand captions also in English;u One copy of the complete thesis and one copy of

the doctoral degree certificate;u A letter of copyright release, allowing the ISRM to

make copies for review & selection purposes only.

Nominations for the 2005 Rocha Medal must be received by 31 December 2004.

Supplementary details of the selection procedure,conferring of the award, etc., are provided in ISRMBy-Law No. 7, found on pages 30–31 of the ISRMDirectory for 2000. National Groups andCorresponding Members will be officially remindedby the Secretariat as the deadline approaches, butare encouraged to consider possible nominees andto recommend names to the appropriate ISRMRegional Vice-President as early as possible.

4

Dear Colleague,

It is now already more than four months sincethe �Congress in Sandton, South Africa. I think itis important now to look at what has been done

in that time and where we hope to go in the nextfew months.

Board and Council meetings take place at thetimes and venues of our international symposia.This means that there are not necessarily conve-nient 12-month periods betweenthose meetings, which is demon-strated by our current situation: thenext meetings will take place inNovember 2004 in Kyoto, followedby the meetings in May 2005 inBrno. The first period is 14 months,followed by one of 6 months. Thismeans that we have to communi-cate in a different manner if wewant to be effective.

Your Board has taken the elec-tronic route, where a number ofdecisions have been taken bymeans of electronic debate (in anutshell, “round-robbining” e-mails!). This is not quite as good asmeeting face to face, but it is betterthan sitting back and waiting forthe next meeting.

What has been achieved is thatthe Conference in Moscow inJanuary 2005 (a joint conferencewith the ACUUS — Association forthe Construction and Use ofUnderground Space) has beenapproved as a Regional Conferenceof the ISRM. We hope to use thatconference to improve our level ofcontact with potential membersfrom Russia and surroundings. So,if you are in the area, please support this event!

Also, have a look at the “Coming Events” col-umn and where possible, support our regional con-ferences. Anyone for Rio in June? If you can make itthere, why not? You will be in good company. OurSister Societies will also be there. Our SouthAmerican colleagues also need our support, let usgive it to them!

We formulated a policy position with regard tocollaboration with our Sister Societies, the ISSMGEand IAEG. In a nutshell, this comes down to a seri-ous desire for better cooperation than in the past,but with the important proviso of the retention ofour identity.

In January, there was a meeting of the threePresidents in Lisboa. This was conducted in a spiritof goodwill and mutual respect. Each of the threesocieties nominated three members to a Joint TaskForce, to be guided by Terms of Reference drawn upby the Presidents (see our Website fordetails).Personally, I am optimistic that the out-come of this joint effort will be positive. The nextmeeting of the Presidents has been scheduled for

May 2004 and we hope to havea final recommendation withregard to a structure for collabo-ration by the end of 2004. Ourtask team consists of MarcPanet, Claus Erichson and Luise Sousa.

We have started a Boarddebate on the issue of assistanceto the small National Groupsand without pre-empting theoutcome, I believe that we willhave a sound solution on thetable. Watch this space! TheISRM needs to be financiallysecure to ensure our continuedexistence, but we do not havean aim to make profits out ofsmall groups.

If you visit our Website regu-larly, you will have noticed thatsome improvements havealready been made. More is onthe way. Our Secretary-General,Luis Lamas, deserves a lot ofcredit for his efforts to date andwe are now ready to evaluateproposals from professionalwebsite creators and administra-tors to finalise the work and putus squarely in the 21st century.

In reading this, you are already aware of theimplementation of one our most important Councildecisions in September, which is the electronic dis-tribution of the News Journal. How do you experi-ence this? Let us know.

Warm greetings,— Nielen van der Merwe

Message from the ISRM President

5

1. ISRM individual membership $25 each $ __________

2. ISRM corporate membership $200 $ __________

3. ISRM goods are available on the ISRM website www.ISRM.net

Total $ ________

Please charge to my credit card — see below. No personal cheques are accepted.

Name (first) _______________(last, family) ________________________________________________

Title ________________________________________________________________________________

Organization Name ____________________________________________________________________

Category of Services or Products ________________________________________________________

(see Yellow Pages categories in the Directory)

Address _____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Country _____________Telephone ______________________Fax ______________________________

Email: ______________

Credit card. q Visa q Mastercard q Access q Eurocard q American Express.

Credit Card Number: ___________________________Expiration Date __________Safety Code__________

Amount: ________________(To be converted by the Secretariat at the current exchange rate in Lisbon.)

Date: _______________Signature: __________________________________________

q Address Changes? If you are a regular member and your address has changed please let us know inthe space below.

Name Title

Address

Tlp: Fax:

E-Mail

To order ISRM Goods please see our website: http://www.isrm.net or contact the Secretariat (Tel: 351.21.844.3419, Fax: 351.21.844.3021, Email: isrm@lnec.pt).

ISRM MembershipAre you a member of ISRM? If not, here is aneasy way to join.

Individual Membership For just US $25 you and/oryour colleagues can receive a one-year Introductorymembership which allows you to buy ISRM goods,attend ISRM symposia, and receive the ISRM Directory andthe ISRM News Journal. Next year you will automaticallyreceive a renewal notice from your ISRM National Group, ifone exists, or from the ISRM Secretariat in Lisbon.

Corporate membership ($200/year) provides your organiza-

tion with up to three yellow-pages listings of yourservices or products in the ISRM Directory, withaccess for advertising to a select international mar-ket of more than 6,000 rock engineers and scien-

tists.

Please complete the order form below and mail or faxit, together with your payment, to:

Dr. Luìs Lamas; Secretary-General, ISRM; LNEC, 101 Av. doBrasil; P-1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal;(Fax: 351-21-844-3021 • Email: isrm@lnec.pt)

ISRM Membership and Address Changes Form

6

by Robin Fell1. Terms of ReferenceDiscussing, advancing and developing the sci-ence and engineering of landslides and engineeredsoil and rock slopes.

Encouraging the collaboration of thosewho practise in soil mechanics, rock mechanics,engineering geology, mining engineering, geomor-phology and geography; as applied to landslides innatural and engineered slopes.

Fostering and organising Conferences,Symposia and Workshops, including theInternational Symposia on Landslides, which areheld at four year intervals.

Contributing to the InternationalCongresses/and Conferences of the ISSMGE, IAEGand ISRM.

Fostering the development, and imple-mentation into the community, landslide hazardidentification, monitoring, modelling, risk assess-ment techniques, risk tolerance criteria, and land-slide risk management.

Fostering the organisation of trainingschools, and preparation of guidelines, and codesof good practice to allow the transfer and imple-mentation into general practice of new develop-ments.

2. Activities in Period 2001 to 29.4.2003In this period we have:

(a) Established the committee membership.Details are attached.

(b) Determined on terms of reference and hadthese agreed to by ISSMGE, ISRM, IAEG.

(c) Determined the themes and invited speakersfor the ISL 2004, to be held in Rio de Janeiro.

(d) Discussed our future work and plans.(e) Organised our first formal committee meet-

ing to be held in Naples on 11th May 2003.

3. Progress/Experience With Web BasedCommunication PlatformWe do not use the ISSMGE platform. However wedo all our communication via the web.

4. Future Planned ActivitiesThese are to be determined at our meeting on 11May, but are likely to include:

(a) ISL 2004 in Rio de Janeiro, June 2004.(b) An International Conference on Landslide

Hazard Zoning, and Risk Assessment, this willinvolve a structured set of keynote papers so

the proceedings become the preferred text onthe subject. This will be held in 2005 or 2006,probably in France or Italy.

We are communicating with TC32 in respect tothis Conference

(c) Workshop on very large landslides. We mayorganise a 20-30 person workshop to bringtogether researchers in this area.

(d) Training courses for young professionalsand/or developing countries — we may arrangethis.

5. PublicationsThe proceedings of ISL 2004 will be published byBalkema, as would any Landslide Risk AssessmentConference Proceedings.

6. Planned Publication for ICSMGE Osaka 2005We have nothing planned at this stage. I did askProfessor Taylor at one stage what was proposed forOsaka and at that time he did not know. Pleaseadvise me as soon as possible what opportunitiesexist.

JTC1 ~ Joint Technical Committee on Landslides and Engineered Slopes

Chairman: Robin Fell, r.fell@unsw.edu.au Secretary: Kurt Douglas, k.Douglas@unsw.edu.au

7

Vice-President for AustralasiaAssociate Professor Chris HaberfieldGolder AssociatesPO Box 6079Hawthorn WestVIC, 3122Australia

September 2003 ~ IntroductionThis report covers the activities of the AustralianGeomechanics and New Zealand Geotechnical Societiesfor 2003. Both societies aim to foster all areas of geome-chanics with the majority of activities including inputfrom rock mechanics, soil mechanics and engineeringgeology.

AUSTRALIAN GEOMECHANICS SOCIETYAGS membership has remained steady at about 950.The AGS offers free membership to all undergradu-ate students, and a reduced rate for postgraduatestudents. This provides valuable support and net-working opportunities for young geotechnical engi-neers.

Australian Geomechanics, is being published fourtimes a year and contains excellent technicalpapers. The current issue (Vol 38 No 3, September2003) contains the proceedings for the EngineeringGeology of Perth, which has being organised by theWestern Australia Chapter. These proceedings willcontinue in the December issue (V38N4).

The 2-CD set of 64 past issues of AustralianGeomechanics (from G1 in 1971 to V38N1 in March2003) was distributed to members with the Juneissue of the journal (V38N2).

A recent addition to the GAS website is that ofthe AGS Shop. Copies of the Proceedings ofGeoEng2000 and GeoEnvironment2001, as well asadditional copies of the 2-CD collection ofAustralian Geomechanics are available for purchase.

Up-to-date activities of our society, at nationaland most chapter levels, are presented on our web-site.

The second Young Geotechnical Engineers (YGP)International Conference was held in Mamaia,Romania from 6-11 September 2003. ChrisBozinovski (AGS - Don Douglas Youth OverseasFellowship winner), Susan Gourvenec and JimFinlayson represented AGS at the conference. Initialresponse from the attendees is that the conferencewas a success, both technically and socially.

Planning has continued for the next ANZ YGPConference in Brisbane in July 2004. Website:www.6thygpc.com

AGS members continue to play an importantrole in Joint Technical Committee (JTC1Landslides). The last committee meeting was heldin Naples in May. The JTC1 webpage is hosted bythe ISSMGE website [www.issmge.org] which con-

tains terms of reference as well as key references onlandsliding. Planning includes: ISL 2004 in Rio deJaneiro (June 2004); landslide zoning, assessmentand management in Vancouver in May 2005 (host-ed by the Canadian Geotech Society) with the pub-lished proceedings to be a recognised as the author-itative text on the subject; workshop on velocity oflarge landslides in April or May 2006 in Italy; work-shop on travel distance and velocity modelling(planning stage); and draft invitation to host ISL2008 produced (proposal deadline May 2004).

AGS currently has representation by 10 memberson 6 Standards Australia committees. StandardsAustralia is seeking AGS representation on another4 committees.

The Jaeger Medal has been awarded to Prof TedBrown in recognition of his lifetime commitmentto advances in rock mechanics research and appli-cation. Ted will be presenting one of the keynoteaddresses at the 9th ANZ, February 2004 inAuckland. The title of Ted’s paper is to be “Themechanics of discontinua: engineering in discontin-uous rock masses.”

The presentation of The Rankine LectureDownunder has been delayed. The Lecture will beplanned for 2004, subject to David Potts’ health.

Dr Tony Meyers will act as National Committeeliaison with the current ISRM VP for Australia, DrJohn St. George.

Prof Harry Poulos, Rankine Lecturer, ISSMGE VP“at large” and 8th Casagrande Lecturer, was award-ed an Australian Centenary Medal in recognition of“service to Australian society and science in geot-echnical engineering”î and was recipient of theCivil Engineer of the Year award from the CivilCollege of Engineers Australia in recognition of his“impressive international profile and contributionas an eminent academic and an outstanding busi-ness leader.”

NEW ZEALAND GEOTECHNCAL SOCIETY

Activities Since August 2002:The 9th ANZ Conference, “To the eNZ of theEarth,” is planned for 8-11 February 2004 inAuckland. 175 abstracts have been received and 131papers have resulted. Sponsorship of $34k is inplace. Keynote address will be by Geoffery Martinof University of Southern California, whilst the NZGeomechanics Lecture (Laurie Wesley) and theJaeger Award lecture (Ted Brown) will also be pre-sented at the conference. The call for conferenceregistration is due at the end of October. Successfulbranch meetings in 5 branches around the country.

The Society has working party’s currently activeon the following issues:

• Section 36 of the Building Act• Expansive Soils

Reports from the ISRM Vice Presidents

8

• Draft Standard DZ 4404The NZ Guidelines for Soil and rock Description

is currently under revision.A Guideline for the Hand vane has been com-

pleted and issued.Successfully held the 16th NZ Geotechnical

Society Symposium in Tauranga in March 2003. Itwas well attended by over 170 delegates. Prof. KenjiIshihara was the keynote speaker for the confer-ence.

Prof. Ishihara also spoke at the Auckland andChristchurch branches of the Society whilst in thecountry.

Workshops on Soil and rock description,Engineering geology, and Serviceability limit statedesigns were held in conjunction with the work-shop

Other visiting international speakers has includ-ed Prof. Idriss, John Turner and Max Ervin.

The Societies web page continues to be devel-oped. It now includes a employment opportunitysection and the contents pages from The NZGeomechanics News are also being added.(www.nzgeotechsoc.org.nz)

2002 Geomechanics Awards was won by DrWarwick Prebble for his keynote lecture ‘HazardousTerrain — An Engineering Geological Perspective.”

Student prize competitions were held inChristchurch and Auckland and awards were madeto each of the winners.

The NZ Geomechanics News was published inDecember 2002 and is due to be published in June2003.

The proceedings of the 16th NZ GeotechnicalSociety Symposium in Tauranga have been pub-lished.

Proposed Activities for 2003-2004Activities in the 5 branches will continue.

Planning is well underway for the 9th ANZ con-ference to be held in Auckland in February 2004.Sponsors are about to be approached. Prof. GeoffMartin is confirmed as a keynote speaker.

A new working group on Ground anchors is like-ly to be formed.

Completion of the Soil and Rock DescriptionGuidelines

REPORT OF THE ISRM VICE-PRESIDENTFOR EUROPE ON THE YEAR 2002

by Pekka Sarkka

Espoo 3 September 2003

The region Europe was in 2002 by far thelargest of the Regions of ISRM. It had in theend of the year altogether 23 National

Groups, 49% of ISRM National Groups. Discussionswere carried out with Estonia on a possible forma-tion of a National Group.

The number of members in the Region was atthe end of the year 2595, which is 56% of ISRMmembers. The number has been quite stable, newgrowth should be created preferably through affilia-tion of new National Groups.

The ISRM International Symposium, EUROCK2002, was arranged by the ISRM NG Portugal inFunchal, Madeira. It got some 300 participants.

The National Groups were arranging altogethersome 20 National Symposia. The most active wereFrance, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, all with atleast tree Symposia. The Vice-President visited sever-al of the groups, and participated in the AnnualMeetings of the National Groups of Finland andSweden.

The status of ISRM Regional Symposium for2003 was granted to three Symposia on the RegionEurope. They will be held in Nancy, France,Trondheim, Norway, and Stockholm, Sweden.

9

by Koichi SassaThe working group “Standardization of GeophysicalMethods for Rock Engineering” in the commissioncompleted “the Suggested Methods for LandGeophysics in Rock Engineering.” And the workinggroup “Estimating Primary State of Stress in RockMass using Acoustic Emission Technique” in thecommission completed “Suggested Method for in-situ Rock Stress Estimation from a Rock Core usingAcoustic Emission Technique.”

These two drafts made by the respective workinggroup had been approved by the ISRM Commissionon Application of Geophysics to Rock Engineering,and also had been approved by ISRM Vice-Presidentfor Asia before ISRM 2003 Council Meeting on 7thSeptember 2003. Therefore, these two suggestedmethods satisfied the ISRM By-Law Number 3clause 9 for publication as ISRM Suggested Methods.

Then, these two suggested methods will be pub-lished as ISRM suggested methods shortly.

The commission terminated at the time of theISRM 10th Congress in South Africa in September2003. But, Mr. President, Professor Nielen van derMerwe, had re-appointed this commission immedi-ately for the term of this Board.

The commission is now planning to hold the6th International Workshop on the Application ofGeophysics to Rock Engineering in conjunctionwith 2004 ISRM International Symposium, namely,the 3rd Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium(http://lakers.kuciv.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~arms2004/). The6th International Workshop will be held onMonday, 29 November 2003 at the same venue asthe 2004 ISRM International Symposium. Thedetailed information will be shown in the web pageof the commission (http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/peo-ple/sassa/).

Commission on Application of Geophysics to RockEngineering

ISRM Board Meeting, September 2003, 10th ISRM Congress in Sandton, South Africa

10

The ISRM Board met at the Convention Centrein Sandton, South Africa on 6 September2003. The meeting took place in conjunction

with the 10th ISRM International Congress.The meeting chaired by the President of the

ISRM, Prof. Marc Panet, was attended by all theVice Presidents of the respective geographical areasexcept Vice President for South America.

Matters as finances, budget for 2004, progress inthe organisation of the 11th Congress to be held inPortugal in 2007, selection of Symposia to beendorsed by the ISRM, activity of ISRMCommissions and of the Interest Groups, ISRMNews Journal, as well as other matters of interest tothe Society, were dealt with. An action plan forimproving the ISRM activity and raising member-ship was considered, the idea of creating a newWebsite for the Society under a new concept of aCommunication Platform to be developed andimplemented so as to enable greater benefits andlower expenses having been introduced. On thisbasis the following three motions were approved bythe Board:

The main method of future communicationbetween the ISRM and its members will be electron-ic, including:

i) development of an interactive website; ii) distribution of the News Journal;

iii) availability of abstracts of all ISRM sponsoredconferences, commission and interest groupreports.

The Secretariat is instructed to find an appropri-ate IT service provider within easy access, butpreferably within Lisbon, Portugal, for the creationand maintenance of the new ISRM website.

Publication of the ISRM Directory in paper formwill be discontinued until such time as it can bepublished in electronic form and the legal issuescan be resolved.

Rocha Medal 2004The Board, acting as the Rocha Medal AwardCommittee, selected the prize-winning Ph.D. thesisfor 2004 from among the seven outstanding short-listed theses for that year. The winning thesis“Shear Strength of Rock Joints based on theQuantified Surface Description” was submitted byDr Giovanni Grasselli and had been presented in2001 to the Civil Engineering Department of theEPF Lausanne, Switzerland. The award will be con-ferred at the ISRM International Symposium“Contribution of Rock Mechanics to the NewCentury” (3rd ARMS 2004) to be held in Kyoto,Japan from 2004 November 30 to December 2.

ISRM COUNCIL MEETING 2003The International Society for Rock Mechanics heldits Council meeting in Sandton, Johannesburg,

News From The Board

11

South Africa, in conjunction with its 10thInternational Congress, organised by the SouthAfrican National Institute of Rock Engineering(SANIRE). In the Council meeting 30 of the 46National Groups were represented.

Accounts of 2002 and Budget for 2004The ISRM accounts of 2002 and the Budget for 2004were unanimously approved. A provision for mem-bership initiatives was included in the Budget for2004, which shall be used in order to improve theservices provided by ISRM to its members.

Proposed change of the name of ISRMThe proposal submitted by the National Group ofChina to change the name of ISRM to InternationalSociety for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,with the acronym ISRME, was presented and dis-cussed. The proposal was voted by secret ballot andwas not approved. The name and acronym of theSociety remain unchanged.

ISRM Sponsored meetingsThe following list of conferences sponsored by theISRM was presented:

• 2003 October 06-08, Trondheim, Norway —The 6th International Conference on Analysisof Discontinuous Deformation, ISRM RegionalSymposium.

• 2003 October 13-15, Stockholm, Sweden —International Conference on Coupled T-H-M-CProcesses in Geosystems: Fundamentals,Modelling, Experiments and Applications:ISRM Regional Symposium.

• 2004 May 18-21, Three Gorges Project Site,China — The International Symposium onRock Mechanics (SINOROCK - 2004): approvedby the Board, in Sandton, as an ISRM RegionalSymposium.

• 2004 November 30–December 2, Kyoto, Japan— International Symposium on theContribution of Rock Mechanics to the NewCentury (3rd ARMS): the 2004 ISRMInternational Symposium, where the ISRMCouncil and Board meetings will take place.

• 2005 May 18-20, Brno, Czech Republic —International Symposium on Impacts of theHuman Activity on the GeologicalEnvironment: approved by the Council, inSandton, as the 2005 ISRM InternationalSymposium.

• 2007 July, Lisbon, Portugal — The Second HalfCentury of Rock Mechanics: the 11th ISRMCongress.

A proposal was received from the NationalGroup of Singapore to host the 2006 ISRMInternational Symposium. This issue will be decidedin the Council meeting in Kyoto, in 2004.

CommissionsReports were presented by the followingCommissions:

• Application of Geophysics to Rock Engineering.

Commission on Testing Methods.• Joint Technical Committee of the ISRM, ISS-

MGE and IAEG on Landslides and EngineeredSlopes (JTC1)

• Prof. Wulf Schubert presented the work of aJoint European Working Group on ProfessionalTasks, Responsibilities and Cooperation inGround Engineering.

Cooperation with Sister SocietiesThe President of ISRM reported on the meetingsthat took place during last year between thePresidents of the three sister Societies (ISRM, ISS-MGE and IAEG), which are planed to take placetwice a year. In these meetings the creation of a fed-eration of geotechnical societies was the main topicdiscussed. Creation of the federation would fostercollaboration between the Societies, but eachSociety would keep its autonomy. As an example ofthe benefits of this collaboration he mentioned thecreation of joint technical committees, such as theone already working on landslides and engineeredslopes, and of the Joint European Working Groupon Professional Tasks, Responsibilities andCooperation in Ground Engineering.

A working group is being formed with three rep-resentatives of each society, in order to present aproposal to the three societies regarding the formatof the future federation.

New Board (2003-2007)Following the election, in 2001, of Prof. Nielen vander Merwe as President the Board of the ISRM forthe term 2003-2007, the Council elected the follow-ing regional Vice Presidents:

AFRICA: Mr. Martin Pretorius (NG SouthAfrica)

ASIA: Prof. Zhao Jian (NG Singapore)AUSTRALASIA: Prof. John St. George (NG New

Zealand)EUROPE: Dr. Claus Erichsen (NG Germany)NORTH AMERICA: Prof. François Heuzé

(NG USA)SOUTH AMERICA: Dr. Eda Quadros (NG Brazil).

The President chose Prof. Qian Qihu of Chinaand Prof. Luìs Sousa of Portugal as VicePresidents-at-Large and the Vice President forEurope, Dr. Erichsen, was selected as First VicePresident.

NATIONAL GROUP NEWSPolandThe Polish Society for Rock Mechanics elected anew Board in June 2003, which is composed of thefollowing members: Prof. Bernard Drzezla,President; Dr. Marek Kwasniewski, Vice President;Prof. Jan Zych, Secretary; Dr. Edmund Zastawny,Treasurer; Prof. Jerzy Gustkiewicz, HonoraryPresident; Prof. Juzef Dubinski, Prof. JoannaPininska, Prof. Jan Walaszczyk, and Prof. WaclawZuberek, Members.

12

Letter to the ISRM News Journalfrom Nick Barton7 October 2003Introduction

At the recent 10th ISRM Congress held inSouth Africa, thanks to a well organized anddifferent from normal format, there was

ample room for discussion and numerous points ofview could be expressed. The dominant “workshopformat” with 5 minute presentations was an excel-lent “innovation” for ISRM — first experienced bythe undersigned in an even better format, in anunforgettable U.S. Symposium in Minnesota in1976—where 2 hours of prepared and spontaneousdiscussions of a few minutes each were presentedwithin each main theme.

Congresses have more delegates these days, andmulti-sessioning is unfortunately the inevitableresult — making choice of session a majorheadache, as there is so much of interest. This wascertainly true of the 10th ISRM Congress.

A preliminary discussion of brittle failureThanks to sterling work by workshop coordinatorsin South Africa, many of the topics for discussionwere thought provoking and extremely relevant tothe further development of our subject. Both in the“Rock Fracture” and “Numerical Modelling” work-shops, the topics of failure modes arose — yet again— sandwiched between, by chance, a very topicalplenary presentation on “stress-strength” inducedfailure mode observations when excavating theLötschberg Tunnel — specifically when TBM tun-nelling from the Steg portal (Rojat et al. 2003).

The depths of the “dog-ear” type failures — at 3and 9 o’clock due to the vertical principal stress,compared favourably with a semi-empirical model(Kaiser et al. 2000) involving the ratio of σmax/σc,where as usual, σmax = 3σ1-σ3. Continuum FEMmodelling using a Hoek-Brown failure criterion,reportedly gave a degree of “match” to the depth-of-failure observations in the tunnel, and to theempirical model if a rule-of-thumb was used thatthe “damage limit” is reached when the contours ofthe ratio of principal stress difference (σ1-σ3) touniaxial strength (σc), are of the order of 0.33 (assuggested by Martin et al. 1999).

It has long been known that brittle failurearound tunnels initiates when the ratio of stress tostrength is a certain fraction of 1.0, whether the“stress” term is defined as σ1, or σ1-σ3, or σθ themaximum tangential stress. Two of these three

ratios have been important components of the Q-system too, in deciding upon appropriate SRF val-ues for selecting support for stress-slabbing prob-lems in numerous deep tunnels in Norway and else-where.

It is perhaps long overdue that we acknowledgethat continuum models, with conventional soilmechanics derived strength criteria, are missing therealities of rock failure, which by the nature ofintact rock and failed rock can be considered tooccur perhaps in two parts — breakage of cohesion(localization) at small strain and mobilization offriction at larger strain. A Mohr Coulomb type oflaw may work well for a material that is already“particulate,” but perhaps not very well where sig-nificant “multi-megaPascal” breakage is to occur,despite the presence of some jointing.

There are some very encouraging recent efforts—and achievements—in modelling the reality of fail-ure around excavations, using for example, cohesionsoftening and frictional strengthening devices in con-tinuum codes such as FLAC, and “stress corrosion”devices in particulate PFC models. Cundall,Diederichs, Kaiser and Martin and co-workers,Hajiabdolmajid, and Christine Detournay areamong the growing number of prominent names inthis new field of realism. There are also severalother innovations in modelling, such as use of thetensile strain criterion of Stacey, the linear elastic andtime-dependent fracture mechanics methods ofBaotang Shen and co-workers in FRACOD, the useof tessellation patterns in displacement discontinu-ity models by Napier,and the recent elastic-brittleplastic elemental degradation modelling reported byFang and Harrison. Each seem to be producingquite realistic models of rock failure processes, suchas pillar failures and borehole and tunnel failures —without needing any more, to choose a contour of“stress/strength” where failure is “anticipated.”

At this same 2003 ISRM Congress, Stacey pre-sented a very thought-provoking discussion on howsmall the above stress/strength fraction can be atfailure, in many different practical cases, thusemphasising the need for improved understandingand modelling of relevant failure processes. (Staceyand Yathavan, 2003.)

Modelling failure with continuum models andconventional failure criteriaA carefully excavated and well documented caserecord—the AECL-URL line-drilled test tunnel—withits classic 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock break-outs, hasbeen one of the favourite objects of modelling, asillustrated in Figure 1, which is a composite of mod-els used in a recent Martin et al. 2002 review ofbrittle failure modelling made for SKB in Sweden.

Failure Around Tunnels and Boreholes and OtherProblems in Rock Mechanics

nickbarton@uol.com.br

13

Seeing for the first time the serious lack of realityactually achieved by the conventional failure crite-ria (elastic, elastic-plastic, elastic-brittle) illustratedin this figure was frankly a shocking experience.These failure modelling efforts contrast negativelywith the fascinating degree of reality achieved byDiederichs, using cohesion softening and frictionmobilization, in a different continuum code, asshown at the bottom of the same figure. If thiscould be automated it would be excellent.

Since continuum models with conventional fail-ure criteria (Mohr Coulomb or Hoek and Brown)apparently have such difficulty to model the “mainevent” that they are designed to model—namelyfailure, why are we with such confidence describ-ing in our reports, papers and tribunals—“the onsetof plastic behaviour,” the “plastic zone,” the “area(volume) requiring rock bolts,” “the depth of poten-tial failure” etc.?

The answer should surely be that we muststop, and re-evaluate the actual situation of fail-ure in rock—as opposed to an already particu-late material like sand. Are we not misleadingourselves and others by these continuum-basedassessments of instability, when the failure crite-ria themselves are not apparently relevant to thespecial circumstances of failure of previouslyintact, brittle material?

Broadening the range of failure mode typesIn Table 1, a brief synopsis of failure modedescriptions (left column), and likely modes ofbehaviour (right column) is given for four broadclasses of tunnel failure and deformation. Thesuggested classes are:

1. Hard, massive, brittle rocks2. Hard or medium hard, bedded and/or jointed

rock3. Soft, massive, non-brittle rocks4. Very soft, plastic rocks (and clays)It is readily acknowledged that every tunnel

engineer who was asked, might produce a differentlist of failure modes—and their own concepts ofprobable behaviours. The objective here is toachieve some logical groupings, and to stimulatediscussion. More particularly the aim is to stimulatea more critical questioning of what we really meanby “plastic behaviour” or by a so-called “plasticzone.” In soil it is more obvious.

In the opinion of the undersigned, there hasbeen a certain reversal of development in somequarters, since the early days (the late sixties) when

Figure 1. Three attempts to model the URL line-drilled tun-nel break-out pattern with PHASES and Hoek Brown failurecriteria, and an alternative cohesion softening and frictionmobilization routine in FLAC. ( from SKB review by Martinet al. 2002).

14

many like Goodman and Cundall were starting tolook for something more realistic than the FEMcontinuum model solution to rock mechanics prob-lems. That there is a definite role for continuummodelling for scoping stress levels—with the rightdeformability—is very clear. But where are the stan-dard models that show log-spiral failure planes, asso commonly observed in borehole stability studiesof previously intact and uniform rocks or modelmaterials? There are reasonable grounds to suspectlog-spiral failure surface development in squeezingtunnels too. John Bray already had analytical solu-tions for log spiral localization in the sixties.

The upper pair of drawings in Figure 2 (a) arefrom Maury, who was responsible for an ISRMWorking Party review of borehole and tunnel failuremodes, some two decades ago.

The second pair (b) are from a major joint-indus-try borehole stability study that we conducted forseveral years at NGI in the late eighties. The failuremodes illustrated (and numerous similar ones) wereobtained by drilling boreholes into true-triaxial,anisotropically stressed 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 m blocks ofvery uniform 0.5 MPa sand-“stone.”

The model boreholes could be drilled in anydesired direction in relation to the three, usuallyunequal, principal stresses. Some of the results ofthese studies were presented by Addis et al. 1990.Bandis, who was also a major contributor to thisresearch, was responsible for the “bedded” modelshown in (d) and (from memory) for comparing theMC elastic-plastic closed form solution shown in(c), with the rather different physical reality of logspiral surfaces.

Through the clever device of coloured, re-cemented miniature boreholes, Bandis wasable to demonstrate in some preliminary, pre-instrumented model blocks of sand-”stone,”that the log-spiral surfaces—which occurredwithout exception—were shearing by a mil-limetre or so, causing a pseudo tangentialdeformation, but seen first as “radial” closure.The tangential strain concept, long favouredby Aydan in Japan, has its reality in the logspiral failure mode, as also proposed by Aydanfor the case of squeezing tunnels in Japan.

So the initial continuum actuallybecomes a discontinuum, due presumablyto breakdown of cohesion and mobilization offriction along the “localization” surfaces.There were actually grounds for suspicion thatin some of our “oblique to the principalstress” boreholes, a sequence of e.g., “clock-wise” oriented log-spirals sufficiently alteredthe redistributed stresses, that opposing (inter-secting) “anti-clock-wise” log spirals thenformed. There was usually an intersection ofthe (presumably) shear failure surfaces, butnot in all cases.

In an interesting presentation by Wittke atthe recent Congress, a photograph of theYacambu Tunnel in Venezuela was shown, todemonstrate “squeezing” conditions. To theundersigned, the somewhat pointed andcurved “blocks” of failed material seen in theleft side of the tunnel, was a strong reminderof log-spiral-type failures, which are not usual-ly so easy to observe in a tunnel, due to thepresence of (failing/yielding) support.

Returning to Table 1 failure mode types, wemay conclude that the hard, massive, brittlerocks (Type 1) and the soft, massive, non-brittlerocks (Type 3) apparently each present prob-lems for continuum modelling—if the mod-els need to show the development offailure. We should also be aware of the prob-able limitations of continuum modelling,when deformation modes in hard or mediumhard, bedded and/or jointed rock (Type 2) are to

Figure 2. A selection of borehole break-out mechanisms frompetroleum engineering and from related laboratory research onborehole stability and the effects of hole orientation and stressanisotropy.

15

be represented correctly, due to the oftenanisotropic response caused by slip, dilation andopening (or closure) of the joints and beddingplanes.

Thanks to earlier developments by Cundall, wecan readily model jointing effects around tunnels.Idealized, and more realistic discontinuum 2D mod-els, using UDEC-MC or UDEC-BB, are shown inFigure 3. We can use 3DEC-MC when the orienta-tion of the bedding and/or jointing are creating amore obvious need for three-dimensional modelling.

The obvious relative difficulty of using thesemore realistic models in relation to continuummodels, needs to be overcome by practitionerswho are interested in realism at the local scale oftunnel, cavern or slope instability. There areunfortunately a remarkable number of colourfulbut unreal continuum model solutions appear-ing in report appendices these days.

It appears to this author that today’s conven-tional failure criteria—partly adopted from soilmechanics, are more suitable for modelling failure(i.e., the development of a plastic zone) in very soft,plastic rocks (Type 4) than for modelling the moreregular problems (Types 1, 2 and 3) that we usuallyencounter at the medium to harder ends of the typ-ical rock mechanics and tunnel engineering spectra.

C then φ, not C and φ, and alternative sourcesfor these estimatesWhen using continuum models with MohrCoulomb or Hoek Brown failure criteria, in otherwords the conventional addition of cohesion andσn x tan φ (in a linear MC form or with the poten-tial non-linear HB improvement) we are in reality souncertain about the role of cohesion, of its realmagnitude, and of the strain needed to graduallydestroy its remaining contribution to strength, thatit does not seem to make sense to use an equationas complex as the following.

GSI is actually relatively insensitive to majorchanges in stability. Only a 2:1 change in magni-tude in GSI is apparently needed to convert a mas-sive bedded rock into a squeezing variety with largedeformation, when using (in this case: inappropri-ate) isotropic continuum modelling. The relativecomplexity of many GSI-based parametric equa-tions might perhaps be an indirect result of thisnumerical insensitivity to changed rock quality,

where the one order of magnitude range of GSI isdesigned to cover all possible rock mass condi-tions. This is surely a tough proposition.

It was recently recognised that the Qc value ofrock masses (where Qc = Q x σc/100) is suspicious-ly like the product of “cohesion” and “tan φ”(Barton, 2002). This surprising finding might havesomething to do twith the case record baseddevelopment of Q. Shotcrete, in different thick-nesses, is broadly speaking a practical surface “fix”for lack of cohesive strength, while rock bolts,with different spacings, are compensating for lackof (internal) frictional strength.

All the Q-parameters and their ratings weredeveloped by an exhaustive trial-and-error fit to200-plus case records, many of which were depen-dent on this additional/ supplemental “c and φ”treatment for their stability. So we may have auseful new tool for making a first estimate of thecohesive component of rock masses, withoutresorting to complex equations correlated to clas-sification methods.

The alternative and preliminary estimate ofrock mass “cohesion” can apparently be obtainedfrom the regular components of Q, as follows:

The following table (Table 2) demonstrates theorder of magnitude of the Qc based CC (cohesive

Figure 3. Examples of two idealized UDEC-MC models,and of a proposed TBM tunnel excavated in a more realisticUDEC-BB model of Interbedded sandstone and shale.Anisotropic joint shearing and deformations are occurring,due to details of the joint structure. Barton et al. 1992.

16

component) and the remaining FC (frictional com-ponent). We should hesitate to call CC and FC the“c and φ” of the rock mass, because we actually havelittle reason to believe that these widely differentproperties can be captured (or combined) in a con-tinuum format when failure is occuring. Nor aretheir magnitudes actually known to any significantdegree of accuracy in the case of rock masses, asopposed to intact laboratory samples, where theHoek Brown criterion gives an excellent fit to alarge data base, because of the related history of itsdevelopment.

As for the case of “c and φ,” CC and FC are likelyto be mobilized at radically different levels of strainin a rock mass. It therefore makes no practical senseto “add them” in a strength criterion. First one,then the other should be the motto. But in realitythere is probably a step-function (or more graduat-ed) response from each, following some significantAE events as much of the multi-MPa cohesion isdestroyed at the smaller initial strains. Shotcretefailure and rock bolt mobilization also displaystrain-dependent responses, hence perhaps their ear-lier help in giving hidden clues to CC and FC.

Some other problems requiring research and correctionMost of the older generation of rock mechanicsengineers, and no doubt many of the younger, willhave produced their own mental lists of “problemareas,” where the available tools (models, constitu-tive laws, theories) apparently require someimprovement. There are in fact a multitude of Ph.D.topics for the enquiring student—and plenty for therest of us too. Here is part of a personal list whichhopefully will be added to by others.

1. Direct shear tests on joints are normally per-formed by loading to the assumed ranges ofeffective normal stress in the future rock struc-ture (slope, foundation, etc.) and then com-mencing shear. The reality may often be anunloading from a previously higher effectivenormal stress, followed by shear (for examplewhen excavating a rock slope). “Over-closed”shear testing on tension fractures with over-

stress ratios of 1 (the conventional), 4 and 8produced three distinct, differently inclinedpeak strength envelopes. (Barton, 1971).

Where does the limit of roughness prevent this“over-closure” behaviour, where the “perpendicularJRC” ceases to lock the joints in a tight embrace?Interestingly, an extreme JRC of about 25 (judgingfrom profiles) has been found to give a tilt angle of180° (or apparent tensile strength). When normalstresses orders of magnitude greater than 0.001MPa(from a 4cm thick tilt-test sample) are applied, the“tensile-strength-limit” for JRC obviously reducesdramatically.

2. In a related area, but now concerning theapplication of thermal loading, rough joints(e.g., JRC=10 or more) apparently exhibit morecompliance due to reduced normal stiffness,when heated than when cold. This effect hasbeen suspected for a long time—from initiallyconfusing deformation response at the heatedClimax mine-by, from changing and then hys-teretic seismic velocities in Stripa heater experi-ments, from reduced hydraulic and physicalapertures at an 8m3 heated block test and insmaller laboratory coupled-stress-flow-tempera-ture CSFT tests, and from different deformationresponse in the heated and cold sides of cross-adit plate bearing tests at Yucca Mountain. Thelist could be extended.

Where are our constitutive laws that acknowl-edge tighter mating of joints at elevated tempera-tures (?)—with the unfortunate converse that theroughest joints that may stay mated when cooling,due to over-closure, may cause concentration ofjoint opening on the less rough, and likely weakerand more permeable joints. Where is our emphasison the often very high unloading stiffness of jointsand of rock masses?

3. We have inherited much that is useful fromthe developers of soil mechanics, above all elsethe law of effective stress. But we have alsoinherited the classic (and probably wrong) wayof transforming principal stresses on to poten-tial failure surfaces (or to joints) initially ignor-

Table 2. Five progressively worsening rock mass qualities and some of their predicted near surface properties, includ-ing FC and CC (Barton, 2002).

17

ing the effect of dilation on the normal stress,and still ignoring the effect of dilation onthe shear stress. In the latter we are in “goodcompany.”

But OC clay, compacted sands and rockfill andnon-planar rock joints (and probably many failuresurfaces in rock ) dilate during shear at usual levelsof effective normal stress. It is easy to feel the need tocorrect the normal stress for the expanding effect ofdilation. But the shear stress can be larger or smallerthan the classical, co-axial stress and strain basedlaw assumes, depending on the magnitude of theangles involved. Barton, 1986, 1999.

Maybe, the correct stress transfer is obtained byadding in the current, mobilized dilation angle tothe angle (β) between the major principal stress andthe assumed failure plane (or mean joint plane).Strictly speaking neither the plane nor joint shouldbe present, nor should they shear, or dilate. Do wereally know the ultimate stability of our rockfilldams, of our arch dams founded on jointed rockabutments, of our jointed rock slopes (or ourwedge-shaped blocks)?

4. Large scale structures in rock, and numericalmodels of heavily jointed discontinua, andphysical models with thousands rather thanhundreds of blocks—each show block rotation(first as kink bands) as their principal mode ofdeformation and failure (e.g., Ladanyi andArchambault, Barton and Hansteen, 1979 andothers). This rotation may be stimulated byseveral factors, including the increased shearstrength as block size reduces, block corner“hang-ups” due also to the partly stepped,composite surfaces of secondary and tertiaryjoint sets, and the more obvious relative ease(lower energy requirement) of block rotationand corner crushing, as block size reduces.

Are such rock masses more correctly modelled bycontinuum codes than discontinuum codes, or not?Can we talk of localization of failure in such cases?Are these the mechanisms required for successfulblock caving?

This leads to a final, most problematic question.What do we mean by the “Poisson ratio” of a rockmass? Physical models with hundreds or thousandsof blocks, loaded biaxially, can demonstrate “lateralexpansion coefficients” (perhaps a better name fordiscontinua?) that exceed 1.0 as shear failure isapproached. To what extent are such phenomenainfluencing the ultimate stability of an over-stressedtunnel, cavern, rock slope or mining stope?

Conclusions1. Continuum models with conventional Mohr

Coulomb or Hoek Brown failure criteria fail tomodel the break-out or log-spiral failure sur-faces observed in numerous studies of boreholefailures, and suspected in over-stressed tunnels.

2. Recent efforts to model shear or tensile failurelocalization by cohesion softening, frictionmobilization, stress corrosion, element degra-

dation, tensile strain limitation, or by fracturemechanics, collectively show great promise,and herald an exciting new phase of realism ininitially-a-continuum (IAC) modelling.

3. There remain numerous interesting problemsto solve in rock mechanics. A whole class ofthese are due to the effects of loading historyon joint compliance, including the effect ofheating. Joint roughness effects causing hys-teresis when over-closed by reducing normalstress, can potentially alter our concepts ofshear strength and methods of shear strengthmeasurement.

4. We seem to have inherited incorrect methodsof principal stress transformation to inclinedfailure planes and joints. Co-axial stress andstrain are not the reality for significant sheardisplacements in either compact sands, O.C.clay, rockfill or along non-planar rock jointsand brittle failure surfaces in rock. The additionof the mobilized or instantaneous dilationangle in the stress transformation equation,may solve the problem of the increased normalstress and reduced or increased shear stresscaused by dilation.

5. Block rotation is an important mechanism offailure when large numbers of blocks are pre-sent with the necessary degree of freedom forrotation, due for example, to low values ofRQD/Jn. Difficulties with the definition andmagnitude of “Poisson ratio” for rock massessuggest one of the reasons why continuummodelling is also a difficult proposition whenfailure is approached.

ReferencesAddis, M.A., N. Barton, S.C. Bandis and J.P. Henry.1990. “Laboratory studies on the stability of verticaland deviated boreholes,” 65th Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition of the Society ofPetroleum Engineers, New Orleans, September 23-26, 1990.

Barton, N. 1971. A model study of the behaviour ofsteep excavated rock slopes, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. ofLondon.

Barton, N. and H. Hansteen. 1979. “Very largespan openings at shallow depth: deformation magni-tudes from jointed models and F.E. analysis,” inProceedings of the 1979 4th Rapid Excavation andTunnelling Conference, Atlanta Georgia, 18-21 June1979. Eds. A.C. Maevis and W.A. Hustrulid. NewYork: the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. 2. 1131-1353.

Barton, N. 1986. “Deformation phenomena injointed rock,” 8th Laurits Bjerrum MemorialLecture, Oslo. Publ. in Geotechnique, 36(2). 147-167.

Barton, N., F. Loset, A. Smallwood, G. Vik, C.Rawlings, P. Chryssanthakis, H. Hansteen & T.Ireland. 1992. “Geotechnical core characterisationfor the UK radioactive waste repository design.”1992 Proc. of ISRM Symp. EUROCK, Chester, UK.

18

Barton, N. 1999. “General Report concerningsome 20th Century lessons and 21st Century chal-lenges in applied rock mechanics, safety and con-trol of the environment.” Proc. of 9th ISRM Congress,Paris. 3, 1659-1679, Balkema, Netherlands.Published in 2002.

Barton, N. 2002. “Some new Q-value correlationsto assist in site characterization and tunnel design.”Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 39(2), 185-216.

Detournay, C. 2003. Private communication.Fang, Z. and J.P. Harrison. 2002. “Numerical

analysis of progressive fracture and associatedbehaviour of mine pillars using a local degradationmodel.” Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. 111, A59-72.

Harrison, J.P. and J.A. Hudson, 2003. “Matchingnumerical methods to rock engineering problems: asummary of the key issues.” 10th ISRM Congress,Technology roadmap for rock mechanics. SouthAfrican Inst. for Mining, 493-501.

Kaiser, P.K., M.S. Diederichs, D.C. Martin, J.Sharp, and W. Steiner. 2000. “Underground worksin hard rock tunnelling and mining.” Keynote lec-ture, GeoEng2000, Melbourne, TechnomicPublishing Co. 841-926.

Martin, D.C., P.K. Kaiser, and D.R. McCreath.1999. “Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting thedepth of brittle failure around tunnels.” CanadianGeotechnical Journal. 36 (1), 136-151.

Martin, D.C., R. Christiansson and J. Soderhall.2002. “Rock stability considerations for siting andconstructing a KBS-3 repository, based on experi-ence from Äspö HRL, AECL’s HRL, tunnelling andmining. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel Co.) Stockholm,TR-01-38.

Stacey, T.R. and K. Yathavan. 2003. “Examples offracturing of rock at very low stress levels.” Proc. of10th ISRM Congress, Technology roadmap for rockmechanics, South African Inst. of Min. and Metall. 21155-1159.

Thomas, S.J., J.A.L. Napier, and P.A. Lilly. 2003.“Confinement dependence on cohesion weaken-ing.” 10th ISRM Congress, Technology roadmap for rockmechanics. 1221-1225.

19

By Joachim Klein

Computer simulations of time-dependentproblems in geotechnics are in general verycomplex, so that an easy result check is hard-

ly possible. Here knowledge of the stationaryasymptotic stress and strain behaviour is very help-ful. Using steady-state Norton’s creep law εc = κ · σn

the dimensionless non-linearity parameter n con-cerning stresses is highlighted, which also controlsother creep laws. For axi-symmetrical structuresclosed-form solutions exist for steady-state creepand in the paper they are transformed under plane-strain conditions to infinite solids. Calculationexamples of cavities in creeping strata like a bore-hole and a shaft as compared to published FEMresults as well as measurements show the advantageof such control possibility.

Non-linear creep Creep problems have generally been solved over thelast years by sophisticated computer simulations,trying to take into account different aspects by phe-nomenological description (Figure 1). Penny andMarriott 1971 (1) give an instructive survey on creeplaws, demonstrating that total strains may generallybe combined by elastic plus inelastic components(including plasticity, thermal effects, creep etc.).This paper will not discuss the correctness of com-plicated creep laws, but demonstrate that plausibili-ty of computer results concerning cavities in creep-ing strata may be checked by using the elastic anal-ogy of Hoff 1955 (2). Focussing only on the sec-ondary creep stage with constant creep rate as func-tion of stress, Norton’s 1929 (3) creep law εc=κ·σn

can be adopted, where k is a temperature depen-dent viscosity parameter and n a dimensionlessstress exponent. In engineering science in general

complex stress stages are relevant and the first prob-lem is to generalize the constitutive expressionsfrom uni-axial to multi-axial state of stress. Odqvistand Hult 1962 (4) propose a relationship betweencreep strain tensor and stress deviator tensor. Withthis the volume remains constant with respect tocreep strains, which means incompressibility.Accordingly in creep calculations on additivehydrostatic stress situation, no change in creep ratewill follow. The stress-strain law is taken as equal intension or compression, the multi-axial relationunder uni-axial condition changing into a uni-axialone. In Figure 2 typical n-parameter for differentrocks and for frozen soils with similar behaviour arein addition listed.

Thick-walled cylinderBefore the stress-strain relations are examined ingeomechanics, the equations for an axi-symmetricalstructure under internal and external pressure, likea thick-walled hollow cylinder are highlighted.Under incompressible plane strain conditions, i.e.,long pipes, Odqvist and Hult 1962 (4), show for thew component:

from which with constant C there results w=C·r-1.Taking account of the corresponding deviator stress-es and strains the radial equilibrium can be formu-lated:

With the constants A and B the radial stress σrand tangential stress σt the following applies:

Cylindrical Cavities in Creeping Strata

Deutsche Montan Technologie GmbH, Safe GroundDivision, Am Technologiepark 1, D-45307 Essen,Germany, Email: Jo.Klein@DMT.de

Figure 2. Non-linearity parameter n

Figure 1. Creep curve with idealized sections

(1)

(2)

·

·

·

(3)

respectively (Figure 3).The constants A and B are defined by the bound-

ary conditions σr (a) = - pi (internal pressure) and σr (b) = - pe (external pressure). For the axial stressunder these conditions the following is obtained:

Usually the explicit equations for hollow cylin-ders under inside pressure pi are documented,extended also to outside pressure by Klein 1978 (5)thus resulting in the equations (6, 7 and 8 withadditional index c for cylinder) given above.

As documented in the literature, linear-elasticconditions n=1 yield the Lamé expressions forstresses in hollow cylinders, i.e., Flügge 1962 (6). Forrigid-plastic conditions n=∞ the publication of Hill1950 (7) is relevant.

Dimensionless consistent units are necessarywhen using the relationships. Of interest is thenon-linearity parameter n for tangential stress σt ,which reaches a maximum at the inside rim, if n<2,otherwise on the outside. In the case n=2 the tan-gential stress σt is constant along the cross-section.

In Figure 4 the stress distribution of a thick-walledhollow cylinder under outside pressure with theradius ratio b/a=2 is shown, using n=5 which Wittkeund Werfling 1999 (8) also adopt for rock-salt.

Using the tangential strain rate the radial defor-mation rate w=wc(n) at the inner rim can be formu-lated with equation 9 below. In the following,wc(n) represents the stationary deformation rate,called creep-rate in the following.

Axi-symmetrical cavitiesWhen the outer radius b → ∞ the system corre-sponds to a plane strain problem, which allows forgeotechnical convergence solutions. Prij &Mengelers, 1981 (9) assume for a borehole calcula-tion (Figure 5) that in axial and lateral direction thepressure p without inside pressure is acting (case a).Here the hydrostatic pressure p of the same order

20

Figure 3. Cylindrical system index c with nomenclature

Figure 4. Radial rc, axial xc and tangential tc creepstresses for pe=1 (pi=0) in a thick-walled cylinder

Figure 5. Calculation scheme for a borehole

(9)

(4)

(5)

·

21

has no influence on creep (case b), and so the sys-tem can be reduced to a plane with an axi-symmet-rical hole with a corresponding inside tension —pat the inside rim (case c) (see also Borm 1988 (10)).Formally the reverse (case b)+(case c) = (case a) alsoapplies. In this case a plane under outside pressureresults in the same numerical deformation values atthe inside rim, including the secondary stress state.If one focuses on the creep rate at the inside rim forcylindrical wc(n) or spherical ws(n) openings withina plane under pi → 0 and pe → p , equations 10and 11 can be written according to Klein 2000 (11).For incompressible creep in isotropic stress fields pthe stationary creep-rates can then be calculated to:

cylindrical

spherical

In these potential creep equations the maximumas a function of n and p is of special interest. In aconstant stress field of p=8 MN/m2, for example,

(Figure 6), the creep-rates for identical k⋅a factorsare shown, while n runs from 1 to 10.

It is clear that spherical openings result in small-er absolute values than cylindrical ones, but thecharacteristic maximum appears in combinationwith different non-linearity parameters n. Thatmeans every hydrostatic pressure p is combinedwith a critical n where the creep-rate yield a maxi-mum. Vice-versa, every n corresponds to a criticalhydrostatic pressure pcrit. An evaluation of the max-imum of different creep-rate curves yields a state-ment about the critical hydrostatic stress pcrit as afunction of the non-linearity parameter n.

In Figure 7 the n parameters run from 1 to 6 andcan be extrapolated for greater n by:

cylindrical

spherical

While in civil-engineering the choice of materialcan be made dependent on the allowable stresses, itis not possible in geology. The rock stratum with itsmaterial properties and typical specific n parameterscannot be changed. The only possibility is to modi-fy the depth or dimensions of the undergroundopening in order to reduce the creep-rate. Whenapplied to rock-salt with n=5 the creep-rate maxi-mum appears at pcrit=8 MN/m2 (Figure 6 and 7),while a spherical opening results in pcrit=9.1 MN/m2

with identical k⋅a factors.

Case HistoriesTwo examples from the literature are intended todemonstrate the use of the simple equations above,to check plausibility for the stationary stage, alsowith respect to more sophisticated numerical modelresults. In both cases in-situ measurements, for the

Figure 6. Creep-rates for cylindrical and spherical cavi-ties in a stress field of p=8 MN/m2 and different n

Figure 7. Dependence of hydrostatic stress field pcritand non-linearity parameter n

Figure 8. Radial creep-rate of a borehole in rock-salt

(10

(11)

(12)

(13)

22

transient stage as well, are documented in the refer-ences cited.boreholeThe complex rheological material laws of rock-saltwere investigated by Munson und Wawersik 1991(12) and Langer 1991 (13). Finite Element calcula-tions were conducted for Asse repository byChabannes, Case, Shukla und Ellison 1981 (14) andWallner 1981 (15). The latter examined with theANSALT code the convergence of a borehole withan inner radius a=0.1575m within a stress field ofp=22.5 MN/m2 with k=2.25*10-10 [(MN/m2)-5d-1]and n=5. Besides Norton’s creep characteristics theinstantaneous elastic modulus E=25,000 MN/m2

and v=0.25 were used. As shown in Figure 8 thecreep-rate after 1,000 days is still 7 times the sta-tionary rate. By using equation 10 the answer is8.8*10-7 m/d.

In the Shaft Design Guide 1987 (16) this exampleis also discussed and documented, that even forlong-term conditions there is still a difference offactor of 1.7 to the stationary solution. shaftPermafrost, i.e., frozen soil, shows similar creepcharacteristics to those of rock-salt, but with greaterelastic strains and equivalent non-linearities pub-lished by Klein 1985 (17). Sego and Morgenstern 1994(18) analyse with the ADINA code for Panji-shaft astress field of p=4.28 MN/m2 with k=1*10-4

[(MN/m2)-2d-1] and n=2 for an inner diameter of2a=10.6m. Besides Norton’s creep part the instanta-neous elasticities are selected as E=130 MN/m2 andv=0.3. With the same equation 10 the stationarycreep-rate of the freeze-shaft can be calculated. Ascan be seen in Figure 9, transient creep approachesmuch faster in the direction of steady state of6.3*10-3 m/d than in the borehole example. Thevelocity reaching constant creep-rates is mostlydependent on the relation of elastic to non-elasticstrains, regardless of the creep law used.

ConclusionsEven for complex computer simulations of creepproblems in creeping strata, the steady-state conver-

gence characteristics can easily estimated for axi-symmetric cavities with cylindrical or spherical con-tours. Using Norton’s creep law εc = k⋅σn the deci-sive importance of the dimensionless non-linearityparameter n is demonstrated in this paper. There isan interesting correlation between maximum creep-rate and n, corresponding to a critical hydrostaticstress field pcrit. Under incompressible plane strainconditions the equations exhibit closed form solu-tions concerning stationary creep-rate for cylindri-cal (index c) and spherical (index s) openings increeping strata like rock-salt or even frozen soils.The resulting stationary creep-rate is a safe lowerboundary when using Norton’s creep law approxi-mation types. So old fundamentals may help i.e., inrepository projects developed in different Europeancountries nowadays. Friends of powerful FE-tools inparticular should examine their results to give themthe certainty that their transient velocity situationis always above steady-state level.

References1. R.K. Penny and D.L. Marriott. 1971. Design for

creep. McGraw-Hill: London.2. N.J. Hoff. “Effets thermiques dans le calcul de

la résistance des structures d’avions etd’engines.” AGARD Report No. 52, 1956.

3. F.H. Norton. 1929. The creep of steel at hightemperatures. McGraw-Hill: London.

4. F.K.G. Odqvist and J. Hult. 1962.“Kriechfestigkeit metallischer Werkstoffe.”Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

5. J. Klein. 1978. “Nichtlineares Kriechen vonkünstlich gefrorenem Emschermergel.” Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Serie G, Heft 2,Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Grundbau,Wasserwesen und Verkehrswesen.

6. W. Flügge. 1962. Handbook of engineeringmechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

7. R. Hill. 1950. The mathematical theory of plastic-ity. Oxford: Clarendon press.

8. W. Wittke und J. Werfling. 1999. “RäumlicheBerechnungen zur Untersuchung der Stand–-sicherheit und der Wirkung von Stützmaflnah-men für eine Untertagedeponie im Steinsalz.”Tunnelbau Taschenbuch, DGGT, S. 232ff.

9. J. Prij and J.H.J. Mengelers. 1981. “On thederivation of a creep-law from isothermal bore-hole convergence.” Report ECN-89, NetherlandsEnergy Research Foundation.

10. G. Borm. 1988. “Standsicherheit vonSchächten im Salinar.” Festkolloquium L.Müller — Salzburg 1988 in Geologie-Felsmechanik-Felsbau, Trans Tech Publications.

11. J. Klein. März 2000. “Steady-State NonlinearCreep of Cylindrical and Sperical Cavities.”Eurock 2000 Symposium, 27.-31. Aachen, pub-lished in German by VGE S. 737 bis 744.

12. D.E. Munson and W.R. Wawersik. 1991.“Constitutive modeling of salt behavior —

·

Figure 9. Radial creep-rate of a freeze-shaft duringunlined sinking phase

23

SWEDISH NUCLEAR FUEL & WASTE MANAGEMENT CO-SKB StockholmUNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO — SERVIÇOS DE DOCUMENTAÇAO, Aveiro,Portugal

J—OTHER CORPORATE MEMBERSANTEA Orleans, FranceBERGAB AB, Göteborg, SwedenCEA IPSN—DPEI/SEREG Fontenay aux Roses, FranceCSIRO PETROLEUM Syndal, AustraliaDREDGING INTERNATIONAL N.V., Zwijndrecht, BelgiumEURODRIL BELGIUM S.A. Brussels, BelgiumFOUGEROLLE BORIE Velizy Vilacoublay, FranceGEOSIGMA AB Uppsala, SwedenISSEP Liège, BelgiumJ & W BYGG & ANLÉGNING AB Lidingî, SwedenJDC CORPORATION Tokyo, JapanKOKUSAI KOGYO CO. Tokyo, JapanKUMAGAI GUMI CO. LTD. Tokyo, JapanNMC RESOURCES ENG. CO. Tokyo, JapanOKUMURA CORPORATION Osaka, JapanRAPT-GO DOCUMENTATION Paris, FranceSECURITY-DB SRATABIT Brussels, BelgiumTAISEI CORPORATION, Tokyo, JapanTOA GROUT KOGYO LTD. Tokyo, JapanWSP Stockholm, Sweden

state of the technology.” Seventh InternationalCongress on Rock Mechanics, Aachen, publishedin Volume 3 by Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997.

13. M. Langer. 1991. “The rheological behaviorof rock salt.” Siebter Internationaler Kongressüber Felsmechanik, Aachen, erschienen inBand 3 bei Balkema, Rotterdam, S.1811 ff.

14. C.R. Chabannes; J.B. Case, D.K. Shukla andR.D. Ellison. 1984. “Thermomechanical con-siderations in designing tests at the Assemine.” First Conference on the MechanicalBehavior of Salt. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, November 9-11, 1981, Trans TechPublications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany.

15. M. Wallner. 1984. “Analysis of thermome-chanical problems related to the storage ofheat producing radioactive waste in rock salt.”1st Conference on the Mechanical Behaviourof Salt (November 9, Pennsylvania StateUniversity), Trans Tech Publications,Clausthal-Zellerfeld, 739.

16. 1987. “Salt Repository Project,” Shaft DesignGuide, Rev.0, DOE/CH/46656-16 prepared forU.S. Department of Energy, Hereford, TX byFluor Technology Inc. and ParsonsBrinckerhoff/PB-KBB.

17. J. Klein. 5-7 August 1985. “Influence of fric-tion angle on stress distribution and deforma-tional behaviour of freeze shafts in nonlinearcreeping strata. Fourth InternationalSymposium on Ground Freezing, Sapporo, 2,307-315.

18. D.C. Sego and N.R. Morgenstern. 1994.“Deformation of artificially frozen shafts dur-ing excavation.” Ground Freezing 94, Frémond(ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam.

continued from page 2

24

CLASHES — Conference organizers! A clash of datescan hurt your meeting. Please, carefully check the pre-booked dates in the ISRM NEWS JOURNAL or in thisEvents Calendar, and notify the ISRM NEWS JOURNALEditor or the ISRM Secretariat, as soon as you knowyour conference dates, theme, and venue.

ISRM SPONSORSHIP — Conference organizers! Applyearly to the ISRM Secretariat for ISRM sponsorship, tohelp publicize your meeting. National, Regional, andInternational symposia, and the 4-yearly ISRMCongress, impose different requirements for ISRMrecognition, languages, etc. Details are given in ISRMBy-Laws 4 and 5, reprinted in the annual ISRMDirectory and available in this Home Page.

2004 May 18-21, Three Gorges Project Site CHINA -International Symposium on Rock MechanicsSINOROCK 2004, an ISRM-Sponsored Regional Symposium, orga-nized by the Chinese Society of Rock Mechanics and Engineering(CSRME), (the ISRM NG CHINA), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS),and the International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences.Theme: Rock Characterization, Modelling, and Engineering DesignMethods. Prof. John A. Hudson, SINOROCK, 7 The Quadrangle, WelwynGarden City, Herts AL8 6SG, UK. Tel.: (+44) 1707 322819; Fax: (+44) 1707375912; E-mail: sinorock@rockeng.co.uk. Prof. Feng Xia-Ting, SINOROCK,Inst. of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Xiaohongshan, Wuchang, 430071Wuhan, CHINA PR. Tel.: (+86) 27 87218913; Fax: (+86) 27 87863386; E-mail: sinorock@dell.whrsm.ac.cn; Websites: www.sinorock2004.com,sinorock2004.com.cn.

2004 May 22-27, Singapore — World Tunnel Congressand International Tunnelling Association GeneralAssembly, organized by the Tunnelling and UndergroundConstruction Society (Singapore) (TUCSS), Institution of EngineersSingapore (IES) and the International Tunnelling Association (ITA).Scheme: Underground space development in urban environment. Topics:planning and development of underground space and infrastructures, geo-logical and geotechnical investigations for underground projects, tun-nelling in soils, rocks and mixed ground, tunnel machine and mechanizedexcavations, design of tunnel lining and various underground supports,deep excavation and earth-sheltered structures, ground improvement andsettlement control, tunnel repair and maintenance, safety issues in tun-nelling and underground construction, social, political and environmentalaspects of underground development. L: English. 5. Prof Jian ZHAO,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity, Block N1 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798. FAX:65/7921650; EM: cjzhao@ntu.edu.sg.

2004 June 13-16, Kansas City MO USA — JuneCommittee Week of the American Society for Testingand Materials International (ASTM), Section D18 —Soil and Rock. Dr Jack Touseull, Rock Mechanics SubcommitteeD18.12, Chairperson, USA. EM: jtouseull@do.usbr.gov. D18 OfficeManager, Mr Robert J. Morgan, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, W. Conshohocken,PA 19428-2959, USA. TLP: 1/610/8329732; EM: rmorgan@astm.org

2004 September 27-30, Las Vegas NV USA — MINExpoInternational 2004, an exhibition of mining related equipment andservices. National Mining Association, 1130, 17th Street NW, Washington,DC 20036, USA. TLP: 1/202/4632625 or 4636152(fax).

2004 October 07-09, Salzburg AUSTRIA - EUROCK2004 and 53rd Geomechanics Colloquy, an ISRM-SponsoredRegional Symposium, organized by the Austrian Society for Geomechanics(ÖGG) (the ISRM NG AUSTRIA). Theme: Where Theory and Practice meet.Austrian Society for Geomechanics, Paracelsusstrasse 2, A-5020 Salzburg,AUSTRIA. Tel.: (+43) 662 875519; Fax: (+43) 662 886748; E-mail:salzburg@oegg.at; Website: www.oegg.at/engl/index.html.

2004 November 30-December 02, Kyoto JAPAN – 3rdARMS (Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium) 2004, the2004 ISRM-Sponsored International Symposium, organized by theJapanese Committee for Rock Mechanics (the ISRM NG JAPAN). Theme:Contribution of Rock Mechanics to the New Century. 3rd ARMS 2004, c/oProf. Kenji Aoki, Secretary General, Dept. of Earth Resources Engineering,Kyoto University, Sakyo, Kyoto 606-8501, JAPAN. Tel.: (+81) 75 7534770;Fax: (+81) 75 7534771; E-mail: arms2004@eres.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp orarms2004_abs@eres.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp (for abstracts); Website: http://lak-ers.kuciv.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~arms2004.

2004, Helsinki FINLAND — 7th InternationalSymposium on Environmental Geotechnology andSustainable Development.

2005 January 25-28, Moscow RUSSIA – RockMechanics for Underground Environment. An ISRMSponsored Regional Symposium, organised by the ISRM NG RUSSIA. Prof.Sergey A. Yufin, Center of Underground and Special Engineering, MoscowState University of Civil Engineering, Yaroslavskoye Shosse 26, 129337Moscow, RUSSIA. Tel.: 7/095/9180543(also fax); Email: info@acuus-isrm05.ru; Website: http://www.acuus-isrm05.ru.

2005 May 18-20, Brno CZECH REPUBLIC – EUROCK2005, the 2005 ISRM-Sponsored International Symposium, organized bythe ISRM NG CZECH REPUBLIC. International Symposium on Impacts ofHuman Activity on the Geological Environment Dr Pavel Konecn‡, Inst.of Geonics AS CR, Studentská 1768, CZ-70800 Ostrava-Poruba, CZECH R.Tel.: (+420) 69 6979111; Fax (+420) 69 6919452; Email:konecpa@ugn.cas.cz.

2006, September 19-21, London, United KINGDOM —10th International Congress of the InternationalAssociation of Engineering Geology and theEnvironment. The title will be “Engineering geology of tomorrow'scities.” Email: mike.rosenbaum@ntu.ac.uk

2007 July, Lisbon PORTUGAL – ISRM 11thInternational Congress on Rock Mechanics, organized bythe Portuguese Geotechnical Society (SPG), (the ISRM NG PORTUGAL).Sociedade Portuguesa de Geotecnia, LNEC, Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066Lisboa, PORTUGAL; Tel.: (+351) 218443321; Fax:: (+351) 218443021; E-mail: spg@lnec.pt; Website: http://www.isrm2007.org. 2004 May 18-21,Three Gorges Project Site CHINA - International Symposium on RockMechanics SINOROCK - 2004, an ISRM-Sponsored Regional Symposium,organized by the Chinese Society of Rock Mechanics and Engineering(CSRME), (the ISRM NG CHINA), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS),and the International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences.Theme: Rock Characterization, Modelling, and Engineering DesignMethods. Prof. John A. Hudson, SINOROCK, 7 The Quadrangle, WelwynGarden City, Herts AL8 6SG, UK. Tel.: (+44) 1707 322819; Fax: (+44) 1707375912; E-mail: sinorock@rockeng.co.uk. Prof. Feng Xia-Ting, SINOROCK,Inst. of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Xiaohongshan, Wuchang, 430071Wuhan, CHINA PR. Tel.: (+86) 27 87218913; Fax: (+86) 27 87863386; E-mail: sinorock@dell.whrsm.ac.cn; Websites: www.sinorock2004.com,sinorock2004.com.cn.

Coming Events