long baseline workshop, june ‘06 - laughton the deep underground science and engineering...

Long Baseline Workshop, June ‘06 - Laughton

The Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL)

-------------Challenges and Opportunities

for the Rock Engineering Community

Chris LaughtonFermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Universities Research AssociationUnited States Department of Energy


Large-Deep ExcavationsA Research Proposal

• Large-Deep Permanent Cavern– 1 km + is deep– 50 m + span is large– ZERO PRECEDENTS

• Not such a trivial engineering exercise.. – Merits the consideration of

an Engineering R&D package – working with H&H engineers

• Deep & High Stress Mining Workshop Abstract...

Large Cavity Construction at the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

- Draft for Review - C.Laughtona*, M..Kuchtab, & W. Roggenthenc

a Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois, USA. bColorado School of Mines, USA. cSouth Dakota School of Mines & Technology, USA.

ABSTRACT

Construction of a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) has been proposed under the auspices of the US National Science Foundation. The DUSEL facility will provide a diverse group of scientists and engineers with a dedicated underground facility capable of supporting a broad spectrum of fundamental and applied research at depth in the Earth’s crust.

The main research partners included within the scope of the DUSEL umbrella are physicists, biologists, geoscientists and rock engineers. Rock engineers will not only be responsible for the construction of facilities for the use of others, but will also have the opportunity to develop their own purpose-built experimental areas in the deep subsurface. DUSEL offers mining and civil engineers a rare chance to study key aspects of excavation and support at depth, notably under conditions of high stress, a principal challenge faced by today’s underground community.

DUSEL rock engineers will both extend the capabilities of the underground science while providing safe and cost-effective construction of the laboratory facilities required by their research partners. The potential range of research is wide, and as plans advance opportunities for crosscutting synergy will be developed between the research partners. DUSEL experimental proposals currently call for the study of large volumes of in-place rock material and the excavation of a network of tunnels and caverns, from 3-4 m span exploratory galleries to 60m span experimental caverns.

The location of the DUSEL site is, as yet, undecided. NSF has selected two sites for conceptual study. The two sites are the Henderson Mine in Colorado and the Homestake Mine in South Dakota. Both sites take advantage of existing mine facilities to provide access and infrastructure support to the DUSEL facilities.

This paper will introduce the project to the deep mining community and discuss some key aspects of a proposed engineering research program associated with the excavation and support of large permanent caverns at depth. These excavations will be designed for a new generation of large physics detectors aimed at supporting basic research into the fundamental properties of matter. The paper will outline an integrated design-research program to improve the design and construction process for DUSEL excavations. The program will focus on identifying some potential areas where research could help advance the state-of-the-art in underground construction in general, and increase the viability of a proposed Large-Deep cavern, in particular. The paper will also underline the importance of the early site investigation, design and construction work. This work will ensure that the rock mass characteristic conditions and behaviours are well defined before the design of the later, more challenging larger and deeper excavations begins in earnest.

Corresponding Author E-mail address: [email protected]


DUSEL - A Basic Research Facility• Multidisciplinary Program..

– “Pure” Research - no specific end-use targets (e.g. military, nuclear waste..) that could limit research scope

– Wide-ranging expertise and cross-cutting ideas for the “next” generation” of underground experiments

– Many research proposals already submitted….

• Large, Diverse Research Platform..• Multi-level Campuses

– Laboratory Clusters – Self-Contained (Workshops, Offices..)

• Isolated Research Stations– Alcoves for Geo-Bio Drilling/Probing – Engineering Research Sites, etc…– Small to Large Scale studies all possible

• Methods, Machines, Materials Proving Ground

– Keystone Research Program - partnering makes it work• Expensive - partners share the costs = economy of scale• Shared ideas too.. synergy is already taking place..

• DUSEL Research >> Sum of its parts..– Exciting “Frontier Research”– Good “Research Value”

Physics

Engineering

DUSEL GeologyBiology

“Four-in-One”


Not Just Sciences, Engineering too..• DUSEL offers opportunities to

advance the state-of-the-art in underground engineering;

• Not only to meet science needs...– Excavations

• spans up to 60 m• under high stresses (2km + deep)

– Liquid Argon containment in a “warm rock” environment

– Accelerator stability requirements– Clean-Dry environments– Etc..

• But also for engineering research..– Fundamental Studies in

• Rock Mass under Stress (Pre-Failure & Post-Failure…)

• Water in Fractured Rock (Flow, Pressure etc..)

– Technical Innovation..– Education and Training – Etc..

TBM~4mØ Drill/Blast~3m HS

DUSEL - Mined Cross-Sections for Hard Rock Tunnels (Cookie Cutter Design Approach)

Potential Excavation Functions

Likely Categories Representative Sizing

Representative Cross-Sectional Envelopes Methods & Means -~ Approximate Dimensions

Galleries 3 - 4 m Ø

• Exploration • Experiments (RM/Hydro/Geo) • Construction Access • Utilities (ducts/cables/pipes..) • Light Vehicle/Personnel Access/Egress

Main Tunnels 6-8 m Ø

Experimental Caverns • Single Purpose • Multi-use Modules

Mega-Detector Cavern • "Swimming Pool" • Drained Rock Mass • Watertight Lining or • Liquid Argon • Cryogenic Storage

• Drill Rig Sites • Clean Rooms • Stability & Dryness Criteria

• Experiment/Module Access • Construction/Operation • Equipment • Materials Utilties (ducts/cables/pipes.. TBM~8mØ Drill/Blast~6m HS

Drill/Blast ~15x19m

Drill/Blast ~ 60x64m

• Special space provisions - O/H Crane headroom - Drill-rig headroom - clean room - stability (accelerators)

0 20m

Drill/Blast~30x34m

• Special enviro provisions - Temperature & RH ranges - dryness (dripping-watertight)

"Swimming Pool Concept" • Drained Rock Mass • Watertight Lining (analogous to watertight membranes only pure water to be kept in!) or "Cryogenic Concept" • Liquid Argon • Cryogenic Temperatures (analogous to LNG storage but at an even lower temperature!) or TBD..


Proposed Sites - Hard-Blocky Rocks

• Located in the Black Hills ~ 60km N-W of Rapid City, SD.

• Housed in footprint of recently closed Homestake Mine.

• In meta-sedimentary and meta-volcanic rock mass.

• Located in front range of the Rocky Mountains, ~ 80 km W of Denver, CO.

• Adjacent to and accessed from the operating Henderson mine.

• In a granitic rock mass.

Homestake Mine

Henderson Mine

Homestake Mine Henderson Mine


Large-Deep Cavern Challenging Design Criteria..

• State-of-the-industry design-construction format adequate for most early design/construction work (~small, ~shallow excavations adjacent to/within previously mined volumes), but…

• Later excavation may “push the envelope” notably for permanent Large-Deep cavern construction. Research may be of value*.. – Consider research – potential value to the project

– Incorporate and perform research tasking as part of the overall program – > ensure shared research ownership by academia and industry

– Ideally maximize excavation research performed during the earliest phases of construction so that recommendations can be incorporated in to subsequent design work

~1.2 to 1.5 km

60 m

180 m

Physics Detector NeedsProton Decay - UNO)

60 m


Larger Physics Caverns• Physics Laboratories

– Accelerator Detectors ~ 0.1 to 0.2 km• Large Electron Positron • Large Hadron Collider

– Shielded Detector ~ 0.5 to 2 km• Kamioka, Japan• Gran Sasso, Italy• Korean Invisible Mass Search• Sudbury, Canada

• Civil-Mining “Limits” for Large Permanent Excavations (>15m span)– Span Limit ~ Gjovik– Depth Limit ~ Western Deep Mine

• Larger, “Self-Supported” Cavities...– Standing Stopes - 50 m+ span– Natural Caverns - 200 m+ span

No intrinsic reason why the Large-Deep Cavern requirements cannot be met at site

20 40 60

Korea Invisible Mass Search (Yang Yang HEPPS)

LHC (CERN)

LEP (CERN)

Super Kamikande (Kamioka Mine)

SNOLab (Creighton Mine)

Approximate Cavern Span, m

Approximate Depth, km

Gjovik (Ice Rink)

Western Deep (Crusher Room)

1

2

3

Gran Sasso (Road Tunnel)

Domed CavernPrismatic Cavern

0


Cavern Spans in Industry

40

80

120

160

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Number of Case Histories

Gjovik Ice Arena

CERN - LHC

CERN - LEP Gran Sasso SNO

Kamioka

Mine Stopes

Man-Made Solution-Mined Cavities

Natural Caverns

100 m +

400 m +

75 m +

(e.g. Joma Cu Mine, ref. Lachel)

(e.g. Hauterives Rock Salt, ref. Lachel)

(e.g. Sarawak, ref. Fairhurst)

Span, m

Cavern Span Histogram (>15m) – ’05 literature review of existing data bases

Engineering R&D


Cavern Depths in Industry• Most industrial caverns have drive-in

access• Adequate design cover at depths <0.5km

– Fresh (~unweathered) host rock mass– Below water table (hydro + oil/gas storage..)– Within a “Preferred Range” of In Situ Stresses

• High enough to mobilize shear strength, but• Low enough not to induce zones of overstress• Horseshoe Cross-section

• Large-Deep Caverns…– Fracture + Stress Regime…cost/risk drivers – Engineering Feasibility vs. Economic

Viability• Any engineering feasibility study will not find

that the cavern can’t be built! (CL opinion!)• Ultimately - viability of Large-Deep

experiments may be limited by cost/risk - down-size early to avoid spending design $ on unaffordable options..

– “Strategic Research” to reduce costs/risk…maybe good value...

100

200

300

400

500

600

1000

2000

Salt Cavities

Detector Laboratories

3000

Mine Housings

0 10 20 30 40

Number of Case Histories

Depth, m

Accelerator Detector

Laboratories

Cavern Depths Bar Plot


Large-Deep Physics Caverns in Japan

• At the Kamioka Mine two domed caverns:– Kamiokande ~ 20m dome

– Super-K ~ 40 m dome

• Twin horseshoe caverns are planned:– Hyper-K ~ 50m span

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/6/16/1


Large-Deep Physics Caverns in Europe

• At Frejus, Franco-Italian Border, 3 Domed Caverns are planned ~ 50m span adjacent to an alpine road tunnel….an early concept

• At Gran Sasso, Italy 3 Horseshoe-Section Caverns ~ 20m span have been constructed adjacent to an Apennines road tunnel. Gran Sasso

Fréjus

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/6/16/1


Large-Deep Physics Caverns in North American

• In the United States, various detector options are under consideration, larger ones include:

– MPD ~ 50 m domed cavern

– UNO ~ 60 m horseshoe cavern

– LAr - 70m domed cavern

• In Canada, a ~20 domed cavern was Constructed with the boundaries of the Creighton Mine, adjacent to a deep shaft within the country rock.

Highwaytunnel

Detector

Perliteinsulation

h =20 m

70 m

Electronic crates

A. Rubbia

SNO

UNO MPD

LAr


A Likely Hard-Blocky Scenario• Assuming that more

marginal conditions (soil-like fracture zones, dikes, heavy water inflows..) can be located by site investigation and avoided. There are still issues…

• Engineering Factors..– Stress– Structure– Water– (Variability)

• Acting Singly or in Combination

Geo-Structure

WaterStress

StructureStress Water

+ +

Both mines have relatively low inflows


Rock Structure ~ Scale Dependent• Discontinuity-bound blocks, if unfavorably

oriented -> liable to slide or fall-out under the action of gravity

• Fall-Out Considerations– Impact…Scale-Dependent

• Severity (block size)• Frequency

– Design Mitigation• Requirements

– Size – Orientation– Shape

• Rock Engineering– Shear strength– Normal force– Etc..

Rock Mass Structure on an Absolute Scale

8 meters

Rock Mass Structure on the "Tunnel Scale"

8 meters 4 meters 2 metersBored Diameter

Tunnel Diameter

Fewer Potential Blocks/Wedges

Smaller Span/Diameter

A modicum of fracture can be a good thing -> reduce ability to store large

amount of potential rock burst energy


Stress ~ Scale Independent• At Depth In Situ Stress will increase

– Deep campus ~ 2km deep– Overstress encountered at depth at/adjacent

to proposed DUSEL sites and at other Deep Lab sites e.g. Kamioka, SNO, Gran Sasso..at CERN squeezing behavior

– Key engineering research topic at DUSEL too..

• Rock Mass Behavior(s) under stress• Rock Support System(s) performance

• Overstress Considerations..– Impact is Scale Independent

• Problems in smallest tunnel/largest cavern• Mitigation more problematic in large

openings• Rock bursting particularly dangerous..

potential MUST be addressed early– Design Mitigation..

• Requirements – Shape, Orientation ~ ovaloid

» Align major axis to principal stresses

» Proportion axes to principal stresses

• Rock Engineering – Treatments - property modifiers &/or

standardizers» Pre-Condition» De-stress

– Reinforcement» Bolts, “Ribs”, Dowels

– Liners» Swimming Pool, Steel Tanks» Rock-Burst Containment

(shotcrete, mineguard..)

A modicum of stress can be a good thing – normal stress mobilizes shear

force against gravity sliding or fall-out


Spatial Variabilitylarger volume - > more variability

• Geo-Variability: a fact of geo-engineering life.. – Classically-trained engineers beware– Rock properties and loading vary spatially more

than is soils..– In a hard rock setting, one can find significant

volumes of..• Fresh intact rock many times stronger than concrete• Residual clay or running sand..

• Change itself is a challenge!– Site condition changes require

methods/means responses?

?

?

?

?

Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), MPa

Block Size Index, Ib, cm

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

~RQD

100

75

5025 0

1

10

100

200

0

2

20

50

5

Weathered, Altered or Fault Gouge Materials

Box & Whiskers based on site

investigation data

Arrows Indicate lextended range likely to

be found in the field

200

concrete

rock


Engineering Factors in Combinations• In addition to stress and fracture..

– Water Pressure and Flow – Long-Term Creep or Deterioration– Etc..

• Site Investigation only gets you so far..• Every site is somewhat unique, but most

issues can be mitigated/managed using established technologies.. the challenge is to predict/identify all the problems (severity, locations and extents) and address them before excavation begins.. – Avoidance…ideal– Mitigation

• through “negotiated” adjustment in end-user requirements

• Use cost-effective engineering technology (mitigate short and long-term problems most cost-effectively)

– Manage!• In all but the most uniform of rock masses

one generally needs to plan to address a variety of problems…

Rock Mass Classification "Ingredients"

Intact Strength

Stress Environment

Discontinuity Alternation Water Conditions

Discontinuity Frequency

Discontinuity Roughtness

End-User Critiera

Cookie Cutter Apporach to Design


Large-Deep Research Program• Current Status

– Several concepts and solutions (detectors/sites in combination)– Significant divergence in costs/durations…decision drivers– Minimal discussion of the nature, frequency and size of risks– Need engineering framework to optimize/compare experiments..

• Proposal - to support a Large-Deep Cavern Design– Build “engineering consensus” between the various proposals

(initially generic hard rock setting.. site-specific after down-select)– Develop self-consistent engineering models that provides for a

“first look” at cost, schedule, and risk - experiment viability maybe a direct function of construction cost, schedule and risk

– Identify, detail and schedule-out an engineering research roadmap to support the design and construction of Large-Deep Cavern(s).

– Provide design feedback/interact with to end-user WG


Proposed Tasking (a work-in-progress*)..• 1) Identify and Document Core End-User Requirements & Site Constraints

– Requirements - Identify Main Options and Establish Requirement Lists– Best Guess Site Constraints - Host Rock Mass at depth in a Hard-Blocky Rock– Develop a short-list of key early site investigation activities (STRESS & FRACTURE..)

• 2) Develop Excavation and Support Concept(s)– End-user/geo-parameters driving design

• 3) Baseline Schedule and Parametric Cost Model(s)– Parameters driving cost/duration– Bottoms-up approach with simplification for key “what if” parameters ($ & t sensitivity)

• 4) Risk Analyses– Comprehensive Risk Analysis..major multi-year undertaking - credibility on the line!– Highlight dependence on rock mass…

• 5) Research Roadmap ~ “VE-style”– a) Identify and prioritize “worthwhile” research opportunities that could be incorporated

in to the design and construction of DUSEL (faster, cheaper, better, more reliable) with additional emphasis on the value of research to the underground industry-at-large

– b) Integrate research activities in to the Baseline Schedule - if it isn’t planned it will not get done!

– c) Develop a detailed research “roadmap” and scope for more promising ideas* Coordination with Henderson & Homestake


Task 1 - Requirements & Constraints• Space - Size, Shape, Orientation, Volume, Connections..• Structures (end-user driven)

– Anchors, partitions, rails, cranes, trays, racks, shields..– Short and long-term movements.. vibrations, de-stress, overstress,

swell..• Services (ideally some reuse of construction utilities)

– HVAC, Water, Power, Communication, Data Acquisition..• ES&H (on-site and off-site)

– Egress, access, air quality, noise, groundwater, lighting etc..• Optimize engineering aspects of design

– enhance self-supporting ability of rock and– improve practicality and – safety of construction – while respecting core functions


Task 2 - Excavation & Support Concepts• Likely Adverse Behaviors..

– Fall-Out under Gravity– Burst &/or Squeeze under Stress– Just add water……?– Extents and severities?

• Ground Treatment– Pre- and Post-systems to alter strength, permeability..

• Excavation Sizing/Phasing– Blasting techniques..cautious? Pre-, post split etc..– Avoid overstressing etc..

• Reinforcement Systems – Pre- and post-systems –active/passive (Cables, bolts

dowels, ribs, etc..)• Liner Systems

– Pop Rock Containment – shotcrete, mineguard..– Watertight “overlap, wallpaper-lining swimming pool

Pre-Support Concepts


Task 3 – Schedule & Cost Models

Excavation & Reinforcement Costs Nk/m3

15 20 25

80

60

40

20

“Bad Rock”

“Good Rock”

0

Excavation

Span, m (Top Heading & 3 Benches - see model configuration)

Top Headings

Bench 1

Bench 2

Bench 3

Access Tunnel

• Even if it is technically-viable can we afford it?– Large Span requirement may be a

major cost/risk driver..– Understand cost drivers and their

influence on costs– Technical trade-offs first– Involve an experienced cost

estimator - viability probably more likely to be deciding factor than feasibility - feasibility study = self-fulfilling prophesy (avoid engineers’ “can-do” response! – get a hard dollar estimators perspective)

– Address these hard questions first.. research needs &/or scope reduction?

Cost-Effective Layout -> for Volume

Long-Section Cross-Section

StabilityCosts


Theta 13 Scope Underground Construction(Cal Poly Workshop March 2004)

– Braidwood• 2 Vertical Shafts - 10m Ø & 120m deep• 1 Tunnel - 300m long 8m span

horseshoe tunnel. Uniform 1% tunnel gradient to shaft.

• Firewall-Isolated Excavations accessed from the Running Tunnel/Shafts

– 3 Detector Rooms » 1 x Near Detector Room - 32 m

long 12 m span» 2 x Far Detector Rooms with 8 m

span access tunnels - 16 m long x 12 m span

– 1 Underground Emergency Refuge (at end of tunnel)

» 6 m long 4m span» separately ventilation 2-hour fire

rated wall– Utility/Sump Room 4 m horseshoe

» nominal 8m length

– Diablo Canyon• 1 Portal Entrance -10 m long• 1 Tunnel - 850m long 6m span

horseshoe tunnel. Uniform 1% tunnel gradient to portal.

• Firewall-Isolated Excavations accessed from the Running Tunnel

– 2 Detector Rooms » 2 x 40m long 10m span

chambers– 1 Underground Emergency Refuge

» Nominal 6 m long 4m span» Equipped with 2-hour fire

rated wall and self-rescuers

http://theta13.lbl.gov/calpoly04/talks/Laughton


Cost & Schedule - The Estimating Process (Cal-Poly Workshop March 2004)

– Proposal should be based on a reliable cost estimate. – “The only kind of estimate that is worth anything is the one that is clearly defined

on paper and bears the signature of the author.” J.S.Redpath, (1980). Theta 13 has underground estimates that are:

• Well-documented and site-specific - developed “from the bottom up”• Estimated independently by an experienced, tunneling professional.• Reviewed independently by experienced, tunneling professionals.

– Underground estimate scopes include:• Underground Structural Shell and Utilities• Utilities left in place (power, ventilation, water, air lines, communication..). • Permanent facilities installed (groundwater pumps, elevators and refuge firewall, surface water

treatment facilities).

– Estimates exclude:• Engineering, Design, Inspection and Administration (EDIA), Surface Buildings, Technical

Installations, Life Cycle Costs


Cost & ScheduleBottoms-up Estimates’ Bottom-lines

• Braidwood– Duration 39 months

• “First” detector site delivered in17 or 20 months (far or near)

– Cost $34.6M• General Mobilization ~3.3M• Shafts ~ 15.9M• Tunnel ~ $9.1M• Detector Rooms ~ $6.0M• Refuge ~$0.3M• 40% contingency.• Initial comments: equipment

selection, crew sizing and productivity OK. Shorter shafts could use cranes.

• Diablo Canyon– Duration 24 months– Cost $23 M

• General Mobilization ~$2.9M• Portal Cost ~$0.3M• Tunnel ~ 16.5M• Detector Rooms ~$3.2M• Refuge ~$0.1M• 30% contingency.• Initial comments: equipment

selection, crew sizing and productivity OK. Some relatively conservative production factors - mucking might be done more quickly.


Task 4: Risks - Threats & Opportunities• For such an unprecedented combination of depth and span,

it will be critical to establish a disciplined approach to risk identification, mitigation and management form the start:– Complement design team expertise – look for broadest technical-

geotechnical perspective. Underground there is a room for differences in opinion.. (like a horse race…so many expert…so little consensus)

– Select those who have been responsible for similar work– Nothing wrong with optimism but, the more realistic the

Baseline….the lower the contingency…• Cost + Contingency may be prohibitive…Some research

seed money invested early-on as part of the design effort may help address issues of cost and/or risk:– Site investigation and characterization– Design and construction


Task 5 - Research “Metro” Map• Be selective..not all engineering

research appropriate for DUSEL..– Resources are limited– Best performed elsewhere by others– Generally, not enough reward..too risky,

too long, too costly..

• DUSEL Research Shortlist– Hand-picked review team

• Expertise + “opinion-diversity”

– Brainstorm ideas first• More than one route..

– Consider relative merits..• all ideas worthy - not an academic

exercise or productivity issue • Risk versus reward…• Intrinsic value to Industry too• Achieve strong shortlist consensus

– Integrate in to the Plan..

ExploratoryWorks

Rock Mass Instrumentation

EngineeringModels

Geo-InterpretiveModels

TreatmentSystems

Rock Under Stress

Fractured Rock Aquifer Engineering

Geophysics BoreholeInvestigation

Geo-VariationModels

Design-as-you-Go

Cavern Concepts

Real-Time Data Collection

SupportSystems

ExcavationSystems

Cost/Time BallparkRisk Analyses

CavernRequirements

Engineeringfor Safety

DiscontinuaDesign

In Situ StressMeasurement

DeskStudies

Integration

Potential Engineering Research Areas


Cavern Research in Design e.g. Exploration

• Designers need better data in order to produce better designs and contracts..

• Key Questions..partially answered– Rock Structure– Stress Regime

Soft Ground Not Easy Ground

Excavator Rescues TBM Job

...Tunnel Slips Behind

Collapse Halts...Metro Tunnelling Again

The...Tunnel Financial Black Hole

Arbitration Looms Over...Dispute

The Subway to Nowhere, No Time Soon

Subway Tunnel Halted

Twice This Month

Claims Row Halts...Tunnel

Difficult Ground Halts TBM

Bad Rock Stalls TBM

Too many surprises…

Cross-Hole TomographyEngineering Press - Headlines


Cavern Research in Construction e.g. Design as you Go

• Office designs ~ at best, only as “good” as ground predictions are accurate... • Discrepancies between the “as-predicted” and “as-found” are commonplace...• There is a need to adjust methods/means to as-found conditions in Real-Time...

– Real-Time design feedback at the heading• Map/Photogrammetry/models/images…geologic/technical conditions at the heading• What lies beyond the rock walls and heading?....Monitor rock drills, geophysics etc..• Monitor Deformation and Stress.. (before, during after…long-term creep too)• Adjust rock treatment, excavation, reinforcement and lining system(s)• Update predictions of “what’s ahead”..probing, geophysics, monitoring of the drill rig etc..• Model versus Reality “Instant Interface”.. ”Design-as-you-go”..

Evaluate Rock Mass at Heading & Update Drill &

Blast Plan and Support Design

Drill

Charge

Blast

Vent

Muck

Support

Design as you Go

What miners do at the heading - absent

designer feedback!


Cavern Research During Early Operatione.g. Rock Mass under Stress

• Rock blocks dedicated to rock engineering research...– Site Preparation

• Site Investigation..boreholes, geophysics• Pre-Instrumentation • Stress Measurements

– Main Variables• Multi-Pass Reaming Processes• Stresses - pillar thickness• Pre-Treatments (conditioning..)• Support Systems - types and timing

– Potential measures/observations• “Ground Truthing” (“mine-backs”)• Pre-’ & Post-Failure Phenomena• Load Transfer rock->supports• Hard Rock Creep

Inclinometer Array

Extensometer Array

Stress Field

+/- HomogeneousRock Mass Block

Borer

Boring Head

Access

Tunnels Instrumentation Cluster Sites

“Organ Pipe”Configuration


Technical Innovation During Operation Too..e.g. Mechanized Excavation

TunnelingData Handling

Communication

Information

Manpower Reduction

Remote Control Automation

Equipment Reliaibility

Operations

Maintenance

Unit-Operation Capabilities

Muck Transport

Rock Excavation Rock Mass Support

Rock MassPrediction

…some ideas for rapid tunneling research, Laughton ‘02

• DUSEL offers many techno-opportunities too.. – Instrumentation– Equipment– Materials– Methods– Training– Etc..

Other engineering disciplines too: Safety, Environment, Elec-Mech, Aquifer, Geothermal..


Conclusions• In general, DUSEL research can contribute towards a better

understanding of the rock mass as an engineering material and promote innovation underground.

• In particular, research targeted at delivering a safe, cost-effective Large-Deep Cavern facility can contribute significantly to the viability of “frontier physics.”

• Key (Engineering) People - Charles Fairhurst (PI), Mark Kuchta (CSM & Henderson Mine), Bill Roggenthen (SDSMT & Homestake Mine).. all to be involved with the program once the Site CDR’s are delivered to NSF (June 23rd)….

• Key Web Sites (program TBD..proposals welcome..).. – General Site - http://www.dusel.org/– Henderson - http://nngroup.physics.sunysb.edu/husep/– Homestake - http://www.lbl.gov/nsd/homestake/

http://www.dusel.org/

http://www.lbl.gov/nsd/homestake/

long baseline workshop, june ‘06 - laughton the deep underground science and engineering...

Documents

excavation research

pure research

research proposals

research tasking

research scopewide

dusel research sum

research potential value

diverse research platform