Discussion - Of Session Three - Design Of Surface And Near-Surface Construction In Rock - Pfleider, E. P., University Of Minnesota

E. P. Pfleider, University of Minnesota I would like to ask Bob Merrill whether he considers that horizontal concave curvature of a slope has any stabilizing effect, such as Jenike 1 suggested several years ago. R. H. Merrill, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Denver Federal Center The stabilizing effect is due to the restraint offered to radial movement by the curvature. We found in laboratory tests that if we constrained the rock with the same stresses as those measured in the pit then it would sustain a maximum stress about two or four times greater than when the same rock type was unconstrained. We are therefore definitely of the opinion that a constrained situation in a slope is favorable towards stability. G. A. Leonards, Purdue University I was interested in Mr. Lane's observations concerning the correspondence between rate of slide movement with rise of reservoir. Perhaps the most interesting feature is that the rate of movement at the time the rock slope failed was less than the rate at an earlier time when it did not fail. This is difficult to explain from current slope stability theory. K. S. Lane, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers I believe that reduced rate of movement is the result of the progressive type of failure, such as described by Patton and Deere. which occurs along the sliding surfaces. It is difficult to analytically define the progressive failure condition for inclusion in slope stability conditions, but its existence should be recognized in design. We should also realize that many apparently stable slopes undoubtedly contain overstressed regions. To design a slope with no overstressed region would be uneconomical and conservative. D. H. Deere I would pose the question-"What is the meaning of a factor of safety of one?" We were involved in the design of a large, irregularly shaped, underground cavity with an unsupported span of several hundreds of feet. Tests on rock specimens indicated a strength of 1300 lb per sq in. The RQD would have been between 90 to 100 percent indicating excellent structural continuity. In-situ stress determinations indicated an approximately hydrostatic state of stress at a level of 1400 lb per sq in. Calculation of stress concentrations at the walls indicated that the stresses there would be about 3000 to 4000 lb per sq in. Admittedly the rock is in a confined condition everywhere except at the very skin of the wall and the rock walls would thus on the average be somewhat stronger. Allowing for the effect of restraint the factor of safety was found to be less than 0.5 over a region several feet into the wall. Construction was started, using rockbolts only to support the walls. Failure around the immediate skin occurred after each