Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geomechanical Challenges: Practices and Innovations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After briefly reviewing the past and the current status in geotechnical engineering, an attempt has been made here to discuss three case studies related to extreme loading conditions like impact and blast loading, extreme wind loading and severe squeezing ground condition in lower Himalaya. These were really very challenging problems and some innovative solutions were provided which were implemented in the field. Subsequently, attempt has also been made to identify some of the more challenging problems which are basically coupled, multi-physics–multi-mechanics problems. To undertake such problems, however, there is a need to widen the scope of geotechnical engineering into a wider area of geo-engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Fig. 40
Fig. 41
Fig. 42
Fig. 43
Fig. 44
Fig. 45

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Viladkar MN, Bhargava P, Singh B, Iqbal MA (2012) Analysis of an under ground technical facility subjected to impact and blast loading. A report submitted to DRDO, New Delhi, India

  2. ABAQUS/Explicit user’s manual. Version 6.7, Vol. III & IV

  3. Haaverstad TA (1994) Structural response to accidental explosions and fires on offshore process installations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 7(4):310–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E (1989) A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct 25(3):299–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Peterson P-E (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6:773–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sinha BP, Gerstle Kurt H, Tuli Leonard G (1964) Stress–strain relations for concrete under cyclic loading. J Am Concr Inst 6:195–212

    Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of 7th international symposium on ballistics, The Hague, pp 541–547

  8. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21(1):31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. TM 5-855-1 (1986) Fundamentals of protective design for conventional weapons. Department of the Army, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  10. http://www.jsw.in/steel/kakrapar-atomic-power-station. Accessed 19 Sept 2017

  11. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35927009. Accessed 19 Sept 2017

  12. Lu W, Lin B, Lu R (1986) Effect of unequal settlement of foundations on the stress resultants of hyperbolic cooling towers and the unequal settlement tolerance limit. Eng Struct 8:39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kato S, Yoshinao C (1986) Stochastic stress analysis of cooling tower shells due to differential settlement. In: Proceedings of IASS symposium on shells, membranes and space frames, vol 1, pp 121–128

  14. Kato S, Shori T, Gould PL (1986) A modified thin-layered far field soil element for soil–structure interaction of axisymmetric structures. Comput Geotech 2(3):167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kato S, Hirota M, Gould PL (1986) Analysis of cooling towers on a soft soil layer subjected to horizontal incident earthquake motions from base back. Eng Struct 8(3):208–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kato S, Cheong MC, Tanaka K (1989) Stochastic evaluation of stresses in cooling tower shell due to uneven settlements. In: Proceedings of 3rd international symposium on natural draught cooling towers. IASS, Paris, pp 623–632

  17. Tilak MM, Verma USP, Raghavan N (1990) Design aspects for a large natural draft cooling tower for a nuclear power project. In: Proceedings of the national seminar on cooling towers, New Delhi, TS IV/25–TS IV/29

  18. Kato S, Han KJ, Cheong M-C (1991) Stress evaluation of cooling towers subjected to uneven settlements with stochastic characteristics. Eng Struct 13(4):329–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheong MC (1991) Stress analysis of cooling tower shell considering up-lift of foundation by no tension method. In: Proceedings of IASS symposium on spatial structures, Copenhegen, Denmark, vol 3, pp 51–57

  20. Horr AM, Safi M (2002) Full dynamic analysis of large concrete cooling towers: soil–structure interaction. Int J Space Struct 17(4):301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Viladkar MN, Karisidappa Bhargava P, Godbole PN (2006) Static soil–structure interaction response of hyperbolic cooling towers to symmetrical wind loads. Eng Struct 28(9):1236–1251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shu W, Wenda L (1991) Gust factors for hyperbolic cooling towers on soils. Eng Struct 13(1):21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bieniawski ZT (1975) Case studies: prediction of rock mass behaviour by the Geomechanical classification. In: Proceedings of 2nd Australia–New Zealand conference on geomechanics, Brisbane, Australia, pp 36–41

  24. IS: 11504 (1985) Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught cooling towers. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  25. BS 4485: Part-4 (1975) Specifications for water cooling towers. British Standard Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Krishna P, Pande PK, Godbole PN, Kumar K, Asawa GL, Ahuja AK (1989) Wind tunnel tests on rigid models of cooling towers for Kakrapar nuclear power station. Wind engineering studies Technical report, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India

  27. ACI-ASCE Committee 334 (1984) Reinforced concrete cooling tower shell-practice and commentary. J Am Concr Inst 81:623–631

    Google Scholar 

  28. Karisiddappa (1993) Finite element analysis of hyperbolic cooling towers under wind loads. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India

  29. IS: 875 (Part-3) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures: part 3 wind loads. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  30. IS: 875 (Part-4) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures: part 3 snow loads. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  31. Irons BM (1976) The semi Loof shell elements. In: Ashwell DG, Gallagher RG (eds) Finite elements for thin shells and curved members. Wiley, London, pp 197–222

    Google Scholar 

  32. Irons BM, Ahmad S (1986) Techniques of finite elements. Ellis Horwood, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  33. Karisiddappa Viladkar MN, Godbole PN, Krishna P (1998) Finite element analysis of column supported hyperbolic cooling towers using semi-loof shell and beam elements. Eng Struct 20(1–2):75–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Noorzaei J (1991) Non-linear soil–structure interaction in framed structures. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India

  35. Godbole PN, Viladkar MN, Noorzaei J (1991) Modified frontal solver with multi-element and variable degrees of freedom features. Comput Struct 39(5):525–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Viladkar MN, Anbalagan R (2010) Geological and geotechnical review of HRT for Kishanganga Hydro Electric Project (J&K). A report based on technical note of M/s Halcrow Group Ltd. (UK), submitted to Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Mumbai, India

  37. Goel RK (1994) Correlations for predicting support pressures and closures in tunnels. Ph.D. Thesis, Nagpur University, Nagpur, India

  38. Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithankar AG (1995) Indian experiences with Q and RMR systems. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 10(1):97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Goel RK (1995) Tunnelling in squeezing ground conditions. Riv Ital Di Geotec 1:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  40. Singh B, Goel RK (2006) Tunneling in weak rock (Elsevier geo-engineering book series; v. 5). Elsevier, Oxford

  41. Bieniawski ZT (1979) The geomechanics classification in rock engineering application. In: Reprinted from: Proceedings of the 4th congress of the international society for rock mechanics, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

  42. Hoek E, Marinos P (2000) Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses. Tunn Tunn Int Part 1 32:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  43. Palmer M (2009) Technical note (WHKGHE/MJP/03, dated July 07, 2009) on Review of Geology and Rock Mass Properties for the TBM Section of the Headrace Tunnel

  44. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. Palmer M (2009) Technical note (WHKGHE/MJP/02, dated April 29, 2009) on In Situ Stress Estimates

  46. Hoek E (1999) Support for very weak rock associated with faults and shear zones. In: Villaescusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson AG (eds) Rock support and reinforcement practice in mining. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 19–32

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sakurai S (1983) Displacement measurements associated with the design of underground openings. In: Proceedings of the international symposium field measurements in geomechanics, Zurich, vol 2, pp 1163–1178

  48. Verman M (1993) Rock mass—tunnel support interaction analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India

  49. Viladkar MN, Verman M, Singh B, Jethwa JL (2008) Rock mass–tunnel support interaction analysis: part-I—ground response curves. J Rock Mech Tunn Technol 14(2):103–126

    Google Scholar 

  50. Viladkar MN, Verman M, Singh B, Jethwa JL (2008) Rock mass–tunnel support interaction analysis: part-II—support reaction curves. J Rock Mech Tunn Technol 14(2):127–148

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kumar N (2002) Rock mass characterization and evaluation of supports for tunnels in Himalaya. Ph.D. Thesis, I.I.T. Roorkee, Roorkee, India

  53. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mitchell JK (2006) New frontiers in geotechnical engineering. ASCE geotechnical special publication, no. 149, pp 1–5

  56. Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (2007–2008) Gas hydrates: R&D advances in India. Report by Govt. of India

  57. Sain K, Rajesh V, Satyavani N, Subbarao KV, Subrahmanyam C (2011) Gas-hydrate stability thickness map along the Indian continental margin. Mar Pet Geol 28(10):1779–1786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methaneclathrate. Accessed 19 Sept 2017

  59. Pašić B, Medimurec NG, Matanović D (2007) Well bore stability: causes and consequences. In: Proceedings of Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik, Zagreb, Croatia, vol 19, pp 87–98

  60. Chee PT, Brian GR (1998) Integrated rock mechanics and drilling fluid design approach to manage shale instability. SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering

  61. Yan C, Deng J, Yu B (2013) Wellbore stability in oil and gas drilling with chemical-mechanical coupling. Sci World J. Art. ID 720271:1-9

  62. Sabetamal H, Carter JP, Nazem M, Sloan SW (2016) Coupled analysis of dynamically penetrating anchors. Comput Geotech 77:26–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Locat J, Lee HJ (2000) Submarine landslides: advances and challenges. In: Proceedings of 8th international symposium on landslides, Cardiff, UK, pp 01–30

  64. Maarten V, Sultan N, Garziglia S, Forsberg CF, L’Heureux JS (2014) Seafloor instabilities and sediment deformation processes: the need for integrated, multi-disciplinary investigations. Mar Geol 352:183–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lunne T (2012) The fourth James K. Mitchell Lecture: the CPT in offshore soil investigations—a historic perspective. Geomech Geoeng 7(2):75–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sheshpari M, Khalilzad S (2016) New frontiers in the offshore geotechnics and foundation design. Electron J Geotech Eng 21:1–59

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sefton SL, Firth K, Hallam S (1998) Installation and handling of steel permanent mooring cables. Offshore digital magazine. http://images.pennwellnet.com/ogj/images/off2/1198moor1.gif. Accessed 19 Sept 2017

  68. http://coolarcticmoorings.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/3/4/10343992/298554512.jpg. Accessed 19 Sept 2017

  69. Kim YH, Hossain MS, Wang D, Randolf MF (2015) Numerical investigation of dynamic installation of torpedo anchors in clay. Ocean Eng 108:820–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

At the outset, I must greatly appreciate this honour of being invited by the Indian Geotechnical Society to deliver the 39th IGS Annual Lecture 2017 during IGC 2017. I am therefore extremely thankful to the IGS for giving me this opportunity to address the august gathering of geotechnical engineers from within India and abroad. The overall atmosphere in the erstwhile University of Roorkee and now IIT Roorkee has been quite serene and tranquil and extremely conducive for research right since the early sixties. I remain ever grateful to this institution for providing me ample opportunities for my professional nourishment. I personally treat this invitation as more of a tribute to all my Professors from whom I learnt a lot. I am also extremely thankful to my past and present colleagues, especially from geotechnical and structural engineering groups with whom I had a chance to closely work and interact. I shall ever remain extremely thankful to all of them. This invitation is also a tribute to all my doctoral students including RP Sharma, (Late) Jamaloddin Noorzaei, Karisiddappa, Manoj Verman, Sanjeev Garg, NK Samadhiya, SK Saran, Diganta Goswami, Adnan Jayed Zedan, AKMS Al-Assaddi, Moataz Al-Obaydi, Prashant Nagrale, T. Sahu, PKR Gautam, RD Dwivedi, Sujata Parida, Sumedha, Manendra Singh, Dipaloke Majumder and Vijay Kumar who have tirelessly worked with me. I am extremely thankful and indebted to all of them. The research work reported here could not have been carried out without the financial support from several public and private sponsoring agencies. Dr. Priti Maheshwari is one who helped me in setting the complete draft of this lecture in proper format. I must very much appreciate her meticulousness and also the patience she displayed while doing this job. I am also extremely thankful to the Organisers of IGC 2017, especially Prof. A Murali Krishna and his entire team from IIT Guwahati, and the IGS, Guwahati Chapter, for inviting me and giving me this unique and wonderful opportunity. Thanks are also due to my wife, Dr. Sushama for her patience, understanding and moral support to all my academic pursuits.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, 247 667, India

    M. N. Viladkar

Authors
  1. M. N. Viladkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. N. Viladkar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Viladkar, M.N. Geomechanical Challenges: Practices and Innovations. Indian Geotech J 48, 1–51 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-017-0285-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-017-0285-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation