Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.1 Rock Engineering Problems
1.1 Rock Engineering Problems
Introduction
Based on Brown, E.T., 1993. The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.),
Comprehensive Rock Engineering—Principle, Practice and Projects, vol. 1. Pergamon, Oxford, UK,
pp. 1–23.
much larger than the blocks of rock formed by the discontinuities, the rock mass
can be simply treated as an equivalent continuum (Brady and Brown, 1985;
Brown, 1993; Hoek, 2000).
Hudson (1993) developed a general three-tier approach to all rock engineer-
ing problems as represented by the three borders shown in Fig. 1.2. The main
project subjects concerned, such as foundations, rock slopes, shafts, tunnels,
and caverns, are illustrated within the three borders of the diagram. The words
in the borders at the top of the diagram represent the entry into the design prob-
lem: the whole project complete with its specific objective in the outer border,
the inter-relation between various components of the total problem in the
middle border, and the individual aspects of each project in the central border.
Introduction Chapter 1 3
Intact rock
Many discontinuities
The words in the borders at the lower part of the diagram illustrate how the dif-
ferent components of the design might be executed. Different methods, such as
the knowledge-based expert system, the rock mechanics interaction matrix
analysis and the numerical analysis, can be used to consider the problem. It
is noted that, for any project problem considered and any deign method used,
the material properties (highlighted as intact rock, discontinuities, and perme-
ability in the figure) and the boundary conditions (highlighted as in situ stress
and the hydrogeological regime in the figure) should be known. Therefore,
determination of the engineering properties of rocks (including the boundary
conditions) is an essential part of all rock engineering problems.
Fig. 1.3 shows the components of a general rock mechanics program for pre-
dicting the responses of rock masses associated with rock engineering projects
(Brady and Brown, 1985). Determination of the engineering (or geotechnical)
properties of rock masses is an important part of the general rock mechanics
program. Brown (1986) clearly stated the importance of site characterization
for determining the engineering properties of rock masses: “Inadequacies
in site characterization of geological data probably present the major impediment
4 Engineering Properties of Rocks
Foundation
pe
slo
ck
Ro ties
,
s: ui
pe rtie ntin
l pro , d isco
a ock
teri ct r bili
ty
Ma mea
Inta per
Borehole/
Boundary shaft
conditions
Site characterization
Definition of geotechnical properties of the
host rock mass
Design analysis
Selection and application of mathematical
and computational schemes for study of
trial designs
Retrospective analysis
Quantification of in situ rock mass properties
and identification of dominant modes of rock
mass response
FIG. 1.3 Components of a general rock mechanics program. (Based on Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.
T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. George Allen & Unwin, London.)
TABLE 1.2 Suggested Levels of Accuracy Required for Rock Mass Properties
in Different Applications
Permeability/
Hydraulic
Application Strength Deformability Conductivity
Mining Pillars (10%) Shafts (25%) Total inflow
rates (50%)
Walls (10%)
Roofs (10%)
Civil excavations Tunnels (25%) Tunnels (25%) Total inflow
rates (50%)
Based on Pine, R.J., Harrison, J.P., 2003. Rock mass properties for engineering design. Q. J. Eng. Geol.
Hydrogeol. 36, 5–16.
Based on Brown, E.T., 1993. The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.),
Comprehensive Rock Engineering—Principle, Practice and Projects, vol. 1. Pergamon, Oxford, UK,
pp. 1–23; Pine, R.J., Harrison, J.P., 2003. Rock mass properties for engineering design. Q. J. Eng. Geol.
Hydrogeol. 36, 5–16; Zhang, L., 2004. Drilled Shafts in Rock—Analysis and Design. Balkema, Leiden.
Introduction Chapter 1 7
provide guidance related to the specific procedures for performing the different
types of laboratory and in situ tests. Table 1.4 lists the categories of the sug-
gested test methods by ISRM.
The direct methods have different limitations. To obtain realistic results of
rock mass properties, rock specimens of different volumes having a number of
different known discontinuity configurations should be tested at relevant stress
levels under different stress paths. Such an experimental program is almost
impossible to carry out in the laboratory. With in situ tests, such an experimental
program would be very difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.
1. Laboratory Tests
(a) Characterization
(i) Porosity, density, water content
(ii) Absorption
(iii) Hardness—Schmidt rebound, shore scleroscope
(iv) Resistance to abrasion
(v) Point load strength index
(vi) Uniaxial compressive strength and deformability
(vii) Swelling and slake-durability
(viii) Sound velocity
(ix) Petrographic description
(b) Engineering Design
(i) Triaxial strength and deformability test
(ii) Direct shear test
(iii) Tensile strength test
(iv) Permeability
(v) Time dependent and plastic properties
2. In Situ Tests
(a) Characterization
(i) Discontinuity orientation, spacing, persistence, roughness, wall strength,
aperture, filling, seepage, number of sets, and block size
(ii) Drill core recovery/RQD
(iii) Geophysical borehole logging
(iv) In situ sound velocity
(b) Engineering Design
(i) Plate and borehole deformability tests
(ii) In situ uniaxial and triaxial strength and deformability test
(iii) Shear strength—direct shear, torsional shear
(iv) Field permeability measurement
(v) In situ stress determination
Based on Brown, E.T., 1981. Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring—ISRM Suggested
Methods. Pergamon, Oxford, UK.
8 Engineering Properties of Rocks
The JRC values for the four discontinuity sets were recorded during
scanline mapping and diamond core logging using the profiles presented
in Fig. 6.10. Since the discontinuities in the study area generally exhibited
no wall softening due to weathering, JCS was assumed to be equal to the
unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock. The estimated values of
JRC and JCS are summarized in Table 1.5.
Since the discontinuities in the study area generally exhibited no wall
softening due to weathering, the residual friction angle ϕr could be simply
taken equal to the basic friction angle ϕb (Eq. 6.38). The basic friction angle
was determined using the following three different methods:
(1) Conducting direct shear test along smooth and clean saw cut samples.
(2) Conducting tilt test on split core samples and using Eq. (6.39) to cal-
culate the basic friction angle.
(3) Using typical values available in the literature (Table 6.11).
The estimated values of the basic friction angle using the above three
methods are shown in Table 1.6. It is noticed that the estimated values using
the three methods are in good agreement except that the values of Paringa
basalt from the tilt test are a bit higher.
(b) Estimation of strength and deformability of rock masses (Ozsan and
Akin, 2002)
This example describes the estimation of strength and deformability of
rock masses at the proposed Urus Dam site in Turkey (Ozsan and Akin,
TABLE 1.5 Estimated Values of JRC and JCS for the Four Main
Discontinuity Sets
Paringa Basalt Golden Mine Dolerite
Parameter Statistic Set 1 Set 2 Set 4 Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
JRC Mean 6.4 7.1 4.7 7.8 7.3 5.9 7.0
SD 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.2 3.1
From Wines, D.T., Lilly, P.A., 2003. Estimates of rock joint shear strength in part of the Fimiston open
pit operation in Western Australia. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 929–937.
10 Engineering Properties of Rocks
From Wines, D.T., Lilly, P.A., 2003. Estimates of rock joint shear strength in part of the Fimiston open
pit operation in Western Australia. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 929–937.)
Spillway
NE SW
850
800
750
2002). The site is located on volcanic rocks of the Neogene Age and on
Quaternary deposits. The volcanic rocks consist of andesite, basalt, and tuff
(see Figs. 1.4 and 1.5).
Characterization of discontinuities was carried out by exposure logging
following ISRM (1978). A total of 399 discontinuities, 372 on the left bank
and 27 on the right bank, were measured. Three major discontinuity sets on
the left bank (29°/352°, 87°/333°, 30°/079°) and two (85°/146°, 60°/297°)
Introduction Chapter 1 11
850
800
on the right bank were determined. Table 1.7 shows the quantitative
descriptions and statistical distributions of the discontinuities of basalt
and andesite at the site. Since tuff is moderately-highly weathered, no dis-
continuity was observed during exposure logging.
Borings were made at the site to verify foundation conditions and
to obtain rock samples for laboratory tests. Rock quality designation
(RQD) and total core recovery (TCR) values were determined for different
structural areas of the dam site. Table 1.8 lists the average values.
Laboratory tests were carried out to determine physical and mechanical
properties including unit weight, porosity, unconfined compressive and
tensile strength, cohesion, internal friction angle, and deformation param-
eters. The results are summarized in Table 1.9.
To estimate the strength and deformation properties of the rock masses,
the geological strength index (GSI) was estimated using the quantified GSI
chart proposed by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999, 2002) (Fig. 5.3 in Chapter 5).
Table 1.10 lists the estimated GSI values. The strength of the rock masses
at this site was expressed using the Hoek-Brown criterion (Eq. 7.50 in
Chapter 7). The rock mass constants mb, s, and a for the Hoek-Brown cri-
terion were estimated by using Eq. (7.55). The intact rock constants were
selected from Hoek and Brown (1997). The unconfined compressive
strength σ cm of rock masses was determined by inserting the minor princi-
pal stress σ 0 3 of zero into Eq. (7.50). The results are shown in Table 1.10.
The deformation modulus of the rock masses at this site was estimated
by using Eq. (6.63) in Chapter 6. The results are also shown in Table 1.10.
12 Engineering Properties of Rocks
Distribution (%)
Range Description Basalt Andesite
Spacing (mm) <20 Extremely close 4 –
20–60 Very close 47 26
60–200 Close 32 51
200–600 Moderate 17 23
Persistence (m) 1–3 Low 17 13
3–10 Medium 59 47
10–20 High 24 40
a
Aperture (mm) 0.25–0.5 Partly open 26 31
0.5–2.5 Open 55 54
TABLE 1.8 Average RQD and TCR Values Obtained From Core Drilling
at the Urus Dam Site
Diversion 52 100 15 58 8 75
tunnel
Spillway 38 83 – – 0 75
From Ozsan, A., Akin, M., 2002. Engineering geological assessment of the proposed Urus Dam,
Turkey. Eng. Geol. 66, 271–281.
From Ozsan, A., Akin, M., 2002. Engineering geological assessment of the proposed Urus Dam, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 66, 271–281.
Introduction Chapter 1 15
TABLE 1.10 GSI Values, Rock Mass Constants and Deformations Modulus
of Rock Masses at the Urus Dam Site
Converting the
Coherency conditioning of the modules above so
information into
that the information can be used directly
a useable form
Library Library
Tables Tables Library of Library
of case of The six main
of intact of rock standard of design
example constructi sources of
rock mass modeling case
modeling on case information
properties properties solutions examples
solutions examples
The required
Interrogation and retrieval system corporate
memory system
FIG. 1.6 The structure for a corporate memory system for rock mechanics and rock engineering
information (Based on Hudson, J.A., 2012. Design methodology for the safety of underground rock
engineering. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4 (3), 205–214.)
Website server
FIG. 1.7 Architecture of the rock expert system (RES). (From Zhang, L., Ding, X., Budhu, M.,
2012. A rock expert system for the evaluation of rock properties. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
50, 124–132.)
Introduction Chapter 1 17
The above statement about correlations also applies to the indirect methods
covered in this book.
18 Engineering Properties of Rocks
REFERENCES
Barton, N., 1976. The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr. 13, 255–279.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1984. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. George Allen &
Unwin, London.
Brown, E.T., 1986. Research and development for design and construction of large rock caverns.
In: Proceedings International Symposium on Large Rock Caverns. Helsinki, Finland, 1937–1948.
Brown, E.T., 1993. The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.),
In: Comprehensive Rock Engineering—Principle, Practice and Projects, vol. 1. Pergamon,
Oxford, UK, pp. 1–23.
Fairhurst, C., 1993. Analysis and design in rock mechanics—the general context. In: Hudson, J.A.
(Ed.), In: Comprehensive Rock Engineering—Principle, Practice and Projects, vol. 2.
Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–29.
Goodman, R.E., 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. Wiley, New York.
Hoek, E., 2000. Rock Engineering. http://www.rocscience.com.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
34, 1165–1186.
Hudson, J.A., 1992. Rock characterization. In: Proceedings EUROCK’92 Symposium, Chester, UK,
Telford, London.
Hudson, J.A., 1993. Rock properties, testing methods and site characterization. In: Hudson, J.A.
(Ed.), In: Rock Engineering—Principle, Practice & Projects, vol. 3. Pergamon, Oxford, UK,
pp. 1–39.
Hudson, J.A., 2012. Design methodology for the safety of underground rock engineering. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4 (3), 205–214.
Hudson, J.A., Harrison, J.P., 1997. Rock Engineering Mechanics—An Introduction to the Princi-
ples. Elsevier, Oxford.
ISRM, 1978. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses.
International society for rock mechanics, commission on standardization of laboratory and field
tests. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15, 319–368.
Ozsan, A., Akin, M., 2002. Engineering geological assessment of the proposed Urus Dam, Turkey.
Eng. Geol. 66, 271–281.
Pine, R.J., Harrison, J.P., 2003. Rock mass properties for engineering design. Q. J. Eng. Geol.
Hydrogeol. 36, 5–16.
Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., Zettler, T.E., 2002. Evaluation of Soil
and Rock Properties. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Report No.: FHWA-IF-034,
FHWA, US.
Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R., 1999. Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their appli-
cability to stability of slopes. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36, 743–760.
Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R., 2002. A discussion on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and suggested mod-
ification to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri (Earthsciences)
26, 77–99.
Wines, D.T., Lilly, P.A., 2003. Estimates of rock joint shear strength in part of the Fimiston open pit
operation in Western Australia. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 929–937.
Zhang, L., 2004. Drilled Shafts in Rock—Analysis and Design. Balkema, Leiden.
Zhang, L., Ding, X., Budhu, M., 2012. A rock expert system for the evaluation of rock properties.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 50, 124–132.