190 N.
Barton / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 185–216
Fig. 3. (a,b) Mean correlations of Vp ; RQD and g m1 for shallow
refraction seismic at hard rock sites from [9], with the writer’s
extrapolations and appended Q-scales, also for shallow, hard rock
sites, based on [8].
engineering parameters, as described in this paper, Qc
was finally defined as
sc
Qc ¼ Q  ð3Þ
100
which means that sc ; the uniaxial compressive strength
is contributing to the description of quality, even when
the strength/stress ratio is insufficient to ‘mobilise’ an
SRF-value >1.0, as in the normal Q-parameter
classification for tunnel support selection, which re-
mains unaffected by the Qc term.
The uniaxial compressive strength, which is easy to
measure or estimate, correlates strongly with Young’s
modulus, and therefore figures quite strongly in
improving the estimates of velocities (and deformation
moduli). Uniaxial compressive strength also tends to
correlate with porosity and density, both of which
correlate independently with seismic velocity. The
improved Q2Vp correlation is
Vp E3:5 þ log Qc ð4Þ
This equation forms the central core of the integrated
Vp 2Q (and modulus) relationship shown in Fig. 4. Trial
and error fitting of a depth correction (a +ve correc-
tion) and a porosity correction (a ve correction) was
performed using both low velocity and high velocity
rocks, and those with significant or negligible porosities.
Channel Tunnel chalk marl, various chalks from Israel
[10], sandstones and shales from China and Japan,
granites and gneisses from Norway and Hong Kong,
and ignimbrites and tuffs from England and Hong Kong
were among the most prominent sets of seismic data
where Q-values had also been logged by the writer, and
by others.
4. Effect of depth or stress on V p
Increased depth or stress tends to increase Vp for any
given RQD, l (m1), or Q-value. However, when the
rock is very weak ‘seismic closure’ of the joints will
occur at shallow depth, while stronger rocks will require
greater depths to reach ‘stable’ velocities [12]. Deform-
able features like clay-bearing faults may be so
compacted at many hundreds of meters depth that they
may be ‘invisible’ to seismic velocity tomography carried
out ahead of a struggling TBM (viz. Pont Ventoux in
Italy). Months of delay when tunnelling, where Vp is
supposedly in excess of 4.5 km/s, obviously requires a
depth correction, as shown in Fig. 4.
Occasionally, a set of velocity data may demonstrate
the depth or stress effect, without the nagging doubt
about the actual effect of the improved qualities that
may accompany the depth increase. Important data
from the Chinnor Tunnel in Lower Chalk [13] are
reproduced in Fig. 5. The moderately increased over-
burden produced an expected velocity increase, yet in
this case the joint frequency actually increased with
depth. Stress increase alone apparently caused the
increase in Vp :
Some of the seismic tomography and depth-effects
observed at the Gj
vik cavern site [6] are reproduced in
Fig. 6. Despite no systematic increase in RQD or
decrease in l (m1), or increase in Q-value in the first
60 m, the P-wave velocity increased by almost 2 km/s
adjacent to one of the vertical boreholes. The key to
understanding this strong depth effect is that both the
minor, and especially the major horizontal stress
increased by several MPa over the same depth interval.
The predominant (Jr ¼ 3) joint sets in the 60–90 MPa
tectonized gneiss were of the steeply dipping, conjugate
variety. These were rapidly becoming acoustically
‘closed’ by the high horizontal stresses.
Having established a case for a depth (and porosity)
correction to Vp ; as shown in Fig. 4, two examples will
be given to illustrate the method:
Assume the following: Q-value=10 (core from 250 m
depth); sc ¼ 10 MPa; porosity=11%; Qc ¼ 10
10=100 ¼ 1:0: