ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

The foundation of a 40-storey tower in jointed basalt

J.L. Justoa,, E. Justoa, P. Duranda, J.M. Azañónb
a
Department of Continuum Mechanics, University of Seville, Spain [E.T.S. Arquitectura, Avenida Reina Mercedes 2, 41012 Seville, Spain]
b
Department of Geodynamics, University of Granada, Spain
Accepted 28 July 2005
Available online 18 October 2005

Abstract

A 132.70-m-high tower (above foundation) has been successfully completed at Tenerife Island. The foundation of the tower, a 2-m-
thick reinforced concrete slab, is supported by jointed, vesicular and weathered basalt, and scoria. A three-dimensional, elastic finite
element program has permitted to calculate the displacements of the tower and the stresses in the slab. The installation of rod
extensometers at different depths below the slab and clinometers at the lower basement has provided comparison between measured and
calculated displacements, and the estimation of in situ deformation moduli. A first stage prediction (before construction) has allowed
establishment of an upper limit, based upon pressuremeter modulus, and a lower limit, based upon Bieniawski’s equation [The
geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the fourth cong. ISRM congress, Montreux, vol. 2. 1979.
p. 41–48], of the settlements of the tower slab. The geometric mean of these values comes close to the measured settlement. The moduli
deduced from the simple empirical equation proposed by Gokceoglu et al. [Predicting the deformation modulus of rock masses: a
comparative study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40:701–10], and Hoek and Brown [Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;40:701–10] as a function of GSI provide a good fit with the measured settlements in this type of rock. A good
correlation is also obtained with the empirical equation presented by Verman et al. [Effect of tunnel depth on modulus of deformation of
rock mass. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1997;30(3):121–7] that incorporates the influence of the confining stress in the deformation modulus.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Modulus of deformation; Jointed rock; Basalt; Finite elements; In situ measurements; RMR; GSI; Q; RQD

1. Introduction
Twin towers are integrated in a privileged expansion
zone of Santa Cruz (Tenerife Island) at the seaside, in the
land reclaimed from a refinery, near outstanding structures
such as the Auditorium and the Congress Palace both
designed by the well-known Spanish Architect Santiago
Calatrava.
The first tower, with a height of 132.70 m (above
foundation), has been recently completed (Fig. 1). The
building, 40 storeys high, with 35 storeys above ground
level and 5 basements, is the highest apartment building in
Spain; an attached building, only 2 storeys above ground
level and with four underground levels, is placed at the
side.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 954556588; fax: +34 954556965.
E-mail address: jlj@us.es (J.L. Justo).
Several authors, starting with Habib and Puyo [1], have
treated the problem of towers with shallow foundations.
When the tower reaches a critical height, dependent upon
the geometrical dimensions and foundation modulus, it
may lean due to an instability phenomenon similar to
buckling.
This paper expounds the geological and geotechnical
conditions at the site. Finite element (FE) calculations of
the foundation were carried out and will be detailed below.
The installation of rod extensometers at different depths
under the ground and clinometers at the lower cellar, at the
beginning of construction, has provided comparison
between measured and calculated displacements, and the
estimate of the in situ modulus. These moduli will be
compared with predictions based on some indices such as
rock mass rating (RMR), geological strength index (GSI),
Q or RQD. Most of the direct measurements of in situ
deformation modulus of rock are based upon tests that

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.07.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
268 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

Fig. 1. Section of tower and attached building.

only affect a small volume of rock. When made at depth,
they are affected by the introduction of the loading device
into the ground. In the case presented in this paper, the
instrumentation has allowed testing of a large volume of
intact rock below the foundation of the tower.
2. Rock conditions and study site
2.1. General geological conditions
Tenerife (Fig. 2) is the largest (2058 km2) and highest
(3718 m above sea level) island in the Canaries and has a
complex volcanic history. The oldest visible materials (the
Old Basaltic Series) are preserved in three isolated and
deeply eroded massifs: Anaga (NE), Teno (NW) and
Roque del Conde (SW). They were formed in late Miocene
and early Pliocene times [2].
After the Old Basaltic Series, the volcanic activity
became concentrated within two large volcanic edifices:
the central volcano of Las Cañadas and the Dorsal Ridge, a
SW-NE volcanic ridge linking Las Cañadas and the Anaga
massif. On each side of the Dorsal Ridge, two large
depressions were formed, the so-called ‘‘valleys’’ of Güimar
and La Orotava. Subsidence at the end of this stage formed
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281
Fig. 2. Volcanic structures in Tenerife Island.
one of the most impressive calderas of the world: the Circo
de las Cañadas. The eruptive and most recent history of
Tenerife is characterized by at least three long-term cycles
of basaltic-to-phonolitic explosive volcanism between 1.6
and 0.17 Ma [3,4]. There were medium-term periods of
non-explosive activity separating the explosive cycles,
which correspond to major erosive unconformities in
the extra-caldera stratigraphy, and episodes of effusive
volcanism.
Santa Cruz de Tenerife is located in the NE of the island
between the Anaga massif and the Güimar Valley.
Quaternary basaltic lava flows, sourced from the so-called
‘‘Dorsal Ridge’’, are the main constituents of the substrate
of this town. They are interbedded with thin pumice layers
that had been carried to the site by westerly winds. The
stratification is sub-horizontal. The thickness of the lava
flows rarely exceeds 1 m, and usually ranges from 40 to
80 cm, alternating with scoriaceous levels (Fig. 3). No
faults are encountered. Lava flows are typical fresh alkaline
basalts with olivine included in a fine-grained plagioclase
and pyroxene matrix (Fig. 4). Alkaline basalts have a
characteristic porphyritic texture with a very low propor-
tion of olivine phenocrysts. The porphyritic texture,
especially common in extrusive rocks, indicates two
separate stages of solidification. In the first phase, the
phenocrysts form in the molten mass; in the second, the
molten mass itself crystallizes into a solid. Titano-augite, as
269
pyroxene, and alkaline plagioclase constitute the matrix of
the basalt. A low quantity of olivine and volcanic glass are
also included in the matrix of the rock. In both the alkaline
basalts and scoriaceous levels, a characteristic vesicular
texture, with millimetre cavities can be appreciated. The
thickness of the pumice layers never exceeds 2 m. The sea
level and tides control the water level, although perched
water tables may exist in paleosols. The volcanic materials
constitute a very pervious mass, which cannot take any
pressure during Lugeon tests.
The sea level and tides control the water level, although
perched water tables may exist in paleosols.
2.2. Study site
Fig. 5 shows the construction plan, the boreholes
location and their depth. Seven boreholes (S1–S7) were
drilled from the ground surface. At the tower site, the final
maximum height of the vertical excavation was 18.6 m. All
rocks were excavated with mechanical means, without
blasting. Three new boreholes (SR1–SR3) were drilled
from 1 m above the bottom of the excavation using double-
tube core barrel and diamond bits. The cores were carefully
placed in boxes with dividers indicating the depth of the
ground changes (Fig. 6). The lithological properties of the
cores, core recovery, RQD, hammer resistance, spacing
between joints and weathering degree (WD) were recorded.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
270 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

Fig. 3. Excavation front, 17.46 m deep, showing the excavating machine. The volcanic tuff level shows oil seepage from the old refinery.

Fig. 4. Olivine phenocrysts in a matrix of titano-augite, plagioclase and olivine in a thin-section of alkaline vesicular basalt.

Fig. 3 shows the front of the excavation. The following
layers appear from top to bottom in the geological profile
(Fig. 7) with respect to the sea level:
(a) Fill and volcanic tuff from +15 to +19 m.
(b) Upper basalt from +7 to +15 m. There are small
cavities at +7.5 and +11.0 m, and oil infiltrations from
the old refinery. Fig. 8 shows jointing and small cavities
in the upper basalt.
(c) Red volcanic tuff and whitish pumice from +0.6 to
+7 m.
(d) Jointed lower basalt below level +0.6 m. Small cavities
appear at
11.5,
2 and 0 m. Within this stratum, the
one situated below the foundation of the tower, there
are scoriaceous, vesicular and massive levels. Fig. 9
shows sketches of the logs of boreholes SR1 and SR2.
The two boreholes, spaced only 24 m apart, show large
differences in their lithological characteristics, due to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281 271

Fig. 5. Location and depth (m) of boreholes and rod extensometers.

Fig. 6. Cores obtained from rotary drilling, prepared for logging.

the presence of pyroclastic breccia in SR2 below a
depth of 18 m.
The tower was founded on a 2 m thick, reinforced concrete
slab resting on 10 cm of plain concrete at level +0.6. The
authors decided to include a fifth level below the tower to
place its foundation on the lower basalt, because the
volcanic tuff is much softer.
Twenty-nine uniaxial compression strength tests were
performed on the samples following the NLT-250/91
Spanish standard [5]. In 10 additional tests, carried out
on massive and vesicular basalt according to the UNE
22950-3:1990 Spanish standard [6], the vertical and
horizontal strains were measured with strain gauges (Fig.
10). The behaviour of the samples under stress was almost
elastic for vertical stresses up to 52.5 MPa, with small
plastic strains. The dependence of the modulus upon basalt
type or stress level is small for stresses up to 15 MPa.Six
pressuremeter tests were carried out on the boreholes. The
tests results are tabulated in Table 1.
The difference between the average moduli in uniaxial
compression for loading (61 MPa) and reloading (71 MPa)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
272 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

ATTACHED STRUCTURAL TOWER

BUILDING FLOOR +19
FILL (a) +15
UPPER
BASALT (b)
SLAB +7
VOLCANIC EV2 EV3
EV1 EV6 EV5
+2.60 EV4
TUFF (c) SLAB +0.6
0 LOWER
bf
(10)

(2)
(5)
(8)
(3)

(1)

LAYER 1
(4)

(6)
(7)
(9)

b f (11)

BASALT (d) -5.4

6 LOWER
(10)

(11)

(7)
(6)

(5)
(3)
(9)

(2)
(8)
(4)

BASALT (d) LAYER 2

-11.65
(1)

12.25
below slab bottom

LOWER

bf
LAYER 3
(10)

(11)

(2)
(8)
(7)
(6)
(3)

(5)
(1)

(4)
(9)

BASALT (d)
DEPTH (m)

-29.4
30
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
EM (GPa)
LOWER LAYER 4
BASALT (d)
-50
50.6
END OF DISCRETIZATION

(3) modulus obtained from equation (3) in Table 8

best fit (bf)

Fig. 7. Section of tower and attached building, showing the geological profile, vertical position of rod extensometers, layers for FE calculation in lower
basalt and moduli obtained from the equations in Table 8.

Fig. 8. Jointing and small cavities detected in the upper basalt level.

may be ascribed to some strain hardening (Fig. 10). The For the ratio Ei /sc the statistical median obtained (880)
corresponding Poisson’s ratio values were 0.33 and 0.37, has been chosen instead of the mean so as to better
respectively. approach a normal distribution.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281 273

SR1 SR2

spacing
recovery

recovery

spacing
Depth

Rock

Rock
Joints
RQD

Joints
RQD
type

type
(m)
(m)

(m)
Description Description

Core

Core
100

100

100

100
0

0
0 d2 SB d3 G
d1 VB 0.45
VB with SC d3 d1 SC
VB SC
d1 0.4
5 d3 SC VB & SC 0.17
d1
d1 VB 0.55
d3 SC 0.75 d3 SC
d1 VB & MB
10
d3 SC
d1
MB & VB 0.20
15 d1 VB & MB 0.28

d3 SB
d1 VB 0.20
20 d2 SB d3 Fractured PB 0.20

25 d1 MB 0.45
PB
d2 0.12

30
G = gravel SB= scoriaceous basalt
MB= massive basalt SC= scoria
PB= pyroclastic breccia VB= vesicular basalt

Fig. 9. Sketches of the logs of boreholes SR1 and SR2.

horizontal vertical
16

14

12
STRESSES (Mpa)

10

4 1st cycle
2nd cycle
2

0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
STRAIN (10-6)

Fig. 10. Stress–strain graphs obtained from the uniaxial loading performed on massive basalt.

The pressuremeter modulus is 40 times lower than the approximately to changes in ground conditions. Clin-
uniaxial compression one. ometers were installed in one cellar’s walls. Fig. 11 shows
the measured settlements and the evolution of construction
2.3. In situ measurements as a function of time. Both manual and automatic
measurements were taken, and they are close, except in
Rod extensometers were placed below the tower slab, as extensometer EV-6 placed at the centre of the tower slab at
indicated in Figs. 5 and 7, at depths corresponding a depth of 29.1 m below the slab bottom. In this case, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
274 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

Table 1
Values obtained in laboratory and in situ tests

Rock description Uniaxial compression Pressuremeter

3
sc (MPa) Ei (GPa) Er (GPa) Unit weight (kN/m ) Ep (GPa)

Whitish pumice (c) Minimum 0.50

Average 0.82
Maximum 1.13
n 7
Red volcanic tuff (c) Minimum 1.71
Average 3.29
Maximum 4.89
n 5
Vesicular & massive basalt (b & d1) Minimum 20.3 44.1 49.9 27.4 0.797
Average 69.0 60.9 70.5 1.67
Maximum 150 80.1 86.1 2.57
n 16 10 5 5
Weathered basalt (b & d2) Average 15.1 22.8
n 1
Pyroclastic breccia (d2) Average 0.422
n 1

sc ¼ uniaxial compressive strength; Ei & Er ¼ uniaxial compression moduli for loading & reloading, respectively; Ep ¼ pressuremeter modulus.

-0.50 35
0.00 30
Settlements (mm)

0.50 25
1.00
20

Storeys
1.50
15
2.00
10
2.50
3.00 5
3.50 0
4.00 -5
15/12/2001 25/3/2002 3/7/2002 11/10/2002 19/1/2003 29/4/2003 7/8/2003 15/11/2003
Dates

EV-1 EV-2 EV-3 EV-4 EV-5 EV-6 Work advance (storeys)

Fig. 11. Settlements at rod extensometers (Fig. 5 shows the position and depth of the extensometers).

manual measurements are somewhat larger. The clin-
ometers showed rotations smaller than 0.11 during
construction (Fig. 12).
2.4. Simplified rock types and plate loading tests
The great difference between borings SR1 and SR2
(Fig. 9) is not reflected in the extensometer measurements
(Fig. 11). For this reason, the different rock types that
appear in the lower basalt (layer d in Section 2.2) were
collected, then divided into three types:
(d1) Massive or vesicular basalt, with thin scoriaceous
levels. Normalized WD 0.36 [17]. Relative thickness
68%.
(d2) Weathered, scoriaceous basalt and pyroclastic breccia.
Normalized WD 0.58 [17]. Relative thickness 14%.
(d3) Scoria and fractured pyroclastic breccia. Normalized
WD 0.62 [17]. Relative thickness 18%.
The three ground types are interbedded in the geological
profile. Their average properties and rock mass classifica-
tions are included in Tables 1–5.
Plate loading tests were carried out near the foundation
level of the second tower with the results indicated in Table
2. The values correspond to volcanic tuff or scoriaceous
levels and are very low.
3. Calculation of deformation modulus of rock masses
3.1. Rock mass classifications
Justo et al. [7] carefully applied Bieniawski’s [8] RMR to
the strata of the site. Importance ratings were allocated to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281 275

Fig. 12. Discretized volume of ground.

Table 2
Mean deformation modulus values, E, obtained from plate loading tests

Ground type 1st cycle p(kPa) 2nd cycle p(kPa)

0-196 196-0 0-588 588-0

E (GPa) E (GPa) E (GPa) E (GPa)

Volcanic tuff (c) 0.029 0.082 0.055 0.105

d2–d3 0.064 0.213 0.204 0.308
d2 0.088 0.173 0.168 0.247

p ¼ pressure range.

Table 3
RMR for the site

Ground typea sc (MPa) R RQD (%) R Discontinuities Water R Strike & dip R RMR

Spacing (m) R Condition R

d1 69 7 77 17 0.5 10 SR SW so1 mm 25 wet 7 fair
7 59

d2 15 2 42.5 8 0.125 8 SR HW so1 mm 20 wet 7 fair
7 38
d3 13b 2 0 3 0.05 5 15 wet 7 fair
7 25
a
See Section 2.4.
b
from correlations with hammer strike. R ¼ rating, SR ¼ slightly rough, SW ¼ slightly weathered, s ¼ separation.

each of the six parameters: the uniaxial compressive
strength of the rock material, drill core quality RQD,
spacing, orientation and condition of discontinuities and
ground water conditions. The total RMR was also
determined (Table 3).
Hoek [9] and Hoek et al. [10] proposed the GSI based
upon visual impression on the rock mass structure. This
index has been modified by Sonmez and Ulusay [11]. Cai et
al. [12] and Sonmez et al. [13] proposed EM equations
depending on GSI.
Table 4 shows how this index is obtained for the strata
d1, d2 and d3 defined in Section 2.4.
According to Hoek and Brown [14] when the new
version of Bieniawski’s classification [8] is used, then
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
276 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

Table 4
Geological strength index (GSI) for the ground below the tower foundation according to Sonmez and Ulusay [11]

Rock Description Size of Volumetric Structure Surface condition rating, SCR GSI
type blocks joint count, Jv rating, SR
(joint/m3) (%) Rr Rw Rf SCR

d1 Very blocky—interlocked Medium 6 62 3 5 4 12 52

partially disturbed rock mass
with multifaceted angular
blocks formed by four or more
discontinuity sets
d2 Disintegrated—poorly Small–very 30 25 4 3 4 11 39
interlocked, heavily broken small
rock mass with a mixture of
angular and rounded rock
pieces
d3 Disintegrated—poorly Shattered 460 5 3 3 2 8 28
interlocked, heavily broken
rock mass with a mixture of
angular and rounded rock
pieces

Table 5
Q index for layers d1, d2, and d3 [12]

Ground RQD Joint set Jn Joint roughness Jr Joint alteration Ja Jw SRF Q (%) Qc (MPa)
type (%) number number number

d1 77 G–H 14 E 1.5 B 1 1 1.25 6.6 4.6

d2 42.5 H 15 E 1.5 B 1 1 1.25 3.4 0.51
d3 0 H–J 18 B 3 F 4 1 1.25 0 0

GSI ¼ RMR
5. This relationship holds approximately for
rock type d1. Table 5 presents the Q index.
3.2. Deformation modulus values
One fundamental piece of input to the FEs calculation is
the rock mass deformation modulus. McMahon and
McMahon [15] present the case of a 68 storey, 246-m-high
tower (MLC Centre Tower) in Sidney with five parking
levels. In 1980, this building was the highest building in
Australia and the highest office building in the world. It is
founded on footings, and rod extensometers were placed
below the footings up to a depth of 12.2 m. The foundation
rock was quartz sandstone with clayey cement. The authors
found a good fit with the extensometer settlements using a
deformation modulus equal to the median of the moduli
from the cores. However, in the case of Tenerife, the rock is
heavily jointed and it would not be reasonable to use the
modulus obtained from uniaxial compressive tests on the
cores (Table 1) to obtain the deformations of the rock
mass.
Several authors present correlations between RMR, GSI,
Q or RQD and the modulus from in situ tests
[12–14,16–24]. Table 6 shows the mass moduli obtained
according to correlations given by different authors. The
empirical equations proposed for the prediction of the
deformation modulus have serious limitations. It is very
difficult to find out the frequency and state of the joints in
the mass of rock examining the cores obtained from the
boreholes. Fortunately, in this case it was possible to
examine the front of the excavation as well. In addition,
most of the correlations are based on tests carried out on
rocks of better quality than the strata d2 and d3 of this site.
4. Finite element calculations
A linear elastic FE calculation was carried out including
the foundation of both the tower and the attached
building, using the ANSYS program. The pressure of the
excavated soil was 417 kPa. The average pressure at the
bottom of the plain concrete at the end of construction was
nearly the same (427 kPa). Therefore, until this stage, it was
a compensated foundation and the stress follows a
reloading path permitting elastic calculation. With the
surcharge, the average pressure will increase up to 558 kPa.
The following elements were modelled (Fig. 7): the two
slabs, the cellar walls, the structural floors of both
buildings, the concentrated column loads and moments,
and the ground surrounding the building (down to a depth
of 50 m below the slab and at a distance of 30 m around the
buildings.) The slabs, walls and structural floors were
modelled with shell elements, and the ground with solid
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281 277

Table 6
Rock mass deformation moduli (in GPa) according to different authors

Gokceoglu et al. Barton

[16] [23]

EM (Gpa)=10(RMR-10)/40
GSI-10

EM(Gpa)=RMR 4/106

E M (GPa) = 2 RMR - 100

EM(Gpa)=RMR 3/104
EM(Gpa)=4.32-3.42WD+0.19E i (1+RQD /100)
40
EM(Gpa)=10-3[Ei /
c(1+RQD/100)/ WD ]1.5528

Palmström and Sing [20]

E M (Gpa)=(
c /100) 1/2 10

Serafím and Pereira [18]

Zhang and Einstein [22]

E M=E i s0.4a
Hoek and Brown [14]

Kayabasi et al. [17]

Verman et al. [24]

Sonmez et al. [13]

H = height of the overburden (m)

Bieniawski [8]
Mitri et al. [19]
EM=0.5E i [1-cos( RMR /100)]
Ground
EM(Gpa)=0.0736e0.0755 (RMR)

type

EM=E i (GPa)10 0.0186RQD -1.91

Boyd [21]

 = 0.0427+ 0.00378RMR
EM (GPa)= 10 Q c (MPa) 1/3
EM(Gpa)=0.1451e0.0654GSI

EM = 0.4 H  10(RMR-20)/38
EM (GPa)= 25 logQ
30< RMR <55

c <100 MPa

p =10 kPa,

RMR> 50,
p =1 MPa,

d f = 0.96,
EM=0.2
c
d1 4.4 36 6.3 9.3 27 45 13.8 19.0 (1) 18 19 24 21 17 5.7 (1)
19.6 (2) 7.7 (2)
20.5 (3) 9.6 (3)

d2 1.9 12.4 1.3 2.1 5.9(4) 5 4.2 3.0 4.7 (1) 2.4 1.0 13 8 1.5 (1)
5.0 (2) 1.8 (2)
5.4 (3) 2.1 (3)

d3 0.91 6.4 0.49 1.1 4.4(4) 1.7 2.6 1.3 (1) 0.21 0.14 0.63 (1)
1.4 (2) 0.73 (2)
1.5 (3) 0.82 (3)
(1) 0 − 6 m below the slab; (2) 6− 12.25 m below the slab; (3) 12.25 − 30 m below the slab; (4) E i obtained from E i /
c = 880.

elements. The model had 39,998 elements and 42,810 ki’s moduli. They are first stage predictions, because they
nodes. A dilation joint was simulated between both were made in April 2001 [7] and construction started at the
buildings. Fig. 11 shows the discretized volume of the end of 2001. As will be shown in Table 7, measured
ground. Poisson’s ratio value (0.35) was determined from settlements at the extensometers when the construction was
unconfined compression tests with strain measurements completed might correspond to a maximum settlement at
(Section 2.2). the centre of the slab of 3.8 mm.This value is included in
the range between the minimum and maximum assump-
4.1. Preliminary calculations tions made before construction, and is a little larger than
their geometric mean (3.2 mm).
In the study carried out before construction, in situ
moduli were assigned to eight different strata. The
4.2. New calculations using correlations with rock indices
deformation moduli obtained from the pressuremeter
(Table 1) were used in the calculations as a lower limit
Fig. 7 shows the rock layers considered in the new FE
and those obtained from Bieniawski’s equation [8], when
calculations. The foundation rocks of the tower have been
the average RMR of the stratum was above 50, as the
divided into depth increments corresponding to the
upper limit. Justo et al. [7,27] have presented the details of
positions of the extensometers and the end of discretization
this preliminary calculation.
(layers 1–4).
Both short-term calculations (with a concrete modulus
30 of GPa) and long-term calculations (with a concrete
modulus of 12.8 GPa) were carried out. The influence of 5. Comparisons
the concrete modulus on the settlements was very small,
but the slab moment at the centre of the slab was larger The FEs calculation was repeated using the moduli that
with the upper modulus. The maximum settlement values best fit the settlements measured at the extensometers as
calculated at the end of construction were 13 mm using the input, using the least squares criterion. Table 7 shows the
pressuremeter modulus and 0.8 mm employing Bieniaws- results obtained. The increase of the moduli in the vertical
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
278 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281

Table 7
Moduli that fit the measured settlements using the ANSYS program

Extensometer Depth (m) Settlement (mm) Depths of layers Deformation Calculated

(m) modulus (GPa) settlement at
Measured Calculated surface (mm)

1 0–12.2 1.95 1.78 0–6.00 1.47 2.15

2 0–31.2 2.13 2.06 6.00–12.25 1.961 2.20
3 0–12.2 0.68 1.51 12.25–30.0 18.44 1.70
4 0–12.7 0.49 1.48 30.00–50.6 30.59 1.66
5 0–6.0 1.97 1.61 3.82
6 0–29.2 3.32 3.49 3.63

Sum of the squares of the errors ¼ 1.86 mm2.

Table 8
Rock mass deformation moduli (in GPa) for the foundation rock according to different authors
Gokceoglu et al.
[16]
(5)
(4)

(10)

(11)
(8)
(6)

(9)
(7)
EM(Gpa)=10-3[E i /
c(1+RQD/100)/ WD ]1.5528 (2)

(3)
(1)

GSI -10

EM(Gpa)=4.32-3.42WD+0.19 E i (1+RQD /100)

40

Palmström and Sing [20]

Zhang and Einstein [22]

EM(Gpa)=(
c /100) ½ 10
Hoek and Brown [14]

Kayabasi et al. [17]

E M(Gpa)=RMR 3/104
E M (Gpa)=RMR 4/106

Sonmez et al. [13]

Verman et al. [24]

Mitri et al. [19]
E M =0.5E i [1-cos( RMR /100)]

Layer Depth
EM(Gpa)=0.0736e0.0755 (RMR )

EM=E i s0.4a

E M=E i (GPa)100.0186RQD -1.91

Boyd [21]

(Fig. 7) (m)
EM(Gpa)=0.1451e0.0654GSI

E M = 0.4 H  10(RMR-20) /38

c <100 MPa,

p =10 kPa,
p =1 MPa,
E M =0.2
c

d f = 0.96,

1 0−6 2.08 15.2 1.44 2.87 10.0 5.4 5.53 4.05 0.80 0.53 1.72

2 6−12.25 2.35 17.6 1.73 3.43 12.0 6.7 6.65 5.13 0.96 0.65 2.46

3 12.25 −30 2.38 17.5 1.78 3.35 11.1 6.7 5.96 5.91 1.18 0.76 2.91

direction is larger than suggested by the pressuremeter and tional case, Chryssanthakis and Barton [28] compare
RMR values. measured and calculated stresses in a cavern spanning
The dependence of the modulus with depth shown in 62 m; to obtain a good fit the modulus derived from
Table 7 indicates an increase with stress level, especially correlations with Q must be corrected for depth.
from 12.25 to 30 m. Among criteria included in Table 6, Research has been undertaken to find the moduli,
Boyd’s [21] reflects an increase of the modulus with obtained from correlations with rock indices that best fit
confining pressure, but their moduli are too high. This the measured settlements. The corresponding moduli have
matter has been treated by Asef and Redish [25] and been calculated as the weighted harmonic mean with
Ramamurthy [26] for anisotropic rocks. The empirical respect to the thicknesses of each ground type (d1–d3). The
equation obtained by Verman et al. [24] has been included moduli obtained for layers 1, 2 and 3 are collected in Table
in Tables 6 and 8. 8 and drawn in Fig. 7. The lower values correspond to
Most of the correlations of the so-called mass modulus Zhang and Einstein [22] correlations, and the upper ones
with indices actually correspond to in situ tests and not to to Eq. (2) given by Gokceoglu et al. [16]. The best
measurements taken at the actual works. In one excep- agreement with the settlements measured at extensometers
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281 279

Table 9
Comparison between measured settlements and those calculated using the FE program at the end of construction. Moduli obtained Eq. (1) of Table 8

Extensometer Depth (m) Settlement (mm) Depths of layers Deformation Calculated

(m) modulus (GPa) settlement at
Measured Calculated surface (mm)

1 0–12.25 1.95 1.22 0–6.00 2.08 2.79

2 0–31.20 2.13 2.30 6.00–12.25 2.35 2.82
3 0–12.2 0.68 1.18 12.25–30.0 2.38 2.50
4 0–12.7 0.49 1.18 30.00–50.6 3.52 2.48
5 0–6.00 1.97 1.08 5.43
6 0–29.2 3.32 4.32 5.27

Sum of the squares of the errors ¼ 3.08 mm2.

Table 10
Comparison between measured settlements and those calculated using the FE program at the end of construction. Moduli obtained from Eq. (3) of Table 8

Extensometer Depth (m) Settlement (mm) Depths of layers Deformation Calculated

(m) modulus (GPa) settlement at
Measured Calculated surface (mm)

1 0–12.25 1.95 1.66 0–6.00 1.44 3.07

2 0–31.20 2.13 3.04 6.00–12.25 1.73 3.12
3 0–12.2 0.68 1.64 12.25–30.0 1.78 2.82
4 0–12.7 0.49 1.60 30.00–50.6 30.59 2.79
5 0–6.00 1.97 1.73 6.68
6 0–29.2 3.32 6.39 6.51

Sum of the squares of the errors ¼ 12.55 mm2.

Table 11
Comparison between measured settlements and those calculated using the FE program at the end of construction. Moduli obtained from Eq. (4) of Table 8

Extensometer Depth (m) Settlement (mm) Depths of layers Deformation Calculated

(m) modulus (GPa) settlement at
Measured Calculated surface (mm)

1 0–12.25 1.95 0.90 0–6.00 2.87 1.69

2 0–31.20 2.13 1.64 6.00–12.25 3.43 1.71
3 0–12.2 0.68 0.86 12.25–30.0 3.35 1.52
4 0–12.7 0.49 0.84 30.00–50.6 30.59 1.50
5 0–6.00 1.97 0.72 3.38
6 0–29.2 3.32 3.12 3.24

Sum of the squares of the errors ¼ 3.10 mm2.

corresponds to Eq. (1) given also by Gokceoglu et al. and
relating the modulus with GSI; Table 9 compares measured
and calculated results. Tables 10–12 compare the results
obtained with Eqs. (3), (4) and (11) of Table 8, respectively.
The sum of the squares of the errors (indicated at the foot
of the Tables) is lesser in Table 7, followed by Tables 9 and
11, and larger in Table 10. The remainder correlations
indicated in Table 8 give poorer fits.
6. Results and conclusions
6.1. Results
A comparison of the moduli that best fit the extens-
ometer measurements (Table 7), and those obtained from
different tests and regressions with indices, deserves the
following comments (restricted to jointed and weathered
basalt):
(1) Moduli obtained from uniaxial compression tests are
too high (Table 1).
(2) The settlements calculated with pressuremeter modulus
are 3.5 times larger than the settlements measured at
extensometers.
(3) Moduli obtained from surface plate loading tests
(Table 2) are too low. Perhaps they would be allowable
at the surface when a variation of the modulus with
depth is considered. McMahon and McMahon [15]
found settlements more than twice those measured,
using the modulus obtained from plate loading tests.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
280 J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281
Table 12
Comparison between measured settlements and those calculated using the FE program at the end of construction. Moduli obtained from Eq. (11) of
Table 8
Extensometer Depth (m) Settlement (mm)
Measured
1 0–12.25 1.95
2 0–31.20 2.13
3 0–12.2 0.68
4 0–12.7 0.49
5 0–6.00 1.97
6 0–29.2 3.32
Sum of the squares of the errors ¼ 3.66 mm2.
(4) Moduli obtained from correlations with the Q or Qc
(Table 6) are too great. Barton [23] has already
indicated that this reletionship is generally applicable
to hard rocks, which is not the case in fractured or
weathered basalt. Notwithstanding, these moduli
would be applicable to greater depths (12.25–30 m).
(5) Some correlations [29] have not been included in Table
6 because they give modulus values, which are too high.
(6) Some of the equations that relate the moduli with rock
mass classifications indices give calculated settlements
that fit well the settlements measured at extensometers.
6.2. Conclusions
1. The construction of the tower on fractured and weathered
vesicular basalt and scoria has been successfully com-
pleted with negligible settlements and rotations. A first
stage (before construction) prediction has allowed estab-
lishment of an upper limit, based upon pressuremeter
modulus, and a lower limit, based upon Bieniawski’s
equation [8] of the settlements of the tower slab. The
measured settlement is near the geometric mean of these
values (Section 4.1).
2. The settlements measured with rod extensometers have
allowed an estimate of the in situ modulus and its
variation with depth (Table 7).
3. The estimate of the modulus of jointed vesicular and
weathered basalt is a difficult task. The pressuremeter
modulus overestimates the settlements.
4. Correlations with different geomechanical indices may
give an acceptable fit between measured and calculated
settlements (Tables 9–12 ). Nearly the same fit is reached
with the simple statistical relationships given by Gokceo-
glu et al. [17], and Hoek and Brown [14] that relate the
modulus with GSI:
E M ðGPaÞ ¼ 0:145e0:0654GSI : ðEq: 1; Table 8Þ
For sc o100 MPa
E M ðGPaÞ ¼ ðsc =100Þ1=2 10ðGSI -10Þ=40 : ðEq: 4; Table 8Þ
Depths of layers Deformation Calculated
(m) modulus (GPa) settlement at
Calculated surface (mm)
0.91 0–6.00 1.72 2.25
2.21 6.00–12.25 2.46 2.28
1.32 12.25–30.0 2.91 2.06
1.29 30.00–50.6 30.59 2.04
1.41 4.72
4.42 4.54
A good correlation is also obtained with the empirical
equation given by Verman et al. [24] that takes into
account the influence of depth:
E M ðGPaÞ ¼ 0:4H a 10ðRMR
20Þ=38 ; ðEq: 11; Table 8Þ
where H ¼ height of the overburden (m), a ¼ 0.0427+
0.00378RMR.
References
[1] Habib P, Puyo A. Stabilité des fondations des constructions de
grande hauteur. Annales I.T.B.T.P., Paris 1979;275:119–24.
[2] Ancochea E, Fuster JM, Ibarrola E, Cendrero A, Coello J, Hernan F,
Cantagrel JM, Jamond C. Volcanic evolution of the island of Tenerife
(Canary Island) in the light of new K-Ar data. J Volcanol
Geothermal Res 1990;44:231–49.
[3] Martı́ J, Mitjavila J, Araña V. Stratigraphy, structure and
geochronology of the Las Cañadas caldera (Tenerife, Canary
Islands). Geolog Mag 1994;131:715–27.
[4] Bryan SE, Martı́ J, Cas RAF. Stratigraphy of the Bandas del Sur
Formation: an extracaldera record of the Quaternary phonolitic
explosive eruptions from the Las Cañadas edifice, Tenerife (Canary
Islands). Geolog Mag 1998;135:605–36.
[5] NLT-250/91. Determinación de la resistencia a compresión simple de
Probetas de roca. Normas de Ensayo del Laboratorio del Transporte
y Mecánica del Suelo José Luis Escario. Cedex, Madrid, 1991.
[6] UNE 22950-3:1990. Propiedades mecánicas de las rocas. Ensayos
para la determinación de la resistencia. Parte 3: Determinación del
módulo de elasticidad (Young) y del coeficiente de Poisson.
Geotecnia. Ensayos de Campo y de Laboratorio. AENOR, Madrid,
1999.
[7] Justo JL, Durand P, Justo E. Informe geotécnico sobre la
cimentación de las torres de Santa Cruz. Torre en parcela 1-M.
Rapport for Ferrovial Inmobiliaria S.A., 2001.
[8] Bieniawski ZT. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering
applications. In: Proceedings of the fourth cong. ISRM congress,
Montreux, vol. 2. 1979. p. 41–8.
[9] Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM New J 1994;
2(2):4–16.
[10] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995. p. 215.
[11] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modifications to the geological strength index
(GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1999;36:743–60.
[12] Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of rock
mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses
using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:3–19.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Justo et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 267–281
[13] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. Indirect determination of the
modulus of deformation of rock masses based on GSI system. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:849–57.
[14] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;40:701–10.
[15] McMahon MD, McMahon BK. Foundation investigation and
monitoring. In: Structural Foundations in Rock. Balkema: Rotter-
dam; 1980. p. 153–60.
[16] Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. Predicting the deformation
moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40:701–10.
[17] Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C, Ercanoglu M. Estimating the deformation
modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2003;40:55–63.
[18] Serafim JL, Pereira JP. Considerations on the geomechanical
classification of Bieniawski: experience from case histories. In:
Proceedings and symposium of engineering geology underground
openings; 1983. p. 1133–44.
[19] Mitri HS, Edrissi R, Henning J. Finite element modelling of cable-
bolted slopes in hard rock ground mines. Presented at the SME
Annual Meeting, Alburquerque, New Mexico. 1994, p. 94–116.
[20] Palmström A, Singh R. The deformation modulus of rock masses-
comparisons between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunnell
Underground Space Technol 2001;16:115–31.
[21] Boyd RD. Elastic properties of jointed rock masses with regard to
their rock mass rating value. In: Cripps, et al., editors. The
281
engineering geology of weak rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1993.
p. 329–36.
[22] Zhang L, Einstein HH. Using RQD to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:337–41.
[23] Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2002;39:185–216.
[24] Verman M, Singh B, Viladkar MN, Jethwa JL. Effect of tunnel depth
on modulus of deformation of rock mass. Rock Mech Rock Eng
1997;30(3):121–7.
[25] Asef MR, Reddish DJ. The impact of confining stress on the rock
mass deformation modulus. Géotechnique 2002;52(4):235–41.
[26] Ramamurthy T. Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic
rocks. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering.
Oxford: Pergamon; 1995. p. 313–29 Chapter 13.
[27] Justo JL, Justo E, Durand P. The foundation of a 40-storied building
in Tenerife Island. In: Fondsup 2003. Paris: Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chaussées; 2003. p. 319–26.
[28] Chryssantakis P, Barton N. Predicting performance of the 62 m span
ice hockey cavern in Gjóvic, Norway. In: Myer, Cook, Goodman,
Tsang, editors. Fractured and jointed rock masses. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1995. p. 655–62.
[29] Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT. A nonlinear deformation modulus
based on rock mass classification. Int J Min Geol Eng 1990;8:
181–202.