Upscaling elastic moduli in Copenhagen

Limestone

N. Katić & H.F. Christensen

EUROCK 2014, Vigo, Spain

 Overview

• Introduction
– Projects
– Testing in Copenhagen Limestone
• Scaling of elastic moduli of test specimens
– Laboratory tests
– Characteristic test length
– Strain dependency
• Scaling of elastic moduli of rock mass
– Field measurements
– Elastic modulus of rock mass
• Concluding remarks

28-09-2022 2
 Introduction. Projects. Acknowledgements

28-09-2022 3
28-09-2022 4
 Introduction. Copenhagen Limestone

28-09-2022 5
 Introduction

Overview of the available tests with corresponding characteristic length, L

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mechanical L Acoustic L
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Laboratory:
CADcy SG 11.6cm PC (very small)
CAD SG 5.4cm -
UCS SG 2.3cm PC (very small)
UCS LVDT 6.2cm
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Field:
HPDT (large) VSP (very small)
_____________________________________________________________________________________

28-09-2022 6
 UCS tests

28-09-2022 7
 UCS tests
Elastic moduli 100000
Elastic moduli from UCS
and laboratory acoustic
velocity tests for all
indurations
versus bulk density

10000

E [MPa]

1000

100
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
rbulk [g/cm3 ]

28-09-2022 8 E50 (LVDT) Eur (LVDT) Eur (SG) Eacou

 Elastic moduli from laboratory tests
20000
Elastic moduli from UCS tests versus
15000
2:1
laboratory acoustic velocity tests
(Piezo-crystals)
for all indurations
Eur,ucs [MPa]

10000
4:1
1:1

5000

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Eacoustic,ucs [MPa]

H2 LVDT H3 LVDT H4 LVDT

H2 SG H3 SG H4 SG

28-09-2022 9
 Characteristic test lengths
Elastic moduli Elastic modulus from the
UCS tests on single
induration specimens
compared to the field
H0 ÷ H5 HPDT measurements on
80,0 variable induration
domain

60,0
E [GPa]

40,0
...

20,0

0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 large
16 L18
Lchar [cm]

Esg E50 Evs Eur Ei, HPDT

28-09-2022 10
 Fractils of E(UCS)

80,0
H0 ÷ H5
Fractiles of elastic
H2- H4 modulus from the UCS
60
60,0
tests on single induration
specimens
E [GPa]

40,0
... 50
20,0

0,0 40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
large L
Lchar [cm]
E [GPa]

Esg E50 Evs Eur Ei, HPDT 30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8
Lchar [cm]
All indurations; 95% fractile All indurations; 50% fractile
All indurations; 5% fractile H4; 95% fractile
H4; 50% fractile H4; 5% fractile
H3; 95% fractile H3; 50% fractile
H3; 5% fractile H2; 95% fractile
H2; 50% fractile H2; 5% fractile

28-09-2022 11
 Shear strain levels
UCS tests CAD tests

1
1

0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6

ECAD,SG / Eacou
ESG;LVDT / Eacou

0.4
0.4
0.2
Esg,LB: [(0.008%,1);(0.15%,0.2)] 0.2
0 Esg,ucs,LB:[(0.008%,1);(0.15%,0.2)]
0.005 0.050 0.500 0
assuming isotropy: gxy =ex -ey [%], 0.005 0.050 0.500
H2 LVDT H3 LVDT H4 LVDT assuming isotropy: gxy =ex -ey [%]
H2 SG H3 SG H4 SG
H2 H3 H4

28-09-2022 12
 Strain levels in cyclic testing

Scaling of the ratio of the

cyclic elastic moduli to the
isotropic shear strain with
1
respect to the confining
0,8
pressure

0,6
Ecy / Ecy,max

0,4

0,2

0
0,001 0,010 0,100 1,000
dv/2 [%]
p<500 kPa p>900 kPa

28-09-2022 13
 VSP & HPDT tests
VSP tests HPDT tests

28-09-2022 14
 VSP vs. PC (UCS)

28-09-2022 15
 VSP vs. HPDT

28-09-2022 16
 Elastic modulus of the rock mass

– Laboratory tests not necessarily representative of the rock mass

– Rock classification systems valid only for the strongest rocks
– Hoek-Brown approach not suitable for H0-H2 rocks

• Emass/E0 = 1/5 ÷ 1/3, for the given application

(tunneling, retaining walls)

• Emass = 200 sc

• Emass[GPa] = (1-D/2) (sc[MPa]/100)0.510(GSI-10)/40

28-09-2022 17
 References

• Clayton, C.R.I. 2011. Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Géotechnique 61, No. 1: 5-37
• Hansen, H.K., Foged, N.N. 2002. Kalkens bjergmekaniske egenskaber. In JK Frederiksen (ed.)
Ingeniørgeologiske forhold i København. dgf-Bulletin no. 19: 31-34.
• Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition. Proc.
NARMS-TAC Conference, Toronto. 1: 267-273.
• Palmström A., Singh R. 2001, The deformation modulus of rock masses – comparison between in situ
tests and direct estimates. Tunelling and Underground Space Technology Vol. 16 (No. 3): 115 - 131.
• PLAXIS, 2011, Material Models Manual
• Thuro C., Plinninger R.J., Zäh S., Schütz S. 2001, Scale effects in rock strength properties. Part 1:
Unconfined compressive test and Brazilian test. In Särkkä & Eloranta (eds.), Swets & Zeitlinger Lisse.
Rock Mechanics – a Challenge for Society: 169-174.

Thank you for the attention!

28-09-2022 18