CORRELATION OF IN-SITU MODULUS OF DEFORMATION DETERMINED BY DILATOMETER OR GOODMAN JACK WITH THE DEGREE OF WEATHERING OF ROCK MASSES AND

ROCK MASS RATING(RMR)

Bo-An Jang and Hyoyeol Kim Division of Earth Sciences, Kangwon National University, Korea

Introduction - Plate Loading Test

Modulus of deformation

Modulus of elasticity

Pressure

Displacement

 Modulus of Elasticity

Property of intact rock Usually measured from specimen Lab tests - uniaxial compression test In situ test plate loading test, dilatometer test

Modulus of Deformation

Property of rock mass Measured in situ test -plate loading test, dilatometer test An important parameter for design of geotechnical structure

Background
Modulus of deformation is often predicted by RMR Several relations between modulus of deformation and RMR are suggested

80

Bieniawski(1978) :
60

E M 2 RMR 100

EM (GPa)

40

Serafim & Pereira(1983) :

E M 10

RMR 10 40

20

Kim (1993) :
0 0 20 40 60 80 100

D md 0.03 Exp(0.07 RMR)

RMR

Motivations and Objectives

Modulus of deformations in other researches were

measured by plate loading test. The numbers of data in other researches are small. Modulus of deformation measured by dilatometer may be 2 3 times lower than those measured by plate loading test (Rocha, 1974). Correlation of in-situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering. Correlation of in-situ modulus of deformation with RMR.

Data collection
2354 data of Modulus of Deformation

were collected.
Kangwon : 870 Kyonggi(with Seoul, Incheon ) : 613 Kyeongbuk(with Daegu) : 274 Kyeongnam(with Busan, Ulsan) : 172 Chungnam(with Daejeon) : 128 Chungbuk : 102 Jeonbuk : 163 Jeonnam(with Gwangju) : 22 Cheju : 10

Correlation of in-situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering

Highly weathered rock

Moderately weathered rock

1.4 1.2

0.087 0.075

0.07 0.06

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.0

Relative Frequncy

Relative Frequncy

0.063 0.050 0.038 0.025 0.013 0.000 -2.0

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.0

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

log EM

log EM

Correlation of in-situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering

Slightly weathered rock

Fresh rock
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0.087 0.075

0.07 0.06

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.0

Relative Frequncy

0.063 0.050 0.038 0.025 0.013 0.000 -2.0

Relative Frequncy

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0 2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

log EM

log EM

Correlation of in-situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering

1.4 1.2
M = 0.96 GPa 0.37 = log 10 M = 0.20 GPa 0.37 = log 10 M = 2.24 GPa 0.34 = log 10 M = 5.75 GPa 0.37 = log 10

Normalized Frequncy

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

SW HW MW FR

0.43 GPa

1.38 GPa

3.72 GPa

0.0 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

log EM

Correlation of In-situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering

1.0

90%
0.8 0.6

CRF

50%
0.4 0.2

HW MW SW FR
FR SW MW HW

10%
0.0 -2
0.07 0.43 1.38 3.72 16.6 GPa

-1

log EM

Correlation of In-situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering

Degree of weathering Highly weathered rock Moderately weathered rock Slightly weathered rock Fresh rock

In-situ modulus of deformation(GPa) 0.07 ~ 0.43 0.43 ~ 1.38 1.38 ~ 3.72 3.72 ~ 16.6

Relation between in situ modulus of deformation and RMR

80

Upper 5% Lower 5%
60

n = 875

EM (GPa)

40

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

RMR

Relation between in situ modulus of deformation and RMR

Equation suggested by this research
80

RMR 16

E M 10
60

50

n = 786

R = 64.0%

EM (GPa)

40

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

RMR

Comparison of suggested equations(1)

80

60

Bieniawski(1978) Serafim & Pereira(1983) Kim(1993) This research

EM (GPa)

40

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

RMR

Comparison of suggested equations(2)

Serafim & Pereira vs this research
80

Serafim & Pereira(1983) 2.5 * This research 3.0 * This research

60

EM (GPa)

40

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

RMR

Relation between modulus of deformation and RMR for gneiss

100

Gneiss ; n=420
10

EM (GPa)

0.1

EM=10
0.01 0 20

(RMR-16)/50

EM=10
40

0.019*RMR-0.314

R=0.63
100

60

80

RMR

Relation between modulus of deformation and RMR for granite

100

Granite ; n=75
10

EM (GPa)

0.1

EM=10
0.01 0 20 40

(RMR-16)/50 0.019*RMR-0.459

EM=10

R=0.73
100

60

80

RMR

Relation between modulus of deformation and RMR for sandstone

100

Sandstone ; n=66
10

EM (GPa)

0.1

EM=10
0.01 0 20 40

(RMR-16)/50 0.014*RMR-0.139

EM=10

R=0.57
100

60

80

RMR

Relation between modulus of deformation and RMR for shale

100

Shale ; n=26
10

EM (GPa)

0.1

EM=10
0.01 0 20 40

(RMR-16)/50 0.021*RMR-0.597

EM=10

R=0.68
100

60

80

RMR

Relation between modulus of deformation and RMR for Limestone

100

limestone ; n=20
10

EM (GPa)

0.1

0.01 0 20

EM=10 0.015*RMR-0.069 EM=10 R=0.67

40 60 80 100

(RMR-16)/50

RMR

Relation between modulus of deformation and RMR for other rock type
100

Others ; n=179
10

EM (GPa)

0.1

EM=10
0.01 0 20 40

(RMR-16)/50 0.019*RMR-0.339

EM=10

R=0.66
100

60

80

RMR

RMR values predicted by relations suggested by this research and others.

RMR Bieniawski(1978) Serafim & Pereira(1983) Kim(1993) This research

Moderately weathered Rock Fresh Rock

50 ~ 51 52 ~ 58

0 ~ 16 33 ~ 59

37 ~ 55 69 ~ 90

0 ~ 23 44 ~ 77

Moderately weathered Rock : EM = 0.43 ~ 1.38 (GPa) Fresh Rock : EM = 3.72 ~ 16.6 (GPa)

Conclusions

In-situ modulus of deformation of rock masses were correlated with the degree of weathering.
Modulus of deformations show almost the same normal distributions in each degrees of weathering. The ranges of in situ modulus of deformation for each degree of weathering are as follows. completely weathered rocks : 0.07 - 0.43 GPa moderately weathered rocks : 0.43 - 1.38 GPa slightly weathered rocks : 1.38 - 3.72 GPa

fresh rocks

: 3.72 - 16.6 GPa

Conclusions
In situ modulus of deformation were correlated with RMR and

new equation is suggested : (RMR-16) / 50 EM = 10

New equation suggested by this research gives more reasonable

values than others.

In situ modulus of deformation measured by the dilatometer test

or Goodman jack test is 2.5 - 3 times lower than that measured by the plate loading test, which is agreeable with the results obtained by Rocha(1974).
Although small differences of relations with respect to lithology

were found, the equation suggested by this research could be used to predict in situ modulus of deformation from RMR values for all rock types.