Advertisement

The relationship between rock mass quality and ease of excavation

  • Abdullatif O. M. 
  • Cruden D. M. 
Article

Summary

Limestone, dolerite, granite, shale, ballclay and chinaclay from south west England have been classified in terms of rock mass quality by three different systems: point load strength and fracture spacing, the CSIR Rock Mass Rating and the NGI Quality Index system.

Comparison with excavation practice in quarries in these rock masses indicates that the CSIR Rock Mass Rating system may give better assessment of rock mass quality related to ease of excavation than the point load strength and fracture spacing and Quality Index systems.

Keywords

Shale Rock Mass Fracture Spacing Rock Quality Designation Rock Mass Rate 

La relation entre la qualite d'un massif rocheux et sa facilite d'excavation

Résumé

Nous avons classé des massifs de calcaire, de dolérite, de granite, de schiste et d'argile dans le sud-ouest de l'Angleterre selon leur qualité et en utilisant trois systèmes différents. Ces systèmes sont ceux de Franklin (1972), Bieniawski (1976) et Bartonet al. (1977).

Nous avons comparé la facilité d'excavation dans les carriéres de ces massifs et les prédictions faites à partir des trois systèmes de classification. Le système de Bieniawski (1976) donne la meilleure indication de la facilité d'excavation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANON (1977): The description of rock masses for engineering purposes. Qtly. Inl. Eng. Geol. 10, 355–388.Google Scholar
  2. ABDULLATIF O.M. (1982): Correlation between strength and fracture spacing of rocks and ease of excavation. Msc. Thesis, Queen Mary college, University of London, pp. 61–53, 103–114.Google Scholar
  3. BARTON N., LIEN R. and LUNDE J. (1977): Estimation of support requirements for Underground Excavation. Proceedings. 16th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 163–177.Google Scholar
  4. BIENIAWSKI Z.T. (1976): Rock mass classification in rock engineering. Proceeding Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, I, 97–106.Google Scholar
  5. DEERE, D.U., MILLER R.P. (1966): Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock. Report AWFL TR-65-116. Air Force Weapons Laboratory (WLDC) Kirtland Airforce base. New Mexico.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FOOKES P.G., DEARMAN W.R. and FRANKLIN J.A. (1971): Some engineering aspects of rock weathering with field examples from Dartmoor and elsewhere. Qtly. Jnl. Engl. Geol. 4, pp. 139–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FRANKLIN J.A. (1970): Observation and Tests for Engineering description and Mapping of Rocks. Proc. 2nd Cong. ISRM, Belgrade, Vol. 1, paper 1–3.Google Scholar
  8. FRANKLIN J.A., BROCH E. and WALTON G. (1972): Logging the mechanical character of rock. Trans. Inst. Min. Met. (GB), 80, pp. A1-A9.Google Scholar
  9. HOEK E., BROWN E. T. (1980): Underground Excavation in Rocks. Min. Met., London, pp. 27–32.Google Scholar
  10. PRIEST S.D., HUDSON J.A. (1976): Discontinuity spacing in rock. International journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 13, pp. 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. JUST G.D., WALTER G.W. (1978): Engineering potential of seismic methods of assessing rock breakage characteristics. The Aus. Inst. Min. Met. Rock Breaking Symposium, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Engineering Geology 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdullatif O. M. 
    • 1
  • Cruden D. M. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations