Advertisement

Relating rock mass properties with Lugeon value using multiple regression and nonlinear tools in an underground mine site

  • İbrahim Ferid ÖgeEmail author
  • Mustafa Çırak
Original Paper

Abstract

The Lugeon test is one of the commonly applied field methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity of a rock mass. Understanding hydraulic conductivity is especially necessary when groundwater is present, as it has a direct effect on the construction operations and stability of a structure. Discontinuity orientation, spacing and discontinuous surface quality, and the presence and type of infill play essential roles in permeability of a rock mass. Commonly used rock quality designation (RQD) and discontinuity surface condition rating of the rock mass rating system (Dc) were chosen as predictive parameters. Additionally, depth is involved as a critical predictor and it is observed so. Three variables impacting the Lugeon value are not present in the literature. The importance of each predictor variable was found to be significant while depth contributed more. Simple regression work resulted in insufficient correlation for each single parameter, but indicated they have relevance to the Lugeon value. In addition to linear and nonlinear multiple regression studies, Box-Cox transformation multiple regression was employed and predictions were found to be statistically significant. Among the multiple regression models, a nonlinear model provided the highest prediction performance. Utilization of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) enabled researchers to predict the Lugeon value precisely, compared to the multiple regression works. Subtractive clustering was employed in order to successfully model the parameters by using ANFIS. The clustering task resulted in a fuzzy inference system structure with three rules. A manually introduced fuzzy inference system (FIS) structure with 27 rules exhibited low performance when it was compared to the structure generated by subtractive clustering. The findings can be used in the study area since a wide range of rock types, properties and depth were taken into account in the models. Groundwater flow and permeability in jointed rock mass have a complex mechanism with variable fracturing and discontinuity properties within a small area. For prediction work, it is concluded to be beneficial to add the depth parameter to the models for further studies.

Keywords

Hydraulic conductivity Lugeon test Rock mass parameters Multiple regression ANFIS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Polyak Eynez Energy Mining A.Ş. and Fina Energy and its personnel for supporting scientific research and providing necessary data for the study. The author presents his gratitude to the geological engineers of Polyak Eynez, Feridun Emre Yağımlı, Ali Türkoğlu and Mehmet Kılıç for providing extensive data on the geology of the area, preparation of geotechnical borehole logs and their additional care during hydraulic testing. Mining engineers Sibel Güventürk and Mustafa Erkayaoğlu, Ph.D. (University of Arizona) are gratefully acknowledged for language editing.

References

  1. Aksoy CO, Kose H, Onargan T, Koca Y, Heasley K (2004) Estimation of limit angle using laminated displacement discontinuity analysis in the Soma coal field, western Turkey. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(4):547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksoy CO, Küçük K, Uyar GG (2016) Long-term time-dependent consolidation analysis by numerical modelling to determine subsidence effect area induced by longwall top coal caving method, international journal of oil gas and coal. Technology 12(1):18–37Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson LC (2000) The role and mitigation of groundwater in slope stability. Slope Stab Surf Min 427–34Google Scholar
  4. Assari A, Mohammadi Z (2017) Analysis of rock quality designation (RQD) and Lugeon values in a karstic formation using the sequential indicator simulation approach, Karun IV Dam site, Iran. Bull Eng Geol Environ 76:771–782.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0898-y
  5. Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Tokashiki N (2014) A new rock mass quality rating system: rock mass quality rating (RMQR) and its application to the estimation of geomechanical characteristics of rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(4):1255–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(2):185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basarir H, Tutluoglu L, Karpuz C (2014) Penetration rate prediction for diamond bit drilling by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and multiple regressions. Eng Geol 173:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basarir H, Oge IF, Aydin O (2015) Prediction of the stresses around main and tail gates during top coal caving by 3D numerical analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 76:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for engineers and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering. WileyGoogle Scholar
  10. Brinkmann R, Feist R (1970) Soma dağlarının jeolojisi. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi 74(74)Google Scholar
  11. Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1966) Design of surface and near-surface construction in rock. InThe 8th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  12. Dirik K, Özsayın E, Kahraman B (2010a) Eynez Sahası’nın (Soma Güneyi) Yapısal Özellikleri. TKİ Genel Müdürlüğü RaporuGoogle Scholar
  13. Dirik K., Özsayın E, Kahraman B (2010b) The Report on Structural properties of Eynez Basin (South of Soma) general directorate of Turkish coal enterprises (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  14. Eryılmaz GT, Korkmaz S (2015) Kuyu ve Akifer Testlerine Uygulanan Analitik ve Sayısal Yöntemlerle Hidrolik İletkenliğin Belirlenmesi. Teknik Dergi 26(126)Google Scholar
  15. Fell R, MacGregor P, Stapledon D, Bell G (2005) Geotechnical engineering of dams. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  16. Foyo A, Sánchez MA, Tomillo C (2005) A proposal for a secondary permeability index obtained from water pressure tests in dam foundations. Eng Geol 77(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He J, Chen SH, Shahrour I (2013) Numerical estimation and prediction of stress-dependent permeability tensor for fractured rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 59:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoek E, Bray JD (1981) Rock slope engineering. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunt RE (2005) Geotechnical engineering investigation handbook. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Jang RJS, Sun CT, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. (614 pp)Google Scholar
  21. Kahraman E, Kahraman S (2016) The performance prediction of roadheaders from easy testing methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75(4):1585–1596.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0801-2
  22. Karagüzel R, Kilic R (2000) The effect of the alteration degree of ophiolitic melange on permeability and grouting. Eng Geol 57(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kayabasi A, Yesiloglu-Gultekin N, Gokceoglu C (2015) Use of non-linear prediction tools to assess rock mass permeability using various discontinuity parameters. Eng Geol 185:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khorami MT, Chelgani SC, Hower JC, Jorjani E (2011) Studies of relationships between free swelling index (FSI) and coal quality by regression and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system. Int J Coal Geol 85(1):65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil mechanics. John Willey & Sons. Inc., NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Leung CT, Zimmerman RW (2012) Estimating the hydraulic conductivity of two-dimensional fracture networks using network geometric properties. Transp Porous Media 93(3):777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lugeon M (1933) Barrage et Géologie. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma D, Miao XX, Chen ZQ, Mao XB (2013) Experimental investigation of seepage properties of fractured rocks under different confining pressures. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(5):1135–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int J Man Mach Stud 7(1):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Min KB, Rutqvist J, Tsang CF, Jing L (2004) Stress-dependent permeability of fractured rock masses: a numerical study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(7):1191–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moye DG (1955) Engineering geology for the snowy mountains scheme. J Inst Eng Aust 27(10–11):287–298Google Scholar
  32. Nappi M, Esposito L, Piscopo V, Rega G (2005) Hydraulic characterisation of some arenaceous rocks of Molise (southern Italy) through outcropping measurements and Lugeon tests. Eng Geol 81(1):54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nebert K (1978) Lignite-bearing Soma Neogene area, western Turkey. Bulletin of Directorate of Mineral. Res Explor 90:20–70Google Scholar
  34. Oda M, Hatsuyama Y, Ohnishi Y (1987) Numerical experiments on permeability tensor and its application to jointed granite at Stripa mine, Sweden. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 92(B8):8037–8048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Öge İF (2017) Prediction of cementitious grout take for a mine shaft permeation by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and multiple regression. Eng Geol 228:238–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.08.013
  36. Palmstrom A (2005) Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunn Undergr Space Technol 20(4):362–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pardoen B, Talandier J, Collin F (2016) Permeability evolution and water transfer in the excavation damaged zone of a ventilated gallery. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 85:192–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quiñones-Rozo C (2010) Lugeon test interpretation, revisited. In: Collaborative management of ıntegrated watersheds, US Society of Dams, 30th Annual Conference, p 405–414Google Scholar
  39. Ren F, Ma G, Fu G, Zhang K (2015) Investigation of the permeability anisotropy of 2D fractured rock masses. Eng Geol 196:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rong G, Peng J, Wang X, Liu G, Hou D (2013) Permeability tensor and representative elementary volume of fractured rock masses. Hydrogeol J 21(7):1655–1671.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-1040-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scesi L, Gattinoni P (2009) Water circulation in rocks. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh TD, Singh B (2006) Elsevier geo-engineering book 5: tunnelling ın weak rocks. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  43. Snow DT (1969) Anisotropie permeability of fractured media. Water Resour Res 5(6):1273–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snow DT (1970) The frequency and apertures of fractures in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 7(1):23–40 PergamonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36(6):743–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spiess AN, Neumeyer N (2010) An evaluation of R2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: a Monte Carlo approach. BMC Pharmacol 10(1):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sugeno M (1985) Industrial applications of fuzzy control. Elsevier Science Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Sugeno M, Kang GT (1988) Structure identification of fuzzy model. Fuzzy Sets Syst 28(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsukamoto Y (1979) An approach to fuzzy reasoning method. Advances in fuzzy set theory and applicationsGoogle Scholar
  50. Tüysüz O, Genç ŞC (2013) Polyak Eynez (Elmadere) Linyit Sahası JeolojisiGoogle Scholar
  51. Yager RR, Filev DP (1994) Generation of fuzzy rules by mountain clustering. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2(3):209–219Google Scholar
  52. Yesiloglu-Gultekin N, Gokceoglu C, Sezer EA (2013) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of granitic rocks by various nonlinear tools and comparison of their performances. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 62:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yilmaz I, Yuksek G (2009) Prediction of the strength and elasticity modulus of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN, and ANFIS models. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(4):803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang L (2013) Aspects of rock permeability. Front Struct Civ Eng 7(2):102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang CL (2016) The stress–strain–permeability behaviour of clay rock during damage and recompaction. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 8(1):16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhou CB, Sharma RS, Chen YF, Rong G (2008) Flow–stress coupled permeability tensor for fractured rock masses. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 32(11):1289–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zlotnlk VA, McGuire VL (1998) Multi-level slug tests in highly permeable formations: 2. Hydraulic conductivity identification, method verification, and field applications. J Hydrol 204(1):283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mining EngineeringMuğla Sıtkı Koçman UniversityMuğlaTurkey

Personalised recommendations