Advertisement

Correlations of in situ modulus of deformation with elastic modulus of intact core specimens and RMR values of andesitic rocks: a case study of the İzmir subway line

  • C. KıncalEmail author
  • M. Y. Koca
Original Paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to obtain the rock mass rating (RMR) from different methods considering either the elastic modulus of intact rock specimens (Ei) and the modulus of deformation of andesitic rock mass (EM) or only the value of the in situ modulus of deformation, and to compare these values. This paper also presents comparisons between the values of deformation modulus obtained from pressuremeter tests in andesitic rock mass and the values of elastic modulus of intact rock core specimens retrieved from the same boreholes and depths at which pressuremeter tests have been carried out. The pressuremeter tests were conducted on weathered and fractured andesites observed along the İzmir subway route. Correlations between in situ moduli of deformation gathered from 32 pressuremeter test points and calculated RMR values for the andesites at the railway elevation of the İzmir subway were obtained as follows: EMPT = 0.0237 × e (0.0975 × RMR), R2 = 0.848 and RMR = 38.043 × EMPT(0.3291), R2 = 0.77. Finally, the results of comparisons between the modulus of deformation obtained from pressuremeter tests and the geomechanical quality of the rock mass, discontinuity effect, and the basic intact rock properties such as uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and elastic modulus (Ei) have been discussed. In addition, engineering geological conditions of the andesitic rock masses located at the railway elevation of the İzmir subway were determined in detail.

Keywords

Andesitic rock mass Weathering grade Pressuremeter test Modulus of deformation RMR 

References

  1. Agan C (2014) Determination of the deformation modulus of dispersible–intercalated–jointed cherts using the Menard pressuremeter test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 65:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alemdag S (2015) Assessment of bearing capacity and permeability of foundation rocks at the Gumustas Waste Dam Site (NE Turkey) using empirical and numerical analysis. Arab J Geosci 8:1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alemdag S, Gürocak Z, Gökçeoglu C (2015) A simple regression based approach to estimate deformation modulus of rock masses. J Afr Earth Sci 110:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2000) ASTM standard D4719. Standard test method for pressuremeter testing in soils. Annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. Aydan Ö, Kawamoto T (2000) The assessment of mechanical properties of rock masses through RMR rock classification system. In: Proceedings of the GeoEng 2000 Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, November 2000, paper no. OA0926Google Scholar
  6. Baguelin F, Jezequel JF, Shields DH (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal, Germany, pp 511–517Google Scholar
  7. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New York, p 237Google Scholar
  8. Birid K (2015) Interpretation of pressuremeter tests in rock. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium for the 60th Anniversary of the pressuremeter (ISP7-PRESSIO 2015), Hammamet, Tunisia, pp 289–299Google Scholar
  9. Bükülen E (2013) Engineering geology of the İzmir subway route located between Fahrettin Altay public square and Üçyol District of the city of İzmir. Dissertation, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Dokuz Eylül University. Advisor: Dr. M. Y. Koca, 286 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Chun BS, Lee YJ, Seo DD, Lim BS (2006) Correlation deformation modulus by PMT with RMR and rock mass condition. Tunn Undergr Space Technol Inc Trenchless Technol Res 21(3–4):231–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke BG (1995) Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dearman WR, Baynes FJ, İrfan TY (1978) Engineering grading of weathered granite. Eng Geol 12:345–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galera JM, Álvarez M, Bieniawski ZT (2005) Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock masses: comparison of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests with RMR prediction. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium 50 years pressuremeters (ISP5-PRESSIO 2005), Marne-la-Vallée, France, August 2005Google Scholar
  14. Gardner WS (1987) Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont. In: Smith RE (ed) Foundations and excavations in decomposed rock of the Piedmont Province. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) no. 9, pp 62–86Google Scholar
  15. Gökçeoglu C, Sönmez H, Kayabasi A (2003) Predicting the deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 562 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Gürocak Z, Alemdag S (2012) Assessment of permeability and injection depth at the Atasu dam site (Turkey) based on experimental and numerical analyses. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isik NS, Ulusay R, Doyuran V (2008) Deformation modulus of heavily jointed–sheared and blocky greywackes by pressuremeter tests: numerical, experimental and empirical assessments. Eng Geol 101:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. İTÜ and DEÜ (1993) Feasibility work of the first phase of the İzmir subway system with 9.2 km long located between the Fahrettin Altay public square and Basmane District of the city of İzmir. Joint venture between Yapı Merkezi Construction and Industry Company of Turkey and ABB of Sweden, Engineering Geological Report no: 9210-TR-03Google Scholar
  20. Kang SS, Kim HY, Jang BA (2013) Correlation of in situ modulus of deformation with degree of weathering, RMR and Q-system, Environ Earth Sci 69: 2671-2678Google Scholar
  21. Karaman K, Kaya A, Kesimal A (2015) Use of the point load index in estimation of the strength rating for the RMR system. J Afr Earth Sci 106:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C (2018) Deformation modulus of rock masses: an assessment of the existing empirical equations. Geotech Geol Eng 36:2683–2699.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0491-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim G (1996) Manual for site investigation. Seoul, p 123 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  24. Kim GW (1993) Revaluation of geomechanics classification of rock masses. In: Proceedings of the Korean Geotechnical Society Spring National Conference, Seoul, Korea, pp 33–40Google Scholar
  25. Koca MY, Kıncal C (2004) Abandoned stone quarries in and around the Izmir city centre and their geo-environmental impacts—Turkey. Eng Geol 75:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koca MY, Kıncal C (2016) The relationships between the rock material properties and weathering grades of andesitic rocks around İzmir, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75(2):709–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korean Society for Rock Mechanics (1999) Techniques of site investigation and testing for civil engineers. Rock Mechanics Technical Report, p 799 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  28. Mair RJ, Wood DM (1987) Pressuremeter testing: methods and interpretation. Ciria Ground Engineering Report. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  29. Mair RJ, Wood DM (2014) Pressuremeter testing: methods and interpretation. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 169 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Ménard L (1961) Influence de I’amplitude et de I’histoire d’un champ de contraintes sur le tassement d’un sol de foundation. C.R. 5e Congrès International MSTF, vol. 1. Tome, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Milton JS, McTeer PM, Corbet JJ (1997) Introduction to statistics. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Rocha M (1974) Present possibilities of studying foundations of concrete dams. Proceedings of 3rd Congress on Rock mechanics. Int Soc Rock Mech Denver 1A:879–896Google Scholar
  33. Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Considerations of the geomechanics classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Lisbon, Portugal, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  34. Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. Compilation Arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey, p 156Google Scholar
  35. Verman M, Singh B, Viladkar MN, Jethwa JL (1997) Effect of tunnel depth on modulus of deformation of rock mass. Rock Mech Rock Eng 30(3):112–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walpole RE, Myers RH, Myers SL, Ye KE (2012) Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang L (2017) Evaluation of rock mass deformability using emprical methods-a review. Under Space.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2017.03.003
  38. Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Engineering Department, Engineering FacultyDokuz Eylül UniversityBucaTurkey

Personalised recommendations