Advertisement

ARMR, a new classification system for the rating of anisotropic rock masses

  • Charalampos SaroglouEmail author
  • Shengwen Qi
  • Songfeng Guo
  • Faquan Wu
Original Paper
  • 293 Downloads

Abstract

The engineering behavior of rock masses is strongly dependent on anisotropy, which is present at different scales, from the microscale in the intact rock due to the alignment of rock crystals (inherent anisotropy) to the macroscale in rock masses with anisotropic rock structure, characterized by distinct bedding or schistosity planes. This paper presents a new rock mass classification system, Anisotropic Rock Mass Rating (ARMR), specifically developed for the classification of anisotropic rock masses. ARMR considers the following rating parameters: (a) anisotropy strength index, RC; (b) uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock; (c) degree of structure anisotropy; (d) corrected rock quality designation (RQD); (e) condition of anisotropy surfaces; and (f) groundwater conditions. Its use is illustrated and explained by application to specific case studies in anisotropic rock masses, and the advantages and limitations of the classification system are outlined. The strength of anisotropic rock masses is determined using the modified Hoek–Brown criterion (Saroglou and Tsiambaos, Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 45:223–234, 2008), which is extended to rock masses with the use of ARMR.

Keywords

Anisotropy Rock mass Classification Rating RMR 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Saroglou acknowledges Prof. Qi and the Institute of Geology and Geophysics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, where he was invited as a Visiting Professor under the President’s International Fellowship Initiative (PIFI). The assistance of Mr. N. Bar, Civil Engineer at Gecko Geotechnics Pty Ltd. and Mr. A. Maldonado, MPh Eng at UWA, Mining School, Mr. A. Stavrou, Engineering Geologist and Mr. S. Pollak, Civil Engineer from Arup Group are acknowledged for providing data.

References

  1. 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
  2. Bar N, Johnson TM, Weekes G (2016) Using directional shear stress models to predict slope stability in highly anisotropic rock masses. In: Ulusay R, Aydan O, Gerçek H, Hindistan MA, Tuncay E (eds) Proceedings of the 2016 ISRM international symposium. Rock mechanics and rock engineering: from the past to the future, Cappadocia, Turkey, August 2016, pp 595–600Google Scholar
  3. Barton N, Quadros E (2015) Anisotropy is everywhere, to see, to measure, and to model. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48:1323–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0632-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bewick RP, Kaiser PK (2009) Influence of rock mass anisotropy on tunnel stability. In: Diederichs M, Grasselli G (eds) ROCKENG09: proceedings of the 3rd CANUS rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, May 2009Google Scholar
  6. Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civ Engrs 15:335–344Google Scholar
  7. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonini M, Barla G (2012) The Saint Martin La Porte access adit (Lyon–Turin Base tunnel) revisited. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 30:38–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cai M, Kaiser P (2006) Visualization of rock mass classification systems. Geotech Geol Eng 24:1089–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen YF, Wei K, Liu W, Hu SH, Hu R, Zhou CB (2016) Experimental characterization and micromechanical modelling of anisotropic slates. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3541–3557.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1009-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donath FA (1961) Experimental study of shear failure in anisotropic rocks. Geol Soc Am Bull 72:985–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoek E, Karzulovic A (2000) Rock mass properties for surface mines. In: Hustralid WA, McCarter MK, van Zyl DJA (eds) Slope stability in surface mining. Society for Mining, Metallurgical and Exploration (SME), Littleton, Colorado, pp 59–70Google Scholar
  14. Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. AA Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the geological strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull Eng Geol Environ 57(2):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American rock mechanics symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference: NARMS-TAC, Toronto, Canada, pp 267–271Google Scholar
  17. Hoek E, Carter TG, Diederichs MS (2013) Quantification of the Geological Strength Index chart. In: Proceedings of the 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, San Francisco, California, June 2013, paper ARMA 13-672Google Scholar
  18. International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) Suggested methods prepared by the ISRM commission on testing methods. Compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  19. Ismael MA, Imam HF, El-Shayeb Y (2014) A simplified approach to directly consider intact rock anisotropy in Hoek–Brown failure criterion. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6(5):486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaeger JC (1960) Shear failure of anisotropic rocks. Geol Mag 97:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakubec J, Laubscher DH (2000) The MRMR rock mass rating classification system in mining practice. In: Proceedings of MassMin 2000, Brisbane, Australia, October/November 2000, pp 413–421Google Scholar
  22. Laubscher DH (1990) A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 90:257–273Google Scholar
  23. Lowson AR, Bieniawski ZT (2013) Critical assessment of RMR-based tunnel design practices: a practical engineer’s approach. In: Proceedings of the rapid excavation & tunneling conference (RETC 2013) Washington, DC, June 2013.. Society of Mining Engineers, pp 180–198Google Scholar
  24. Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) GSI—a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In: Proceedings of the GeoEng2000 conference, Melbourne, Australia, November 2000Google Scholar
  25. Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The geological strength index: applications and limitations. Bull Eng Geol Environ 64(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marinos PG, Marinos V, Hoek E (2007) The Geological Strength Index (GSI): a characterization tool for assessing engineering properties for rock masses. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on rock mass classification in underground mining. DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 2007-128Google Scholar
  27. Martin CD, Kaiser PK, McCreath DR (1999) Hoek–Brown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Can Geotech J 36:136–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin CD, Giger S, Lanyon GW (2016) Behaviour of weak shales in underground environments. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Standards Compilation Group of People’s Republic of China (1994) GB 50218-94. Standard for engineering classification of rock masses. China Planning Press, Beijing, China, pp 1–22 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Osgoui RR, Ulusay R, Unal E (2010) An assistant tool for the Geological Strength Index to better characterize poor and very poor rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:690–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmstrøm A (1982) The volumetric joint count—a useful and simple measure of the degree of jointing. In: Proceedings of the 4th international congress of the International Association of Engineering Geology (IAEG), New Delhi, India, December 1982, pp V.221–V.228Google Scholar
  32. Palmstrøm A (1996) Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 11(2):175–186 (part 1); 11(3):287–303 (part 2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmstrom A, Broch E (2006) Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular reference to the Q-system. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21:575–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Papavasiliou S, Nomikos PP, Sofianos AI (2010) Tunnel overstressing due to the anisotropic rock structure. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asian rock mechanics symposium, New Delhi, India, October 2010, paper no. ARMS6-2010-081Google Scholar
  35. Ramamurthy T (1993) Strength and modulus responses of anisotropic rocks. In: Hudson JA (ed) Comprehensive rock engineering, vol 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 313–329Google Scholar
  36. Rettighieri M, Triclot J, Mathieu E, Barla G, Panet M (2008) Difficulties associated with high convergences during excavation of the Saint Martin La Porte access adit. In: Building underground for the future: proceedings of the AFTES international congress, Monaco, Monte Carlo, October 2008. AFTES, Limonest, France, pp 395–403Google Scholar
  37. Saroglou H (2007) Geological parameters affecting the geotechnical properties of intact rock. The effect of anisotropy. PhD thesis, National Technical University of Athens, 480 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Saroglou H (2013) Engineering behaviour of anisotropic and heterogeneous layered rocks. In: Proceedings of the IAEG conference “Global view of engineering geology and the environment”, Beijing, China, September 2013, pp 721–731Google Scholar
  39. Saroglou H, Tsiambaos G (2007) Classification of anisotropic rocks. In: Proceedings of the 11th International congress of rock mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, July 2007, vol 1, pp 191–196Google Scholar
  40. Saroglou H, Tsiambaos G (2008) A modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion for anisotropic intact rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schubert W, Mendez JMD (2017) Influence of foliation orientation on tunnel behavior. Proc Eng 191:880–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh B, Göel RK (1999) Rock mass classification. A practical approach in civil engineering. Elsevier, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 36:743–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Truzman EIM (2009) Metamorphic rock mass characterization using the Geological Strength Index (GSI). In: Paper presented at the 43rd US rock mechanics symposium and 4th US–Canada rock mechanics symposium, Asheville, North Carolina, June/July 2009, 2009/1/1Google Scholar
  45. Vutukuri VS, Hossaini SMF, Foroughi MH (1995) A study of the effect of roughness and inclination of weakness planes on the strength properties of rock and coal. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on the mechanics of jointed and faulted rock, Vienna, Austria, April 1995. Balkema, pp 151–155Google Scholar
  46. Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H. R. and Skinner, E. H. (1972). Support determination based on geologic predictions, In: Lane, K.S.a.G., L. A., ed., North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference: Chicago, New York: Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, p. 43–64Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering, School of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Engineering Geomechanics, Institute of Geology and GeophysicsChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Shaoxing UniversityShaoxingChina

Personalised recommendations