Int. J. Rdck M e c h . Min. Sci. & Geomech, Abstr. Vol. 15, pp. 237-247. Pergamon Press 1978.

Printed in Great Britain

Determining Rock Mass Deformability: Experience from Case Histories

Z. T. BIENIAWSKI*

This paper discusses the results of extensive in-situ rock deformability tests conducted on three major engineering projects in South Africa: the Orange River Water Project, the Drakensberg Pumped Storage Scheme and the Elandsberg Pumped Storage Scheme. These projects featured testing programmes involving many different methods, thus enabling comparisons and assessments of the reliability of the various in-situ tests. A review is also presented of the in-situ deformability data ,from those important projects throughout the world which are well documented. It is shown that in-situ tests pose a number of uncertainties even for rock mechanics specialists and a new approach to assessing rock mass deformability based on the Geomechanics Classification of rock masses is suggested.

INTRODUCTION Deformability is recognised as one of the most important parameters governing the behaviour of rock masses [1 4]. In fact, Miiller [5] suggested over ten years ago that deformation rather than stress be used as a basis for a stability assessment of rock masses. The advantage of this approach is obvious since deformation can be measured directly while stress being a fictitious physical quantity cannot be observed or measured; it can only be deduced from measurements of its effects, i.e. strain or deformation. Deformability is characterised by a modulus describing the relationship between the applied load and the resulting deformation. The fact that jointed rock masses do not behave elastically has prompted the usage of the term modulus of deformation rather than modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus. The Commission of Terminology of ISRM? published the following definitions [6]:

Modulus of deformation: the ratio of stress to corresponding strain during loading of a rock mass including elastic and inelastic behaviour; Modulus of elasiicity or Young's modulus: the ratio of stress to corresponding strain below the proportionality limit of a material.
Since rock masses are discontinua, tests conducted on small rock specimens in the laboratory generally do not yield the deformability data which would be directly applicable to the whole rock mass from wldich the specimens were taken. A specimen is usually a continuous structure or approaches such a state for practi* Professor of Mineral Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 104 Mineral Sciences Building, University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A. + ISRM, International Society for Rock Mechanics.

cal purposes. The smaller the specimen the fewer the discontinuities present and hence a smaller specimen may be expected to have a higher modulus and strength than a large specimen. As there is no reliable method of predicting the overall deformation data of a rock mass from the results of laboratory tests on small specimens, in-situ tests on large specimens are necessary. Such tests also have the advantage that the rock specimen is tested under the same environmental conditions as are prevailing in the rock mass. Consequently, although in-situ tests are expensive and time consuming, they have been employed throughout the world on most major rock engineering projects. Yet, there are a number of controversial questions pertinent to in-situ tests. One can argue, for example, as to whether the interpretation of the measured in-situ data is at best an estimation, open to criticism and thus not justifying the high expenditure, or whether the in-situ tests are truly necessary and should not be replaced by less costly approaches. Very few projects to date have featured a sufficient number of different tests to allow a meaningful comparison of in-situ test data. The available information is listed in Table 1. There are many types of in-situ tests: compression tests [7], shear tests [8], plate-bearing tests [9, I0], flat jack tests--both small [11] and large [12-14], radial press tests [15], pressure chamber tests [16], borehole jacking [17, 18] or dilatometer tests [19] and 'petite sismique' geophysical tests [20,21]. This paper is limited to those static in-situ tests which are specifically relevant to the determination of the modulus of deformation. Hence, compression tests and shear tests, which are fully discussed elsewhere [7,8], are not dealt with here. Furthermore, radial press tests and pressure

237

. 238

Z. T. Bieniawski
TABLE 1. COMPARISON DEFORMABILITY OF MODULUSFROMIMPORTANT PROJECIS

Case No. 1

Name of project, reference, rock type and date Oroville Dam [23] Massive amphibolite 1961 Tumut 2 [11] Gneiss/granite 1962 Poatina [43] Mudstone 1965 Dworshak Dam [17,18] Massive granite gneiss 1966

In-situ modulus,

Type of in-situ test Plate bearing Tunnel relaxation Flat jacks Plate bearing Tunnel relaxation Flat jacks Pressure chamber Flat jacks

No. of tests 5 22 30 6 3 6 2 ?

GPa Range Mean 8,3-12.4 4.1 51.7 9.7-113.5 1.8-52,0 34.5-83.0 13.8-20.6 16.6-22.1 10.4 17.9 51.8 6.9 11.0 57.5 17 7 20.6

Laboratory modulus, GPa Range Mean 74.5- 105.0 $9.0

Remarks Wide scatter in fiat jack results yet rock uniform Large scattex in plate bearing results 30:t

41.5-86.1

59.1

31.0-45.0

34.5

Tehachapi Tunnel [ 17,18]

Fractured diorite gneiss 1967 Crestmore Mine [17,18] Massive marble 1968

Plate bearing Goodman jack G S H Plate bearing Goodman jack G S H Plate bearing Flat jacks Goodman jack G S H Large fiat jacks

24 14

4 4

3.5~-34.5 11.6-18.6 16.5-36.4 42.8-74.5 3.5-5.5 4.1-7.1 3.5-7.9 15.9- 26.9 12.0-18.7 12.4-20.5 9.3- 11.7 11.7-17.0 36.5 46.2 9.6 40.2

23.5 14.5 23.6 53.5 4.8 5.8 5.8 22.5 15.0 12.4 10.4 14.0 40.9 29.2

51.7

G = original results by Goodman [17] S = corrected by Heuze and Salem [18] H :: same data recalculated by Hustrulid [24]

77.9

47.5

Turlough Hill [42] Granite 1969 Lake Delio [44] Gneiss 1970 Gordon Scheme [45] Quartzite 1971 Churchill Falls [46] Massive gneiss 1972 Waldeck II [47] Greywacke 1973 Mica Project [48] Quartzite gneiss 1974 Channel Tunnel [41] Chalk 1975 LG-2 Project [49] Massive granite 1976 Dinorwic [40] Slate 1977

8.0-20.2

15.0

Plate bearing Pressure chamber Plate bearing Dilatometer Tunnel relaxation Flat jacks Plate bearing

12 20 8 2 10 16 10

7.5--20.4 9.7-26.2 -

9.5 18,2 19.0 25.0 25.0 58.0 41.5

15.0--32.4

28.5

38.0--91.0

67.0

28.0-96.0 34.5-48.2

10

45.0-75.0

55.0

11

Plate bearing Radial press Tunnel relaxation Plate bearing Flat jacks Goodman jack Plate bearing

3.0--7.0 4.5-10.0 --8.3-48.3 - 2.03-3.41

5.0 15.0 27.6 28.8 16.6 2.4 24.5-32.0

20.0

From 19661to 1973, at the Witbank-Breyten coalfields, S.A., 44large scale in-situ tests were conducted on coal pillars in compression [7]. These tests gave the in-situ modulus E u = 4.0 GPa (2.9-5.0 GPa) while the laboratory modulus of the coal was EL = 5.2 GPa (4.6-6A GPa)

12

12 19 132 ?

27.0

13

0.4441.91

0.7

14

Plate bearing

'?

38.0~ 60.9

50.0

8010

15

Flat jacks RQD index

8 -50.0

75.0-140.0

105.0

Fla! jack tests unsuccessful

chamber tests are also excluded because they are used only in special circumstances [15]. INTERPRETATION OF IN-SIT U DEFORMABILITY DATA It is clear from Table 1 that selecting a modulus of deformation for design purposes, and a method for determining that modulus, is not an easy decision. Usually, the lowest and hence the most conservative value is chosen, but in such a case one may doubt the necessity of conducting the expensive in-situ tests

in the first place. In addition, there are uncertainties associated with all the in-situ tests listed in Table 1 so that the field is not without problems. To illustrate the uncertainties one need only consider the plate-bearing test which is by far the most common type of in-situ test used in rock mechanics. Few major projects such as underground powerhouses, large dams or important tunnels have been constructed without their use. The test simply involves applying a load to a rock surface, by means of hydraulic jacks or fiat jacks. and measuring the resultant deformations. The test appears deceptively easy in principle but the interpre-

Determining Rock Mass Deformability

50 4O :30 2O
3

239.

1.5

1.5 2

~
o

5
~ 2

3 4 5 I0 ' 20 M o d u l u s E R , GPa

30 40 50 2 1.5 1.5 2

5O

5
i

of
30

EB

no zo
~_ ud IO EB .

4 3 2

3 4 5

Modulus Granite I Before Shale Dproutincj Quartzite

IO EB,

20 GPo

50 40 50

Granite :1 After Shale I I gruting Quartzite

Fig. 1. ln-situ modulus of deformation data from plate bearing tests, after Rocha and da Silva [4].

tation of the results is affected by many factors and it is not uncommon that considerable confusion can arise on the meaning of the results [9]. In this respect one may quote from Rocha and da Silva [4] who state that "...the current plate-bearing test method yields results whose significance is often difficult or impossible to assess". They say that this was confirmed in more than 500 such in-situ tests conducted by the Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), in spite of the loading area being 1 m 2 which was larger than the size usually adopted. Figure 1 demonstrates the difficulties met by Roch and da Silva in the interpretion of the results. Two values of the modulus of deformation were obtained from each horizontal and vertical plate-bearing test and the data obtained by loading the opposite faces should, of course, be comparable. Figure 1 shows data from 118 horizontal tests, while Fig. lb shows the data from 130 vertical tests. It will be seen that the scatter of the results is very marked although the tested surfaces were at a distance of not more than 3m. As will be seen from Fig. 1 about 30% of the points correspond to the ratios of more than 2 between the deformation moduli obtained on the opposite faces and for 14~o of the points this ratio exceeds 3. Surely, the properties

of the rock did not differ so much in a small and carefully chosen region of 3 m width. The data must have been influenced by the test method. In fact, Dodds and Schroeder [22] have recently listed no less than six factors affecting plate-bearing test resultsithis for a test that is supposed to be 'the best understood'! Other commonly-used tests also suffer from similar uncertainties. For example, the large flat jack test [4] suffers from considerable theoretical uncertainties as experienced by Deklotz and Boisen [12] and by Vogler et al. [13]. The theoretical solution for the results of the popular small flat jack test [11,50] is limited to flat jacks of square shape and openings of this shape are difficult to produce reliably in the field. This usually leads to high values of the modulus of deformation and a wide scatter in the results even where the rock mass is very uniform [23]. Borehole tests, such as the dilatometer [19] test or the Goodman jack [17] test also have their problems. Rocha [19] does not believe that the dilatometer is reliable because it tests too small a volume of the rock and induces tensile stresses in the borehole, resulting in the modulus values being 2-3 times lower than the in-situ values determined by the plate-bearing test. The Goodman jack [17] is a much more practical instrument but there is controversy today [18,24,25] over whether it is the contact angle between the loading platen and the borehole surface or the stiffness ratio of the platen material (steel) to that of the rock which necessitates a correction to the results. Depending on which correction is chosen, the difference in the results can be significant (see Table 1, cases 4, 5 and 6). Finally, the 'petite sismique' method [20], although appearing to hold great promise, has seldom been used to date and still requires a thorough assessment [21]. It is obvious that what is called for is a systematic evaluation and comparison of the various techniques with the aim of providing some general guidelines for future use. Accordingly, the following case histories constitute an attempt to provide some answers derived from three major South African projects, each featuring a number of in-situ deformability tests. These case histories are the Orange River Project, the Drakensberg Scheme and the Elandsberg Scheme.

CASE HISTORY 1:
ORANGE RIVER PROJECT

The Orange River Project is a large water scheme aimed at harnessing the Orange River in South Africa primarily for irrigation purposes. The main works of this project comprise the 90 m high Hendrik Verwoerd Dam as a main storage dam with a reservoir shoreline of over 500 km irrigating 9000 farms, the P.K. le Roux Dam with the 240MW Van Der Kloof powerhouse, the 82 km long Orange-Fish Tunnel and an extensive canal system. The Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was completed in 1972, the Orange-Fish Tunnel in 1975, the

240
3c / z~'
,f

Z.T. Bieniawski

mass [30] had a Geomechanics Classitication rating o! 71, class II--good rock. ln-situ tests included t5 plate(3 bearing tests in the dolerite (10 horizontal and 5 verti; o Sandstones Ld cal). No stress measurements were conducted. ~.,0" ,/' The 82 km long Orange-Fish Tunnel, the longest corJtinuous tunnel in the world, is located in horizontallybedded mudstones, siltstones and sandstones with occaA "* ' " sional dolerite intrusions. The rock masses in the tunnel 3 ~ varied considerably in their quality, having the Geo mechanics Classification rock mass rating RMR = 41 70. ln-situ deformability tests [26] included three pressure I'A . chamber tests and 20 plate-bearing tests the results of which are plotted in Figs. 2 and 3. Extensive stress measurements were conducted at 18 localities along the I "~' ~ i I'' I l I 35 40 0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 tunnel involving 38 measurements with the ('SIR triaxL o b r o t a r y modulus of deformation EL, GPo ial strain cell. The results showed that the horizontal Fig. 2. Comparison of in-situ and laboratory moduli of deformation stresses were greater than the vertical stresses in all determined at the Orange-Fish Tunnel, after Olivier [27]. sections of the tunnel, the ratio OH~dr varying between 1.0 to 2.6 with an average of i.84. It was ;also found that the measured vertical stress was smaller than the P.K. le Roux Dam and its powerhouse in 1977, while calculated overburden stress by a factor of 2 to 3~ the rest of the scheme is still under construction. The results of all the tests from the three sites are In view of the importance of the Orange River Project, extensive site investigations were conducted 1-26] summarised in Table 2. for the two dams (both founded entirely on dolerite) and for the Orange-Fish Tunnel (constructed predomiCASE HISTORY 2: nantly in horizontally bedded mudstones)1-27]. DRAKENSBERG SCHEME For the Verwoerd Dam, the site investigations included [26] drilling over 10,000 m of core and excavatThe Drakensberg Pumped Storage Scheme, a ing many trenches, pits and test adits. The rock mass 1000 MW power facility currently being constructed was sound dolerite of a very good quality 1,16] for the Electricity Supply Commission (ESCOM) (RQD > 80%), highly homogeneous and showing little featured a rock mechanics feasibility study 1,31] as well weathering. Horizontal foliation was the predominant as in-situ rock stress measurements and plate-bearing feature~spacing 1-1.7 m--with some vertical jointing tests 1-32]. In addition, as a part of the research prospaced 8-10 m apart. The joints were of excellent condi- gramme, other investigations such as 'petite sismique', tion and there was a very slight inflow of water. This geomechanics rock mass classification and rock rock mass was classified in accordance with the Geo- modulus laboratory tests were conducted 1,33]. mechanics Classification [28], ranging in quality from upper class II (good rock)--rating 75, to class I (very 50 good rock)---rating 85. Laboratory tests gave the average uniaxial compressive strength of dolerite as 310 MPa with the modulus of elasticity of 72.4 GPa (ranging from 63.4 to 77.2 ~. ,4o / /1:I GPa). ln-situ tests were conducted in 5 test adits and in-, I / [] cluded 18 plate-bearing tests (11 horizontal and 7 vertical) of which 8 were in dolerite and 10 in shale). In / I O/ 0 Vertical / ~ f " ~ Horizontal addition, two pressure chamber tests were conducted " ' 15 i / t~ H o r i z o n t a l which included tunnel relaxation measurements. For the first time in South Africa, the 'petite sismique' / / / ...o .... method [20] was employed with which 40 profiles were made. However, no stress measurements were con6 ; I / ..i'" /1:4 ducted. VL...-...o__- -.! For the le Roux Dam [26,29], located 130km downstream of the Verwoerd Dam, 250 barholes were 5 I0 15 20 25 30 Moduli E e o n d ER, GPo drilled with a total length of core of 11,750 m. In addiET" Modulus in roof tion, four test adits were constructed, varying from 60 E B = Modulus in floor to 200 m in length, and one shaft. The RQD of the EL= M o d u l u s =n l e f t wall ER= M o d u l u s in r i g h t wall rock was 100% and although the dolerite was even less weathered than that at the Verwoerd Dam, the joints Fig. 3. Comparison of in-situ deformability data from plate bearing were continuous and filled with gouge. The rock tests at opposite faces of test adits at the Orange--Fish Tunnel [27].
n (.9 Silty mudstones Muddy siltstones ~"

'k

.o

Determining Rock Mass Deformability

TABLE 2. DEFORMABILITY DATA FROM THE ORANGE RIVER PROJECT ln-situ m o d u l u s of deformation, G P a Pressure chamber Relaxation - 31.7 21.5 23.5

241

N a m e of site Hendrik Verwoerd Dam P.K. le Roux Dam Orang~ Fish Tunnel

Rock type Dolerite Shale Dolerite Mudstone Siltstone Sandstone

Plate bearing 25.5 (17.1-37.6) 12.8 26.0 (18.6-40.6) Ev~,. = 13.0 _+6.5 EHor. = 17.8 +8.3

Petite sismique 26.5 28.1 12.1 26.5

Ratio* EM/EL 0.36 0.40 0.30

__
31.8

22.0

10.0

--

0.70

* EM, in-situ determined m o d u l u s of deformation of the rock mass, in GPa. E L, laboratory determined modulus of the rock material at 50% of the uniaxial strength, in GPa.

The rock strata within the site area consists of horizontally-bedded mudstones, siltstones and sandstones. The test sites were located in the underground exploratory tunnels shown in Fig. 4. There was one test niche in the main adit (for preliminary testing of the equipment), three niches in the machine hall test enlargement and six in the plate bearing test adit. All were excavated in unweathered interbedded siltstone with near horizontal bedding closely spaced. Some minor jointing was also evident but no groundwater inflow was observed. The R Q D of the core was 80-100%, while the rock mass had an overall Geomechanics Classification [28] rating R M R = 46-55, i.e. class III (fair rock). The rock mass in the machine hall pilot heading (four test sites) contains fine grained sandstone in addition to interbedded siltstone. This improved the RMR rating which ranged from 62 to 67, i.e. class II (good rock). The 30 rock stress measurements [33] using the CSIR triaxial cell showed that the average horizontal stress component was twice the vertical component, but back analysis of the convergence measurements in exploratory excavations [34] showed this ratio to be approximately three (a n = 12 M P a and av = 4 MPa). The measured vertical stress component was slightly greater than the calculated overburden pressure. The plate-bearing tests involved five vertical tests (including one preliminary test), six horizontal tests and three in the 45 direction. Displacements were measured on one side of the test adit by triple-point extensometers anchored in one borehole typically at positions 0.3m, l m and 6 m from the rock surface. The loaded area was 0.5 m 2 and the maximum loading capacity was 9.0MPa. The adit cross-section was mainly 2.5 x 2.5 m and the modulus values were corrected to allow for the confining effect of the adit using the three-dimensional boundary integral equation method [16]. Cores recovered from the extensometer boreholes at the plate-bearing test sites were used for determining the R Q D index and for laboratory tests to establish their strength and deformability in uniaxial compression. In each plate-bearing test, up to four cycles were performed in a two-day operation after which, in the fifth

cycle, the load was kept constant at the maximum load for 12 h and then the test was concluded. The results showed that the average modulus in the vertical direction (normal to the bedding planes) was 18.3 GPa, while the modulus in the horizontal direction (parallel to the bedding planes) was 25.0 GPa. The average laboratory determined values of the modulus from 21 tests were 19.4 G P a and 28.5 GPa, respectively. The in-situ tests at 45 yielded the average modulus of 23.4 G P a which was in between the values obtained from the vertical and horizontal tests. 'Petite sismique' geophysical profiles--32 shear wave traverses--gave a shear wave frequency range from 294 to 714 Hz, corresponding to a static in-situ modulus of deformation between 7.0 to 28.3 G P a with an average of 14.1 GPa. CASE H I S T O R Y 3: ELANDSBERG SCHEME The 1000 M~W Eiandsberg Pumped Storage Scheme [35] featured extensive exploratory tunnels in which wide ranging in-situ rock mechanics tests were conducted. The main reason for these investigations was that the 22 m span envisaged for the main underground cavern (197 m long and 47 m high) fell outside the limits of accumulated experience in South Africa for the rock mass conditions expected at Elandsberg.

enlargement

Test

Machine

hall

1@ ~ J~ ; S

heading

Test

odii

~ S Explorotory adit o
t

/
/
N I ioo

S-Boreholes for stress measurements

Fig. 4. Layout of exploratory excavation at the Drakensberg scheme.

242

Z.T. Bieniawski
G G

The powerhouse complex of the scheme is to be situated in greywacke (RQD = 75-859/o) which includes minor amounts of phyltite (RQD = 65-70~/o). Bedding foliation is near vertical striking parallel to the long axis of the cavern and this represents the main jointing feature of the scheme. Two further joint sets can be identified in addition to minor faulting. Water inflows of between 70 to 250 l./min have been recorded in the exploratory adit. In 1969, an earthquake with a recorded magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale occurred 15 km from the site, while in 1977 an earthquake of 5.0 magnitude was recorded in the same area. Design investigations for this scheme included extensive geological investigations, rock mechanics testing in the exploratory tunnels and enlargements [36,37] and finite element analyses for the spacing and shape of the caverns. This program was accompanied by detailed laboratory tests which aimed at providing, where possible, a correlation between the laboratory and the in-situ data [33]. The in-situ tests had four objects: (i) state of stress in the rock mass before and after excavation; (ii) rock mass deformability characteristics; (iii) rock mass permeability using a network of piezometers; and (iv) empirical data for rock reinforcement using convergence measurements, borehole extensometers, monitoring rockbolts and Gliitzl cells. The layout of the in-situ tests conducted in the exploratory tunnels at Elandsberg is shown in Fig. 5. In addition to all these tests the Geomechanics Classification [28] was used throughout the works to assess rock mass conditions. It was found that the greywacke rock mass was predominantly of class II (good rock) having a rock mass rating RMR = 66-80. The phyllite rock mass was of class III (fair rock) with RMR = 43-60. The 23 in-situ stress measurements (13 triaxial cells, 10 small fiat jacks) showed that the horizontal stresses are between 0.7 and 1.5 times the vertical stress, which in turn is about twice the calculated over-burden pressure. In order to determine the in-situ modulus of deformation for the greywacke and phyllite rock masses and to fulfill the primary engineering requirements of the client, two testing methods were used, namely, platebearing tests and small fiat jacks. With the agreement of the client, a further five different testing methods were applied, thereby fulfilling a research objective which accompanied this project. This was to assess the reliability, convenience and economics of each method and to check whether a correlation between all the results obtained could be established. Thus, in addition to those methods which were dictated by the practical engineering requirements for the scheme, the Elandsberg project also served as an in-situ laboratory for trying out a variety of techniques. The methods employed were: (1) plate-bearing tests; (2) small fiat jack tests; (3) large fiat jack tests: (4) Goodman jack tests; (5) tunnel relaxation measurements; (6) 'petite sismique' geophysics; and (7) quality

SM
G G sM

!i
G

LFj*T SM

|I

Z NS OE

'"

ISM

SM

0 50 I00 m Fig. 5. Layoutof exploratoryexcavationsat the Elandsberg scheme: PBT, plate-bearing tests; SFJ, small flat jacks; LFJ, large fiatjacks; GJ, Goodmanjack tests; PS, 'petite sismique"surveys; SM, stress measurements; RB, tests on rockbolts; G, geologicaldrilling.

index assessments (geomechanics rock mass classification) of the modulus reduction ratio (in-situ modulus to laboratory modulus). The principles of these methods are fully described elsewhere: plate-bearing tests by Dodds [9] and Misterek et al. [10]; small flat jack tests by Alexander E11], Wareham [50] and van Heerden et al. [37], large fiat jack tests by Rocha [4] and Vogter et al.[I31; Goodman jack tests by Goodman et al. [17], Heuze and Salem[18] and Hustrulid[24], tunnel relaxation measurements by Kruse[38]; 'petite sismique' by Schneider [20] and Hoek and Londe [21]; rock mass classifications by Bieniawski [28]. A special feature of the plate-bearing tests at Elandsberg was that the test niches were much larger than those at Drakensberg. The dimensions were 6 x 4 m normal to the direction of loading and 2.5m in the ' direction of loading. The large size of the test niches was selected to meet the theoretical requirement [8] that the nearest rock wall normal to the loaded surface should be about five radii of the loaded area away from it. In the case of the Goodman jack tests at Elandsberg, the modulus so obtained was corrected for the stiffness ,ratio (Erock/Esteei) effect in accordance with a threedimensional finite element analysis conducted by Heuze and Salem [18]. Since the reader may not be fully familiar with the 'petite sismique' method, more information on this technique is given in the Appendix. The results from the Elandsberg tests are summarised in Table 3.

AN APPROACH TO ASSESSING I N - S I T U DEFORMABILITY OF ROCK ~ E S

The three case histories confirmed that there are indeed some uncertainties in all of the in-situ tests employed. Nevertheless, it was also found that provided one does not rely on any one method alone but that two or more methods are used to cross-check the results, in-situ tests can form ~ reliable and essential basis for assessing rock mass deformability. The need

Determining Rock Mass Deformability TABLE3. DEFORMABILITY TESTSAT ELANDSBERG

Rock type Method Plate bearing tests (fracture zone is lower limit, solid zone upper limit) Small fiat jacks Large flat jacks G o o d m a n jack Tunnel relaxation Petite sismique Quality RQD indices Geomech All in-situ tests Laboratory tests Small fiat jacks G o o d m a n jack Tunnel relaxation Petite sismique Quality RQD indices Geomech All in-situ tests Laboratory tests No. of tests Modulus of deformation, G P a Range Mean Std. dev. 27.1-58.3 42.0-57.6 29.7-59.4 34.2-58.2 31.7-63.9 34.0-56.0 17.3-35.3 38.7-48.4 15.5M3.1 39.6 48.9 38.6 44.0 45.5 42.2 28.4 42.5 26.0 17.2 17.1 10.9 13.3 9.4 8.9 11.6 18.2 11.6 Remarks Vertical Horizontal E W Horizontal N-S Average Semi-circular jacks

243

12 (33 results)

G r e y w a c k e

10 (37 results) 3 39 23 43

34 45 32 9 6 4 25 5 7 3

11.4-76.9 35.2 68.8 66.9-77.9 25.2~,7.9 6.0-20.0 9.7 39.6 12.3-21.5 8.4-19.6 15.1-22.4 46.0-69.0

35.5 41.3 40.1 73.4 33.7 12.0 20.0 15.4 11.2 20.1 18.7 56.0

24.4 8.4 14.1 3.8 6.9 6.2 13.4 4.6 5.4 2.6 6.5 11.9

Using Heuze and Salem [18] correction From convergence measurements Dynamic modulus 30.6-91.2 GPa (Average: 65.0 GPa) R Q D = 75-8506, RMR: 66-80 EM/EL = 0.59 (0.47-0.79) Semi-circular jacks From convergence measurements R Q D = 65-70~ RMR = 43 60 E~a/E L = 0.33

P h y 1 1 i t e

for cross-checking the results becomes apparent when one considers the large scatter in the in-situ data obtained (see Table 3). The choice of the design value for the in-situ modulus of deformation then becomes a matter of engineering judgment and this can present some problems unless a cross-check on the in-situ test results is possible. It is believed that what is needed is a systematic and integrated approach to field investigations instead of conducting in-situ tests for the sake of conformity with other projects. The recommended guidelines, which have emerged from the three case histories discussed, are as follows: Firstly, a detailed engineering geological assessment of the rock mass conditions is required which should be expressed in quantitative terms by an engineering classification of the rock masses encountered. Secondly, at least two different types of in-situ tests should be selected and a sufficient number of the tests conducted to determine in-situ rock mass deformability in the representative structural regions of the rock masses. For this purpose, the plate-bearing test and the Goodman jack test are recommended. Thirdly, the stress field should be established in the test areas concerned by means of either an overcoring technique or small flat jacks. This last method would also provide an additional check on rock mass deformability. Stress measurements are necessary for the interpretation of in-situ deformability results because the
* RQD, rock quality designation which is a modified core recovery including only the pieces of sound rock 100 mm or longer.

stress field was found to be one of the most important factors affecting plate-bearing tests [22]. Fourthly, since in-situ tests are performed at a few localities only, seismic velocity geophysical surveys should be conducted to determine the continuity of the rock mass conditions throughout the area of the proposed engineering project. The 'petite sismique' technique (see Appendix) would provide a check on the static in-situ modulus of deformation as well as a check on the quality of the rock mass by comparing the field seismic velocity with the sonic velocity of intact rock tested in the laboratory. Fifthly, diamond drilling of good quality core of NX size (54 mm diameter) must be undertaken at the plate bearing and other test sites so that the RQD* can be established and samples can be selected for laboratory tests to determine the static modulus and the sonic velocity for intact rock specimens. Before elaborating any further on these five items, it must be pointed out--should the argument be advanced that the above philosophy of approach is too expensive--that the overall costs of the extensive in-situ tests at the Elandsberg Scheme were less than 1~o of the cost of the project. While items 2-5 above are of about equal importance for the interpretation of in-situ deformability data and do not require further explanation, the very first item is of such crucial importance in the planning and locating of the in-situ tests that it calls for special attention. The reason for this statement is that a quantitative engineering classification of rock masses is understood to be a classification which can provide a preliminary

244

Z . T . Bieniawski
,o

estimate of the possible in-situ rock mass deformability. Knowing whether a high or a low in-situ modulus of deformation is to be expected, such an assessment by a classification will enable a decision to be taken as to the number of in-situ tests needed, their frequency and the type of tests suitable for cross-checking the results. For example, if a high modulus is expected (25-30 GPa or more) and the rock conditions are fairly uniform, only a few in-situ tests will be needed. On the other hand, for rock masses with a modulus of 10 GPa or less a much more comprehensive in-situ testing programme must be designed. Two immediate questions which may be posed are: why should a rock mass classification be selected for this purpose and how reliable are any estimates by this means? The answer to these questions have emerged from the study of the three case histories presented earlier. It should first be stated that estimates of rock mass deformability by means of quality indices are not new; Deere et al. [1] suggested ten years ago that the RQD index and/or the seismic velocity index be used for this purpose. However, a detailed study of this aspect by Coon and Merritt [39] in 1970 did not provide enough evidence to support such a concept. The reason, for this is that neither the RQD nor the velocity index are sufficient on their own to describe fully the overall condition of a rock mass. The RQD disregards the influence of joint tightness, orientation, continuity and gouge material. The seismic velocity index is defined as the square of the ratio of the field seismic wave velocity to the sonic velocity in a laboratory specimen, (V~/VL)2. The ratio is squared to make the velocity index equivalent to the ratio of the dynamic moduli. This index, however, has too many uncertainties to be reliable on its own. Such uncertainties are the different sensitivities of the seismic and sonic waves as well as the difficulties in generating and identifying elastic waves in rock masses and in rock materials. Coon and Merritt [39] concluded that neither the RQD nor the velocity index are reliable for predicting directly in-situ rock mass deformability. In fact, in some cases the predicted insitu modulus of deformation was nearly three times greater than the corresponding laboratory modulus of intact rock. However, they suggested that the answer to this problem was to predict the modulus reduction ratio instead, that is, the ratio of the in-situ modulus of the rock mass EM to the laboratory modulus of the rock material Er. This ratio was found to be a better choice than the ratio of the field seismic modulus Es to the in-situ modulus EM because the Es/EM ratio proved to be too scattered and too unreliable in determination. The EM/Er ratio showed a reasonable correlation with the RQD (correlation coefficient 0.544) but not so much with the velocty ratio (correlation coefficient 0.368). Nevertheless, the RQD data were derived mainly from one project, the Dworshak Dam in the U.S.A., although a few results were also included from

w o

0 Results from Dworshak Dam [~110 Deere et OL, 1 9 6 7 [ I ] r~ ~/~lllJ ~: Orange-Fish Tunnel-vertical 'u.o! lacking tests Olivier, , 9 7 7 1 2 7 ] e~ ~ / ~ - I ~ Orange-Fish Tunnel-horizontal 10e B I jacking tests o ~m Drakensberg tests jl~ i 0.6 Elandsberg tests IL~-e. i E] Orange River project ~ll/q- ~ J Diepsloot _/== O
0.4

Q) m
.

o/:

0. P
|
0

i
t i
20

I
40

i
60

i
80

J
I00

Rock quality

designation,

Fig. 6. Comparison of RQD with modulus reduction ratio: EM, modulus of rock mass to Et., modulus of roCk material.

three other projects. The data used involved RQD >~ 60%. Care was also taken to improve the RQD correlation by obtaining a 'weighted' rock quality with depth, i.e. correcting the RQD values for the fact that the core is more fractured nearer the rock surface. No further research was done in this respect from 1970 to date, but in the meantime the relationship derived from the Dworshak Dam tests was used to determine in-situ deformability for projects in other countries [40]. Yet, in a number of cases the RQD approach proved impossible to apply. For example, in addition to the limitations of the RQD to describe fully the condition of the rock masses, it was found that it was not uncommon that the in-situ modulus of deformation was higher than that determined in the laboratory as shown by the tests for the Channel Tunnel [41], the Turlough Hill project in Ireland [42] and the Tumut 2 project in Australia [11]. Since the modulus reduction ratio cannot by definition exceed unity, the results from these projects could not be applied to the RQD vs modulus reduction ratio

1,0

[B 0

Jl~o.8
.9 4-O 0.6

0.4
~ o.e
o

O.rangeRiver Dams x~ Diel~loot B Drakensberg B ElandSl~g v Scientio Witbonk 0 Orange Fish tunnel

./
0

7
=
50

1t
,~
I0 2O

8
=
30

40

I
60 70 8Q

Class 90 ~oo

Geomechanics

rock mass rating

Fig. 7. Relationship between rock mass rating and ratio ot detbrmation modulus of rock mass Eu to that of rock material E~

Determining Rock Mass Deformability

o 80 a. t9 I.IJ E M =2 RMR-IO0

245

/
g=]S Q Elandsberg Scheme [] vrakensoerg..~cneme
t90ranae~-~sn/unnet Wifbdnk Coalfield o Le Roux Dam EB Dinorwic Scheme Gordon Scheme I
80

,..- 4 0 o

E 2o

I
50 60

I
70

I
90
IOO

Geomechanics

rock

moss

rating,

RMR

Fig. 8. Relationship between in-situ modulus and rock mass rating.

relationship--whatever the reason for the higher in-situ results (the authors of these tests did not give any explanation). It emerged, however, that one of the problems was that the laboratory tests may not have been conducted in accordance with the standardized procedures and that the laboratory data compared a tangent modulus at 50% strength with the in-situ modulus on the recovery cycle. It is obvious therefore that the RQD index and the modulus reduction ratio are not ideal to estimate in-situ rock mass deformability. Nevertheless, a check was carried out during the present study and the results are given on Fig. 6. It will be seen from this figure that there is a large scatter of the results and that for R Q D < 70~, it is not clear how the relationship should be applied. This state of affairs has prompted the present research, applying the rock mass rating (RMR) of the Geomechanics Classification [28] to predict d i r e c t l y the in-situ modulus of deformation of rock masses without using the modulus reduction ratio. An attempt to relate the modulus reduction ratio to the geomechanics rock mass rating also showed too much scatter, as shown in Fig. 7, and a different method of presentation was, therefore, selected. In Fig. 8, the in-situ modulus of deformation is plotted vs the Geomechanics rock mass rating. Using the least-squares method, the following numerical relationship was observed: E M = 1.76 R M R where
EM = in-situ RMR -

ence between the observed value and the predicted value expressed as a percentage of the predicted value. In view of the high correlation, the coefficients in equation (1) were rounded off since the aim of this research was to e s t i m a t e the in-situ modulus for a preliminary assessment of rock masses. This resulted in the following equation:
EM = 2 x R M R -

100.

(2)

Equation (2) with a prediction error of 18.2% is a simple equation to remember and sufficiently accurate for practical engineering purposes. It is believed that the Geomechanics Classification and equation (2) may be used for estimating the in-situ modulus of rock masses during the planning stage of a design investigation for a rock engineering project. CONCLUSION The case histories involving three major engineering projects in South Africa have shown that the uncertainties inherent in the various in-situ tests can be overcome by proper planning and interpretation of in-situ tests. For this purpose an approach is recommended involving the Geomechanics Classification of rock masses on the basis of which it is possible to estimate, by equation (2), the in-situ modulus of deformation with an accuracy better than 20%, which is sufficient for practical purposes. Acknowledgements--Theauthor wishes to thank the Electricity Supply Commission for permission to publish the in-situ test data for the Elandsberg Scheme. These data, as well as those from the Drakensberg in-situ tests, were obtained by the CSIR team under the author's direction. The Orange-Fish Tunnel test results were reported by Olivier 1-27] in his doctoral dissertation, which was supervised by the author. Received 6 September 1977; in revised form 30 November 1977.

84.3

(1)

static modulus of deformation in GPa = rock mass rating in accordance with the Geomechanics Classification [28].

This empirical equation (1) has a correlation coefficient of 0.9612 which is much higher than that in the case of the RQD index (correlation 0.544) and the velocity index (correlation 0.368). Equation (1) yields the prediction error of 17.8% which is defined as the differ-

REFERENCES
1. Deere D. U., Hendron A. J., Patton F. D. & Cording E. J. Design of surface and near-surface construction in rock. Proc. 8th Symp. Rock Mech. (Edited by Fairhurst C.) pp. 237-302. American Institute of Mining Engineers, New York (1967).

246

Z.T. Bieniawski

2. Duffaut P. Deformations in rock mechanics. Proc. Int. Syrup. on 25. Bruckl E. & Scheidegger A~ E. in-sit~ measuremcms ;~ i tw Rock Mech, pp. 3-12. Editorial Blume, Madrid (1968). Copper Mine at Mitterberg, Austria. Rock Mech 6~ ~,2~ !5 ~ 3. A.S.T.M. Determination of the in-situ modulus of deformation (1974). of rock. Special Technical Publication 477. A.S,T.M., Philadel26. International Orange River Consultants. Geologitai Imestiyation~ phia (1970). and Rock Mechanics Tests on H. F Verwoerd and ran der Klot~ 4. Rocha M. & Da Silva J. N. A new method for the determination Dam sites. Johannesburg (1965) of deformability of rock masses. Proc. 2nd Congr. Rock Mech. 27. Olivier H. J. Orange-Fish Tunnel Some Engineering Geologicai paper 2-21. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Belgrade Aspects. Univ. of Orange-Free Stale, Ph.D. tbesis, Bloemfonteir~ (1970). (1977). 5. Miiller L. Rock mass behaviour-<letermination and application 28. Bieniawski Z. T. Rock mass classifications in rock engineering, in engineering practice. Proc. 3rd Congr. Rock Mech., Vol. 1, Proc. Syrup. Exploration .for Rock Engng. (Edited by Bieniawski pp. 205-215. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver Z. T.) Vol, 1, pp. 97-106. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1976). (1974). 29. Bowcock J. B. Van der Kloof hydro-electric power station. Pro~. 6. Report of the Commission on Terminology. International Society Syrup. Exploration for Rock Engn#. (Edited by Bieniawski Z. T3 for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon (1975). Vol. 2, pp. 149-158. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1976). 7. Bieniawski Z. T. & Van Heerden W. L. The significance of in-situ 30. Bieniawski Z. T. & Orr C. M, Rapid site appraisal for dam fountests on large rock specimens. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & dations by the Geomechanics Classification. Trans 12th Int. Geomech. Abstr. 12, 101-113 (1975). Congr. Large Dams, 483-501. ICOLD, Mexico City (1976). 8. Van Heerden W. L. In-situ rock mass property tests. Proc. Syrup. 31. Bieniawski Z. T., Pells P. I. N. & Orr C. M. Drakensberg Exploration for Rock Engng. (Edited by Bieniawski Z. T.) Vol. Pumped Storage Scheme: rock mechanics feasibility study of the 1, pp. 147-157. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1976). underground power station. Rep. Coun. scient, ind Res. S. Afr. 9. Dodds D. J. Interpretation of plate loading test results. Field Pretoria No. ME 1325 (1974). Testing and Instrumentation of Rock. A.S.T.M. Special Technical 32. Van Heerden W. L. & Maschek R. K A. Drakensberg Pumped Publication 554, pp. 20-34. A.S.T.M., Philadelphia (1974). Storage Scheme: plate bearing tests~ Rep. Coun. scient, ind. Res. 10. Misterek D. L., Slebir E. J. & Montgomery J. S. Bureau of S. Aft., Pretoria No. ME 1477 (1976) Reclamation procedures for conducting uniaxial jacking tests. 33. Bieniawski Z. T. Design investigations for rock caverns in South Field Testing and Instrumentation of Rock. A.S.T.M. Special Africa. Proc. First Int. Syrup. on Storage in Excavated Rock Technical Publication 554, pp. 35--51. A.S.T.M., Philadelphia Caverns, Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp~ 107-112 (I977). (1974). 34. Sharp J. C., Richards L. R. & Byrne J. Instrumentation considerations for large underground trial openings in civil engineering. 11. Alexander' L. G. Field and laboratory tests in rock mechanics. Proc. Symp. Field Measurements in Rock Mech., Zurich (Edited Proc. 3rd Aust.-N.Z. Conf. on Soil Mech & Foundation Engng., by Kovari K.) pp. 587-610 (1977): pp. 161-168. Sydney (1970). 35. Bieniawski Z. T. Elandsberg Pumped Storage Scheme: rock 12. Deklotz E. J. & Boisen R. D. Development of equipment for engineering investigations. Proc. Syrup. Exploration for Rock determining deformation modulus and in-situ stress by means Engng. (Edited by Bieniawski Z. T.) Vol. l, pp. 273--289. A. A. of large flat jacks. A.S.T.M. Special Technical Publication 477, Balkeman, Rotterdam (1976). pp. 117-125. A.S.T.M., Philadelphia (1970). 36. De Wit B., Coetzer S. J., Houghton D. A. & Bieniawski Z. T. 13. Vogler U. W., Deffur R. D. & Bieniawski Z. T. CSIR large fiat Elandsberg Pumped Storage Scheme: rock mechanics studies in jack equipment for determining rock mass deformability. Proc. the tailrace test enlargement. Rep Coun. scient, ind. Res. S. Aft'., Syrup. Exploration for Rock Engng. (Edited by Bieniawski Z. T.) Pretoria No. ME 1490 (1977). Vol. 2, pp. 105-111. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1976). 37. Van Heerden W. L., Maschek R, K. A., de Wit B. & Botha 14. Pratt H. H., Black A. D., Brown W. S. & Brace W. F. A new M. L. Elandsberg Pumped Storage Scheme: in-situ tests to detertechnique for determining the deformation and frictional characmine rock mass deformability characteristics. Rep. Coun. scient. teristics of in-situ rock. A.S.T.M. Special Technical Publication ind. Res. S. Aft'., Pretoria No. ME 1517 (1977). 554, pp. 3-19. A.S.T.M., Philadelphia (1974). 38. Kruse G. H. Deformability of rock structures, California State 15. Misterek D. L. Analysis of data from radial jacking tests. Water Project. A.S.T.M. Special Technical Publication 477, pp. A.S.T.M. Special Technical Publication 477, pp. 27--38. A.S.TM., 58-88. A.S.T.M., Philadelphia (1970)i Philadelphia (1970). 39. Coon R. F. &Merritt A. H. Predicting in-situ modulus of defor16. Bowcock J. B., Boyd J., Hock E. & Sharp J. Drakensberg mation using rock quality indexes. A.S.T.M. Special Technical Pumped Storage Scheme--rock engineering investigations. Proc. Publication 477, pp. 154-173. A.S~T.M., Philadelphia (t970), Symp. Exploration for Rock Engng. (Edited by Bieniawski Z. T.) Douglas T. H., Richards L. R. & O'Neill D. Site investigation ' 40. Vol. 2, pp. 121-139. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1976). for main underground complex.---Dinorwic Pumped Storage 17. Goodman R. E., Van T. K. & Heuze F. E. Measurement of Scheme. Proc. Syrup. Field Measurements in Rock Mech, Zurich rock deformability in boreholes. Proc. lOth Syrup. Rock Mech., (Edited by Kovari K.) pp. 551-568 (i977). pp. 523-545. American Institute of Mining Engineers, New York 41. Tyrell A. P. Ground instrumentation for the Channel Tunnel (1972). project. Proc. Syrup. Exploration for Rock Engng. (Edited by 18. Hueze F. E. & Salem A. Rock deformability measured in-situ Bieniawski Z. T.) Vol. 1, pp. 233-241. A. A: Balkema; Rotterdam problems and solutions. Proc. Syrup. Field Measurements in Rock (1976). Mech. (Edited by Kovari K.) pp. 375-388. Zurich (1977). 19. Rocha M. Present possibilities of studying foundations of con- 42. O'Donoghue J. D. & O'Flaherty R_ M. The underground works of Turlough Hill. Water Power 26, 5-12 (1974). crete dams. Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Rock Mech,, Vol. IA, pp. 879-896. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver 43. Endersbee L. A. & Holt0 E. O. Civil engineering design and studies in rock mechanics for Poatina Underground Power (1974). Station. J. Aust. Inst. Engrs 35, 187-206 (1963). 20. Schneider B. Contribution a l'etude des massifs de fondation de barrages. Trans. du labor de geol. de la fac. des sci. de Grenoble 44. Dolcetta M. Problems with large underground stations in Italy. Proc. Syrup. Underground Rock Chambers (Edited by Lane K. S.) Monsoir No. 7, 235 p. Grenoble (1967). pp. 243-286. A.S.C.E, New York (t973). 21. Hock E. & Londe P. The design of rock slopes and foundations-general report. Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Rock Mech., Vol. 45. Lack L. J., Bowling A. J. & Knoop B. P. Rock mechanics studies and instrumentation for the Gordon Underground Power IA, pp. 613-654. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Station. Proc. 2nd Austr.-N.Z. Confl on Geomechanics, Brisbane, Denver (1974). pp. 274-280 (1975). 22. Dodds D. J. & Schroeder W. L. Factors bearing on the interpre46. Benson R. P., Murphy D. K. & McCreath D. R. Modulus testing tation of in-situ testing results. Proc. 2nd Rapid Excavation and of rock at the Churchill Falls Underground Powerhouse. Tunnelling Conference (Edited by Pattison H. C. & D'Appolonia A.S.T.M. Special Technical Publication 477, pp 89-116. E.) pp. 397-414. American Institute for Mining Engineers, New A.S.T.M, Philadelphia (1970). York (1974). 47. Pahl A. Waldeck II Pumped Storage Station--geomechanical in23. Kruse G. M. Powerplant chamber under Oroville Dam. Proc. vestigations. Proc. 2nd Int. Conqr. on Engng. Geol., paper VII-16. Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference (Edited by Pattison 1.A.E.G., Sao Paulo (1974). H. C. & D'Appolonia E.) pp. 333-380. American Institute of 48. Meidal P & Dodds R. K. Rock mechanics studies at Mica ProMining Engineers, New York (1974). ject, B. C. Syrup. on Underground Rock Chambers (Edited by l,ane 24. Hustrulid W. A. An analysis of the Goodman jack. Proc 17th K. S) pp 20~-242. A.S.C.E.. New Y~wk (19731. Syrup. Rock Mech., Snowbird, Utah, pp. 4B10-1~8 (1976).

Determining Rock Mass Deformability

49. Murphy D. K., Levay J. & Rancourt M. The LG-2 Underground Powerhouse. Proc. Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, pp. 515-533. American Institute of Mining Engineering, New York (1976). 50. Wareham B. F. The use of fiat jacks in rock mechanics with particular reference to in-situ stress measurement and deformability testing. M.Sc. thesis. Imperial College, London (1972).
no 45 =~ 40 LU o: 35

247

o DatafromSchneider [20] ~x Drakensberg siltstone/sandstone (~Ell~:dd:b;rr; ;;ike / gpr:;,~i

EM = O.05 4 f - 9 ~ , t X ~ O :

/
/

~ 30
~25

rdo Do m

'~

20

APPENDIX : THE 'PETITE SISMIQUE' TECHNIQUE

While the conventional seismic techniques utilise exclusively seismic wave velocities, the 'petite sismique' method involves the measurement of the following seismic parameters of the shear wave: frequency, velocity, attenuation and half wavelength [20]. These values are used not only to 'identify' a specific rock mass but also to estimate the static modulus of deformation. In operation, the 'petite sismique' survey is similar to a conventional surface seismic refraction survey. The additional features are as follows: (a) Constant amounts of seismic energy are imparted to the rock mass by allowing the sledgehammer to fall over a vertical distance o f l m. (b) Time interval and gain readings are recorded at successive geophone/hammer intervals of 2-3 m up to a final distance of 25-30 m. The readings are taken by recording the time taken for the first arrivals of various portions of the shear wave and the gain control setting of the seismograph necessary to obtain a waveform of consistent amplitude. Pictorial representation of this data is given in Fig. 9. (c) The seismic parameters of half wavelength (2) and frequency (f) are computed from the following equations: 22 = (t~ f=
-

15

S
o.o/
J I00 fl 200 I 300 I 400 I 500 t 600 L 700 I 800 J 900
I000

IO

Shear

wave

frequency

f,

Hz

Fig. 10. Correlation between static modulus of deformation EM and shear wave frequency f from 'petite sismique'. where
Vs = field shear wave velocity,

tA = travel time of first arrival of positive peak, see Fig. 9, tB = travel time of first arrival of negative peak, see Fig. 9. (d) Field compressional wave velocities, if measured during the survey, may be used to compute the seismic modulus of deformation of the rock mass. The most important feature of the 'petite sismique' technique is the relationship between the shear wave frequency, f, and the field static modulus of deformation, EM. This empirical correlation is given in Fig. 10 and is of the following form: EM(GPa) = 0.054 f 9.2 w h e r e f i s given in Hz.

tAWs

[2(tB - tA)] I

C
+ve

! 1"

,._--^.,A

~'- " v - v V i~,-~vBACKGROUND

.h_ ._AA~
lip V NOISE

ve

FREQUENCY (Hz) " f = 1

2 (t B - 1 A)

I I I I
I

V
t :e

V V vv

I IA

ic
T I M E (ms)

L w

TIME

ORIGIN

Fig. 9. Typical shear wave representation on oscilloscope showing measurements conducted during 'petite sismique' surveys.