Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions Soft Rocks and Karst Vrkljan (ed)

2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-80481-3

Determination of deformation modulus of rock mass;

Bakhtiari dam site

A. Akhondbabaei, S. Kariminasab & H. Jalalifar

Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran

F. Rafia
Kavoshgaran Consulting Engineering Company, Tehran, Iran

A.M. Radman
STUCKY Pars Company, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT: One of the key parameters in analyzing and designing of the underground and
geomechanical projects, especially in water pressure tunnels and dams, is determination of the deforma-
tion modulus. To evaluate and estimation this parameter, several researches have been conducted using
empirical models and rock mass classifications. However, none of these models are capable of accurately
predicting the modulus of deformation value. They only predict the initial estimation of this parameter.
For this reason, a huge series of in situ tests based on the plate load test were carried out in the Bakhtiari
double arch concrete dam, the highest concrete dam in the world. Finally, according to the in situ data
analysis, a model to predict the modulus of deformation was presented.

1 INTRODUCTION paper assume that the rock mass is isotropic. In

The modulus of deformation is undoubtedly the
geomechanical parameter that best represents the
mechanical behavior of rock mass. Field tests to
directly determine this parameter are time con-
suming, expansive and reliability of the results
of these tests is sometimes questionable. Conse-
quently, several authors have proposed empiri-
cal relationship for estimating the value of an
isotropic rock mass deformation modulus on the
basis of classification schemes such as the Rock
Mass Rating, RMR (Bieniawski, 1973), the tun-
neling quality index, Q (Barton, 1974) and the
Geological Strength Index, GSI (Hoek & Brown,
1997).The first empirical model for prediction
of the deformation modulus of rock masses was
developed by Bieniawski (Bieniawski, 1978). After
Bieniawskis empirical equation, some other empir-
ical approaches such as Serafim and Pereira (Ser-
afim & Pereira, 1983), Nicholson and Bieniawski
(Nicholson&Bieniawski, 1990), Mitri et al. (Mitri
et al., 1994), Hoek and Brown (Hoek&Brown,
1997), Palmstrom and Singh (Palmstrom & Singh,
2001) and Galera et al. (Galera et al., 2006) have
been proposed to estimate the deformation modu-
lus of rock masses. Note that all of the correlation
discussed above as well as those presented in this
this research, according to the in situ data analysis
a model was predicted to determine the modulus
of deformation. Moreover, available predicted
models to estimate joint spacing and their effects
on RQD, RMR and modulus of deformation,
were evaluated. Finally, a comparison was car-
ried out among the predicted model and the vari-
ous empirical approaches which were mentioned
above.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The data used in this research were provided from
Bakhtiari dam site. Bakhtiari dam with 315 meter
height will be the highest double arches dam in the
world. This dam will be constructed on Bakhtiari
River that is one of the Dez River headstreams.
The project is located 570 kilometers far from
south west of Tehran in Lorestan province, south
west of Iran. From the geological point of view,
this area is located in expanse of folded Zagros
and the formation of Sarvak belongs to Certase.
Sarvak formation from the lithological point of
view is divided to seven parts which are shown
in Table 1 (Bakhtiari Joint Venture consultant,
2006). The discontinuity spacings of this unit are

171
Table 1. Lithology description of Sarvak units (Bakhtiari
Joint Venture consultant, 2006).
Unit Lithology
Sv1 Medium to thick interbedded dark gray marly
limestone and black laminated marlstone to
shale.
Sv2 Thin to medium bedded dark gray marly
limestone to marly limestone with thin
black laminated marlstone to shale
interbeds.
Sv3 Thin to medium interbedded dark gray marly
limestone and siliceous limestone.
Sv4 Medium to thick bedded dark gray limestone
with small siliceous nodules.
Sv5 Thick to very thick bedded dark gray
limestone with big siliceous nodules.
Sv6 Medium to thick bedded dark gray limestone
and marly limestone with thin interbedded.
Sv7 Thin to medium bedded dark gray limestone
and marly limestone with thin shale
interbeds.
Table 2. Summary of the geomechanical and rock mass
properties of the rock masses employed in the study.
3 PREDICTION OF DEFORMATION
MODULUS BY EXISTING EMPIRICAL
EQUATIONS
Clerici stated that when selecting the existing
empirical equations for the estimation of defor-
mation modulus, the following criteria must be
considered:
a. Equations must be based on parameters that
can be acquired easily and at low cost;
b. Equations must be widely mentioned in the lit-
erature (Clerici, 1993).
Taking into consideration the criteria mentioned
above, the following empirical equations were used
for the estimation of deformation modulus at this
stage:
E M = 2RMR 100(RMR > 50) (1)
E M =10(RMR 10)/40 (RMR < 50)
(2)
E i 0.0028 * RMR2
EM =
(
100 + 0.9 exp RMR 22.82 ) (3)

Property Minimum Maximum Average

E = E i (0.5 * (1 cos( * RMR/100))) (4)
M
UCS (Mpa) 48 132 89.5
Ei (Gpa) 55 95 70.86 C
Er (Gpa) 1.9 17.95 7.97 EM = * 10(GSI 10)/40 ( C <100MPa) (5)
RQD (%) 21 97 61.4 100
RMR 29 52 42.2 E M = EXP((RMR 10)/18) (6)
Spacing of 0.12 0.82 0.33
discontinuities (m)
Roughness of Generally smooth-slickensided, According to above relationships, the Rock Mass
discontinuties however occasionally rough Rating, RMR, is used directly and indirectly in all of
Weathering degree Generally slightly weathered, the relationships; so estimate and correct calculation
however occasionally fresh of this parameter will have deserving function in esti-
mate of rock mass modulus. Since joint spacing and
RQD are two important parameters in RMR, Priests
generally moderate according to the classification and Choi and Parks suggested models (Priest, 1993),
recommended by ISRM (ISRM, 1981), while the (Choi & Park, 2004) to determine carefully these
apertures are tight or party open. These apertures parameters. According to Prists suggestion (l 5),
include filling material such as calcite and clay infill- choi and parks models were studied in different scan-
ing. Discontinuity surfaces are generally smooth line length and eventually, the minimum length of 7.5
and slightly weathered. All date employed in this meter for studying joint spacing and RQD in Bakhti-
research were collected from the galleries and the ari Dam Site was used. The total spacing is defined as
geotechnical boreholes at the dam site mentioned the spacing between a pair of immediately adjacent
above. In addition to the field observation, 42 plate fractures along a scanline at a specific orientation.
loading tests were performed in Bakhtiari Dam site. Because the total spacing values at the study site fol-
To determine the uniaxial compressive strength and lowed the negative exponential distribution (Fig.1),
the static Young modulus of the units, the intact the RQD and fracture frequency along any orienta-
core rock specimens having a diameter of 54 mm tion can be estimated using Eq.(7).
were taken from the geotechnical boreholes.
A brief assessment of the geomechanical prop- RQD =100(1+ st) exp( st) (7)
erties and rock mass classifications of limestone
are tabulated in Table 2 (Bakhtiari Joint Venture where S = fracture frequency; t = the threshold
consultant, 2006). value.

172
 performances of the existing equations. According
to these results (Table 2), the equation proposed
by Galera et al. (Galera et al., 2006) exhibited the
most acceptable results while the equation pro-
posed by Mitri et al. (Mitri et al., 1994), gave the
most scattered results. Consequently, the equa-
tions by Serafim and Pereira (Serafim & Pereira,
1983) and Nicholson and Bieniawski (Nicholson &
Bieniawski, 1990) are considered to give acceptable
results.

4 NEW CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RMR

AND ROCK MASS DEFORMATION
MODULUS
Figure 1. Histogram of fracture spacing at the study site. The information presented here is derived partially
bibliography (Bieniawski, 1978; Seraphim-Pereira,
1983; and Labrie et al. (2004)) but mainly from
Table 3. Values of the root mean square errors (RMSE)
and standard deviation (STDEV) for the estimated
plate loads measurements performed in Bakhtiari
modulus of deformabilities from the existing empirical dam. A stress vs. displacement curve was obtained
equations. from one of the tests in GL2 gallery along with
graphical definitions of Peak to Peak modulus of
Empirical Number deformation (Dpp) shown in Fig. 2.
equation RMSE STDEV of data Figure 3 shows all the new correlations consid-
ered including Serafim-Pereira and Galera et al.
Serafim & 7.2 1.97 51 expressions. The first relation is an improvement
Pereira
Nicholson & 7.8 1.76 52
Bieniawski
Mitri et al. 26.5 5.21 52
Galera et al. 6.7 1.85 52

The use of RMR and not GSI is strongly rec-

ommended because GSI introduces more empir-
ism in a classification that itself is empirical, as
was stated in a recent review by Palmstrom (2003)
who warned as follows Visual determination of
GSI parameters represents the return to quality
descriptions instead of advancing quantitative
Figure 2. Stress-displacement curve and definitions of
input data in RMR, Q and RMI systems. GSI was Peak to Peak modulus of deformation (Dpp).
found mainly useful for weaker rock masses with
RMR<20. As GSI is used for estimating input
parameters (strength), it is only an empirical rela- 80

tion and has nothing to do with rock engineering 70

classification (Galera et al., 2006). 60

When considering the limitations of the pro-

Deformation modulus (Gpa)

posed equations, some of the equations were not 50

capable to use for all the locations except those pro- 40

posed by Nicholson and Bieniawski (Nicholson &

30
Bieniawski, 1990), Mitri et al. (Mitri et al., 1994),
Hoek and Brown (Hoek & Brown, 1997) and Galera 20

et al. (Galera et al., 2006). Also it is mentioned that 10

for two locations, 1 and 51, Bieniawski (Bieniawski,

0
1978), and Serafim-Pereira (Serafim & Pereira, 0 10 20 30 40 50
RMR
60 70 80 90 100

1983) were used respectively. The root mean square

errors (RMSE) for each equation were calculated Figure 3. New correlations between RMR and rock
to make a relative comparison for the prediction mass deformation modulus.

173
of Serafim-Pereiras and Galeras relations, as
follows:
(RMR 5)
Em = 3 21
(8)
The obtained regression coefficient, r2, is
around 0.817, which is higher than the one pre-
sented by Serafim-Pereiras and Galeras relations.
The regression coefficient of the second equation,
which is based on the power function, is around
0.837 which is higher than the one proposed by
Serafim-Pereira and Galera.
3.07
RMR
Em = 0.01 *
5
(9)
In the last stage of statistical studies for estima-
tion of deformation modulus, the following expres-
sion has been suggested for RMR 50:
Em = 0.0142 RMR2 0.408 RMR 6.64 (10)
The regression coefficient, r2, is obtained 0.771.
When evaluating the relations based on
RMR < 50, it was found that these relations could
not predict acceptable results. This problem is
probably due to the effect of different parameters
such as; the presence of various discontinuities,
the inherent statistical nature of their geometrical
parameters and the uncertainties involved in the
estimation of their geomechanical properties in
jointed rock masses.
5 CONCLUSIONS
It was concluded that joint spacing and RQD
are two important parameters in RMR. Prists
and Choi and Parks suggested models were used
to determine these parameters carefully. For this
reason, according to Prists suggestion, Choi and
Parks models were used in different scanline
lengths, minimum of 7.5 meter. The root mean
square errors (RMSE) revealed that the highest
predictive capability was provided by the Serafim
and Pereiras and Galera et al.s equation among
the empirical models evaluated in this study. An
analysis of in situ rock mass modulus measure-
ments for a wide range of data from different sites,
specially Bakhtiari dam site, has resulted in three
equations for estimating rock mass deformation
modulus.
174
REFERENCES
Barton, N., Lien, R. & Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering clas-
sification of rock masses for the design of tunnel sup-
port. Rock Mech 6(4):189236.
Bakhtiari Joint Venture consultant. Geology report
(Stage II studies). 2006. Tehran: Iran Water and Power
Resources Development Co (IWPC) Authorith.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of
rock masses. Trans S African Inst Civ Engrs 15(12):
33544.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1978. Determining rock mass deforma-
bility: experience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 15: 237247.
Choi, S.Y. & Park, H.D. 2004. Variation of rock qual-
ity designation (RQD) with scanline orientation and
length: acase study in Korea. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 36: 673685.
Clerici, A. 1993. Indirect determination of rock masses:
case histories. In: Riberio e Sousa LM, Grossman NF,
editors. Proceedings of the Symposium EUROCK93,
Rotterdam: 50917.
Galera, J.M., Alvarez, M. & Bieniawski, Z.T. 2006. Eval-
uation of the deformation modulus of rock masses:
comparison of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests
with RMR prediction. Proc. ISP5 Pressio Int Sympo-
sium. Paris.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of
rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):
116586.
ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics). In:
Brown, E.T. editor. 1981. ISRM suggested method: rock
characterization, testing and monitoring. London: Per-
gamon Press.
Mitri, H.S., Edrissi, R. & Henning, J. 1994. Finite ele-
ment modeling of cablebolted stopes in hard rock
ground mines. Presented at the SME annual meeting.
New Mexico, Albuquerque. p. 94116.
Nicholson, G.A. & Bieniawski Z.T. 1990. Anonlinear
deformation modulus based on rock mass classifica-
tion. Int J Min Geol Eng 8: 181202.
Palmstrm, A. & Singh, R. 2001. The deformation mod-
ulus of rock masses:comparisons between in situ tests
and indirect estimates. Tun and Undergrnd Space Tech
16: 11531.
Priest, S.D. 1993. Discontinuity analysis for rock engi-
neering. London:Chapman & Hall. p. 473.
Serafim, J.L. & Pereira, J.P. 1983. Consideration of the
geomechanical classification of Bieniawski. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Eng. Geol. and Underground Construction,
pp.11331144.