ANALYSING OF THE REPRESENTATIVE LENGTH OF ROCK MASS SUBJECTED TO LOAD BY IN SITU LOADING TESTS TO EVALUATION OF ROCK MASS DEFORMATION

MODULUS
L. FARAMARZI 1 and K. SUGAWARA 2
1 2

Mining Engineering Dep., Isfahan University of Technology ,Isfahan - Iran. Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Japan. 1 E-mail: lfaramarzi@cc.iut.ac.ir

The in situ deformation modulus is an important engineering parameter required for designing many structures in and on rock, from underground openings to foundations. Among the rock mass properties, the deformation modulus has a vital importance for the design of rock engineering projects, because the deformation modulus is the best representative parameter of the pre-failure mechanical behavior of the rock material and of a rock mass. The in situ loading tests intended to measure the rock mass deformability seek to cover a representative part of the rock mass including the matrix rock and some fissures. This paper has reviewed all large in situ tests, to evaluate of the deformation modulus of the rock mass. The classification of in-situ loading tests for the deformation modulus determination has been proposed, basing on the type of opening and the loading condition, along with a scheme to measure the representative length of each loading test. Analyzing 9 case studies, it has been clarified that there is a considerable variability in results obtained from different loading tests, as the modulus value increases with the representative length. From the variability in results, it can be concluded that there is presently no one single method that is absolutely reliable. From the fact that the better results are provided by the tests which can cover a larger volume of rock mass, it has been discussed that the volume effect on results definitely needs further developments of higher-quality loading tests. Keywords: deformation modulus, representative length, in situ loading, higher-quality loading, conventional loading.

ABSTRACT:

1 Introduction Rock mass deformability is of fundamental importance for a safe and economical design of rock structures, i.e. large underground openings like underground powerhouses, along with the initial state of stresses act on rock mass and its strength characteristics. In order to obtain the reliable information on these, many kinds of experimental study have been carried out with theoretical studies. The laboratory tests are, however, not very suitable for this purpose, since the specimen is too small. Hence the in-situ tests are presently employed in major rock engineering projects, to provide more rational data for design of rock structures which are available for the prediction of rock mass behavior when we construct them [4,11,28]. The rock mass deformability is currently evaluated by means of different types of in-situ loading tests, i.e. the Plate Loading Tests [1,3,15,24,25] the Flat Jack Test [17,23], the Radial Jacking Test [2,8] the Water Chamber Test [6,7,9] and Borehole Tests [5,14,16,19,20]. Although these conventional loading tests, intended to measure the rock mass deformability, seek to cover a representative part of rock mass including the matrix rock and some geological discontinuities, there is a considerable variability in results obtained from different loading tests. Namely the different loading tests provide different results on rock mass deformability even if they are applied at the same site. Thus the reliability and accuracy of the in-situ loading tests are still being discussed. One of the main sources of the variability in results is considered to be differences in volume of rock subjected to load, but a clear explanation has not been made. The better results will be obtained by means of the tests which can cover a larger volume of rock mass. It will be made clear that the test results may be taken to closely represent the macroscopic deformability of rock mass. In addition, it is also considered that the state of stress created inside the rock mass dependent on the method of testing has a significant influence, along with geological conditions and the measurement system employed [12,13,15,24,27].

2 Deformation Modulus of Rock Mass It is not sufficient to characterize rock deformability by elastic constants alone, since many rocks are non-elastic. Elasticity refers to the property of reversibility of deformation in response to load. Many fresh, hard rocks are elastic when considered as laboratory specimens. But on the field scale, where the rock can be expected to contain fissures, fractures, bedding planes, and zones of altered rock and clays with plastic properties, most rocks do not exhibit perfect elasticity. This is clarified by many studies. Fig. 1 offers an example of non-elastic stress-strain curve of rock mass, which can be obtained by cycles of loading and unloading. Here, the strain () is divided into the permanent component (P) and the recoverable component (R). Deformability is characterized by a modulus describing the relationship between the applied stress () and the resulting strain (). The fact that jointed rock mass does not behave elastically has prompted the usage of the term deformation modulus rather than modulus of elasticity or Youngs modulus [12,13,21,28]. Thus, for the slopes of non-linear stress-strain curve in Fig. 1, we can define three kinds of deformation modulus as follows: Apparent deformation modulus: E A =

d d
d d P d d R

(1)

Permanent deformation modulus: EP =

(2)

Recoverable deformation modulus: ER =

(3)

Permanent deformation modulus: EP = d / dP Stress Recoverable deformation modulus: E = d / dR Apparent deformation modulus: EA = d / d

Loading Unloading

Re-loading 0 Permanent strain: P Recoverable strain: R Strain = P + R

Fig. 1 Non-elastic stress-strain curve of rock mass under uniaxial compression.

The apparent deformation modulus (EA) is usually called the loading deformation modulus, because it is determined from the non-linear stress-strain curve in the loading period. The recoverable deformation modulus (ER) is called the re-loading deformation modulus, since the value of ER is

determined from the slope of the stress-strain curve obtained by re-loading after unloading. In general, the stress-strain curve in the re-loading period is approximately expressed by a straight line, and the value of ER is securely evaluated from its slope in many cases. Additionally it is empirically confirmed that the value of ER is independent of the stress level for many kinds of rock type, if the applied stress is smaller than the strength of concerned rock. Thus the recoverable deformation modulus (ER) is recommended to be a mostly rational parameter to represent the macroscopic prefailure property of rock mass [12]. In this paper, the recoverable deformation modulus is simply termed the deformation modulus (E), as the best representative parameter of the pre-failure rock mass. Deformation modulus: E = ER (4)

Namely the deformation modulus (E) of rock mass is represented by the ratio of stress () to corresponding recoverable strain (R). From the principle described above, the deformation modulus determination by means of the in-situ loading tests basically requires the cycles of loading and unloading. 3 In Situ Loading Tests for Deformation Modulus Determination Numbers of in-situ loading test have been developed to measure the deformation modulus (E = ER) of rock mass. Artificial load is applied to the rock surface in many types of opening excavated in rock, i.e. test galleries, boreholes and slots created with a saw, and the resultant displacement is measured on rock surface and/or in rock. A cycle of loading and unloading is required to separate the displacement into the recoverable component and the permanent component, and the relation between the applied load and the recoverable displacement is analyzed by means of the theory of elasticity to evaluate the value of deformation modulus [12,18, 21]. The in-situ loading tests for the deformation modulus determination can be classified as shown in Table 1 from the type of opening and the difference of loading condition. The Plate Loading Test in test galleries is classified into the Flexible Plate Loading Test and the Stiff Plate Loading Test, and the Chamber Loading Test in circular tunnels consists of the Radial Loading Test and the Water Chamber Test. The Borehole Loading Test is classified into the Dilatometer Test and the Borehole Jack Test, and the Slot Loading Test is usually called the Flat Jack Test [12].
Table 1 Classification of in-situ loading tests for the deformation modulus determination Type of opening Loading condition Plate Loading Chamber Loading Borehole Test Test Loading Test Radial Loading Test, Dilatometer Full Surface Uniform Water Chamber Test Test loading pressure

Slot Loading Test Flat Jack Test

Uniform pressure Partial surface loading Uniform displacement

Flexible Plate Loading Test

Stiff Plate Loading Test

Borehole Jack Test (Goodman Jack Test)

4 Characteristics of In Situ Loading Tests

The Plate Loading Test is a mostly familiar in-situ experiment on rock mass. In general, this is taken place in a test gallery to measure the deformation modulus (E) of rock mass surrounding it. Load is directly imposed on the wall of gallery, and the resultant displacement is measured on the loading point and/or in rock. A cycle of loading and unloading provides the load-displacement curve, which is necessary to separate the displacement into the recoverable component and the permanent component. The recoverable displacement is utilized to evaluate the deformation modulus basing upon the theory of elasticity [4,13,24,26]. In order to discuss the volume effect on the test results, the representative length (I) of the Plate Loading Test is defined in this paper as follows: Flexible Plate Loading Test: I = Stiff Plate Loading Test: I = D

D+L

(5) (6)

where D = the equivalent diameter of the loading area (S = D2/4) and L = the maximum depth of the displacement measurement. The Borehole Loading Test is taken place in a borehole drilled from the test gallery or downward from the ground surface, avoiding the damaged region surrounding the test gallery or near the ground surface. The results obtained are, however, deeply influenced by local heterogeneities, since the loading dimension is limited by the borehole diameter, which is much smaller than the dimension of the gallery. Additionally in the high-stress state, there is a possibility that the damaged region is produced by the compressive stress concentration around the borehole. It may reduce the reliability of the test results [12,16]. The Borehole Loading Test is dimensioned by the borehole diameter (D) and characterized by the displacement measurement at the loading surface, namely L = 0. Thus, the representative length (I) of the Borehole Loading Test is conveniently determined by Dilatometer Test: I = D , Borehole Jack Test: I = D , Goodman Jack Test: I = D . where D = the borehole diameter. (7) (8) (9)

The Slot Loading Test is taken place in a slot. The slot is usually produced with a diamond saw, perpendicular to the wall of gallery. The slot is widened by a flat jack system installed in it, with spacers and mortar for embedding, and the resultant slots enlargement is measured at various positions within the slot, to determine the deformation modulus of rock [12,17]. The Slot Loading Test is dimensioned by the loading area (S) and characterized by the displacement measurement in the slot, namely the depth L = 0. Thus, the representative length (I) of the Slot Loading Test is conveniently determined as follows: Flat Jack Test: I = D where D = the equivalent diameter of the loading area (S = D2/4). (10)

The Chamber Loading Test is taken place in a circular tunnel, which is characterized by the whole circumference loading, as the Dilatometer Test in borehole. The Chamber Loading Test can be classified into the Radial Jacking Test and the Water Chamber Test. It has been pointed out by many

researchers that the Chamber Loading Test is one of the best methods for rock mass deformability determination, since the volume of loaded rock mass is much larger than the methods previously described [2,6,7,12,13,22]. Chamber Loading Tests are dimensioned by the chamber diameter (D) and the maximum depth of the displacement measurement (L). Thus, the representative length (I) of the Chamber Loading Test is conveniently defined in this paper as follows: Radial Jacking Test: I = D + L (11) Water Chamber Test: I = D + L (12) where D = the chamber diameter and L = the maximum depth of the displacement measurement. 5 Case Examples of In Situ Loading Tests As described in Sec. 1, there is a considerable variability in results obtained from different loading tests. Namely the different loading tests provide different results on rock mass deformability even if they are applied at the same site. In order to clarify the degree of the variability, 9 case examples, S. Hibino (2003), Sharma (2002), W. L. Van Heerden (1976), W. L. Van Heerden et al. (1979), Z. T. Bieniawski (1978), R. E. Goodman et al. (1972) and so on are presented and discussed in this paper. For each case, the representative length (I) will be given, using Eq. (5) for the Flexible Plate Loading Test, Eq. (6) for the Stiff Plate Loading Test, Eq. (7) for the Dilatometer, Eq. (9) for the Goodman Jack Test, Eq. (10) for the Flat Jack Test, Eq. (11) for the Radial Jacking Test, and Eq. (12) for the Water Chamber Test. As a case example: Hibino (2003) reported the deformation modulus of Granodiorite, which was measured at the six sites of the Pumped Storage Project in Japan using the Water Chamber Test (I = 6 m), the Flexible Plate Loading Test (I = 1.27 m) and the Stiff Plate Loading Test (I = 30 cm). The Water Chamber Test was carried out in the shaft of 2 m in diameter, and the Flexible Plate Loading Test was performed using the square flat jack of 1 m x 1 m. The Stiff Plate Loading Test was carried out by the steel plate of 30 cm in diameter. The mean modulus values are summarized in Fig. 2, where numerals represent the mean value in GPa and numerals in parenthesis show the range of the mean values obtained at the six sites. This case example clearly shows that the measured modulus value increases with the representative length (I) of the loading test employed.
Case example: Granodiorite after Hibino (2003) Water Chamber Test I = 6 m Radial Jacking Test Flexible Plate Loading TestI = 1.27 m Flat Jack Test Stiff Plate Loading Test I = 30 cm Dilatometer Test Goodman Jack Test 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Deformation modulus E in GPa
15.0 (14.0-16.0) 18.2 (16.8-19.5) 21 (20-22)

Fig. 2 Deformation modulus (E) of Granodiorite, depending upon the loading test employed.

6 Volume Effect on Deformation Modulus

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the modulus value (E) increases with the representative length (I). To clarify the quantitative relation between the deformation modulus measured and the representative length, the mean modulus values (E) of each case example are plotted as a function of the representative length (I) on a logarithmic graph, as shown in Fig. 3. It can be re-confirmed that the mean modulus value (E) increases with the representative length (I), as shown with by-linear curves being parallel each other. On the logarithmic graph, the ratio of E to corresponding I changes at a point of I = 0.3 m, and the E-I relation seems to be expressed by a by-linear equation in the range of 0.07 m < I < 10 m. This suggests that the results obtained by the Borehole Loading Test (Dilatometer Test and the Goodman Jack test) are much smaller than those obtained by the other tests. One reason could be due to the poor contact between the loading device and the borehole wall.
50 Mean deformation modulus E, GPa 30
No.1 No.2 No.3 & No.4 No.5 No.6

No.7

10 8 6 4

No.8 No.9

0.1

1 Representative length I, m

10

Fig. 3 Mean deformation modulus (E) versus the representative length (I).

Normalized mean deformation modulus E / E

1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8

No.6 No.6 No.3

No.9 No.5 No.5 No.4 No.1 No.5 No.9 No.2 No.7 No.8 No.1
0.087

E/E =J
0 0.43

0.7 0.6 0.5 2

No.1 No.3 No.2 No.4

E/E =J
0

E0 at I0 = 0.3 m

50 1 10 Normalized representative length J = I / I

0

Fig. 4 The normalized mean deformation modulus (E / E0) as a function of the normalized representative length (J = I / I0).

Fig. 4 shows the relation of the normalized mean deformation modulus (E/E0) versus the normalized representative length (J = I/I0), where E0 = the mean modulus at the representative length I0 = 0.3 m. With one exception, the test data and the by-linear curve are in a good agreement. Thus we obtain for the range of I > I0 = 0.3 m: where the index number n = 11.5 (1/n = 0.087). Excepting the Borehole Loading Test of J < 1, the test results are re-plotted in Fig. 5. A broken curve in the range of I > 10 m represents an expected convergence to the representative deformation modulus of rock mass, which may be slightly greater than the test results obtained by the Water Chamber Test and the Radial Jacking Test.
Normalized mean deformation modulus E / E 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0
Stiff Plate Loading Test Water Chamber Test, Radial Jacking Test 0

E = Jn, E0

(13)

Convergence
Flexible Plate Loading Test, Flat Jack Test

Equation (13)

0.9 0.2

10 100 Representative length I, m

1000

Fig. 5 Normalized mean deformation modulus (E/E0) as a function of the representative length (I), expected a convergence to the higher deformation modulus in a range of I > 30 m.

Although all of the loading tests in Fig. 5, intended to measure the rock mass deformability, seek to cover a representative part of rock mass including the matrix rock and some geological discontinuities, there is a considerable variability in results obtained from different loading tests. Namely the different loading tests provide different results on rock mass deformability even if they are applied at the same site. Thus the reliability and accuracy of the in-situ loading tests are still being discussed. One of the main sources of the variability in results is considered to be differences in volume of rock subjected to load, but a clear explanation has not been made. This is one of fundamental problems of rock engineering to be settled in near future. From the variability in results dependent upon the loading tests employed, it can be concluded that there is no one single method that is absolutely reliable, at present. The better results will be obtained by means of the tests which can cover a larger volume of rock mass. So, we can say that both the Water Chamber Test and the Radial Jacking Test can provide more reliable data on the deformation modulus of rock mass.

The clarification of the volume effect on rock mass deformability and the confirmation of the convergence as indicated in Fig. 5 definitely need the further development of higher-quality loading tests, which are capable of covering the volume of rock mass much larger than the conventional loading tests. This demand will be best served by high-resolution monitoring technologies [13]. 7 Conclusions In this paper, significance and problems of rock mass deformability determination, characteristics and limitations of conventional in-situ loading tests are described, presenting case examples, along with volume effect on rock mass deformability. There is a considerable variability in results obtained from different loading tests. Namely the different loading tests provide different results on rock mass deformability even if they are applied at the same site. Thus the reliability and accuracy of the in-situ loading tests are still being discussed. One of the main sources of the variability in results is considered to be differences in volume of rock subjected to load, but a clear explanation has not been made. This is one of fundamental problems of rock engineering to be settled in near future. From the variability in results dependent upon the loading tests employed, it can be concluded that there is no one single method that is absolutely reliable, at present. The better results will be obtained by means of the tests which can cover a larger volume of rock mass. So, we can say that both the Water Chamber Test and the Radial Jacking Test can provide more reliable data on the deformation modulus of rock mass.

References
[1] D. Bovet, In-situ Measurement of the Surface Deformation on a Rock Mass by Plate Loading Test. Proc. of 2th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Vol. 1, pp.279-285, (1970). [2] D.L. Misterek, Analysis of Data from Radial Jacking Tests, A.S.T.M. Special Technical Publication 477, A.S.T.M. Philadelphia, pp.27-38, (1970). [3] D. L. Dodds, Interpretation of Plate Loading Test results, Field Testing and Instrumentation of Rock, A.S.T.M. Philadelphia, pp.20-35, (1974). [4] E. Unal, Determination of In Situ Deformation Modulus: New Approaches for Plate-Loading Tests, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 34(6), 897-915, (1997). [5] F. E. Heuze and A. Salem, Rock Deformability Measured In-Situ Problems and Solutions, Proc. Symp. on Field Measurements in Rock Mech., Zurich, pp.375-388, (1977). [6] G. Oberti, L. Goffi and P. P. Rossi, Study of Stratified Rock Masses by Means of Large-Scale Tests with an Hydraulic Pressure Chamber, Proc. of 5th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Australia, Section A, pp.133-141, (1983). [7] G. Oberti, F. Bavestrello, P. P. Rossi and Flamigni F. Rock mechanics investigations, design and construction of the Ridracoli dam. Rock Mech. Rock Engineering, 19, 113-142 (1986). [8] H. Lauffer and G. Seeber, Design and Control of Linings of Pressure Tunnels and Shafts Based on Measurements of the Deformability of the Rock, Proc. 7th Int. Cong. Large Dams, Rome, Vol.II, pp.679-707, (1961). [9] J. B. Bowcock, Boyle J. and E. Hoek, Dragensberg Pumped Storage Scheme. Proc. Symp. on Exploration for Rock Engineering. Johannesburg, (1976).

[10] J.H. Coulson, ISRM Suggested Methods for Determining In Situ Deformability of Rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 16(3), 197-214, (1979). [11] L. Zang and H. H. Einstein, Using RQD to Estimate the Deformation Modulus of Rock Masses, Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci., 41, 337-341, (2004). [12] L. Faramarzi, Evaluation of Rock Mass Deformability by Means of In Situ Loading Tests, PhD Thesis Chapter 1, August 2005. [13] M. Rocha, J. L. Serafim and A. Silveria, Deformability of Foundation Rocks. 5th Congress on Large Dams, Paris, Vol. III. pp.531-561, (1955). [14] M. Rocha, D. A. Silveria, N. Grossman and D. E. Oliveira, Determination of the Deformability of Rock Masses along Boreholes, Proc. of 1th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, Vol.1, pp.697-704, (1966). [15] M. Rocha and J. N. Silva, A New Method for the Determination of Deformability in Rock Masses, Proc. of 2th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Vol.1, pp.423437, (1970). [16] M. Rocha, D. A. Silveria, F. Rodrigues, A. Silverio and A. Ferreira, Characterization of the Deformability of Rock Masses by Dilatometer Tests, Proc. of 2th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Vol.1, pp.509-516, (1970). [17] M. Rocha and J.N. Silva, A New Method for the Determination of Deformability in Rock Masses, Proc. of 2th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Vol.1, pp.423437, (1970). [18] M. Gharouni, L. Faramarzi and M Saeidi. Plate Load Test for Determining of Deformation Modulus in Nimrood Dam Site. Proc. of 4th Conference of Tunneling, Tehran, Amirkabir University of Technology, pp.90-94, (1998). [19] M. Gharouni and L. Faramarzi, Application of Dilatometer Tests in Determining the Moduli of Rock Mass at Karun-4 Dam Site, Proc. of 9th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Paris, Vol.2, pp.1367-71, (1999). [20] R.E. Goodman, T.K Van, and F.E Heuze, Measurement of rock deformability in boreholes. Proc. 10th Symp. Rock Mech., pp.523-545. American Institute of Mining Engineers, New York (1972). [21] R.E Goodman, Introduction to Rock Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Chapter 6, (1980). [22] S. Hibino, Rock Mass and its Scales, Environmental Rock Engineering, Japan, pp. 11-18, (2003). [23] U. W. Vogler, R. D. Deffur and Z. T. Bieniawski, CSIR Large Flat Jack Equipment for Determining Rock Mass Deformability, Proc. Symp. Exploration for Rock Engng. Vol.2, pp.105111, (1976). [24] V. M. Sharma and K. R. Saxena, In situ Characterization of Rocks, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Chapters 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9, (2002). [25] W. L. Van Heerden, In situ rock mass property tests. Proc. Symp. Exploration for Rock Eng. Johannesburg, Vol.1, pp.147-158, (1976). [26] W. L. Van Heerden and R. K. A. Maschek, In Situ Modulus Determination, Proc. of 4th Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Montreux, Vol.2, pp.705-710, (1979). [27] W. J. Boyle, Interpretation of Plate Load Test data. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 29(2), 133-141, (1992). [28] Z. T. Bieniawski, Determining Rock Mass Deformability: Experience from Case Histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 15, 237-247, (1978).