Geotechnical rock mass documentation in the Bátaapáti radioactive waste repository

Deák, F.; Kovács, László; Vásárhelyi, Balázs

doi:10.1556/ceugeol.57.2014.2.5

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the well-known rock mass classification systems (i.e. RMR, Q and GSI) in the radioactive waste repository at Bátaapáti (Hungary), the classification of the tunnel face was influenced by high subjectivity [55]. There is not exact relationship between the different classifications, as it is rather project dependent [56].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parameters of the rock mass

Vásárhelyi

Kovács²

2016

Period. Polytech. Civil Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge of the main mechanical constants of a rock mass (such as strength, deformability and the Poisson's ratio) is one of the most important for rock engineering design on or in rock mass. Until now, several empirical relationships were determined for calculating these material constants based on both the quality of the studied rock mass (ie. RMR or GSI values) IntroductionLarge scale rock mass characterization introduces material parameters related to mechanical properties. The most important properties are the deformation modulus; the unconfined strength and the Poisson's ratio value of the rock mass in interest. These material parameters are frequently related to laboratory data characteristics of intact rock samples and to the classical rock mass classification systems (e.g. RQD, Q, RMR or GSI). These rock mass quality measures quantify the relation between the rock mass and the intact rock.The established empirical relations between the mechanical parameters of rock masses (unconfined compressive strength, deformation modulus) and the rock mass classification systems (RMR or GSI values) show exponential increasing deformation modulus and compressive strength with the increasing quality of the rock mass.The paper summarizes the observed correlations published between the mechanical properties of rock masses and one of the rock mass classification systems. It was found, that the deformation modulus and the strength of a rock mass data may reflect a simple exponential relationship of the observed quantities. According to analysis of different proposed equations a new formula is suggested and the modification ratio (i.e. ratio of the deformation modulus and the strength of rock mass) is also determined.However, it is important to note, that there are huge differences between the published date and the empirical formulas. The reason for this variance is the difference in situ testing methods, that may give different values of mechanical parameters even for the same rock mass. According to Bieniawski [1], even a single testing method, such as flat jack test, can lead to a widely scattering results even where the rock mass is very uniform. The other reason for the discrepancy in the different calculation methods is the directional effect. Most rock masses are anisotropic and do not have single deformation modulus [2].There is no mechanical (physical) interpretation of the above empirical equations but these were analysed by e.g. [3]. Recently, Ván and Vásárhelyi [4] suggested a damage mechanical approach to analyse them. In this paper their method will be also presented.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parameters of the rock mass

Vásárhelyi

Kovács²

2016

Period. Polytech. Civil Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vásárhelyi et al [28] and Somodi et al [29] discovered that visual observation by an expert engineering geologist is the best technique to estimate GSI, compared to the computational and estimation methods examined. Moreover, Deák et al [30] and Somodi et al [31] analyzed the relationship between the parameters of the Q-system and the GSI value and the equations are suggested based on the empirical results of different rock engineering projects in Hungary and Australia.…”

Section: Geological Strength Index (Gsi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where A and B are material constants, depending on the rock type [30]. All derived relationships are summarized in Table 2.…”

Section: Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geological Strength Index Relationships with the Q-System and Q-Slope

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Q-system and Q-slope are empirical methods developed for classifying and assessing rock masses for tunneling, underground mining, and rock slope engineering. Both methods have been used extensively to guide appropriate ground support design for underground excavations and stable angles for rock slopes. Using datasets obtained from igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock slopes from various regions worldwide, this research investigates different relationships between the geological strength index (GSI) and the Q-system and Q-slope. It also presents relationships between chart-derived GSI with GSI estimations from RMR89 and Q’ during drill core logging or traverse mapping. Statistical analysis was used to assess the reliability of the suggested correlations to determine the validity of the produced equations. The research demonstrated that the proposed equations provide appropriate values for the root mean squared error value (RMSE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the coefficient of determination (R-squared). These relationships provide appropriate regression coefficients, and it was identified that correlations were stronger when considering metamorphic rocks rather than other rocks. Moreover, considering all rock types together, achieved correlations are remarkable.

show abstract

“…The fractured granitic body forms the host rock of the Hungarian National Radioactive Waste Repository (NRWR). Until now, a more than 6 km long tunnel network has been constructed, and all the tunnel faces have been documented [4,48]. From a geological aspect, three main rock types can be distinguished in the carboniferous granite formation: monzogranite, monzonite, and hybrid rocks [3,49].…”

Section: Geological Setting and Data Of Hungarian Nuclear Waste Repos...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) Correlations in Granite, Siltstone, Sandstone and Quartzite Rock Masses

Somodi¹,

Bar²,

Kovács³

et al. 2021

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive understanding of geological, structural geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical features of the host rock are essential for the design and performance evaluation of surface and underground excavations. The Hungarian National Radioactive Waste Repository (NRWR) at Bátaapáti is constructed in a fractured granitic formation, and Telfer Gold Mine in Australia is excavated in stratified siltstones, sandstones and quartzites. This study highlights relationships between GSI chart ratings and calculated GSI values based on RMR rock mass classification data. The paper presents linear equations for estimating GSI from measured RMR89 values. Correlations between a and b constants were analyzed for different rock types, at surface and subsurface settings.

show abstract

Geotechnical rock mass documentation in the Bátaapáti radioactive waste repository

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parameters of the rock mass

Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parameters of the rock mass

Geological Strength Index Relationships with the Q-System and Q-Slope

Study of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) Correlations in Granite, Siltstone, Sandstone and Quartzite Rock Masses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About