Evaluation of rock mass improvement due to cement grouting by Q-system at Bakhtiary dam site

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 38-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Zolfaghari ◽  
A. Sohrabi Bidar ◽  
M.R. Maleki Javan ◽  
M. Haftani ◽  
A. Mehinrad
Keyword(s):  
Rock Mass ◽  
Cement Grouting ◽  
Dam Site ◽  
Q System ◽  
Bakhtiary Dam

scholarly journals Weightage Effect during Back-Calculation of Rock-Mass Quality from the Installed Tunnel Support in Rock-Mass Rating and Tunneling Quality Index System

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 2065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonguk Kim ◽  
Hafeezur Rehman ◽  
Wahid Ali ◽  
Abdul Muntaqim Naji ◽  
Hankyu Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Rock Mass ◽  
Quality Index ◽  
Rock Bolt ◽  
Rock Mass Rating ◽  
Rock Mass Quality ◽  
Back Calculation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Bolt Spacing ◽  
Q System ◽  
Selection Of

In extensively used empirical rock-mass classification systems, the rock-mass rating (RMR) and tunneling quality index (Q) system, rock-mass quality, and tunnel span are used for the selection of rock bolt length and spacing and shotcrete thickness. In both systems, the rock bolt spacing and shotcrete thickness selection are based on the same principle, which is used for the back-calculation of the rock-mass quality. For back-calculation, there is no criterion for the selection of rock-bolt-spacing-based rock-mass quality weightage and shotcrete thickness along with tunnel-span-based rock-mass quality weightage. To determine this weightage effect during the back-calculation, five weightage cases are selected, explained through example, and applied using published data. In the RMR system, the weightage effect is expressed in terms of the difference between the calculated and back-calculated rock-mass quality in the two versions of RMR. In the Q system, the weightage effect is presented in plots of stress reduction factor versus relative block size. The results show that the weightage effect during back-calculation not only depends on the difference in rock-bolt-spacing-based rock-mass quality and shotcrete along with tunnel-span-based rock-mass quality, but also on their corresponding values.

Comparison of Permeability and Groutability of Ostur Dam Site Rock Mass for Grout Curtain Design

2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Sadeghiyeh ◽  
M. Hashemi ◽  
R. Ajalloeian
Keyword(s):  
Rock Mass ◽  
Grout Curtain ◽  
Dam Site

scholarly journals Engineering geological zoning of the Scorillo Dam site, Romania

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristian Marunteanu ◽  
Ion Durdun
Keyword(s):  
Rock Mass ◽  
Modulus Of Elasticity ◽  
Grout Curtain ◽  
Rock Quality Designation ◽  
Rock Quality ◽  
Rock Mass Quality ◽  
Engineering Geological Zoning ◽  
Dam Site

A model of engineering geological classification and zoning of the Scorillo Dam site in Romania is proposed to optimise the design of the dam and of the grout curtain. The rock mass was classified into four categories: from 1 (good) to 4 (very poor), according to the rock mass quality (RMQ) at the dam site. Parameters available and used to determine the RMQ were lithology, degree of weathering and fragmentation, rock quality designation (RQD), and modulus of elasticity (E). Based on the study, a new design of the dam, its slopes, and the grout curtain was carried out.

scholarly journals Analysis of engineering geology conditions based on the quality of rock mass in the Tiga Dihaji Dam’s diversion tunnel, South Sumatera, Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 325 ◽  
pp. 05001
Author(s):  
Zekrinaldi ◽  
Ferian Anggara ◽  
Hendy Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Rock Mass ◽  
Geological Strength Index ◽  
Strength Index ◽  
Diversion Tunnel ◽  
Rock Mass Quality ◽  
Geological Conditions ◽  
Q System

This research has examined the rock mass quality case study in the Tiga Dihaji Dam’s diversion tunnel. Observations of geological conditions were carried out on the surface and subsurface of the study site and show that the study area consists of tuffaceous sandstone and carbonate interbeds. The method of this study is based on the classification of the Geological Strength Index (GSI), Rock Mass Rating (RMR), and the Q-system. The results indicate that tuffaceous sandstone has a GSI value of 15 - 87.5 (very poor - very good), RMR 48 - 82 (fair - very good), and Q-system 0.01 – 60.0 (exceptionally poor - very good). Meanwhile, carbonate interbeds have a low value, with a GSI value of 10.5 - 77.5 (very poor to very good), RMR 17.0 – 56.0 (very - poor fair), and Q-system 0 - 35.2 (exceptionally poor - good). Moreover, a correlation was made between rock mass quality for conditions in the study area. The correlation between GSI and RMR was obtained by the equation GSI = 2.2885RMR 82.567 (R2 = 0.6653), RMR and Q-system RMR = 2.0175ln(Q) + 63.061 (R2 = 0.4987), and GSI and Q-system GSI = 7.2119ln(Q) 54.578 (R2 = 0.8095).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document