Name

ID No
AFEWERK WELDEGERIMA EITM/PR160458/11

Submitted to Asmelash A. (PhD) Submission date January 2019

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

1. You are given three minerals which have different cleavage conditions: Mica has a perfect
cleavage (very good cleavage), Feldspar has imperfect cleavage (poor cleavage), and Quartz
has no cleavage.

a) Based on the cleavage condition, which mineral do you expect to have a better strength?
Explain why? (2 pts)

b) List the above three minerals according to their decreasing strength (3 pts)

a) Quartz has the best strength because the quality of cleavage has reverse relationship with
strength. On the other hand, if we have perfect cleavage it can be easily beak.

b) Quartz feldspar mica

2. The strength a rock mass is influenced by the strength of intact rock and the properties of
the discontinuities.

(a). What are the factors that affect the strength of an intact rock? Explain in short how each of
these factors affect the strength of the intact rock (5 pts)

(b). what are the factors that affect the properties of discontinuities? Explain in short how each
of these factors influence the properties of discontinuities (6 pts)

a) Factors that affect the strength of an intact rock masses are

1. Geological
2. Lithological
3. Physical
4. Mechanical
5. Environmental factors

Geological Lithological Physical Mechanical Environmental

Geological age Mineral Density Specimen Moisture content

composition preparation

Weathering Cementing Specific gravity Specimen Nature of pore

and other material geometry fluids

alternatives

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 1

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

Texture fabric and Porosity End contact Temperature

Anisotropy Type of testing Confining pressure
machine

Temperature: -when this is high (deep in Earth’s crust). rocks tend to deform ductilely and
flow. when this is low (at or near the surface) rocks Tends to behave like brittle solids and
fractures.

Rock type: - weak rocks are most likely to behave in a ductile manner when subjected to
different stress, including rock salts, shale, and limestone. Rock Type
• On the other hand, metamorphic rock can be of either igneous or sedimentary origin, which
has undergone severe changes in pressure, stresses or temperature. The changes of this extreme
condition may change the original minerals, texture or both, producing different types of rock,
namely gneiss (originated from granite), shale, slate and quartzite (from sedimentary origins).
LITHOLOGY
• Lithology refers to rock type. Lithology is the basic consideration since different rock types
would have different material properties and behavior. (Edy Tonnizam et al., 2005) For
example, granitic rocks differ from shales or schists.
• Limestone is yet another type of rock with its unique solution properties. Owing to the
different nature and origin of the rock types mentioned above, the inherent geological structures
associated with each rock type are also different.
• Thus, granitic rocks are often intersected by three or more sets of major joints that would
control the stability of the rock slope at a particular location (Edy Tonnizam et al., 2013).
• On the other hand, shales and sandstones are dominated by bedding planes, and it is the
bedding planes that would control the stability of the cut-slopes.
• Similarly in phyllites and schists which are foliated, the foliations would be the controlling
features.
• In the case of limestone cliffs which are characterized by their unique solution or karstic
features, in particular sub-vertical or overhanging cliffs, the stability of the cliffs is controlled
by major joints or faults and suctioning of the limestone.
Rock Fabric
• Fabric is a term used to describe the micro structural and textural features of rock material.
• Researchers have found that rock fabric is another factor affecting the strength

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

• Coarse-grained rocks (grain size > 5mm) such as pegmatite and sandstone can be ripped easily
than fine-grained rocks (grain size < 1 mm) such as
quartzite, basalt and limestone.
• It can also be generally assumed that acidic rocks are weaker than basic rocks
• The small and larger scale of discontinuity that are always present in the sedimentary rock
such as thickness of bedding, joints and foliation are also need to be assessed.
• The percentage of dominancy of low or high strength of rock need to be assessed in advance
as it may cause problems in the assessment.
Rock Structure
• One of the main factors that affect the behavior of the rock mass is the structural
discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes, lamination, cleavages and faults.
• These factors will influence and control the rock mass behavior.
• Discontinuity can be defined as a plane of weakness within the rock across which the rock
material is structurally discontinuous and has zero or low tensile strength.
• In another words, discontinuity is used to describe any mechanical interruption of rock
properties.
Material Density
• The degree of cementation, sorting of sediment, packing of the grain and the shape
of the grains can be assessed by knowing the density.
• Higher density may associate with lesser voids within the rock and strong bonding
between the mineral grains, hence stronger material.
confining pressure, rate of loading

confining pressure: - Buried rocks are subjected to this, where the forces are applied equality
in all directions. This ‘squeezes’ the materials in Earth’s crust.

Therefore, rocks that are deeply buried are “held together” by the immense pressure and
tends to flow rather than fracture.

Other than the situ condition there are so many factors which effect the strength of intact rocks.

The final summary of these factors are

1.Confining pressure increases the strength of the rock and the degree of post yield axial strain
hardening these effects diminishes with increasing pressures.

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 3

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

2. At low confining pressure there is increasing dilation which reduces at higher confining
pressure until a highest of 400 MN/m

3. The strength of the rock decreases with the increase of temperature the effect being different
on different rocks.

4. The effect of pore water pressure depends on the porosity of rocks, viscosity of the pore
fluid, specimen size and rate of straining, usually increase of pressure decreases strength.

5. Usually the strength increase with the rate of loading, but here opposite cases have been
observed.

Time: - when tactile forces are applied slowly over this long span. Rocks tends to display
ductile behavior and deform by flowing and folding.

Rock discontinuity

Faults, joints, bedding planes, fractures, fissures are widespread occurrence in rocks encounted
in engineering practice. Discontinuities play a major role in controlling the engineering
behavior of rock mass.

The earthquake takes a major part in discontinuity. The engineering behavior of rock mass as
per Piteau (1970) depends upon the following.

1.Nature of occurrence

2.Orientation and position in space

3.Continuity

4.Intensity

5.Surface geometry Commented [A1]:

Orientation

• The dip and orientation of discontinuities together with joint spacing are critical factors in
stability

• Excavation works may prove easier and more productive if carried out parallel to such planes
of weakness

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 4

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

• The joint spacing and orientations will determine the dimensions and shape of rock mass
blocks.

• Orientation of bedded structure can have a particularly adverse effect causing ripping
behavior similar to a massive rock structure for vertically inclined bedding or for horizontal
bedding with wide spacing (Edy Tonnizam et al., 2005b).

Mechanical

A mechanical discontinuity is a plane of physical weakness where the tensile strength

perpendicular to the discontinuity or the shear strength along the discontinuity is lower than
that of the surrounding soil or rock material.

Integral

An integral discontinuity is a discontinuity that is as strong as the surrounding soil or rock

material. Integral discontinuities can change into mechanical discontinuities due to physical or
chemical processes (e.g. weathering) that change the mechanical characteristics of the
discontinuity.

Set or family

Various geological processes create discontinuities at a broadly regular spacing. For example,
bedding planes are the result of a repeated sedimentation cycle with a change of sedimentation
material or change in structure and texture of the sediment at regular intervals, folding creates
joints at regular separations to allow for shrinkage or expansion of the rock material, etc.
Normally discontinuities with the same origin have broadly the same characteristics in terms
of shear strength. spacing between discontinuities, roughness, infill, etc. The orientations of
discontinuities with the same origin are related to the process that has created them and to the
geological history of the rock mass. A discontinuity set or family denotes a series of
discontinuities for which the geological origin (history, etc.), the orientation, spacing, and the
mechanical characteristics (shear strength, roughness, infill material, etc.) are broadly the same.

Single

A discontinuity may exist as a single feature (e.g. fault, isolated joint or fracture) and in some
circumstances, a discontinuity is treated as a single discontinuity although it belongs to a

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 5

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

discontinuity set, in particular if the spacing is very wide compared to the size of the
engineering application or to the size of the geotechnical unit.

3. In site investigations for different large scale engineering construction works, special attention
is given to fault zones and shear zones. Why is it important to give attention to such types of
geological structures during the site investigation? (6 pts)
Fault is a major rupture zone ranging in width from decimeter to more than hundred meters,
occasionally thousand meters. The walls are often striated and polished (slicken sided) resulting
from the shear displacement. Frequently rock on both sides of a fault is shattered and altered
or weathered, resulting in fillings such as breccia and gouge.
To be characterized as 'fault' it is thus required that there is a proof of movement.
Fault zone is in this paper a fault of significant size, having marked impact of excavation and
support in an underground construction.
Weakness zone is a part or zone in the ground in which the mechanical properties are
significantly lower than those of the surrounding rock mass. Weakness zones can be fault
zones, shear zones, thrust zones, weak rock or mineral layers, etc.
Gouge is clay-like material occurring between the walls of a fault as a result of the movements
along the fault surfaces.
Most faults and fault zones are the result of numerous ruptures throughout geological time.
Weathering, hydrothermal activity and alteration are also features that may have had a
significant impact on the composition and properties of a zone. They often form characteristic
patterns in the earth's crust consisting of several independent sets or systems.
The fact that faults and weakness zones can have a major impact upon the stability as well as
on the excavation process of an underground opening, necessitates special attention in
investigations during planning to predict and, if possible, avoid such events. Pattern of
weakness zones (and singularities) occurring at the terrain surface. These are seen as distinct
lines being more eroded than the surrounding rocks.
Size
Minor faults normally range in thickness from decimeter to a meter; major faults from several
meters to hundreds of meters. The thickness of a weakness zone can be difficult to measure in
the terrain surface as the zone is mostly covered and weathered, but an estimation may be
possible from the topography.

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 6

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

Filling
The filling includes materials derived from breakage of the country rock due to movements (as
in crushed zones and breccia’s), in situ weathered or altered materials (i.e. alteration products),
infilling materials deposited between the structural planes (such as calcite), and also intruded
igneous materials which are different from the host rock. A filling can, therefore, consist of
several different minerals and materials. The main groups of filling materials are shown in
Table

FILLING MATERIALS IN PROPERTIES

JOINTS
Calcite May dissolve, particularly when being porous or
flaky.
Gypsum May dissolve.
FRICTIONAL
Epidote, quartz May cause healing or welding of the joint.
MATERIALS
Zeolite May slake.
Sandy or silty Cohesion less, friction materials.
materials
Chlorite, talc, Very low friction materials, in particular when wet.
graphite
COHESIVE Inactive clay Weak, cohesion materials with low friction
MATERIALS materials properties.
Exhibits a very low friction and loss of strength
Swelling clay
together with high swelling pressure.

Discontinuities have an important influence on the deformational behavior of rock systems.

Joints, bedding planes, faults, and other recurrent planar fractures radically alter the behavior
of rock. As joints are generally not randomly distributed, their effect is to create pronounced
anisotropy in the properties of the rock mass, in particular, anisotropy of strength.
Determining a general criterion to estimate the shear strength of rough rock joints is a problem
that has been investigated for many years. Numerous shear models have been proposed over
the last several decades to relate shear strength to measurable joint parameters.

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 7

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

While these models have improved our understanding of rock-joint behavior, their limitations
have to be recognized.
One of the most important challenges is introducing three-dimensional joint morphology into
shear-strength expressions.
To accomplish this requires not only the ability to measure and characterize surface roughness,
but also the ability to express roughness as a number or a mathematical expression.
Technological advancements are making it increasingly possible to measure and
characterize surfaces in three dimensions. Therefore, the challenge today is finding ways to
quantify three-dimensional surface characteristics and incorporating new parameters into
expressions of shear strength. To be useful, these expressions must provide accurate estimates
of peak-shear strength, based on parameters easily measured under both laboratory and in-situ
conditions. Among all the models proposed in the literature, Barton’s criterion is the only one
that is currently used in practice. The approach is based on choosing a value for the
morphological parameter: the joint roughness coefficient (JRC). Several methods for
estimating the JRC value have been proposed in the literature. However, none of them is able
to consistently provide accurate values, in large part because of fracture anisotropy, which
makes it difficult to capture three-dimensional geometry in measuring a single profile. This
problem points to the importance of three-dimensional characterization of surface roughness.
Since the geometry of roughness influences the size and distribution of contact areas
during shearing, which, in turn, determines the stress distribution across the surface and the
damage that will occur, it has to be considered the most important geometrical boundary
condition for explaining the shearing process.
One of the primary objectives of this work is to better understand the frictional behavior of
joints under shear loads, including the creation of damage zones.
It is argued that in order to locate and estimate the contact area during shearing, it is only
necessary to consider zones on the surface facing the shear direction, and steeper than a
threshold inclination. It is obvious that damage increases with increasing stress and
displacement. Moreover, the size, shape, and spatial distribution of damaged areas depend on
shear direction, the degree of stress, and horizontal displacement.
The experimental results described here indicate that no damage appears prior to peak
stress; damage occurs principally during the softening and residual phases of shearing. In
addition, it appears that areas where shearing of asperities can be observed correspond to
areas where there were contacting asperities at peak shear stress. A possible interpretation is

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 8

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

that it is the breaking of asperities at peak-shear stress that initiates sliding. The common
characteristic among all damaged areas is that they are without exception located in the
steepest zones facing the shear direction. The shape of the damage zones depends on the local
geometry of the fracture surface, including the size and shape of the asperities, as well as on
the mechanical parameters of the rock. An important conclusion from the experimental work
is that the tensile strength of the rock is more important than the compressive strength in
predicting peak shear strength. An empirical relationship between maximum potential contact
during shearing and the minimum apparent dip inclination is proposed. The close agreement
between this empirical description of the potential contact area, as a function of the minimum
apparent dip angle involved in shearing, and experimental results suggests the ability to predict
the real contact areas involved in shearing by choosing the proper threshold value for. The
obvious question is how such relationships would be applied in the field, since they require
knowledge of the maximum potential contact area for the specified shear direction (A0), the
maximum apparent dip angle with respect to the shear direction (max), and the roughness
parameter (C)
Based on the samples studied for the research presented here, the values of these
parameters tend to be characteristic for specific rock types, indicating that it might be possible
to determine ranges for each rock type based on laboratory measurements of representative
samples. Although many more measurements would have to be made to have the necessary
confidence to use these data in the field, the results suggest the potential to be able to adopt
these parameters to capture the relevant geometrical features of fractures in specific rock
types.
In addition, a critical further step is to find an expression to quantify contact area across the
joint that describes how contact varies during shearing and with changes in applied normal
load.
The research described here suggests that those areas of the surface facing the shear
direction with steepest inclination govern the mechanical behavior of joints up to and
including peak shear stress. Furthermore, it appears possible to define a threshold inclination
angle that is key for establishing the relationship between the applied normal stress and peak
shear stress.
To study the frictional response of rock joints and its dependence on surface parameters,
more than fifty constant-normal-load direct-shear tests were performed on both replicas of
tensile joints, and induced tensile fractures in seven rock types (Chapter 1). The experimental

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 9

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

results demonstrated that shear strength depends on the direction of shearing, which reflects
anisotropy of surface roughness. The analysis of the experimental data leads to the conclusion
that the mechanical results obtained with the replicas are only qualitatively similar to the test
results obtained for rock-joint samples. The mechanical behavior of the mortar replicas was
found to be much more ductile than the mechanical response of the rock samples.
Furthermore, the “matching ratio” of the replicas was lower than that of the tensile joints in
rock, which were extremely well mated. Therefore, it appears that the results obtained with
mortar replicas are only able to quantitatively simulate the mechanical behavior of joints in
ductile rocks, which exhibit no marked peak in shear strength. In contrast, joints in brittle
rocks exhibit marked peaks in strength when measured during laboratory shear tests,
especially for fresh tensile fractures such as those tested and reported on here.
Analysis of vertical measurements made during laboratory test shows the presence of
dilatancy and rotation of the sample. These observations, analyzed in conjunction with images
of sheared joint surfaces, provide strong evidence of the importance of even small rotations in
determining the spatial distribution of contact areas during shearing, and, therefore, on the
location of damage zones.
Based on the empirical description of potential contact area and observations of sheared
surfaces, a new constitutive law relating stress and displacements, was proposed to model
joints sheared under constant normal load (CNL) conditions in laboratory tests (see
section 6.7). It was shown that this constitutive model is able to describe experimental shear
tests for both replicas and fresh rock joints. Moreover, the parameters required to apply the
model can be easily obtained through standard laboratory tests. From the literature, it appears
that CNL and constant normal stiffness (CNS) tests have the same behavior up to peak shear
stress; therefore, this approach may be valid for both boundary conditions up to peak stress.
The proposed model was also used to calculate values of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC)
(see section 6.8). The expression obtained to evaluate the joint roughness coefficient gave
results that were in close agreement with JRC values calculated by back analysis of shear
tests. Estimating JRC using parameters from the empirical description of potential contact
area has the advantage of giving a value that incorporates characteristics of the entire surface,
rather than those of only a single arbitrary profile.
The results presented here suggest that surface geometry can be captured by measurable
surface parameters that, in turn, can be used to predict peak shear strength. As discussed in
the following section, to apply these results in the field will require many more laboratory

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 10

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

tests to determine how much variability there is in the parameters for each rock type, and how
the parameters depend on scale. It is also necessary to determine how the mechanical behavior
of natural joints is different than that of the induced tensile fractures studied here. This means
understanding how all of the various processes that natural fractures are exposed to over time
change fracture surfaces and mechanical properties. Commented [A2]:

Description of weakness zones

It is very important to make a good description of a weakness zone where it can be observed
and studied in the tunnel or in a cutting. The reason is that this description often forms a major
part in stability evaluations and the required rock support. The main features are:
•Composition of the zone: its center part, the transition part, plus the adjacent rock masses
• Geometry and structure
• Filling materials and properties (strength, swelling, slaking, etc.) of these
• Alteration of central part and of adjacent rock masses
• Size (thickness)
• Interlocking
• Orientation
4 There are different methods of rock mass classification methods, among which the two main
ones are the RMR-system and the Q-system. Discuss in detail their differences and similarities.
What is the drawback associated with these two rock mass classification methods? Explain (8
pts)
Differences in the RMR, Q and systems
Though the three systems have several common parameters, there are some differences. The
main ones are:
1. The way the input values are combined in the systems to calculate the ground quality:
 RMR uses addition of the ratings, while
 Q applies multiplication and division;
2. The support is found in different ways from the ground quality calculated:
 In RMR from a table (for tunnels with 10m span);
 In Q from a chart where the Q value (ground quality) and the tunnel dimensions (span or wall
height is used;
a) Jointed rocks, where a chart for the ground conditions (quality) and the geometrical ratio
(tunnel size and block size) is combined.

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 11

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

b) Overstressed ground (in massive rocks and particulate rocks), where the system makes use
of estimated tangential stress, which is compared with the RMi value.
3. The Q-system does not apply input for the rock properties directly, but this parameter is
indirectly used in some other parameters. In 2002 the Qc was introduced (Barton, 2002), where
the compressive strength of rock is included directly. So far, this parameter seems to be seldom
applied in support estimates.
4.In the RMR system, stresses up to 25MPa are included. This means that RMR does not
include stress problems in tunneling (i.e. rock bursting, squeezing)
5. Weakness zones are characterized differently in the three systems. In the RMR, no special
parameter is used; the Q applies a classification based on composition and depth of the zone;
 The greatest difference between the two systems is the lack of a stress parameter in the RMR
system.
Similarities
Both methods incorporate geological, geometric and design/engineering parameters in arriving
at a quantitative value of their rock mass quality. The similarities between RMR and Q stem
from the use of identical, or very similar, parameters in calculating the final rock mass quality
rating
Both schemes deal with the geology and geometry of the rock mass, but in slightly different
ways. Both consider groundwater, and both include some component of rock material strength.
Some estimate of orientation can be incorporated into Q using a guideline presented by Barton
et al (1974): ‘the parameters Jr and Ja should ... relate to the surface most likely to allow failure
to initiate
Both RMR and Q-index have for long time been applied for design of rock tunnels and
excavations, estimation of ground support, choice of support system, selection of direction of
tunnel axes, etc. and a number of case histories have been published, however mainly for
shallow excavations. Both systems provide a realistic assessment of the factors that influences
the stability of the rock mass.
Both RMR and Q-index have been correlated with the seismic P-wave velocity in the rock
mass and both the deformations modulus and strength of the rock mass can be indirectly
determined from the geophysical data.
Limits of RMR system
It is no input parameter for rocks stresses in the RMR system, but stresses up to 25MPa are
included in the estimated RMR value. Thus, overstressing (rock bursting and squeezing) is not

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 12

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

included. Whether or how faults and weakness zones are included, is unclear. No special
parameter for such features is applied, but some of the parameters included in the system may
represent conditions in faults, though the often complicated structure and composition in these
features are generally difficult to characterize and classify. Therefore, it is probable that RMR
does not work well for many faults and weakness zones. Swelling rock is not included in the
RMR system.
Limits of Q system
As pointed out by Palmstrom and Broch (2006) the Q system has several limitations, working
best between Q = 0.1 and Q = 40 for tunnels with spans between 2.5m and 30m. Though there
are input parameters for overstressing, Q should be used with care in rock bursting and
especially in squeezing ground. The same is the case for weakness zones; especially where
swelling ground occurs.
5. A governmental study and design institution wants to construct a dam in order to solve the
water supply problem of one town somewhere in the country. As an employee of Geological
engineer in the institution, you are asked to carry out the geotechnical site investigation.
Describe in detail your response to how you would go about planning and designing a site
investigation for this project.
(a). What would be the major topics that you would cover? i.e. what would be the major
headings that would be summarized in the final site investigation report (8 pts?)

(b). Propose what resources you would require to conduct the site investigation?

(c). If you have encountered gypsum/anhydrite along your dam foundation what engineering
problems, do you expect in the area? What are the engineering solutions to such problems?
Explain in short

a) The major topics covering during site investigations are list below as follows

 preliminary desk study, or fact-finding survey;

 air photograph interpretation;
 site walk-over survey;
 preliminary subsurface exploration;
 soil classification by description and simple testing;
 detailed subsurface exploration and field testing;
 the physical survey (laboratory testing);

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 13

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

 evaluation of data;
 geotechnical design;
 field trials; and
 liaison by geotechnical engineer with site staff during project construction.
 SPECIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES

The Geotechnical Report required for new projects should present a comprehensive assessment
and description of the geology of the project. It should be limited, however, to an effective
combination of brief discussions, tabulated data, and geological illustrations to depict the
conditions that are of engineering significance. The information in the reports should focus on
the following topics:

1. Significant and controlling topographic conditions.

2. Description of all aspects of bedrock and recent geology, including discussions of:
(a) composition and structure of the rock,
(b) engineering description of soils and of their relationship to the bedrock,
(c) principal engineering properties of the rocks and soils as determined by field and laboratory
investigations,
(d) geologic conditions that present special engineering problems,
(e) remedies proposed or used for the special problems, and
(f) sources and characteristics of construction materials.

The surface and subsurface investigations, laboratory tests, and geological illustrations in
geotechnical reports should be sufficiently comprehensive to supply reliable information on all
geological conditions that can influence the design, construction and cost of the project. Unless
a separate seismological report is required, the geotechnical report should review the
earthquake history of the region.

Following is a list of illustrative material that should be included in the geotechnical report,
and, for the most part, included or referenced in the geological summary in an independent
consultant's report.

• Project Location Map

• Reservoir-Geology map
• Plan of Explorations

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 14

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

• Logs of Exploratory Borings

Laboratory Test Plots and Tabulations
• Site Geology Map
• Photographs
• Top of Rock Contour Map
• Geologic Structure Map
• Geologic Sections and Profiles

Geologic sections and profiles should show correlation of soil and rock units together with such
significant features as water levels, water losses, faults, shear zones, foliations, jointing, and
solution zones. The sections should also emphasize geologic structure and show depths of
primary and secondary weathering. All sections and profiles should be superimposed with
outlines of the principal structures and the depth of foundation excavation for existing or
proposed structures.

Further, all geologic investigations and tests required for developing information on any of the
following construction items should be completed and included in the report:

• Excavation slopes
• Special rock excavation methods for structural excavations.
• Rock bolting for slope stabilization or tunnel rock support.
• Foundation treatment by grouting or dental concrete filling.
• Protection of weather-sensitive foundations, such as shale, pending their burial.
• Special design and construction problems related to elastic rebound in foundation materials.

b) The resources required to conduct site investigation

Sources of information for desk studies

Air photography and remote sensing
Satellite remote sensing
The walk-over survey
Subsurface exploration: boring, drilling, probing and trial pitting
Sampling and sample disturbance
Undisturbed sampling techniques
Samples from pits and exposures

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 15

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

Drive samplers
Rotary samplers
Sand sampling
Sampler selection
Laboratory testing
Consolidation tests
Accuracy and measuring systems
In situ testing
Penetration testing
Strength and compressibility testing
Permeability testing
Basic field instrumentation for site investigation such as
Pore water pressure and groundwater level measurement
Displacement measurement
Other measurements

(c). If you have encountered gypsum/anhydrite along your dam foundation what engineering
problems, do you expect in the area? What are the engineering solutions to such problems?
Explain in short

Gypsum dissolves about one hundred times faster than limestone (the rock in which most caves
form). Under natural condition, adjacent to a river or to in a caves, it can easily dissolve at a
rate of 1 m a year with a water flow rate of about 1 m per second across the rock face. Such a
fast rate of dissolution can enlarge cavities to cave passages in a relatively short time.as
consequence of this gypsum caves can enlarge rapidly and becomes unstable resulting in
subsidence.

In the foundation of dam, water leakage can cause severe dissolution. The amount of
dissolution can accelerate rapidly and small initial flow can quickly become the major leakages
that can be threaten the integrity of the structure.

Sulphate reduction. The reduction of dissolved sulphates by microbes (including

heterogeneous assemblages of Desulfo-x) is a common process in confined aquifer systems
where sulphate rocks and dispersed organic matter are present. The process is described by the
following simplified reaction:

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 16

 [DOCUMENT TITLE] 01/16/2019

During sulphate reduction, sulphate ions are consumed and removed from the solution, makll1g
It able to dissolve more sulphates.

Calcium and bicarbonate commonly react to precipitate CaCO} utilizing the HC03- generated
by the above reaction. Epigenetic calcite masses can also form as a result. Calcium cations can
also be exchanged with sodium derived from intercalated or surrounding rocks.

Sulphate reduction appears to be a very important mechanism in maintaining the dissolution

potential of groundwater with respect to gypsum in confined aquifers, especially if vertical
cross formational hydraulic communication is present (see Klimchouk, 1997, Chapter 1.5 in
this volume). In hydrochemistry the effect has been known for a long time and its possible
general relevance to karst development had been

outlined by Kaveev (1963), Turyshev (1965) and some other workers. Recently its actual
importance for speleogenesis in gypsum has been emphasized by Klimchouk (1994; 1996).

De-dolomitization. Dolomite is commonly associated with or intercalated with gypsum.

Stankevich (1970) pointed out that the process of de-dolomitisation generates further
dissolution

capacity with respect to gypsum, because Ca2+ is removed from solution and the sulphate ions
react with the Mg. The process favours the development of gypsum karst in deep-seated
environments.

Suspended crystals. Pechorkin (1986) reported experimental results suggesting that when a
solution approaches gypsum saturation, small Crystals originate in the presence of the solid
phase.

These can then be carried in suspension by flowing water. Such Crystals begin to form at CaS04
concentrations of 1.1 to 1.5 giL and reach a maximum of 10.15% of the total dissolved CaS04
at concentrations of 2.2 g/L. Thus, an additional 0.28 - 0.42 grams of gypsum can be dissolved
in each liter of water. The cited author did not discuss what causes precipitation in under
saturated solvents.

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING CHAIR ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 17