Classification of weathered andesitic rock materials from the İzmir Subway line on the basis of strength and deformation

  • Tümay Kadakci KocaEmail author
  • M. Yalçın Koca
Original Paper


Variously weathered pink andesite and autobreccia samples collected from the boreholes at the elevation of the İzmir Subway line were investigated for mineralogical content and physical, mechanical and deformation properties, following which the andesitic rocks were compared with different andesites from various parts of Turkey as well as from Slovakia and Romania based on published data. A weathering grade zoning graph that takes elasticity modulus (Et) values into account was introduced for andesitic rocks from Turkey and Europe. The aim of the study was to determine the variability in strength, strain and elastic properties of different andesites at different weathering stages. In this context, two engineering classifications for rock materials based on uniaxial compressive strength (σc), Et and Poisson’s ratio (ν) were used to classify the fresh and weathered andesites. The modulus ratio classification proposed by Deere and Miller (Report AFML-TR-65-116, Air Force Weapons Laboratory Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM, USA; 1966) failed to differentiate the various weathering grades of the andesites. However, the m-value obtained from the plot of the σc value against the \( \frac{{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{t}}}{\nu } \)ratio on a log–log scale, as suggested by Türk and Dearman (Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 28:162–167; 1983), was found to be unique for each rock type and to be a distinguishing parameter for andesitic rocks. Thus, the upper and lower bound limits of the m-value were defined for the andesite samples. The m-value was also used to calculate horizontal strain at failure. Higher horizontal strain values were calculated for the highly weathered andesites having higher m-values. The reasons for the significantly lower strength and Et values for the İzmir Subway line andesites were interpreted with regard to the mineralogical and petrographical properties.


İzmir Subway line Andesitic rock material Weathering grade Uniaxial compressive strength Elastic modulus Horizontal strain 


  1. Ambartsumyan SA (1969) The basic equations and relations of the different modulus theory of elasticity of an anisotropic body. Mech Solids 4(3):48–56Google Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2002a) ASTM D2938–95 standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens. ASTM, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2002b) ASTM D3148–02 standard test method for elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens in uniaxial compression. ASTM, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (1979) Classification of soils and rocks for engineering geological mapping part 1: Rock and soil materials. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 19:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anon (1995) The description and classification of weathered rocks for engineering purposes. Engineering Group Working Party report (Geological Society of London). Q J Eng Geol 28(3):207–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu A (2006) Mechanical characterization of granitic rocks of Hong Kong by improved index testing procedures with reference to weathering induced microstructural changes. Ph.D dissertation. The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  7. Basu A, Celestino TB, Bortolucci AA (2009) Evaluation of rock mechanical behaviors under uniaxial compression with reference to assessed weathering grades. J Rock Mech Rock Eng 42(1):73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell FG (1992) Engineering in rock masses. Butterworth/Heinemann, Jordan Hill OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Dearman WR, Baynes FJ, İrfan TY (1978) Engineering grading of weathered granite. Eng Geol 12:345–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock. Report AFML-TR-65-116. Air Force Weapons Laboratory (WLDC), Kirtland Air Force Base, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  11. Dinçer I, Acar A, Çobanoğglu I, Uras Y (2004) Correlation between Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs. Bull Eng Geol Environ 63:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folk RL (1951) A comparison chart for visual percentage estimation. J Sediment Petrol 21(1):22–23Google Scholar
  13. Gerçek H (2007) Poisson’s ratio values for rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta AS, Rao SK (2000) Weathering effects on the strength and deformational behaviour of crystalline rocks under uniaxial compression state. Eng Geol 56:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones RM (1977) Stress strain relations for materials with different moduli in tension and compression. Am Instit Aeronaut Astronaut J 15:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karpuz C, Paşamehmetoğlu AG (1997) Field characterisation of weathered Ankara andesites. Eng Geol 46:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koca MY (1995) Slope stability assessment of the abondoned andesite quarries in and around the İzmir City centre. PhD dissertation. Dokuz Eylul University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, İzmirGoogle Scholar
  18. Koca MY, Kıncal C (2004) Abondened stone quarries in and around the İzmir city Centre and their geo-environmental impacts-Turkey. Eng Geol 75:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koca MY, Kıncal C (2016) The relationships between the rock material properties and weathering grades of andesitic rocks around İzmir, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:709–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kossev VN (1970) Correlation between the physical and mechanical properties of rocks and degree of their weathering. In: Proc 2nd Congress Int Society for Rock Mechanics. Belgrade, pp 1–67Google Scholar
  21. Kulhawy FH (1975) Stress deformation properties of rock and rock discontinuities. Eng Geol 9:327–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kurti I (1979) Petromechanical tests for hydraulic engineering constructions in andesite. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 20:253–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurtuluş C, Irmak TS, Sertçcelik I (2010) Physical and mechanical properties of Göokçceada; Imbros (NE Aegean sea) island andesites. Bull Eng Geol Environ 69:320–324Google Scholar
  24. Lumb P (1983) Engineering properties of fresh and decomposed igneous rocks from Hong Kong. Eng Geol 19:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matula M, Hyankova A, Ondrasik R (1980) Influence of petrogenetic features on the physical properties of the west Carpathian andesites. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 22:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orhan M, Işık NS, Topal T, Özer M (2006) Effect of weathering on the geomechanical properties of andesite, Ankara-Turkey. Environ Geol 50:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paşamehmetoğlu AG, Karpuz C, İrfan TY (1981) The weathering characteristics of Ankara andesites from the rock mechanics point of view. In: Proc Int Symp Weak Rock. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam 1:185–190Google Scholar
  28. Siratovich PA, Davidson J, Villeneuve M, Gravley D, Kennedy B, Cole J, Wyering L, Price L (2012) Physical and mechanical properties of the Rotokawa Andesite from production wells RK 27 _ L2, RK 28 and RK 30. Proceedings of New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  29. Türk N, Dearman WR (1983) A practical classification of rocks for engineering purposes. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 28:162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Türk N, Koca MY, Yüzer E, Vardar M, Öztaş, T, Erdoğan, M (1994) Engineering geological problems of the first phase of the İzmir metro. In: Pro 7th Int IAEG Congress. Lisbon, pp 4259–4264Google Scholar
  31. Yağız S (2009) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Engineering Department, Engineering FacultyDokuz Eylul UniversityİzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations