Advertisement

Prediction of mechanical and physical properties of some sedimentary rocks from ultrasonic velocities

  • Osman UyanıkEmail author
  • Nevbahar Sabbağ
  • N. Ayten Uyanık
  • Ziya Öncü
Original Paper
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, density, porosity, void ratio, and ultrasonic P- and S-wave first arrival times were measured on limestone, sandstone, and siltstone samples obtained by using mechanical soundings in the city of Zonguldak. Turkey. Fracture and fissure indexes of rocks were calculated from ultrasonic P- (Vp) and S-wave (Vs) velocities. Multi-parameter relationships occurred between ultrasonic velocities with seismic fracture and fissure indexes and physical and mechanical properties of the rocks. Root mean squared error (RMSE = 0.5–0.8%) values correlated between measured densities and densities calculated from Vp and Vs. The correlation coefficients of experimental relations between densities, void ratio, and porosity with seismic velocities that were obtained ranged from 78, 86, 67, and 84%, respectively. Consequently, natural, water-saturated and grain densities, porosity, and void ratio values were determined from new multi-parameter relationships obtained from the combined use of Vp and Vs. In addition, the results of this study suggest that the rock quality may wrongly be determined using the only Vp, whereas it can be obtained more accurately by using Vp and Vs together. The reason for this is that the P wave spreads in solid, liquid, and gas media, while the S-wave spreads only in solid media. Therefore, S-waves will not be altered by fracture filling (gas or liquid), while P-waves are affected by fracture filling. In the present study, the use of Vp and Vs together in relationships was more useful in determining the strength and hydraulic properties of rock mass that the use of either Vp or Vs alone. Also, Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) values can be correctly calculated from the combined use of Vp and Vs. As a result, interpretation of crack fill and classification of the rocks can be quickly performed using seismic velocities.

Keywords

Rock properties Seismic velocities Multi-parameters relationships Rock quality factor 

References

  1. Altıntaş M (1996) The relations between the seismic parameters and some of the rock mechanics parameters. Master’s thesis. Graduate School of Science, Ankara University, Ankara (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  2. ASTM D7263-09 (2018) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight) of Soil Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.09Google Scholar
  3. ASTM International. D 2845-00 (n.d.) (2015). Standard test method for laboratory determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants of rock. In: Annual book of ASTM standards vol. 14.02. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM International (2002) ASTM D2938-95 (2002). Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. Babacan AE, Ersoy H, Gelisli K (2012) Physical properties of rocks, and time-frequency analysis techniques to determine ultrasonic velocity, beige limestone (NE Turkey) on a case study. J Eng Geol 36(1):63–73Google Scholar
  6. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications—a complete manual for engineers and geologists in mining civil, and petroleum engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Birch F (1966) Compressibility; elastic constants. In: Clark SP (ed) Handbook of physical constants. Geol Soc Am Mem 97:97–174Google Scholar
  8. Brown ET (1981) Rock characterization testing and monitoring. International Society for Rock Mechanics suggested methods. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen X, Xu Z (2017) The ultrasonic P-wave velocity-stress relationship of rocks and its application. Bull Eng Geol Environ 76:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen NJ (1982) Seismic velocities. In: Carmichael RS (ed) Handbook of physical properties of rocks vol. 2. CRC Press,.Inc, Baton Rouge, pp 2–227Google Scholar
  11. Deere DU, Deere DW (1988) The RQD Index in Practice. ASTM Special Technical Publication, 984:91–101Google Scholar
  12. Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Classification and index properties of intact rock. Technical report AFWL-TR-65-116. AF Special Weapons Center, Kirtland Air Force Base, New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  13. Diethart-Jauk E, Gegenhuber N (2018) Shear weakening for different lithologies observed at different saturation stages. J Appl Geophys 148:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. El-Naqa A (1996) Assessment of geomechanical characterization of a rock mass using a seismic geophysical technique. Geotech Geol Eng 14:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fourmaintraux D (1976). Characterization of rocks laboratory tests. In: Panet M (ed) La Mechanique des roches applique aux ouvrages du genie civil. Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris, p 235Google Scholar
  16. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density- the diagnostic basic for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39(6):770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaviglio P (1989) Longitudinal waves propagation in a limestone: The relationship between velocity and density. Rock Mech Rock Eng 22:299–306Google Scholar
  18. Goodman RE (1976) Classification and index properties of rocks: Introduction to mechanics of rock, second printing. Translated by K. Kayabali). Published by John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison JP, Hudson FJA (2000) Cracks and semi-spherical projection. In: Engineering rock mechanics, vol. 2: solved examples. Translated by Kamil Kayabali and Hasan Arman. Published by Elsevier Science, p 506.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-043010-2.X5000-X
  20. Huang X, Qi S, Guo S, Dong W (2014) Experimental study of ultrasonic waves propagating through a rock mass with a single joint and multiple parallel joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ji S, Wang Q, Salisbury MH, Wang Y, Jia D (2017) P-wave velocities and anisotropy of typical rocks from the Yunkai Mts. (Guangdong and Guangxi, China) and constraints on the composition of the crust beneath the South China Sea. J Asian Earth Sci 141:213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahraman S, Yeken T (2008) Determination of physical properties of carbonate rocks from P-wave velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahraman S, Soylemez M, Fener M (2008) Determination of fracture depth of rock blocks from P-wave velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karpuz C, Paşamehmetoğlu AG (1997) Field characterization of weathered Ankara Andesites. Eng Geol 46(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee JS, Yoon HK (2017) Characterization of rock weathering using elastic waves: a laboratory-scale experimental study. J Appl Geophys 140:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malinaric S, Kostial P (1998) Contribution to the signal processing of ultrasonic pulses. J Phys 31(8):970–977Google Scholar
  27. Nguyen ST, To QD, Vu MN (2017) Extended analytical solutions for effective elastic moduli of cracked porous media. J Appl Geophys 140:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sabbağ N, Uyanık O (2017) Prediction of reinforced concrete strength by ultrasonic velocities. J Appl Geophys 141:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharma PK, Singh TN (2008) A correlation between P-wave velocity, impact strength index, slake durability index and uniaxial compressive strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67(1):17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shi ZM, Liu L, Peng M, Liu CC, Tao FJ, Liu CS (2018) Non-destructive testing of full-length bonded rock bolts based on HHT signal analysis. J Appl Geophys 151:47–55Google Scholar
  31. Sjøgren B, Øfsthus A, Sandberg J (1979) Seismic classification of rock mass qualities. Geophys Prospect 27:409–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Song I, Suh M (2014) Effects of foliation and microcracks on ultrasonic anisotropy in retrograde ultramafic and metamorphic rocks at shallow depths. J Appl Geophys 109:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thanvarachorn P, Srisuk K, Tassanasorn A-O, Lertsirivorakul R (1984) Dynamic elastic properties of the Phu Phan Sandstone. In: Thiramongkol N, Nakapadungrat S, Pisutha-Arnond V (eds) Conference on Applications of Geology and the National Development. Published by Department of Geology, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Mineral Resources, Geological Society of Thailand, Bangkok, pp 157–161Google Scholar
  34. Thill RE, Bur TR (1969) An automated ultrasonic pulse measurement system. Geophysics 34:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Toksöz MN, Cheng CH, Timur A (1976) Velocities of seismic waves in porous rocks. Geophysics 41(4):621–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turk N, Dearman WR (1986) A suggested approach to rock characterization in terms of seismic velocities. In: Hartman AL (ed) 27th US Symp Rock Mechanics. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), Littleton, pp 168–175Google Scholar
  37. Uyanık O (1991) Importance of geophysical laboratory parameters of rock mechanics and the associating DEU. Thesis. Geophysical Engineering Department, Izmir (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  38. Uyanık O (2011) The porosity of saturated shallow sediments from seismic compressional and shear wave velocities. J Appl Geophys 73(1):16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uyanık O, Çatlıoğlu B (2015) Determination of density from seismic velocities. Jeofizik 17:3–15 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  40. Wang J-H, Hung J-H, Dong J-J (2009) Seismic velocities, density, porosity, and permeability measured at a deep hole penetrating the Chelungpu fault in Central Taiwan. J Asian Earth Sci 36(2–3):135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Li X (2015) Experimental study on cracking damage characteristics of a soil and rock mixture by UPV testing. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74:775–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Z (2002) Seismic anisotropy in sedimentary rocks, part 2: laboratory data. Geophysics 67(5):1423–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkens R, Simmons G, Caruso L (1984) The ratio Vp/vs as a discriminant of composition for siliceous limestones. Geophysics 49:1850–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang Z, Wanga E, Chena D, Li X, Li N (2016) The observation of AE events under uniaxial compression and the quantitative relationship between the anisotropy index and the main failure plane. J Appl Geophys 134:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Osman Uyanık
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nevbahar Sabbağ
    • 1
  • N. Ayten Uyanık
    • 2
  • Ziya Öncü
    • 3
  1. 1.Suleyman Demirel University, Engineering FacultyIspartaTurkey
  2. 2.Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Aksu Mehmet Süreyya Demiraslan Vocational SchoolAksu/IspartaTurkey
  3. 3.Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Vocational School of Technical SciencesIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations