A Comparison Of Rock Deformability Measurements By Petite Sismique, The Goodman Jack And Flat Jacks

Results of in situ investigations are discussed providing comparisons of rock mass deformability measurements by three methods: 'petite sismique' technique, the Goodman borehole jack and flat jacks. The tests were performed in exploratory tunnels constructed for site characterization purposes of an underground hydro-electric scheme. Due to the large number of data (41 petite sismique measurements, 45 Goodman jack tests and 19 flat jack measurements), it was possible to evaluate thoroughly the testing techniques employed. The purpose of this paper is to indicate the problems encountered in the interpretation of the results and to offer suggestions for selecting in situ tests. INTRODUCTION In situ tests are expensive and time consuming but they are an important aid in tunneling applications since they can provide deformability data of rock masses in contrast to rock material characteristics obtainable from small laboratory specimens. Some in situ tests are relatively easy to perform but their reliability may be in question unless a comparison of the data obtained by several different test methods is possible. Although many in situ techniques are available for determination of rock mass deformability (1), those more convenient to use are the Goodman jack, flat jacks and 'petite sismique. These methods are considered convenient because the Goodman jack is a borehole device; flat jacks can provide not only deformability data but also information about the stress field around excavations; while 'petite sismique' is based on seismic refraction surveys. Accordingly, these three methods have been selected for comparison.