Osman Abdullatif

GEOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND ROCK MASS QUALITY OF THE CARBONATE RUS FORMATION, DAMMAM DOME, SAUDI ARABIA
* Osman Abdullatif
Earth Sciences Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

:
. . . . . . .

___________________ *Corresponding Author: E-mail: osmanabd@kfupm.edu.sa

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Paper Received June 13, 2009; Paper Revised November 25, 2009; Paper Accepted December 9, 2009

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

173

Osman Abdullatif

ABSTRACT This study investigates the geomechanical properties, rock mass quality, and correlation relationships of the carbonate Rus Formation in the Dammam dome. The rock mass classification systems for tunneling purposes, the rock mass rating (RMR), and rock mass quality index (Q) were used to classify the rock quality from outcrop exposures. Rock mass quality is controlled by variable lithology, strength, weathering, multiple discontinuities, and solution caverns. The caverns are present and controlled by the fractures in the dome. Physical and geomechanical properties vary and the lower Rus shows lower average properties than the middle Rus. The RMR system classifies the rock masses into fair, good, and very good, while the Q system classifies the rock quality into poor, fair, and good. Both systems indicate that the lower Rus has lower rock mass quality than the middle Rus. The rock quality classification indicates that different support requirements might be needed for excavation, construction, and tunneling design in the lower and middle Rus. Characterization of rock quality on a regional scale within the dome can help to avoid potential hazards and possible problems in engineering structures or any expensive repair remedies. Key words: carbonates, rock mass classification, solution caverns, dome structure, Saudi Arabia

174

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

GEOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND ROCK MASS QUALITY OF THE CARBONATE RUS FORMATION, DAMMAM DOME, SAUDI ARABIA
1. INTRODUCTION The Dammam dome is located in the eastern province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is bounded approximately by longitudes 50 and 50 14N and latitudes 26 12 and 26 26E .The dome forms a local topographic high along a generally flat area in eastern Saudi Arabia. It is an oval shape structural body trending northwest and covering an area of 150 km2 (Figures 1 and 2) The dome encompasses Dhahran, Khobar, and part of Dammam city [1]. The study area is part of the Arabian Gulf region where the impact of engineering construction and rock excavation has increased the pressure on a fragile environment which already suffers from inferior inherent ground conditions with problematic variable material properties and foundation conditions [24]. Construction work, development, and excavation within the dome are continuing at an advancing rate. Previous studies have indicated instability problems and solution cavities. In addition, a collapse of rocks was encountered during excavation within the Dammam dome. Solution cavities were found to be related to the predominant rock structure orientation. They mainly form along joints in the rock formation [59]. Information on rock geomechanical properties in the dome has been lacking. Understanding the deposition, lithological variation, and structure of the dome formations has important implications in understanding the impact on rock material and mass properties and problems related to construction or engineering structures [10,11]. The objective is to describe and characterize the geomechanical properties and rock mass quality of the carbonate Rus Formation within the Dammam dome.

Figure 1: Location map of the study area in Dammam dome, Saudi Arabia

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

175

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 2: Simplified geological map for the tertiary succession in Dammam dome area modified after [1]

2. GEOMORPHOLOGY The geomorphology of the area has been shaped by geologic and climatic elements since Mesozoic times. The area is located at the western edge of the Arabian Gulf. The drainage in the eastern region is eastward, where under present day dry conditions, the wadis play a minor role. However, during past periods, different climatic conditions affected and shaped the landscape [16]. The main geomorphic features in the area include (1) the Gulf and the coastal region, (2) the Dammam dome, (3) the Lidam and Al Summan escaparpment to the west, and (4) the central area between the eastern edge and the Lidam escarpment to the west. A brief account is summarized here below [1,16]. 1) The Arabian Gulf is a shallow sea with a maximum depth of 110 m. The elevation rises gradually inland to the west to an altitude of about 200m in the westernmost part. . From north to south, rock benches 1.5 to 2 high containing shells and reef occur along the Gulf coastline and indicate higher stands of the sea in past times [16]. Salt flats and subkhas are also common features and they consist of sands, silts, mud, and salt to a depth of several meters. Locally, sand sheet, drifting sand, and sand dunes are also common. 2) The Damman dome consists of gently sloping topography where small hills stand out from the landscape, reaching a maximum of 150 m at Jebel Umm Er Rus at the top of the dome. The slopes are small, decreasing gradually further outward. Three rocks exposed within the dome are gently dipping Tertiary rocks covered locally with Quaternary deposits [1,16]. 3) The Lidam and Al Summan escarpments border the Arabian Gulf region on the west and form a long, flat, hard-rock plateau trending north-south. The elevation reaches 200m along the western margin of the plateau. The rocks consists of contrasting lithologies made of limestone, sandstone, mudstone, and shale of marine and fluvial origin. 4) The central region in the middle between the western Lidam escarpment and the dome is generally flat, locally marked by rock outcrops and interrupted by inland sabkhas and aeolian deposits. These deposits consist of mobile barchans dunes and less thick sand sheet deposits, which are generally fixed by vegetation[16].

176

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING The geology of the eastern province has been dealt with by several authors [1216]. Recently, Weijermars [1] documented the surface geology of the Dammam dome and discussed the distribution and stratigraphic and sedimentologic aspects of the Tertiary outcrops of the Dammam dome (Figure 2). The Dammam dome is an anticlinal structure with a core excavated by erosion with a major axis trending N 3040 west and covering an area of about 60 sq. miles. It originated from episodic upward movement of deep-seated infra-Cambrian Hormuz salt. According to Weijermars [1], movement started in the Jurassic period in response to general tectonic extension on the Arabian plate. The tectonic extension was further accelerated in the Miocene era. The uplift rate of the Dammam dome continued during the Neogene period (7.5 m/Ma) [1]. The rocks exposed within the Dammam Dome are very gently dipping Tertiary rocks covered with Quaternary deposits locally developed into sand dune and sheet deposits or extensive sabkhas. The exposed rocks of the Dammam dome range in age from Paleocene to Middle Miocene. The rocks sequence from oldest to youngest and consist of (1) Umm er Radhuma Formation, (2) Rus Formation, (3) Dammam Formation, (4) Hadrukh Formation and Dam Formation, and (5) Quaternary coastal deposits, sabkha plains and aeolian sands (Figure 2). (1) The Umm er Raduma Formation consists of very fine to medium crystalline dolomite with siliceous inclusions up to 15 cm. Quartz geodes and chert nodules are present throughout the section. The fauna found suggest a shallow marine environment [14]. The total thickness of Umm er Raduma is 243.1 m [13]. The deposition of the lower Eocene Rus Formation carbonates and its equivalents in eastern margins of the Arabian Peninsula extends from southern Iraq in the north to Yemen and Oman in the south. This has produced a shallow marine platform that covers an area approximately 450 thousands km2 [17]. The Rus Formation is divided lithostratigraphy into three members: lower, middle, and upper Rus. The lower Rus shows alteration of marls and thin dolomitic limestone beds, abundant slumps, and geodes. The middle Rus consists of a vuggy weathered, well-jointed dolomite to dolomitic limestone with abundant mud balls. The upper Rus consists of fine grained chalky limestone with few marls and clay layers at the top. The depositional environment of the Rus Formation consists at the base of sabkha, which is subjected episodically to shallow marine incursions and changes towards the top of the formation into regressive facies, lagoonal associated with continental facies [1]. The lower Rus is composed of thinly to moderately interbedded dolomitic marls and thin, hard dolomitic limestone with abundant slumps, geodes, and solution caverns. The rock underwent different grades of weathering. In contrast, the Middle Rus shows thickly bedded grey buff, fractured, and well-jointed dolomitic limestone that shows vuggy weathering and solution caverns. Based on a composite section at KFUPM and Saudi Aramco [13,14], the lower, middle, and upper Rus thicknesses are estimated at 21 m, 10 m, and 25 m, respectively.

(2)

In the subsurface, the Rus Formation consists of interbedded anhydrite parasequences. Many solution caverns have been reported [68]. Anhydrite in Rus Formation thins or is absent above many structural highs, including much of Qatar Arch, Ghawar field, Dammam dome, and other large anticlines. The Rus anhydrite is an important seismic reflector. In the basins, the reflector is strong and continuous, indicating that the anhydrite is thick and bedded. In contrast, the reflector is weak and scattered along the crests of many large anticlines, suggesting that the anhydrite is not present or that it is not continuously bedded, or both. In addition, individual beds can be correlated among closely spaced wells using wire line logs for hundreds of kilometers. In the subsurface, the absence of anhydrite within the Rus Formation in some areas is attributed to (a) non-deposition because the structures were moving or facies change, (b) deposition followed by erosion, and (c) extensive subsurface dissolution of the carbonate and sulfate evaporate under mid-Pleistocene climatic conditions [18]. In the subsurface of the Rub' Alkhali basin, the Rus Formation consists of anhydrite interbedded with carbonate strata and it ranges in thickness from 400 to 800 feet [13,19]. (3) The Dammam Formation rests unconformably above the Rus Formation. It is subdivided into five members. It consists from bottom to top of shale, limestone, dolomitic marls, and dolomitic limestone. These facies were deposited within sabkha, lagoonal to shallow marine environments. Based on composite section after [1,13] the total thickness of the Dammam Formation is 50 m. The Miocene Hadrukh Formation consists of sandy marl at the base overlain by intercalated thin limestone beds, and sandstone. Towards the top, the facies changes into calcareous sandstone and shales interbedded with minor amounts of marl and gypsum. The Hadrukh Formation represents continental to shallow marine facies [13, 1]. The Hadruch Formations estimated thickness is 84 m [13]. The Miocene Dam Formation unconformably overlies either Rus or Dammam rocks, depending upon location. The basal Dam Formation consists of a sandy conglomerate overlain by stromatolitic limestone passing upwards into clastic limestone intercalated by of geodes filled with microcrystalline calcite. The

(4)

(5)

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

177

Osman Abdullatif

upper Dam is capped by massive reef limestone. The Dam Formation indicates a major marine transgression, and it shows a shallow marine environment of subtidal to intertidal environment [1,20]. The estimated thickness from the outcrop section is 40 m and at the Lidam area 50 km west of Dhahran, total thickness is estimated at 90.80 m [1,13]. 4. TECTONICS AND STRUCTURAL FEATURES Study of fractures on the Dammam dome revealed three sets of fractures: (a) regional (major) fractures, (b) local (minor) fractures, and (c) very small-size localized fractures. This classification is based on the fracture size, trend, and extension within the dome and these characteristics can be observed and measured on the dome rocks. In addition, the mode of fracture, filling materials opening and fracture spacing are all noted and recorded [21,22]. All of the above are criteria that can be observed in the field and by which different types of fractures can be distinguished. Field study also indicated two fracture modes are present within the Dammam dome: Mode I and Mode III. Mode I fractures are extension or tension fractures and are characterized by a lack of displacement in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Mode III fractures are normal faults where movement is parallel to the fracture surface and in the vertical direction. Field investigation indicated that regional fractures are the most prominent or dominant type of fractures within the dome. They are characterized by their large size, long extension (>500m 1000 m), and systematic trends compared to the local and very small-size localized fractures. These characteristics help to determine the relationship of fractures to the tectonic doming and structural settings. Patterns and trends of those fractures were determined in several locations within the Dammam dome (Figure 3a). The resulting pattern confirmed the relationship of those fractures to the doming in the area (Figures 3a and 3b). Concentric and radial trends characterize the fracture pattern that coincides with a pattern produced by an elliptical shape dome [21,22].

Figure 3a: Major fracture trends within the Dammam dome and the expected major trends [21,22]

178

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 3b: The proposed fracture trends associated with elliptical shape dome [22]

Lineament studies for the Dammam dome indicated that the general distribution pattern is compatible and concordant with the proposed and expected fracture pattern for an oval shape dome (Figure 3b). The general dominant trend of the lineaments also coincides with the fracture trends observed in the field. These observations further support the idea that lineaments traced from landsat images of the Dammam dome most probably reflect fractures generated during dome emplacement. [21,22]. Major lineament trends are almost northerly, northnorthwest and north-northeast, and south-southwest. These trends were observed in the field at several locations (Figure 3a). This general pattern may also indicate that the dominant lineament trend within the dome is related to the dome emplacement. The regional fractures are more important than the other local types concerning the engineering, environmental, and hydrocarbon implications. For example, the solution cavern (sinkhole) occurrences at KFUPM, Aramco, and RSAF Military Base tend to occur along a north-western trend, most possibly located along and controlled by one of these regional fractures [7,21]. Table (1) summarizes solution caverns and their characteristics in the Dammam area. Table 1. Summary of Solution Caverns (Sinkholes) Characteristics Recorded in Previous Studies in Dammam Area

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

179

Osman Abdullatif

5. METHODS Methods consisted of field work, outcrop survey, and laboratory measurements. The field work collected data on intact rock and made rock mass descriptions and classifications on the lower and middle Rus Formation. Twentythree exposed and excavated outcrop exposures, 11 from the middle Rus and 12 from the lower Rus, were described and classified in this study. The rock mass and discontinuity survey data sheets were recommended by the Engineering Group Working Party [23] and were used for data collection. Data collected on the sheets included information related to rock strength, fracture spacing, joint orientation, joint condition, and weathering. This information was used to assess the rock mass quality. Then the NGI Quality Index (Q) and the CSIR Rock Mass Rating (RMR) systems were used to classify all rock masses in terms of rock mass quality. In addition, rock samples were collected from the lower and middle Rus Formation to determine their geomechanical and physical properties. Geomechanical properties studied included point load strength (Is), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, Schmidt hammer rebound hardness, dry and relative density, water absorption, porosity, and permeability. Tests were conducted according to procedures described by Brown [24] and Johnson and DeGraff [25]. 6. ROCK MASS AND MATERIAL DESCRIPTION A generalized composite lithological section for the lower and middle Rus Formation is shown in Figure 4. The lower and middle Rus vary in their stratification, lithology, fracture pattern, and weathering. The lithologic succession thickens upward. The lower Rus consists of thinly- to moderately-bedded carbonate strata dominated by dolomitic marl, dolomite, and dolomitic limestone (Figure 5). In contrast, the middle Rus is thickly-bedded and dominated by fine-grained marly dolomitic limestone. Both regional and local fractures cut the lower and middle Rus carbonate strata.

Figure 4: Generalized composite stratigraphic section of Rus Formation Dhahran study area showing lithological variation and structures of lower and middle Rus and samples at outcrop locations

180

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 5: Excavation in Rus Formation at KFUPM campus showing regional fracture and solution caverns in the lower and middle Rus

Karst features and solution caverns in Rus Formation are common and appear to be inherited from postdepositional erosion and drainage. These formed during the late Tertiary. Solution caverns vary in size and range from a few to several meters in size. Karst is developed best in limestone and dolomite where the strata is in both competent and fractured rocks with UCS 30100 M Pa. Karst is more pronounced in competent rocks than in weaker rocks. A wet tropical climate likely influenced and lead to development of the karst landforms [10]. A number of factors were probably involved; these include: (1) generally hard competent rocks of the Rus Formation; (2) well-developed fractured patterns due to doming; (3) variable lithologies and well developed bedding planes; (4) the presence of interbedded evaporates such as anhydrite; and (5) repetitive periods of wet and dry climate, especially during the late Tertiary to Quaternary times, that provided water recharge and drainage that acted to dissolve the Rus carbonates. Outcrops on the Dammam dome show that solution caverns in the Rus carbonates intersect underground fractures. This is especially evident at exposed outcrops and at rockheads beneath soil (Figures 5, 6, and 7). Figure 5 shows an excavation in the Rus Formation at KFUPM campus where a regional fracture cuts across lower and middle Rus. Solution caverns (suffusion type) are shown in lower Rus. The cavern contains unconsolidated gravel and sand matrix which occlude the cavern. These were washed down by percolating water during wet periods. Solution caverns are associated with fractures in the Rus Formation. Gravel and sand matrix fills the cavern and gypsum is lining the cavern walls (Figures 6a, b). Figure 7 shows solution cavern (A) and rock collapse (B) in middle Rus. Figure 7c shows land subsidence in lower Rus underlain by solution caverns containing gravel and sand matrix. A buried solution cavern more than 1 m in diameter containing gravel and sand matrix is shown in Figure 7d. The cavern wall is lined with gypsum. Dissolution caverns recognized within the Rus Formation may be classified, based on Waltham and Fookes [10] classification, as (a) dissolution sinkhole, (b) collapse sinkhole, (c) suffusion sinkhole, (d) buried sinkhole, or (e) sand pipes caverns (Figures 5, 6, and 7).

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

181

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 6a: A gravelly to sandy matrix fills the regional fracture and extends down through the middle and lower Rus

Figure 6b: Fracturing is associated with solution caverns developed in the lower Rus. Infilling material is made of gravelly, silty sand, and gypsum is lining the cavity wall (arrows).

Solution caverns, subsidence, and rock instability are recorded in the subsurface. They tend to be present and pronounced along discontinuities that intersect lithological variations such as anhydrite. The wide regional distribution of the Rus Formation in the Arabian Peninsula [17,18,19] suggests that rock instability and engineering hazards may be encountered elsewhere beyond the Dammam dome, especially on structurally high areas similar to the Dammam dome. Therefore, understanding fracture pattern from outcrop combined with remote sensing and GIS techniques, could aid engineering geological investigation and characterization studies [20,21]. Summary characteristics of the Rus Formation and its lithological and structural variation in the outcrops studied are shown in Figure 8. The middle Rus consists of massive dolomite (A) which is thickly bedded and widely jointed (B); and moderately Vuggy (C) to highly cavernous dolomite (D). The lower Rus is thinly to moderately interbedded marl, dolomite, and dolomitic limestone (E-H). Solution caverns are lined with gypsum (F). Regional fractures (arrows) cut across thinly interbedded marls and dolomite in lower Rus (H). Petrographically, the lower Rus ranges from fine- to medium-grained dolomite to dolomitic limestone. Porosity typically reaches a maximum of 20%, whereas the middle Rus is composed of fine-grained, hard crystalline dolomite with very low porosity around 8% (Figure 9). X-ray diffraction analysis indicates that mineralogy of the Rus Formation is dominated by dolomites (9199%), calcite (17%), and minor quartz (16%) and clay minerals (12%).
182 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 7: Solution caverns in the middle Rus (A,B) and the lower Rus (C,D) at KFUPM campus

7. PHYSICAL AND GEOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES The geomechanical and physical analyses included point load strength (Is), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), dry density, porosity, and permeability tests. Results are shown in Table 2. A total of 10, one-inch diameter specimens were selected for determining Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio by static test on the lower and middle Rus (Table 3 and 4). Schmidt hammer rebound hardness tests were also conducted on outcrop sections of the lower and middle Rus as shown in Figures 10a,b. The average, minimum, and maximum values of geomechanical and physical properties for the lower and middle Rus are shown in Table 5. The average point load strength values for the lower and middle Rus are 5.20 and 6.90 megapascals (Mpa), respectively. The minimum and maximum point load strength values for lower and middle Rus Formation are 0.56 to 24.30 Mpa and 0.50 to 13.21 Mpa, respectively. Average porosity in lower Rus is 10.39% (poor to fair) and it ranges from 5 to 16% (poor to fair/good). In comparison, the average porosity in middle Rus is 8.83 (negligible to poor) and it ranges from 5 to 14% (poor to fair). For dry density, the lower and middle Rus show average values of 2.28 and 2.56 g/cm3, respectively. Dry density in lower Rus ranges from 1.7 to 2.52 g/cm3 and in middle Rus it ranges from 2.14 to 2.86 g/cm3. The average permeability in lower Rus is 84.57 milli Darcy (mD) (good) and it ranges from 5.08 to 316.27 (poor/fair to very good). In contrast, the middle Rus has an average permeability of 58.35 mD (moderate/good), and it ranges from 2.98 mD (poor to fair) to 278.72 mD (good). Schmidt hammer tests indicate that the middle Rus has higher values than those encountered in the lower Rus. In the middle Rus, 75% of the measurements are greater than 50 (SHV) and 25% are between 40 and 50 Schmidt hammer rebound values (SHV), whereas in the lower Rus, only 16% of the measurements are greater than 50 (SHV), 25% are greater than 40%, and 50% of the measurements are less than 30 (SHV) (Figures 10a,b). In the lower Rus, Youngs modulus values range from 4 to 183 gigapascals (Gp) with an average of 42 Gp. In contrast, values for middle Rus range from 13 to 207 Gp and average 80 Gp. The lower and middle Rus have similar Poissons ratio values that average 0. 21 and range from 0.10 to 0.38 (Table 4).

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

183

Osman Abdullatif

Table 2. Rock Geomechanical and Physical Properties for Lower and Middle Rus Formation

184

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 8: Shows massive (A) and fractured thickly bedded (B), moderately vuggy (C) and highly cavernous dolomite (D) in the middle Rus. Thinly interbedded marl and dolomite (E), cavernous (F,G) and regional fractures (arrows) (H) are shown in the lower Rus.

8. Rock Mass Classification The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and the Quality Index (Q) rock classification systems were used to classify the rock masses of Rus carbonates. The RMR system is a sum of six properties: (1) uniaxial compressive strength; (2) rock quality designation (RQD); (3) spacing of discontinuities; (4) condition of discontinuities; (5) groundwater condition; and (6) orientation of discontinuities [2730]. The Q system consists of five parameters: (1) RQD; number of joints sets (Jn), (2) roughness of joints (Jr), (3) joint alteration number (Ja), (4) joint water reduction factor (Jw), and (5) stress reduction factor (SRF) [31]. For both classification systems, a number of points or rating are allocated to each range of values for each parameter, and the overall rating of the rock mass is made by adding the ratings of the parameters, and the rock mass is given a class representing the rock mass quality. For all rock masses, the intact strength was estimated by using point load strength measurements. The spacing of joints, conditions of joints, and the groundwater condition were estimated from the rock mass and discontinuity data sheets. The rock quality designation (RQD) values were estimated from the average frequency of discontinuity using Priest and Hudson's formula, and the rock quality designation, RQD, is given by

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

185

Osman Abdullatif

RQD = 100 e 0.1 (0.1 + 1) [31] where is the discontinuity frequency per meter. For the lower and middle Rus, the calculation of the Rock Mass Rating and Quality index is shown in Table 6. The rock mass quality rating according to the RMR system is classified into three categories: (1) fair; (2) good; and (3) very good. Results of the quality index according to the NGI quality system are shown in Table 6. The lower and middle Rus were classified into three categories: (1) poor, (2) fair, and (3) good. Figure 11 shows different categories of rock mass quality for the lower and middle Rus estimated from the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Quality Index (Q) rock mass classification systems. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Quality Index (Q) for both lower and middle Rus are plotted in Figure 12. The rock mass quality data indicates that the lower Rus carbonates have lower rock mass quality compared with the middle Rus. Table 3. Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio for the Lower and Middle Rus Formation Carbonates
____________________________________________________________________________

Sample No. MPa Lower Rus L-4 L-6 L-7 L-10 L-11 Middle Rus MR-6 MR-7 MR-9 MR-11 MR-13

Youngs Modulus

Poissons Ratio

_________________________________________________________________________________________

5708 183236 16129 4624 4047 86790 13879 19479 207503 73961

0.10 0.32 0.38 0.11 012 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.33 0.35

_______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4. Average, Minimum and Maximum Values of Youngs and Poissons Ratio of Lower and Middle Rus Formation Carbonates
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Formation Lower Rus Middle Rus

Youngs Modulus Mpa Average Minimum Maximum 42748 80322 4047 13879 183236 207503

Poissons Ration Average Minimum Maximum 0.22 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.35

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 5. Summary of Laboratory Testing Results for the Lower and Middle Rus Formation Carbonates Studied in Outcrops
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Formation Geomechanical Parameter

Lower Rus Average Minimum Maximum

Middle Rus Average Minimum Maximum 6.90 152.92 8.83 2.56 58.35 80322 0.21 50 0.5 15 13.21 288.86

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Point load Strength I Index (Mpa) Uniaxial Compressive Strength (Mpa) Porosity (%) Dry Density (g /cm3) Permeability (md) Youngs Modulus E (Mpa) Poissons Ratio Schmidt Hammer

5.20 100.10 10.39 2.28 84.57 42748 0.22 33

0.56 12.12 5 1.7 5.08 4047 0.10 12

24.3 506 16 2.52 316.27 183236 0.38 54

5 14 2.14 2.86 2.98 278.72 13879 207503 0.10 0.35 36 60

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

186

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 9: Microphotographs showing euhedral to anhedral dolomite in lower Rus (A) and middle Rus (B)

Figure 10: Schmidt hammer rebound values; lower Rus shows lower values than middle Rus

Table 6. Rock Mass Quality Classification of the Lower and Middle Rus Formation Carbonates Using the Quality Index (Q) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) Classification Systems Studied in Outcrops Rock Mass # Middle Rus MR 1 MR 2 MR 3 MR 4 MR 5 MR 6 MR 7 MR 8 MR 9 MR 10 MR 11 Lower Rus LR 12 LR 13 LR 14 LR 15 LR 16 LR 17 LR 18 LR 19 LR 20 LR 21 LR 22 LR 23 Quality Index (Q) 20 12.9 7.5 9.9 7.4 5 9.9 10 5 19.4 7.5 7 4.8 3.2 2.4 2.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.8 6.5 6.2 6.7 Rock Mass Classification (Q) Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 80 77 72 71 71 76 85 66 76 92 80 77 68 61 56 52 50 54 53 54 68 54 59 Rock Mass Classification (RMR) Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

187

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 11: Relationship between rock mass ratio (RMR) and quality index (Q) for lower Rus (triangles) and middle Rus (circles)

Figure 12: Correlation and curve fitting for RMR and quality index (Q) data for lower Rus (triangles) and middle Rus (circles)

9. CORRELATION BETWEEN ROCK MASS RATING AND QUALITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS The Rock Mass Rating system (RMR) considers orientation of discontinuities and material strength. These are not directly included in the Quality Index (Q) classification system. Rather, the Q system considers rock stress and the joint set number, which are indirectly considered in the Rock Mass Rating system. Both systems include conditions for discontinuities and groundwater conditions. The two systems are the most practical schemes for rock mass classification where tunneling is to be reformed. Previous studies indicated that the Rock Quality Index classification system (Q) yields a better forecast of support quantities [3335]. Figure 11 shows the relationship between Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and the Quality Index (Q) for lower and middle Rus. The relationship between RMR and Q is given by RMR = 15.5 x (ln Q) + 39.7. Various correlations between the RMR and Q rock mass classification systems have been found and these are summarized in Table 7 [28,3537]. The relationships between the RMR and Q classification systems are in the form of RMR = A ln Q + B, where A is between 7 and 14 and B is between 36 and 49. As shown from the linear relationship in Figure 11 and the power relationship in Figure 12, the two classification systems RMR and Q index indicate that the lower Rus carbonates have lower rock mass quality than the middle Rus carbonates. Figure 12 shows the correlation between RMR and Q has a correlation coefficient of 92%.

188

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Table 7. Relationships Between Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Quality Index (Q) Established by Previous Studies Author Relationship between RMR and Q Bieniawski [28,30] Kaiser and Gale [35] Al-Harthi [37] Tugrul [38] This study RMR = 9 ln Q + 44 RMR = 8.7 ln Q + 39 RMR = 9 ln Q + 49 RMR = 7 ln Q + 36 RMR = 15.5 ln Q + 39.7

The engineering hazards presented by karst features include failure of carbonate rocks over voids created by dissolution, or failure due to downward washing of soil into old stable voids, or both [10]. Cave stability is related to the cave width and the rock mass quality Q value (Figure 13) [31]. The Q data of the lower and middle Rus shows poor to good rock mass quality (Table 6). Figure 13 shows cave stability related to cave width and rock mass quality. The envelope of the field for limestone caves is derived from observations of caves around the world. The labeled fields of stable, supported, and unstable are based on Q quality methods [10]. Cave width observed from Rus outcrop exposures ranges from 1 to 5 m. The data indicate that the field for cave stability lies within the observed cave width values. Structural support is needed in areas where cave width increases to values greater than 520 m [10]. On the basis of this relationship, caves in the lower Rus carbonates are less stable than are caves in the middle Rus. Figure 14 compares the results of rock mass quality classification (this study) with other studies (Table 6). The results of this study are similar to other studies [30,3538].

Figure 13: Cave stability related to cave width and rock mass quality. The data for the lower Rus (red) and middle Rus (yellow) both lie within the stable field, modified after [10].

Figure 14: Comparison of the result of this study and other studies (adapted after 38)

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

189

Osman Abdullatif

10. CORRELATION RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INTACT ROCK PROPERTIES Regression analysis was applied to obtain relationships between geomechanical and physical properties measured from lower and middle Rus. Bivariant correlation provides a means for summarizing the relationship between two variables [39]. Previous studies indicated relationships between index properties and mechanical properties. Various regression equations are proposed for predicting mechanical properties and provide an indirect way of estimating the mechanical properties. Various types of regression, in addition to linear regression, power (y = axb) relationships between geomechanical and physical properties were investigated. Figure 15 shows some of these relationships and the best fit curves between different parameters. The relationships show rather higher correlations between point load (Is) and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) (Figure 15a). Moderate correlations were obtained between UCS and permeability and between point load and permeability (Figures 15b,c). A relatively higher correlation was obtained between porosity and dry density. This is shown in Figure 15d. Low correlations were obtained between point load and permeability, and between porosity and permeability. Figure 15a shows the relationship between the point load strength and uniaxial compressive strength and the best fit curves for lower and middle Rus samples. It can be seen that the linear relationship between Is and UCS yields a correlation coefficient (R= 99%). The power relationship between Is and permeability yields a rather lower correlation coefficient of 51%. The relationship between UCS and permeability as shown in Figure 15c also shows a lower correlation with a correlation coefficient of 50%. The relationship between porosity and dry density as shown in Figure 15d shows rather moderate correlation with correlation coefficients of 61%. Figures 15e-j show the relationships among some physical properties and Schmidt rebound hammer values. The correlation between porosity and dry density conforms to those relationships reported for carbonate rocks by Bell [40]. However, some of the dry density values in lower and middle Rus are rather low. As indicated earlier, this might be attributed to the lithological heterogeneity of the Rus in terms of type, composition, and degree of weathering, such as a wide range of lithologies, including weathered marls, marly and muddy limestone, and muddy dolomitic limestone. Bell [40] reported dry density values for different carbonate rocks ranging from 2.16 to 2.58 g/cm3. Dearman [41] noted that density of carbonate rocks increases with age, whilst porosity is reduced, and diagenetic processes mainly allow for lower porosities of carboniferous and magnesian limestone. William and McNamara [42] mentioned that both dolomitization and dedolomitization can give rise to increased porosity. Tugrul [38] reported mean values of absolute and effective porosity for Cretaceous limestone which are lower than those of Jurassic limestone. The amount of clastic non-carbonate sediments in marine environment means that carbonate sediments may grade into terrigenous clastic rocks. The Rus Formation is deposited within a shallow marine environment associated with continental facies [1]. Al Jassar and Hawkins [43] showed that the engineering properties of several lithological types in Carboniferous limestone are related to lithology, and that age often has an influence on the strength and deformation characteristics of carbonate rocks. Bell [40] recorded that the dry density of marl decreases progressively with increase of degree of weathering. At weathering grades I and II, the dry density of marls ranges from 1.9 to 2.4 g/m3, and at high weathering grade of IV, the dry density ranges from 1.4 to 1.8 g/cm3.
IS vs. UCS
30 IS = 0.047 UCS - 0.3287 R = 0.9909 25
2

20

IS

15

L Rus M Rus

10

0 0 100 200 300 UCS 400 500 600

Figure 15a: Point load strength vs unconfined compressive strength

190

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

IS vs Perm
30 IS = 16.156 Perm R = 0.5143 25
2 -0.4539

20

IS

15

L Rus M Rus

10

0 1 10 Perm (mD) 100 1000

Figure 15b: Point load vs permeability

UCS vs Perm
600 UCS = 347.24 Perm R = 0.5055 500
2 -0.4249

400

UCS

300

L Rus M Rus

200

100

0 1 10 Perm 100 1000

Figure 15c: Unconfined compressive strength vs permeability

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

191

Osman Abdullatif

Porosity vs Dry density

20 Porosity = -10.88 Dry Density + 36.383 R2 = 0.61 18

16

14

12 Porosity L Rus M Rus

10

0 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 Dry Density 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1

Figure 15d: Dry Density vs porosity

Figure 15e: Point load strength (Is) vs Schmidt hammer rebound number

192

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 15f: Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) vs Schmidt hammer rebound number

Figure 15g: Porosity (%) vs Schmidt hammer rebound number

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

193

Osman Abdullatif

Figure 15h: Grain density vs Schmidt hammer rebound number

Figure 15i: Log permeability vs Schmidt hammer rebound number

11. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The rock mass quality classification using the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and the Quality Index (Q) systems indicate that the lower Rus has lower rock mass quality than that of the middle Rus. The variation in rock mass qualities in the Rus Formation suggests that different support requirements and designs are needed for excavation and engineering structures in the lower and middle Rus carbonates. This conclusion conforms to the results of intact rock geomechanical properties, where the lower Rus carbonates have lower average values than those of the middle Rus, as shown in Table 5. The heterogeneity of the intact rock and rock masses are influenced by a number of factors, including lithological variation and the presence of multiple discontinuities, including fracturing and bedding, weathering, and dissolution caverns. The Rus Formation is characterized by fractures of regional to local extent. The regional fractures are related to dome emplacement; whereas, the local fractures probably formed in response to minor block movements. Dissolution caverns vary in type and size and are typically present along discontinuities and changes in lithology.

194

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

The Rus Formation varies in its physical and geomechanical properties. The lower Rus has lower strength, lower density, lower Schmidt hammer rebound values, and relatively higher water absorption and higher average porosities than the middle Rus. Bivariant correlation relationships between geomechanical and physical parameters were determined by this study. For example, a high correlation was obtained between point load strengths (Is) and uniaxial compressive strengths (UCS), Is and porosity, and porosity and dry density. Moderate correlations were obtained between UCS and permeability. Low correlations were obtained between Is and permeability and between porosity and permeability. In conclusion, generally the intact rock material properties indicate that the lower Rus has lower physical and geomechanical properties than the middle Rus Formation. On the basis of observed cave widths (1 to 5 m) and Q value relationships, the data indicate that the field of cave stability of the Rus Formation lies within the stable field under observed cave width values. However, support is needed in areas where cave width increases to values greater than 520 m [10]. The lower Rus carbonates are expected to show less cave stability than those in the middle Rus. In conclusion, both intact rock properties and rock mass quality classification indicate that lower Rus carbonates have lower geomechanical properties and lower rock mass quality than those of middle Rus carbonates. The complexity of geology in the Dammam dome area indicates that there is a need for an engineering geological data base. Such a data base is important for land use, planning, and design of local and extended engineering works and structures. Outcrop surveys and measurements aided with geophysical surveys can help characterize the rocks and establish a susceptibility zonation that might need further investigation or application of certain mitigation measures [10,11,44]. This may help others to avoid potential hazards, foundation instability problems, or expensive repair remedies on the Dammam dome. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank Dr. Hariri for his help and support, and to acknowledge KFUPM and SABIC for their support for this project under SABIC Grants (Project # 2002-06). The author thanks AJSE reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which improved the original manuscript. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] R. Weijermars, Surface Geology, Lithostratigraphy, and Tertiary Growth of the Dammam Dome, Saudi Arabia. A New Guide, GeoArabia, 4(2)(1999), pp. 199266. P. G. Fookes, Middle East - Inherent Ground Problems, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology II, (1978), pp. 3349. O. M. Abdullatif and M. M. Hariri, Environmental Impacts of Engineering and Quarrying Works, Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia, in Proceedings of the International Conference of Geo-Environmental Engineering, eds. S. H. Chew, M. I. Pinto, I. Jefferson, and H. F. Ali. Singapore, (2003), pp. 4754. S. A. Aiban, Compressibility and Swelling Characteristics of Al-Khobar Palygorskite, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Engineering Geology, 87(2006), pp. 205219. M. G. Abu Taleb and I. Egeli, Some Geotechnical Problems in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Geotechnical Problems in Saudi Arabia. King Saud University, Riyadh. (1981), pp. 813819. A. R. Jado and D. H. Johnson, Solution Caverns in the Dammam Dome, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 8(1983), pp. 6973. J. Crosch, F. Touma, and D. Richards, Solution Cavities in the Limestone of Eastern Saudi Arabia, Second Saudi Engineering Conference (1985), pp. 28792907. J. A. Davies and J. A. Lord, The Effects of Cavities in Limestone on the Construction of a High Rise Building in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Geotechnical Problems in Saudi Arabia. 1(1980), p. 123131. M. N. Cagatay, Palygorskite in the Eocene Rocks of the Dammam Dome, Saudi Arabia, Clays and Clay Minerals, 38(3)(1990), pp. 299307. A. C. Waltham and P. G. Fookes, Engineering Classification of Kast Ground Conditions, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 36(2)(2008), pp. 101118. J. Guerrero, F. Gutierrez, J. Bonachea, and P. Lucha, A Sinkhole Susceptibility Zonation Based on Paleokast Analysis Along a Stretch of the Madrid-Barcelona High Speed Railway Built over Gypsum- and SALT-Bearing Evaporites (NE Spain), Engineering Geology, 102(2008), pp. 6273.

[4] [5]

[6] [7] [8]

[9] [10] [11]

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

195

Osman Abdullatif

[12]

M. Steineke, T. F. Harris, K. P. Parsons, and E. L. Berg, Geological Map of the Western Persian Gulf Quadrangle, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geological Investigation. Map 1-208A, Scale 1: 500,000. Reprinted in 1977 as GM-208B, 1958. R. W. Powers, L. F. Ramirez, C. D. Redmond, and E. L. Elberg, Sedimentary Geology of Saudi Arabia, USGS Professional Paper, 560-D, Washington, 1966, p. 147. J. W. Taleel, Surface Geology of the Dammam Dome, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia, AAPG Bulletin, 57(3)(1973), pp. 558576. J. Roger, Industrial Mineral Resources Map of Ad-Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Scale 1: 100,000. Gm111. 1985. Rotterdam, 1(1979), pp. 314. S. J. Al-Sayari and J. G. Zotl, Quaternary Periods in Saudi Arabia. Springer-Verlag, 1978. M. A. Ziegler, Late Permian to Holocene Paleofacies Evolution of the Arabian Plate and Its Hydrocarbon Occurrences, GeoArabia, Gulf PetroLink, Bahrain, 6(3)(2001), pp. 445504. D. M. Steinhauff, Eocene Rus Anhydrite Limitations on Exploration, Production and Seismic Interpretation, GEO 2008 8th Middle East Geosciences Conference Exhibition; Bahrain, Abstract, 2008. D. M. Steinhauff, C. Liu, and G. J. Grabowski, Jr., Cenozoic Sequence, 1(2004), p. 134. O. Irtem, Miocene Tidal Flat Stromatolites and the Dam Formation Saudi Arabia, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 12(2)(1986), pp. 145153. M. M. Hariri and O. M. Abdullatif, Characterization of Fractures Within Dammam Dome, Saudi Arabia, GeoArabia, 9(1)(2004), p. 76. M. M. Hariri and O. M. Abdullatif, Use of the GIS to Delineate Lineaments Landsat Images, Dammam Dome, Eastern Saudi Arabia, International Cartographic Conference, A Corua, Spain, July 916, 2005. Engineering Group Working Party, The Description of Rock Masses for Engineering Purposes, Q Jl Engineering Geol., 10(1977), pp. 335388. E. T. Brown, 1. Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring. Pergamon Press, 1981, p. 211. R. Johnson and J. DeGraff, Principles of Engineering Geology. Wiley, 1988, p. 497. Z. T. Bieniawski, Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses, Tran. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Engn, 15(1973), pp. 335344. Z. T. Bieniawski, Geomechanics Classification of the Rock Masses and Its Application in Tunneling, in Proceedings of the Third International Congress for Rock Mechanics, ed. International Society of Rock Mechanics, Denver, CO, USA, IIA(1974), pp. 2732. Z. T. Bieniawski, Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering, in Proceedings of the Symposium for Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, Rotterdam: Balkema, 2(1976b), pp. 167172. Z. T. Bieniawski, Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Wiley, 1989, p. 251. Z. T. Bieniawski, Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering, in Proceedings of the Symposium for Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, Rotterdam: Balkema, 1(1976), pp. 97106. N. Barton, R. Lien, and J. Lunde, Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for Design of Tunnel Support, Rock Mech., 6(4)(1974), pp. 189236. S. D. Priest and J. A. Hudson, Discontinuity Spacing in Rocks, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, 13(1976), pp. 135148. E. Hoek and E. Brown, Empirical Strength Criterion for Rock Masses, in Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106(1980), pp. 10131035. E. Hoek and E. T. Brown, The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion A 1988 Update, in Proceedings 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, University of Toronto, (1988), pp. 3238. T. R. Kaiser and A. D. Gale, Evaluation of Cost and Empirical Support Design of B.C. Rail Tumbler Ridge Tunnels. New York: Wiley, Canadian Journal Association of Canada, (1985), pp. 77106. J. C. Rutledge and R. L. Preston, Experience With Engineering Classifications of Rock, in Proceedings Int. Tunnelling Symp., (1978), pp. A3.1A3.7.

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

196

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

July 2010

Osman Abdullatif

[37]

A. A. Al-Harthi, Application of CSIR and NGI Classification Systems Along Tunnel No. 3 at Al-Dela Descant, Asir Province, Saudi Arabia, in The Engineering Geology of Weak Rock, eds. J. C. Cripps, J. M. Coulthard, M. G. Culshaw, A. Forster, S. R. Hencher, and C. F. Moon., Rotterdam: Balkema, (1993), pp. 323328. A. Tugrul, The Application of Rock Mass Classification Systems to Underground Excavation in Weak Limestone, Ataturk Dam, Turkey, Engineering Geology, 50(1998), pp. 337344. R. Ulusay, K. Tureli, and M. H. Ider, Prediction of Engineering Properties of a Selected Litharenite Sandstone from Its Petrographic Characteristics Using Correlation and Multivariate Statistical Techniques, Eng. Geo., 37(1994), pp. 135157. F. G. Bell, Engineering Properties of Soils and Rocks. 2000. W. R. Dearman, Engineering Properties of Carbonate Rocks, Bulletin. International Association Engineering Geology, 24(1981), pp. 317. D. M. Williams and K. McNamara, Limestone to Dolomite to Dedolomite Conversion and Its Effect on Rock Strength: A Case Study, Quarterly Journal Engineering Geology, 5(1992), pp. 171178. S. H. Al-Jassar and A. B Hawkins, Geotechnical Properties of the Carboniferous Limestone of the Bristol Area, in Proceedings of the 4th International Congress International Society Rock Mechanics, Montreux, (1977), pp. 313. A. A. Al- Shuhail, M. M. Hariri, and M. H. Makkawi, Using Ground Penetrating Radar to Delineate Fractures in the Rus Formation, Dammam Dome, Eastern Saudi Arabia, International Geology Review, 46(2004), pp. 9196.

[38] [39]

[40] [41] [42] [43]

[44]

July 2010

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 35, Number 2A

197