COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT CALCULATION METHODS OF THE GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX (GSI) BASED ON QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES

IF 1.2 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Rudarsko-Geolosko-Naftni Zbornik Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.17794/rgn.2022.3.10
R. Pozo
{"title":"COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT CALCULATION METHODS OF THE GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX (GSI) BASED ON QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES","authors":"R. Pozo","doi":"10.17794/rgn.2022.3.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this research, the dispersion of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) values obtained with quantitative and qualitative approaches has been evaluated in four rock outcrops of different quality. The subjective component associated with qualitative or visual methods has been studied by conducting a virtual survey in a group of forty participants constituted by civil engineers, geological engineers, and mining engineers from Peru, Spain, and Chile, who were given a data sheet with a photograph and a basic description of each rock mass. The results showed that the GSI values fit a normal distribution characterized by a mean value and a standard deviation, which in some cases could present moderate to high coefficients of variation (COVs). This paper also includes the study of the dispersion of the GSI values obtained with quantitative formulations that have been evaluated and incorporated into regional databases to assess trends, mainly in the GSI-RMR’ relationships. The results indicate that the average GSI values reported with both approaches are similar; however, with the quantitative methodologies, COV values were classified as low to moderate, which is better adjusted to the suggested COV values for the GSI. Despite this, quantitative methodologies must be used with caution, taking into account the characteristics of the rock masses on which the relationships have been defined.","PeriodicalId":44536,"journal":{"name":"Rudarsko-Geolosko-Naftni Zbornik","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rudarsko-Geolosko-Naftni Zbornik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17794/rgn.2022.3.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this research, the dispersion of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) values obtained with quantitative and qualitative approaches has been evaluated in four rock outcrops of different quality. The subjective component associated with qualitative or visual methods has been studied by conducting a virtual survey in a group of forty participants constituted by civil engineers, geological engineers, and mining engineers from Peru, Spain, and Chile, who were given a data sheet with a photograph and a basic description of each rock mass. The results showed that the GSI values fit a normal distribution characterized by a mean value and a standard deviation, which in some cases could present moderate to high coefficients of variation (COVs). This paper also includes the study of the dispersion of the GSI values obtained with quantitative formulations that have been evaluated and incorporated into regional databases to assess trends, mainly in the GSI-RMR’ relationships. The results indicate that the average GSI values reported with both approaches are similar; however, with the quantitative methodologies, COV values were classified as low to moderate, which is better adjusted to the suggested COV values for the GSI. Despite this, quantitative methodologies must be used with caution, taking into account the characteristics of the rock masses on which the relationships have been defined.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于定性和定量方法的地质强度指数(gsi)不同计算方法的比较分析
采用定量和定性方法对4种不同质量露头岩体的地质强度指数(GSI)值进行了离散性评价。通过对来自秘鲁、西班牙和智利的土木工程师、地质工程师和采矿工程师组成的40名参与者进行虚拟调查,研究了与定性或视觉方法相关的主观成分,并向他们提供了一张带有照片和每个岩体基本描述的数据表。结果表明,GSI值符合以均值和标准差为特征的正态分布,在某些情况下可能出现中高变异系数(cov)。本文还研究了利用定量公式获得的GSI值的离散性,这些公式已被评估并纳入区域数据库以评估趋势,主要是GSI- rmr关系。结果表明,两种方法报告的平均GSI值相似;然而,通过定量方法,冠状病毒值被划分为低到中等,这更符合GSI的建议冠状病毒值。尽管如此,在使用定量方法时必须谨慎,要考虑到已经确定了这些关系的岩体的特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
50
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A NEW TECHNIQUE BASED ON ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION FOR DESIGNING MINING PUSHBACKS IN THE PRESENCE OF GEOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY IMPROVED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LILW REPOSITORY ONE-STEP ELECTROCHEMICAL SYNTHESIS OF PEDOT BASED COMPOSITES FOR SUPERCAPACITOR APPLICATIONS A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE BIVARIATE STATISTICAL METHODS AND THE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHICAL PROCESS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF MASS MOVEMENT SUSCEPTIBILITY. A CASE STUDY: THE LM-116 ROAD – PERU THE INTERACTION AND SYNERGIC EFFECT OF PARTICLE SIZE ON FLOTATION EFFICIENCY: A COMPARISON STUDY OF RECOVERY BY SIZE, AND BY LIBERATION BETWEEN LAB AND INDUSTRIAL SCALE DATA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1