Common ground in engineering geology, soil mechanics and rock mechanics: past, present and future

Bock, Helmut

doi:10.1007/s10064-005-0020-3

Cited by 36 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since 2000, the use of “geoengineering” in the geotechnical sense has institutionalized and found its way into names of international scientific societies, journals, and handbooks. At the GeoEng‐ conference in Melbourne in 2000 geoengineering appeared as a common umbrella term describing the relationship between various geological and geotechnical disciplines (Morgenstern, 2000; Steenfelt, 2000), whose complex interrelatedness has also historically “never been free of ambiguity” (Bock, 2006, p. 209). Subsequently, the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE), the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), and the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG), three important representatives of geological and geotechnical engineering, agreed on forming a Joint European Working Group (JEWG) in 2002.…”

Section: Historicizing Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In modern scientific societies, such interests solidified in the form of scientific disciplines such as engineering and geology, including its subdiscipline of “engineering geology.” Correspondent industrialization, and the shift to fossil fuels led to disciplinary competition but also to new forms of collaboration. In the second half of the 19th century expanding railroad networks, tunneling, and large‐scale sea canal infrastructure projects intensified contacts between civil engineering and geology in Europe and the United States (Bock, 2006; Hatheway, 2005; Kiersch, 1991). Other regions in the world soon followed.…”

Section: Interdisciplinary (Lithosphere) Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proactive and reactive geoengineering: Engineering the climate and the lithosphere

Oomen

Meiske

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the idea of geoengineering, understood as large-scale interventions in the planet's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change, has steadily increased its visibility. Presented explicitly as an approach to climate change, geoengineering is positioned as a response, a reactive fix. Geoengineering, however, has a longer and broader history than the current climate crisis. It has long been an umbrella term for large-scale projects in which various Earth sciences meet dreams about human ecosphere interventions, especially regarding lithosphere and climate and weather modifications. In this paper, we review the history of geoengineering, focusing specifically on climate geoengineering and lithosphere geoengineering. We draw attention to the difference between "proactive" ("high-modernist"), aimed at mastery over nature, and "reactive" forms of geoengineering, hoping to address anthropogenic environmental degradation technologically. Additionally, we trace historical (dis) continuities between the older, proactive, form of geoengineering and their recent reframing as a technological fix-specifically around the question to what extent nature's complex systems can be known and controlled. Finally, we argue for the need to further research the intersections and shared histories between various forms of geoengineering.

show abstract

Section: Historicizing Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interdisciplinary (Lithosphere) Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proactive and reactive geoengineering: Engineering the climate and the lithosphere

Oomen

Meiske

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to needed simplification and approximation involved, each model is associated with varying degree of uncertainty. The construction of a geologic model often requires the specification of the composition of the ground and the geological boundary conditions, which often involves high degree of uncertainty (e.g., Einstein and Baecher 1982;Fookes 1997;Hoek 1999;Bárdossy and Fodor 2001;Bock 2006;Parry et al 2014). The ground model is derived from the geologic model and detailed through site investigation and field and laboratory testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geological Uncertainty: A Missing Element in Geotechnical Reliability Analysis

Juang¹,

Ge²,

Zhang³

2019

Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and Risk (ISGSR 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the presence of geological uncertainty is often recognized by the engineer, it is seldom considered explicitly in current geotechnical reliability analyses. Indeed, it is largely a missing element in a geotechnical reliability analysis and its effect is generally not known or examined. In this paper, we present a case study to illustrate the characterization and consideration of the geological uncertainty in a geotechnical analysis. We illustrate that when combined with the random field theory, the soil behavior type index (Ic) derived from the cone penetration test (CPT) may be used to determine the composition of the ground at any given point, which forms a basis for characterization of the geological uncertainty at a site. Once the uncertainty associated with Ic is quantified, it may be used to assess the uncertainty associated with the soil stratigraphy and the impact of the geological uncertainty on the predicted geotechnical performance. Further, in the random field modeling the scale of fluctuation is an important parameter that defines the distance within which the information gathered through CPT sounding at a given location can affect the neighboring area. When the number of CPT soundings at a site is relatively small, the estimated scale of fluctuation may not be robust. The results obtained through the random field modeling can help guide decision on how to conduct additional site investigation work. Suggestions are also made for future studies regarding the identification and characterization of the geological uncertainty for use in the geotechnical analysis.

show abstract

“…The purpose of this paper is to review and collate the data from a variety of studies within these basement granite areas, with the emphasis on addressing bulk of the important variables as envisaged in the triangle of geomechanics and the triangle of engineering geology by Bock (2006) as shown in Figure 1. The eventual aim is to address the vadose zone properties of the different basement granites in South Africa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of engineering, hydrogeological and vadose zone hydrological aspects of the Lanseria Gneiss, Goudplaats-Hout River Gneiss and Nelspruit Suite Granite (South Africa)

Dippenaar

Rooy

2014

Journal of African Earth Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three major basement granites of South Africa, viz. the Lanseria Gneiss of the Johannesburg Dome Granite, the Goudplaats-Hout River Gneiss and the Nelspruit Suite, are compared in terms of existing and new geotechnical and hydrogeological data.Typical weathering profiles based on landform and climate are deduced, denoting typical engineering and hydrogeological behaviour. Finally, the vadose zone behaviour of the basement granites are described with the aim on better understanding of the behaviour of these systems under variable saturation. Ephemeral hillslope wetlands, seepage lines and catenas are specifically addressed as associated hydrological influences, as well as the associated processes of translocation forming duplex soils and pedogenesis forming ferricrete. The final summarised findings depict low plasticity and expansiveness of granites with the most notable geotechnical influences being collapsibility, dispersive behaviour, seepage and difficult excavation. Hydrologically, secondary porosity prevails and younger structures or intrusions govern groundwater occurrence. The vadose zone comprises thick fractured rock to be included in modelling with the soil zone having saturated conductivity typically in the order of 1 x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -5 m/d.

show abstract

Common ground in engineering geology, soil mechanics and rock mechanics: past, present and future

Cited by 36 publications

References 5 publications

Proactive and reactive geoengineering: Engineering the climate and the lithosphere

Proactive and reactive geoengineering: Engineering the climate and the lithosphere

Geological Uncertainty: A Missing Element in Geotechnical Reliability Analysis

Review of engineering, hydrogeological and vadose zone hydrological aspects of the Lanseria Gneiss, Goudplaats-Hout River Gneiss and Nelspruit Suite Granite (South Africa)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About