Hydraulic infrastructure requires rock materials that are mechanically competent, durable, and geologically reliable at the source scale. This study presents an exploratory geomechanical screening framework for eight volcanic and granitic rock types ( $$n = 8$$ lithological classes) from the Sabaloka Igneous Complex, Sudan, using laboratory aggregate and rock-mechanics records interpreted within an engineering-geological framework. The dataset includes aggregate impact value (AIV), Los Angeles abrasion (LAA), aggregate crushing value (ACV), density, water absorption (WA), soundness value (SV), point-load index (PL), and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). All multivariate analyses are treated as exploratory decision-support tools. Equal-weight TOPSIS ranks Trachybasalt marginally ahead of Porphyritic Microgranite and Upper Rhyolite, whereas Monte Carlo TOPSIS assigns Porphyritic Microgranite the highest probability of occupying rank 1. Babados Granite is consistently the least favourable source because it exceeds the adopted LAA and ACV screening limits. The exploratory PL-WA regression does not provide a reliable UCS prediction model ( R² = 0.341 , adjusted R² = -0.099 , $$p = 0.535$$ ), indicating that direct UCS testing remains necessary in the Sabaloka lithologies. This weak predictive performance is attributed to lithological heterogeneity, textural variability, and possible microstructural or alteration-related effects that disrupt simple empirical relationships. Literature-derived petrographic and geochemical constraints support interpreting the observed variability as a combined effect of intrinsic lithology and superimposed geological damage. The proposed workflow is intended as a screening framework for preliminary source prioritisation, not as a substitute for detailed quarry investigation, petrographic verification, or design-level rock-mass characterization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohmmed Hassan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: