You are on page 1of 24

Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classifications of Rocks

and Rock Masses

Dr. Tejaskumar Thaker (Ph.D. IIT Delhi)


Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University,
Gandhinagar 382007, Gujarat
Email: tejas.thaker@pdpu.sot.ac.in; tej_p_thaker@yahoo.co.in
Ph. (079)23275452 (O), 07567270394 (M)

1.0 Introduction

R
ock mass is non-homogeneous, anisotropic and discontinuous medium; often it
is a prestressed mass. Its response t the force field is totally different than that of
an intact rock devoid of weakening features. To assess and account for the
weakness introduced into an intact rock to form rock mass is indeed a challenging task.
These rock masses have to be dealt with in all the developmental activities like the
construction of dams, underground powerhouses and storage facilities, roads, tunnels,
including petroleum exploration and nuclear repositories. The rock mass response is
thus of concern to the civil, mining and petroleum engineers, geophysicists, and
engineering geologist. In this article attempt have been made to demonstrate most
commonly adopted laboratory/field tests and recent developments in the classifications
of rocks and rock masses based on strength and modulus leading to a geo-engineering
classification apart from other classifications in vogue. Once the strength, the modulus
and the stress-strain responses are evaluated for rock masses, most problems of
foundations, slopes and underground openings are likely to be solved with reasonable
prediction of the performance of the structures, either by simplified approaches or by
more involved numerical methods (Ramamurthy, 2007).

The strength, modulus and stress-strain response of rocks are influenced by


mineralogical content, extent of pores and presence of pore fluid, more often water.
Rock cores are subjected to various tests in the laboratory to determine their
mineralogical composition, physical and engineering properties. Micrographic tests are
generally carried out for petrographic description of rocks to indicate the mineral
content, grain size, texture fabric, degree of alteration/weathering, micro-fracture and
porosity. These tests are conducted on thin sections of rock. Description of these test are
beyond the scope of this article, one may refer the books/manuals on petrography.

The physical properties include determination of dry, bulk and saturated densities,
water content, porosity/void ratio, degree of saturation and specific gravity of rock
grains.

1 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
Under engineering properties (i) unconfined compression test is conducted to obtain
compressive strength, modulus, poisson ratio and stress-strain response including
mode of failure, (ii) Brazilian tensile test to obtain tensile strength (iii) shear test to
obtain shear strength parameters on joints with or without gouge material (iv) triaxial
shear test to obtain strength envelope, shear strength parameters of the chosen failure
strength criterion, the stress strain responses, variation of moduli and modes of
failure/changes in the modes of failure of rock specimen with confining pressure.

Other test are point load strength index test to obtain compressive strength and tensile
strength of regular and irregular rock samples, slake durability test to ascertained the
resistance of rock samples to disintegration when subjected to specified cycles of
wetting and drying. Sound velocity tests by elastic wave propagation of P and S wave
to estimate modulus of elasticity, modulus of rigidity and Poissons ratio or rock cores.
Swelling test on regular cores is conducted to assess the extent of free swell and
swelling pressure of rock upon saturation under non swelling condition. Schmidt
rebound hardness test is carried out to obtain hardness and compressive strength of
rock.

2.0 Laboratory Tests

2.1 Compressive strength

2.1.1 Test on Regular Shapes

The compressive strength of an intact rock is usually determined by testing a cylindrical


specimen with slenderness ratio 2. When adequate core length is not available, a
slenderness ratio one or more may by adopted and suitable correction to compressive
strength is made to obtain the strength for slenderness ratio of 2. In slates, phyllites and
other layered formations with weak bond between layers cubical/cuboidal or block
specimens are prepared and tested. When rock cores of slenderness ratio 2 or more is
not available, compression test may be carried out on specimen of slenderness ratio of 1
and compressive strength corrected to obtain for the slenderness ratio of 2 as given
below:

.
   0.778
;  is compressive strength for L/d = 1 and  is compressive
strength for required L/d > 1 and 2. For a test conducted at any other slenderness ratio
between 1 and 2, the strength for slenderness ratio of 2 is estimated. No correction
needs to be applied to the Youngs modulus for slenderness ratio between and 1 and 2
since it practically remains constant within these limits.

The test specimen must be prepared as per the specifications (ISRM 1981) as given
below;

2 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
 Specimen should be straight circular cylinder with slenderness ratio preferably
between 2.0 and 3.0, its size not less than Nx size (54.7 mm dia.)
 Ends of the specimen should be flat to 0.02 mm
 The sides of the specimen should be straight to within 0.3 mm over the full
length.
 The ends of the specimen should be parallel with axis of the specimen
perpendicular within 0.05 mm in 50 mm.
 The diameter should be measure in the two perpendicular directions at three
locations, near the top, middle and near the bottom.

The loading machine may have stiffness less than 0.1 MN/mm. for capturing stress-
strain response in the post-peak region, stiff testing machine with stiffness between 1
and 2 MN/mm are adopted with servo control system. The load is applied to the
specimen through a spherical seating platen at constant stress rate of 0.5 to 1.0 MPa/s or
the test is completed in 5 to 10 minutes.

The typical stress-strain response is given in Fig. 1. The tangent modulus (Et) usually at
50% of failure stress, secant modulus (Es) usually up to 50% of failure stress or initial
tangent modulus (E0) are calculated as indicated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1 Stress-strain-volumetric response of Fig. 2 Estimation of moduli from


intact rock in uniaxial compression stress-strain curve

Where;   or $ is compressive strength of the specimen


     ;  is the load at failure;  axial or linear strain,  is
   ; lateral strain;   is the volumetric strain;  is the
    ; deformation under load P;  is the original length of the
   
2 specimen;  diametral deformation; d is diameter of
"   the specimen; " is the Poissons ratio

3 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
A typical pre- and post-peak response for a specimen tested in stiff testing machine
which captures the post-peak behavior is shown in Fig. 3. Often test specimens fail in
one of the three modes namely by shearing, by splitting or by buckling as indicated in
Fig. 4. Some typical stress-strain responses are indicated for rocks in uniaxial
compression in Fig. 5.

Fig. 3 A typical pre- and post Fig. 4 Likely modes of failure of intact rocks
peak stress-strain curve in uniaxial
compression

Fig. 5 Typical stress-strain responses in uniaxial compression (Deere and Miller, 1966)

4 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
2.1.2 Test on Irregular Shapes

When regular cores are not obtained and only irregular pieces are available from
excavation, the compressive strength is estimated by testing a roughly chiseled
spherical mass with diameter ranging between 30 and 50 mm. The test is conducted in a
point load tester. The specimen is tested between tow hardened conical tips having
5mm curvature and 600 conical angle, in a rigid frame as shown in Fig. 6. All point load
test results are to referred to 50 mm size of the specimen.

The point load strength index (%&' ) is given as;

%&'  ( ; where  is the failure load and  is


the size of the specimen measured after placing
between conical tips. The compressive strength is
given by;

$  )%&' ; the value of ) could be varies from 15


to 35 (ISRM 1985) for most rocks; often it is taken
in the range of 20-25. Some weathered
sedimentary rocks like sandstones, siltstones and
shaley mudstones have low ) value as 6 beyond
Fig. 6 Point load test arrangement the range suggested by ISRM.

When 50 mm size pieces are not available, the size correction is made by;

..'
%&'  * ( where F = +(50- ; d is the size of the specimen tested (< 50 mm)

The compressive strength obtained from point load test is to be used for classifications
of rocks and not for design purpose. Regular shapes of the specimens could also be
tested in the point load test as shown in the Fig. 7

Fig. 7 Point load test requirements on flat and irregular specimens (ISRM 1985)
5 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
2.2 Tensile Strength

For applying directly a tensile load on rock specimen, it is always been a problem of
designing g grippers to produce uniform tensile stress distribution. For low strength
rocks, dumbel or briquette shaped specimens have been used for the tests. Mostly, the
tensile strength of the rock cores is determined by indirect methods.

ression of Disc or Cylinder


2.2.1 Diametral Compression

The method is popularly known as Brazilian test, where a disc/cylinder is subjected to


line load as shown in Fig. 8.. The loaded width at the ends should be less than 1/10th of
the diameter of the specimen. The fracture is suppo
supposed
sed to initiate at the centre and
progress towards the loaded ends. If the fracture starts from the periphery, the test is
discarded. Usually, a Brazilian test is conducted on NX size specimens with length
equal to the diameter, i.e., with minimum slendern
slenderness ratio of one. The tensile strength
is given by;

; where is the failure load, is thee diameter of the specimen and is the
length or thickeness of the specimen.

Fig. 8 Stress distribution along the axis of loading (a) loading with flat plates (b) point
loading

As suggested by Reichmuth (1962), a


diametral compression test can also be
conducted by point loading a cylindrical
specimen as shown Fig. 9 through two
rods placed perpendicular to its length.
The tensile strength is estimated from;

; where P is the load at


Fig. 9 Point load test using rods across
failure and D is diameter of the specimen.
the cylindrical rock core

6 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
2.2.2 Diametric Compression of Sphere

The tensile strength of a spherical rock specimen is obtained from the following
equation:

/  0.9 (1

2.2.3 Compression of Cuboidal or Plate

The tensile strength of a cuboidal or thick plate as


shown in the Fig. 10 is estimated as;

/  1.96 (45 ; where d is the length and t is the


thickness

2.2.4 Point Load Test

The tensile strength of an irregular specimen is given


Fig. 10 Arrangement for
by (ISRM 1985);
tensilie test on square section
of rock specimen (Davies and
/  1.25%&'
Stagg, 1970)

2.3 Slake Durability Test

The test is conducted on rock samples to ascertain their resistance to disintegration


when subjected to two specified cycles of drying and wetting. The test is conducted as
per the specification in a standard apparatus. Ten oven dried representative rock lumps,
each of 40-60 g mass with a total mass of 450-500 g is placed in the 140 mm diameter
cylindrical drum having 2.0 mm mesh. The drum is supported on a trough containing
tap water at 20 0C, such that the water level is 20 mm below the supporting axis of the
drum. After 200 revolutions, the lumps are dried in oven 105 0C and weighted. These
oven dried lumps subjected to second cycle of revolutions, oven-dried and weighed.
The slake durability index (second cycle) is calculated as the percentage of final to initial
dry mass of rock lumps as;

6
%  (6 7 100 %;% is slake durability index, 6 is the initial dry mass and 6 is


the final dry mass.

If % is between 0 to 10%, the slake durability index (% ) based on the first cycle of
drying and wetting is estimated as;

7 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
6
%  (6 7 100 %; where 6 is dry mass after the first cycle.


Table 1 Classification of rocks based on slake durability index

% (%) Classification
0-30 Very low
30-60 Low
60-85 Medium
85-95 Medium high
95-98 High
98-100 Very high

2.4 Schmidt Rebound hardness Test

The Schmidt impact tester is used for determining the rebound hardness of materials. It
was originally developed to estimate the in situ strength of the concrete. The test is
conducted on NX, larger rock cores or on rock blocks of edge sizes greater than 60 mm,
firmly held in steel cradle or a V- block weighing more than 20 kg before using hammer,
it should be checked using a calibration test anvil supplied by the manufacturer. An
average of 10 reading s from the anvil test is obtained. At least 20 individual tests are
conducted for each rock with each test not closer than the diameter of plunger. Only the
average of the higher 10 reading out of 20 is considered and is multiplied by the
correction factor as the representative value of the rebound hardness.

The test results are affected by poor testing technique, improper surface preparations
and presence of cracks/fissures in the test spot. A correction was suggested by Deere
and Miller (1965) between Schmidt hardness value, density of rock and compressive
strength as shown in Fig. 11.

2.5 Swelling Pressure and Free Swell Test

A rock which contains potentially swelling minerals like montmorillonite, anhydrite


and vermiculite etc. swell when they come in contact with water. Cylindrical rock
specimen at desire water content (may be dry state initially) placed in a rigid metallic
ring with tight fit. The inside faces of the ring are polished and lubricated to minimize
the side friction. By placing porous stone/metallic perforated discs at top and bottom of
the rock specimen, the water is allowed to enter from the bottom. The pressure is
developed due to swelling of rocks by absorbing water is continuously measured and
recorded, till it reaches a peak value without allowing any vertical deformation in the
rock. The peak load is divided by the cross section area of the core will give the swelling
pressure.

8 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
Fig. 11 Relationship between Schmidt hardness and uniaxial compressive strength of
rock (Deere and Miller, 1965)

For the free swell test, usually block specimens of rock are chosen and immersed in
water in trough suitably designed to enable placement of lateral and vertical
deformations measuring system. Once the free swell completed, the swelling index is
calculated as the ratio of the deformations due to swelling in each principle axis and
corresponding dimension of specimen.

9 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
2.6 Void Index Test Quick Absorption Method

This test is conducted on rock samples each with mass more than 50 g to determine its
void index. Air dried sample is first placed for 24 hours in a container having crystals of
dehydrated silica gel. Then its surface is cleaned by brushing and weighted. It is then
immersed in de-aired water for an hour. The percentage of water absorbed by the
saturated surface dry sample is void index.

2.7 Shear Strength

2.7.1 Direct Shear Test

Direct shear test is not usually conducted on intact specimens of rock. Test permitting
shear/sliding along a joint plane with/without gouge material are usually conducted to
evaluate shear strength parameters c and along the joint. Direct shear test is also
conducted on undisturbed gouge material or on compacted soil scooped out from the
fault/shear plane to obtain residual shear strength parameter. The procedure of testing
is similar to that of soil.

Fig. 12 Set-up for testing rock cores in directFig. 13 Oblique shear set-up to test rock
shear (Kently, 1970) the blocks and A and B cores, A=wedges to set shearing
house the core angle,, B-test blocks (Protodyaknonov,
1969)
To conduct the test one may adopt a setup as shown in Fig. 12. Such shear test can be
conducted in an oblique shear apparatus wherein the inclination of plane of shear can
be altered for each specimen as shown in Fig. 13. By applying directly vertical load, the
specimen is sheared on the preset plane of shear. The normal stress and shear stress at
failure are calculated on the plane of shear and the shear strength parameters are
estimated as per coulomb plot.

10 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
2.7.2 Triaxial Test
The rock specimens for conducting triaxial
shear test are prepared as per the
specifications. The confining pressure is
applied and maintained through the oil filled
in the cell. The axial load is applied to the
specimen at a constant rate of deformation or
loading in a loading machine. At least three
specimen tests under different confining
pressure are conducted to provide values of
shear strength parameters. A typical
arrangement is shown in Fig. 14.

If the confining pressure acts on the top of the


specimen, due to design of the cell and
loading system, its load has to be added to
Fig. 14 A triaxial cell for rock testing axial load measured during shear.

The axial strain in the specimen is obtained


from the shear gauges attached or from the
deformation indicated by LVDT. The stress
strain curve is usually plotted with deviator
stress (1-3) and axial strain. The modulus
and failure deviator stress for each confining
pressure are estimated. If the strain gauges
are attached to measure the lateral strains as
well, Poissons rato could be estimated as
explained in the case on compression testing.
Typical stress strain curves are presented in
Fig. 15. The failure evelop may be drawn
with Mohr stress circles with (1-3)/2 and
(1+ 3)/2 or with 1 and 3. The shear
Fig. 15 A nonlinear plot of 1 versus 3 strength parameters cohesion intercept and
and its interpretation friction angle are estimated directly from the
Mohr-Coulomb envelope or from shear stress
as shown in Fig. 15.

The preceding parameters are based on the assumptions tha the failure envelope is
linear within the range of confining pressure adopted. When the tests are conducted
under confining pressure from low to high pressure a non linear envelope will result
and the envelope is defined by choosing any of the failure criteria and relevant shear
strength parameters may be estimated.

11 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
3.0 Rocks and Rock Mass Classifications

For various specific purposes including those for engineering usage, rocks have been
classified on the basis of their origin, mine mineralogical
ralogical composition, void index,
fracture/joint intensity, joint inclination, flow rate of water, velocity of propagation of
shock waves, weatherability, colour, grain size or surface property. When rocks and
rock masses are classified for geotechnical p purposes,
urposes, they need to be classified on the
basis of strength and/or modulus to give an indication of their stability and/or
deformability. A rock classification has to provide a common basis to communicate, to
identify a rock mass into one of the groups an and
d having well defined characteristics and
also to provide basic input data for engineering design. For effective and successful
usage of a classification system, it has to be simple, easy to understand and remember
to apply. The influence of each parameter should be measurable in the laboratory/field
and these are linked in such a way that the quality of rock mass is reflected in terms of
strength and modulus.

3.11 Classification of Intact Rocks

For engineering uses attempts were made to classify intact rocks based on individual
property, such as uniaxial compressive strength, modulus, sonic velocity, and point
load index, notably by Coates (1964), Deere and Miller (1966), Stapledon (1968),
Franklin et al. (1971), Hansagi (1965), Bieniawski (1978) and IS
ISRM
RM (1978, 1981). Table 2
represents the some of the classifications on the basis of compressive strength of the
intact rock. Based on these classifications, a rock is differentiated from a soil when its
uniaxial compressive strength is more than 1 MPa. Though ough these simplified
classifications based on compressive strength are not always relevant to field engineers,
these have served to understand the upper bound strength response of rocks. Intact
rocks have also been classified on the basis of modulus of de
deformation
formation as per Table 3

Table 2 Uniaxial compressive strength classifications of intact rocks

12 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
Table 3 Classification based on modulus of deformation

Class Modulus of deformation Description of


(MPa x 103) deformability
1 <5 Very high
2 5-15 High
3 15-30 Moderate
4 30-60 Low
5 >60 Very low

The classification proposed by Deere and Miller (1966) for intact rocks is based on the
combine influence of the uniaxial compressive strength (ci) and tangent modulus (Eti)
at 50 % of the failure stress. This approach has been widely recognized as a realistic and
useful engineering classification which takes into account more than one measurable
property at a time. Each rock type has its specific zone in the region of ci and Eti as
rendered in Table 4. The limits of the various classes of intact rocks are therefore based
on meaningful and representative limits. When intact rock is classified the effect of
seepage pressure or confining pressure is not considered.

Table 4 (a) Strength classification (Deere and Table 4 (b) Modulus ratio classification
Miller, 1966) (Deere and Miller, 1966)

Class Description Uniaxial Class Description Modulus


Compressive Ratio
Strength (ci) (Eti/ci)
A <5 Very high H High > 500
B 5-15 High M Medium 200-500
C 15-30 Moderate L Low < 200
D 30-60 Low
E >60 Very low

3.2 Rock Mass Classifications

The engineering behavior of a rock mass is controlled by more than one factor; the
influence of each of these factors vastly differs. Any attempt to classify rock based on a
single parameter like joint frequency will not be satisfactory. Of the various rock mass
classifications suggested for engineering use, those suggested by Terzaghi (1946), Deere
and Miller (1964), Bieniawski (1973), Barton et al. (1974) and ISRM (1981) are commonly
adopted.

13 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
Table 5 Classification of in situ rock for predicting tunnel support requirements
(Terzaghi, 1946)

Term Description
Intact Rock contains neither joints nor hair cracks
Stratified Rock consists of individual strata with little or no resistance
against separation along the boundaries between strata
Moderately Jointed Rock contains joins and hair cracks, but the blocks between
joints are locally grown together or so intimately interlocked
that vertical walls do not acquire lateral support.
Blocky and seamy Rock consists of chemically un-weathered rock fragments
which are entirely separated each other and imperfectly inter-
locked. In such rock, vertical walls may require support.
Crushed Chemically un-weathered rock has the character of crusher run
material
Squeezing Rock slowly advances into the tunnel without perceptible
volume change
Swelling Rock advances into the tunnel chiefly on account of expansion
caused by minerals with high swelling capacity.

A descriptive rock mass classification presented in Table 5 proposed by Terzaghi (1946)


has been useful for tunnels and for particular type of construction technique with steel
supports; it could not be adopted for foundation and slopes and did not give any
indication of strength and modulus of rock mass. However, Terzaghis classification
paved way to recognize a number of factors such as joint spacing, joint orientation and
the nature of joint surface and the nature of joint filling influencing the rock mass
behavior.

Further, gross core recovery has been use to get an indication of quality of rock mass as
a result of the loss of core due to washing out of the soil from the joints during drilling
operation and is the total core length expressed as percentage of drilled depth of the
bore. No correlation is exists to link core recovery with the compressive strength or
modulus of deformation of rock mass. Number of joints, their spacing, inclination and
the nature of joint material is not reflected in the core recovery. Even though it has not
served as an engineering parameter for the purpose of design, it does form one of the
input data to be recorded on the bore log chart. When Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
was suggested by Deere (1964), this was readily accepted and today it is being used to
classify the quality of rock mass in preference to core recovery.

14 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
3.2.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

For determination of RQD, the International


Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1981) Table 6 Classification of rock mass
recommends a core size of at least NX based on RQD (Deere, 1964)
diameter obtained with doule tube core barrel
drilling equipment. The RQD is expressed as RQD (%) Rock quality
percentage in the summation of all the cores 0-25 Very poor
larger than 10 cm from the preferred 150 cm 25-50 Poor
drilled core run. With decreasing drill core 50-75 Fair
run, the RQD is likely to be lower for the rock 75-90 Good
mass. A relationship between the RQD and 90-100 Excellent
the quality of rock was proposed by Deere
(1964) is presented in Table 6.

Some judgment is necessary in case of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks and the
method is not accurate in these cases, as it is for the igneous rocks, thickly bedded lime
stones and massive sand stone. Spacing of joints 10 cm will give zero percent RQD
(1964), while a spacing of slightly greater than 10 cm would result in 100 % RQD.
Therefore, consideration of RQD in assessing the overall quality of rock is somewhat
inconsistent. Hence, the number of joints per meter length would obviously give good
indication of fracture intensity and quality of rock mass. The influence of joint
frequency varying from 11 joints per meter to 100 joints per meter may reduce the
compressive strength by 10 to 50%. (Ramamurthy, 1986). Such a reduction in the
strength due to joint spacing will not be reflected by considering RQD, since RQD will
be zero for this range of joint frequency.

3.2.2 Rock Structure Rating (RSR) Concept

Wickham, Tiedemann and Skinner (1972, 1974) proposed Rock Structure Rating (RSR)
to classify a rock mass by giving rating to various parameters for application to steel
support in tunneling. Unlike Terzaghis classification, the RSR concept is quantitative
based on the rating of various geological parameters. These have been grouped in to
three categories as A, B and C. The category A covers rock origin, its hardness and rock
structure. In the category B, joints spacing, their orientation and also the orientation of
tunnel are included. The ratings in C are based on the combined ratings in A and B. The
final rating, i.e., the sum of A, B and C is the RSR value of rock mass. The ratings in RSR
classification are not experimentally evolved or verified. Two of the most commonly
used and numerical expressed rock mass classifications RMR (Bieniawski, 1973) and Q-
system (Barton et al. 1974) consider some of these factors with varying emphasis, in
addition to other parameters.

15 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
3.2.3 Geomechanics Classification RMR

With a view to developing a more realistic classification, Bieniawski (1973) proposed a


Gemechanics classification known as RMR system based on rock mass rating. Later on
it is slightly modified for stand up time in tunnels in 1989. This is based on six
parameters which can be measure in the field or obtained from borehole data. These
parameters which have been included are;
(i) Uniaxial compressive strength of intact material
(ii) Rock Quality Designation (RQD) as defined by Deere (1964)
(iii) Spacing of discontinuities
(iv) Condition of discontinuities
(v) Ground water condition and
(vi) Orientation of discontinuities (dip and strike)

16 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
The rating for the six parameters is Table 7 Modification to RMR for
considered to arrive at final rock mass application in mining (Bieniawski, 1984)
classifications. After arriving at the total
RMR from the above table, say (RMR)t the Item Adjustment factor
influence of damage due to blasting, in Blasting, Ab 0.8-1.0
situ stress, its change, the presence of In situ stress and
major fault and fractures is considered as its change, As 0.6-1.2
indicated in Table 7. The modified RMR is Major fault and
taken as the product of (RMR)t and Ab, As fractures, Af 0.7-1.0
and Af from Table 7.

The main advantages of this classification are that firstly it considers the various
parameters that are likely to influence the engineering behavior of the rock mass.
Further the ratings for these parameters are easy to determine at the site itself.
Whenever the direct test data is not readily available, alternative descriptive
terminology has been given to help in the choice of ratings. Bieniawski (1988) proposed
the classification based on the data of 268 tunnel sites in hard rock areas. And hence it
may be reasonable to expect that it is more applicable to hard rock sites formations. A
major disadvantage of this system is that the ratings are neither experimentally verified
nor justified and also it does not consider modulus of rock mass as an essential
parameter to go into the classification.

3.2.4 Norwegian Geotechnical Classification Q System

The Q-system of rock mass classification was developed by Barton et al. (1974) based on
the analysis of 212 tunnel case histories involving igneous, sedimentary and
metamorphic formations. This is based on the numerical assessment of rock mass
quality using six parameters namely (i) RQD (ii) Number of joint set (iii) Joint
roughness (iv) Degree of alteration or filling (v) Water inflow (vi) Stress condition

17 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
Grouping all these parameters, the Q-system is expressed as;

:;< = =B
9 + - ? + @- ? + -; where RQD is rock quality designation as per Deere (1964), E&
=> =A C:D
is joint set number, EF joint roughness number, EG joint alteration number, EH is joint
water reduction number and SRF is stress reduction factor

For each parameter rating is assigned as shown in Table 8 (Barton, 2002). The Barton et
al. (1976) proposed a very elloberative descriptive Q system which was modified later
on by Barton (2002) with some changes in the rating of EG and SRF.

Table 7 Modified Q-system for Rock Classfication (Barton, 2002)

18 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
19 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
20 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
Table 9 Rock mass quality of tunneling

Q Rock mass quality


0.001-0.01 Exceptionally poor
0.01-0.1 Extremely poor
0.1-1.0 Very poor
1-4 Poor
4-10 Fair
10-40 Good
40-100 Very good
100-400 Extremely good
400-1000 Exceptionally good

3.2.5 Basic Geotechnical Description

A basic geotechnical description (BGD) of rock mass was suggested by ISRM (1981) for
geotechnical purposes. The region of investigation is to be divided into number of zones
having as far as possible similar colour, texture and fracture intensity and the
description is assigned to each of the zones. In the basic geotechnical description
following features of in situ rock are included are presented in Tables 10, 11 and 12.

Table 10 Classification of layer thickness and fracture intercept.

Distance (m) Layer thickness Fracture intercept


Description Symbol Description Symbol
>2.0 Very large L1 Very wide F1
0.6-2.0 Large L2 Wide F2
0.2-0.6 Moderate L3 Moderate F3
0.06-0.2 Small L4 Close F4
<0.06 Very small L5 Very close F5

Table 11 Classification of Uniaxial compressive strength

UCS (MPa) Description Symbol


>200 Very high S1
60-200 High S2
20-60 Moderate S3
6-20 Low S4
<6 Very low S5

Therefore, a rock mass as per BGD is designated for example Micaceous schist,
L1F3S2A3, meaning that the weakening mineral in the schist is maca, the layer
thickness is more than 2m, the fracture intercept is between 0.2m and 0.6m, the

21 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
compressive strength of intact rock is between 60 and 200 MPa while friction angle on
the fractured surfaces between 250 to 350.

Table 12 Classification of friction angle

Range (degree) Description Symbol


>45 Very high A1
35-45 High A2
25-35 Moderate A3
15-25 Low A4
<15 Very low A5

With this basic data, a designer is unable to estimate the probable ranges of compressive
strength and modulus of the rock mass and has to utilize his experience and judgement
in making use of basic data from BGD.

3.2.6 Geo-engineering Classification

Table 13 Weathering grades as per ISRM (1981) and Gupta and Rao (2001)

Symbol Degree of Term Description Rs (%)


weathering
(%)
W0 0 Fresh No visible sign of material weathering 100-80
W1 <25 Slightly Discolouration indicates weathering of 80-50
rock on major discontinuity surfaces
W2 25-50 Moderately Less than half of the rock material is 50-25
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
soil. Fresh or discoloured rock is
present either as discontinuous
framework or as corestones
W3 50-75 Highly More than half of the rock material is 25-10
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
soil. Fresh or discoloured rock is
present either as discontinuous
framework or as corestones
W4 >75 Completely Majority of rock material is 10-1
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
soil. The original structure of the rock
mass is still intact
W5 100 Residual soil All material decomposed. No trace of <1
rock structure reserved

The weathering process discolours, decomposes and disintegrates the rock and affects
the discontinuities most. It has a very decisive influence on the compressive strength

22 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
and modulus of rock either intact or jointed. When these values are found to be low for
a particular rock, it may be due to weathering effect. The extent of weathering in a rock
is usually indicted descriptively as per the Table 13 (ISRM, 1981). An extensive study on
the influence of weathering of crystalline rocks-basalt, granite and quartzite- was
carried out by Gupta and Rao (2001). On the basis of their findings and those of other
earlier investigations, the proposed classification of degree of weathering in terms of Rs
as per the Table 13. The best parameter to measure the influence of weathering seams to
be the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength of weathered to the fresh intact rock
specimens,

JKL BMANOM@MP
i.e., I& %  ? 100
JKL Q@M>O

Along with the two letter classification of rocks/rock mass, an indication of extent of
weathering is also be indicated by appropriate term from Table 13 in addition to generic
name and predominant mineral present.

References

Arora V.K. (1987), Strength and Deformational Behavior of Jointed Rocks, Ph.D Thesis,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.
Barton, N. (1976), Recent Experience with Q-system for Tunnel Support, Proc. Symp.
Exploration for Rock Engineering, ZT Bieniawski (Ed.), Rotterdam, 1: 107-114.
Barton, N (2002), Some New Q-value correlations to Assist in the Site Characterization
and Tunnel Design, Int. J. Rock Mech. And Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 39:2:185-216.
Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J (1974), Engineering Classification of Rock Masses,
Proc. 8th Int. Congr. Rock Mech., 1:1023-1082.
Devies, J.D. and Stagg K.G., (1970), Splitting Test of Rock Specimen, Proc. 2nd Int. Cong.
Rock Mech, Belgrade, 2: 343-349.
Bieniawski,Z.T. (1973), Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses, Trans S
African Instin. Civ. Engrs., 15:12:335-344.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989), Engineering Rock Mechanics Classification, Wiley-Interscience,
New York.
Deere, D.U. and Miller, R.P. (1965), Engineering Classification and Index Properties for
Intact Rocks, Tech. Report AFWL-TR-65-116, A.F. Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland,
AFB, New Mexico.
Franklin, J.A., and Dussaault, M.B. (1989), Rock Engineering, McGraw-Hill Publishing
Co., New York.
Gupta, A.S. and Rao, K.S. (2000), Weathering Effects on the Strength and Deformational
Behavior of Crystalline Rocks under Uniaxial Compression State, Int. J. Engg. Geol. ,
56:257-274
Gupta, A.S. and Rao,K.S. (2001), Weathering Indices and their Applicability for
Crystalline Rocks, Bull. Eng. Geo. Env. , 60: 201-211.

23 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker
ISRM (1981), Suggested Method for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring-
IRSM Commission on Testing Methods, ET Brown (Ed.) Pergamon Press, England.
ISRM (1985), Suggested Methods for determining Point Load Strength, ISRM
Commission on Testing Methods, Int. J. Rock Mechanics and Min. Sci., 22:2:51-60.
Kenty, J.D., (1970), Suggested Method of Test for Direct Shear Strength of Rock Core
Specimens, Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes,
ASTM, STP, NO. 479:613-617.
Protodyakonov, M.M. (1969), Mothods of Determining the Shear Strength of Rocks,
Mechanical Properties of Rocks by Protodyakonov et al., Translated from Russian,
Jerusalem, Israel Programme for Scientific Translations, 15-27.
Ramamurthy, T. (2007), Engineering in Rocks for Slopes, Foundation and Tunnels,
Prentice Hall of India Pvt, Ltd., New Delhi.
Reichmuch, D.R. (1962), Correlation for Force-displacement Data with Physical
Properties of Rock for Percussive Drilling System, Proc. 5th Symp. Rock Mech.,
Minneapolis, Minn., 33-59.
Terzaghi K. (1946), Rock Defects and Load on Tunnel Support, Rock Tunnelling with
Steel Supports, RV Proctor and T White (Eds.), Commercial Shearing Co.
Youngstown, Ohio, 15-99.
Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H.R. and Skiner, E.H. (1972), Support Determinations
based on Geologic Prediction, Proc. 1st Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conf.
Chicago, 1:43-64.
Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H.R. and Skiner, E.H. (1974), Ground Support Prediction
Model, RSR Concept, Proc. 2nd Rapic Excavation and Tunneling Conf. San
Francisco, 1: 691-702.

***************

24 Laboratory Testing and Engineering Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses by Dr. T P Thaker

You might also like