Estimating Insitu Deformation of Rock Masses Using A Hardening Parameter

1
Estimating insitu Deformation of Rock Masses Using a Hardening Parameter and RQD
by
Ashutosh Trivedi
1
Abstract
The present study explores the utility of a pressure dependent empirical hardening parameter in
estimating deformation of rock masses. The hardening parameter has drawn a poor attention in
the classical rock mechanics. The previous literature review and observation of test results would
show that hardening is highly dependent on confining pressures and the plasticity already
experienced which modify joint parameters by mutual interaction. This paper provides an insight
of the published test data that reflects the dependencies of in-situ deformation modulus on
incremental joint parameters and isotropic pressure ratio. There exists an empirical relation
between modulus ratio and modified joint factor derived from number of joints, roughness, joint
inclination, and gouge parameters. The author has interpreted the modulus ratio of jointed rock
based on the modified joint factor. The author applied a hardening parameter obtained from the
initial condition of stresses and that of joint on the modified joint factor to get a modulus ratio.
Using a correlation of the modified joint factor and RQD, the model successfully shows that
operating hardening parameter upon RQD envelops the published data of modulus ratio vs. RQD.
The main aim of this paper is to show that the present model is valid for insitu deformation of the
strain hardening rock mass in structural foundation, mines and excavation design.
Key word: Modulus ratio, rock mass, hardening parameter, modified joint factor and RQD

1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University and University of Delhi, Delhi, India.
Res; H 8, Type-V, DTU campus, Bawana Rd., Delhi-110042, India
E-mail; prof.trivedi @yahoo.com
International Journal of Geomechanics. Submitted March 15, 2011; accepted March 7, 2012;
posted ahead of print March 12, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000215
Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
2

Introduction
The interpretation of deformation properties of rock masses is highly intricate due to the
presence of discontinuities of variable compressibility along the joint surface itself and amid the
volume of infill present in the joint. The compressibility depends upon the mean effective
confining pressure, which is negligible at an open joint to a peak pressure existing at the point of
stress concentration. The peak pressure adjusts itself on localized deformations. This process of
adjustment sets a distinct path of initial pressure to proceed to a shear failure. Even during the
process of unconfined loading of the jointed rock mass, the joint experiences varied levels of
confinement in relation to the peak uniaxial compression. It is recognized that mean initial
confinement in relation to the joint condition and failure stress tend to rationalize a path
dependent deformation as also proposed in the failure theories incorporating stress invariants (I
1
,
J
2
, J
3
). Physically, I
1
is mean confining pressure, J
2
represent magnitude of shear stress, and, J
3

determines its direction (Yu, 2006).
Theoretically, during the deformation of rock masses, the conservative and dissipative
components of the work input occur simultaneously. The total deformation may consist of the
deformation of discontinuities especially at low stress conditions [Bandis et al. (1983)]. The
equivalent continuum models [Kulhawy (1978) and Gerrard (1982)] show the effect of the
fracture stiffness on the rock mass deformation modulus. A ratio of deformation modulus of the
jointed rock mass (E
m
) to that of intact rocks (E
r
) is defined as the modulus ratio.
The fracture stiffness is highly nonlinear even at the low confinement and deformations. Few
hypoplastic models [Wu and Bauer (1993)] indicate possibilities of evaluating the rock mass
deformation without assuming a linear elastic or perfectly plastic behavior [Kolymbas (2007)].
Therefore, the already existing empirical relationship of modulus ratio and RQD [Deere et al.
(1967), Coon and Merritt (1970), Zhang and Einstein (2004)] may improve upon incorporating
nonlinearity owing to confinement. The initial mean confining pressure (p=I
1
/3) sets in a
progressive stiffness with incremental storage of strain energy up to a limiting value related to
uniaxial compressive strength (o
r
) of the intact rock. A portion of this stored strain energy
dissipates at a rate depending upon initial mean effective confining pressure set to deform the
rock mass. The uniaxial compressive strength conceals an equivalent initial confining pressure,
3

often characterized by the morphology of the rock masses normally considered in various rock
mass classification systems.
While experiencing deformations, the rock masses undergo isotropic and kinematic hardening. It
invokes Ziegler (1959) hardening rule where the yield surface transforms in the stress space. It
expands or contracts, changes its shape and translates upon loading. In their seminal work,
Shield and Ziegler (1958) described the behavior of a rigid work hardening material. They
envisaged an initial yield condition characterized by a state of stress first to set a plastic flow.
Next to come is a flow rule, connecting the plastic strain increment with stress and stress
increment. In addition, a hardening rule, this specifies the modification of the yield condition in
course of plastic flow. Extending these concepts to rock masses it is observed that increasing
initial isotropic pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
) the joints get hardened at a nonlinear rate. Therefore, a
nonlinear parameter C
h
is recognized, among the values ( and ), such that the hardening
parameter imply >C
h
>. In other words, if C
h
; the material undergoes deformation with
effect of confinement, shape, size and a very strong strain gradient exist. Finally, C
h
the
deformations are independent of observed boundary conditions. As such, well within the limit of
inequalities, the experimental and realistic values of hardening parameter observed for C
h

depends upon effective isotropic pressure.
The researchers defined plastic parameters, such as hardening or softening in a number of ways
in engineering applications. There is no wide agreement among the researchers on a common
possible composition of the plastic parameter [Varas et al. (2005), Alejano and Alonso (2005)].
However, there are two common components of this parameter. One of them is a function of
internal variables and the other is incremental [Vermeer and De Borst (1984)]. Interestingly, the
pressure dependent incremental hardening is one of the intrinsic parameters of all the granular
materials, namely, powders, silts, ashes [Trivedi and Sud (2004)] and even jointed rocks. In the
present study, the empirical hardening parameter for jointed rocks C
h
is obtained numerically
for input of different initial mean effective confining pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
) set in to the rock mass
as per the criteria of Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Johnston (1985). It tends to reach a failure
stress incorporated in strength ratio (o
mr
) obtained from uniaxial & triaxial test data of jointed
rocks determined by the direction of shear stress (J
3
).
4

Scope of Study
The joints represent discontinuities at the boundary of the intact and continuous material. The
discontinuities may exist with fragments of parent rock material often along with externally
deposited gouge in the joints, which may control the deformability of rock mass. During the
process of compression the rock mass closes the discontinuities and becomes hardened.
Therefore, a laboratory controlled hardening parameter is identified. Since the laboratory test
data on small specimen are often insufficient to predict deformation of rock mass, therefore its
relation with insitu test is necessary. It is easier to apply an empirical hardening parameter on the
field test data of RQD to get insitu deformation modulus.
Hoek and Brown (1997) and Hoek and Diederichs (2006) considered uniaxial
compressive strength of intact rock; and geological strength index (GSI) to propose a relation for
rock mass deformation, later incorporating a disturbance factor. The rock mass rating (RMR) by
Bieniawski (1978); Seram and Pereira (1983); Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990); Mitri et al.
(1994), includes the joint spacing and rock quality designation (RQD) to suggest a modulus ratio.
Furthermore, RMR and GSI provide measure of qualitative assessment of rock mass strength.
The Q system [Barton et al. (1980); Barton (1983), Barton (2002)] considers six parameters
inclusive of RQD, number of joints, roughness, the effect of joint filling and condition of joints,
ground water condition and stress reduction factor to evaluate modulus ratio. Fossum (1985) and
Kulhawy (1978) related modulus ratio with mean discontinuity spacing. Taking a cue from the
relationship of discontinuity spacing and RQD proposed by Priest and Hudson (1976), Zhang
(2010) presented analytical solution incorporating and compiled field observations of
deformation modulus. These systems do not directly consider the joint hardening.
The equivalent continuum approach treats the jointed rock mass as an equivalent continuum with
deformability that reflected the deformation properties of both the intact rock and the
discontinuities [Zhang, (2010)]. Arora (1987) considered few significant rock joint
characteristics in joint factor to propose a relationship for modulus ratio. It is noted that all
methods need to use some of the deformation properties of intact rock and discontinuities
obtained through laboratory or in situ tests. The comparison of modulus ratio evaluated by
various investigators is presented in Table. (1).
The present study shows that the rock mass deformation criteria should be improved to have a
capability of predicting rock mass deformation under different extents of joint conditions and
5

unifying the anisotropy, the effect of orientation, discontinuities, presence of gouge and
especially hardening due to the confinement and shear stress direction from initial conditions to a
failure.
The past studies have left out scope for estimation of hardening parameter of rock masses as one
of the unresolved issues. Therefore, one of the aims of this study is to obtain hardening
parameter as a function of stress invariant. Secondly, the modulus ratio of jointed rock was yet to
relate a readily estimated hardening parameter with the experimentally obtained quantities found
by direct measurements such as modified joint factor and RQD. A modified joint factor considers
intrinsic rock joint characteristics namely discontinuities, roughness, orientation, condition of
joints and gouge thickness, compaction, stress and ground water conditions in relation to the
modulus ratio.

The author applied the strength criteria of Johnston and Chiu (1984), using the joint mapping
criteria (RAC) of Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) and Trivedi (2010) and invoked application of
Zieglers (1959) hardening rule to obtain a hardening parameter. The range of the hardening
parameter was examined and applied by the author on a large available experimental (E
mr
vs. J
fg
)
and insitu (E
mr
vs. RQD) data set to show wide ranging application of the present proposal to
evaluate deformation of rock mass.

Definition of the Problem and Applications
The rock mass consists of discontinuities in the form of joints, fissures, cracks and
fractures with infill which undergo significant deformations compared to the intact rocks. In
routine engineering applications, the relation of rock mass deformations with joint condition and
hardening receives far a less attention, which is essentially because of the fact that many
problems of rock mechanics are solved avoiding evaluation of path dependent deformations and
secondly due to inherent difficulties in estimating hardening. Early investigators namely
Bieniawski (1978) and Seram and Pereira (1983) admit that various types of insitu tests for
deformation modulus can produce different results due to different loading and boundary
conditions. The loading and boundary conditions indirectly refer to the path dependent
deformations as taken care of in the present model of hardening. The aim of present study is to
advance a consistent model for jointed rocks, which connects the final strength with a hardening
6

parameter used for rock mass with changing discontinuity and joint conditions. It has potential
application in rock excavations, tunnelling and foundations in rock masses. In view of the
present trends in modelling, the purpose of this study is not to obtain highly accurate values of
deformation, but rather to focus on the issue that considers the effects of a hardening parameter
in theoretical and practical engineering problems. A large ensemble of studies on this topic
reveals that the hardening parameter and relative joint conditions are rarely taken in to
consideration. Often, when it is considered, the approach is poorly drawn consisting of a thumb
rule (C
h
=constant). Nevertheless, this rule does not necessarily represent deformation behaviour
of rock masses.
The results of model studies on rocks and modified masses illustrated the possibility of varied
deformation modes owing to the highly intricate internal stress distribution within a jointed rock
mass. With the progress of loading, there is a mutual adjustment of the micromechanical
deformation parameters with the mean effective confining pressure. So far, the deformation
behaviour of jointed rock mass has been quantified as a function of joint orientation, joint size,
frequency, roughness and waviness of the joints. There are inherent difficulties in mapping these
parameters for rock masses. Therefore, combined effect in terms of equivalent values adopted for
modified joint factor and initial confinement may capture reasonably well the deformation of
jointed rock mass right form a state of low-confinement to heavily confined state using iterative
inputs of the resultant strength. A concept model for the deformation of jointed rocks is shown in
Fig. (1).

Preliminary Definitions
Strength and modulus ratio
The strength and modulus of jointed rock is often evaluated in terms of strength ratio (o
mr
) and
modulus ratio (E
mr
) respectively. The primary aim of finding strength and modulus ratio (E
mr
)
relationship with modified joint factor is to get readily the strength and modulus of jointed rock
by conducting single uniaxial compression test on the parent rock mass. The strength ratio (
mr
)
is defined as a ratio of strength of a rock mass (
m
) with respect to uniaxial compressive strength
of same sized intact rock (
r
) sample of the same parent material. If
1m,

2m,
and
3m
are triaxial
7

principal stresses in the rock mass and
r
is uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock
sample, then in the triaxial state, at failure, the strength ratio is defined by,
p= (
1m
+
2m
+
3m
)/3 1(a)
q

= [(
1m
-
3m
)] 1(b)
mr
= [(
1m
+
2m
+
3m
)/3]/ [(
r
)/3] 1(c)
= p/ [(
r
)/3] 1(d)

mr
=3p/ (
r
) 1(e)
In unconfined state, the strength ratio,
mr
= [(
m
)/3]/ [(
r
)/3] 1(f)
=[
m
]/ [
r
] 1(g)
In pre failure triaxial conditions, modulus ratio is defined as,
E
mr
= E
m
/E
r
2(a)
E
r
and E
m
are tangent modulus of intact rock and rock mass respectively considered at 50% of
r

and
m
respectively.
Similarly, in pre failure unconfined conditions, modulus ratio is defined as,
E
mr
= E
m
(at
2m
=
3m
=0)/E
r
2(b)
Similarly, mean confining pressure ratio and shear stress ratio are defined as,
p
mr
= [(
1m
+
2m
+
3m
)/3]/ [(
r
)] 3(a)
q
mr
= [(
1m
-
3m
)]/ [(
r
)] 3(b)
Joint number, joint factor and modified joint factor
The number of joints per unit run of a scan line is joint number, Jn. The joint number is a
directional parameter. Its orientation and its tendency to slip, spread and an obstruction to
8

expansion affects the equivalent number of joints per unit volume of rock mass. A joint factor
captures potential engineering possibilities within a joint namely number of joints, orientation
and friction. The author considered condition of joints, namely presence of gouge and water
pressure in rock mass, together in modified joint factor. The joint number connects RQD, joint
factor and modified joint factor. According to Arora (1987) and Ramamurthy and Arora (1994)
the joint factor is a significant joint mapping parameter in relation to the strength ratio of rock
mass. It considers number of joints, joint orientation and friction in the expression as,
J
f
= J
n
/ n
|
r 4(a)
J
n
= number of joints per unit length in the direction of loading (joints per meter length of the
sample).
n
|
= orientation parameter
r = reference roughness parameter =1
It is presented in nondimentional form as,
J
f
= J
n
L
na
/ n
|
r 4(b)
L
na
= reference length =1meter,
On the basis of experimental data of Yaji (1984), Arora (1987), Trivedi (1990), Arora and
Trivedi (1992) and Trivedi and Arora (2007); Trivedi (2010) modified joint factor to incorporate
varied engineering possiblities amid rock mass, as
J
fg
=c
g
J
f
5
Where, c
g
is a modification factor for the condition of the joint, water pressure and the gouge,
c
g
= J
dj
J
t
/(g
d
J
w
) 6
J
dj
= correction for the depth of joint (joint stress parameter)
J
t
= correction for the thickness of gouge in joint (gouge thickness parameter)
J
w
= correction for ground water condition
9

g
d
= correction factor depending upon the compactness or relative density of gouge in joint,
equal to unity for fully compacted joint fill. For clean compact joints, c
g
is equal to unity. These
discontinuities may consist of fragments of the parent material to a varied extent of thickness,
density and orientation. An observation of rock core recovery captured g
d
in terms of designated
discontinuity condition or precisely by assigning a packing density of fragments in the
discontinuity. The packing in the discontinuity tends to compact, dilate or crush during the
process of loading.
The progressive compression of the discontinuities influences significantly the deformation
modulus of the rock mass. The granular material in the joints rupture zone undergoes shear
deformation depending upon relative density of the gouge. The relative density (R
D
) is
considered conventionally as a ratio of difference of natural state void ratio (e
n
) and minimum
void ratio (e
min
) from maximum void ratio (e
max
) of the gouge material [R
D
= (e
max
-e
n
)/ (e
max
-
e
min
)]. The effect of pore pressure (u) is discounted as dissipated, therefore, mean effective
confining pressure (p') is equal to mean confining pressure (p) [p=(
1
+
2
+
3
)/3, where
1,

2,

3,
are principal stresses]. However, under the field condition of ground water, J
w
is proposed as a
linear function (of u/
1m
) in the same manner as Q-system.
RQD
The rock masses essentially consist of strong and weak formations, which appear to be a
continuous deposit. The drilling process tends to recover a continuous core of strong material.
The already existing weaknesses reappear as discontinuity at irregular frequency, which is
average number of joints appearing per unit length.
The RQD [Deere et al. (1967)] is normally considered as the percentage of a core recovery of
spacing length of greater than or equal to 100mm. The RQD also captures the orientation of the
discontinuity relative to the scan line, and thus we obtain the orientation parameter. This
information is not always recorded in the data sheet of RQD. The engineering applications
usually consider RQD as the percentage of the borehole core in a drill run consisting of intact
lengths of rock greater than or equal to 100mm, which is represented numerically as,
RQD=100 % 7
10

Where L
i
are the lengths of individual pieces of core in a drill run having lengths more than or
equal to100mm and L
n
is the total length of the drill run. Based on Eq. (7), Priest and Hudson
(1976) found that the estimate of RQD related to discontinuity spacing measurements made on
core, as,
RQD=100(1+0.1 Jn) e
(-0.1 Jn)
8
For the number of joints ranging among 6 to 16/m an approximate linear relation is interpreted
from the work of Priest and Hudson (1976) as,
RQD=110.4 + 3.68 Jn 9(a)
Based upon the observations of Grenon and Hadjigeorgiou (2003) that neglecting volumetric
joint count would lead to erroneous quantification of the discontinuity nature of rock mass,
Palmstrom (2005) suggested use of number of joints per unit volume (Jv) instead of number of
joints per unit length of scan line (Jn).
RQD= 115-3.3 Jv 9(b)
Eq (9b) is applicable for rock quality designation for engineering applications for volumetric
joint count (Jv) among 4.5 and 35. Palmstrom (2005) provided a mutual relationship for RQD,
joint spacing (s) joint number (Jn), and volumetric joint count (Jv). Sen and Eisa (1991) showed
that lowering of RQD value with increasing difference between lengths of block side i.e. joint
spacing. In fact, changing block size [Samadhiya et al. (2008)] modulates stress intensity on
discontinuity hence upon the volume of joint material. Such an observation calls for an
adjustment in RQD vs. joint properties namely spacing, volume, friction, gouge material, ground
water and internal pressure. The volumetric joint count tends to have an exponential relation with
RQD as block size increases [Sen and Eisa (1991)].
The work of Sen and Eisa (1991), Grenon and Hadjigeorgiou (2003) and Palmstrom (2005)
provided a basis to propose an exponential relationship for a number of horizontal joints with
friction,
J
nr
=a
exp (b
RQD) 10
11

where, a
and b
take a value according to the rock block characteristics, discontinuity and

friction in relation to RQD. The volumetric effects on strength and deformation of jointed rocks
namely spacing, volume, friction, gouge material, ground water and internal pressure are
considered in modified joint factor (J
fg
).
Experimental Input and Numerical Formulation
The present work is based upon the generalisations derived from the theoretical framework of
hardening rule by Ziegler (1959) and experimental outputs of Johnston and Chiu (1984),
Johnston (1985) on strength criteria, Arora (1987) and Trivedi (1990) on empirical relation of
strength and modulus ratio based on significant joint characteristics, and Chun et al. (2009) and
Zhang (2010) on experimental data relating modulus ratio and RQD.
Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Johnston (1985) proposed a relationship in normalized form for
intact rocks [based upon the experimental observations of Brook (1979), Johnston (1985),
Aldrich (1969), and Swanson and Brown (1971)] as
o
1N
= [(M/B) o
3N
+1]
B
11
where o
1N
=o
1/
o
r
and o
3N
=o
3/
o
r
; o
1,
o
3
are principal stresses and o
r
is uniaxial compressive
strength of rock sample. M and B are empirical rock constants. Upon simplification we get,
o
r
/ o
t
= -M/B 12
where o
t
= tensile strength of rock sample.
Griffith theory (1924) predicts that uniaxial compressive strength at crack extension is eight
times the uniaxial tensile strength. The frictional forces in the micro crack network tend to
modify the ratio as per Eq.(12) beyond the limits of prediction of Griffiths theory. The
modification of empirical rock constants consequent to the changes in initial isotropic condition
and joint conditions are captured by the modified joint factor.
Based upon Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Johnston (1985) following relationships for rock mass
is used
B= 1-
b
(log o
m
)
2
13
12

M= +
m
(log o
m
)
2
14
The values of constants Eq. (13-14) are compiled in Table 2(a). Consequent to the loading, the
joint factor is modified due to the changes taking place in the cracks, micro cracks and fracture
network. The joint factor as per Eq. (4-6) gets modified and the stress redistribution takes place
which continues alternatively as long as deformation progressed. The changes in the isotropic
pressure (p) induces plastic volume change (
v
p
). It bring changes in potential of isotropic
pressure (i=p/
v
p
). The changes in plastic shear strain (
s
p
) with changes in shear stresses (q)
are associated with changes in the isotropic pressure (p). The plastic shear strain is indicative of
potential of changes in significant joint parameters (j=
s
p
/q) which is designated as j. The
subscript ij for variables in Eq.15(a-l) indicate their dependence on the instantaneous values of
i and j. The superscripted variables indicate iterative steps proceeding to the plastic flow amid
joints. The subscripted strain invariants namely
v
and
s
represent volumetric and shear
components while superscripts on strain invariants (
v
p
,
s
p
) indicate plastic range of behaviour.
These steps are represented by
i
1
= i +i, i
2
= i +i
1
, i
3
= i +i
2
, i
4
= i +i
3
,.... i
n
= i +i
n-1
15(a)
j
1
= j +j, j
2
= j +j
1
, j
3
= j +j
2
, j
4
= j +j
3
,.... j
n
= j +j
n-1
15(b)
where i
n
and j
n
are arrived by incrementally stepping to an iterative failure condition as per Eq.
(13-14) in a number of steps (1 to n). Prior to the arrival of a failure, the rock mass has a
maximum conservative component of the input energy. As such, the final conditions of failure
leave a scope for an evaluation of the initial conditions captured in steps by trial.
The twin factors, namely incremental initial change in isotropic condition (i) and incremental
changes in joint parameters (j) are influencing the expansion-contraction, translation and shear
shift in the p-q space. Therefore, shear stress (q) controlled by variable incremental initial
isotropic pressure conditions (i) and with variable incremental changes in joint parameters (j)
may be represented by,
f(q, p, C
h
) = q

-(C
ij

p
2
+ C
ij
`
p+ C
ij
``
) 15(c)
For a variety of rocks with micro fracture network and equivalent jointed rocks in confined state,
the author correlated, mean effective confining pressure through a simple numerical code to
13

predict, the modulus ratio of jointed rocks with progress in joint condition and to provide values
of empirical parameter for jointed rocks C
h
. The concentrations of stresses during loading tend
to modify joint factor, which in turn modifies the stress pattern. The progress of loading,
modifies the isotropic pressure, shear stress and joint conditions. The empirical fitting parameter
for jointed rocks C
h
is obtained by estimating deformation modulus of the jointed rock with
varying values of effective confining pressure for different initial isotropic pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
).
It is observed that incremental initial pressure tends to increase hardening parameter while
increasing value for joint parameters tends to decrease. The joint parameters capture the
possibilities amid joints through modified joint factor in the present study. It is difficult to
precisely indicate at which level the either of the components of modified joint factor and initial
pressure offsets each other. It is evident that joint factor characterises the post failure tendency
while initial confining conditions produce a condition towards conservation of rock. The
presence of strain restrictive regimes namely plane strain or triaxial condition provides a
direction to the deformation. The roots of Eq.15(c) indicate possible negative and positive values
suggesting application of Eq.(11-15) beyond the limits of prediction of Griffiths theory. It
implies an increasing intercept (C
ij
``
) on axis (q) with mean confining pressure (p). An increasing
intercept (C
ij
``
) on axis (q) with mean confining pressure (p) conserve the energy so that the rock
mass appear strong on yield. The strong on yield behaviour is shown by dense granular material
[Schofield and Wroth (1968)]. The coefficient (C
ij
`
) tends to translate the p-q plot in the positive
axis (p) as per Ziegler (1959) hardening hypothesis where the yield surface translates in the
stress space. The shape of the p-q plot in Eq.15(c) is controlled by the coefficient (C
ij
). The
second derivative of the yield function in Eq.15(c) is operated to find the parameter C
ij
as
2
q /p
2
= 2C
ij

15(d)
The shear stress are represented in a simplified form as,
q = (q/
s
p
) (
s
p
/
v
p
) (
v
p
/p) p 15(e)
q= (q/
s
p
) (F) (
v
p
/p) p 15(f)
q/p =(F){(q/
s
p
) (
v
p
/p)} 15(g)
14

If p/
v
p
= ; is constant; and
s
p
/q = j
j(q/p)=F 15(h)
The derivative of Eq.15 (h) with respect to changes in pressure is,
j(
2
q /p
2
)=(F/p) 15(i)
j(2C
ij
)

p =F

15(j)
The dissipation of plastic energy is proportional to plastic shear strain and mean confining
pressure acting on it. In order to introduce compatibility to the change in flow rule (F) with
changes in pressure (p) along with modification in joint parameters and hardening due to plastic
flow, the constants in Eq.15(j) are substituted as,
2 C
ij
= C
ij
15(k)
jC
ij
p = F 15(l)
Since the factor jC
ij
takes a direction according to o

p
to reach a failure; therefore jC
ij
=f(o
p
).
where o
p
=/C, and C depend upon dilatancy and yielding amid joints respectively as described
by Trivedi (2010). F is defined as a change in the flow function with change in mean effective
confining pressure for rock mass to reach yielding Y by frictional flow.
In order to explain the dissipation of plastic energy, investigators introduced a time variable of
inconsequential physical meaning to bring compatibility in the relationship of plastic volume
change and incremental plastic potential [Alejano and Alonso (2005)]. Zhang and Zhang (2009)
associated physical meaning to such a change of plastic volumetric strain in the process of rock
mass deformation having stress induced and thermal components enabling thermodynamic
compatibility. The initial confining pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
) and joint parameters tend to transform
empirical parameter C
ij
due to yielding, hardening and thermal characteristics of the joint

material. Integrating the process described by Eq.15(a-l), the author numerically evaluated,
through a simple analysis, to propose a relationship for C
h
dependent on initial confining
pressure ratio and o
p
[Table 2(b) and 3].
15

A solution to the Eq.15(l) is brought by author based on the experimental observations [Eq. 13
and 14] of Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Eq.15(c). Based on this analysis, it is found that,
C
h
=f((p
i
/o
r
),o
p
) 15(m)
C
h
contains very sensitive effects of plastic yielding, hardening and thermal characteristics of the
joint material. Several models for soil and rock deformation consider the shear and volumetric
strain alone to serve as a hardening parameter [Lade and Kim (1995)]. There are serious
difficulties associated with measurements of actual plastic volumetric strain (
v
p
) and plastic
shear strain (
s
p
) for rock mass.
Therefore, it is necessary to advance a model to capture deformability of jointed rocks which is
applied without precise information about actual plastic volume change as per the Eq.15 (m).
The present expression as represented by Eq.15 (m) has a capability to provide relevant solution
for interpretation of modulus ratio.
Discussion of results
The evaluation of modulus ratio was based upon preliminary observations of different
investigators working on strength characteristics of rock mass. The Griffith theory as a
conceptual starting point for later strength criteria taking account of frictional forces on closed
cracks and the influence of intermediate principal stress [Jaeger et al. (2007)], called for further
investigations to bring satisfactory agreement with experimental results, therefore, workers in the
field restored to the empirical expressions [Parry (1995)]. Based on experimental observations
[Brown (1970), Brown and Trollope (1970), Einstein and Hirschfeld (1973), Yaji (1984), Arora
(1987), Roy (1993), Trivedi and Arora (2007) and Jain (2011)] of strength ratio [Eq.1a-g]
corresponding to a joint factor [Eq.4a-b], modified joint factor [Eq.5-6] and numerical trials
[Trivedi (2010)] the author obtain o
p
, from the relationship between strength with modified joint
factor for rock mass,
o
p
J
fg
= ln (o
mr
) 16(a)
The modified joint factor [Eq.5] is obtained from joint factor [Eq.4a-b] using c
g
=1 [Eq.6] for
blank joints. The back calculated values of o
p
are plotted in Fig. 2(a) corresponding to the joint
16

factor and modified joint factor using selected experimental observations. The regression of data
indicates a broad range of trend lines for o
p
with probable dilational and yielding characteristics.
Eq.16 (a) is extended to obtain a modulus ratio in terms of modified joint factor as,
C
h
J
fg
= ln (E
mr
)

16(b)
E
mr
= exp (C
h
J
fg
) 16(c)
where J
fg
is joint factor, modified in the Eq.16(a-c) and E
mr
is the modulus ratio for jointed
rocks. E
mr
is obtained as per Eq.2(a-b). The factor C
h
was defined as a fitting constant by many
investigators [C
h
=-0.0115 by Arora (1987) and C
h
=-0.0018, -0.00115, and -0.0007 for varied
modes of joint failures by Singh (1997)]. The back calculated values of C
h
corresponding to the
joint factor and modified joint factor using experimental observations [Brown (1970), Brown and
Trollope (1970), Einstein and Hirschfeld (1973), Yaji (1984), Arora (1987), and Roy (1993)] of
modulus ratio [Eq.2a-b] corresponding to a joint factor [Eq.4a-b] and modified joint factor [Eq.5-
6] shows a wide range of values of C
h
among -0.1 to -0.001 in unconfined condition and -0.02 to
-0.001 for confined conditions in Fig. 2(b). Such a trend in Fig. 2(b) shown by solid and dotted
lines for unconfined and confined conditions respectively supports pressure dependent hardening
characteristics of rock masses.
The strength ratio in Eq.16 (a) is expressed in terms of modified joint factor as,
o
mr
= exp (o
p
J
fg
) 16(d)
o
mr
= exp (/C) J
fg
16(e)
o
mr
= exp (A/C) Ir 16(f)
Ir is relative dilatancy index as defined for soils by Bolton (1986). According to Bolton (1986),
A takes a value of 3 and 5 in axe-symmetrical and plane strain case respectively. Trivedi (2010)
selected values of C among -1 and -5 for high and low pressure conditions respectively for
jointed sand stones. Eq.16 (f) controls the behavior of rock mass if gouge pre-dominates the
behavior. Due to loading, a change in joint factor is represented by J
fg.
The joint conditions have
both plastic as well as damage components [Zuo et al. (2011)] due to input energy. Under
17

favorable circumstances, rock mass may conserve or dissipate energy to modify J
fg
. The
incremental changes J
fg
d
and J
fg
p

proceeds modified joint factor to damage as well plastic state
in the Eq. (17). Therefore, upon incremental loading, a change in the modified joint factor is,
J
fg
= J
fg
d
J
fg
p
17
The modified joint factor J
fg
[J
fg
(1)] is a significant joint mapping parameter in both stages of
input energy as arrived in small steps to eventually a plastic failure. Under damaged conditions
alone J
fg
=J
fg
d
; while at plastic failure J
fg
=J
fg
p
. The earlier investigators proposed o
p
as a
fitting constant [o
p
=-0.005 to -0.025 according to Arora (1987), Trivedi (1990), Arora and
Trivedi (1992), Singh (1997) and, Trivedi and Arora (2007)] in relation to a common joint factor
and modified joint factor captured in laboratory conditions [Eq.16 (d)]. Assuming a progressive
failure similar to the foundations [Trivedi & Sud (2005)], and C are defined as a dilatancy
related parameters for jointed rocks which connect the dilatancy of soils [Bolton (1986)] and
rock mass in plane strain and triaxial conditions [Trivedi (2010), Trivedi and Kumar (2010)].
The upper bound and lower bound of o
p
are tabulated [Table.2(b)] to show that rock mass
having granular fill amid the joints can be modeled with the help of a path dependent parameter
joining initial condition of pressure to the end conditions decided by strain restrictions. The
strain restrictions may not remain strictly plane strain or triaxial state, rather the conditions may
allow for in-between values of o
p
. The author obtained empirically observed rock mass
modulus by a path constrained hardening parameter C
h
and a modified joint factor, J
fg
.
The parameter C
h
further varies according to the ratio of initial mean effective confining
pressure (p
i
') and uniaxial compressive strength of intact rocks (o
r
). Since there is no effect of
pore pressure considered further in this analysis, therefore p
i
'= p
i
and p'= p respectively. The
parameter C
h
is sensitive to plastic yielding, hardening and crushing characteristics of the joint
material. The initial confining pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
) and presence of a gouge material tends to
transform empirical parameter C
h
due to yielding, hardening and crushing characteristics and
end conditions of the joint. The plastic potential lines as per Eq.15(c) for varying initial
confining pressure ratios (p
i
/o
r
) supports a hypothesis of non-associated flow rule. The author
numerically evaluated, through a simple analysis, to propose a relationship for C
h
dependent
on initial isotropic pressure ratio [Table.(3)]. Based on this analysis it is found that,
18

C
h
= (p
i
/o
r
)
18
, empirical constants depending upon o
p

p
i
/o
r
is initial isotropic pressure ratio in percent.
Fig. 2(c) shows the variation of empirical hardening parameter with the percent initial effective
isotropic pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
) for jointed rocks obtained through the numerical formulation
shown in Eq.15(a-m). A range of C
h
values corresponding to the numerical trials [Fig.2(c)]
indicates that the average experimental values [Fig 2(d)] are captured within the upper and lower
bound values interpreted by the numerical model.
The empirically observed rock mass modulus related a pressure dependent hardening parameter
C
h
with a modified joint factor, and the RQD data. The rock masses consisting of continuous
and discontinuous formations, recovers a continuous core. The already existing weaknesses may
appear as discontinuity to affect the deformations. The recorded discontinuities equal a number
of joints appearing per unit length (J
n
). The core recovery data also captures the orientation of
the discontinuity relative to the scan line, and thus the orientation parameter of discontinuities
(n
|
). The modified joint factor as per the Eq. (4-6) uses supplementary data of core recovery
along with RQD.
The help of significant joint mapping parameters such as average number of discontinuity per
unit length (J
n
), roughness parameter (r), joint inclination parameter (n
|
), discontinuity condition
(c
g
), and ground water condition (J
w
), a modified joint factor (J
fg
) was evaluated corresponding
to the RQD data points published by Chun et.al. (2009). The data of J
fg
as obtained along RQD
and E
mr
from the published data of Chun et al. (2009) is shown in Fig. (3-4).
Relationship of modulus ratio with J
fg
and RQD
The author examined the result in light of the Johnstons generalization evolving from triaxial
testing. The author conjoined these findings to propose a relationship for modulus ratio
incorporating a pressure dependant hardening parameter.
It is observed that at lower values (<50%), RQD may not directly capture all the engineering
possibilities amid the joints which are often well expressed by modified joint factor. Zhang and
Einstein (2004) and Zhang (2010) report that modulus ratio interpretation may have significant
19

variation due to intrinsic insensitivity of RQD to directional effects, discontinuity spacing and
discontinuity condition. External to the RQD, the methods for determination of rock mass
modulus namely, plate load test, various jacking tests, and borehole deformability test in vertical
and horizontal directions have significant influence on the data set and upon the proposed
relationships. From the laboratory scale testing and direct measurements it is established that a
joint factor consisting of three significant factors, namely joint frequency, roughness, and
orientation [Ramamurthy and Arora (1994)] may be conveniently improved by the author to
capture discontinuity condition to relate it to the deformation and strength of rock mass as per the
Eq.16(c-e). Moreover, over the years, it is well realized that RQD may be related to the insitu
strength and deformation properties of rock mass [Deere et al. (1967) and Coon and Merritt
(1970)] by incorporating horizontal and vertical stiffness [Zhang (2010)].
A numerical representation of RQD in relation to a modified joint factor captures varied
engineering possibilities namely, number and condition of joint and friction [Eq. (10)],
orientation, gouge, water pressure, block size and redistribution of stresses. A modified joint
factor varying in a scale (0-1000) has an exponential relationship with RQD [Eq. (19a)].
Therefore, utilizing a relationship of joint mapping characteristics with RQD, the modulus ratio
is conveniently expressed as,
J
fg
= a exp (b RQD) 19(a)
Where, a and b depend upon the relationship of modified joint factor with RQD. The factors
namely a and b may be readily estimated from core drilling data of the rock mass and
geotechnical site investigation report.
The relationship of modulus ratio and RQD in normalized form is,
E
mr
= exp |a C
h
exp (b RQD)] 19(b)
Where a=1000, and b =-1.5 to -0.05 depending upon the extent of significant joint characteristics
of the rock mass and C
h
is a path dependent hardening parameter. The relationship among
frequently employed rock-mass classifications used for determination of modulus ratio namely
RMR, GSI, Q, RAC, J
fg
; RQD is shown in Table.(1) for the purpose of ready reference to the
present work.
20

The relationship of modulus ratio with modified joint factor [Fig.(3)] has an advantage of
mapping varied engineering parameters in addition to discontinuity spacing. The effect of initial
mean effective confining pressure ratio (p
i
/o
r
) on hardening parameter has an advantage to place
the deformation criteria as function of a stress invariant (I
1
).
The modulus ratio estimated corresponding to GSI and as per Chun et al. (2009) is plotted
corresponding to the modified joint factor [Fig.(3)]. The modulus ratio according to GSI
corresponding to each data point falls within the range corresponding to a modified joint factor
for the hardening parameter corresponding to a mean confining pressure. Amid these limiting
initial mean effective confining pressure ratios, the constant hardening (-0.005, -0.01, -0.1)
parameter was numerically operated uniformly for the range of data set for modeled rock mass.
Fig.(4) shows variation of modified joint factor (J
fg
) with RQD along with the experimental data
of Chun et al. (2009). It also shows trend lines corresponding to the linear and exponential
relationships of joint number vs. RQD by Priest and Hudson (1976). It is interesting to note that
significant joint parameters considered in modified joint factor tend to stretch the relationship
towards lower and upper bound.
The modulus ratio is plotted along with RQD data compiled by Zhang (2010) [based on the data
set of Chun et al. (2009), Isik et al. (2008), Yang (2006), Vulkovik (1998), Labire et al. (1997),
Ebisu et al. (1992), Bieniawski (1978), Coon and Merritt (1970)] in Fig. 5(a). It shows a
significant scatter. Zhang (2010) captured this scatter by normal stiffness and joint numbers. It
appears that data set of many investigators have an apparent dissimilarity of best-fit trends to
propose a common relationship for modulus ratio. The trend lines obtained from the selected
data set of Chun et al. (2009) and Bieniawski (1978) suggest their applicability to low and high
RQD ranges respectively. Some of the data sets report decrease of modulus ratio with increasing
RQD [Yang (2008) and Labrie et al. (1997)] opposed to the best fit arrived by collective
consideration of E
mr
vs. RQD relation from varied investigators [Fig.(5a)]. The modulus ratio
based upon rock mass classification systems show that other variants over and above
discontinuity spacing, normal and shear stiffness also have significant influence. Apparently,
there are several factors as captured by RMR, GSI, Q, and RAC, as considered together in
modified joint factor [Table. (1)] shall be helpful in interpretation of the modulus ratio in relation
to RQD.
21

The author presents these results to show that the hardening parameter operated upon a modified
joint factor to compute modulus ratio of rock mass. The modulus ratio obtained by extending
best fit from the data compiled by Zhang (2010) and that obtained at overburden at various data
points published by Chun et al. (2009) is empirically expressed along with upper bound values at
appropriate hardening level in Table.(4) as,
E
mr
= m ln (RQD) +n 20
Where the values of m and n correspond to a hardening in relation to the statistical data set
considered for the study [Fig. 5(b)]. The preliminary estimates of modulus ratio obtained from
Eq. (20) must be used with a great care in absence of the mutual relationship of J
fg
and RQD.
Eq.19(b) is used to find out modulus ratio if a relationship of J
fg
and RQD as per Eq.19(a) is
available from the core recovery and geotechnical investigation. Fig. 5(c) shows that using Eq.
19(a) judiciously envelopes the data of E
mr
vs. RQD compiled by Zhang (2010) and Chun et al.
(2009). The trend line descriptor shows that adopting a constant hardening parameter (Ch=-0.01;
b=-0.1 and b=-0.05) may lead to erroneous modulus ratio particularly at lower values of RQD.
The trend lines corresponding to the hardening at overburden [for data of Chun et al. (2009)] and
best fit [for data compiled by Zhang (2010)] show a similar trend. The present proposal to map
modulus ratio together with modified joint factor, RQD, and a hardening parameter provides a
fresh insight to understand largely discontinuous rock mass behavior. The variation of modulus
ratio with the hardening parameter and modified joint factor corresponding to the RQD condense
our understanding of the deformation of rock masses.
Comments on the validity of present model
The application of a hardening parameter envelops the available data set of modulus ratio and
RQD within the reasonable zone of prediction using the present relations. The data set of several
investigators is used in generalized form. However, the relations described above should be
applied judiciously and with care owing to following reasons,
- The strength and deformation criteria cited in the present study are essentially empirical
in nature and the constants associated with various relationships [Table. (1)] provide only
an approximate interpretation of modulus ratio.
22

- Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Hoek and Brown (1997) developed an empirical strength
criterion for intact rocks and then extended it to the rock masses. Ramamurthy and Arora
(1994) used joint factor to propose a strength criterion for jointed rocks based on the
laboratory studies. The author applied concepts of progressive failure and modified joint
factor with the progress of loading and it is extended to the modulus ratio based on a
hardening parameter. The process used for the development of the present criteria was
one of pure trial and error as that of the early workers. Because of the empirical nature of
strength and deformation criterion of rock masses, it is uncertain if it will adequately
predict the behavior in all possible conditions.
- The modulus ratio considers the jointed and intact rock for the same size of sample
therefore size effects are assumed-discounted. However, in practice, the block size effects
may be captured differently.
- The deformations as assumed for axe-symmetrical and plane strain case is similar to that
in soil mechanics, which implicitly assumes that rock mass, is isotropic and that
continuum behavior prevails. In practice, contrary to the assumption, the rock mass are
an-isotropic and the deformations may be discontinuous.
- The values of peak hardening of the rock masses asymptotically increases with mean
isotropic pressure and affected by joint conditions. Hence, hardening parameter for rock
masses is recognized as value considered approaching the intact rock with confining
pressure. The rock masses are assumed to deform and cause increase in the deformations
below the peak modulus with increasing joints. Therefore, the increasing values of J
fg
for
the rock masses are essentially associated with more deformations.
- While gouge within the joints undergoes volume change, the hardening may accompany
in gouge, and the joint closure and then it may damaged rock mass. The modulus ratio
considers all these parts. In order to isolate these effects, there is a need to fine-tune the
results.
- The present work does not intend to comment upon advantages and disadvantages of
other elasto-plastic and hardening models. The purpose of the present relations is to
provide a framework to handle hardening problem for one-dimensional deformation and
to evaluate it with the help of a simple numerical tool.
23

- The volume change characteristics of rock mass are difficult to estimate. The laboratory
estimate often fall short of the field estimate of the consequent deformation, therefore a
hardening model is proposed where change in deformation relative to intact rocks are
captured by a hardening parameter and modified joint factor. The precise predictions of
modulus of jointed rocks depend upon an appropriate choice of hardening parameter (C
h
)
progressing towards failure conditions specified by o
p
.
The limitations described above should be considered to apply the proposed relationships for the
modulus ratio and RQD.
Conclusions
This paper describes an approach to find deformation of jointed rocks in terms of empirically
established joint characteristics captured by a modified joint factor. The modulus ratio is
conventionally adopted in relation to a fixed set of joint mapping parameters in various rock
mass classification systems. The present work uses modified joint factor consisting of joint
roughness, joint orientation, number of joints, and gouge parameters. The joint mapping
parameter gets altered according to initial confining pressure (p
i
), a direction selected by stress
conditions of plane strain and triaxial states. Small changes in these consideration unfold
multiplicity in interpretation of empirical joint characteristics and hence modulus ratio (E
mr
).
The dependencies of intrinsic joint characteristics on initial confining pressure provide input to a
numerical technique to incorporate these effects in the modulus ratio. Comparing the results of
the proposed model with the test data indicated that multiplicity appearing in the interpretation of
modulus ratio is essentially due to hardening and accompanied changes. The hardening
parameter is presented as a function of stress invariant. This paper considers the effect of
hardening in varied confinement conditions in plane strain and axe-symmetrical case on modulus
by coefficients (C
h
and o
p
) of readily estimated modified joint factor and insitu data of RQD for
rock mass. These coefficients have potential application in rock mechanic designs. The main
advantage of this model is to provide estimate of the modulus ratio of jointed rocks in terms of
the already established parameters namely J
fg
and RQD. The relation of modulus ratio with
hardening and intrinsic joint characteristics provides a rationale to resolve the diversity in
interpretation of the deformation of jointed rocks with RQD.
24

Acknowledgements
The author is thankful to Prof. L Zhang, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, USA, Prof. VK Arora, NIT,
Kurukshetra, India and Mr. M Sagong, KRRI, Uiwang, South Korea for granting permission to
use their representative data. The author sincerely compliments the reviewers for their savant
inputs, comments and questions, which significantly improved the presentation of this paper.
25

Notations
A empirical constant; takes a value 3 for axi-symmetrical and 5 for
plane strain case as per Bolton (1986)
a,b, a
'
,b', m,n fitting constants for experimental data of RQD
c
g
, g
d
modification for joint factor and gouge density
C
h
hardening parameter
E
r
and E
m
modulus of intact rock and rock mass respectively
F flow function controlled by a flow rule
I
r
relative dilatancy index
and limiting values for variation of hardening parameter such that
>C
h
>
i and j potential for change in isotropic pressure with plastic volumetric
strain and change in plastic shear strain with shear stresses
J
dj
joint depth parameter
J
f
and

J
fg
joint factor and modified joint factor respectively
J
n
number of joints in the direction of loading per unit length
J
t
gouge thickness parameter
J
v
volumetric joint count
L
na
reference length =1meter
M, B, ,
b,
m
empirical rock constants in Johnston and Chiu (1984) criteria
n
|
joint orientation parameter depending upon inclination of the joint
plane () with respect to the direction of loading as per RAC
p and p

mean effective confining pressure and changes in mean effective
confining pressure respectively
p
a
reference pressure =1 kPa
p
i
initial mean confining pressure
26

q and q shear stress and changes in shear stresses respectively
r joint strength parameter
RMR, Q, GSI,
RAC
rock mass rating, Q-system by Barton, Geological strength index
and Ramamurthy-Arora-criterion respectively
R
D
relative density of gouge
RQD rock quality designation
S
cr
strength reduction factor
Y yield function
and C empirical coefficient for dilatancy of joints
o
p

parameter depending upon and C as per Trivedi (2010)
v
p
and
s
p
plastic volumetric strain and plastic shear strain respectively
,
empirical constants depending upon o
p

o
1,

2,
and o
3

principal stresses in the intact rock
1m,

2m,
and
3m
principal stresses in the rock mass
o
r
,

o
m

uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock and rock mass
respectively
o
mr
and E
mr

strength ratio and modulus ratio
27

References
1. Aldrich, M.J., (1969). Pore pressure effects on Berea sandstone subjected to
experimental deformation. Geol Soc. Am Bull., 80, 1577-80.
2. Alejano, L.R., and Alonso, E., (2005). Considerations of the dilatancy angle in rocks
and rock masses. Int. J Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 42(4), 481507.
3. Arora, V.K. (1987). Strength and deformational behaviour of jointed rocks. PhD
Thesis, IIT Delhi, India.
4. Arora, V.K, and Trivedi, A. (1992). Effect of Kaolin gouge on strength of jointed
rocks. Asian Regional Symposium on Rock Slope, New Delhi, 21-25.
5. Bandis, S, Lumsden, A.C, and Barton, N.R. (1983). Fundamentals of rock joint
deformation. Int. J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr, 20, 24968.
6. Barton, N., Loset, F., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1980). Application of the Q-system in
design decisions. Subsurface space, M. Bergman, ed., Vol. 2, Pergamon, Oxford, U.K.,
553561.
7. Barton, N. (1983). Application of Q-system and index tests to estimate shear strength
and deformability of rock masses. Proc., Int. Symp. On Engineering Geology and
Underground Construction, Vol. 1, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, 5170.
8. Barton N. (2002). Some new Q value correlations to assist in site characterization and
tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci., 39, 185216.
9. Bieniawski, Z. T. (1978). Determining rock mass deformability: Experience from case
histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 15, 237247.
10. Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique, 36(1),6578
11. Brook, N. (1979). Estimating triaxial strength of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech.Abstr., 16, 261264.
12. Brown, E.T., (1970) Strength of models of rock with intermittent joints. J Soil Mech
Found Div., ASCE, 96(6), 19351949.
13. Brown E.T., and Trollope D.H., (1970) Strength of models of rock with intermittent
joints. J Soil Mech Found Div., ASCE, 96(SM2), 685704.

28

14. Chun, B.S., Ryu, W. R., Sagong, M., and Do, J. N. (2009). Indirect estimation of the
rock deformation modulus based on polynomial and multiple regression analyses of the
RMR system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 46(3), 649658.
15. Coon, R. F., and Merritt, A. H. (1970). Predicting in situ modulus of deformation using
rock quality indices. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ., 477, 154173.
16. Deere, D. U., Hendron, A. J., Patton, F. D., and Cording, E. J. (1967).Design of surface
and near surface construction in rock. Proc., 8
th
U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, C.
Fairhurst, ed., 237302.
17. Ebisu, S., Aydan, O., Komura, S., and Kawamoto, T. (1992). Comparative study on
various rock mass characterization methods for surface structures. ISRM Symp.: Eurock
92, Rock Characterization, J.A. Hudson, ed., British Geotechnical Society, Chester,
U.K., 203208.
18. Einstein, H.H., Hirschfeld, R.C., (1973) Model studies on mechanics of jointed rock. J
Soil Mech Found Div., ASCE 99(3):229248
19. Fossum, A. F. (1985). Effective elastic properties for a randomly jointed rock mass.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 22(6),467470.
20. Gerrard, CM. (1982). Elastic models of rock masses having one, two and three sets of
joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr;19: 1523.
21. Grenon M. and Hadjigeorgiou J., (2003). Evaluating discontinuity network
characterization tools through mining case studies. Soil Rock America 2003, Boston.
Vol. 1, 137-142.
22. Grifth A.A. (1924). Theory of rupture. In: Proceedings of the 1
st
International
congress of applied mechanics, Delft, 5563.
23. Hoek, E, and Brown, E.T. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,34 (8), 11651186.
24. Hoek, E., and Diederichs, M. S. (2006). Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,43(2), 203215.
25. Isik, N. S., Doyuran, V., and Ulusay, R. (2008). Assessment of deformation modulus of
weak rock masses from pressuremeter tests and seismic surveys. Bull. Eng. Geol.
Environ., 67, 293304.
29

26. Jaeger, J.C., Cook, NGW., Zimmerman, R.W. (2007). Fundamentals of Rock
Mechanics. 4
th
Ed., Wiley-Blackwell.
27. Johnston, I.W. (1985). Strength of intact geo-materials. J Geotech Eng ASCE,
111(GT6),730749.
28. Johnston, I.W., Chiu, H.K. (1984). Strength of weathered Melbourne mudstone. J
Geotech Eng, ASCE, 110(GT7), 875898.
29. Jain, N.K. (2011).Effect of Cemented Fill on Strength of Jointed Specimen
Dissertation, Dept Civil Eng, Delhi University, Delhi, India.
30. Kolymbas, D. (2007). Incompatible deformations in rock mass. Acta Geotechnica,
2(1), 33-40.
31. Labrie, D., Plouffe, M., Haevey, A., and Major, C. (1997). Distress blast testing at
Sigma Mine: Experimentation and results. Div. Rep. No. MMSL 97-143E, Mining and
Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
32. Lade, P.V., and Kim, M.K. (1995). Single hardening constitutive model for soil rock
and concrete. Int. J. Solids Structures, 32 (14), 1963-1978.
33. Kulhawy, FH. (1978) Geomechanical model for rock foundation settlement. J Geotech
Eng, ASCE; 104: 21127.
34. Palmstorm, A. (2005). Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock
quality designation (RQD) Tunnels and Underground Space Technology, 20, 362-377.
35. Parry, R.H.G., (1995). Mohr circle stress path and geotechnics. E& FN Spoon, London.
36. Priest, S. D., and Hudson, J. (1976). Discontinuity spacing in rock. Int.J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 13, 135148.
37. Ramamurthy, T, and Arora, V.K. (1994). Strength prediction for jointed rocks in
confined and unconfined states. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 31(1), 9
22.
38. Roy, N. (1993). Engineering behavior of rock masses through study of jointed models.
PhD Thesis, IIT Delhi, India.
39. Samadhiya, N. K., Viladkar, M. N., and Al-Obaydi, M.A., (2008). "Numerical
Implementation of Anisotropic Continuum Model for Rock Masses."International Journal
of Geomechanics, ASCE, 8 (2), 157-161.
30

40. Sen, Z., and Eissa, E.A., (1991). Volumetric rock quality designation. Journal Geotech.
Engn., ASCE, 117 (9),1331 - 1346.
41. Seram, J. L., and Pereira, J. P. (1983). Consideration of the geomechanical
classication of Bieniawski. Proc., Int. Symp. Engineering Geology and Underground
Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, 3344.
42. Shield, R.T., and Ziegler, H. (1958). On Pragers hardening rule ZAMP, 9(3), 260-276.
43. Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P. (1968). Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-hill,
London.
44. Swanson, S.R., and Brown, W.S. (1971). An observation of loading path dependence of
fracture in rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 8, 277281.
45. Mitri, H. S., Edrissi, R., and Henning, J. (1994). Finite-element modeling of cable-
bolted stopes in hard rock ground mines. SME Annual Meeting, Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration, Albuquerque, N.M., 94116.
46. Nicholson, G. A., and Bieniawski, Z. T. (1990). A nonlinear deformation modulus based
on rock mass classication. Int. J. Min. Geol. Eng., 8, 181202.
47. Singh, M. (1997). Engineering behaviour of jointed model materials. PhD Thesis, IIT
Delhi, India.
48. Trivedi, A. (1990). Effect of gouge on the strength of jointed rocks. Dissertation, REC
Kurukshetra, India.
49. Trivedi, A., and Sud, V.K. (2004) Collapse behavior of coal ash. Journal Geotech.
Geoenv. Engn., ASCE, 130 (4), 403-415.
50. Trivedi A, Sud VK (2005) Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on coal ash. Granular
Matter, 7(4), 203212.
51. Trivedi, A. (2010) Strength and dilatancy of jointed rocks with granular fill. Acta
Geotechnica, 5(1), 15-31.
52. Trivedi, A., and Kumar, N., (2010) Strength of jointed rocks with granular fill., ISRM
International Symposium - 6th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, October 23 - 27,
2010 , New Delhi, India.
53. Trivedi A., and Arora V.K., (2007). Discussion of bearing capacity of shallow
foundations in anisotropic non-HoekBrown rock masses. J Geotech Geoenv Eng.,
ASCE, 133(2):238240.
31

54. Varas F., Alonso, A., Alejano, L.R., Fdez.-Manin, G. (2005). Study of bifurcation in the
problem of unloading a circular excavation in a strain softening material Tunnel and
under Ground Space Tech., 20, 311-322.
55. Vermeer, P.A., and De Borst, R. (1984). Non associated plasticity for soils concrete and
rocks Heron, 29(3), 3-64.
56. Vukovic, N. (1998). Comparison of laboratory and eld modulus of elasticity of rocks.
MS thesis, McGill Univ., Montreal.
57. Wu, W., and Bauer, E. (1993). A hypoplastic model for barotropy and pyknotropy of
granular soils. Modern Approaches to Plasticity, Kolymbas, D., ed., 225-245, Elsevier.
58. Yaji R.K., (1984). Shear strength and deformation of jointed rocks. PhD Thesis, IIT
Delhi, India.
59. Yang, K. (2006). Analysis of laterally loaded drilled shafts in rock. Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Akron, Ohio.
60. Yu, H.S. (2006). Plasticity and geotechnics Springer, New York.
61. Zhang, L., and Einstein, H. H. (2004). Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus
of rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.Geomech. Abstr., 41(2), 337341.
62. Zhang, L. (2010). Method for estimating the deformability of heavily jointed rock J
Geotech Geoenv Eng., ASCE, 136 (9), 1242-1250.
63. Zhang, S., and Zhang, F. (2009). A thermo-elastic-viscoplastic model for soft
sedimentary rock. Soils and Foundations, 49(4), 583-595.
64. Ziegler, H. (1959). A modification of Pragers hardening rule. Quart. Appl. Math., 17,
55.
65. Zuo,Y., Xu, T., Zhang,Y., Zhang,Y., Li ,S., Zhao,G., and Chen,C. (2011) "Numerical
study of zonal disintegration within rock mass around deep excavated tunnel."
International Journal of Geomechanics., On line ahead of print July 11, 2011.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000155


List of Figures
Fig.1 Model deformation of jointed rocks with joint modification and isotropic pressure
Fig.2 (a) Back calculated values of
p
vs. joint factor and modified joint factor
Fig.2 (b) Values of C
h
in confined and unconfined state vs. joint factor and modified joint factor
Fig.2 (c) Hardening parameter C
h
vs. initial isotropic pressure ratio for varying
p
Fig.2 (d) Back calculated values of C
h
within upper and lower bound vs. initial isotropic pressure
ratio
Fig.3 Variation of modulus ratio with modified joint factor and constant hardening parameter C
h

Fig.4 Variation of modified joint factor with RQD
Fig.5 (a) Best fit for variation of modulus ratio with RQD
Fig.5 (b) Modulus ratio vs. RQD for selected range of pressure dependent hardening parameter
Fig.5 (c) Modulus ratio vs. RQD for a pressure dependent and constant hardening parameter

Figure Captions list
axial
q
}oints closuie with isotiopic piessuie
Intact rock
Rock mass quality and modiIied joint Iactor
Fig.1 Model deIormation oI jointed rocks with joint modiIication and isotropic pressure
Figure 1
u.uu1
u.u1
u.1
1
u 2uu 4uu 6uu 8uu 1uuu
)oint factor and modified |oint factor

Biown (197u)
Biown anu Tiollope (197u)
Einstein & Biischfelu (197S)
Yaji (1984)
Aioia (1987)
Roy (199S)
Tiiveui & Aioia (2uu7)
}ain (2u11)
Fig.2 (a) Back calculateu values of vs. joint factoi anu mouifieu joint factoi
Figure 2a
u.uu1
u.u1
u.1
1
u 2uu 4uu 6uu 8uu 1uuu
)oint factor and modified |oint factor

0nconfineu
Biown (197u)
Biown & Tiollope (197u)
Yaji (1984)
Aioia (1987)
Roy (199S)
Nean confining piessuie 1 Npa
Yaji confineu (1984)
Aioia confineu (1987)
Roy confineu (199S)
Expon. (Biown (197u))
Expon. (Biown & Tiollope (197u))
Expon. (Yaji (1984))
Expon. (Aioia (1987))
Expon. (Roy (199S))
Expon. (Yaji confineu (1984))
Expon. (Aioia confineu (1987))
Expon. (Roy confineu (199S))
Fig.2 (b) Values oI in conIined and unconIined state vs. joint Iactor and modiIied joint Iactor
Figure 2b
u.uuu1
u.uu1
u.u1
u.1
1
u S 1u 1S 2u 2S Su SS 4u
Initial Isotropic Pressure Ratio {3]

|-u.uuSj
|-u.uu8j
|-u.uu9j
|-u.u1j
|-u.u12Sj
Ch inteipieteu fiom Aioia (1987)
Ch inteipieteu fiom Singh (1997)
Trial values oI
p
Fig.2 (c) Hardening parameter vs. initial isotropic pressure ratio Ior varying
Figure 2c
u.uu1
u.u1
u.1
1
u 1u 2u Su
Initial Isotropic Pressure Ratio {3]

0ppei bounu
Biown (197u)
Biown anu Tiollope (197u)
Yaji (1984)
Aioia (1987)
Roy (199S)
Tiiveui & Aioia (2uu7)
}ain (2u11)
Lowei bounu
Fig.2 (d) Back calculated values oI within upper and lower bound vs. initial isotropic pressure ratio
Figure 2d
u.uu
u.1u
u.2u
u.Su
u.4u
u.Su
u.6u
u.7u
u.8u
u.9u
1.uu
u Su 1uu 1Su 2uu 2Su Suu SSu 4uu
Ch=-u.uuS
Ch=-u.u1
Ch =-u.u11S |Aioia (1987)j
Ch=-u.1
Inteipieteu fiom Chun et al. (2uu9)
Baseu on uSI inteipieteu fiom Chun et al. (2uu9)
Tienus fo a constant haiuening paiametei
Increasing values oI constant
Fig.3 Variation oI modulus ratio with modiIied joint Iactor and constant hardening parameter
Figure 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lowei bounu
Lowei Nean
0ppei Nean
0ppei bounu
Biscontinuity alone-Piiest & Buuson (1976)
Lineai ielationship foi numbei of uiscontinuities
}fg Intieipieteu fiom Chun et al.(2uu9)
Effect of joint numbei oiientation anu fiiction
Effect of numbei of joints
EIIect oI number oI joints, block size
roughness, orientation, gouge thickness, gouge
density, ground water table
EIIect oI number oI joints, joint
roughness, stress reduction
EIIect oI number oI discontinuity alone; Priest and Hudson (1976)
Fig.4 Variation oI modiIied joint Iactor with
Figure 4
u
u.1
u.2
u.S
u.4
u.S
u.6
u.7
u.8
u.9
1
u 1u 2u Su 4u Su 6u 7u 8u 9u 1uu
Bata compilleu by Zhang (2u1u)

Chun et al. (2uu9)
Isik et al. (2uu8)
Yang (2uu6)
vukovik (1998)
Labiie et al. (1997)
Ebisu et al. (1992)
Bieniawski (1978)
Coon & Neiiitt (197u)
Log. (Chun et al. (2uu9))
Log. (Ebisu et al. (1992))
Log. (Bieniawski (1978))
Fig.5 (a) Best Iit Ior variation oI modulus ratio with
Figure 5a
u
u.1
u.2
u.S
u.4
u.S
u.6
u.7
u.8
u.9
1
Bata compilleu by Zhang (2u1u)

Chun et al. (2uu9)
Isik et al. (2uu8)
Yang (2uu6)
vukovik (1998)
Labiie et al. (1997)
Ebisu et al. (1992)
Bieniawski (1978)
Coon & Neiiitt (197u)
Log. (Baiuening |-u.uuSj)
Log. (Baiuening |-u.uu9j)
Log. (Baiuening |-u.u12Sj)
Fig.5 (b) Modulus ratio vs. Ior selected range oI pressure dependent hardening parameter
Figure 5b
u
u.1
u.2
u.S
u.4
u.S
u.6
u.7
u.8
u.9
1
2u8 uata points of Zhang (2u1u)

Application of a constant Ch=-u.u1 ; b=-u.1
Application of a constant Ch=-u.u1 ; b=-u.uS
Log. (2u8 uata points of Zhang (2u1u))
Log. (Baiuening at uppei bounu foi S9 uata points of Chun et al. (2uu9))
Log. (Baiuening at oveibuiuen foi S9 uata points of Chun et al. (2uu9) )
Fig.5 (c) Modulus ratio vs. Ior a pressure dependent and constant hardening parameter
Figure 5c
Table 1. Modulus ratio from various rock mass characterizations systems
Rock mass
characterizati
on
(Scale)
UCS
(o
r
)
RQD Joints
spacing in
m
(No of
joints/m)
Gouge
thickness
(t/ta) (Ja)
Joint
water
pressure
(Jw=u/o
1
)
Inflow
(Jk)
Roughness
(Jr)
Orient
ation
(n
|
)
SRF Dilatancy Application
RMR 0-300
MPa
(R1=0-
16)
0-100
(R2=0-
25)
0.01-10m
(R3=0-25)
0-6mm
(R4=35-0)
0-0.6
(R5=16-0)
1-
1000L/mi
n
For 10m
tunnel
(R5=16-0)
--- 0-90
0
(R6=
-30-0)
--- --- Tunnels,
deformations
(0-100) RMR=R1+R2+R3+R4+R5+R6; E
mr
= [0.0028 RMR
2
+ 0.9 exp (RMR/22.82)]/100----
a
Q --- 0-100 20-0.5 0.75-20 --- 1-0.05 0.5-4 --- 10-1 --- -do-
(0.001-400) Q=[( RQD/Jn) (Jr/Ja)(Jw/SRF)]; E
mr
= 10 [Q o
r/
100]
1/3
---
b
GSI --- 0-100 0.01-10m 0.75-20 --- --- 0.5-4 --- --- --- -do-
(0-100) GSI=9Log [( RQD/Jn) (Jr/Ja)]+44 (from Q system)
GSI=10+R1+R2+R3+R4 (from RMR) ; E
mr
= [o
r
/100]
1/2
10
(GSI-10)/4 ---- c
RAC
--- d
o
mr
--- 13-500/m --- --- --- r= tan | 0.1-1 --- ---- Laboratory
(J
fg
=13-500) E
m
=E
r
exp ( C
h
J
f
) ; J
f
= J
n
/ (n
|
r) and C
h
=-0.0115
Modified
joint factor
e, f
o
mr
--- f(J
n
) f (t/ta) As per the depth of
water table relative to
the joint
r=f(o
m
) 0.1-1 --- o
p
=/C Laboratory
and field
(J
fg
=0-1000) E
m
=E
r
exp (C
h
J
fg
)
--- f
; C
h
= -0.04(p
i
/o
r
)
-1
for o
p
=-0.005; C
h
= -0.02(p
i
/o
r
)
-1.25
for o
p
=-0.009; C
h
= -0.001(p
i
/o
r
)
-2
for o
p
=-0.0125
RQD--
f
(0-100)
J
fg
= a exp (b RQD); E
mr
= exp |a C
h
exp(b RQD)]; a and b depend upon the relationship of J
fg
and RQD
E
mr
= m ln (RQD) +n
Insitu
a
Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990);
b
Barton (1980);
c
Heak and Brown (1997);
d
Ramamurthy and Arora (1994);
e
Trivedi (2010);
f
Present work

Tables ASCE Tech note.doc

Table 2(a). Trial parameter for rock mass adopted from Johnston (1985)
Group Rock Type
b

m
Reference
A Lime stone

0.0172

2.065

0.170 Brook (1979)
B Mud stone 0.231 Johnston (1985)
C Sand stone 0.270 Aldrich (1969)
D Granite 0.659 Swanson and Brown (1971)
All types 0.276 Johnston (1985)


Table 2(b). End conditions for strength ratio of rock mass from trial parameters
End conditions
A
---a
C
---b
o
p
=/C A/C
----c
p
i
/o
r

Triaxial (min)
3

-2.75 -0.009 0.0250

-1.09 1
-5 -0.005 -0.6 <1
Triaxial (max) -2.75

-0.0139 0.0383

-1.09

1
-5

-0.0076 -0.6

<1

Plane strain (min)
5

-2.75 -0.0100 0.0275

-1.81 1
-5 -0.0055 -1 <1
Plane strain (max) -2.75 -0.0151 0.0416

-1.81 1
-5 -0.0083 -1 <1
a-
Boltan (1986);
b,

c-
for rock mass with granular fill, Trivedi (2010)


Table 3. Calculation of hardening parameter in Eq.(18)
End conditions Coefficient () and power () for isotropic pressure ratio
o
p

-0.005 -0.040 -1.00
-0.008 -0.022 -1.23
-0.009 -0.020 -1.25
-0.0100 -0.011 -1.42
-0.0125 -0.001 -2.00

Table 4. Calculation of modulus ratio from RQD in Eq.(20)
End conditions Coefficient (m) and intercept (n) for RQD
o
p
m n
-0.005 0.166 -0.340
-0.009 0.302 -0.357
-0.0125 0.163 0.420


Estimating Insitu Deformation of Rock Masses Using A Hardening Parameter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimating Insitu Deformation of Rock Masses Using A Hardening Parameter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

take a value according to the rock block characteristics, discontinuity and

takes a direction according to o

due to yielding, hardening and thermal characteristics of the joint

)oint factor and modified |oint factor

)oint factor and modified |oint factor

Initial Isotropic Pressure Ratio {3]

Initial Isotropic Pressure Ratio {3]

Bata compilleu by Zhang (2u1u)

Bata compilleu by Zhang (2u1u)

2u8 uata points of Zhang (2u1u)

You might also like