915

915
Ramamurthy, T., An engineering classification for rocks and rock masses.
ISRM 2003-Technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South Africa Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2003.


AN ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION FOR ROCKS AND
ROCK MASSES

Eine Technische Klassifizierung Fr Felsen Und Felsen Massen

Une Classification Construisant Pour Les Masses De Rochers Et Rocher

T. Ramamurthy
Director, AngRon Geotech Pvt. Ltd., A-13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi-110 026, INDIA

ABSTRACT : Rock mass classifications RMR, Q and GSI do not suggest decreasing modulus ratio
with the decrease in the quality of rock. These have been linked to joint factor, J
f
, for better
prediction. An engineering classification is suggested based on strength and modulus applicable to
both intact and jointed rocks.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG : Fels Masse Klassifizierungen RMR, schlgt Q und GSI da das
Abnehmen von modulus Verhltnis mit der Abnahme in der Qualitt des Felsen nicht vor. Diese
sind zu gemeinschaftlichem Faktor, J
f
, fr bessere Voraussage verknpft worden. Eine technische
Klassifizierung wird auf der Basis auf Kraft und modulus vorgeschlagen die zutreffend sind zu
beiden unversehrten und jointed Felsen.

RESUME: RMR de classifications de masse de Rocher, Q et GSI ne suggrent pas la proportion de
modulus dcroissante avec la diminution dans la qualit de rocher. Ceux-ci ont t relis au facteur
de jointure, J
f
, pour mieux la prdiction. Une classification construisant est suggre bas sur la
force et modulus applicables intacts et les rochers de jointed.

Introduction

When intact or jointed rocks are classified for geotechnical
purposes, they need to be classified on the basis of strength
and / or modulus to give an indication of their stability
against failure and for deformation analysis. In assessing
the strength and modulus only the significant parameters of
the rock mass should be considered which will influence
the engineering behaviour most; each of the parameters is
to be easily measured and they are to be linked in such a
way that the quality of the rock mass is reflected in terms
of its strength and modulus.
Currently there are four main approached available to
estimate the uniaxial compressive strength and the
corresponding modulus, namely RMR, Q, J
f
and GSI. Each
of the approaches gives different values and each one is
tested for its reliability by considering the modulus ratio.
The approach of J
f
is based on vast experimental data and
suggests continuous decrease of modulus ratio with the
decrease in the quality of rock, unlike other approaches. It
also enables to estimate the strength and modulus under
any desired confining pressure. A rock, whether intact or
jointed, should be classified in its simplest state of
existence, i.e. in the unconfined condition. The influence of
in situ stress and seepage pressure should be considered
suitably in the analysis / design carried out in terms of
effective stress.


Classification of Intact Rocks

The classification proposed by Deere and Miller
1
for intact
rock is based on the combined influence of the uniaxial
compressive strength (
ci
) and the tangent modulus (E
ti
)
at 50 per cent of the failure stress (subscript i refers to
intact rock). It is a realistic and useful engineering
classification which takes into account at a time more than
one measurable basic property of the rock. Based on these
properties they categorized rocks into a number of classes
assigning two lettered combination; first letter refers to the
compressive strength range and the second letter refers to
the modulus ratio, (i.e. E
ti
/
ci
) range. Each intact rock
type has its specific zone in the region of
ci
and E
ti

.
When intact rocks are classified the effect of seepage
pressure or confining pressure is not considered.

Classification of Jointed Rocks

Terzaghis
2
descriptive rock mass classification has been
useful to estimate rock load for tunnels with steel rib
support system; it could not be adopted for rock
foundations and slopes. Most commonly used and
numerically expressed rock mass classifications, RMR
3
and
Q-system
4
have been developed basically for the stability
of tunnels and choice of their support system. In RMR
classification six parameters are considered, namely
uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, joint spacing,

916 ISRM 2003 TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR ROCK MECHANICS
916
rock quality designation (RQD), condition of joints, water
flow / pressure and the inclination of the discontinuities. In
these parameters, the combined effect of RQD and joint
spacing is obviously reflected by considering joint
frequency, the condition of the joints is reflected in the
sliding friction angle on the discontinuities and the
influence of the orientation of the joints is to be as per the
nature of anisotropic response of the rock mass. Even in
the Q-system, six parameters are considered namely RQD,
joint set, joint roughness, seepage and its pressure, joint
alteration and stress reduction factor. In this system, RQD
and joint sets could be covered by joint frequency, joint
roughness and joint alteration by the friction angle along
the sliding joint / set, joint water effect and stress reduction
factor could form part of the design consideration. Q-
system did not include the uniaxial compressive strength of
intact rock earlier to 2002 and also the orientation of the
critical joint. Recently Barton
5
introduced the compressive
strength of intact rock in to the earlier Q-system. The
orientation of the joints has significant influence on the
strength and modulus of rock. Therefore, consideration of
the inclination of sliding joint, joint frequency and strength
along the sliding joint are the most important factors to be
considered in influencing the strength and modulus of rock
mass. The weakness introduced into an intact rock is the
result of their combined influence.

Strength and Modulus from RMR

Bieniawski
3
suggested shear strength parameters, c
j
and
j
for jointed rock mass (c
j
refers to cohesion intercept
and
j
to friction angle, subscript j refers to jointed mass)
for five levels of RMR grouping. Adopting c
j
and
j
, the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass can be
estimated from Mohr-Coulomb criterion, say
1 cj
. More
recently Kalamaras and Bieniawski
6
suggested the
following Equation [1] linking the uniaxial compressive
strength of rock mass (
2 cj
) and that of the intact rock
(
ci
) through RMR
( ) [ ] 24 / 100 exp /
2
= RMR
ci cj
. [1]
Say for
ci
= 100 MPa and for various values of RMR, if
2 cj
are worked out, considerable differences in the
values of
1 cj
and
2 cj
are observed. In fact for RMR =
80,
1 cj
is just 1.97 MPa placing the rock mass in a very
weak rock category and for RMR < 60, the rock mass will
have
1 cj
less than 1 MPa and has to be treated as soil.
Hoek and Brown
7
suggested for undisturbed rock mass

cj3
/
ci
=s
j
; s
j
= exp[(RMR100)/9] [2]

where s
j
is the material parameter for mass in their failure
criterion. The ratio of
1 3
/
cj cj
are quite high i.e. for
RMR = 80, this ratio is about 17 and at RMR = 20, it is
more than 5. On the contrary, the values of
2 cj
are
higher than
3 cj
. For RMR = 80,
2 cj
is about 30 per
cent more and at RMR = 20 about 300 per cent.
Similar comparison for disturbed rocks will show larger
differences.
When modulus of rock mass (E
j
) is obtained as per Serafim
and Pireira
8
, Equation [3]
GPa E
RMR
j
40 / ) 10 (
10

= , [3]
the modulus ratio ) / (
2 cj
j
E is 1292 for RMR = 80 and
continuously decreases with the decrease of RMR and is
500 for RMR = 20.
If one uses
1
/
cj j
E , very high values of modulus ratios
will result. When
3 cj
is adopted only marginal decrease
is noticed, i.e. from 1703 to 1508 when RMR varies from
80 to 20. The modulus ratios appear to be high for
rock mass particularly with
1 cj
and
3 cj
.
Even GSI
9
gives very high values of modulus ratio.

Strength and Modulus from Q

Barton
5
suggests modification to Q values by considering
the influence of uniaxial compressive strength of intact
rock ( )
ci
as
100 /
ci c
Q Q = [4]
and recommends Q
c
for estimating the
cj
and E
j
of the
rock mass as
MPa Q
c cj
, 5
3 / 1
= and
GPa Q E
c j
, 10
3 / 1
= [5]
From Equation [5], the modulus ratio for = 2.5 g/cc
works out to be 800 irrespective of the Q
c
values varying
from 0.001 to 1000.

Strength and Modulus from J
f

Based on extensive experimental results in uniaxial
compression on jointed rocks and rock like materials
(Ramamurthy
10,11
), compressive strength in the unconfined
case is given by
] 008 . 0 [ exp /
f ci cj
J = [6]
and the corresponding modulus (E
j
) by

E
j
/ E
i
=exp [ - 0.0115 J
f
] [7]

and the modulus ratio is given by

M
rj
/M
ri
=exp[ - 0.0035 J
f
] [8]

where, J
f
is joint factor which considers joint frequency,
inclination and strength of critical joint. For values of J
f

varying from 0 to beyond 500 i.e. from intact to heavily
fractured rock, M
rj
values for
ci
= 100 MPa and M
ri
=
500 decrease rapidly from 500 to 87. The uniaxial
compressive strengths calculated from Equation [1] agree
closely with the values from Equation [6]. This is mainly
because of the following relation, considering J
f
= 500 as
maximum value for practical purpose,

J
f
/ 5 = 100 RMR, [9]

917
917
since J
f
= 0 and RMR = 100 for intact rock. By inserting
RMR in place of J
f
, Equation [6] will result
( ) [ ] 25 / 100 exp / = RMR
ci cj
[10]
which is close to Equation [1]. Similarly by replacing J
f
by
RMR, Equation [7] will become
( ) [ ] 4 . 17 / 100 exp / = RMR E E
i j
[11]
Similarly, by adopting, Bartons
12
relation

RMR=15 log Q + 50 [12]

and Equation [9], J
f
in terms of Q will be

J
f
= 250 (1 0.3 log Q) [13]

Further, Equations [6] and [7] in terms of Q will be
( ) 2 log 6 . 0 exp / = Q
ci cj
[14]

E
j
/ E
i
=exp [0.8625 log Q 2.875 ] [15]

Now Equations [6, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15] either in terms of
J
f
, RMR or Q will result modulus ratio decreasing with the
decrease in the quality of the rock mass as is evident from
the test results.

Classification Based on Strength and Modulus

If the compressive strength and modulus in the uniaxial
case are known for the rock mass, one could classify it on
the lines of the approach adopted by Deere and Miller.
Even though their approach was suggested only for intact
rocks, it is modified suitably to classify rock mass as well.
The main advantage of this approach is that it considers
two important engineering properties and also gives an
indication of the likely minimum failure strain from the
inverse of the modulus ratio. Tables 1 and 2 categorize
compressive strength and modulus ratio respectively,
applicable to both intact as well as jointed rocks.

Table 1 : Strength classification of intact
and jointed rocks

Class Description
j ci,
MPa
A Very High Strength >250
B High Strength 100 250
C Moderate Strength 50-100
D Medium Strength 25-50
E Low Strength 5-25
F Very Low Strength < 5


In Table 1 compressive strength range has been covered
from very low to very high values and modulus ratio limits
have been suggested as 500, 200, 100 and 50. A modulus
ratio of 500 would mean a minimum failure strain of 0.2
per cent whereas a ratio of 50 corresponds to a minimum
failure strain of 2 per cent. Very weak rocks and dense /
compacted soils would exhibit often failure strain of 2 per
cent.



Table 2 : Modulus ratio classification of
intact and jointed rocks

Class Description M
ri,j

A Very High Modulus Ratio >500
B High Modulus Ratio 200 500
C Medium Modulus Ratio 100 200
D Low Modulus Ratio 50 100
E Very Low Modulus Ratio < 50

Based on Tables 1 and 2, a rock either intact or jointed
rock could be classified and represented by two letters, e.g.
BC meaning the rock has high compressive strength in
the range of 100 to 250 MPa with a medium modulus ratio
between 100 to 200. To have a comprehensive
understanding of the rock along with this engineering
classification, a lithological description also need to be
added as an example BC-Biotite schist. Such a description
of rock / rock mass will not only give the ranges of
strength, modulus and failure strain in unconfined state but
also an insight into the past history of the mass.

Conclusions

The uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of
jointed rocks predicted from RMR, Q and GSI do not
suggest decrease of modulus ratio with the decrease in the
quality of the mass. Relationship between J
f
, RMR, Q and
GSI have been established to predicted strength, modulus
and modulus ratio more reliably for jointed rocks. The
Deere-Miller plot has been suitably modified and applied
to classify intact and jointed rocks by assigning two
lettered combination suggesting ranges of compressive
strength, modulus, modulus ratio and failure strain.
Lithological name is to be added to this engineering
classification for a comprehensive understanding of the
rock mass.

References

1. DEERE D.U. and MILLER R.P. Engineering
Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rocks. Tech.
Report No. AFNL-TR-65-116, (1966), Air Force Weapons
Laboratory, New Mexico.
2. TERZAGHI K. Rock Defects and Load on Tunnel
Support, Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports. Editors R.V.
Proctor and T. White, Commercial Shearing Company,
Youngstown, Ohio, (1946), pp. 15-99.
3. BIENIAWSKI Z.T. Engineering Classification of
Jointed Rock Masses. Transactions South African Instn. of
Civil Engineers, (1973), Vol.15, No.12, pp. 335-344.
4. BARTON N. LIEN R. and LUNDE L. Engineering
Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel
Support. J. Rock mech., (1974), Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 189-236.
5. BARTON N. Some New Q-values Correlations to Assist
in Site Characterizations and Tunnel Design. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (2002), Vol. 39, No.2,
pp. 185-216.
6. KALAMARAS G.S. and BIENIAWSKI Z.T. A Rock
Strength Concept for Coal Seams Incorporating the Effect
of Time. Proceedings 8
th
Int. Congr. of Rock Mech.,
Tokyo, (1995), Vol. 1, pp. 295-302.

918 ISRM 2003 TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR ROCK MECHANICS
918
7. HOEK E. and BROWN E T. The Hoek Brown failure
criterion- a 1988 update. 15
th
Canadian Rock Mech.
Symposium, Toronto, (1988), Vol. 1, pp. 295 to 305.
8. SERAFIM J.L. and PEREIRA J.P. Consideration of
Geomechanics Classification of Bieniawski, Proceedings
Int. Symp. on Engg. Geology and Underground
Construction, Lisbon, Portugal, (1983), pt. II, pp. 33-44.
9. HOEK E. Strength of Rock and Rock Masses. ISRM
News Journal, (1994), Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 4-16.
10. RAMAMURTHY, T, Strength and Modulus Responses
of Anisotropic Rocks. Chapter 13, Comprehensive Rock
Engg. Pergamon Press, U.K. (1993), Vol.1, pp. 313-329.
11. RAMAMURTHY T. Shear Strength Response of
Some Geological Materials in Triaxial Compression. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci & Geomech. Abstr. (2001), Vol. 38,
pp. 683-697.
12. BARTON N. The Influence of Joint Properties in
Modeling Jointed Rock Masses. Proceedings 8
th
Int.
Congress on Rock Mass, (1995), Vol. 1, pp. 1023-1032.










Table 1 : Strength classification of intact and jointed rocks
Class Description
j ci,
MPa
A Very High Strength >250
B High Strength 100 250
C Moderate Strength 50-100
D Medium Strength 25-50
E Low Strength 5-25
F Very Low Strength < 5

Table 2 : Modulus ratio classification of intact and jointed rocks
Class Description M
ri,j

A Very High Modulus Ratio >500
B High Modulus Ratio 200 500
C Medium Modulus Ratio 100 200
D Low Modulus Ratio 50 100
E Very Low Modulus Ratio < 50