See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225235058

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

Article  in  Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering · July 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s00603-009-0065-x

CITATIONS READS

41 607

1 author:

Lianyang Zhang
The University of Arizona
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,985 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Understanding the effect of Calcium addition on geopolymer structure and mechanical properties View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lianyang Zhang on 28 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rock Mech Rock Eng (2010) 43:391–402
DOI 10.1007/s00603-009-0065-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses
Lianyang Zhang
Received: 19 January 2009 / Accepted: 14 July 2009 / Published online: 14 August 2009
 Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Determination of the strength of jointed rock
masses is an important and challenging task in rock
mechanics and rock engineering. In this article, the existing
empirical methods for estimating the unconfined com-
pressive strength of jointed rock masses are reviewed and
evaluated, including the jointing index methods, the joint
factor methods, and the methods based on rock mass
classification. The review shows that different empirical
methods may produce very different estimates. Since in
many cases, rock quality designation (RQD) is the only
information available for describing rock discontinuities, a
new empirical relation is developed for estimating rock
mass strength based on RQD. The newly developed
empirical relation is applied to estimate the unconfined
compressive strength of rock masses at six sites and the
results are compared with those from the empirical meth-
ods based on rock mass classification. The estimated
unconfined compressive strength values from the new
empirical relation are essentially in the middle of the
estimated values from the different empirical methods
based on rock mass classification. Similar to the existing
empirical methods, the newly developed relation is only
approximate and should be used, with care, only for a first
estimate of the unconfined compressive strength of rock
masses. Recommendations are provided on how to apply
the newly developed relation in combination with the
existing empirical methods for estimating rock mass
strength in practice.
L. Zhang (&)
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
e-mail: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu
Keywords Rock mass strength 
Rock mass classification  RQD  Empirical methods
1 Introduction
Reliable estimation of the strength and deformation prop-
erties of jointed rock masses is very important for safe and
economical design of civil structures such as houses, dams,
bridges, and tunnels founded on or in rock. As it is well
known, natural rock masses consist of intact rock blocks
separated by discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes,
folds, sheared zones, and faults. Because of the discontin-
uous nature of rock masses, it is important to choose the
right domain that is representative of the rock mass affected
by the structure analyzed (see Fig. 1). The behavior of the
rock mass is dependent on the relative scale between
the problem domain and the rock blocks formed by the
discontinuities. For example, when the structure being
analyzed is much larger than the rock blocks formed by the
discontinuities, the rock mass may be simply treated as an
equivalent continuum for the analysis (Brady and Brown
1985; Brown 1993; Hoek et al. 1995; Zhang 2005).
Treating the jointed rock mass as an equivalent continuum
(i.e., the equivalent continuum approach) has been widely
used in rock engineering. To apply the equivalent contin-
uum approach in analysis and design, the equivalent
strength and deformation properties need be determined.
Although the properties of the intact rock between the
discontinuities and the properties of the discontinuities
themselves can be determined in the laboratory, the direct
physical measurements of the properties of the jointed rock
mass are very expensive and time consuming, if not
impossible (Zhang and Einstein 2004; Zhang 2005; Edelbro
et al. 2006). Moreover, the interaction between the intact
123
392
Intact rock
One discontinuit set
Two discontinuity sets
Many discontinuities
Heavily jointed rock mass
Fig. 1 Simplified representation of the influence of scale on the type
of rock mass behavior (after Hoek et al. 1995)
rocks and the discontinuities is often complex and less well
understood than the behavior of the individual units,
making it difficult to predict the properties of the jointed
rock mass solely from the data on the intact rock and the
discontinuities. Researchers have extensively studied the
deformability of jointed rock masses and different empiri-
cal methods have been proposed for estimating the defor-
mation modulus of jointed rock masses, including Deere
et al. (1967), Coon and Merritt (1970), Bieniawski (1978),
Barton et al. (1980), Barton (1983), Serafim and Pereira
(1983), Hoek and Brown (1997), Zhang and Einstein
(2004), and Hoek and Diederichs (2006). For the strength
of jointed rock masses, however, ‘‘further work is required
to develop more precise, practical, and easy-to-use methods
for determining the rock mass strength’’ (Edelbro et al.
2006).
In this article, the existing empirical methods for esti-
mating the unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock
masses are first reviewed and evaluated in Sect. 2. The
review shows that different empirical methods may provide
very different estimates. Since in many cases, rock quality
designation (RQD) is the only information available for
describing rock discontinuities, a new empirical relation is
developed for estimating rock mass strength based on RQD
in Sect. 3. Then in Sect. 4, the newly developed empirical
relation is applied to estimate the unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses at six sites and the results are
compared with those from the existing empirical methods.
A discussion and recommendations about applying the
newly developed relation in combination with existing
empirical methods in practice are provided in Sect. 5.
Finally, the conclusions are presented in Sect. 6.
123
L. Zhang
2 Existing Empirical Methods for Estimating
the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses
There are at present several types of empirical methods for
estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. The fol-
lowing provides a brief review and evaluation of some of
these methods.
2.1 Jointing Index Methods
Jointing index methods are based on an index defined as
the ratio of sample length to discontinuity spacing or
number of blocks contained in the sample. Several
researchers, including Protodyakonov and Koifman (1964),
Goldstein et al. (1966), Vardar (1977), and Aydan et al.
(1997), have proposed empirical relations between the
strength ratio (rcm/rc) and the jointing index (L/l) based on
experimental studies on jointed rock samples, where rcm
and rc are the unconfined compressive strength, respec-
tively, of the rock mass and the intact rock, L is the sample
length, and l is the discontinuity spacing. Since these
empirical relations are in similar format, the following only
describes the empirical relationship of Goldstein et al.
(1966).
Goldstein et al. (1966) conducted uniaxial compression
tests on composite specimens made from cubes of plaster
of Paris and suggested the following relationship based on
the test results:
 e
rcm L
¼ a þ ð1  aÞ ð1Þ
rc l
where rcm, rc, L, and l are as defined earlier; and a and e
are constants with e \ 1. Figure 2 shows the variation of
rcm/rc with L/l based on Eq. 1 for different values of a and
e. As L/l increases (i.e., more discontinuities are included
in a rock mass sample of length L), the unconfined com-
pressive strength of the rock mass decreases. How fast
rcm/rc decreases with L/l depends on the magnitude of
constants a and e. The decrease of rcm/rc with L/l will be
faster for smaller a or larger e. The values of a and e
depend on the strength and orientation of the discontinu-
ities (Aydan et al. 1997; Jade and Sitharam 2003). Specific
studies should be conducted to determine the values of a
and e before applying the relation 1 to estimate the strength
of a specific jointed rock mass.
2.2 Joint Factor Methods
The joint factor methods relate the strength ratio rcm/rc to a
joint factor that is related to joint frequency, joint orienta-
tion, and joint strength (Arora 1987; Ramamurthy 1993;
Jade and Sitharam 2003). Arora (1987) conducted tests on
intact and jointed specimens of plaster of Paris, sandstones,
Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses 393

1.2 Table 1 Variation of inclina-

Joint Inclination
tion parameter n with joint
orientation b parameter n
a = 0.75 orientation b (after Ramamurthy
1.0 ()
1993)
e = 0.3 0 0.82
0.5
0.8 0.7 10 0.46
σcm/σc

20 0.11
e = 0.3
0.6 30 0.05
0.5 40 0.09
0.4 0.7 50 0.30
a = 0.25
60 0.46
0.2 70 0.64
80 0.82
0.0 90 0.95
1 3 5 7 9 11
L/l

Fig. 2 Variation of rcm/rc with L/l based on Eq. 1 for different

values of a and e Table 2 Suggested values of joint strength parameter r for different
values of rc (after Ramamurthy 1993)
Unconfined compressive Joint strength Remarks
and granite in uniaxial and triaxial compression. The results strength of intact parameter r
indicate that the important factors that influence the strength rock rc (MPa)
and deformation modulus values of jointed rock masses are
2.5 0.30 Fine grained
joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint strength. Based micaceous to
5.0 0.45
on the results, he defined a joint factor Jf to consider the coarse grained
15.0 0.60
combined effect of these three factors as
25.0 0.70
Jn 45.0 0.80
Jf ¼ ð2Þ
nr 65.0 0.90
100.0 1.00
where Jn is the joint frequency (number of joints per
meter), which is simply obtained by dividing the number of
joints by the specimen length in meters; n is an inclination
parameter depending on the orientation of the joint, b (the Table 3 Suggested values of joint strength parameter r for filled
angle between the loading direction and the joint plane); joints (after Ramamurthy 1993)
and r is the joint strength parameter depending on the Gouge material Friction angle /j () Joint strength parameter r
joint condition. The value of n is obtained by taking the
ratio of log(strength reduction) at b = 90 to log(strength Gravelly sand 45 1.00
reduction) at the desired value of b. The parameter n is Coarse sand 40 0.84
found to be essentially independent of joint frequency Jn. Fine sand 35 0.70
The joint strength parameter r is obtained from a shear test Silty sand 32 0.62
along the joint and is given by Clayey sand 30 0.58
Clayey silt
sj
r¼ ð3Þ Clay—25% 25 0.47
rnj
Clay—50% 15 0.27
where sj is the shear strength along the joint; and rnj the Clay—75% 10 0.18
normal stress on the joint. The variation of n with b and the
values of r for both intact (unfilled, fresh, and not weathered) rcm
and gouge filled joints are provided by Ramamurthy (1993) ¼ expð0:008Jf Þ ð4Þ
rc
and Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) (see Tables 1, 2, 3).
Based on the results of uniaxial and triaxial tests of Jade and Sitharam (2003) expanded the database used
intact and jointed specimens, Arora (1987) and Rama- by Arora (1987) and Ramamurthy (1993) and conducted
murthy (1993) proposed the following empirical relation detailed statistical analyses of all the data. Based on the
between unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc and statistical analysis, the best empirical relationship between
joint factor Jf: rcm/rc and Jf was found as follows:

123
394 L. Zhang

Structure/ interlocking
1.0

Surface condition
0.9
Unconfined compressive strength ratio σcm/σc

of rock blocks
0.8

0.7

GSI
0.6 Best fitting curve:

Joint alternation jA
σ cm ⎛ − Jf
⎝

Joint roughness jR
0.5 = 0.039 + 0.893 exp

Block volume Vb
⎝160.99
⎛
σc

termination jL
Ground water condition Joint water reduction Joint water reduction Joint size and
0.4

0.3

UCS
RMi
0.2

Joint set number Jn

0.1

Joint alternation Ja
Joint roughness Jr
0
0 200 400 600 800

factor Jw
Joint factor Jf

RQD
Fig. 3 Unconfined compressive test data and fitted relation between
rcm/rc and Jf (from Jade and Sitharam 2003)

Joint set number Jn

Joint alternation Ja
Joint roughness Jr
 

Stress reduction
rcm Jf
¼ a þ b exp ð5Þ

factor SRF
rc c

factor Jw
where a, b, and c are constants equal to 0.039, 0.893, and
160.99, respectively, for the database analyzed (see Fig. 3). RQD
Q

It can be seen that Eq. 4 is a special form of Eq. 5 with

a = 0, b = 1, and c = 125. It is worth noting that there is a

UCS unconfined compressive strength of intact rock materia, RQD rock quality designation
large scatter for the test data and it is very possible that an
Joint condition

estimation value from Eq. 5 is more than two times or less

Joint spacing
Table 4 Parameters considered in different classification systems (after Edelbro 2003)

than half of the measured value of rcm.

Joint sets
RMS

RQD
UCS

2.3 Methods Based on Rock Mass Classification blasting and weathering

Ground water condition Ground water condition

Methods based on rock mass classification are the most

widely used empirical methods for estimating rock mass
Joint orientation,

strength. Over the years, many rock mass classification

Joint condition
Joint spacing

systems have been proposed and used in engineering

practice, including the RQD (Deere 1967), the rock mass
MRMR

RQD
UCS

rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1976, 1989), tunneling quality

index (Q) (Barton et al. 1974; Barton 2002), geological
strength index (GSI) (Hoek et al. 1995, 1998), and rock
mass index (RMi) (Palmstrom 1996a, b). Some systems are
Joint orientation

developed by modification of existing ones to suit specific

Joint condition
Joint spacing

applications. For example, the mining rock mass rating

(MRMR) system was developed by modifying the RMR
Classification system RMR

RQD
UCS

system for mining applications (Laubscher 1990) and the

rock mass number (N) system is a modified Q-system (Goel
et al. 1995). A review of the different rock mass classifi-
cation systems can be found in Edelbro (2003). Table 4
lists the parameters considered in different classification
parameters
Adjustment
Parameters

systems.
Rock mass classification systems have been used to
estimate the strength of jointed rock masses by different

123
Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses
Unconfined compressive strength ratio σcm/σc
Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)
AASHTO (1996)
RQD (%)
Fig. 4 Variation of unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc
with RQD suggested respectively by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)
and AASHTO (1996)
researchers (e.g., Yudhbir and Prinzl 1983; Laubscher
1984; Ramamurthy et al. 1985; Ramamurthy 1996; Kulhawy
and Goodman 1987; Trueman 1988; Kalamaras and
Bieniawski 1993; AASHTO 1996; Bhasin and Grimstad
1996; Sheorey 1997; Singh et al. 1997; Aydan and Dalgiç
1998; Singh and Goel 1999; Asef et al. 2000; Hoek 2004,
personal communication; Edelbro et al. 2006). Kulhawy
and Goodman (1987) suggested that, as a first approxi-
mation, the unconfined compressive strength rcm of rock
masses be taken as 0.33rc when RQD is less than about
70% and then linearly increasing to 0.8rc when RQD
increases from 70 to 100% (see Fig. 4), where rc is the
unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock. The
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges adopted by
the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO 1996) suggest that rcm be
estimated using the following expression
rcm ¼ aE rc
aE ¼ 0:0231RQD  1:32  0:15
in which RQD is expressed as a percent. The variation of
the unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc with
RQD based on Eq. 6a, 6b is also shown in Fig. 4. It can be
seen that the general trend of these two relations between
rcm/rc and RQD is about the same: rcm/rc is constant when
RQD is smaller than a certain value and then linearly
increases when RQD increases. Obviously, it is inappro-
priate to assume that rcm/rc is constant when RQD varies
from 0 to a certain value (70% for the relation of Kulhawy
and Goodman and 64% for the relation of AASHTO). For
example, for a very poor quality rock mass (RQD \ 25%)
395
1
Dworshak Dam, Granite Gneiss, Surface Gages
Dworshak Dam, Granite Gneiss, Buried Gages
Two Forks Dam, Gneiss
0.8 Yellowtail Dam, Limestone
Glen Canyon Dam, Sandstone
0.6
Em /Er
Em/Er = 0.0231RQD-1.32
0.4
0.2 Em/Er = 0.15
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RQD (%)
Fig. 5 Data of deformation modulus ratio Em/Er versus RQD (after
Coon and Merritt 1970)
and a fair quality rock mass (RQD = 50–75%), different
rcm/rc values should be expected.
While the basis for the suggestion by Kulhawy and
Goodman (1987) is not clear, the reduction factor aE (note
the subscript ‘‘E’’) in Eq. 6a, 6b is the reduction factor
originally proposed by Gardner (1987) for estimating the
rock mass deformation modulus Em from the intact rock
deformation modulus Er:
Em ¼ a E Er : ð7Þ
Gardner (1987) derived the reduction factor aE based on
the Em/Er versus RQD data of Coon and Merritt (1970),
which are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the data for
RQD \ 64% is very limited, which is probably the reason
why aE was assumed to be constant for RQD \ 64%.
Table 5 lists the empirical relations based on the three
widely used rock mass classification systems, RMR, Q, and
ð6aÞ GSI, for estimating the unconfined compressive strength
rcm of jointed rock masses. It should be noted that when a
ð6bÞ
rock mass classification system is used for estimating rock
mass strength (and deformation properties), only the
inherent parameters of intact rock and discontinuities need
be considered for evaluation of the classification index.
Other parameters such as groundwater and in situ stress
should not be considered to modify the classification index
because they are considered in the analysis of rock struc-
tures. For example, when RMR is used for rock mass
strength estimation, the rock mass should be assumed
completely dry and a very favorable discontinuity orien-
tation should be assumed (Hoek et al. 1995, 2002).
Depending on the engineering problem analyzed, pore
123
396 L. Zhang

Table 5 Empirical relations based on rock mass classification for estimating unconfined compressive strength rcm of rock masses (modified
from Zhang 2005)
Authors Relation Equation #
7:65ðRMR100Þ
rcm
Yudhbir and Prinzl (1983) rc ¼e 100 (8)
rcm RMRRating for rc
Laubscher (1984) and Singh and Goel (1999) rc ¼ 106 (9)
rcm RMR100
Ramamurthy et al. (1985) and Ramamurthy (1996) rc ¼e 18:75 (10)
Trueman (1988) and Asef et al. (2000) rcm ¼ 0:5e0:06RMR (MPa) (11)
rcm RMR100
Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993) rc ¼e 24

 (12)
GSI100 1 1 GSI 20
2þ6
rcm e 15 e 3
Hoek et al. (2002) rc ¼e 93D (13)
Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) and Singh and Goel (1999) rcm ¼ 7c fc Q1=3 (MPa) where fc = rc/100 for Q [ 10 (14)
and rc [ 100 MPa, otherwise fc = 1; and c is the unit
weight of the rock mass in g/cm3.
rcm RMR100
Sheorey (1997) rc ¼e 20 (15)
rcm RMR
Aydan and Dalgiç (1998) rc ¼ RMRþ6ð100RMRÞ (16)
Barton (2002) rcm ¼ 5cðQrc =100Þ1=3 (MPa) where c is the unit weight (17)
of the rock mass in g/cm3.
rcm GSI
Hoek (2004, personal communication) rc ¼ 0:036e (18)
30

Singh et al. (1997) rcm ¼ 7cQ1=3 (MPa) where c is the unit weight of the rock mass in g/cm3. (19)
rc unconfined compressive strength of intact rock materia, RMR rock mass rating, GSI geological strength index, Q tunneling quality index, and
D factor indicating the degree of disturbance due to blast damage and stress relaxation

1.0 reflecting the difficulty to conduct accurate measurements

0.9
In situ test data (Aydan & Dalgic, 1998) of in situ rock mass strength; (2) different empirical rela-
tions may provide very different estimation values; and (3)
Unconfined compressive strength ratio σcm/σc

In situ test data (Palmstrom, 1995)

0.8
In situ test data (Cai et al., 2004) the average trend of the different empirical relations are in
σcm/σc = exp(7.65((RMR-100)/100))
good agreement with the measured rcm.
0.7 1
(Yudhbir & Prinzl, 1983)
σcm/σc = exp((RMR-100)/24)
0.6
2
(Kalamaras & Bieniawski, 1993) 2.4 Discussion
3 σcm/σc = exp((RMR-100)/18)
0.5 (Hoek et al., 2004)
4 σcm/σc = exp((RMR-100)/20) Both the jointing index methods and the joint factor
(Sheorey, 1997)
0.4 σcm/σc = RMR/(RMR+6(100-RMR))
methods are developed based on laboratory test data of
5
(Aydan & Dalgic, 1998) intact and jointed specimens. These methods consider the
0.3 6 σcm/σc = 0.036exp(GSI/30)
(Hoek, 2004 effect of joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint
6
0.2 strength on the strength of jointed rock masses: The
jointing index methods use L/l for joint frequency and
0.1 5 2 4 3 1 factors a and e reflect the effect of joint orientation and
0.0 strength; while the joint factor methods combine the effect
0 20 40 60 80 100 of joint frequency, orientation, and strength in a single
RMR or GSI
factor Jf. Application of the jointing index methods and
Fig. 6 Variation of unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm /rc the joint factor methods to estimate the strength of field
with RMR or GSI jointed rock masses require extensive work to obtain the
information on joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint
pressures and discontinuity orientation can be considered strength.
together with strength as input parameters of the analysis. The empirical methods based on rock mass classification
Excluding these parameters from classification index treat the rock mass as an equivalent continuum and may or
evaluation will ensure no double accounting for a may not consider the effect of joint orientations. It need be
parameter. noted that some of the empirical relations based on rock
Figure 6 shows a comparison of some of the empirical mass classification are simply derived from their corre-
relations with the in situ test data from Aydan and Dalgiç sponding strength criteria. For example, the empirical
(1998), Palmstrom (1995) and Cai et al. (2004). It can be relation of Hoek et al. (2002) (Eq. 13 in Table 5) can be
seen that (1) there is a large scatter for the in situ test data, derived from the empirical Hoek–Brown strength criterion:

123
Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses 397

 a
r0 1
r01 ¼ r03 þ rc mb 3 þ s ð20Þ
rc 0.9 Coon and Merritt (1970)

Bieniawski (1978)
where rc is the unconfined compressive strength of the 0.8
intact rock; r0 1 and r0 3, respectively, the major and minor Ebisu et al. (1992)
0.7
effective principal stresses; and mb, and s and a the
constants that depend on the characteristics of the rock 0.6
mass and can be estimated from GSI as follows (Hoek et al.

Em/Er
0.5
2002):
  0.4
Em/Er = 100.0186RQD-1.91
GSI  100 r2 = 0.76
mb ¼ exp mi ð21Þ
28  14D 0.3
 
GSI  100 0.2
s ¼ exp ð22Þ
9  3D
0.1
1 1
a ¼ þ ½expðGSI=15Þ  expð20=3Þ ð23Þ 0
2 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
where mi is a material constant for the intact rock and RQD (%)
depends on the rock type (texture and mineralogy); and D a
factor that depends on the degree of disturbance due to Fig. 7 Expanded data and derived new relation between deformation
modulus ratio Em/Er and RQD (after Zhang and Einstein 2004)
blast damage and stress relaxation. Values of D range from
0 for undisturbed in situ rock masses to 1 for very disturbed
entire range 0 B RQD B 100% and shows a nonlinear
rock masses.
variation of Em/Er with RQD. The rocks for the expanded
From Eq. 20, the unconfined compressive strength of
database include mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, shale,
the rock mass can be derived as
dolerite, granite, limestone, greywacke, gneiss, and granite
rcm ¼ sa rc : ð24Þ gneiss. Again, one can see the large scatter of the data,
Substitution of s and a in Eq. 24, respectively, with especially when RQD [ 65%. Zhang and Einstein (2004)
Eqs. 22 and 23 will result in Eq. 13 in Table 5. discussed the possible causes for the large scatter, includ-
As shown in Table 4, many factors need be considered ing test methods, directional effect, discontinuity condi-
for evaluating the classification indices. In many cases, tions, and insensitivity of RQD to discontinuity frequency
however, the available information may not be sufficient (or spacing). Using the expanded database, Zhang and
for evaluating the classification index. For example, in Einstein (2004) derived the following RQD - Em/Er rela-
routine subsurface investigations, it is often that the only tion for the average trend (RQD in %):
information available about discontinuities is RQD. aE ¼ Em =Er ¼ 100:0186RQD1:91 : ð25Þ
Therefore, it is practically important to develop an empir- The average RQD - Em/Er relation (Eq. 25) gives
ical method based on RQD for estimating the strength of aE = 0.95 at RQD = 100%, which makes sense because
rock masses. there may be discontinuities in rock masses at RQD =
100% and thus Em may be smaller than Er even when
RQD = 100%.
3 New Relation Between Unconfined Compressive Researchers in rock mechanics and rock engineering
Strength and RQD have studied the relation between the unconfined com-
pressive strength ratio rcm/rc and the deformation modulus
As seen in Sect. 2, different empirical relations may pro- ratio Em/Er and found that they can be related approxi-
vide very different estimation values of the unconfined mately by the following equation (Ramamurthy 1993;
compressive strength of jointed rock masses. It is also Singh et al. 1998; Singh and Rao 2005):
known that, in many cases, RQD may be the only infor-  q
rcm Em
mation available about discontinuities. So, a new empirical ¼ ¼ ð aE Þ q ð26Þ
rc Er
relation between the unconfined compressive strength and
RQD will be derived here. in which the power q varies from 0.5 to 1.0 and is most
Zhang and Einstein (2004) expanded the database likely in the range of 0.61 to 0.74 with an average of 0.7. It
shown in Fig. 5 by collecting the data from the published can be seen that the AASHTO method (Eq. 6a, 6b) uses the
literature (see Fig. 7). The expanded database covers the upper bound value of q = 1.0.

123
398
It needs to be noted that the relation between rcm/rc and
Em/Er (Eq. 26) was derived based only on triaxial test data
on jointed rock mass specimens with different joint fre-
quencies, orientations, and conditions (Ramamurthy 1993;
Singh et al. 1998; Singh and Rao 2005) and has not been
tested against field cases. The power q in Eq. 26 may vary
significantly for different rock types and discontinuity
conditions. Nevertheless, using the average value of
q = 0.7, the unconfined compressive strength of rock mass
can be related to the unconfined compressive strength of
intact rock approximately by
rcm
¼ ðaE Þ0:7 : ð27Þ
rc
Combining Eqs. 25 and 27, the following empirical
relation can be derived for estimating the unconfined
compressive strength of rock masses from RQD:
rcm =rc ¼ 100:013RQD1:34 :
Due to the reasons stated above, using the rcm/rc versus
Em/Er relationship of Eq. 26 may or may not be appropriate
for deriving the rcm/rc versus RQD relation. It is taken as a
first step and applying the derived rcm/rc versus RQD
relation to 15 cases in Sect. 4 will indicate to what extent it
can be practically used.
Figure 8 shows the comparison of the newly developed
empirical relation 28 with the suggestions respectively by
Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and AASHTO (1996). The
newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation covers
the entire range 0 B RQD B 100% continuously. For
RQD [ 70%, the new rcm/rc versus RQD relation is in
good agreement with the suggestions of Kulhawy and
Unconfined compressive strength ratio σcm/σc
Developed:
σcm / σc = 100.013RQD −1.34
Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)
AASHTO (1996)
RQD (%)
Fig. 8 Comparison of the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation
with suggestions respectively by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and
AASHTO (1996)
123
L. Zhang
Goodman (1987) and AASHTO (1996). For RQD \ 70%,
however, the new rcm/rc versus RQD relation is different
from the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and
AASHTO (1996), with the new rcm/rc versus RQD rela-
tion considering the continuous variation of rcm/rc with
RQD while the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman
(1987) and AASHTO (1996) assume constant rcm/rc
values.
4 Applications
In this section, the newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD
relation is used to estimate the unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses at six sites with detailed geotech-
nical information available: the Sulakyurt dam site in
central Turkey (Ozsan et al. 2007), the Tannur Dam site in
ð28Þ south Jordan (El-Naqa and Kuisi 2002), the Urus Dam site
also in central Turkey (Ozsan and Akin 2002), a high tower
site at Tenerife Island (Justo et al. 2006), an open pit mine
site in the vicinity of Berlin, Germany (Alber and Heiland
2001), and a site with jointed basaltic rocks on the
Columbia Plateau in Washington State (Schultz 1996). The
results are compared with those from the empirical meth-
ods based on rock mass classification to indirectly check
the accuracy of the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation.
In other words, the rcm is first obtained with the RQD
based relation and then compared to the rcm obtained with
the related rock mass classifications. Table 6 lists the
properties of rocks at the six sites. As can be seen in
Table 6, the cases cover a reasonable but clearly limited
range of rock types.
According to Ozsan et al. (2007), the site consists of
moderately to highly weathered granite and diorite of
Paleocene age. Detailed site investigation was carried out,
including field observations, discontinuity surveying, core
drilling, laboratory tests, and rock mass classification. The
unconfined compressive strength and the RQD, RMR, Q,
and GSI values for both granite and diorite were obtained
as shown in Table 6. Using the developed relation
between rcm/rc and RQD (Eq. 28), the unconfined com-
pressive strength of the granite and diorite are estimated
respectively as 4.36 and 2.87 MPa as shown in Table 7.
Using the empirical methods based on rock mass classi-
fication listed in Table 5, the unconfined compressive
strength of the granite and diorite can also be estimated as
shown in Table 7. The estimated rock mass strength
values from the different empirical methods based on rock
mass classification cover a large range: from 0.22 to
8.14 MPa for granite and from 0.14 to 6.91 MPa for
diorite, respectively. For the other five sites, the rock
mass unconfined compressive strength can also be esti-
mated using the rcm/rc versus RQD relation (Eq. 28) and
Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses 399

Table 6 Summary of rock properties at six sites (after Ozsan et al. 2007; El-Naqa and Kuisi 2002; Ozsan and Akin 2002; Justo et al. 2006; Alber
and Heiland 2001; Schultz 1996)
# Rock rc (MPa) RQD (%) RMR Q GSI References

1 Granite 74.0 0–17 (8.5) 21–28 (24) 0.04–0.13 (0.08) 16–24 (19) Ozsan et al. (2007)
2 Diorite 60.0 1–2 (1.5) 17–23 (21) 0.025–0.1 (0.05) 12–18 (16)
3 Limestone (L1) 31.0 54 57 4.23 52 El-Naqa and Kuisi (2002)
4 Limestone (L2) 13.0 50 59 5.29 54
5 Limestone (R1) 37.0 48 59 5.29 54
6 Limestone (R2) 27.0 45 54 3.04 59
7 Marly Limestone 28.0 44 55 3.39 50
8 Andesite 93.0 41 34 0.56 41 Ozsan and Akin (2002)
9 Basalt 142.0 15 38 0.63 42.5
10 Tuff 24.0 10 21 0.11 31
11 Basalt (d1) 69.0 77 59 6.6 52 Justo et al. (2006)
12 Basalt (d2) 15.0 42.5 38 3.4 39
13 Basalt (d3) 13.0 0 25 0 28
14 Limestone 40.0 50 58 – 53 Alber and Heiland (2001)
15 Basalt 66.0 60 76 – 71 Schultz (1996)
Values in the parentheses are the average

Table 7 Estimated rock mass strength (rcm) values for the rocks listed in Table 6 using the developed empirical relation (Eq. 28) and the
empirical methods based rock mass classification (Eqs. 8–19)
Eq. # rcm (MPa)
1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 11a 12a 13a 14a 15a

(28) 4.36 2.87 7.13 2.65 7.12 4.75 4.78 14.5 10.2 1.48 31.6 2.45 0.59 8.17 18.2
(8)b 0.22 0.14 1.16 0.56 1.61 0.80 0.90 0.60 1.24 0.06 3.00 0.13 0.04 1.61 10.5
(10)b 1.28 0.89 3.13 1.46 4.15 2.32 2.54 2.75 5.20 0.36 7.75 0.55 0.24 4.26 18.4
(11)b 2.11 1.76 15.3 17.2 17.2 12.8 13.6 3.85 4.89 1.76 17.2 4.89 2.24 16.2 47.8
(12)b 3.12 223 5.17 2.36 6.70 3.97 4.29 5.95 10.7 0.89 12.5 1.13 0.57 6.95 24.3
(13)b 0.54 0.33 2.10 0.99 2.81 1.53 1.68 3.27 5.47 0.44 4.66 0.47 0.19 2.86 13.2
(14)b 6.03 4.15 8.42 3.81 10.8 6.57 7.07 13.0 20.9 1.63 25.3 3.67 – – –
(15)b 1.66 1.16 3.61 1.67 4.76 2.71 2.95 3.43 6.40 0.46 8.88 0.68 0.31 4.90 19.9
(16)b 3.70 2.55 5.61 2.51 7.16 4.42 4.74 7.35 13.2 1.02 13.4 1.39 0.68 7.48 22.8
b
(17) 5.26 4.16 13.1 10.6 15.0 11.2 11.8 9.72 11.8 3.02 23.2 9.28 – – –
(18)b 5.05 3.68 6.32 2.83 8.06 4.98 5.34 13.1 21.1 2.43 14.1 1.98 1.19 8.43 25.3
(19)b 8.14 6.91 27.2 29.3 29.3 24.3 25.2 13.9 14.7 6.80 36.7 24.5 – – –
Rangec 0.22– 0.14– 1.16– 0.56– 1.61– 0.80– 0.90– 0.60– 1.24– 0.06– 3.00– 0.13– 0.04– 1.61– 10.5–
8.14 6.91 27.2 29.3 29.3 24.3 25.2 13.9 21.1 6.80 36.7 24.5 2.24 16.2 47.8
a
The numbers refer to the case numbers shown in Table 6
b
See Table 5 for the specific equations
c
The range are for the empirical methods based rock mass classification (Eqs. 8–19)

some of the empirical methods based on rock mass
classification listed in Table 5. These results are also
presented in Table 7. The estimated values from the
developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation are within the
range of the estimated values from the different empirical
methods based on rock mass classification, except for
andesite (case #8) whose estimated value from the
developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation is outside the
range but very close the highest of the estimated values
from the different empirical methods based on rock mass
classification. So, the developed rcm/rc versus RQD
relation can estimate rock mass strength values that are in

123
400 L. Zhang

50.0
Yudhbir & Prinzl (1983)
ratio Em/Er (Eq. 26) is based on limited laboratory test
Ramamurthy et al. (985) & Ramamurthy (1986, 1993)
Trueman (1998) & Asef et al. (2000) data and has not been tested against field cases. For
Kalamaras & Bieniawski (1993)
Hoek et al. (2002) different rock types and discontinuity conditions, the
40.0 Bhasin & Grimstad (1996) and Singh & Goel (1999)
Sheorey (1997)
Aydan & Dalgic (1998)
power q in Eq. 26 may vary significantly from the value
Barton (2002) of 0.7 used in the derivation.
Estimated σcm (MPa)

Hoek (2004)
Singh et al. (1997)
Developed σcm vs. RQD
• The reduction factor aE is based on the Em/Er versus
30.0
RQD data shown in Fig. 7, which have a large scatter,
especially when RQD [ 65%. It is expected that the
20.0 rcm/rc versus RQD data should also have a large
scatter.
• RQD is only one of the many factors that affect the
10.0 strength of jointed rock masses. Other factors such as
the discontinuity surface conditions can have a great
effect on the strength of jointed rock masses.
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 To apply the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation for
Case No.
estimation of rock mass strength, the following guidance
Fig. 9 Estimated rock mass strength values from the existing should be followed:
empirical methods and the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation
1. When RQD is the only information available about
rock discontinuities, the rcm/rc versus RQD relation
reasonable agreement with those from the empirical
can be used to estimate the rock mass strength but care
methods based on rock mass classification.
should be taken when applying the estimated values.
Figure 9 summarizes the results for all 15 cases at the
The rcm/rc versus RQD relation should be used only
six sites using the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation
for a first estimation.
and the empirical methods based on rock mass classifica-
2. When RQD and other information are available for
tion. It can be seen clearly that the estimated values from
evaluating the rock mass classification indices, the
the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation are essentially in
rcm/rc versus RQD relation should be used together
the middle of the estimated values from the different
with the empirical methods based on rock mass
empirical methods. The relations of Singh et al. (1997),
classification to evaluate the rock mass strength. The
Trueman (1988), and Asef et al. (2000) tend to estimate
estimated value from the rcm/rc versus RQD relation
high rcm values (upper bound), whereas the relation pro-
can be compared with the range of the estimated
posed by Yudhbir and Prinzl (1983) estimates low rcm
values from the empirical methods based on rock mass
values (lower bound). Some relations, such as those pro-
classification to get an idea on the effect of RQD on
posed by Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993), Sheorey
rock mass strength.
(1997), and Aydan and Dalgiç (1998) tend to give average
(medium) rcm values.

6 Conclusions
5 Discussion and Recommendations
Different empirical methods are available for estimating
Determination of the strength of jointed rock masses is an
the strength of jointed rock masses. The empirical methods
important and challenging task in rock mechanics and rock
may provide very different estimation values of the
engineering. The newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD
unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock masses.
relation provides a convenient way for estimating the
The newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation in this
unconfined compressive strength of rock masses because,
article provides a convenient way for estimating the
in many cases, RQD is the only available information
unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock masses
about discontinuities in routine site investigations. How-
because, in many cases, RQD is the only available infor-
ever, care should be taken when applying the developed
mation about rock discontinuities. The developed rcm/rc
empirical relation for determining the unconfined com-
versus RQD relation can provide estimated rock mass
pressive strength of jointed rock masses, because of the
strength values that are often in reasonable agreement with
following reasons:
those from the empirical methods based on rock mass
• The relation between the unconfined compressive classification. To apply the developed rcm/rc versus RQD
strength ratio rcm/rc and the deformation modulus relation for estimation of rock mass strength in practice, the

123
Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses
limitations need to be considered and the recommendations
in Sect. 5 should be followed.
References
AASHTO (1996) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th
edn. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC
Alber M, Heiland J (2001) Investigation of a limestone pillar failure,
part 1: geology, laboratory testing and numerical modeling.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 34(3):167–186
Arora VK (1987) Strength and deformation behavior of jointed rocks.
PhD thesis, IIT Delhi, India
Asef MR, Reddish DJ, Lloyd PW (2000) Rock-support interaction
analysis based on numerical modeling. Geotech Geol Eng
18:23–37
Aydan O, Dalgiç S (1998) Prediction of deformation behavior of
3-lanes Bolu tunnels through squeezing rocks of North Anatolian
fault zone (NAFZ). In: Proceedings of regional symposium on
sedimentary rock engineering, Taipei, pp 228–233
Aydan O, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T (1997) Assessment of rock mass
strength for underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
34(3–4): paper No. 018
Barton N (1983) Application of Q-system and index tests to estimate
shear strength and deformability of rock masses. In: Proceedings
of international symposium on engineering geology and under-
ground construction, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol 1(II), pp 51–70
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39(2):185–216
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–239
Barton N, Loset F, Lien R, Lunde J (1980) Application of the
Q-system in design decisions. In: Bergman M (ed) Subsurface
space, vol 2. Pergamon, New York, pp 553–561
Bhasin R, Grimstad E (1996) The use of stress–strength relationships
in the assessment of tunnel stability. Tunn Underground Space
Technol 11(1):93–98
Bieniawski ZT (1976) Rock mass classification in rock engineering.
In: Bieniawski ZT (ed) Exploration for rock engineering,
Proceedings of the symposium, vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 97–106
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability: expe-
rience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 15:237–248
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification: a
manual. Wiley, New York
Brady BHG, Brown ET (1985) Rock mechanics for underground
mining. George Allen and Unwin, London
Brown ET (1993) The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering.
In: Hudson JA (ed) Compressive rock engineering—principle,
practice and projects, vol 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 1–23
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock
masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:3–19
Coon RF, Merritt AH (1970) Predicting in situ modulus of
deformation using rock quality indices. In: Determination of
the in situ modulus of deformation of rock, ASTM STP 477,
pp 154–173
Deere DU (1967) Technical description of rock cores for engineering
purposes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1:107–116
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1967) Design of
surface and near surface construction in rock. In: Proceedings of
401
the 8th US symposium on rock mechanics—failure and breakage
of rock, Minneapolis, MN, pp 237–302
Ebisu S, Aydan O, Komura S, Kawamoto T (1992) Comparative
study on various rock mass characterization methods for surface
structures. In: Proceedings of Eurock’92. Thomas Telford,
London, pp 203–208
Edelbro C (2003) Rock mass strength—a review. Technical report
2003:16, Lulea University of Technology, ISSN 1402–1536
Edelbro C, Sjoberg J, Nordlund E (2006) A quantitative comparison
of strength criteria for hard rock masses. Tunn Underground
Space Technol 22:57–68
El-Naqa A, Kuisi MA (2002) Engineering geological characterisation
of the rock masses at Tannur Dam site, South Jordan. Environ
Geol 42:817–826
Gardner WS (1987) Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont.
In: Smith RW (ed) Foundations and excavations in decomposed
rock of the Piedmont Province, GSP No. 9. ASCE, New York,
pp 62–86
Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithankar AG (1995) Correlation between
Barton’s Q and Bieniawski’s RMR—a new approach. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 33(2):179–181
Goldstein M, Goosev B, Pyrogovsky N, Tulinov R, Turovskaya A
(1966) Investigation of mechanical properties of cracked rock.
In: Proceedings of the 1st ISRM Congress, vol. 1, Lisbon,
pp 521–524
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:1165–1186
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:203–215
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the geological
strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared
rock masses—the case of Athens Schist formation. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 57:151–160
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure
criterion—2002 edition. In: Proceedings of 5th North American
rock mechanical symposium and 17th Tunneling Association of
Canada conference: NARMS-TAC 2002. Mining Innovation and
Technology, Toronto, pp 267–273
Jade S, Sitharam TG (2003) Characterization of strength and
deformation of jointed rock mass based on statistical analysis.
Int J Geomech ASCE 3:43–54
Justo JL, Justo E, Durand P, Azanon JM (2006) The foundation of a
40-storey tower in jointed basalt. Int J Rock Mech Geomech
Abstr 43:267–281
Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT (1993) A rock mass strength concept
for coal seams. In: Proceedings of 12th conference ground
control in mining, Morgantown, pp 274–283
Kulhawy FH, Goodman RE (1987) Foundations in rock. In: Bell FG
(ed) Ground engineer’s reference book. Butterworths, London,
pp 55/1–13
Laubscher DH (1984) Design aspects and effectiveness of support
system in different mining conditions. Trans Inst Min Met
93:A70–A81
Laubscher DH (1990) A geomechanics classification system for the
rating of rock mass in mine design. J South Afr Inst Min Metall
90(10):257–273
Ozsan A, Akin M (2002) Engineering geological assessment of the
proposed Urus Dam, Turkey. Eng Geol 66:271–281
Ozsan A, Ocal A, Akin M, Bassarir H (2007) Engineering geological
appraisal of the Sulakyurt dam site, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 66:483–492
Palmstrom A (1995) RMi—a rock mass characterization system
for rock engineering purposes. PhD thesis, University of Oslo,
Norway
123
402
Palmstrom A (1996a) Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in
practical rock engineering, part 1: the development of the rock mass
index (RMi). Tunn Underground Space Technol 11(2):175–188
Palmstrom A (1996b) Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use
in practical rock engineering, part 2: some practical applications
of the rock mass index (RMi). Tunn Underground Space Technol
11(3):287–303
Protodyakonov MM, Koifman MI (1964) Uber den Masstabseffect
bei Untersuchung von Gestein und Kohle. 5. Landertreffen des
Internationalen Buros fur Gebigsmechanik. Deutsche Akad
Wiss, Berlin 3:97–108
Ramamurthy T (1993) Strength and modulus response of anisotropic
rocks. In: Hudson JA (ed) Compressive rock engineering—
principle, practice and projects, vol 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
pp 313–329
Ramamurthy T (1996) Stability of rock mass—eighth Indian
Geotechnical Society Annual Lecture. Indian Geotech J 16:1–73
Ramamurthy T, Arora VK (1994) Strength predictions for jointed
rocks in confined and unconfined states. Int J Rock Mech
Geomech Abstr 31(1):9–22
Ramamurthy T, Rao GV, Rao KS (1985) A strength criterion for
rocks. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, vol 1,
Roorkee, pp 59–64
Schultz RA (1996) Relative scale and the strength and deformability
of rock masses. J Struct Geol 18(9):1139–1149
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Consideration of the geomechanical
classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of international
123
View publication stats
L. Zhang
symposium on engineering geology and underground construc-
tion, Lisbon, Portugal, vol 1(II), pp 33–44
Sheorey PR (1997) Empirical rock failure criteria. Balkema,
Rotterdam
Singh B, Goel RK (1999) Rock mass classifications—a practical
approach in civil engineering. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam
Singh M, Rao KS (2005) Empirical methods to estimate the strength
of jointed rock masses. Eng Geol 77(1–2):127–137
Singh B, Viladkar MN, Samadhiya NK, Mehrota VK (1997) Rock
mass strength parameters mobilized in tunnels. Tunn Under-
ground Space Technol 12(1):47–54
Singh B, Goel RK, Mehrotra VK, Garg SK, Allu MR (1998) Effect of
intermediate principal stress on strength of anisotropic rock
mass. Tunn Underground Space Technol 13(1):71–79
Trueman R (1988) An evaluation of strata support techniques in dual
life gateroads. PhD thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff
Vardar M (1977) Zeiteinfluss auf des Bruchverhalten des Gebriges in
der Umgebung von Tunbeln. Veroff. D. Inst. F. Bodenmech.
University of Karlsruhe, Heft, p 72
Yudhbir WL, Prinzl F (1983) An empirical failure criterion for rock
masses. In: Proceedings of 5th international congress on rock
mechanics, vol 1, Melbourne, pp B1–B8
Zhang L (2005) Engineering properties of rocks. Elsevier Ltd,
Amsterdam
Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:337–341