Abstract: This study explores the utility of a pressure-dependent empirical hardening parameter in estimating deformation of rock masses. The
hardening parameter has drawn poor attention in classical rock mechanics. Review of previous literature and observation of test results 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 into the published test data that reflects the dependencies of the in situ deformation modulus on in-
cremental joint parameters and the 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 the joint
on the modified joint factor to get a modulus ratio. Using a correlation of the modified joint factor and the rock quality designation (RQD), the
model successfully shows that operating hardening parameter on RQD envelops the published data of modulus ratio versus RQD. The main aim
of this paper is to show that the present model is valid for in situ deformation of the strain-hardening rock mass in structural foundation, mines,
and excavation design. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000215. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Rock masses; Parameters; Joints; Deformation.
Author keywords: Modulus ratio; Rock mass; Hardening parameter; Modified joint factor; Rock quality designation (RQD).
Note: RMR 5 R1 1 R2 1 R3 1 R4 1 R5 1 R6; Emr 5 ½0:0028RMR2 1 0:9 exp ðRMR=22:82Þ=100 (Nicholson and Bieniawski 1990); Q 5 ½ðRQD=Jn ÞðJr =Ja ÞðJw =SRFÞ; Emr 5 10ðQsr =100Þ1=3 (Barton 1983);
deformations
Application
Tunnels,
inequalities, the experimental and realistic values of the hardening
(12)
-do-
-do-
parameter observed for Ch depends on effective isotropic pressure.
Researchers have defined plastic parameters, such as hardening
or softening, in a number of ways in engineering applications. There
Dilatancy
is no wide agreement among the researchers on a common possible
(11)
—
—
—
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
10–1
SRF
(10)
—
—
other is incremental (Vermeer and De Borst 1984). Interestingly,
pressure-dependent incremental hardening is one of the intrinsic
(R6 5 23020)
parameters of all granular materials, namely, powders, silts, ashes
Orientation
(Trivedi and Sud 2004), and even jointed rocks. In this study, the
0–90
(nb )
(9)
—
—
empirical hardening parameter for jointed rocks Ch is obtained
numerically for input of different initial mean effective confining
GSI 5 9 log ½ðRQD=Jn ÞðJr =Ja Þ 1 44 (from Q system); GSI 5 10 1 R1 1 R2 1 R3 1 R4 (from RMR); Emr 5 ðsr =100Þ1=2 10ðGSI210Þ=4 (Hoek and Brown 1997).
pressure ratios pi =sr set into the rock mass based on the criteria of
Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Johnston (1985). It tends to reach
Roughness (Jr )
a failure stress incorporated in the strength ratio smr obtained from
0.5–4
0.5–4
uniaxial and triaxial test data of jointed rocks determined by the
(8)
—
direction of shear stress J3 .
Scope of Study
(R5 5 1620)
Inflow (Jk )
continuous material. The discontinuities may exist with fragments of
1–0.05
(7)
—
parent rock material often along with externally deposited gouges in
the joints, which may control the deformability of the rock mass.
During the process of compression, the rock mass closes the discon-
tinuities and becomes hardened. Therefore, a laboratory-controlled
hardening parameter is identified. Because laboratory test data on
small specimens are often insufficient to predict deformation of
0–0.6
apply an empirical hardening parameter on the field test data of
(6)
—
—
RQD to find the in situ deformation modulus.
Table 1. Modulus Ratio from Various Rock-Mass Characterizations Systems (RMR, Q, GSI)
Hoek and Brown (1997) and Hoek and Diederichs (2006) con-
sidered the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock and the
geological strength index (GSI) to propose a relation for rock-mass
(t=ta ) (Ja )
thickness
0–6 mm
0.75–20
0.75–20
Gouge
0.01–10 m
0.01–10m
20–0.5
0–100
0–100
RQD
(3)
—
—
GSI (0–100)
Note: Em 5 Er exp ðCh × Jf Þ; Jf 5 Jn =ðnb rÞ (Ramamurthy and Arora 1994); and Ch 5 20:0115 (Ramamurthy and Arora 1994); Em 5 Er exp ðCh × JfgÞ (present work); Ch 5 20:04ðpi =sr Þ21 for ap 5 20:005;
Ch 5 20:02ðpi =sr Þ21:25 for ap 5 20:009; Ch 5 20:001ðpi =sr Þ22 for ap 5 20:0125; Jfg 5 a exp ðb × RQDÞ (present work); Emr 5 exp ½a × Ch expðb × RQDÞ (present work); Emr 5 m ln ðRQDÞ 1 n (present
of orientation, discontinuities, presence of gouges, and especially
Application
hardening due to confinement and the shear stress direction from
(12)
Laboratory
initial conditions to failure.
The previous studies have left the scope for estimating the rock-
— ap 5 l=C In situ
mass hardening parameter as one of the unresolved issues. There-
fore, one of the aims of this study is to obtain a hardening parameter
Inflow (Jk ) Roughness (Jr ) Orientation (nb ) SRF Dilatancy
as a function of stress invariant. Second, the modulus ratio of jointed
(11)
—
rock has yet to relate a readily estimated hardening parameter to the
experimentally obtained quantities found by direct measurements,
such as modified joint factor and RQD. A modified joint factor
(10)
—
modulus ratio.
(9)
—e
(7)
—
—e
f ðt=ta Þd
f ðt=ta Þ
rameter used for rock masses with changing discontinuities and joint
13–500/m
values of deformation but rather to focus on the issue that considers the
effects of a hardening parameter on theoretical and practical engi-
neering problems. A large ensemble of studies on this topic reveals
(3)
—
—
that the hardening parameter and relative joint conditions are rarely
As per the relationship of Jfg and RQD.
Present work.
d
a
where Jdj 5 correction for depth of joint (joint stress parameter); Jt 5 RQD ¼ 115 2 3:3Jv (9b)
correction for thickness of gouge in joint (gouge thickness pa-
rameter); Jw 5 correction for groundwater condition; and gd 5 Eq. (9b) is applicable for RQD for engineering applications for
correction factor depending on the compactness or relative density of volumetric joint count Jv between 4.5 and 35. Palmstrom (2005)
the gouge in the joint (5 1 for fully compacted joint fill). For clean, provided a mutual relationship for RQD, joint spacing s, joint number
compact joints, cg 5 1. These discontinuities may consist of frag- Jn , and volumetric joint count Jv . Sen and Eissa (1991) showed that
ments of the parent material to varied extents of thickness, density, RQD lowered with increasing difference between the lengths of the
and orientation. An observation of a rock-core recovery captured gd block side, i.e., joint spacing. In fact, changing block size (Samadhiya
in terms of designated discontinuity condition or precisely by et al. 2008) modulates stress intensity on discontinuities and thus on
assigning a packing density of fragments in the discontinuity. The the volume of joint material. Such an observation calls for an ad-
packing in the discontinuity tends to compact, dilate, or crush during justment in RQD versus joint properties, namely, spacing, volume,
the process of loading. friction, gouge material, groundwater, and internal pressure. The
The progressive compression of the discontinuities influences volumetric joint count tends to have an exponential relation with RQD
significantly the deformation modulus of the rock mass. The gran- as block size increases (Sen and Eissa 1991).
ular material in the joint’s rupture zone undergoes shear deformation The work of Sen and Eissa (1991), Grenon and Hadjigeorgiou
depending on the relative density of the gouge. The relative density (2003), and Palmstrom (2005) provided a basis to propose an ex-
RD is considered conventionally as a ratio of the difference of ponential relationship for a number of horizontal joints with friction
the natural-state void ratio en and the minimum void ratio emin from
the maximum void ratio emax of the gouge material [RD 5 ðemax 2 en Þ= Jnr ¼ a9 expðb9 × RQDÞ (10)
ðemax 2 emin Þ]. The effect of pore pressure u is discounted as dissipated;
therefore, the mean effective confining pressure p9 is equal to mean where a9 and b9 take a value based on the rock block characteristics,
confining pressure p [p 5 ðs1 1 s2 1 s3 Þ=3, where s1 , s2 , and discontinuity, and friction in relation to RQD. The volumetric effects
s3 5 principal stresses]. However, under the field condition of on strength and deformation of jointed rocks, namely, spacing,
groundwater, Jw is proposed as a linear function (of u=s1m ) in the volume, friction, gouge material, groundwater, and internal pres-
same manner as the Q system. sure, are considered in the modified joint factor Jfg .
Table 6. Calculation of Modulus Ratio from RQD in Eq. (20) • The deformations assumed for the axisymmetric and plane-
End conditions Coefficient (m) and intercept (n) for RQD strain cases are similar to those in soil mechanics, which im-
plicitly assumes that the rock mass is isotropic and that continuum
ap m n behavior prevails. In practice, contrary to the assumption,
20:005 0.166 20:340 rock masses are anisotropic, and the deformations may be
20:009 0.302 20:357 discontinuous.
• The values of peak hardening of the rock masses asymptotically
20:0125 0.163 0.420
increase with mean isotropic pressure and are affected by joint
conditions. Hence, the hardening parameter for rock masses is
prediction using the present relations. The data sets of several recognized as a value considered approaching the intact rock with
investigators are used in generalized form. However, the relations confining pressure. The rock masses are assumed to deform and
described earlier should be applied judiciously and with care for the cause an increase in the deformations below the peak modulus
following reasons: with an increasing number of joints. Therefore, the increasing
• The strength and deformation criteria cited in this study are values of Jfg for the rock masses are essentially associated with
essentially empirical in nature, and the constants associated with more deformations.
various relationships (Tables 1 and 2) provide only an approx- • While gouges within the joints undergo volume changes, the
imate interpretation of the modulus ratio. hardening may accompany the gouges and the joint closure and
• Johnston and Chiu (1984) and Hoek and Brown (1997) de- then may damage the rock mass. The modulus ratio considers all
veloped an empirical strength criterion for intact rocks and then these parts. To isolate these effects, there is a need to fine-tune the
extended it to rock masses. Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) used results.
the joint factor to propose a strength criterion for jointed rocks • This work does not intend to comment on the advantages and
based on laboratory studies. The author applied concepts of disadvantages of other elastoplastic and hardening models. The
progressive failure and modified joint factor with the progress of purpose of the present relations is to provide a framework to
loading, and it is extended to the modulus ratio based on a hardening handle hardening problems for one-dimensional deformation and
parameter. The process used for the development of these criteria to evaluate it with the help of a simple numerical tool.
was one of pure trial and error like that of early workers. Because of • The volume-change characteristics of rock mass are difficult to
the empirical nature of the strength and deformation criteria of rock estimate. The laboratory estimate often fall short of the field
masses, it is uncertain whether the criterion will adequately predict estimate of the consequent deformation; therefore, a hardening
the behavior in all possible conditions. model is proposed in which changes in deformation relative to
• The modulus ratio considers jointed and intact rock for the same intact rocks are captured by a hardening parameter and modified
size of sample, and therefore, size effects are assumed to be joint factor. The precise predictions of the modulus of jointed
discounted. However, in practice, the block size effects may be rocks depends on an appropriate choice of hardening parameter
captured differently. Ch progressing toward failure conditions specified by ap .