Estimation of Rock Mass Parameters Using Intact Rock

ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753
ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology

An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization
Volume 3, Special Issue 4, March 2014
National Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering (NCRACE-2013)

During 15-16 November, 2013.
Organized by
Department of Civil Engineering, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, India.
Estimation of Rock Mass Parameters using Intact Rock

Parameters
Pawan K.Sah 1, A. Murali Krishna2
Research Scholar, Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam, India1
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam, India 2
Abstract Determination of rock mass mechanical properties

plays vital role in design and construction of tunnels in rocks.
This paper presents the estimation of rock mass parameters
using intact rock parameters. Rock mass parameters are
generally determined from unconfined compressive strength
values of intact rock samples and other index parameters like
geological strength index (GSI), rock mass rating (RMR) etc.
The mechanical properties of rock masses were obtained
using a computer program Roclab based on Hoek- Brown
Failure criterion which yield values of strength (compression
and tension), deformation modulus and shear strength
parameters of the rock mass. The input parameters GSI is
used in conjunction with unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) of the intact rock (ci) and the material constant (mi).
Further, the variation of rock mass parameters with the intact
rock parameters has been developed for the different
disturbance factor varying 0-1. It has been observed that all
the parameters significantly affect the rock mass parameters
hence need to be considered judiciously for evolving reliable
design rock mass parameters.
Keywords: GSI, shear strength, rock mass parameters,
tunnelling.
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the most important problems in the designing
underground spaces such as tunnels is to know the strength
parameters of the rock masses [1], rock mass deformation
modulus [2] etc. Design and construction of rock tunnel
structures including support installation for safe excavation
and satisfactory performance of other structures resting
above, require highly reliable rock mass properties [1, 2].
These rock mass parameters include mechanical properties
like deformation modulus, tensile strength and global mass
strength; and shear strength parameters like cohesion and
friction angle [3]. As rock mass structure is very complex
Copyright to IJIRSET
with different mineralogical contents and existence of

discontinuities, properties of rock mass are controlled by
multiple parameters including the continuity, orientation
and frequency of joints in rock mass and joints
characteristics. Ideal way to find these complex
behavioural properties is to conduct some field tests.
However, field test to determine these parameters directly
are time consuming, expensive and the reliability of the
results of these test is sometimes questionable. Considering
these difficulties, it is a common practice to test the intact
rock specimens in laboratory for determining different
mechanical and strength parameters of intact rock.
Properties rock mass are then evaluated using these intact
rock parameters and other index parameters of rock mass.
Different failure criteria and/or empirical relationships
were developed by several researchers for the purpose.
Several such strength failure criteria were reported in
literature, based on which mechanical properties of rock
mass were evaluated, these are Grifth criterion [4],
Bieniawski- Yudhbir criterion ([5],[6]) Ramamurthys
Criterion [7], Hoek-Brown criterion ([1],[8]) Generalised
Hoek-Brown criterion ([9],[10]) etc. Empirical relations on
the basis of classification schemes such as the Rock Mass
Rating (RMR) [11], the Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) [12]
and the Geological Strength Index (GSI) [13] are also
reported in literature.
This paper presents the evaluation of rock mass
parameters using intact rock parameters and other index
values. A commercially available computer program,
Roclab [14] is used for the purpose. Importance of various
parameters and their influence on rock mass parameters is
discussed.
www.ijirset.com
117
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
II. ROCK MASS STRENGTH

In general, generalised Hoek-Brown criterion
coupled with Geological Strength Index (GSI) of rock has
become one of the industry standards for estimating rock
mass properties on international tunnelling projects.
Generalised form of the non-linear Hoek-Brown
Failure criterion is ([9], [10]):
a
'
1' 3' ci mb 3 s
ci
(1)
Where 1 and 3 are the major and minor effective

principal stresses at failure, ci is the uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock. The value
of mb is given by:
GSI 100
mb mi exp
28 14 D
(2)
Material constant mi mainly depends upon rock type, its

texture and composition [1]. D is Disturbance Factor (D)
which depends upon the degree of disturbance during
construction to which the rock mass has been subjected by
blast damage and stress relaxation. It varies from 0 for
undisturbed in situ rock masses i.e. intact rocks to 1 for
very disturbed rock masses i.e. highly fissured rock masses
[10]. S and a are fixed constants for rock mass, which can
be calculated from:
GSI 100
S exp
9 3D
GSI
20
1 1 15
a e
e 3
2 6
(3)
The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of

rock mass (c) is obtained by setting 3=0 in equation
(1), giving
c ci .s a
(5)
By putting 1 = 3= t in equation (1), the uniaxial tensile

strength of rock mass (t) is given by:
t ( )
s ci
mb
(6)
with compression being positive.

Modulus of deformation of rock mass: - The rock mass
modulus of deformation (Erm) to be calculated (in GPa) by
using equations (6) and (7):
( GSI 10)
D ci
Erm (GPa ) 1
.10 40
(7)
2 100
Equation (7) applies for ci 100 MPa. For ci >100
MPa, it follows equation (8):

( GSI 10)
40
D
Erm (GPa ) 1 .10
2
(4)
The GSI is based on an assessment of the

lithology, structure and condition of discontinuity surfaces
in the rock mass and it is estimated from visual
examination of the rock mass exposed in outcrops in
surface excavations such as road cuts and in tunnel faces
([15], [16]). The GSI combines the two fundamental
parameters of the geological process includes the
blockiness of the mass and the condition of discontinuities.
GSI can also be obtained on the basis of other rock
engineering classification indices i.e. RMR and Q is used.

The values of GSI vary from 5 for very weak rocks to 100
for intact rocks. GSI classification system is based on the
assumption that the rock mass contains a sufficient number
of randomly oriented discontinuities such that it behaves as
homogeneous isotropic mass [16].
(8)
For the sake of, where completely undisturbed

sampling for measurement of intact modulus of
deformation rock is difficult or no direct values of intact
modulus of rock Ei are available. The following
relationship can be used [2]:
Ei ( MR) ci
(9)
Where, MR is modulus ratio, which is depending

upon rock type and its texture and the guidelines for
selection of MR values were proposed by Deere [17], Ei is
www.ijirset.com
118
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
intact rock modulus of deformation and ci is unconfined

compressive strength of intact rock.
The modified equation for determining the
modulus of deformation of rock mass (in GPa) has given
by Hoek and Diederichs [2]:
1 D / 2
Erm Ei 0.02
((60 15 D GSI ) /11)
1 e
(10)
Where, Ei= intact rock modulus in GPa.

Mohr-coulomb failure criterion: - It is worth mentioning
that in most of studies and numerical equations, dominant
on rock mechanics and geotechnical problems, to
determine failure criteria, the cohesion and internal friction
angle of the rock mass parameters have been considered.
The classical Mohr-Coulomb theory cannot be used to
predict the non-linear response of rocks. Therefore, It is
required to establish relationships that are equivalent
between the Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb criteria. The
Mohr-Coulomb Criterion in rocks involves determining
equivalent angle of friction () and cohesive strengths (c')
for each rock mass and stress range, which can be used for
analysis of failures in tunnels and slopes ([10], [18], [19]).
This is done by fitting an average linear relationship to the
curve generated by solving equation (1) for a range of
minor principal stress value defined by t<'3< '3max . The
fitting process involves balancing the areas above and
below the Mohr-Coulomb plot. These results in the
following for the angle of friction (') and cohesive
strength (c'):
6amb (s mb3' n )a1

' sin1
' a1
2(1 a)(2 a) 6amb (s mb3n )
(11)
(12a)s(1am
) b3' n(smb3' n)a1
c ci
(1a)(2a) 1(6amb(smb3' n)a1)/(1a)(2a)
(12)
'
Where, '3n='3max/ci and '3max, the upper limit of confining

stress over which the relationship between Hoek-Brown
and the Mohr-Coulomb criteria is considered.
The MohrCoulomb shear strength , for a given
normal stress , is found by substitution of these values
of c and into the following equation (13).
c ' tan '
(13)
The equivalent plot, in terms of major and minor principal

stress, is defined by:
1'
2c ' cos ' 1 sin ' '
3
1 sin ' 1 sin '
(14)
Where, 1 and 3 are major and minor principal stresses

respectively.
However, for slope stability analysis, it is useful to
consider overall behaviour of rock mass rather than the
detailed propagation process. This leads to the concept of a
global rock mass strength and the following equation
estimated from the Mohr-Coulomb relationship ([10],
[13]).
cm
2c ' cos '

1 sin '
(15)
Where, and c determined for stress range t< 3< ci/4

giving:
(mb 4s a(mb 8s))(mb /4 s)a1

cm ci .
2(1 a)(2 a)
(16)
The appropriate value of maximum confining stress 3max

in equations (11) and (12) depends upon the specific
application such as calculation of factor of safety and the
shape and location of failure surface for tunnels and slopes.
This is given by '3max from the equation (17), given by for
both Mohr-Coulomb and Generalized Hoek-Brown criteria:
www.ijirset.com
119
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
'
3max

0.47 cm
cm
H
(17)
Where cm is the rock mass strength, defined by equation

(16), is the unit weight of rock mass and H is the depth of
the tunnel below surface. In case where the horizontal
stress is higher than the vertical stress, the horizontal stress
value should be used in place of H.
III. STUDY AREA AND GEOLOGY

A tunnel is being constructed for a railway line
between Jiribam to Tupul sections in Manipur state under
Northeast Frontier railways. The study area (T1 in Fig. 1) is
located in Indo-Myanmar Range of Himalayan (IMR)
system.
The natural terrain is very rugged with slopes

frequently steeper than 40. The topography condition is
such that overburden in the length of tunnel (3 km) varies
from 0 to 300m. The sites lie within a category Zone-V
seismic region with zone factor (Z) is 0.36 according to IS
1893:2002 [20].
IV. CHARACTERIZATION OF INTACT ROCK SAMPLES
In order to evaluate properties of rock materials
encountered in tunnels and study their effective parameters,
seven intact rock samples were collected from different
locations along the tunnel route. Unconfined compressive
strength tests were conducted by the testing agency and the
results along with GSI values are shown in Table I. The
GSI values were obtained from the GSI chart for
heterogeneous weak rock masses [15]. The rock mass was
classified according to the Q-system, RMR method and
GSI. Amongst them, the Q-system and RMR methods were
used for rock support system design and GSI system was
used for estimating design parameters [16]. Modulus of
intact rock samples (Ei) was determined using equation (9)
with MR value of 400 as per [19].
TABLE I
INTACT R OCK PROPERTIES
Fig. 1 Geological Map of Manipur
The whole rock types observed in the project area

include Shale inter- beds of sandstones and siltstones.
Sandstones inter-beds are generally medium grained and
some horizons become siltstone but sandstone is dominant.
Sample #
UCS (ci)
(MPa)
GSI
Ei (GPa)
19
18
7.6
35
20
14
48
23
19.2
72
26
28.8
96
28
38.4
100
59
40
118
63
47.2
www.ijirset.com
120
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
The UCS of the intact rock samples varied from

19 to 118 MPa, while the elastic modulus of was from 7.6
GPa to 47.2 GPa. The unit weight of rock = 0.026MN/m3
has been considered in depth of 250 meters below ground
level and Hoek-Brown material constant (mi ) assumed 10
for lithified argillaceous rock such as siltstone, sandstone
and shale [13].
TABLE II
ROCK MASS PARAMETERS FOR D=0
Rock Mass Parameters
Sample
#
UCS
(c)
(MPa)
Deformation
Modulus
(Erm)
Global
Strength
(cm)
(GPa)
(MPa)
(t)
(MPa)
V. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

To determine rock mass parameters from intact rock
parameters, RocLab program [14], was used. This software
is based on generalised Hoek-Brown failure criterion which
yields values of strength (compression and tension),
deformation modulus and shear strength parameters of the
rock mass. Input parameters for the program are
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock
(ci ), GSI, the petrographic material constant (mi ),
disturbance factor (D) and MR.
Rock mass parameters were obtained from different
disturbance factors representing different levels blasting
conditions. Three conditions: D= 0 (undisturbed in situ
rock masses), 0.5 (partially disturbed in situ rock masses),
and 1 (highly disturbed in situ rock masses) are adopted.
The rock mass parameters for all the seven class of samples
for different D values have shown in Tables II to IV,
respectively.
Tensile
Strength
0.127
0.315
1.436
0.004
0.279
0.639
2.843
0.008
0.490
1.027
4.305
0.014
0.928
1.828
7.070
0.027
1.433
2.754
9.973
0.042
10.110
19.892
21.333
0.454
14.965
27.743
27.680
0.725
TABLE III
ROCK MASS PARAMETERS FOR D=0.5
Sample #
UCS
(c)
(MPa)
Deformation
Modulus
(Erm)
Global
Strength
(cm)
(GPa)
(MPa)
Tensile
Strength
(t)
(MPa)
0.046
0.215
0.837
0.002
0.106
0.418
1.690
0.004
0.196
0.632
2.628
0.007
www.ijirset.com
121
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
0.389
1.061
4.421
0.013
0.618
1.541
6.334
0.020
6.393
10.277
16.345
0.298
9.902
15.073
21.634
0.495
Disturabnce Factor(D)=0
Disturabnce Factor(D)=0.5
Disturabnce Factor(D)=1
0.14
TABLE IV
ROCK MASS PARAMETERS FOR D=1
Normlized UCS
(Rock Mass-UCS/Intact-UCS)
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
UCS
(c)
Sample #
Deformation
Modulus
(Erm)
Global
Strength
(cm)
(GPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
Tensile
Strength
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Intact Rock-UCS (MPa)

Fig.2 Relation between normalized- UCS and intact rock-UCS
(t)
(MPa)
0.010
0.173
0.286
0.001
0.025
0.327
0.599
0.002
0.050
0.468
0.983
0.003
0.105
0.741
1.738
0.006
0.175
1.032
2.569
0.010
3.214
4.586
9.873
0.201
5.329
6.878
13.671
0.348
From the table it is observed that the rock mass

parameters increase with increasing the intact rock
parameters but they decrease with decreasing disturbance
factor. For example, with GSI=23, ci= 48MPa and Ei=
19.2 GPa, estimated values of c of 0.490, 0.106 and 0.050
MPa were obtained for the values of D of 0, 0.5 and 1
respectively.
The Figure (2) depicts the obtained normalized rock

mass-UCS (c/ci ) versus determined intact rock-UCS. It
shows non-linear trend.
30
Disturbance Factor(D)=0
Disturbance Factor(D)=0.5
25
Rock Mass-Global Strength (MPa)
20
15
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Intact Rock-UCS (MPa)

Fig.3 Relation between rock mass-global strength and intact rock-UCS
www.ijirset.com
122
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
Figure 3 presents variation of rock mass global

strength values with intact rock UCS values for different
disturbance factors. Form the Fig. 3, it is seen that the rock
mass global strength and rock mass- UCS for GSI< 50
decreases drastically for the particular UCS value of intact
rock with the disturbance factors. The reduction of rock
mass-global strength due to presence of the highly
fractured, high stress rock mass around the excavation
(GSI<
50
or
low
intact
rock
UCS
value)[21].
30
Disturbance Factor(D)=0.5
Rock Mass-Elastic Modulus (GPa)
25
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Estimation of rock mass mechanical properties using
intact rock parameters and other indices of rock mass was
presented. From the details analyses conducted using
RocLab software, the following conclusions are reached:
I.
The mechanical properties of rock masses are
function of the rock mass index values and intact
rock strength parameters.
II.
Rock mass parameters are in the order of only 2 to
10 % to that of intact parameters. The relation
between various intact rock parameters and rock
mass parameters showed nonlinear trends.
III.
The intact rock GSI and UCS are the most dominant
parameters to decide rock mass strength.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank the AECCOM India Private
Limited and N.F. Railway official for allowing access to
the data of Tunnel No. 1 in connection with Jiribam- Tupul
New Railway Line Project in the State of Manipur.
20
15
10
REFERENCES
[1] Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980). Underground Excavations in

Rock. London Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, UK, 1536.
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Intact Rock-Elastic Modulus (GPa)

Fig.4 Relation between rock mass-elastic modulus and intact rock- elastic
modulus
[2] Hoek, E. and Diederichs, M.S. (2006). Empirical Estimation of

Rock Mass Modulus. International Journal of Rock Mech. &
Mining sci., 43(2), 203-215.
[3] Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980). Emprical Strength Criterion for
Rock Masses. J. Geotech. Engg. Div., ASCE, 106(9), 1013-1035.
The Figure (4) depicts the non-linear trend between

rock mass- elastic modulus and intact rock-elastic modulus.
The deformability of rock mass will depends upon the both
of intact rock and the discontinuities present within the
rock mass. So that, the deformation modulus of rock mass
decreases with decreasing with GSI value and intact rock
parameters (such as ci, Ei).
[4] Griffith, A.A. (1924). The Theory of Rupture. in Proc 1st .Int.
Congr. Applied Mech, Delft, 55-63.
[5] Bieniawski, Z.T. (1974). Geomechanics Classification of Rock

Masses and Its Application in Tunnelling. Proc. 3rd International
Congress Rock Mech., Denver, Part A, 27-32.
[6] Yudhbir, Lemanza W. and Prinzl, F. (1983). An Empirical Failure

Criteria for Rock Masses. Proc. of the 5th International Congress
Society of Rock Mech., Mellobourne, 1, B1-B8.
[7] Ramamurthy, T. (1994). Strength Criteria fir Rocks with Tensile

Strength. Proc. Ind. Geotech. Conference, Warangal, India, 1, 411414.
[8] Hoek, E. (1983). Strength of Jointed Rock Masses. 23rd Rankine

Lecture. Geotechnique, 33(3), 187-223.
www.ijirset.com
123
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710


Organized by
[9] Hoek, E. (1994). Strength of Rock & Rock Masses. ISRM, New
Journal, 2(2), 4-16.
[10] Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown

Failure Criterion- 2002 Edition. Proc. NARMAS-TAC Conference,
Tornto, 1,267-273.
[11] Bieniawski, Z.T. (1973). Engineering Classification of Rock

Masses. Trans S. Africa Institute Civil Engineers, 15(12), 44, 335.
[12] Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering Classification

of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support. Rock Mech.,
6(4), 189-236.
[13] Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1997). Practical Estimate of Rock Mass
Strength. International Journal of Rock Mech. & Mining sci., 34(8),
1165-1186.
[14] Rocscience Limited. (2011). RocLab software ver: 1.032. Toronto,

Ontario, Canada.
[15] Hoek, E., Marions, P. and Benissi, M. (1998). Applicability of the

Geological Strength Index (GSI) Classification for Very Week and
Sheared Rock Masses. The Case of the Athens Schist Formation,
Bull. Engg. Geological Environment, 57(2), 151-160.
[16] Marions, P. and Hoek, E. (2000). GSI- A Geologically Friendly

Tools for Rock Mass Strength Estimation.
Conference, Mellobourne, 1422-1442.
Proc. GeoEng2000
[17] Deere, D.U. (1968). Chapter 1: Geological Consideration. Rock

Mech. in Engineering Practice, (Ed. by K.G. Stagg & O.C.
Zienkiewicz), Willey, New York, 1-20.
[18] Hoek, E. (1990). Estimating Mohr-Coulomb Friction and Cohesion

Values from the Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion. International
Journal Rock Mech. & Mining Sci. & Geomechanics, Abstracts,
12(3), 227-229.
[19] Hoek, E., Wood, D. and Shah, S. (1992). A Modified Hoek-Brown

Criterion for Jointed Rock Masses. Proc. Rock Characterization,
Symp. Institute Soc. Rock Mech., Eurock92 (Edited by J.A.
Hudson), British Geotech. Soc. London, 209-214.
[20] IS 1893(Part-I): General Provisions and Buildings, (2002). Code for

Practice Earthquake Design of Structures. BIS, Fifth Revision, New
Delhi.
[21] Kaiser, P.K., Diederichs, M.S., Martin, C.D., Sharp, J. and Steiner,
W. (2000). Underground Works in Hard Rock Tunnelling and
Mining. Proc. 4th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Leung,
Pennsylvania, 1, 841-926.
www.ijirset.com
124

Estimation of Rock Mass Parameters Using Intact Rock

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimation of Rock Mass Parameters Using Intact Rock

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Estimation of Rock Mass Parameters Using Intact Rock

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology

Volume 3, Special Issue 4, March 2014

National Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering (NCRACE-2013)