www.MINEPORTAL.

in
(All Mining Solutions)

➢ ONLINE TEST SERIES FOR

• DGMS COAL/METAL FIRST & SECOND CLASS
• GATE MINING
• COAL INDIA EXAMS
• OTHER MINING EXAMS

➢ ONLINE ORDER MINING BOOKS AT GREAT DISCOUNT

➢ FREE STUDY MATERIAL

➢ WHATSAPP CHAT SUPPORT FOR MINING EXAMS & QUERY

RELATED TO MINING

VISITING SITE- www.MINEPORTAL.in fb- www.fb.com/mineportal.in

CALL/WHATSAPP- 8804777500 EMAIL- [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DEFORMABILITY OF INTACT ROCK

2.1 Rock under Uniaxial Compression

2.2 Dynamic Elastic Constants
2.3 Hooke's Law
2.4 Rock Anisotropy
2.5 Laboratory Testing

3. ROCK MASS DEFORMABILITY

3.1 Characterizing Rock Mass Deformability

3.2 Measuring Rock Mass Deformability

4. REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION

Engineers need to know how rocks and rock masses deform when subject to the various loads
associated with engineering structures. Deformation can take the form of settlements of surface
structures, surface subsidence or closing of the walls of underground openings. The overall
stability of concrete dams depends, in part, on the relative deformability of the foundation rock
with respect to the concrete. Rock deformability can be instant or time-deferred. Rock mass
deformability depends on the deformability of both intact rock and the discontinuities.

In this chapter, we will first talk about the deformability of intact rock; isotropic and anisotropic
formulations will be presented. Then, we will investigate the contribution of discontinuities in
the deformability of rock masses. The problem of scale effect will also be addressed.

2. DEFORMABILITY OF INTACT ROCK

2.1 Rock under Uniaxial Compression

Consider a rock specimen subjected to uniaxial compression. Let ,a and ,l be the axial and
lateral (diametral) strains measured during the test and F be the applied axial stress. Figure 1
shows a typical set of stress-strain response curves. The plot can be divided into four regions:

C region OA corresponds to the closing of microcracks and a general adjustment of the system
consisting of the rock and testing machine. This region is usually concave upwards,

C region AB is more or less linear and corresponds to the elastic response of the rock,

C region BC is associated with strain hardening and is concave downwards,

C region CD corresponds to strain softening.

At any stress level in region AB, the rock will follow a path essentially parallel to AB upon
unloading and reloading. In that domain, the rock sample can be modeled as a spring. If the rock
is isotropic, two elastic constants can be introduced to describe its deformability: the Young's
modulus, E, and the Poisson' s ratio, <, with

(1)

and
(2)

where dF, d,l and d,a are increments of stress, lateral strain and vertical strain, respectively.
Figure 2 shows three methods suggested by the ISRM for determining the Young's modulus
from axial stress-strain curves (Bieniawski and Bernede, 1979) and Figure 3 shows an example
of calculation of those properties.

Various authors have compiled the values of E and < for different rock types (Balmer, 1953;
Johnson and DeGraff, 1988; Hatheway and Kiersch, 1989; etc..). Examples are given in the
following tables.

Granite Basalt Gneiss Schist Quart- Marble Lime- Sand- Shale

zite stone stone
Av. E 59.3 62.6 58.6 42.4 70.9 46.3 50.4 15.3 13.7
Max. E 75.5 100.6 81.0 76.9 100.0 72.4 91.6 39.2 21.9
Min. E 26.2 34.9 16.8 5.9 42.4 23.2 7.7 1.9 7.5
Range 49.3 65.7 64.2 71.0 57.6 49.2 83.9 37.3 14.4
No. of
samples 24 16 17 18 10 16 29 18 9

Table 1. Typical values of Young's moduli (in GPa) for nine common rock types (after Johnson
and Degraff, 1988).

Granite Basalt Gneiss Schist Quart- Marble Lime- Sand- Shale

zite stone stone
Av. < 0.23 0.25 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.08
Max. < 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.27 0.24 0.40 0.33 0.46 0.18
Min. < 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.03
Range 0.29 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.17 0.30 0.21 0.40 0.15
No. of
samples 24 16 17 18 10 16 29 18 9

Table 2. Typical values of Poisson's ratios for nine common rock types (after Johnson and
Degraff, 1988).

Linearity in the material behavior in uniaxial compression will also be reflected in its response
to pure shear and hydrostatic compression. For instance, if a increment in shear stress dJ is
applied, an increment in (engineering) shear strain, d(, will result such that

(3)

where G is called the shear modulus. On the other hand, for an increment of hydrostatic load dp,
an increment in volumetric strain, d,v, will result such that
 (4)

where K is called the bulk modulus. Note that G and K are related to E and < as follows

(5)

2.2 Dynamic Elastic Constants

The Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and shear modulus can be determined by dynamic
methods. Dynamic elastic properties are obtained by rapid application of stress to a rock
specimen. One method of achieving this is to subject the specimen to ultrasonic compression
and shear wave pulse using a so-called sonic velocity equipment (see section 5 in Lecture Notes
2). The method is called the seismic pulse method. Using the theory of elastic wave propagation,
the dynamic Young's modulus, Ed, Poisson's ratio <d, and shear modulus Gd are calculated from
the measured shear and longitudinal wave velocities Vs and Vp (about 1.5 Vs) as follows

(6)

where ( is the unit weight of the rock and g is the acceleration due to gravity. An example of
calculation of dynamic elastic properties taken from Johnson and Degraff (1988) is given below
for a specimen of Pikes Peak granite:

Core length, L = 0.123 m.

Unit weight, ( = 25.93 kN/m3.
Acceleration due to gravity, g = 9.81m/s2. -5
P-wave travel time through core, tp = 2.880 x 10 sec.
S-wave travel time through core, t s = 5.426 x 10-5 sec.
P-wave velocity, Vp = L/tp = 4,270.8 m/sec
S-wave velocity, Vs = L/ts = 2,266.9 m/sec
Dynamic Poisson's ratio, <d = 0.304.
Dynamic Young's modulus, Ed = 35.44 GPa

In general, the dynamic Young's and shear moduli are larger than their static values (there are
however instances where the opposite is true). Eissa and Kazi (1988) studied the relation
existing between the static modulus E (secant or tangent) and the dynamic modulus, Ed.
Analysis of 342 observations gave the following empirical equation
 (7)

with a coefficient of correlation of 0.84. Another empirical equation, i.e

(8)

gave a coefficient of correlation of 0.96. In both equations (7) and (8), the moduli are in GPa
and in equation (8), D is the rock density in g/cm3.

Kazi et al. (1983) proposed an empirical equation relating the uniaxial compressive strength of
intact rocks to their dynamic modulus. A statistical analysis of more than 200 tests reported in
the literature on seven different rock types yielded the following empirical equation

(9)

2.3 Hooke's Law

Isotropic Formulation

In three dimensions, the deformability of a linearly elastic continuum is described by Hooke's

law. Assuming isotropy, the stresses and strains in an arbitrary x,y,z coordinate system are
related as follows

(10)

Note that two and only two elastic constants, namely the Young's modulus, E, and the Poisson's
ratio, <, are needed to describe the deformability of a medium in its linear elastic range if the
medium is assumed to be isotropic. For continua that are anisotropic (i.e. with directional
deformability properties), more than two elastic constants are required, as discussed below.
Anisotropic Formulation

The deformability of anisotropic linearly elastic media is, in general, described by more than
two elastic constants. In an arbitrary x,y,z coordinate system, the components of stress and
strain are related as follows

(11)

or in a more compact form

(12)

which is known as the Generalized Hooke's law. Matrix [A] is a (6x6) compliance matrix which
is symmetric with aij=aji (i,j=1-6).The inverse form of equation (12) can be expressed as follows

(13)

where [C] is the matrix of elastic constants. Since matrices [A] and [C] are symmetric, they
have at most 21 independent components. That number can be further reduced to 13, 9, 5 and
finally to 2 (in the isotropic case), if the medium has any symmetry in the x,y,z coordinate
system.

Coordinate Transformation of the Generalized Hooke's Law

Consider two rectangular coordinate systems x,y,z and xU,yU,zU. The orientation of the xU-, yU-,
zU-axes is defined in terms of the direction cosines of unit vectors eU1, eU2 and eU3 in the x,y,z
coordinate system (see equation (10), Lecture Notes 3). The constitutive equation of the medium
in the x,y,z coordinate system is given by equation (12). In the xU,yU,zU coordinate system,
it is expressed as
(14)
The compliance matrices [A] and [A'] are related. Combining equations (12) and (14), and
equations (13), (52) and (53) in Lecture Notes 3, it can be shown that

(15)

and
(16)

Note that in general, matrices [A] and [AU] are different unless the material is isotropic, in which
case the compliance components are independent of the coordinate system (since the material
is isotropic).

2.4 Rock Anisotropy

Types of Anisotropic Rocks

Many rocks exposed near the Earth's surface show well defined fabric elements in the form of
bedding, stratification, layering, foliation, fissuring or jointing. In general, these rocks have
properties (physical, dynamic, thermal, mechanical, hydraulic) that vary with direction and are
said to be inherently anisotropic. Anisotropy can be found at different scales in a rock mass
ranging from intact specimens to the entire rock mass.

Anisotropy is a characteristic of intact foliated metamorphic rocks (slates, gneisses, phyllites,

schists). In these rocks, the fabric can be expressed in different ways. Closely-spaced fractures
called cleavages are found, for instance, in slates and phyllites. These rocks tend to split into
planes due to parallel orientation of microscopic grains of mica, chlorite or other platy minerals.
In schists, the fabric is created by the parallel to sub-parallel arrangement of large platy minerals
such as mica, chlorite and talc. Foliation can also be expressed by alternating layers of different
mineral composition such as in gneisses. Non-foliated metamorphic rocks such as marble also
show some anisotropy due to preferred orientation of calcite grains. Anisotropy is also the
characteristic of intact laminated, stratified or bedded sedimentary rocks such as shales,
sandstones, siltstones, limestones, coal, etc... Here, the anisotropy results from complex physical
and chemical processes associated with transportation, deposition, compaction, cementation,
etc...It is noteworthy that rocks which have undergone several formation processes may present
more than one directions of planar anisotropy such as foliation and bedding planes in slates.
These directions are not necessarily parallel. Also, linear features such as lineations can be
superposed on the planar features, which makes the characterization of the rock anisotropy more
complicated.

The rocks mentioned above show clear evidence of anisotropy and were classified as Class B
anisotropic rocks by Barla (1974). On the other hand, Class A anisotropic rocks are those rocks
that exhibit anisotropic properties despite apparent isotropy. Some intact granitic rocks belong
to that group. This section deals exclusively with class B rocks having intact anisotropy.

Constitutive Modeling

The directional character of the deformability properties of anisotropic rocks is usually assessed
by field and laboratory testing. Deformability test results on anisotropic rocks are commonly
analyzed in terms of the theory of elasticity for anisotropic media by assuming Hooke's law. The
latter implies that the rock has at most 21 independent elastic components. However, for most
practical cases, anisotropic rocks are often modelled as orthotropic or transversely isotropic
media in a coordinate system attached to their apparent structure or directions of symmetry.
Orthotropy (orthorhombic symmetry) implies that three orthogonal planes of elastic symmetry
exist at each point in the rock and that these planes have same orientation throughout the rock.
Transverse isotropy implies that at each point in the rock there is an axis of symmetry of
rotation (n-fold axis of symmetry) and that the rock has isotropic properties in a plane normal
to that axis. The plane is called the plane of transverse isotropy.

For a rock mass that is orthotropic in a local n,s,t (or xU,yU,zU) Cartesian coordinate system (Figure
4) attached to clearly defined planes of anisotropy, Hooke's law can be expressed as follows
(Lekhnitskii, 1977)

(17)
or in a more compact matrix form

(18)

Nine independent elastic constants are needed to describe the deformability of the medium in
the n,s,t coordinate system; En, Es and Et are the Young's moduli in the n,s and t (or 1,2 and 3)
directions, respectively; Gns, Gnt and Gst are the shear moduli in planes parallel to the ns, nt and
st planes, respectively; and <ij (i,j=n,s,t) are the Poisson's ratios that characterize the normal
strains in the symmetry directions j when a stress is applied in the symmetry directions i.
Because of symmetry of the compliance matrix [H], Poisson's ratios <ij and <ji are such that
<ij/Ei=<ji/Ej. The orthotropic formulation has been used in the literature to characterize the
deformability of rocks such as coal, schists, slates, gneisses, granites and sandstones. For
instance, the cleat and bedding planes of coal are often assumed to be planes of elastic
symmetry.

Equations (17) and (18) still apply if the rock is transversely isotropic in one of the three ns,nt
or st planes of Figure 4. In that case, only five independent elastic constants are needed to
describe the deformability of the rock in the n,s,t coordinate system. These constants are called E
, EU, <, <U and GU with the following definitions:

C E and EU are Young's moduli in the plane of transverse isotropy and in direction normal to
it, respectively,

C < and <U are Poisson's ratios characterizing the lateral strain response in the plane of
transverse isotropy to a stress acting parallel or normal to it, respectively, and,

C GU is the shear modulus in planes normal to the plane of transverse isotropy.

Relationships exist between E, EU, <, <U, G and GU and the coefficients of matrix [H] in equations
(17) and (18). For instance, for transverse isotropy in the st plane

(19)

The transverse isotropy formulation has been used to characterize the deformability of rocks
such as schists, gneisses, phyllites, siltstones, mudstones, sandstones, shales and basalts. For
such rocks, the plane of transverse isotropy is assumed to be parallel to foliation, schistosity or
bedding planes. Note that some of the five or nine elastic constants of anisotropic rocks are
sometimes assumed to be related. For instance, for transversely isotropic rocks, the modulus GU is
often expressed in terms of E, EU, < and <U through the following empirical equation

(20)

For orthotropic rocks, the shear moduli Gns, Gnt and Gst are related to the three Young's moduli
and Poisson's ratios. These relations were first introduced by St. Venant (1863). In a recent
survey of elastic constants of anisotropic rocks, Worotnicki (1993) concluded that most of the
published experimental data support the validity of the St. Venant approximation, with however
major exceptions.

The five and nine elastic properties of transversely isotropic and orthotropic rocks, respectively
cannot be randomly selected. Indeed, some inequalities associated with the thermodynamic
constraints that the rock strain energy remains positive definite, must be satisfied (Lempriere,
1968; Pickering, 1970). For instance, for transverse isotropy, the five elastic properties E, EU, <,
<U and GU must satisfy the following thermodynamic constraints

(21)

(22)

(23)

Equations (22) and (23) reduce to -1<<<0.5 if the rock is isotropic for which E=EU, G=GU and
<=<U. For orthotropy, the expressions for the thermodynamic constraints on the nine elastic
properties are more complex and can be found in Amadei et al. (1987).

Degrees of Rock Anisotropy

In general, intact rocks are not too strongly anisotropic compared to other engineering materials
such as wood or composites. Typical values of the nine or five elastic constants (static and
dynamic) for different types of intact anisotropic rocks can be found in the literature.
Comprehensive surveys of elastic properties can be found in Amadei et al. (1987), Worotnicki
(1993), and Amadei (1996). For instance, Worotnicki (1993) classified anisotropic rocks into
four groups:
1. Quartzfeldspathic rocks (e.g. granites; quartz and arkose sandstones, granulates and
gneisses),

2. Basic/lithic rocks (e.g. basic igneous rocks such as basalt; lithic and greywacke sandstones
and amphibolates),

3. Pelitic (clay) and pelitic (micas) rocks (e.g. mudstones, slates, phyllites, and schists),

4. Carbonate rocks (e.g. limestones, marbles and dolomites),

Based on 200 sets of test results, Worotnicki (1993) concluded that quartzofeldspathic and
basic/lithic rocks show low to moderate degrees of anisotropy with a maximum to minimum
Young's modulus ratio Emax/Emin less than 1.3 for about 70% of the rocks analyzed and less than
1.5 in about 80%. This ratio was found not to exceed 3.5 (Figure 5a). Pelitic clay and pelitic
micas rocks show the highest degree of anisotropy with Emax/Emin less than 1.5 for about 33% of
the rocks analyzed and less than 2 in about 50%. The modulus ratio was found not to exceed
6 with most cases below 4 (Figure 5b). Finally, carbonate rocks were found to show an
intermediate degree of rock anisotropy with Emax/Emin not exceeding 1.7 (Figure 5c).

2.5 Laboratory Testing

Testing of Isotropic Rocks

Suggested methods for determining the deformability (and strength) of intact rock under
uniaxial compression have been proposed by the ISRM (Bieniawski and Bernede, 1979) and
the ASTM (D3148-93). These methods are limited to isotropic media, and therefore to the
determination of two elastic constants, i.e. the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. They
involve the testing of right circular cylinders with a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.5-3.0.. Special
emphasis has to be placed on the preparation of the test specimens; specimen ends must be flat
(to 0.02 mm or 0.0008 in) and perpendicular to the specimen axis (deviation less than 0.001
radian i.e. 0.05 mm in 50 mm); the sides of the specimen must be smooth; no capping material
should be used. Stress rates must vary between 0.5 and 1.0 MPa/s. Deformation of the test
specimens is measured using strain gages, strain rosettes, Linear Variable Differential
Transformers (LVDTs), or optical systems.

Testing of Anisotropic Rocks

There are no standards for laboratory testing of anisotropic rocks. Various testing methods are,
however, available and are discussed more extensively in Amadei (1996). In most cases, the
rock is treated as transversely isotropic and in rare cases as orthotropic. Since more than two
elastic constants need to be determined, several specimens must be cut at different angles with
respect to the apparent directions of rock anisotropy.
The laboratory testing methods on anisotropic rock can be divided into static and dynamic.
Static methods include uniaxial compression, triaxial compression, multiaxial compression,
diametral compression (Brazilian tests), torsion and bending. For all these tests, the specimens
are instrumented with strain gages or displacement transducers. The dynamic methods include
the resonant bar method and the ultrasonic pulse method. Note that several types of tests (static
and/or dynamic) should be conducted on a given rock to determine its anisotropic elastic
properties.

The type of loading test and the number of tests required to determine the elastic constants of
a given rock depend largely on the degree and type of symmetry assumed for the rock. Consider
for instance a transversely isotropic rock specimen tested under uniaxial compression (Figure
6). An x,y,z coordinate system is attached to the specimen with the z axis parallel to the plane
of transverse isotropy dipping at an angle 2 with respect to the xz plane. The rock is transversely
isotropic in the st plane of Figure 6 and has five elastic properties E, EU, <, <U and GU as defined
in (19). Strains are measured in the x, y and z directions using strain gages. Using the theory of
elasticity for anisotropic media and assuming uniform stresses and strains in the test specimen,
the strains ,x, ,y, ,z and (xy can be related to the applied stress, F, as follows

(24)

with

(25)

By conducting uniaxial compression tests on three specimens cut at different angles with respect
to the plane of transverse isotropy, the five elastic properties of the rock can theoretically be
determined from the linear portion of the corresponding stress-strain curves. In Figure 7, three
specimens of the same rock are tested in uniaxial compression with 2=0°, 2=90° and an inclined
angle 2 different from 0 or 90°. Using equations (24) and (25), the strains measured on the first
specimen (Figure 7a) allow the determination of EU and <U whereas those on the second specimen
(Figure 7b) are used to determine E and <. The strains measured on the third specimen (Figure
7c) are used to determine the shear modulus GU. A procedure that has been found to work well is
to instrument each one of the three specimens in Figure 7 with two to four 45° strain rosettes. All
strain measurements are then analyzed simultaneously. Let N be the total number of strain
measurements (with N$5) for all three specimens in Figure 7. According to equations (24) and
(25), each strain measurement is linearly related to the five unknown compliances 1/E, 1/EU, </E,
<U/EU and 1/GU. In matrix form, the strain measurements can then be expressed in terms of the five
compliances as follows

(26)

where [,] is a (Nx1) matrix of strain measurements, [T] is a (Nx5) matrix and [C]t=(1/E 1/EU </E
<U/EU 1/GU). Equation (26) is then solved for the least square (best fit) estimate of the five
compliances terms by multilinear regression analysis. The advantage of this approach is that all
strain measurements are taken into account when determining the compliance terms.
Furthermore, the method can be extended to more than three specimens.

Equations (24) and (25) show that shear strains can develop under uniaxial compression as long
as the dip angle, 2, of the planes of rock anisotropy differs from 0 or 90° or in other words as
long as the applied stress does not coincide with the fabric. In that case, the principal strain
directions do not coincide with the principal stress directions as for isotropic media.

Equations (24) and (25) can also be used to calculate the apparent Young's modulus, Ey, and
apparent Poisson's ratios <yx and <yz of the rock in the x,y,z coordinate system of Figure 6 with

(27)

These three quantities depend on the angle 2. Examples of variation of such quantities can be
found in Amadei (1996).

The five and nine elastic properties of transversely isotropic and orthotropic rocks can also be
determined by diametral compression (line or strip load) of thin discs of rocks (Brazilian
loading). Strains are measured using strain gage rosettes (usually 45° rosettes) glued at the
center of the discs.

Consider the geometry of Figure 8. A disc of rock of diameter, D, and thickness, t, is subject to
a diametral load, W, applied over an angular width 2" (assumed here to be small). The rock is
assumed to be orthotropic with one of its three planes of elastic symmetry (defined as ns in
Figure 8) parallel to the disc xy plane. The n and s axes are inclined at an angle, R, with respect
to the x and y axes. The applied pressure, p, is equal to W/("Dt). As shown by Amadei et al.
(1983), the stress components at the center of the disc are equal to

(28)

For the geometry of Figure 8, it can be shown that the stress concentration factors qxx, qyy and
qxy have complex expressions which depend on the rock compliances 1/En, 1/Es, <ns/En and 1/Gns
and the dip angle R. If the rock were isotropic, qxx=-2, qyy=6 and qxy=0. The strains ,x, ,y and (xy
at the disc center are related to the compliances 1/En, 1/Es, <ns/En and 1/Gns by combining
equation (28) with the rock's constitutive equations.

Consider the three diametral compression tests (j=1,3) shown in Figure 9. The rock is again
assumed to be orthotropic. Each test consists of loading a disc whose middle plane is parallel
to one of the three planes of elastic symmetry of the rock (ns, st or nt). In each test, the strains
at the center of the disc are measured in three directions ,aj, ,bj and ,cj (j=1,3) using a 45° strain
rosette, at an arbitrary load, W, and in the linear elastic range of rock behavior. To simplify the
presentation, the three discs are assumed to have same geometry, same strain gage orientation,
the same loading angle, 2", and the strains are measured at the same load level W. For the
geometry of Test 1, the stress concentration factors qxx1, qyy1 and qxy1 depend on the rock
compliances 1/En, 1/Es, <ns/En and 1/Gns. Similarly, for Test 2, the stress concentration factors
qxx2, qyy2 and qxy2 depend on the rock compliances 1/Es, 1/Et, <st/Es and 1/Gst. Finally, for Test 3,
the stress concentration factors qxx3, qyy3 and qxy3 depend on the rock compliances 1/En, 1/Et, <nt/En
and 1/Gnt. In addition, the nine stress concentration factors depend on the angle 2" and the
orientation angles Rj (j=1,3). Combining equation (28) and the rock's constitutive equations for
each disc in Figure 9, it can be shown that the nine compliances are related to the nine strain
gage measurements in matrix form as follows

(29)

where [,] is a (9x1) matrix of strain measurements, [T] is a (9x9) matrix and [C]t=(1/E n 1/E s1/E t
<ns/En <st/Es <nt/En 1/Gns 1/Gst 1/Gnt). The components of matrix [T] depend on the nine stress
concentration factors, which themselves depend on the nine compliances. The system of
equations (29) is therefore highly non-linear and is furthermore constrained since the nine
elastic constants must satisfy some thermodynamic constraints. A solution to this constrained
problem can be obtained using the Generalized Reduced Gradient Method which is essentially
a constrained optimization technique.

The same methodology applies if the rock is transversely isotropic. The five elastic properties
of the rock can be determined by conducting two instead of three diametral compression tests:
one in the plane of transverse isotropy and another perpendicular to the plane of transverse
isotropy. If the plane of transverse isotropy coincides, for instance, with plane st, then the five
elastic constants can be determined by conducting Tests 1 and 2 in Figure 9. The strains
measured in Test 2 are then analyzed with qxx=-2, qyy=6 and qxy=0. This gives the Young's
modulus E=Es=Et and the Poisson's ratio <=<st. On the other hand, the strains measured in Test
1 lead to a system of equations similar to equation (29) with only three equations and three
unknowns EU=En, <U=<ns=<nt and GU=Gns=Gnt. This system of equations is then solved using the
Generalized Reduced Gradient Method for the three unknowns taking into account the constraints
defined in inequalities (21)-(23).

3. ROCK MASS DEFORMABILITY

3.1 Characterizing Rock Mass Deformability

Rock masses are far from being continua and consist essentially of two constituents: intact rock
and discontinuities. The existence of one or several sets of discontinuity planes in a rock mass
creates anisotropy in its response to loading and unloading. Also, compared to intact rock,
jointed rock shows increased deformability in directions normal to those planes. Furthermore,
discontinuities create scale effects. Since laboratory tests on small scale samples are usually
found inadequate to predict the deformability of rock masses, field tests are necessary.

Rock mass anisotropy can be found in volcanic formations (basalt) and sedimentary formations
consisting of alternating layers or beds of different (isotropic or anisotropic) rock types. Rock
masses cut by one or several regularly spaced joint sets are anisotropic in addition to being
discontinuous. The rock between the joints can be isotropic or anisotropic. It is not unusual to
have several types of planar anisotropy in a rock mass such as joints and foliation planes or
joints and bedding planes. If the joints develop parallel to the foliation or bedding planes, they
are called foliation joints or bedding joints, respectively.

With few exceptions, it is incorrect to ignore the presence of discontinuities when modeling
rock mass response to loading and unloading. Three approaches can be followed to account for
the effect of joints on rock mass deformability: an empirical approach, a discrete approach, an
equivalent approach.

Empirical Approach

The first approach consists of empirically reducing the deformability properties of rock masses
from those measured on intact rock samples in the laboratory. Rock mass modulus, also called
modulus of deformation, can be estimated in different ways. For instance, based on an extensive
literature review, Heuze (1980) concluded that the modulus of deformation of rock masses
ranges between 20 and 60 % of the modulus measured on intact rock specimens in the
laboratory. Bieniawski and Orr (1976), Bieniawski (1978), and Serafim and Pereira (1983)
proposed empirical relationships between the modulus of deformation of rock masses, EM (in
GPa), and their (Geomechanics Classification System) RMR ratings e.g.
 (30)

if RMR > 50% and

(31)

if RMR < 50%. Although still the most used, the empirical approach lacks a mechanistic basis.

Discrete Approach

A second approach consists of treating joints as discrete features. This is usually done in
numerical methods such as the finite element, boundary element and discrete element methods
in which the complex response of joints to normal and shear stresses can be introduced in an
explicit manner. The main drawback of this approach is that only rock masses with a limited
amount of joints can be analyzed due to computer limitations.

Equivalent Approach

The third approach is to treat jointed rock as an equivalent anisotropic continuum with
deformability properties that are directional and also reflect the properties of intact rock and
those of the joint sets, i.e. orientation, spacing and normal and shear stiffnesses. The
discontinuities are characterized without reference to their specific locations. The rock mass
is replaced by an equivalent transversely isotropic continuum if cut by a single joint set or an
equivalent orthotropic continuum if cut by two or three orthogonal joint sets. This approach is
recommended when the number of discontinuities is large where it is not feasible to account for
each joint plane when assessing the overall deformability of a rock mass.

Consider for instance a rock mass cut by three joint sets, each set being normal to one the three
axes of the n,s,t coordinate system of Figure 4. The intact rock between the joints is assumed
to be linearly elastic and isotropic with Young's modulus, E, Poisson's ratio, <, and shear
modulus G=E/2(1+<). Each joint set i (i=1,2,3) is characterized by its spacing, Si, and its normal
and shear stiffnesses kni and ksi. As shown by Duncan and Goodman (1968), the regularly jointed
rock mass can be replaced by an equivalent orthotropic continuum whose constitutive relation
in the n,s,t coordinate system is given by equations (17) and (18) with

(32)

and
 (33)

where i,j=1,2,3 or n,s,t respectively. All non-zero off-diagonal terms in equation (17) are now
equal to -</E. Since kni and ksi have units of stress/length or force/length3 , the quantities kniSi and
ksiSi in equations (32) and (33) can be seen as normal and shear joint moduli. Note that the
constitutive relation for a regularly jointed rock mass converges to that for an intact isotropic
medium when the joint spacings or joint stiffnesses in equations (32) and (33) approach infinity.

Although convenient, the equivalent continuum formulation has certain limitations that limit
its range of application. For instance, Duncan and Goodman (1968) made three main
assumptions in the equivalent continuum approach. First, the normal and shear joint stiffnesses
are constant and independent of the stress level acting across the joints. Second, the joint
response remains in the elastic domain (pre-slip condition). Third, the joints are assumed to
have negligible thicknesses and not to create any Poisson's effect upon loading of the rock mass.
In other words, intact rock and joints are assumed to undergo equal strains in directions parallel
to the contact planes. This assumption makes all non-zero off-diagonal terms in equation (17)
equal to the same value, -</E. It also results in reducing the number of elastic constants
necessary to describe the deformability of the rock mass when cut by a single joint set to four,
namely, E, <, knS and ksS. For a rock mass cut by three joint sets the number of elastic constants
is equal to eight: E, <, kniSi and ksiSi with i=1,2,3.

The equivalent approach has also been used in the past for modeling the deformability of thinly
layered, laminated or stratified rock masses that are clearly heterogeneous in addition to being
anisotropic. Since it is not possible to account for each layer on an individual basis, one
approach has been proposed whereby the rock mass is replaced by an equivalent homogeneous
transversely isotropic continuum (Salamon, 1968; Wardle and Gerrard, 1972). Again several
conditions need to be satisfied when using such an equivalent model. First, the rock mass
consists of isotropic and/or transversely isotropic layers whose thickness and elastic properties
vary randomly with depth. Second, the rock is a continuum and remains a continuum when
subjected to stresses. Third, the elastic properties of the equivalent continuum are derived by
examining the behavior of two cubes both having the same edge dimension L. One cube is a
representative sample of the rock mass whereas the other cube is cut from the equivalent
continuum and is subject to homogeneous stress and strain distributions. The representative
sample of the rock mass contains a large number of layers with known thicknesses and
deformability properties and its volume is sufficiently small to make negligible in the equivalent
continuum the variations of stresses and strains across it.

Consider, for instance, m horizontal layers forming a representative sample of the rock mass.
If the thickness of the jth layer is hj, its relative thickness is Mj=hj/L. The deformability of each
layer is defined by five elastic constants Ej, EjU, <j, <jU and GjU. As shown by Salamon (1968), the
five elastic properties of the equivalent homogeneous continuum E, EU, <, <U and GU are equal to

(34)

in which the summation from j=1,m is implied. The shear modulus, G, is also equal to
E/(2(1+<)).

Degrees of Rock Mass Anisotropy

If rock mass anisotropy is induced by joints, the ratio of anisotropy can be much larger than for
intact rock and depends on the stress level acting across the joint planes. As an illustrative
example consider a rock mass cut by a single joint set. Using again the model of Duncan and
Goodman (1968), the ratio E/EU is equal to

(35)

Laboratory tests on rock joints have shown that the joint normal stiffness, kn, depends on the
normal stress, Fn, acting across the joint planes. Using, for instance, the expression for the
tangential normal stiffness, kn, proposed by Bandis et al. (1983), equation (35) becomes

(36)

where kni is the initial joint normal stiffness and Vm is the maximum joint closure. According to
equation (36), at zero normal stress (Fn=0), the ratio E/EU is equal to 1+E/(kni S) which can be
large for joints with small values of the spacing and/or initial stiffness. As more compression is
applied across the joint surfaces, the rock joints become stiffer and the ratio E/EU approaches
unity as less anisotropy is induced by the joints.

3.2 Measuring Rock Mass Deformability

Because of scale effect, field tests are required to determine rock mass deformability. The tests
can be static or dynamic. In order to assess the degree of rock mass anisotropy, field tests are
conducted in different directions with respect to the apparent rock mass fabric.

The analysis of field tests is usually done assuming that the rock mass behaves linear elastically
when subjected to the applied loads. Also, because of the complexity of the tests and the more
sophisticated nature of the equations that are necessary in the analysis of the test results, very
often, assumptions are made about the rock deformability in order to reduce the number of
elastic constants that need to be determined. Sometimes, test results in anisotropic ground are
analyzed using equations derived from the theory of linear elasticity for isotropic media. The
Young's modulus is determined for different loading directions.

It should be kept in mind that, in general, field tests involve larger rock volumes than laboratory
tests. Compared to laboratory tests, the stress distributions in those volumes are more complex
and the measured elastic properties are more likely to be average properties and to be affected
by the level of applied load (in particular if the rock mass is cut by joint sets). Also,
discrepancies can arise between rock mass properties determined with one field testing method
and another because different rock volumes are involved.

Static field tests include: plate loading tests, borehole expansion tests (dilatometer, NX-borehole
jack, modified borehole jack), gallery and radial jacking tests, and flat jack tests. Case studies
and reviews of their advantages and limitations can be found in Goodman et al. (1970), Rocha
et al. (1970), Bieniawski and Van Heerden (1975), Bieniawski (1978), De La Cruz (1978),
Goodman (1989), Heuze and Amadei (1985), Luehring (1988), and Amadei (1996). Several
papers dealing with the determination of the modulus of deformation of rock masses can also
be found in the proceedings of a special ASTM symposium held in Denver in 1969 (ASTM
Publ. 477, 1970).
Testing procedures have been proposed by the ISRM (Coulson, 1979) and the ASTM (ASTM
standards D 4395-84, 4971-89, 4506-90, 4394-84, 4729-87).

In the dynamic field tests, wave velocity is measured by swinging a sledgehammer against an
outcrop or by using an explosive source. Directional geophones placed at the rock surface or
in boreholes measure the time it takes for the longitudinal and transverse waves to propagate
from their source. A technique called "petite sismique", introduced in France in the late 1960s,
can be used to determine the dynamic modulus of deformation of the rock mass (Bieniawski,
1978). The effect of rock fractures upon the velocity of propagation of seismic waves can be
assessed using the following time-average formula

(37)

where L is the direct path length in m, n is the number of fractures, and w is the average width
of the fractures. Equation (37) is written for longitudinal waves. A similar equation can be
written for shear waves with Vp replaced by Vs. Equation (37) indicates that larger the number
and width of the fractures and the lower the velocity of the infill, then the lower will be the
measured rock mass velocity. As a numerical example, consider the propagation of longitudinal
waves through limestone (Vp=4,000 m/s for intact rock) over a length L=20 m. The limestone
is cut by n=10 fractures of width, w=0.05 m. If the fractures are water filled (Vp=1,450 m/s for
water), the longitudinal velocity for the rock mass is reduced to 3,831 m/s. If the fractures are
dry (Vp=330 m/s for air), the velocity is reduced further to 3,129 m/s.

Various authors have tried to relate rock mass quality, the RQD, and the velocity of propagation
of seismic waves. A correlation has been suggested between the RQD and a so-called velocity
index defined as the square of the ratio of the compressional wave velocity measured in situ (VF)
to that measured in the laboratory (VL) (see Table 3). Correlations have also been proposed
between the velocity index and the modulus of deformation (Coon and Merritt, 1970).

Rock Quality RQD Fracture VF/VL (VF/VL)2

Classification (%) Frequency
(1/m)
Very poor 0-25 15 0-0.4 0-0.2
Poor 25-50 15-18 0.4-0.6 0.2-0.4
Fair 50-75 8-5 0.6-0.8 0.4-0.6
Good 75-90 5-1 0.8-0.9 0.6-0.8
Excellent 90-100 1 0.9-1.0 0.8-1.0

Table 3. Seismic evaluation of rock mass quality (after McDowell, 1993).

4. REFERENCES
Amadei, B. (1996) Importance of anisotropy when estimating and measuring in situ stresses in
rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 33, No.3, pp. 293-325.

Amadei B., Rogers J.D. and Goodman R.E. (1983) Elastic constants and tensile strength of
anisotropic rocks. Proc. 5th ISRM Congress, Aachen, A189-A196.

Amadei B., Savage W.Z. and Swolfs H.S. (1987) Gravitational stresses in anisotropic rock
masses, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 24, pp. 5-14.

ASTM D3148-93. Standard test method for elastic moduli of intact core specimens in uniaxial
compression, ASTM Volume 04.08.

ASTM (1969) Determination of the in situ modulus of deformation of rock, ASTM Spec. Tech.
Publ. 477.

Balmer, G.G. (1953) Physical properties of some typical foundation rocks, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Report No. SP-39.

Bandis S.C., Lumsden A.C. and Barton N. (1983) Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 20, pp. 249-268.

Barla G. (1974) Rock anisotropy: Theory and laboratory testing, in Rock Mechanics. Müller, L.
Editor, Udine, Italy, pp. 131-169.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1978) Determining rock mass deformability: Experience from case histories,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 15, No.5, pp. 237-248.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1993) Classification of rock masses for engineering: the RMR system and
future trends", in Comprehensive Rock Engineering (J.A. Hudson ed.), Pergamon, Vol. 3, pp.
553-73.

Bieniawski, Z.T. and Van Heerden, W.L. (1975) The significance of in situ tests on large rock
specimens, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 12, No.4, pp. 101-113.

Bieniawski, Z.T. and Orr, C.M. (1976) Rapid site appraisal for dam foundations by the
geomechanics classification, Proc. 12th Int. Cong. on Large Dams, Mexico, pp. 483-501.

Bieniawski, Z.T. and Bernede, M.J. (coordinators) (1979) Suggested methods for determining
the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 16, No.2, pp. 135-140.

Coon, R.F. and Merritt, A.H. (1970) Predicting in situ modulus of deformation using rock
quality indexes, in Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock, ASTM Spec. Tech.
Publ. 477, pp. 154-173.

Coulson, J.H. (1979) (Coordinator) Suggested methods for determining in situ deformability
of rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 16, No.3, pp. 195-214.

De La Cruz, R.V. (1978) Modified borehole jack method for elastic property determination in
rocks, Rock Mechanics, Vol. 10, pp. 221-239.

Duncan, J.M. and Goodman, R.E. (1968) Finite element analyses of slopes in jointed rock, Final
Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Report S-68-3.

Eissa, E.A. and Kazi, A. (1988) Relation between static and dynamic Young's moduli of rocks,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 25, No.6, pp. 479-482.

Goodman, R.E. (1989) Introduction to Rock Mechanics, Wiley & Sons, 2nd. Edition.

Goodman, R..E, Van, T.K. and Heuze, F.E. (1970) Measurement of rock deformability in
boreholes, Proc. 10th. U.S Symp. on Rock Mech., Univ. of Texas, Austin, pp.523-555.

Hatheway, A.W. and Kiersch, G.A. (1989) Engineering properties of rocks, in Physical
Properties of Rocks and Minerals (R.S. Carmichael, ed.), CRC Publ., pp. 671-715.

Heuze, F.E. (1980) Scale effects in the determination of rock mass strength and deformability,
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 12, pp.167-192.

Heuze, F.E and Amadei, B. (1985) The NX-borehole jack: A lesson in trial and error, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 22, No.2, pp. 105-112.

Johnson, R.B. and DeGraff, J.V. (1988) Principles of Engineering Geology, Wiley.

Kazi, A., Sen, Z. and Sadagah, B-E. H. (1983) Relationship between sonic velocity and uniaxial
compressive strength of rocks, Proc. 24th US Symp. Rock Mech., College Station, pp. 409-419.

Lekhnitskii S.G. (1977) Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Body, Mir Publishers, Moscow.

Lempriere B.M. (1968) Poisson's ratios in orthotropic materials. J. Am. Inst. Aeronaut.
Astronaut., Vol. 6, pp. 2226-2227.

Luehring, R.W. (1988) Methods for determining in situ deformation of rock masses, U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation Report REC-ERC-87-14.

McDowell, P.W. (1993) Seismic investigation for rock engineering, in Comprehensive Rock
Engineering (J.A. Hudson ed.), Pergamon, Vol. 3, pp. 619-634.
Niandou, H. et al. (1997) Laboratory investigation of the mechanical behavior of Tournemire
shale, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 34, No.1, pp. 3-16.

Pickering D.J. (1970) Anisotropic elastic parameters for soils. Geotechnique, Vol. 20, pp. 271-
276.

Rocha, M., et al. (1970) Characterization of the deformability of rock masses by dilatometer
tests, Proc. 2nd. Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. (ISRM), Belgrade, 2-32.

Salamon, M.D.G. (1968) Elastic moduli of a stratified rock mass, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,
Vol. 5, pp. 519-527.

Serafim, J.L. and Pereira, J.P. (1983) Considerations of the geomechanics classification of
Bieniawski, Proc. Int. Symp. on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, LNEC,
Lisbon, Portugal, vol .1, pp. II.33-II.42.

Saint-Venant B. (1863) Sur la distribution des élasticités autour de chaque point d'un solide ou
d'un milieu de contexture quelconque. (in French). J. de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, Ser.
2, Vols. 7-8, pp. 353-430 and 257-261.

Wardle, L.J. and Gerrard, C.M. (1972) The equivalent anisotropic properties of layered rock and
soil masses. Rock Mechanics, Vol.4, pp.155-175 (1972)

Worotnicki G. (1993) CSIRO triaxial stress measurement cell, in Comprehensive Rock

Engineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford (J.A. Hudson, Editor), Chapter 13, Vol. 3, 329-394.