L11 - Deformability - Rock (Compatibility Mode)

9/26/2013
DEFORMABILITY
Prof. K. G. Sharma
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Deformation Modulus of Rock Mass: Design

of Rock Structures
Discontinuities influence the Deformation Modulus
Compared to Intact Rock, Rock Mass shows increased
deformability
y
Rock Modulus
Initial Tangent Modulus
Elastic Modulus
Recovery y Modulus
Deformation Modulus
Modulus of Permanent Deformation
26 September 2013 2
1
9/26/2013
Triaxial Compression
Computerized Compression Frame Rock Triaxial Cell
26 September 2013
Determination of Elastic Constants
… setup for a uniaxial

… loading frame. compression test.
2
9/26/2013
Determination of Elastic Constants
electric resistance strain gauges and

acoustic emission transducers.
… foil strain gauge

… linear
displacement
transducers
Stress-strain curve typical of in-situ rock mass with

various moduli that can be obtained
(after ASCE, 1996; ASTM, 2004)
26 September 2013 6
3
9/26/2013
Deformation Parameters
Elastic Modulus from Uniaxial / Triaxial Compression
26 September 2013
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

Due to non-linearities introduced into the stress-strain measurements,
mostly relating to microfracturing, the Young’s modulus of the sample can
vary throughout the loading history.
Secant Young’s modulus, ES -

slope of the line joining the
origin of the axial stress-axial
strain curve to a point on the
curve at some fixed percentage
of the peak strength.
4
9/26/2013

Due to non-linearities introduced into the stress-strain measurements,
mostly relating to microfracturing, the Young’s modulus of the sample can
vary throughout the loading history.
Tangent Young’s modulus, ET -

slope of the axial stress-axial
strain curve at some fixed
percentage, generally 50%, of
the peak strength.
Average Young’s modulus, Eavg -

average slope of the
approximately linear portion of
the axial stress-axial strain
curve.
Corresponding to the Young’s

modulus, the Poisson’s
o sson s rat
ratio
o may
be calculated as:
Δε radial
ν =−
Δε axial
5
9/26/2013
The most common physical attributes of laboratory

tests on intact rock are portrayed here. The true
elastic modulus can only be determined by
employing load cycles.
Initial Tangent Modulus

Determined from the slope of a line tangent to the initial
portion of stress-strain curve.
Line 1 in Figure
Initial pportion is concave upward:
p effect of pores,
p , fissures
and discontinuity closure.
Insitu Tests, Laboratory Tests
26 September 2013 12
6
9/26/2013
Elastic Modulus
Determined from the slope of a linear (nearly linear)
portion of the curve.
Line 2 in Figure
Indicates deformation of rock material
IS Code: Elastic Modulus is tangent modulus at 50% of
Peak Stress
Recovery (Unloading) Modulus

Obtained from the slope of tangent to the segment of
unloading stress-strain curve.
Line 3 in Figure
Deformation Modulus
Determined from the slope of the secant line established
between zero and some specified stress level.
Stress level is usually specified as 50% of Peak stress.
Line 4 in Figure
7
9/26/2013
Modulus of Permanent Deformation

Defined as the ratio of a stress to the permanent deformation
observed on releasing that stress to zero. It is determined by
running a series of load cycles during a compression test.
Jointed Rock Mass does not behave Elastically.

Deformation modulus is used in the analysis & design of
rock structures.
Goodman’s concept of Modulus of Permanent Deformation, M, was

introduced in 1980. It is important to appreciate in porous rocks which
often exhibit “permanent set” with each loading cycle, such as
sandstone.
8
9/26/2013
Shear Stress developed in Concrete Dam due to

Variable Deformability in Foundation Rock
26 September 2013 17/186
DEFORMABILITY OF INTACT ROCK

Typical Values of Elastic Modulus, E and Poisson's
Ratio, ν for Different Rocks
Determined from UC Tests with Strain Measurements
S i
Specimen preparedd as per Codes.
C d
Specimen preparation time consuming & expensive
Indirect Tests conducted to estimate Elastic Modulus
Empirical Correlations.
9
9/26/2013
Typical values of elastic modulus of intact rocks

(after AASHTO, 1989)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
No. of No. of Standard
Rock type values rock types Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation
Granite 26 26 100 6.41 52.7 24.5
Diorite 3 3 112 17.1 51.4 42.7
Gabbro 3 3 84.1 67.6 75.8 6.69
Diabase 7 7 104 69 88.3 12.3
Basalt 12 12 84.1 29 56.1 17.9
Quartzite 7 7 88.3 36.5 66.1 16
Marble 14 13 73.8 4 42.6 17.2
Gneiss 13 13 82.1 28.5 61.1 15.9
Slate 11 2 26.1 2.41 9.58 6.62
Schist 13 12 69 5.93 34.3 21.9
Phyllite 3 3 17.3 8.62 11.8 3.93
Sandstone 27 19 39.2 0.62 14.7 8.21
Siltstone 5 5 32.8 2.62 16.5 11.4
Shale 30 14 38.6 0.007 9.79 10
Limestone 30 30 89.6 4.48 39.3 25.7
Dolostone 17 16 78.6 5.72 29.1 23.7
Typical values of Poisson's ratio of intact rocks

(after AASHTO, 1989)
No. of No. of Poisson's Ratio Standard

Rock type values rock types Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation
Granite 22 22 0.39 0.09 0.2 0.08
Gabbro 3 3 0.2 0.16 0.18 0.02
Diabase 6 6 0.38 0.2 0.29 0.06
Basalt 11 11 0.32 0.16 0.23 0.05
Quartzite 6 6 0.22 0.08 0.14 0.05
Marble 5 5 0.4 0.17 0.28 0.08
Gneiss 11 11 0.4 0.09 0.22 0.09
Schist 12 11 0.31 0.02 0.12 0.08
Sandstone 12 9 0.46 0.08 0.2 0.11
Siltstone 3 3 0.23 0.09 0.18 0.06
Shale 3 3 0.18 0.03 0.09 0.06
Limestone 19 19 0.33 0.12 0.23 0.06
Dolostone 5 5 0.35 0.14 0.29 0.08
10
9/26/2013
Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number

Empirical correlations to obtain E from Schmidt Hammer
Rebound Number Rn.
Important to specify Hammer Type (L or N)
Correlations between elastic modulus E and Schmidt

hammer rebound number Rn
Correlation r2 Rock Type Reference

E = 0.6005ρRn(L) - 2.0276 28 lithological units, 3 Deere & Miller (1966)
base rock types
E = 0.0069 x 10 25 lithological units Aufmuth (1973)
[1.061log(ρR +1.861]
n(L)
E= 0.192ρ2Rn(L) - 12.71 20 lithological units Beverly et al. (1979)
E = 1.940Rn(L) - 33.92 0.78 Marble, limestone, Sachpazis (1990)
dolomite
E = ecRn(L) + d 0.77 Mica-sachist, Xu et al. (1990)
c and d are coefficients to prasinite, serpentinite,
depending on rock type 0.92 gabbro, mudstone
E = 0.00013R 3.09074
n(N) 0.99 Chalk, limestone, Katz et al. (2000)
sandstone, marble,
syenite,
y , ggranite
E = e 0.054Rn(L) +1.146 0.90 Gypsum Yilmaz & Sendir
(2002)
E = 0.47Rn(L) - 6.25 0.85 Andesita, tuff, Basalt Dincer et al. (2004)
11
9/26/2013
Seismic Wave Velocity

Velocity of Elastic Waves measured on Intact Rocks
ν dyn =
(V V ) − 2 2
2[(V V ) − 1]
p s
2
p s
ρV p2 (1 − 2ν dyn )(1 + ν dyn )

Edyn =
1 −ν dyn
Gdyn = ρVs2
Edyn = 2Gdyn (1 +ν dyn )
where Vp=P-wave velocity, Vs=S-wave velocity, Edyn is the

dynamic elastic modulus, Gdyn is the dynamic shear modulus,
νdyn is the dynamic Poisson's ratio, and ρ is the density.
Comparison of static and dynamic elastic modulus

(after Stacey et al., 1987)
12
9/26/2013
Correlations between static modulus E and dynamic

modulus Edyn
Correlation Rock Type Reference
E = 1.137Edyn - 9.685 Granite Belikov et al. ((1970))
E = 1.263Edyn - 29.5 Igneous & metamorphic King (1983)

rocks
E = 0.64Edyn - 0.32 Different rocks Eissa & Kazi (1988)
E = 0.69Edyn + 6.40 Granite McCann & Entwisle (1992)
E = 0.48E 3 26 ((r2 =0.82)

0 48Edyn - 3.26 0 82) C t lli rocks
Crystalline k M C
McCann & Entwisle
E t i l (1992)
Note: Both E and Edyn are in the unit of GPa; and r2 is the determination coefficient.
Seismic Wave Velocity

The dynamic elastic modulus usually larger than the static
elastic modulus.
The ratio of dynamic to static elastic modulus varies between

about 1 and 3.
Yasar and Erdogan (2004): Dolomite, Marble & Limestone

E = 10.67 Vp - 18.71 GPa (r2 = 0.86)
P
P-wave velocity
l i Vp is
i in
i km/s.
k /
13
9/26/2013
Effect of Porosity
The elastic modulus decreases as the porosity increases.
Leite and Ferland (2001): Artificial Porous Rock
E = 10.10 - 0.109 n GPa (r2 = 0.74)
Lashkaripour (2002): Claystone, Clay shale, Mudstone, Mud

shale, Siltstone, Silt shale
E = 37.9 e-0.863n GPa (r2 = 0.68)

Porosity n is in %.
Variation of elastic modulus E with porosity n for

dolomites and limestones (after Palchik & Hatzor, 2002).
14
9/26/2013
Effect of Water Content

Water content has a great effect on the rock deformability.
The elastic modulus decreases as the water content increases.
Vasarhelyi (2003, 2005):
Esat/Edry = 0.761 British Sandstones
Esat/Edry = 0.657 Miocene Limestones
Influence of water content w on elastic modulus E at 50% ultimate

stress: (a) Lower Old Red Sandstone; and (b) Pennant- Type A
(after Hawkins & McConnell, 1992).
15
9/26/2013
Mechanical and Hydraulic Properties
Stress and Deformation at Discontinuity
Stresses are often

S f di
disturbed
b d by
b a discontinuity.
di i i For
F
a rock fracture with opening, normal stress on the
fracture walls is zero and there are stress
concentrations on the contact points. The stress
field is no longer the same as in the continuous
material.
For a closed joint, the stress field may be

continuous although strain may not.
31
Stress and Displacement at Discontinuity
Displacement
Di l at discontinuity
di i i is i not continuous.
i
For example, at a fracture plane, sliding or shear
displacement may occur. There may be much
greater normal displacement at fracture than those
of the material.
Discontinuities can range from a fully-welded

fully welded
interface to an opening containing different material.
The mechanics of are vary different.
32
16
9/26/2013
Stress and Displacement at Discontinuity
For a fully-welded
F f ll ld d interface
i f between
b two different
diff
materials, it has the continuities both is stress and
displacement. Discontinuity is the change of
materials at the interface.
For a fully-contacted smooth interface, the interface

representing a weak plane of shearing
shearing.
For a locally-contacted fracture with gaps, both

stress and displacement are discontinuous.
33
Normal Stiffness and Displacement
N
Normal l stress and
d displacement
di l off fully-contact
f ll
discontinuity is continuous and therefore can be
dealt with continuum approach.
For locally-contacted fractures, there are voids

between the two sides, stress-displacement
function is discontinuous
discontinuous.
(a) An idealised pillar-contacted fracture
(b) An idealised prism-contacted fracture
34
17
9/26/2013

P Load-displacement
P of rock block
d, δb Load-displacement
of joint contact
d, δc
block area A,
contact area mA,
modulus E
δb δc δ
Assume block and contact δb = (P D) / (A E)

have the same material, m is δc = (P D) / (m A E)
between 0 and 1. Contact δc = δb / m
area does not change and fail.
P/δc = mP/δb
35

P
P Rock block Joint contact
d, δb
d, δc P/δb
block area A, initial
contact area nA,
modulus E
P/δc
δ
Assume block and contact At initial condition
have the same material, n is P/δc = nP/δb
between 0 and 1. Contact
area increases with contact At complete closure
closure, but does not fail. P/δc = P/δb
36
18
9/26/2013
Normal Stiffness and Displacement
A naturall jjoint
i always
l has
h openingi aperture off less
l
than 1 mm to a few mm. With increasing normal
stresses, the opening closes, and contact areas of
the joint surfaces increase. The normal stress –
normal displacement curve is non-linear. The
normal stiffness, slope of the curve, is therefore not
a constant
constant.
When the joint is completely closed, displacement is

then only by the deformation of the rock material.
37

Stress-deformation curve of a
elastic deformation natural joint in a granite,
of rock material showing non-linear
characteristics of joint
stiffness.
At high normal stress, joint is

closed, the normal stiffness
approaches that of rock
material. When the joint is
completely closed,
closed there is no
further closure of the joint, the
displacement is then only by
the elastic deformation of the
rock material.
38
19
9/26/2013
Normal Stiffness and Displacement Equations
H
Hyperbolic
b li Equation
E i (Goodman)
(G d )
t
σ n − σ ni ⎛ dn ⎞
= A ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
σ ni ⎝ d max − d n ⎠
σn = normal stress, dn = normal displacement,
closure σni = an initial
dmax = maximum possible closure,
seating pressure, A, t = experimentally determined
constants.
39
Hyperbolic
H b li Equation
E i for
f Matched
M h d Natural
N l Joints
J i
(Barton-Bandis)
kni d n σn
σn = or d n =
1 − (d n d max ) kni + (σ n d max )
σn = normal stress,
stress dn = normal displacement,
displacement
dmax = maximum possible closure, kni = normal
stiffness of the fracture at initial seat stress.
40
20
9/26/2013
Semi-Logarithmic
S i i h i Equation
E i for
f Mismatched
Mi h d Joints
J i
(Barton-Bandis)
log σn = p + q dn
σn = normal stress, dn = normal displacement,

p and q are material constants
constants.
Mismatched rock fractures exhibit much lower

normal stiffness than matched fractures.
41
Logarithmic
i h i Equation
E i for
f Natural
N l Joints
J i
(Zhao-Brown)
d max − d n ⎛σ ⎞
= 1 − A ln⎜⎜ n ⎟⎟
d max − d ni ⎝ σ ni ⎠
dni = displacement at a reference normal stress σni,
usually equal to the seating pressure, A = a constant
varying from 0.16 to 0.21.
42
21
9/26/2013
Deformability of Rock Discontinuities

The behaviour of jointed rock masses dominated by the
behaviour of discontinuities.
Deformation properties of Rock Discontinuity described by
Normal Stiffness kn: Rate of change of normal stress σn

with respect to normal displacement un.
Shear Stiffness, ks: Rate of change of shear stress τ with
respect to shear
h di displacement
l us.
Typical stress-relative displacement relationship: (a) σn

versus un; and (b) τ versus us
22
9/26/2013
Normal Stiffness
Compressive normal stress σn on rock discontinuity causes the
normal displacement un.
Or the discontinuity closes by an amount un.
Tangential Normal Stiffness: The slope of σn-un curve at any

stress level, defined as
Δσ n
kn =
Δun
where Δ denotes an increment.
Normal Stiffness
Normal stiffness increases rapidly as the discontinuity closes.
Limit of discontinuity closure: As σn →∞, the limit unc is
reached.
Goodman et al. (1968) and Bandis et al. (1983): Hyperbolic
Function
αu n
σn =
unc − un
where α is a constant.
Differentiating the above equation
dσ n αunc
kn = =
dun (u nc − un ) 2
23
9/26/2013
Normal Stiffness
Stress-deformation curve of a
elastic deformation natural joint in a granite,
of rock material showing non-linear
characteristics of joint
stiffness.
At high normal stress, joint is

closed, the normal stiffness
approaches that of rock
material. When the joint is
completely closed,
closed there is no
further closure of the joint, the
displacement is then only by
the elastic deformation of the
rock material.
47
Normal Stiffness
Initial Tangential Normal Stiffness kni = α/unc (for un=0)
2
unc2 ⎛ σ ⎞
k n = k ni = k ni ⎜⎜1 + n ⎟⎟
(u nc − un ) 2
⎝ k ni unc ⎠
The above equations are valid for compressive normal stress only.
If tensile normal stress, kn = 0 is assumed.
To determine normal stiffness, we need kni and unc.
24
9/26/2013
Bandis et al. (1983)

⎛ JCS ⎞
k ni ≈ −7.15 + 1.75 JRC + 0.02⎜ ⎟ MPa/mm
⎝ e ⎠
where JRC is the joint roughness coefficient;
JCS is the joint wall compressive strength in MPa; and
e is the aperture in mm at the beginning of loading.
Aperture e is given by
⎛ 0.04σ c ⎞
e ≈ JRC ⎜ − 0.02 ⎟ mm
⎝ JCS ⎠
or e ≈ eh JRC 2.5
where σc is the UCS of the rock material and eh is the hydraulic

aperture.

D
⎛ JCS ⎞
u nc ≈ A + B ( JRC ) + C ⎜ ⎟
⎝ e ⎠
S
⎛ JCS ⎞
or unc ≈ R⎜ ⎟
⎝ e ⎠
where A, B, C, D, R, and S are constants.
25
9/26/2013
Typical discontinuity roughness profiles and associated

JRC values (after Barton & Choubey, 1977).
Relationship between Jr in Q-system and JRC for 200

mm and 1 m samples (after Barton, 1987).
JRC number is
obtained by directly
comparing the actual
joint surface profile
with the typical
profile in the chart.
JRC20 is the profile

for 20 cm and JRC100
for 100 cm. The
value of JRC
decreases with
increasing size.
26
9/26/2013
Tilt test to measure the tilt angle α (after Barton &

Bandis, 1990)
Basic friction angles φb for different rocks (after Barton

& Choubey, 1977)
Rock φb dry (degrees) φb wet (degrees)
Sandstone 26 - 35 25 - 34
Siltstone 31 - 33 27 - 31
Limestone 31 - 37 27 - 35
Basalt 35 - 38 31 - 36
Fine-grained granite 31 - 35 29 - 31
Coarse-grained granite 31 - 35 31 - 33
Gneiss 26 - 29 23 - 26
Slate 25 - 30 21
Dolerite 36 32
Porphyry 31 31
Shale 27
Chalk 30
Amphibolite 32
27
9/26/2013
Shear Stiffness
Due to shear stress τ on the discontinuity, relative displacement of us.
Shear Stress-Displacement curves from Direct Shear Test
Shear stiffness ks defined in the same way as kn
Δτ
ks =
Δu s
Duncan & Chang (1970), Bandis et al. (1983), Priest (1993)
Hyperbolic relationship between −1
τ and us.
us ⎛ 1 Rf ⎞
τ= =⎜ + ⎟
a + bu s ⎜⎝ k si u s τ f ⎟⎠
where ksi (=1/a) is the initial tangent shear stiffness of discontinuity;
τf is the shear strength of discontinuity; and
Rf is the failure ratio given by τf/τult in which
τult (=1/b) is the ultimate shear stress at large shear displacement.
Shear Stiffness
Differentiating the above equation
−2
dτ ⎛ R f k si u s ⎞
ks = = k si ⎜1 + ⎟
du s ⎜ τ f ⎟⎠
⎝
2
⎛ Rfτ ⎞
or k s = k si ⎜1 − ⎟
⎜ τf ⎟
⎝ ⎠
To determine shear stiffness,, we need ksi, τf, and Rf.
28
9/26/2013

k si ≈ k j (σ n )
nj
kj ≈ -19.19 + 3.86 JRC (for JRC>4.5)
Range of nj = 0.615 to 1.118 MPa2/mm with average

value of 0.761.
⎡ ⎛ JCS ⎞ ⎤
τ f = σ n tan ⎢ JRC log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + φr ⎥
⎣ ⎝ σn ⎠ ⎦
Range of Rf = 0.652 to 0.887 with average value of 0.783.
Dilation of Discontinuities
Opening of Discontinuity or increase in Aperture due to
opening
It occurs in rough discontinuities.
The general constitutive relation including the dilation
behaviour can be expressed as
⎧u s ⎫ ⎡C ss C st C sn ⎤ ⎧τ s ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ u t ⎬ = ⎢ C ts C tt C tn ⎥⎥ ⎨ τ t ⎬
⎪u ⎪ ⎢C C nn ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩σ n ⎪⎭
⎩ n ⎭ ⎣ ns C nt
where [[Cij] is compliance
p matrix.
For simplicity we assume:
Css = Ctt, Cst = Cts, Csn = Cns, Cns = Csn and dilation (coupling)
effect is neglected, i.e., Cij = 0 for i ≠ j.
29
9/26/2013
A local coordinate system s, t, n
Dilation of Discontinuities
Then
⎡1 ⎤
⎢ 0 0⎥
⎧u s ⎫ ⎡C ss 0 0 ⎤ ⎧τ s ⎫ ⎢ k s ⎥ ⎧τ s ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ 1 ⎪ ⎪
⎨ut ⎬ = ⎢ 0 C ss 0 ⎥⎥ ⎨ τ t ⎬ = ⎢ 0 0 ⎥⎨τ t ⎬
⎢ ks ⎥
⎪u ⎪ ⎢ 0 C nn ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩σ n ⎪⎭ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ n⎭ ⎣ 0
⎢0 1 ⎥⎥ ⎩σ n ⎭
0
⎣⎢ k n ⎥⎦
DEFORMABILITY OF ROCK MASS

Deformation modulus of rock mass: Em
Deformation modulus of intact rock: Er
30
9/26/2013
Deformation Modulus: Empirical Correlations

1. Based on RQD
Gardner (1987), Coon & Merritt (1970)
Em = αE Er
αE = 0.0231 (RQD)
( ) - 1.32 ≥ 0.15
Limitations
The range of RQD < 60% is not covered.
For RQD = 100%, Em is assumed to be equal to Er, which is
unsafe in design practice because RQD = 100% does not
mean intact rock. There may be discontinuities in rock
masses with RQD = 100% resulting in Em < Er even when
RQD = 100%.
Variationof Em/Er with RQD (after Coon & Merritt, 1970).
31
9/26/2013

Zhang & Einstein (2004): Entire Range of RQD
Lower Bound: Em/Er = 0.2 x 100.0186 RQD - 1.91
Upper Bound: Em/Er = 1.8 x 100.0186 RQD - 1.91
Mean: / r = 1.0 x 100.0186
Em/E 0 0186 RQD - 1.91
1 91
RQD is a directionally dependent parameter.
Its value may change significantly, depending on the borehole

orientation.
Em/Er-RQD data and proposed Em/Er-RQD relations

(after Zhang & Einstein, 2004).
32
9/26/2013
Variation of Em/Er with average discontinuity spacing s for

different values of kr/Er using Kulhawy (1978) model
(after Zhang & Einstein, 2004).
RQD - discontinuity frequency relations for threshold values of 0.1

and 0.5 m (after Harrison, 1999 but with different threshold values)
33
9/26/2013

2. Based on RMR, GSI
Bieniawski (1978) : Em = 2 x RMR - 100 GPa
Serafim & Pereira (1983): Em = 10(RMR-10)/40 GPa
Works
k wellll for
f goodd quality
li rocks
k
Predicts Em values too high for poor quality rocks
Hoek & Brown (1997): For σc<100
σc
Em = 10(GSI −10 ) / 40 GPa
100
Correlation between defonnation modulus Em

and RMR or GSI.
34
9/26/2013

Hoek (2004): Em = 0.33 x e0.064 GSI GPa
Gokceoglu et al. (2003)
Em = 0.073 x e0.0755 RMR GPa
Em = 0.1451 x e0.0654
0 0654 GSI GPa
Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990):

Em/Er = 0.0028 RMR2 + 0.9 eRMR/22.82
Mitri et al. (1994):
Em 1 − cos(π × RMR / 100)
=
Er 2

3. Based on Q
Barton et al. (1980): Applicable for Q>1 & generally hard rocks
Lower Bound: Em = 10 log Q GPa
Upper Bound: d Em = 40 log
l Q GPa
Mean: Em = 25 log Q GPa
Barton (2002):
1/ 3
⎛ σ ⎞
Em = 10⎜ Q c ⎟ GPa
⎝ 100 ⎠
35
9/26/2013

4. Based on Seismic P-Wave Velocity
Barton (2002):
Em = 10 x 10(Vp-3.5)/3 GPa
where
h Vp isi the
h seismic
i i P-wave velocityl i off the
h rockk mass in
i km/s.
k /
5. Based on UCS
Rowe and Armitage (1984)
Em = 215 σ c MPa
where σc is the average UCS value.

6. Based on Joint Factor Jf
Ramamurthy (1993)
Em/Er = exp [-0.0115 Jf] based on UC Tests
Limitations
The anisotropy of the rock mass caused by discontinuities is
not considered.
Different empirical
p relations often give
g veryy different
deformation modulus values of rock masses at the same
site.
36
9/26/2013
Influence of Jf on Rock Modulus in Uniaxial Compression
26 September 2013
Axial Strain at Failure vs. Modulus Ratio
Uniaxial Compression
26 September 2013
37
9/26/2013
SCALE EFFECT ON ROCK DEFORMABILITY

Rock Masses show Strong Scale Dependent Mechanical
Properties
Difference off R
Diff Rock
kMMass D
Deformation
f i M Modulus
d l measuredd iin
Field & Intact Rock Modulus measured in Laboratory.
Heuze (1980): Em (field) = (20-60)% of Intact Rock Modulus in

Lab.
Significant Effect of Test Volume on Rock Mass Modulus
This is due to the Effect of Discontinuities included in the Rock

Mass.
Effect of test volume on the elastic modulus of rock

(after La et aI., 1987).
38
9/26/2013
EFFECT OF CONFINING STRESS ON

ROCK DEFORMABILITY
Rock deformation modulus increases significantly with the
confining stress.
Arora (1987), Ramamurthy (1993):

Triaxial Tests on
Plaster of Paris (σc=11.3 MPa)
Jamrani Sandstone (σc=55 MPa)
Agra
g Sandstone ((σc=110 MPa))
Arora (1987), Ramamurthy (1993)

Clean and Rough-broken Discontinuities at various inclinations
ranging from 0 to 90°
E m (σ 3 = 0 ) ⎛ σ ⎞
= 1 − exp⎜⎜ − 0.1 cm ⎟⎟
E m (σ 3 ) ⎝ σ3 ⎠
where Em(σ3 = 0) is the rock mass deformation modulus at

unconfined stress state;
Em(σ3) is the rock mass deformation modulus at triaxial stress
state with σ2=σ3; and
σcm is the UCS of the rock mass.
The equation can be used for Intact Rocks with σcm substituted
by σc.
39
9/26/2013
Variation of Em(σ3=0)/Em(σ3) with σcm /σ3

(after Arora, 1987).
Influence of Confining Pressure on Jointed Rock Modulus
26 September 2013
40
9/26/2013
Verman et al. (1997)

Variation of the deformation modulus of rock masses with
depth
0 4 Hα 10(RMR-10)/38
Em = 0.4
where α is a variable depending on RMR (α = 0.3 and 0.16

respectively at RMR = 68 and
31); and H is the depth in meters.
Asef and Reddish (2002)

Showed that equation by Ramamurthy significantly
overestimates the deformation modulus at a given confining
stress when compared with equation by Verman et al.
Theyy derived the followingg empirical
p equation:
q
σ3
200 +b
Em (σ 3 ) σ cm
=
Em (σ 3 =0 ) σ3
+b
σ cm
where b = 15 + exp(-0.18σc).
The equation can be used for Intact Rocks with σcm substituted
by σc.
41
9/26/2013
Variation of Er(σ3) /Er(σ3=0) or Em(σ3) /Em(σ3=0) with σ3/ σc or

σ3/ σcm (after Asef & Reddish, 2002)
42

L11 - Deformability - Rock (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L11 - Deformability - Rock (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

L11 - Deformability - Rock (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/26/2013

Deformation Modulus of Rock Mass: Design

Computerized Compression Frame Rock Triaxial Cell

Determination of Elastic Constants

… setup for a uniaxial

Determination of Elastic Constants

electric resistance strain gauges and

… foil strain gauge

Stress-strain curve typical of in-situ rock mass with

Elastic Modulus from Uniaxial / Triaxial Compression

Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

Secant Young’s modulus, ES -

Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

Tangent Young’s modulus, ET -

Average Young’s modulus, Eavg -

Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

Corresponding to the Young’s

 The most common physical attributes of laboratory

Initial Tangent Modulus

Recovery (Unloading) Modulus

Modulus of Permanent Deformation

 Jointed Rock Mass does not behave Elastically.

 Goodman’s concept of Modulus of Permanent Deformation, M, was

Shear Stress developed in Concrete Dam due to

26 September 2013 17/186

DEFORMABILITY OF INTACT ROCK

Typical values of elastic modulus of intact rocks

Typical values of Poisson's ratio of intact rocks

No. of No. of Poisson's Ratio Standard

Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number

Important to specify Hammer Type (L or N)

Correlations between elastic modulus E and Schmidt

Correlation r2 Rock Type Reference

Seismic Wave Velocity

ρV p2 (1 − 2ν dyn )(1 + ν dyn )

where Vp=P-wave velocity, Vs=S-wave velocity, Edyn is the

Comparison of static and dynamic elastic modulus

Correlations between static modulus E and dynamic

Correlation Rock Type Reference

E = 1.137Edyn - 9.685 Granite Belikov et al. ((1970))

E = 1.263Edyn - 29.5 Igneous & metamorphic King (1983)

E = 0.64Edyn - 0.32 Different rocks Eissa & Kazi (1988)

E = 0.69Edyn + 6.40 Granite McCann & Entwisle (1992)

E = 0.48E 3 26 ((r2 =0.82)

Seismic Wave Velocity

The ratio of dynamic to static elastic modulus varies between

Yasar and Erdogan (2004): Dolomite, Marble & Limestone

Leite and Ferland (2001): Artificial Porous Rock

E = 10.10 - 0.109 n GPa (r2 = 0.74)

Lashkaripour (2002): Claystone, Clay shale, Mudstone, Mud

E = 37.9 e-0.863n GPa (r2 = 0.68)

Variation of elastic modulus E with porosity n for

Effect of Water Content

The elastic modulus decreases as the water content increases.

Vasarhelyi (2003, 2005):

Esat/Edry = 0.761 British Sandstones

Esat/Edry = 0.657 Miocene Limestones

Influence of water content w on elastic modulus E at 50% ultimate

Mechanical and Hydraulic Properties

The most common physical attributes of laboratory

Jointed Rock Mass does not behave Elastically.

Goodman’s concept of Modulus of Permanent Deformation, M, was

Normal Stiffness kn: Rate of change of normal stress σn