Rock Mech Rock Eng

DOI 10.1007/s00603-009-0065-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

Lianyang Zhang

Received: 19 January 2009 / Accepted: 14 July 2009

Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract Determination of the strength of jointed rock

masses is an important and challenging task in rock
mechanics and rock engineering. In this article, the existing
empirical methods for estimating the unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock masses are reviewed and
evaluated, including the jointing index methods, the joint
factor methods, and the methods based on rock mass
classification. The review shows that different empirical
methods may produce very different estimates. Since in
many cases, rock quality designation (RQD) is the only
information available for describing rock discontinuities, a
new empirical relation is developed for estimating rock
mass strength based on RQD. The newly developed
empirical relation is applied to estimate the unconfined
compressive strength of rock masses at six sites and the
results are compared with those from the empirical methods based on rock mass classification. The estimated
unconfined compressive strength values from the new
empirical relation are essentially in the middle of the
estimated values from the different empirical methods
based on rock mass classification. Similar to the existing
empirical methods, the newly developed relation is only
approximate and should be used, with care, only for a first
estimate of the unconfined compressive strength of rock
masses. Recommendations are provided on how to apply
the newly developed relation in combination with the
existing empirical methods for estimating rock mass
strength in practice.

L. Zhang (&)
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
e-mail: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu

Keywords Rock mass strength

Rock mass classification
RQD
Empirical methods

1 Introduction
Reliable estimation of the strength and deformation properties of jointed rock masses is very important for safe and
economical design of civil structures such as houses, dams,
bridges, and tunnels founded on or in rock. As it is well
known, natural rock masses consist of intact rock blocks
separated by discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes,
folds, sheared zones, and faults. Because of the discontinuous nature of rock masses, it is important to choose the
right domain that is representative of the rock mass affected
by the structure analyzed (see Fig. 1). The behavior of the
rock mass is dependent on the relative scale between
the problem domain and the rock blocks formed by the
discontinuities. For example, when the structure being
analyzed is much larger than the rock blocks formed by the
discontinuities, the rock mass may be simply treated as an
equivalent continuum for the analysis (Brady and Brown
1985; Brown 1993; Hoek et al. 1995; Zhang 2005).
Treating the jointed rock mass as an equivalent continuum
(i.e., the equivalent continuum approach) has been widely
used in rock engineering. To apply the equivalent continuum approach in analysis and design, the equivalent
strength and deformation properties need be determined.
Although the properties of the intact rock between the
discontinuities and the properties of the discontinuities
themselves can be determined in the laboratory, the direct
physical measurements of the properties of the jointed rock
mass are very expensive and time consuming, if not
impossible (Zhang and Einstein 2004; Zhang 2005; Edelbro
et al. 2006). Moreover, the interaction between the intact

123

L. Zhang

Intact rock

One discontinuit set

Two discontinuity sets

Many discontinuities

Heavily jointed rock mass

Fig. 1 Simplified representation of the influence of scale on the type

of rock mass behavior (after Hoek et al. 1995)

rocks and the discontinuities is often complex and less well

understood than the behavior of the individual units,
making it difficult to predict the properties of the jointed
rock mass solely from the data on the intact rock and the
discontinuities. Researchers have extensively studied the
deformability of jointed rock masses and different empirical methods have been proposed for estimating the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses, including Deere
et al. (1967), Coon and Merritt (1970), Bieniawski (1978),
Barton et al. (1980), Barton (1983), Serafim and Pereira
(1983), Hoek and Brown (1997), Zhang and Einstein
(2004), and Hoek and Diederichs (2006). For the strength
of jointed rock masses, however, further work is required
to develop more precise, practical, and easy-to-use methods
for determining the rock mass strength (Edelbro et al.
2006).
In this article, the existing empirical methods for estimating the unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock
masses are first reviewed and evaluated in Sect. 2. The
review shows that different empirical methods may provide
very different estimates. Since in many cases, rock quality
designation (RQD) is the only information available for
describing rock discontinuities, a new empirical relation is
developed for estimating rock mass strength based on RQD
in Sect. 3. Then in Sect. 4, the newly developed empirical
relation is applied to estimate the unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses at six sites and the results are
compared with those from the existing empirical methods.
A discussion and recommendations about applying the
newly developed relation in combination with existing
empirical methods in practice are provided in Sect. 5.
Finally, the conclusions are presented in Sect. 6.

123

2 Existing Empirical Methods for Estimating

the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses
There are at present several types of empirical methods for
estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. The following provides a brief review and evaluation of some of
these methods.
2.1 Jointing Index Methods
Jointing index methods are based on an index defined as
the ratio of sample length to discontinuity spacing or
number of blocks contained in the sample. Several
researchers, including Protodyakonov and Koifman (1964),
Goldstein et al. (1966), Vardar (1977), and Aydan et al.
(1997), have proposed empirical relations between the
strength ratio (rcm/rc) and the jointing index (L/l) based on
experimental studies on jointed rock samples, where rcm
and rc are the unconfined compressive strength, respectively, of the rock mass and the intact rock, L is the sample
length, and l is the discontinuity spacing. Since these
empirical relations are in similar format, the following only
describes the empirical relationship of Goldstein et al.
(1966).
Goldstein et al. (1966) conducted uniaxial compression
tests on composite specimens made from cubes of plaster
of Paris and suggested the following relationship based on
the test results:
 e
rcm
L
a 1  a
1
l
rc
where rcm, rc, L, and l are as defined earlier; and a and e
are constants with e \ 1. Figure 2 shows the variation of
rcm/rc with L/l based on Eq. 1 for different values of a and
e. As L/l increases (i.e., more discontinuities are included
in a rock mass sample of length L), the unconfined compressive strength of the rock mass decreases. How fast
rcm/rc decreases with L/l depends on the magnitude of
constants a and e. The decrease of rcm/rc with L/l will be
faster for smaller a or larger e. The values of a and e
depend on the strength and orientation of the discontinuities (Aydan et al. 1997; Jade and Sitharam 2003). Specific
studies should be conducted to determine the values of a
and e before applying the relation 1 to estimate the strength
of a specific jointed rock mass.
2.2 Joint Factor Methods
The joint factor methods relate the strength ratio rcm/rc to a
joint factor that is related to joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint strength (Arora 1987; Ramamurthy 1993;
Jade and Sitharam 2003). Arora (1987) conducted tests on
intact and jointed specimens of plaster of Paris, sandstones,

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

Table 1 Variation of inclination parameter n with joint
orientation b (after Ramamurthy
1993)

1.2

a = 0.75

1.0

e = 0.3
0.5
0.7

cm/c

0.8

e = 0.3

0.6

0.5
0.7

0.4

a = 0.25
0.2

0.0
1

Joint
orientation b
()

Inclination
parameter n

0.82

10

0.46

20

0.11

30

0.05

40

0.09

50

0.30

60
70

0.46
0.64

80

0.82

90

0.95

11

L/l

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

values of a and e

and granite in uniaxial and triaxial compression. The results

indicate that the important factors that influence the strength
and deformation modulus values of jointed rock masses are
joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint strength. Based
on the results, he defined a joint factor Jf to consider the
combined effect of these three factors as
Jn
Jf
nr

where Jn is the joint frequency (number of joints per

meter), which is simply obtained by dividing the number of
joints by the specimen length in meters; n is an inclination
parameter depending on the orientation of the joint, b (the
angle between the loading direction and the joint plane);
and r is the joint strength parameter depending on the
joint condition. The value of n is obtained by taking the
ratio of log(strength reduction) at b = 90 to log(strength
reduction) at the desired value of b. The parameter n is
found to be essentially independent of joint frequency Jn.
The joint strength parameter r is obtained from a shear test
along the joint and is given by
r

sj
rnj

Table 2 Suggested values of joint strength parameter r for different

values of rc (after Ramamurthy 1993)
Unconfined compressive
strength of intact
rock rc (MPa)

Joint strength
parameter r

Remarks

2.5

0.30

5.0

0.45

15.0

0.60

Fine grained
micaceous to
coarse grained

25.0

0.70

45.0

0.80

65.0

0.90

100.0

1.00

Table 3 Suggested values of joint strength parameter r for filled

joints (after Ramamurthy 1993)
Gouge material

Friction angle /j ()

Joint strength parameter r

Gravelly sand

45

1.00

Coarse sand

40

0.84

Fine sand

35

0.70

Silty sand

32

0.62

Clayey sand

30

0.58

Clay25%

25

0.47

Clay50%

15

0.27

Clay75%

10

0.18

Clayey silt

where sj is the shear strength along the joint; and rnj the
normal stress on the joint. The variation of n with b and the
values of r for both intact (unfilled, fresh, and not weathered)
and gouge filled joints are provided by Ramamurthy (1993)
and Ramamurthy and Arora (1994) (see Tables 1, 2, 3).
Based on the results of uniaxial and triaxial tests of
intact and jointed specimens, Arora (1987) and Ramamurthy (1993) proposed the following empirical relation
between unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc and
joint factor Jf:

rcm
exp0:008Jf
rc

Jade and Sitharam (2003) expanded the database used

by Arora (1987) and Ramamurthy (1993) and conducted
detailed statistical analyses of all the data. Based on the
statistical analysis, the best empirical relationship between
rcm/rc and Jf was found as follows:

123

123

UCS unconfined compressive strength of intact rock materia, RQD rock quality designation

Adjustment
parameters

Joint orientation

Joint orientation,
Joint sets
blasting and weathering

Stress reduction
factor SRF

Joint alternation jA

Ground water condition Joint water reduction Joint water reduction Joint size and
factor Jw
factor Jw
termination jL

Joint alternation Ja
Joint condition
Joint condition

Joint alternation Ja

Joint spacing
Joint spacing

Joint condition

RQD

Methods based on rock mass classification are the most

widely used empirical methods for estimating rock mass
strength. Over the years, many rock mass classification
systems have been proposed and used in engineering
practice, including the RQD (Deere 1967), the rock mass
rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1976, 1989), tunneling quality
index (Q) (Barton et al. 1974; Barton 2002), geological
strength index (GSI) (Hoek et al. 1995, 1998), and rock
mass index (RMi) (Palmstrom 1996a, b). Some systems are
developed by modification of existing ones to suit specific
applications. For example, the mining rock mass rating
(MRMR) system was developed by modifying the RMR
system for mining applications (Laubscher 1990) and the
rock mass number (N) system is a modified Q-system (Goel
et al. 1995). A review of the different rock mass classification systems can be found in Edelbro (2003). Table 4
lists the parameters considered in different classification
systems.
Rock mass classification systems have been used to
estimate the strength of jointed rock masses by different

UCS

2.3 Methods Based on Rock Mass Classification

RQD

where a, b, and c are constants equal to 0.039, 0.893, and

160.99, respectively, for the database analyzed (see Fig. 3).
It can be seen that Eq. 4 is a special form of Eq. 5 with
a = 0, b = 1, and c = 125. It is worth noting that there is a
large scatter for the test data and it is very possible that an
estimation value from Eq. 5 is more than two times or less
than half of the measured value of rcm.

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



rcm
Jf
a b exp
rc
c

Ground water condition Ground water condition

Fig. 3 Unconfined compressive test data and fitted relation between

rcm/rc and Jf (from Jade and Sitharam 2003)

Joint roughness jR

UCS
Joint set number Jn

800

UCS

600

Parameters

400
Joint factor Jf

RMS

200

MRMR

Classification system RMR

UCS

0.1

Joint set number Jn

RMi

0.2

0.3

Joint roughness Jr

0.4

Joint roughness Jr

cm
Jf
= 0.039 + 0.893 exp
160.99
c

Joint spacing

0.5

Surface condition

Best fitting curve:

Block volume Vb

0.6

RQD

GSI

0.7

RQD

0.8

RQD

0.9

Unconfined compressive strength ratio cm/c

1.0

Structure/ interlocking
of rock blocks

L. Zhang

1
Dworshak Dam, Granite Gneiss, Surface Gages
Dworshak Dam, Granite Gneiss, Buried Gages
Two Forks Dam, Gneiss
Yellowtail Dam, Limestone
Glen Canyon Dam, Sandstone

0.8

0.6

Em /Er

Unconfined compressive strength ratio cm/c

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)

Em/Er = 0.0231RQD-1.32

0.4

AASHTO (1996)
0.2

RQD (%)

Em/Er = 0.15

Fig. 4 Variation of unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc

with RQD suggested respectively by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)
and AASHTO (1996)

researchers (e.g., Yudhbir and Prinzl 1983; Laubscher

1984; Ramamurthy et al. 1985; Ramamurthy 1996; Kulhawy
and Goodman 1987; Trueman 1988; Kalamaras and
Bieniawski 1993; AASHTO 1996; Bhasin and Grimstad
1996; Sheorey 1997; Singh et al. 1997; Aydan and Dalgic
1998; Singh and Goel 1999; Asef et al. 2000; Hoek 2004,
personal communication; Edelbro et al. 2006). Kulhawy
and Goodman (1987) suggested that, as a first approximation, the unconfined compressive strength rcm of rock
masses be taken as 0.33rc when RQD is less than about
70% and then linearly increasing to 0.8rc when RQD
increases from 70 to 100% (see Fig. 4), where rc is the
unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock. The
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges adopted by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 1996) suggest that rcm be
estimated using the following expression
rcm aE rc

6a

aE 0:0231RQD  1:32  0:15

6b

in which RQD is expressed as a percent. The variation of

the unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc with
RQD based on Eq. 6a, 6b is also shown in Fig. 4. It can be
seen that the general trend of these two relations between
rcm/rc and RQD is about the same: rcm/rc is constant when
RQD is smaller than a certain value and then linearly
increases when RQD increases. Obviously, it is inappropriate to assume that rcm/rc is constant when RQD varies
from 0 to a certain value (70% for the relation of Kulhawy
and Goodman and 64% for the relation of AASHTO). For
example, for a very poor quality rock mass (RQD \ 25%)

20

40

60

80

100

RQD (%)

Fig. 5 Data of deformation modulus ratio Em/Er versus RQD (after

Coon and Merritt 1970)

and a fair quality rock mass (RQD = 5075%), different

rcm/rc values should be expected.
While the basis for the suggestion by Kulhawy and
Goodman (1987) is not clear, the reduction factor aE (note
the subscript E) in Eq. 6a, 6b is the reduction factor
originally proposed by Gardner (1987) for estimating the
rock mass deformation modulus Em from the intact rock
deformation modulus Er:
Em a E Er :

Gardner (1987) derived the reduction factor aE based on

the Em/Er versus RQD data of Coon and Merritt (1970),
which are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the data for
RQD \ 64% is very limited, which is probably the reason
why aE was assumed to be constant for RQD \ 64%.
Table 5 lists the empirical relations based on the three
widely used rock mass classification systems, RMR, Q, and
GSI, for estimating the unconfined compressive strength
rcm of jointed rock masses. It should be noted that when a
rock mass classification system is used for estimating rock
mass strength (and deformation properties), only the
inherent parameters of intact rock and discontinuities need
be considered for evaluation of the classification index.
Other parameters such as groundwater and in situ stress
should not be considered to modify the classification index
because they are considered in the analysis of rock structures. For example, when RMR is used for rock mass
strength estimation, the rock mass should be assumed
completely dry and a very favorable discontinuity orientation should be assumed (Hoek et al. 1995, 2002).
Depending on the engineering problem analyzed, pore

123

L. Zhang
Table 5 Empirical relations based on rock mass classification for estimating unconfined compressive strength rcm of rock masses (modified
from Zhang 2005)
Authors

Relation

Equation #

7:65RMR100
100

Ramamurthy et al. (1985) and Ramamurthy (1996)

rcm
rc
rcm
rc
rcm
rc

Trueman (1988) and Asef et al. (2000)

rcm 0:5e0:06RMR (MPa)

Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993)

rcm
rc
rcm
rc

Yudhbir and Prinzl (1983)

Laubscher (1984) and Singh and Goel (1999)

Hoek et al. (2002)

(8)

RMRRating for rc
106

e
e
e

(9)

RMR100
18:75

(10)

RMR100
24

GSI100 1 1
93D
26

GSI
20
15 e 3



Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) and Singh and Goel (1999) rcm 7c fc Q1=3 (MPa) where fc = rc/100 for Q [ 10
and rc [ 100 MPa, otherwise fc = 1; and c is the unit
weight of the rock mass in g/cm3.
rcm
rc
rcm
rc

Sheorey (1997)
Aydan and Dalgic (1998)

RMR100
20

(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)

(15)

RMR
RMR6100
RMR

(16)

Hoek (2004, personal communication)

rcm 5cQrc =1001=3 (MPa) where c is the unit weight

of the rock mass in g/cm3.
GSI
rcm
30
rc 0:036e

Singh et al. (1997)

rcm 7cQ1=3 (MPa) where c is the unit weight of the rock mass in g/cm3. (19)

Barton (2002)

(17)
(18)

rc unconfined compressive strength of intact rock materia, RMR rock mass rating, GSI geological strength index, Q tunneling quality index, and
D factor indicating the degree of disturbance due to blast damage and stress relaxation

reflecting the difficulty to conduct accurate measurements

of in situ rock mass strength; (2) different empirical relations may provide very different estimation values; and (3)
the average trend of the different empirical relations are in
good agreement with the measured rcm.

1.0
In situ test data (Aydan & Dalgic, 1998)

Unconfined compressive strength ratio cm/c

0.9

In situ test data (Palmstrom, 1995)

0.8

In situ test data (Cai et al., 2004)

0.7

1
2

0.6

0.5
4

0.4

0.3

cm/c = exp(7.65((RMR-100)/100))
(Yudhbir & Prinzl, 1983)
cm/c = exp((RMR-100)/24)
(Kalamaras & Bieniawski, 1993)
cm/c = exp((RMR-100)/18)
(Hoek et al., 2004)
cm/c = exp((RMR-100)/20)
(Sheorey, 1997)
cm/c = RMR/(RMR+6(100-RMR))
(Aydan & Dalgic, 1998)
cm/c = 0.036exp(GSI/30)
(Hoek, 2004

2.4 Discussion

0.2
0.1
0.0

5 2

20

40

4 3

60

80

100

RMR or GSI

Fig. 6 Variation of unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm /rc

with RMR or GSI

pressures and discontinuity orientation can be considered

together with strength as input parameters of the analysis.
Excluding these parameters from classification index
evaluation will ensure no double accounting for a
parameter.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of some of the empirical
relations with the in situ test data from Aydan and Dalgic
(1998), Palmstrom (1995) and Cai et al. (2004). It can be
seen that (1) there is a large scatter for the in situ test data,

123

Both the jointing index methods and the joint factor

methods are developed based on laboratory test data of
intact and jointed specimens. These methods consider the
effect of joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint
strength on the strength of jointed rock masses: The
jointing index methods use L/l for joint frequency and
factors a and e reflect the effect of joint orientation and
strength; while the joint factor methods combine the effect
of joint frequency, orientation, and strength in a single
factor Jf. Application of the jointing index methods and
the joint factor methods to estimate the strength of field
jointed rock masses require extensive work to obtain the
information on joint frequency, joint orientation, and joint
strength.
The empirical methods based on rock mass classification
treat the rock mass as an equivalent continuum and may or
may not consider the effect of joint orientations. It need be
noted that some of the empirical relations based on rock
mass classification are simply derived from their corresponding strength criteria. For example, the empirical
relation of Hoek et al. (2002) (Eq. 13 in Table 5) can be
derived from the empirical HoekBrown strength criterion:

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

0.9

where rc is the unconfined compressive strength of the

intact rock; r0 1 and r0 3, respectively, the major and minor
effective principal stresses; and mb, and s and a the
constants that depend on the characteristics of the rock
mass and can be estimated from GSI as follows (Hoek et al.
2002):


GSI  100
mb exp
21
mi
28  14D


GSI  100
s exp
22
9  3D
1 1
a expGSI=15  exp20=3
2 6

23

Coon and Merritt (1970)

Bieniawski (1978)

0.8

Ebisu et al. (1992)

0.7
0.6
0.5
Em/Er = 100.0186RQD-1.91
r2 = 0.76

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

where mi is a material constant for the intact rock and

depends on the rock type (texture and mineralogy); and D a
factor that depends on the degree of disturbance due to
blast damage and stress relaxation. Values of D range from
0 for undisturbed in situ rock masses to 1 for very disturbed
rock masses.
From Eq. 20, the unconfined compressive strength of
the rock mass can be derived as
rcm sa rc :

20

Em/Er


a
r0
r01 r03 rc mb 3 s
rc

24

Substitution of s and a in Eq. 24, respectively, with

Eqs. 22 and 23 will result in Eq. 13 in Table 5.
As shown in Table 4, many factors need be considered
for evaluating the classification indices. In many cases,
however, the available information may not be sufficient
for evaluating the classification index. For example, in
routine subsurface investigations, it is often that the only
information available about discontinuities is RQD.
Therefore, it is practically important to develop an empirical method based on RQD for estimating the strength of
rock masses.

3 New Relation Between Unconfined Compressive

Strength and RQD
As seen in Sect. 2, different empirical relations may provide very different estimation values of the unconfined
compressive strength of jointed rock masses. It is also
known that, in many cases, RQD may be the only information available about discontinuities. So, a new empirical
relation between the unconfined compressive strength and
RQD will be derived here.
Zhang and Einstein (2004) expanded the database
shown in Fig. 5 by collecting the data from the published
literature (see Fig. 7). The expanded database covers the

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RQD (%)
Fig. 7 Expanded data and derived new relation between deformation
modulus ratio Em/Er and RQD (after Zhang and Einstein 2004)

entire range 0 B RQD B 100% and shows a nonlinear

variation of Em/Er with RQD. The rocks for the expanded
database include mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, shale,
dolerite, granite, limestone, greywacke, gneiss, and granite
gneiss. Again, one can see the large scatter of the data,
especially when RQD [ 65%. Zhang and Einstein (2004)
discussed the possible causes for the large scatter, including test methods, directional effect, discontinuity conditions, and insensitivity of RQD to discontinuity frequency
(or spacing). Using the expanded database, Zhang and
Einstein (2004) derived the following RQD - Em/Er relation for the average trend (RQD in %):
aE Em =Er 100:0186RQD1:91 :
25
The average RQD - Em/Er relation (Eq. 25) gives
aE = 0.95 at RQD = 100%, which makes sense because
there may be discontinuities in rock masses at RQD =
100% and thus Em may be smaller than Er even when
RQD = 100%.
Researchers in rock mechanics and rock engineering
have studied the relation between the unconfined compressive strength ratio rcm/rc and the deformation modulus
ratio Em/Er and found that they can be related approximately by the following equation (Ramamurthy 1993;
Singh et al. 1998; Singh and Rao 2005):
 q
rcm
Em

aE q
26
rc
Er
in which the power q varies from 0.5 to 1.0 and is most
likely in the range of 0.61 to 0.74 with an average of 0.7. It
can be seen that the AASHTO method (Eq. 6a, 6b) uses the
upper bound value of q = 1.0.

123

L. Zhang

It needs to be noted that the relation between rcm/rc and

Em/Er (Eq. 26) was derived based only on triaxial test data
on jointed rock mass specimens with different joint frequencies, orientations, and conditions (Ramamurthy 1993;
Singh et al. 1998; Singh and Rao 2005) and has not been
tested against field cases. The power q in Eq. 26 may vary
significantly for different rock types and discontinuity
conditions. Nevertheless, using the average value of
q = 0.7, the unconfined compressive strength of rock mass
can be related to the unconfined compressive strength of
intact rock approximately by
rcm
aE 0:7 :
27
rc
Combining Eqs. 25 and 27, the following empirical
relation can be derived for estimating the unconfined
compressive strength of rock masses from RQD:
rcm =rc 100:013RQD1:34 :

28

Unconfined compressive strength ratio cm/c

Due to the reasons stated above, using the rcm/rc versus

Em/Er relationship of Eq. 26 may or may not be appropriate
for deriving the rcm/rc versus RQD relation. It is taken as a
first step and applying the derived rcm/rc versus RQD
relation to 15 cases in Sect. 4 will indicate to what extent it
can be practically used.
Figure 8 shows the comparison of the newly developed
empirical relation 28 with the suggestions respectively by
Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and AASHTO (1996). The
newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation covers
the entire range 0 B RQD B 100% continuously. For
RQD [ 70%, the new rcm/rc versus RQD relation is in
good agreement with the suggestions of Kulhawy and

Developed:
cm / c = 100.013RQD 1.34

Kulhawy and Goodman (1987)

AASHTO (1996)

RQD (%)
Fig. 8 Comparison of the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation
with suggestions respectively by Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and
AASHTO (1996)

123

Goodman (1987) and AASHTO (1996). For RQD \ 70%,

however, the new rcm/rc versus RQD relation is different
from the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) and
AASHTO (1996), with the new rcm/rc versus RQD relation considering the continuous variation of rcm/rc with
RQD while the suggestions of Kulhawy and Goodman
(1987) and AASHTO (1996) assume constant rcm/rc
values.

4 Applications
In this section, the newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD
relation is used to estimate the unconfined compressive
strength of rock masses at six sites with detailed geotechnical information available: the Sulakyurt dam site in
central Turkey (Ozsan et al. 2007), the Tannur Dam site in
south Jordan (El-Naqa and Kuisi 2002), the Urus Dam site
also in central Turkey (Ozsan and Akin 2002), a high tower
site at Tenerife Island (Justo et al. 2006), an open pit mine
site in the vicinity of Berlin, Germany (Alber and Heiland
2001), and a site with jointed basaltic rocks on the
Columbia Plateau in Washington State (Schultz 1996). The
results are compared with those from the empirical methods based on rock mass classification to indirectly check
the accuracy of the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation.
In other words, the rcm is first obtained with the RQD
based relation and then compared to the rcm obtained with
the related rock mass classifications. Table 6 lists the
properties of rocks at the six sites. As can be seen in
Table 6, the cases cover a reasonable but clearly limited
range of rock types.
According to Ozsan et al. (2007), the site consists of
moderately to highly weathered granite and diorite of
Paleocene age. Detailed site investigation was carried out,
including field observations, discontinuity surveying, core
drilling, laboratory tests, and rock mass classification. The
unconfined compressive strength and the RQD, RMR, Q,
and GSI values for both granite and diorite were obtained
as shown in Table 6. Using the developed relation
between rcm/rc and RQD (Eq. 28), the unconfined compressive strength of the granite and diorite are estimated
respectively as 4.36 and 2.87 MPa as shown in Table 7.
Using the empirical methods based on rock mass classification listed in Table 5, the unconfined compressive
strength of the granite and diorite can also be estimated as
shown in Table 7. The estimated rock mass strength
values from the different empirical methods based on rock
mass classification cover a large range: from 0.22 to
8.14 MPa for granite and from 0.14 to 6.91 MPa for
diorite, respectively. For the other five sites, the rock
mass unconfined compressive strength can also be estimated using the rcm/rc versus RQD relation (Eq. 28) and

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

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

RQD (%)

RMR

GSI

References

74.0

017 (8.5)

2128 (24)

0.040.13 (0.08)

1624 (19)

Ozsan et al. (2007)

Diorite

60.0

12 (1.5)

1723 (21)

0.0250.1 (0.05)

1218 (16)

Limestone (L1)

31.0

54

57

4.23

52

Limestone (L2)

13.0

50

59

5.29

54

Limestone (R1)

37.0

48

59

5.29

54

Limestone (R2)

27.0

45

54

3.04

59

7
8

Marly Limestone
Andesite

28.0
93.0

44
41

55
34

3.39
0.56

50
41

Basalt

142.0

15

38

0.63

42.5

10

Tuff

24.0

10

21

0.11

31

11

Basalt (d1)

69.0

77

59

6.6

52

12

Basalt (d2)

15.0

42.5

38

3.4

39

13

Basalt (d3)

13.0

25

28

14

Limestone

40.0

50

58

53

Alber and Heiland (2001)

15

Basalt

66.0

60

76

71

Schultz (1996)

Rock

Granite

2
3

El-Naqa and Kuisi (2002)

Ozsan and Akin (2002)

Justo et al. (2006)

Values in the parentheses are the average

Table 7 Estimated rock mass strength (rcm) values for the rocks listed in Table 6 using the developed empirical relation (Eq. 28) and the
empirical methods based rock mass classification (Eqs. 819)
Eq. #

rcm (MPa)
1a

2a

3a

4a

5a

6a

7a

8a

9a

10a

11a

12a

13a

14a

15a

(28)

4.36

2.87

7.13

2.65

7.12

4.75

4.78

14.5

10.2

1.48

31.6

2.45

0.59

8.17

18.2

(8)b

0.22

0.14

1.16

0.56

1.61

0.80

0.90

0.60

1.24

0.06

3.00

0.13

0.04

1.61

10.5

(10)b
(11)b

1.28
2.11

0.89
1.76

3.13
15.3

1.46
17.2

4.15
17.2

2.32
12.8

2.54
13.6

2.75
3.85

5.20
4.89

0.36
1.76

7.75
17.2

0.55
4.89

0.24
2.24

4.26
16.2

18.4
47.8

(12)b

3.12

223

5.17

2.36

6.70

3.97

4.29

5.95

10.7

0.89

12.5

1.13

0.57

6.95

24.3

(13)b

0.54

0.33

2.10

0.99

2.81

1.53

1.68

3.27

5.47

0.44

4.66

0.47

0.19

2.86

13.2

(14)b

6.03

4.15

8.42

3.81

10.8

6.57

7.07

13.0

20.9

1.63

25.3

3.67

(15)b

1.66

1.16

3.61

1.67

4.76

2.71

2.95

3.43

6.40

0.46

8.88

0.68

0.31

4.90

19.9

(16)b

3.70

2.55

5.61

2.51

7.16

4.42

4.74

7.35

13.2

1.02

13.4

1.39

0.68

7.48

22.8

5.26

4.16

13.1

10.6

15.0

11.2

11.8

9.72

11.8

3.02

23.2

9.28

(18)b

5.05

3.68

6.32

2.83

8.06

4.98

5.34

13.1

21.1

2.43

14.1

1.98

1.19

8.43

25.3

(19)b

8.14

6.91

27.2

29.3

29.3

24.3

25.2

13.9

14.7

6.80

36.7

24.5

0.14
6.91

1.16
27.2

0.56
29.3

1.61
29.3

0.80
24.3

0.90
25.2

0.60
13.9

1.24
21.1

0.06
6.80

3.00
36.7

0.13
24.5

0.04
2.24

1.61
16.2

10.5
47.8

(17)

Rangec 0.22
8.14
a

The numbers refer to the case numbers shown in Table 6

See Table 5 for the specific equations

The range are for the empirical methods based rock mass classification (Eqs. 819)

some of the empirical methods based on rock mass

classification listed in Table 5. These results are also
presented in Table 7. The estimated values from the
developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation are within the
range of the estimated values from the different empirical
methods based on rock mass classification, except for

andesite (case #8) whose estimated value from the

developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation is outside the
range but very close the highest of the estimated values
from the different empirical methods based on rock mass
classification. So, the developed rcm/rc versus RQD
relation can estimate rock mass strength values that are in

123

L. Zhang
50.0

Yudhbir & Prinzl (1983)

Ramamurthy et al. (985) & Ramamurthy (1986, 1993)
Trueman (1998) & Asef et al. (2000)
Kalamaras & Bieniawski (1993)
Hoek et al. (2002)
Bhasin & Grimstad (1996) and Singh & Goel (1999)
Sheorey (1997)
Aydan & Dalgic (1998)
Barton (2002)
Hoek (2004)
Singh et al. (1997)
Developed cm vs. RQD

Estimated cm (MPa)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

ratio Em/Er (Eq. 26) is based on limited laboratory test

data and has not been tested against field cases. For
different rock types and discontinuity conditions, the
power q in Eq. 26 may vary significantly from the value
of 0.7 used in the derivation.
The reduction factor aE is based on the Em/Er versus
RQD data shown in Fig. 7, which have a large scatter,
especially when RQD [ 65%. It is expected that the
rcm/rc versus RQD data should also have a large
scatter.
RQD is only one of the many factors that affect the
strength of jointed rock masses. Other factors such as
the discontinuity surface conditions can have a great
effect on the strength of jointed rock masses.

0.0
0

10 11 12 13 14 15

Case No.

Fig. 9 Estimated rock mass strength values from the existing

empirical methods and the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation

reasonable agreement with those from the empirical

methods based on rock mass classification.
Figure 9 summarizes the results for all 15 cases at the
six sites using the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation
and the empirical methods based on rock mass classification. It can be seen clearly that the estimated values from
the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation are essentially in
the middle of the estimated values from the different
empirical methods. The relations of Singh et al. (1997),
Trueman (1988), and Asef et al. (2000) tend to estimate
high rcm values (upper bound), whereas the relation proposed by Yudhbir and Prinzl (1983) estimates low rcm
values (lower bound). Some relations, such as those proposed by Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993), Sheorey
(1997), and Aydan and Dalgic (1998) tend to give average
(medium) rcm values.

5 Discussion and Recommendations

Determination of the strength of jointed rock masses is an
important and challenging task in rock mechanics and rock
engineering. The newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD
relation provides a convenient way for estimating the
unconfined compressive strength of rock masses because,
in many cases, RQD is the only available information
about discontinuities in routine site investigations. However, care should be taken when applying the developed
empirical relation for determining the unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock masses, because of the
following reasons:

The relation between the unconfined compressive

strength ratio rcm/rc and the deformation modulus

123

To apply the developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation for

estimation of rock mass strength, the following guidance
should be followed:
1.

2.

When RQD is the only information available about

rock discontinuities, the rcm/rc versus RQD relation
can be used to estimate the rock mass strength but care
should be taken when applying the estimated values.
The rcm/rc versus RQD relation should be used only
for a first estimation.
When RQD and other information are available for
evaluating the rock mass classification indices, the
rcm/rc versus RQD relation should be used together
with the empirical methods based on rock mass
classification to evaluate the rock mass strength. The
estimated value from the rcm/rc versus RQD relation
can be compared with the range of the estimated
values from the empirical methods based on rock mass
classification to get an idea on the effect of RQD on
rock mass strength.

6 Conclusions
Different empirical methods are available for estimating
the strength of jointed rock masses. The empirical methods
may provide very different estimation values of the
unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock masses.
The newly developed rcm/rc versus RQD relation in this
article provides a convenient way for estimating the
unconfined compressive strength of jointed rock masses
because, in many cases, RQD is the only available information about rock discontinuities. The developed rcm/rc
versus RQD relation can provide estimated rock mass
strength values that are often in reasonable agreement with
those from the empirical methods based on rock mass
classification. To apply the developed rcm/rc versus RQD
relation for estimation of rock mass strength in practice, the

Estimating the Strength of Jointed Rock Masses

limitations need to be considered and the recommendations

in Sect. 5 should be followed.

References
AASHTO (1996) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th
edn. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC
Alber M, Heiland J (2001) Investigation of a limestone pillar failure,
part 1: geology, laboratory testing and numerical modeling.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 34(3):167186
Arora VK (1987) Strength and deformation behavior of jointed rocks.
PhD thesis, IIT Delhi, India
Asef MR, Reddish DJ, Lloyd PW (2000) Rock-support interaction
analysis based on numerical modeling. Geotech Geol Eng
18:2337
Aydan O, Dalgic S (1998) Prediction of deformation behavior of
3-lanes Bolu tunnels through squeezing rocks of North Anatolian
fault zone (NAFZ). In: Proceedings of regional symposium on
sedimentary rock engineering, Taipei, pp 228233
Aydan O, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T (1997) Assessment of rock mass
strength for underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
34(34): paper No. 018
Barton N (1983) Application of Q-system and index tests to estimate
shear strength and deformability of rock masses. In: Proceedings
of international symposium on engineering geology and underground construction, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol 1(II), pp 5170
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39(2):185216
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189239
Barton N, Loset F, Lien R, Lunde J (1980) Application of the
Q-system in design decisions. In: Bergman M (ed) Subsurface
space, vol 2. Pergamon, New York, pp 553561
Bhasin R, Grimstad E (1996) The use of stressstrength relationships
in the assessment of tunnel stability. Tunn Underground Space
Technol 11(1):9398
Bieniawski ZT (1976) Rock mass classification in rock engineering.
In: Bieniawski ZT (ed) Exploration for rock engineering,
Proceedings of the symposium, vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 97106
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 15:237248
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification: a
manual. Wiley, New York
Brady BHG, Brown ET (1985) Rock mechanics for underground
mining. George Allen and Unwin, London
Brown ET (1993) The nature and fundamentals of rock engineering.
In: Hudson JA (ed) Compressive rock engineeringprinciple,
practice and projects, vol 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 123
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock
masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:319
Coon RF, Merritt AH (1970) Predicting in situ modulus of
deformation using rock quality indices. In: Determination of
the in situ modulus of deformation of rock, ASTM STP 477,
pp 154173
Deere DU (1967) Technical description of rock cores for engineering
purposes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1:107116
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1967) Design of
surface and near surface construction in rock. In: Proceedings of

the 8th US symposium on rock mechanicsfailure and breakage

of rock, Minneapolis, MN, pp 237302
Ebisu S, Aydan O, Komura S, Kawamoto T (1992) Comparative
study on various rock mass characterization methods for surface
structures. In: Proceedings of Eurock92. Thomas Telford,
London, pp 203208
Edelbro C (2003) Rock mass strengtha review. Technical report
2003:16, Lulea University of Technology, ISSN 14021536
Edelbro C, Sjoberg J, Nordlund E (2006) A quantitative comparison
of strength criteria for hard rock masses. Tunn Underground
Space Technol 22:5768
El-Naqa A, Kuisi MA (2002) Engineering geological characterisation
of the rock masses at Tannur Dam site, South Jordan. Environ
Geol 42:817826
Gardner WS (1987) Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont.
In: Smith RW (ed) Foundations and excavations in decomposed
rock of the Piedmont Province, GSP No. 9. ASCE, New York,
pp 6286
Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithankar AG (1995) Correlation between
Bartons Q and Bieniawskis RMRa new approach. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 33(2):179181
Goldstein M, Goosev B, Pyrogovsky N, Tulinov R, Turovskaya A
(1966) Investigation of mechanical properties of cracked rock.
In: Proceedings of the 1st ISRM Congress, vol. 1, Lisbon,
pp 521524
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:11651186
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:203215
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the geological
strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared
rock massesthe case of Athens Schist formation. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 57:151160
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) HoekBrown failure
criterion2002 edition. In: Proceedings of 5th North American
rock mechanical symposium and 17th Tunneling Association of
Canada conference: NARMS-TAC 2002. Mining Innovation and
Technology, Toronto, pp 267273
Jade S, Sitharam TG (2003) Characterization of strength and
deformation of jointed rock mass based on statistical analysis.
Int J Geomech ASCE 3:4354
Justo JL, Justo E, Durand P, Azanon JM (2006) The foundation of a
40-storey tower in jointed basalt. Int J Rock Mech Geomech
Abstr 43:267281
Kalamaras GS, Bieniawski ZT (1993) A rock mass strength concept
for coal seams. In: Proceedings of 12th conference ground
control in mining, Morgantown, pp 274283
Kulhawy FH, Goodman RE (1987) Foundations in rock. In: Bell FG
(ed) Ground engineers reference book. Butterworths, London,
pp 55/113
Laubscher DH (1984) Design aspects and effectiveness of support
system in different mining conditions. Trans Inst Min Met
93:A70A81
Laubscher DH (1990) A geomechanics classification system for the
rating of rock mass in mine design. J South Afr Inst Min Metall
90(10):257273
Ozsan A, Akin M (2002) Engineering geological assessment of the
proposed Urus Dam, Turkey. Eng Geol 66:271281
Ozsan A, Ocal A, Akin M, Bassarir H (2007) Engineering geological
appraisal of the Sulakyurt dam site, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 66:483492
Palmstrom A (1995) RMia rock mass characterization system
for rock engineering purposes. PhD thesis, University of Oslo,
Norway

123

L. Zhang
Palmstrom A (1996a) Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in
practical rock engineering, part 1: the development of the rock mass
index (RMi). Tunn Underground Space Technol 11(2):175188
Palmstrom A (1996b) Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use
in practical rock engineering, part 2: some practical applications
of the rock mass index (RMi). Tunn Underground Space Technol
11(3):287303
Protodyakonov MM, Koifman MI (1964) Uber den Masstabseffect
bei Untersuchung von Gestein und Kohle. 5. Landertreffen des
Internationalen Buros fur Gebigsmechanik. Deutsche Akad
Wiss, Berlin 3:97108
Ramamurthy T (1993) Strength and modulus response of anisotropic
rocks. In: Hudson JA (ed) Compressive rock engineering
principle, practice and projects, vol 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
pp 313329
Ramamurthy T (1996) Stability of rock masseighth Indian
Geotechnical Society Annual Lecture. Indian Geotech J 16:173
Ramamurthy T, Arora VK (1994) Strength predictions for jointed
rocks in confined and unconfined states. Int J Rock Mech
Geomech Abstr 31(1):922
Ramamurthy T, Rao GV, Rao KS (1985) A strength criterion for
rocks. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, vol 1,
Roorkee, pp 5964
Schultz RA (1996) Relative scale and the strength and deformability
of rock masses. J Struct Geol 18(9):11391149
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Consideration of the geomechanical
classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of international

123

symposium on engineering geology and underground construction, Lisbon, Portugal, vol 1(II), pp 3344
Sheorey PR (1997) Empirical rock failure criteria. Balkema,
Rotterdam
Singh B, Goel RK (1999) Rock mass classificationsa practical
approach in civil engineering. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam
Singh M, Rao KS (2005) Empirical methods to estimate the strength
of jointed rock masses. Eng Geol 77(12):127137
Singh B, Viladkar MN, Samadhiya NK, Mehrota VK (1997) Rock
mass strength parameters mobilized in tunnels. Tunn Underground Space Technol 12(1):4754
Singh B, Goel RK, Mehrotra VK, Garg SK, Allu MR (1998) Effect of
intermediate principal stress on strength of anisotropic rock
mass. Tunn Underground Space Technol 13(1):7179
Trueman R (1988) An evaluation of strata support techniques in dual
life gateroads. PhD thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff
Vardar M (1977) Zeiteinfluss auf des Bruchverhalten des Gebriges in
der Umgebung von Tunbeln. Veroff. D. Inst. F. Bodenmech.
University of Karlsruhe, Heft, p 72
Yudhbir WL, Prinzl F (1983) An empirical failure criterion for rock
masses. In: Proceedings of 5th international congress on rock
mechanics, vol 1, Melbourne, pp B1B8
Zhang L (2005) Engineering properties of rocks. Elsevier Ltd,
Amsterdam
Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:337341