SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS

GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE

Robert Bertuzzi & Philip J.N. Pells
Pells Sullivan Meynink Pty Ltd, Sydney

1 INTRODUCTION
The classification system for Sydney sandstone and shales, through the Australian Geomechanics Society (Pells et al,
1978; Pells, Mostyn and Walker, 1998) was intended to assist in the design of foundations on rock in the Sydney area.
The five class system has proved to be a good tool for communicating rock mass quality for other geotechnical projects
such as tunnels and deep basement excavations. However, the classification system is not a design tool for works other
than foundations on rock. Tunnels, slopes, deep basements and retaining walls should be designed using normal
methods of applied mechanics. However, such methods, whether hand stability calculations or complex analyses using
programs such as UDEC, require engineering parameters covering strength and deformation characteristics. In some
instances, such as rock substance strength and modulus, the parameters may be measured by laboratory testing.
However, when it comes to rock mass parameters use has to be made of parameters back figured from monitoring of
actual excavations and retaining structures; published correlations from other geological environments, such as mass
modulus versus RMR; or semi-theoretical approaches such as Hoek’s approach of estimating mass modulus from Hoek-
Brown parameters. Unfortunately, when one scratches the surface many of these correlations and guidelines are based
on scant data and they must be used with great caution.
This paper summarises the deformation and strength parameters the authors currently use for rock mechanics
computations in the Sydney shales and sandstones. It is not intended to provide a detailed lithological or petrographic
description of Sydney rocks. The reader is directed elsewhere for that information, for example Packham (1969),
Chestnut (1983), Pells (1985), Pells (1993), Pells et al (1998), McNally & McQueen (2000), McNally & Franklin
(2000), etc. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to improve the communication between engineering geologists,
geotechnical engineers and the construction industry, in particular the tunnelling fraternity, when referring to Sydney
rocks.
The paper is divided into four parts.
i) The first is a recapitulation of the appropriate process of classification using the Sydney Classification
System.
ii) The second presents typical insitu engineering parameters, which may be appropriate for engineering
design once the rock mass has been classified. The tables should not be used to back-figure the rock mass
class.
iii) The third presents typical Q and RMR values for sandstone and shale, as the authors have found that these
may help in communicating conditions to practitioners unfamiliar with the Sydney Classification System.
However, please note that the authors do not recommend using either the Q or RMR system, or the Sydney
Classification System, for the design of tunnel support within these rocks. Several publications highlight the
difficulties in using the Q and/or RMR system in Sydney, eg Asche & Cooper (2002), Pells (1997).
iv) The fourth presents six colour sheets describing the typical engineering geology of Class I/II, Class III and
Class IV/V sandstone and then of Class I/II, Class III and Class IV/V shale. Photographs of example rock
exposures are included on the sheets to further assist communication. The authors note that there are several
locations around Sydney to observe these exposures, including:
a. West Pymble Bicentennial Park - Class II to V sandstone;
b. M2 tunnel and the Tarpian Cliff at the Opera House - Class I and II sandstone;
c. Eastwood Brick Pit – Class V to II shale;
d. M2 motorway – Class V and IV shale.
The authors hope that practitioners will find this paper useful in their work in Sydney.

1 USING THE SYDNEY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The classification system as described in Pells et al (1978 and 1998) is reasonably unambiguous in its application to
foundations. The original 1978 guidelines state that the rock mass to be classified is for:
ƒ Pad footings within a zone of influence of 1.5 times the least footing dimension, and

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 41

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS

ƒ Socketed footings, within a zone equal to the length of the socket plus a further depth equal to the width of the
footing.
The 1998 publication acknowledged that the classification system was being used for other works such as tunnels and
excavations and recommend that the zone of rock being classified be “over a length of core of similar characteristics”.
In writing those words it was the senior author’s intent that the classification system be applied to portions or units of
the rock mass having similar UCS, defect spacing and seam characteristics. However, from reading several project
specific reports produced by professionals applying the system to cuttings, tunnels and retaining structures it is apparent
that the classification system is sometimes applied inappropriately.
In particular the system is being applied to small elements of a geological profile, such as individual seams and thin
beds. Figure 1 is a cartoon intended to clarify the correct method of applying the classification system to a general rock
profile. This may be a mapped face or a borehole. The main points to note from Figure 1 are that it is incorrect to
apply the system to small components of the rock mass and the UCS for a unit should be a cautious estimate of the
mean, ie it is reasonable to discard outliers. It should also be noted that there could be a change to the classification if
footing of particular dimensions were to be located within the profile. For example a 2m wide footing at level AA in
Figure 1 would classify as being on Class II material even though in the general classification it is in Class III material.
This is because of the controlling influence of seam thickness percentage in the footing’s zone of influence, ie 1.5 times
2m.

Figure 1: The wrong and right way to classify

2 SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR ENGINEERING PARAMETERS

Table 1 presents the substance and mass parameters for the various classes, which the authors have used in several
design projects. Table 2 presents the friction angle and stiffness of discontinuities.

There is substantial information on the sandstone and shale substance parameters from numerous site investigations for
specific projects. Publications giving summaries of substance parameters include Pells (1985, 1993), McNally &
McQueen (2000), Won (1985) and Ghafoori et al (1993), etc.

Rock mass modulus values for mainly Class II and Class III sandstone have been backfigured from lateral
measurements in deep basements (Pells, 1990), from tunnel convergence measurements (Hole, 2000) and from
settlement monitoring of pad and socket footings (Rowe & Pells, 1980). These field measurements provide a good
database and therefore there is reasonably high level of confidence in regard to the sandstone mass modulus values.
Mass modulus values for the shales are largely taken from the estimates made by members of the Australian
Geomechanics Society obtained in preparing the 1978 paper by Pells, Douglas, Rodway, Thomas and McMahon.

42 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS

The authors use extension failure (Stacey, 1981) as one of the criteria in assessing potential failure zones around
underground excavation. The strain values at which sympathetic tensile failure starts is shown in Table 1 and are
derived from laboratory testing of large blocks of sandstone undertaken by Pells. Note that extension is dependent on
the Young’s Modulus of the substance, ie intact rock.
Permeability values have been obtained from site investigations for numerous tunnelling projects including the Ocean
Outfalls, Sydney Harbour Tunnel, Eastern Distributor, M5 East, Cross City, cables tunnels and Parramatta Rail Link.
Overall the permeability database represents approximately 5km of tested borehole.
There is very little direct data for defect normal and shear stiffness. These are very difficult parameters to measure in
the laboratory for real defects. Normal stiffness can be estimated using the relationship between the defect’s normal
stiffness (kn) and the modulus of its infill material (E), so that, kn = Load ÷ closure of defect = E ÷ thickness of defect.
The elastic relationship between shear (ks) and normal (kn) stiffness is ks = kn÷2(1+ν), which suggests that ks should
be 0.33 to 0.5 times kn. However, the authors note that the ratio ks/ kn is actually dependent on the normal stress.
Kulhawy (1975) showed limited experimental data with ks/ kn = 0.04 to 1.20. Bandis et al (1983) carried out further
testing which suggested that for normal stresses greater than about 1MPa, a ratio of about 0.10 could be used. This is
the ratio the authors currently use in the absence of specific data.

3 REFERENCES
Asche HR & Cooper DN (2002), Estimation of tunnel support requirements for TBM driven rock tunnels. 28th
International Tunnelling Conference
Bandis SC, Lumsden AC & Barton NR (1983), Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int. J Rock Mech Min Sci &
Geomech Abstr. Vol 20, No 6
Chestnut WS (1983),Engineering Geology Geology of the Sydney 1:100,000 Sheet ed. Herbert, Geol. Survey of NSW
Engineering geology of the Sydney region (1985). ed. Pells Balkema
Ghafoori M, Carter JP & Airey DW (1993) Anisotropic behaviour of Ashfield shale in the direct shear test Geotechnical
Engineering of Hard Soils – Soft Rocks, ed Anagnostopoulos, Balkema
Hoek E, Kaiser PK & Bawden WF (1995),Support of underground excavations in hard rock, Balkema
Hole J (2000), Determination of field stress ratio and Young’s modulus using the under excavation technique. 4th ANZ
Young geotechnical professionals conference
Kulhawy FH (1975), Stress deformation properties of rock and rock discontinuities. Engineering Geology, Vol 9
McNally GH & McQueen LB (2000),The Engineering Properties of Sandstone and What they Mean. Sandstone City
eds McNally & Franklin, Geological Society of Australia
Pells PJN, Douglas DJ, Rodway B, Thorne C & McMahon BK (1978). Design loadings for foundations on Shale and
Sandstone in the Sydney Region AGS Journal
Pells PJN (1990), Stresses and displacements around deep basements in the Sydney Sandstone. 7th Australian
Tunnelling Conference
Pells PJN (1994), Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology in the design of underground works.The 1993 EH Davis
Memorial Lecture, Austraian Geomechanics No.25.
Pells PJN (1997), Classification systems – good for communication but not always for design. Tunnelling under
difficult ground, ITC Conference, Basel
Pells PJN, Mostyn G & Walker BF (1998), Foundations on Sandstone and Shale in the Sydney Region. Australian
Geomechanics Vol 33 No 3
Rowe RK & Pells PJN (1980), A theoretical study of pile-rock socket behaviour. Int. Conf. on Structural Foundations
on Rock.
Sandstone City (2000),Geological Society of Australia, eds McNally & Franklin
Stacey TR (1981), A simple extension strain criterion for fracture of brittle rock.Int. J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech
Abstr. Vol 18
The geology of New South Wales (1969).Geological Society of Australia,ed. Packham
Various papers in Structural Foundations on Rock, (1980) ed. Pells, Balkema
Won G (1985),Engineering properties of Wianamatta Group rocks from laboratory and insitu testing, Engineering
geology of the Sydney region, ed. Pells Balkema.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 43

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
IN SITU ENGINEERING PARAMETERS
TABLE 1 - ROCK MASS
SUBSTANCE MASS
STRENGTH UNIT MODULUS PERMEABILITY (uL) GSI(b)
STRENGTH ELASTICITY WEIGHT (MPa)
CLASS
UCS σt mε E UCS c' φ’ (kN/m3) LOG RANGE
(MPa) (MPa) (c) (GPa) (MPa) (kPa) (°) MEAN
Sandstone 12-50 2-6 2-9 8-14 15-25 (a) (a) 24 900-2500 0.2 < 0.01 to 65-75
I / II 2
Sandstone 7-25 0.5-3 4-10 6-10 5-20 (a) (a) 24 350-1200 1 0.1 to 50 45-65
III
Sandstone 1-7 0.1-0.5 <1-4 (a) (a) 24 50-700 5-10 1 to 100 30-45
IV / V
Sandstone <1 0 <1 5 28 20 40 N/A
Residual Soil
Shale 7-40 1-4 2-10 7-15 10-20 (a) (a) 24 700-2500 0.2 < 0.01 to 64-73
I / II (d) 25
Shale 2-15 0.1-2 2-10 5-10 1-7 (a) (a) 24 200-1200 1 0.1 to 50 40-64
III (d)
Shale 1-2 <0.2 <1 (a) (a) 24 50-500 1 <1 to 30-40
IV / V 25
Shale <1 0 <1 5 26 18 30 N/A
Residual Soil
TABLE 2 - DISCONTINUITIES
DESCRIPTION THICKNESS(E) FRICTION ANGLE STIFFNESS (GPA/M)
(MM) (°) NORMAL (KN) SHEAR (KS)
MAJOR BEDDING TIGHT 35-45 4000 400
PLANE 1-5 30-35 200 20
5-10 20-25 10 1
EROSIONAL PLANE 5-30 20-35 5 0.5
CROSS BED PARTINGS TIGHT 25-35 4000 400
1-3 20-28 1500 150
JOINT TIGHT 35-40 4000 400
1 22-28 1500 150
3 18-22 500 50
a
The value of GSI which is included in the table can be used to obtain c’ and φ’ which are dependent on the insitu stress.
b
Geological Strength Index defined by Hoek et al (1995).
c
Millistrain at which sympathetic tensile failure commences to be used in extension failure criterion Stacey (1981). Strains increase with normal stress.
d
Substance modulus for shale is dependent on moisture content (m%). For design use the relationship based on Won (1985), ie E = 3.6e-0.415m GPa
e
The infill is typically a sandy clay when present in sandstone, and a clay when present in shale.

44 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
TABLE 3
Q – SANDSTONE

PARAMETER CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III CLASS IV CLASS V

1. Rock Quality 90 -100 75–100 40 – 70 25 – 40 0-251

Designation (RQD)

RQD RQD RQD RQD

= 22.5 − 50 = 18.75 − 25 = 4.2 − 10 = 0.83− 4.17
Jn Jn Jn Jn

2. Joint Set Number 2-4 4 4–6 4–6 6-12

(Jn)

3. Joint Roughness 1-3 1–3 1–2 1–2 1

Number (Jr)
Jr Jr Jr Jr Jr
= 1− 3 = 0.5 − 3 = 0.33 − 1 = 0.25− 0.67 = 0.17− 0.33
Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja
4. Joint Alteration 1 1–2 2–3 3–4 3-6
Number (Ja)

5. Joint Water 1 1 1 0.66 –1 0.66-1

Reduction Factor
(Jw) Jw Jw Jw Jw Jw
= 1 = 0.5 − 1 =0.4−1 = 0.13−1 = 0.13 −1
SRF SRF SRF SRF SRF
6. Stress Reduction 1 1–2 1 – 2.5 1–5 1-5
Factor (SRF)2

RQD Jn Jw 22.5 to 150 4.7 to 75 0.9 to 17.5 0.14 to 6.7 0.02 to 1.4
Q= x x Good to Extremely Good Fair to Very good Poor to Good Very poor to Fair Extremely poor to poor
Jn Ja SRF

1
Where RQD ≤ 10 (including 0) a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
2
Applicable for tunnels at depths to 50 m, say.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 45

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
TABLE 4
Q – SHALE

CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III CLASS IV CLASS V

PARAMETER

1. Rock Quality 90-100 70-90 40-60 25 - 40 0-252

Designation (RQD)
RQD RQD RQD RQD
= 22.5 −50 = 17.5 − 22.5 = 6.7 − 15 = 4.2 −10
Jn Jn Jn Jn

2. Joint Set Number (Jn) 2-4 4 4–6 4–6 6-12

3. Joint Roughness 1-3 1-2 1– 2 0.5-1.5 1

Number (Jr)
Jr Jr Jr Jr Jr
= 1− 3 = 0.25 − 2 = 0.17 − 1 = 0.04 − 0.25 = 0.17 − 0.33
Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja
4. Joint Alteration 1 1- 4 2–6 6-12 3-6
Number (Ja)

5. Joint Water Reduction 1 1 1 0.66-1 0.66-1

Factor (Jw)
Jw Jw Jw Jw Jw
= 1 = 0.5 − 1 = 0 .2 − 1 = 0.066− 0.4 = 0.066− 0.2
SRF SRF SRF SRF SRF
7. Stress Reduction Factor 1 1–2 1–5 2.5-10 5-10
(SRF) 2

RQD Jn Jw 22.5 to 150 2.2 to 45 0.2 to 15 0.011 to 1 0.009 to 0.27

Q= x x Good to Extremely Good Poor to Very good Very Poor to Good Extremely Poor to Exceptionally Poor to
Jn Ja SRF Very Poor Very Poor
1
Where RQD ≤ 10 (including 0) a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
Applicable for tunnels at depths to 50 m, say.

46 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS

TABLE 5
RMR – SANDSTONE

PARAMETER CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III CLASS IV CLASS V

Intact Strength 2 2 2 1 0

Rock Quality 20 18-20 11-16 5-11 0-5

Designation (RQD)

Discontinuity Spacing 15-25 15-20 8-12 6-10 5-8

Discontinuity Condition 20-25 20-22 15-20 8-12 5-12

Groundwater 8-10 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-10

Adjustment for -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
Orientation

RMR 60 to 77 57 to 69 38 to 55 22 to 39 12 to 30
Good rock Fair to good rock Poor to fair rock Poor rock Very poor to poor rock

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 47

SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS

TABLE 6
RMR – SHALE

PARAMETER CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III CLASS IV CLASS V

Intact Strength 2 2 1 0 0

Rock Quality 18-20 18-20 11-16 5-11 0-5

Designation (RQD)

Discontinuity Spacing 15-20 8-15 6-12 3-8 1-3

Discontinuity Condition 18-25 18-22 15-20 6-10 0-6

Groundwater 8-10 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-10

Adjustment for -7 to -5 -7 to –5 -7 to -5 -7 to -5 -7 to -5
Orientation

RMR 54 to 72 46 to 64 33 to 54 14 to 34 1 to 19
Fair to good rock Fair to good rock Poor to fair rock Very poor to poor rock Very poor rock

48 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002

 SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS

CLASS I/II SANDSTONE

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION DISCONTINUITY SETS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Sandstone. Fine to medium grained, pale grey to pale yellow, poorly Bedding Joint Joint Cross Bed
to well developed bedding, thinly laminated to massive, quartz Partings
sandstone (av. 70% content) within kaolinite clay (up to 20%) matrix
Orientation (True North) Dip/DipDir
and some siderite.
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES 0-5° 90 ± 20° 90 ± 20° 15-30°

160-200° 100-140° 350-020° 0-45°

Massive and cross-bedded sandstone beds. Sub-horizontal undulating Effective Length (m)
bedding planes with occasional up to 10mm thick of clayey silty sand. Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
Individual beds are typically 2m thick, ranging 1 to 5m. Two sub-
vertical joint sets occur and are typically tight. One set spaced at up to 100’s H >10m H >10m <4
approximately 3m, the other at 5 to 10m. V 30% >10m V 30% >10m
40% 5-10m 40% 5-10m
30% <5m 30% <5m
ROCK MASS CONDITION
Effective Spacing (m)
Weathering: Fresh to Slightly weathered Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Intact Rock Strength: 12 to 50 MPa

1 to 5 2 to 10 2 to 20 0.2
(typically 20 to 30 MPa)
may occur in
swarms
RQD: 75-100%
Condition
Permeability: < 0.01 to 25 Lugeon Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
(log mean 0.02uL)
Undulating, Planar, rough, Planar, rough, Curved, rough
rough, limonite limonite
occasionally staining staining
sandy clay infill
10mm

Notes Expect variation in defect orientations with change in

large scale geological features, eg large scale folding
Cross bedding varies locally

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 49

 SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
CLASS III SANDSTONE

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION DISCONTINUITY SETS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Sandstone. Fine to medium grained, pale grey to yellow, poorly Bedding Joint Joint Cross Bed
to well developed bedding, thinly laminated to massive, quartz Partings
sandstone (av. 70% content) within kaolinite clay (up to 20%)
matrix and some siderite. Orientation (True North) Dip/DipDir
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES 0-5° 90 ± 20° 90 ± 20° 15-30°

160-200° 100-140° 350-020° 0-45°

Massive and cross-bedded sandstone beds, weathering developed Effective Length (m)
along discontinuities. Sub-horizontal undulating bedding planes Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
with occasional up to 20mm thick of clayey silty sand. Individual
beds are typically 2m thick, ranging 1 to 5m. Two sub-vertical up to 100’s H >10m H >10m <4
joint sets occur and are typically tight. One set spaced at V 30% >10m V 30% >10m
approximately 3m, the other at 5 to 10m. 40% 5-10m 40% 5-10m
30% <5m 30% <5m
ROCK MASS CONDITION
Effective Spacing (m)
Weathering: Slightly to Moderately Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
weathered
1 to 5 1 to 5 2 to 20 0.2
Intact Rock Strength: 7 to 25 MPa
may occur in
swarms
RQD: 40-70%
Condition
Permeability: 0.1 to 50 Lugeon Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
(log mean 1uL)
Undulating, Planar, slightly Planar, slightly Curved, slightly
rough, sandy clay rough, limonite rough, limonite rough,
infill to 20mm staining staining occasional clay
infill up to 3mm

Notes Expect variation in defect orientations with change in

large scale geological features, eg large scale folding
Cross bedding varies locally

50 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002

 SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
CLASS IV/V SANDSTONE

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION DISCONTINUITY SETS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Sandstone. Fine to medium grained, yellow to orange to red-brown, Bedding Joint Joint Cross Bed
poorly to well developed bedding, thinly laminated to massive, quartz Partings
sandstone (av. 70% content) within kaolinite/illite clay (up to 30%)
Orientation (True North) Dip/DipDir
matrix and some siderite.
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES 0-5° 90 ± 20° 90 ± 20° 15-30°

160-200° 100-140° 350-020° 0-45°

Massive and cross-bedded sandstone beds, weathering very well Effective Length (m)
developed along discontinuities. Sub-horizontal undulating bedding Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
planes with up to 50mm thick of clayey silty sand. Individual beds are
typically 2m thick, ranging 1 to 5m. Two sub-vertical joint sets occur up to 100’s H >10m H >10m <4
and are typically tight. One set spaced at approximately 3m, the other V 30% >10m V 30% >10m
at 5 to 10m. 40% 5-10m 40% 5-10m
30% <5m 30% <5m
ROCK MASS CONDITION
Effective Spacing (m)
Weathering: Highly to Extremely weathered Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Intact Rock Strength: 1 to 7 MPa 1 to 5 1 to 5 2 to 20 0.2

may occur in
RQD: <40% swarms
Condition
Permeability: 1 to 100 Lugeon
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
(log mean 5 to 10uL)
Undulating, Planar, slightly Planar, slightly Curved,
rough, sandy rough, sandy rough, sandy slightly rough,
clay infill to clay infill to clay infill to clay infill up to
50mm >3mm >3mm 3mm

Notes Expect variation in defect orientations with change in

large scale geological features, eg large scale folding

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 51

 SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
CLASS I/II SHALE

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION DISCONTINUITY SETS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Shale. Very fine to fine grained, dark grey to black, well Bedding Joint Joint Joint
developed bedding, thinly laminated, siltstone and claystone with (random)
minor carbonaceous content.
Orientation (True North) Dip/DipDir
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
0-10° 90 ± 20° 90 ± 15° 30-60°

south 070-110° 340-040° SW or NE

Sub-horizontal undulating bedding planes. Individual beds are
typically 1 to 3m. Two sub-vertical joint sets occur and are Effective Length (m)
typically tight. One set spaced at approximately 3m, the other at
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
5 to 10m.
up to 100’s typically within typically within Very minor
ROCK MASS CONDITION individual beds individual beds

Effective Spacing (m)

Weathering: Fresh to Slightly weathered
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
Intact Rock Strength: 7 to 40 MPa
1 to 3 0.5 to 5 0.5 to 10 Very minor
RQD: 70-100%
Condition
Permeability: < 0.01 to 25 Lugeon Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
(log mean 0.02uL)
Undulating, Planar, slightly Planar, slightly Planar,
smooth rough rough slightly rough

Notes Expect variation in defect orientations with change in

large scale geological features, eg large scale folding

52 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002

 SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
CLASS III SHALE

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION DISCONTINUITY SETS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Shale. Very fine to fine grained, dark grey to black, well developed Bedding Joint Joint Joint
bedding, thinly laminated, siltstone and claystone with minor (random)
carbonaceous content.
Orientation (True North) Dip/DipDir
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
0-10° 90 ± 20° 90 ± 15° 30-60°

south 070-110° 340-040° SW or NE

Weathering developed along discontinuities. Sub-horizontal
undulating bedding planes. Individual beds are typically 1 to 3m. Effective Length (m)
Two sub-vertical joint sets occur and are typically tight. One set Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
spaced at approximately 3m, the other at 5 to 10m.
up to 100’s typically within typically within 1 to 2
individual beds individual beds
ROCK MASS CONDITION
Effective Spacing (m)
Weathering: Moderately weathered
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
Intact Rock Strength: 2 to 15 MPa
1 to 3 0.5 to 5 0.5 to 10 <1
RQD: 40-60%
Condition
Permeability: 0.1 to 50 Lugeon Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
(log mean 1uL)
Undulating, Planar, smooth, Planar, smooth, Planar,
smooth, clay clay coating clay coating smooth,
infill up to 10mm clay
coating

Notes Expect variation in defect orientations with change in

large scale geological features, eg large scale folding

Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002 53

 SYDNEY SANDSTONE AND SHALE BERTUZZI & PELLS
CLASS IV/V SHALE

GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION DISCONTINUITY SETS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Shale. Very fine to fine grained, dark grey to black, well Bedding Joint Joint Joint
developed bedding, thinly laminated, siltstone and claystone with (random)
minor carbonaceous content. Orientation (True North) Dip/DipDir
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
0-10° 90 ± 20° 90 ± 15° 30-60°

south 070-110° 340-040° SW or NE

Weathering ubiquitous along discontinuities. Sub-horizontal
undulating bedding planes. Individual beds are typically 1 to 3m. Effective Length (m)
Two sub-vertical joint sets occur and are typically tight. One set Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
spaced at approximately 3m, the other at 5 to 10m.
up to 100’s typically typically 1 to 2
ROCK MASS CONDITION
within within
individual individual
Weathering: Highly to extremely weathered beds beds
Intact Rock Strength: 1 to 2 MPa Effective Spacing (m)
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
RQD: <40%
1 to 3 0.5 to 5 0.5 to 10 <1
Permeability: <1 to 25 Lugeon
(log mean 1uL)
Condition
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Undulating, Planar, Planar, Planar,

smooth, clay smooth, clay smooth, clay smooth, clay
infill up to infill to infill to infill to
30mm 30mm 30mm 30mm

Notes Expect variation in defect orientations with

change in large scale geological features, eg large
scale folding

54 Australian Geomechanics Vol 37 No 5 December 2002