Chapter 3

Rock Material

In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous.

Aristotle

ROCK MATERIAL
The term “rock material” refers to the intact rock within the framework of discontinuities.
In other words, this is the smallest element of rock block not cut by any fracture. There
are always some micro-fractures in the rock material, but these should not be treated as
fractures. Rock material differs from “rock mass,” which refers to in situ rock together
with its discontinuities and weathering profile. Rock material has the characteristics
shown in Figure 3.1.

HOMOGENEITY AND INHOMOGENEITY

Bray (1967) demonstrated that if a rock contains ten or more sets of discontinuities
(joints), then its behavior can be approximated to the behavior of a homogeneous and
isotropic mass with only 5% error due to assumed homogeneity and isotropic condition.
Also, if a rock is massive and contains very little discontinuity, it could ideally behave as
a homogeneous medium. Hoek and Brown (1980) showed that homogeneity is a
characteristic dependent on the sample size. If the sample size is considerably reduced,
the most heterogeneous rock will become a homogeneous rock (Figure 3.2). In the figure
s is a constant that depends on rock mass characteristics as discussed in Chapter 26. Deere
et al. (1969) suggested that if the ratio between fracture spacing and opening size is equal
to or less than 1/100, the rock should be considered discontinuous and beyond this range
it should be considered a continuum and possibly anisotropic.
An inhomogeneous rock is more predictable than a homogeneous rock because the
weakest rock gives distress signals before final collapse of the rock structure.

CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MATERIAL

Ancient Shilpshastra in India classified rocks on the basis of color, sound, and heaviness.
ISO14689-1 (2003) proposed classification of rock material based on uniaxial compres-
sive strength (UCS) as shown in Table 3.1. It is evident that rock material may show a
large scatter in strength, say of the order of 10 times; hence, the need for a classification
system based on strength and not mineral content.

Engineering Rock Mass Classification

# 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 13
14 Engineering Rock Mass Classification

FIGURE 3.1 Material characteristics of rocks.

FIGURE 3.2 Rock mass conditions under the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. (From Hoek, 1994)
Chapter 3 Rock Material 15

TABLE 3.1 Classification of Rock Material Based on Unconfined

Compressive Strength

Ranges for common rock materials

Granite,
Term for
basalt,
uniaxial gneiss,
compressive Strength quartzite, Schist, Limestone,
strength Symbol (MPa) marble sandstone siltstone Slate Concrete

Extremely EW <1 ** **
weak*
Very weak VW 1–5 ** ** ** **

Weak W 5–25 ** ** ** **
Medium strong MS 25–50 ** ** **
Strong S 50–100 **
Very strong VS 100–250 **
Extremely ES >250 **
Strong

*Some extremely weak rocks behave as soils and should be described as soils.
**
Indicates the range of strength of rock material.
Source: ISO 14689-1, 2003.

The UCS can be easily predicted from point load strength index tests on rock cores
and rock lumps right at the drilling site because ends of rock specimens do not need to be
cut and lapped. UCS is also found from Schmidt’s rebound hammer (see Chapter 15).
Table 8.13 lists typical approximate values of UCS.
There are frequent legal disputes on soil-rock classification. The International Stan-
dard Organization (ISO) classifies geological material having a UCS less than 1.0 MPa
as soil.
Deere and Miller (John, 1971) suggested another useful classification system based
on the modulus ratio, which is defined as the ratio between elastic modulus and UCS.
Physically, a modulus ratio indicates the inverse of the axial strain at failure. Thus, brittle
materials have a high modulus ratio and plastic materials exhibit a low modulus ratio.

CLASS I AND II BRITTLE ROCKS

Rock material has been divided into two classes according to their post-peak stress-strain
curve (Wawersik, 1968).
Class I: Fracture propagation is stable because each increment of deformation beyond
the point of maximum load-carrying capacity requires an increment of work to be
done on the rock.
Class II: Rocks are unstable or self-sustaining; elastic energy must be extracted from
the material to control fracture.
16 Engineering Rock Mass Classification

The introduction of partial confinement, as in short samples when end constraint

becomes prominent, is likely to have a satisfactory effect. If end restraint becomes
severe, it is possible that a Class II rock might behave like a Class I material.
Wawersik (1968) conducted experiments on six rock types to demonstrate the
features of Class I and II rocks (Figure 3.3). Typical S-shape stress-strain curves may
be obtained for rocks with micro-fractures. Further, the post-peak curve for Class II rocks
shows reduction of strain after failure. The lateral strain increases rapidly after peak
stress in Class II rocks. Brittle rocks, therefore, may be kept in the Class II category.
A deep tunnel within dry, massive, hard Class II and laminated rocks may fail
because of rock bursts due to uncontrolled fracturing where tangential stress exceeds
the strength of the rock material (see Chapter 13). Hence, it is necessary to test rock
material in a Servo-controlled closed loop testing machine to get the post-peak curve.

UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Rock failure in uniaxial compression occurs in two modes: (1) local (axial) splitting or
cleavage failure parallel to the applied stress, and (2) shear failure.

FIGURE 3.3 Stress-strain curves for six representative rocks in uniaxial compression. (From
Wawersik, 1968)
Chapter 3 Rock Material 17

Local cleavage fracture characterizes fracture initiation at 50 to 95% of the compressive

strength and is continuous throughout the entire loading history. Axial cleavage fracture is a
local stress-relieving phenomenon that depends on the strength anisotropy and brittleness of
the crystalline aggregates as well as on the grain size of the rock. Local axial splitting is
virtually absent in fine-grained materials at stress levels below their compressive strength.
Shear failure manifests in the development of boundary faults (followed by interior
fractures), which are oriented at approximately 30 degrees to the sample axis. In fine-
grained materials where the inhomogeneity of the stress distribution depends only on
the initial matching of the material properties at the loading platen interfaces, boundary
and interior faults are likely to develop simultaneously and appear to have the same
orientation for any rock type within the accuracy of the measurements on the remnant
pieces of collapsed specimens (basalts, etc.).
Local axial fracturing governs the maximum load-carrying ability of coarse-grained,
locally inhomogeneous Class I and II rock types. Thus, in coarse-grained rocks the
ultimate macroscopic failure mode of fully collapsed samples in uniform uniaxial com-
pression cannot be related to peak stress. In fine-grained, locally homogeneous rock
types, which most likely are Class II, the peak stress is probably characterized by the
development of shear fractures seen in continuous failure planes. In controlled fracture
experiments on very fine-grained rocks, the final appearance of a collapsed rock spec-
imen probably correlates with its compressive strength. However, if rock fracture is
uncontrolled, then the effects of stress waves produced by the dynamic release of energy
may override the quasi-elastic failure phenomenon to such an extent that the latter may
no longer be recognizable.
The extent of the development of the two basic failure modes, local axial splitting and slip
or shear failure, determines the shape of the stress-strain curve for all rocks subjected to uni-
directional or triaxial loading. Partially failed rocks still exhibit elastic properties. However,
the sample stiffness decreases steadily with increasing deformation and loss of strength.
Macroscopic cleavage failure (e.g., laboratory samples splitting axially into two or
more segments) was never observed in the experiments on Class I and II rocks. An
approximate theoretical analysis of the “sliding surface” model, which was proposed
by Fairhurst and Cook (1966), revealed qualitatively that unstable axial cleavage fracture
is an unlikely failure mode of rocks in uniaxial compression.
The dynamic tensile strength of rocks (granite, diorite, limestone, and grigen) is
found to be about four to five times the static tensile strength (Mohanty, 2009). Brazilian
tensile strength of laminated rocks and other argillaceous weak rocks like marl do not
appear to be related to the UCS of rock material (Constantin, personal communication).

STABILITY IN WATER
In hydroelectric projects, rocks are charged with water. The potential for disintegration of rock
material in water can be determined by immersing rock pieces in water for up to one
week. Their stability can be described using the terms listed in Table 3.2 (ISO 14689-1, 2003).
Ultrasonic pulse velocity in a saturated rock is higher than in a dry rock because it is
easier for pulse to travel through water than in air voids. However, the UCS and modulus
of elasticity are reduced significantly after saturation, particularly in rocks with water
sensitive minerals. On the other hand, the post-peak stress-strain curve becomes flatter
in the case of undrained UCS tests on saturated samples because increasing fracture
porosity after failure creates negative pore water pressure.
18 Engineering Rock Mass Classification

TABLE 3.2 Rock Material Stability in Water

Term Description (after 24 h in water) Grade

Stable No changes 1
Fairly stable A few fissures are formed or specimen surface crumbles slightly 2
Many fissures are formed and broken into small lumps or 3
specimen surface crumbles
Unstable Specimen disintegrates or nearly the whole specimen surface 4
crumbles
The whole specimen becomes muddy or disintegrates into sand 5

Source: ISO 14689-1, 2003.

CLASSIFICATION ON THE BASIS OF SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX

Based upon his tests on representative shales and clay stones for two 10-minute cycles
after drying, Gamble (1971) found the slake durability index varied from 0 to 100%.
There are no visible connections between durability and geological age, but durability
increased linearly with density and inversely with natural water content. Based on his
results, Gamble proposed a classification of slake durability as seen in Table 3.3.
The slake durability classification is useful when selecting rock aggregates for road, rail
line, concrete, and shotcrete.
Rock in field is generally jointed. It was classified by core recovery in the past and
later in the 1960s by modified core recovery (RQD), which will be discussed in
Chapter 4.

TABLE 3.3 Slake Durability Classification

% retained after one % retained after two

10-minute cycle 10-minute cycles
Group name (dry weight basis) (dry weight basis)
Very high durability >99 >98
High durability 98–99 95–98
Medium high durability 95–98 85–95
Medium durability 85–95 60–85
Low durability 60–85 30–60

Very low durability <60 <30

Source: Gamble, 1971, 2003.

Chapter 3 Rock Material 19

REFERENCES
Bray, J. W. (1967). A study of jointed and fractured rock. Part I. Rock Mechanics and Engineering
Geology, 5–6(2–3), 117–136.
Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Monsees, J. E., & Schmidt, B. (1969). Design of tunnel liners and support
system (Final Report, University of Illinois, Urbana, for Office of High Speed Transportation,
Contract No. 3-0152, p. 404). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Fairhurst, C., & Cook, N. G. W. (1966). The phenomenon of rock splitting parallel to the direction of
maximum compression in the neighborhood of a surface. In: Proceedings 1st Congress, International
Society of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, pp. 687–692.
Gamble, J. C. (1971). Durability—Plasticity classification of shales and other argillaceous rocks (p. 159).
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois.
Hoek, E. (1994). Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News Journal, 2(2), 4–16.
Hoek, E., & Brown, E. T. (1980). Underground excavations in rocks. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy (p. 527). London: Maney Publishing.
ISO 14689-1 (2003). (E). Geotechnical investigation and testing—Identification and classification of rock —
Part 1: Identification and description (pp. 1–16). Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.
Mohanty, B. (2009). Measurement of dynamic tensile strength in rock by means of explosive-driven
Hopkinson bar method. In Workshop on Rock Dynamics, ISRM Commission on Rock Dynamics.
Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL, June.
Wawersik, W. R. (1968). Detailed analysis of rock failure in laboratory compression tests (p. 165).
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Minnesota.