N.
Barton / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 185–216
A graphic example of this ‘scale effect’ is shown in
Fig. 2. While the logged values of RQD and Jn must
include all scales of the rock mass structure, every detail
cannot be modelled discretely, and one is forced to
include in a distinct element model only the joint sets
assumed to have most influence on, for example, the
stability of the modelled tunnels or cavern. A represen-
tative value for the modulus of deformation of a limited
rock mass volume is still required, onto which will be
superimposed the larger scale ‘REV’ (representative
elementary volume) response of the rock mass as a
whole, in which a fault might also be modelled, if close
enough to the excavation under investigation. The
stiffness of the fully consolidated major joint sets is
likely to modify the assumed modulus of deformation,
and may also give anisotropic deformability, i.e. details
not usually captured in continuum modelling.
The less dominant jointing is reflected in a reduced Q-
value, and in a reduced P-wave velocity (Vp ) and static
modulus of deformation. We will define the latter as
Emass in this paper, to distinguish it from Young’s
modulus and from the physical joint aperture (E), where
E > e; the smooth parallel plate hydraulic aperture used
in the cubic law. This inequality is due to effects of joint
roughness JRC, and flow tortuosity around areas of
rock-to-rock contact [7] which will be addressed when
discussing grouting.
3. Correlation of Q with V p
In view of the importance of the site investigation
phase that precedes preliminary design, and which gives
indications of the need for additional hydrogeologic
information, we will start this exploration of Q-
Fig. 2. An illustrative ‘textbook example’ of dominant joints (strong continuity, low JRC, JCS and fr ) requiring distinct element modelling, and the
less dominant ‘back-ground’ jointing (higher JRC, JCS and fr ) which will nevertheless be represented in RQD and Jn and in a reduced deformation
modulus and seismic velocity. Kimmeridge Bay, South Coast, England [writer].
189
correlations with an investigation of seismic velocity.
Some recent examples of available seismic techniques
have been given in this Journal (vol. 38, No. 6, Sept
2001) and will be referred to shortly.
If shallow seismic refraction data, or deeper cross-
hole tomography, or VSP, can be extrapolated by means
of one or more correlations between Q and Vp ; then
some of the uncertainties in tunnelling or cavern design
could be removed. However, there are several potential
pitfalls, which have led some to assume that seismic data
may be unreliable. The truth is probably that the physics
have not been understood.
Based on data from hard rock tunnelling projects in
several countries, including the 62 m span Gj
vik cavern
in Norway where NGI performed seismic tomography
and core logging, a preliminary hard rock correlation
between Q and Vp was suggested [8]:
Vp E3:5 þ log Q ð2Þ
where Vp is in units of km/s. (Note: all logarithmic terms
are log10 in this paper.)
Important clues supporting this relation were subse-
quently discovered from extensive earlier work by
Sj
gren and co-workers [9], who had presented Vp ;
RQD and joint frequency (l m1) data from 120 km of
seismic refraction profiles and 2.8 km of adjacent core
data. Fig. 3a shows the mean trends of this data (with
some slight extrapolations by the writer). Along the x-
axis of both figures is appended the simple Vp 2Q
relation given by Eq. (2).
The above relation between Vp and Q was subse-
quently generalised to include rock that could be weaker
or even stronger than the assumed ‘hard’ rock. Normal-
isation of the Q-value was tested, using 100 MPa as
the hard rock norm. For improving correlation to