A Durability Classification of Clay-Bearing Rocks Based
on Particle Size Distribution of Slaked Material
TEJ P. GAUTAM
Department of Petroleum Engineering and Geology, Marietta College, Marietta,
OH 45750
ABDUL SHAKOOR1
Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242
Key Terms: Durability Classification, Clay-Bearing
Rocks, Disintegration Behavior, Slake Durability Index,
Disintegration Ratio
ABSTRACT
Clay-bearing rocks disintegrate at varying rates, due
to slaking, when exposed to moisture. This research
aims to develop a durability classification of clay-bearing
rocks based on particle size distribution of slaked mate-
rial, quantified in terms of disintegration ratio (DR ). DR
is the ratio of the area under the particle size distribution
curve of slaked material for a sample, upon completion of
the standardized slake durability index test, to the total
area encompassing all particle size distribution curves of
the samples tested. Although second-cycle slake durabil-
ity index (Id2 ) is the most frequently used parameter for
classifying the slaking behavior of clay-bearing rocks, it
does not consider the range of particle sizes in the slaked
material after the test. Compared to Id2 , DR accounts for
all particle sizes present in the slaked material and pro-
vides a better measure of the degree of slaking. The slake
durability index test was used to investigate the slaking
behavior of samples from 20 different clay-bearing rocks,
and Id2 and DR values were determined for all samples.
Id2 showed a nonlinear relationship with DR . The rela-
tionship was used to develop a durability classification,
based on disintegration ratio, as follows: low durability:
DR = 0 to 0.20; medium durability: DR = 0.20 to 0.65;
medium-high durability: DR = 0.65 to 0.85; and high
durability: DR = 0.85 to 1.00. In order to use this classi-
fication, one needs to perform a sieve analysis on material
left after the slake durability test and determine DR .
INTRODUCTION
Clay-bearing rocks, including claystones, mudstones,
siltstones, and shales, are frequently encountered in
engineering and environmental projects because of
their widespread occurrence on the land surface (Potter
1 Corresponding author.
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
et al., 1980; Franklin, 1981; Blatt, 1982; and Dick and
Shakoor, 1992). These rocks disintegrate and crumble
at varying rates when exposed to moisture; this process
is known as “slaking.” Most of the previous research
on assessment and classification of slaking behavior
of clay-bearing rocks is based on the slake durability
index test or some simplified/modified version of it
(Franklin and Chandra, 1972; Wood and Deo, 1975;
Chapman et al., 1976; Olivier, 1979; Franklin, 1981;
Dick and Shakoor, 1992; Dearman, 1995; Moon and
Beattie, 1995; Santi, 1998; Koncagul and Santi, 1999;
and Molina et al., 2011). The slake durability test was
proposed initially by Franklin and Chandra (1972)
and was later standardized by both the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the In-
ternational Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). The
test procedure (ASTM D 4644, ASTM 2013; ISRM
2007) uses 10 oven-dried pieces of rock, each weighing
40–60 g, with a total weight of 450–550 g. The
oven-dried sample is placed in a test drum of 2-mm
mesh (#10 sieve) and the drum is rotated in a tank
of water for 10 minutes at a rate of 20 rotations per
minute. At the end of the test, the sample is removed
from the drum, oven-dried, and weighed to determine
the slake durability index (Id), defined as follows: Id
= [(oven-dried weight after the test/initial oven-dried
weight) (100)]. Usually two cycles are run, and the
second-cycle slake durability index (Id2 ) is used for
evaluating and classifying the durability of a rock.
A photograph of the slaked material, retained in the
drum, is taken (Figure 1), and the slaking behavior
is described qualitatively as belonging to one of three
types: Type I—retained specimen remains virtually
unchanged; Type II—retained specimen consists of
large and small fragments; or Type III—retained
specimen consists exclusively of small fragments.
Previously Developed Durability Classifications
A series of durability classifications for clay-bearing
rocks has been developed over the past few decades.
The more notable among these are as follows.
125
 Gautam and Shakoor
Figure 1. Types of material retained in drum after slaking. Type I—
retained specimen remains virtually unchanged; Type II—retained
specimen consists of large and small fragments; and Type III—
retained specimen consists exclusively of small fragments.
Gamble (1971) proposed a durability-plasticity clas-
sification based on Id2 and plasticity index (PI)
values. The classes include very low durability—
Id2 = 0–30 percent; low durability—Id2 = 30–
126 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
60 percent; medium durability—Id2 = 60–85 per-
cent; medium-high durability—Id2 = 85–95 percent;
high durability—Id2 = 95–98 percent; and very high
durability—Id2 = 98–100 percent. The PI is divided
into three categories: low PI (0–10), medium PI (10–
25), and high PI (>25).
Olivier (1979) suggested a geodurability classifica-
tion based on the ratio of unconfined compressive
strength and swelling coefficient. The swelling coef-
ficient is measured by saturating an oven-dried core
sample (dried at 105◦ C for at least 12 hours) for a
minimum period of 12 hours and then noting the in-
crease in axial dimension. The free swelling coefficient
is defined as follows: change in sample length/initial
sample length. Both unconfined compressive strength
and swelling coefficient reflect the lithological com-
position of the rock. Based on the ratio of uncon-
fined compressive strength and swelling index, Olivier
(1979) categorized durability into six classes, A through
F, as follows: A—excellent, ratio >50; B—good, ra-
tio 25–50; C—fair, ratio 12–25; D—moderately poor,
ratio 6–12; E—poor, ratio 3 to 6; and F—very poor,
ratio <3.
Grainger (1984) classified clay-bearing rocks into
durable and nondurable on the basis of compressive
strength and slake durability index, with durable rocks
having compressive strengths of >3.6 MN/m2 and Id2
values of >90 percent and nondurable rocks having
compressive strength from 0.6 to 3.6 MN/m2 and Id2
values of <90 percent. He also emphasized the roles
of particle size, mineralogical composition, microfab-
ric, anisotropy, and tectonic deformation in influencing
the durability of clay-bearing rocks.
Dick et al. (1994) proposed three classes of durability
for clay-bearing rocks, based on Id2 values, and related
each class to the relevant engineering properties, such
as slickensides, microfracture frequency index (Imf ),
and absorption (Table 1). Imf was determined as the
number of microfractures per unit length of a traverse
across the cut surface of a rock sample, the minimum
traverse length being 5 cm. According to this classifica-
tion, the Id2 boundaries between the three classes are
as follows: high durability—Id2 > 85 percent; medium-
durability—Id2 = 50–85 percent; and low durability—
Id2 < 50 percent (Table 1).
Santi (1998) modified the jar slake test, proposed
by Wood and Deo (1975), to classify the durability
behavior of clay-bearing rocks. The modified version
of the test consists of oven-drying a 30–50-g sample
at 110◦ C for 16 hours, cooling it for 20 minutes, im-
mersing it in water, and observing the disintegration
behavior. Careful observations are made during the
first 30 minutes and periodically thereafter until the
completion of 24 hours to monitor the nature and rate
of disintegration. After 24 hours, a final observation
 Classifying Clay-Bearing Rocks
Table 1. Durability classification of clay-bearing rocks proposed by Dick et al. (1994).
Claystone
Durability Class Slickensided Imf (Microfractures/cm)
High: Id2 > 85% NA
Medium: 50 < Id2 < 85% NA
Low: Id2 < 50% All
NA = not applicable
is made. Based on the nature of slaked material after
24 hours, Santi (1998) categorized the disintegration
behavior into six classes: mud, flakes, chips, fractured
(chunky), slabs, and no reaction. The classification pro-
vides only a qualitative description of the disintegrated
material.
Sadisun et al. (2005) used a modified slake durabil-
ity index test and proposed a durability classification
based on visual changes observed during the slaking
process and on quantitative measurements made on
the samples. The modification consisted of using cu-
bical samples, with 4- to 6-cm side dimensions, and
monitoring the transition of incipient discontinuities
into open cracks. Sadisun et al. (2005) calculated a
modified slaking index as the ratio of the weight of
loosened sample to initial weight of the oven-dried sam-
ple, expressed as a percentage. Based on their modified
slaking index, they categorized clay-bearing rocks into
six durability classes: very low durability—slaking in-
dex = 0 to 2 percent; low durability—slaking index
= 2–10 percent; medium durability—slaking index =
10–25 percent; high durability—slaking index = 25–50
percent; very high durability—slaking index = 50–85
percent; and extremely high durability—slaking index
= 85–100 percent.
Bryson et al. (2012) proposed using swelling poten-
tial and weathering susceptibility for durability classifi-
cation. They suggested that the slake durability index is
not an adequate parameter with which to characterize
the durability of clay-bearing rocks.
Limitations of Previous Classifications
The durability classifications described above, based
on the slake durability index test or its modifications,
have some serious limitations. The procedure for the
slake durability index test has remained essentially un-
changed since its introduction. Many researchers have
demonstrated the shortcomings of the test, and some
have attempted to improve the slake durability index
and jar slake tests (Hopkins and Deen, 1983; Richard-
son, 1985; Taylor and Smith, 1986; Bell et al., 1997;
Santi, 1998; Gokceoglu et al., 2000; Czerewko and
Cripps, 2001; Marques et al., 2005; Sadisun et al.,
2005; Singh et al., 2005; Nickmann et al., 2006; Erguler
and Ulusay, 2009; Moradian et al., 2010; Youn and
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
Mudstone Shale Combined Siltstone-Siltshale
Absorption (%) Absorption (%)
<0.4 <5.5 <5
0.8–0.4 10–5.5 9.5–5
>0.8 >10 >9.5
Tonon, 2010; Miščević and Vlastelica, 2011; Molina
et al., 2011; Admassu et al., 2012; and Corominas et al.,
2015). These researchers emphasize the need for devel-
oping new indices for classifying the degree of slak-
ing (disintegration). Some recommend using different
number of cycles, ranging from 1 to 5, to better cate-
gorize the slaking behavior.
According to Bell et al. (1997), the slake durabil-
ity index test lacks a sensitivity for the upper range
of durability values and overestimates the durability
of clay-bearing rocks in this range. Bell et al. (1997)
suggested using the slake durability test in combina-
tion with uniaxial compressive strength to characterize
the durability of clay-bearing rocks, and they recom-
mended using the third-cycle test results.
Crosta (1998) developed an ultrasonic bath method
for predicting the durability index. The method is useful
for fragile rocks with low to medium durability but has
shortcomings for rocks with high durability.
Santi (1998) investigated the weaknesses of the slake
durability index and jar slake tests and proposed mod-
ifications. He recommended using the first-cycle slake
durability index to characterize the slaking behavior of
a rock sample.
Czerewko and Cripps (2001) stated that as a result of
the dynamic nature of the slake durability test, it is very
aggressive in breaking down the low-durability mate-
rials. An additional problem with respect to sensitivity
arises in distinguishing between slaked and non-slaked
material using the arbitrarily selected 2-mm mesh size.
Czerewko and Cripps (2001) found the results from the
third cycle of slake durability test to be more reliable
than the second-cycle results specified by ASTM. Fur-
ther, for greater reliability, they recommended using a
combination of the jar slake and slake durability index
tests to evaluate the slaking behavior of a wide variety
of clay-bearing rocks.
Martinez-Bofill et al. (2004) suggested using fourth-
or fifth-cycle slake durability index values for argilla-
ceous rocks and stated that the disintegration rate of
rocks experiencing freezing-thawing is faster than that
of those exposed to warmer climatic conditions. Simi-
larly, Yagiz et al. (2012) recommended using the fourth-
cycle slake durability index to predict rock properties
like uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of elas-
ticity.
127
 Gautam and Shakoor

Table 2. Formation names, geologic ages, and site locations for the sampled rocks.

Location

No. Sample Formation Age State Road Site

1 CST-1 Conemaugh Formation Penn West Virginia I-77 S Ripley/Fairplan Exit
2 CST-2 Dakota Group Cret Kansas SR-159 S 700 miles S of I-70
3 CST-3 Mowery Shale Cret South Dakota I-90 1 mile N of Oacoma
4 CST-4 Conemaugh Penn Pennsylvania Dam site Point Marion
5 CST-5 Fruitland Formation Cret Colorado SR-139 N 27 miles N of Loma Carfield
6 MST-1 Conemaugh Penn Ohio SR-50 S Mile marker 23
7 MST-2 Monogahela Penn Ohio I-77 N 1 mile to Dexter City Exit
8 MST-3 Red Pine Shale Prot Utah SR-191 S 1 mile E of Flaming Gorge Dam
9 MST-4 Dunkard Perm Ohio SR-7 S 1 mile off Loganport Exit
10 MST-5 Dunkard Perm Ohio SR-260 3 miles from SR-7 S
11 SLT-1 Conemaugh Penn Ohio I-77 N 2 miles N of Dexter City Exit
12 SLT-2 Monongahela Penn Ohio SR-22 E 13 miles W of SR-7
13 SLT-3 Conemaugh Penn West Virginia I-77 S Ramp of Eden Fork Exit
14 SLT-4 Wasatch Eoce Colorado I-70 E Mile marker 156
15 SLT-5 Green River Eoce Wyoming I-80 W Mile marker 216
16 SHL-1 Milboro Shale Devo Virginia SR-11 N 2 miles from Radford
17 SHL-2 Conemaugh Penn Ohio SR-75 15 miles S of Loganport
18 SHL-3 Tradewater Penn Kentucky SR William H. Mile marker 52
Natcher Parkway
19 SHL-4 Straight Cliffs Cret Utah SR-10 8 miles S of Price Town
20 SHL-5 Rome Camb Tennessee SR-381 N Bristol Motor Speedway

Another important consideration in evaluating the
disintegration behavior of clay-bearing rocks is that
disintegration behavior can be different between labo-
ratory and natural climatic conditions. Under natural
conditions, rocks are exposed to not only wetting and
drying cycles, as in the laboratory tests, but also to
heating and cooling and freezing and thawing cycles.
Additionally, anthropogenic activities, surface erosion,
and gravity action can remove the weathered material
from the slope, further complicating the assessment of
disintegration behavior. To address this issue, some re-
searchers have attempted to assess rock durability un-
der field conditions or by simulating natural climatic
conditions (Bell et al., 1997; Exadaktylos, 2006; Binal,
2009; Erguler and Ulusay, 2009; Erguler and Shakoor,
2009a, 2009b; Gautam and Shakoor, 2013, 2016; and
Rincon et al., 2016). Some authors have suggested us-
ing P-wave velocities to predict slake durability index
(Sharma and Singh, 2008; Moradian, 2010; and Khan-
delwal, 2013).
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Despite the extensive research conducted previously,
characterizing the slaking behavior of clay-bearing
rocks and developing a widely applicable durability
classification system remains a challenge. The objective
of this study was to develop a durability classification
for clay-bearing rocks that takes into account the parti-
cle size distribution of the slaked material, expressed in
terms of disintegration ratio (DR ). We believe the pro-
posed classification, based on the standard slake dura-
bility test (ASTM D 4644; ASTM, 2013) and particle
size distribution of slaked material, alleviates the short-
comings of the previously proposed classifications.
RESEARCH METHODS
Sampling and Laboratory Testing
Twenty clay-bearing rocks, including five claystones,
five mudstones, five siltstones, and five shales, from 11
different states were sampled for the study. Table 2 pro-
vides information about site locations, rock formation
names, and rock formation ages. The classification sys-
tem proposed by Potter et al. (1980) and modified by
Dick and Shakoor (1992) was used to classify the clay-
bearing rocks into claystones, mudstones, siltstones,
and shales.
In the laboratory, the slake durability index test, in-
volving five cycles, was performed on samples from
all 20 rock types. At the end of each cycle, oven-dried
weight of the sample retained in the test drum was
recorded and particle size distribution of the slaked
material was determined using the following sieve sizes:
50.8 mm (2 in.), 25.4 mm (1 in.), 19.0 mm (3/4 in.),
12.5 mm (1/2 in.), 4.75 mm (#4), and 2.0 mm (#10).
The weight of the slaked material was used to determine
slake durability index after each cycle, and particle size
distribution was used to determine disintegration ratio.

128 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
 Classifying Clay-Bearing Rocks

Figure 2. Procedure for determining the disintegration ratios for various rock types from the particle size distribution curves of slaked material
(after Erguler and Shakoor [2009b]).

Additionally, we determined clay content, absorption,
and adsorption values for all 20 rocks. Details of these
tests are available in Gautam and Shakoor (2013).
Quantifying the Amount of Slaking
We used the slake durability index, as determined by
ASTM method D 4644 (ASTM, 2013), and disintegra-
tion ratio (DR ), as proposed by Erguler and Shakoor
(2009b), to quantify the amount of slaking. DR is de-
fined as the ratio of the area under the particle size
distribution curve of the slaked material for a given
sample to the total area encompassing particle size dis-
tribution curves of all samples tested. Figure 2 illus-
trates the procedure for determining DR. For example,
DR for claystone (5) in Figure 2 is obtained by dividing
the area under the particle size distribution curve for
claystone (bceg) by the total area (abcd), giving a DR
value of 0.191. Similarly, the area under the particle
size distribution curve for siltstone (3) (bcdj) divided
by the total area (abcd) gives a DR value of 0.990 for
the siltstone. Note that the total area in Figure 2 (abcd)
is taken as the area of the rectangle formed between
0 percent to 100 percent retained by weight along the
vertical axis and the smallest to the largest sieve sizes
(i.e., mesh sizes) along the horizontal axis.
We used sieves ranging in mesh size from 2 mm (same
as the mesh size of the drum in the slake durability test)
to 50.8 mm (2-in. sieve) to determine particle size dis-
tribution of slaked material from all samples. However,
none of the samples had any slaked material retained on
50.8-mm sieve, and all particle size distribution curves

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135 129
130
Table 3. Slake durability index, disintegration ratio, clay content, absorption, and adsorption values for the 20 rocks tested.

Slake Durability Index Disintegration Ratio of Lab Clay Content

(Id) (%) After 1 to 5 Cycles Samples After 1 to 5 Cycles in Bulk (%)

Sample No. Id1 Id2 Id3 Id4 Id5 1 2 3 4 5 <0.002 mm <0.004 mm Absorption (%) Adsorption (%)
CST-1 93.8 80.1 72.7 65.2 59.8 0.625 0.337 0.229 0.153 0.031 41 53 44 3.9
CST-2 59.7 43.3 0.6 0.0 — 0.417 0.009 0.004 — — 77 82 62.2 10.0
CST-3 89.3 76.3 58.8 45.2 36.6 0.895 0.747 0.546 0.393 0.326 38 52 45.8 5.2
CST-4 91.8 64.0 49.6 42.5 35.6 0.752 0.525 0.405 0.347 0.301 38 51 14.1 2.5
CST-5 33.2 1.5 0.1 — — 0.191 0.003 0.000 — — 45 57 66.3 5.6
MST-1 95.8 93.3 90.9 88.1 86.3 0.920 0.795 0.777 0.748 0.727 22.2 34.3 5.1 —
MST-2 18.4 3.4 2.0 1.5 1.4 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 20.3 47.2 31.6 —
MST-3 88.7 73.2 67.0 61.8 58.5 0.652 0.315 0.269 0.214 0.190 29 33 10.8 1.7
MST-4 97.5 95.2 93.4 91.2 90.0 0.956 0.868 0.826 0.809 0.796 27 35 7.5 3.0
MST-5 95.7 75.7 63.5 53.0 46.6 0.600 0.328 0.199 0.122 0.092 28 36 36.7 3.5
SLT-1 98.1 96.7 95.7 94.5 93.7 0.963 0.946 0.933 0.922 0.913 17 22 7.7 1.9
SLT-2 98.2 99.2 98.3 97.2 96.7 0.974 0.973 0.966 0.956 0.937 21 27 3.8 1.4
Gautam and Shakoor

SLT-3 98.6 95.0 93.9 92.9 92.3 0.990 0.926 0.918 0.908 0.840 17 22 3.1 1.7
SLT-4 99.6 99.4 99.2 98.9 99.0 0.996 0.990 0.989 0.987 0.986 12 22 1.9 1.2
SLT-5 95.7 86.9 82.2 76.9 72.5 0.829 0.397 0.255 0.185 0.031 18 22 8.8 2.6
SHL-1 99.3 99.0 98.7 98.5 98.5 0.987 0.974 0.968 0.964 0.960 19 24 4.2 1.7
SHL-2 98.1 95.8 94.2 92.5 91.8 0.849 0.685 0.614 0.573 0.538 16 19 5.3 2.1
SHL-3 64.7 28.0 19.0 13.8 9.8 0.536 0.096 0.029 0.015 0.010 28 36 24.5 3.5
SHL-4 98.6 95.8 93.0 90.2 88.1 0.954 0.838 0.817 0.790 0.729 25 33 14.6 3.3
SHL-5 98.6 97.7 97.0 96.1 95.7 0.979 0.932 0.899 0.852 0.773 18 24 3.2 1.3

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
 Classifying Clay-Bearing Rocks

fell within an area bounded by 2.0-mm and 25.4-mm Table 4. R2 values for the relationship between slake durability index
sieves. Thus, the total area, abcd, in Figure 2 depends and disintegration ratio (DR ) determined after each of the five cycles
of slake durability test.
on the range of sieves used (2.0 mm to 25.4 mm) for
particle size distribution and remains unchanged from Slake Durability Index (Id)
sample to sample. Figure 2 shows that a DR value of 1 Values for 1 to 5 Cycles
indicates a completely durable rock (no slaking; Id2 =
Id1 Id2 Id3 Id4 Id5
100 percent), and a DR value of 0 indicates a completely
non-durable rock (no particles of >2 mm left after the DR after first cycle 0.85 0.7 0.57 0.47 0.46
slaking process; Id2 = 0 percent). Therefore, DR val- DR after second cycle 0.93 0.88 0.85 0.76 0.62
DR after third cycle 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.72
ues of 0.191 and 0.990 for claystone (5) and siltstone
DR after fourth cycle 0.87 0.93 0.86 0.81 0.76
(3), respectively, indicate that claystone has a very low DR after fifth cycle 0.7 0.79 0.76 0.73 0.7
durability and siltstone has a very high durability.

DATA ANALYSIS Table 4 shows the coefficient of determination (R2 )

Table 3 presents the slake durability index, disinte-
gration ratio, clay content, absorption, and adsorption
data for the laboratory samples. The results in Table 3
show that clay-bearing rocks are highly variable even
within the same group (claystones, mudstones, etc.).
This variability of slaking behavior is due to variation
in the clay content, absorption, and adsorption val-
ues of different samples (Shakoor and Gautam, 2015).
Figure 3 shows that the relationship between slake
durability index (Id2 ) and disintegration ratio (DR )
data, after the second-cycle test, is exponential in na-
ture. The exponential nature of the relationship sug-
gests that DR is very sensitive to particle size distribu-
tion of the slaked material at Id2 values exceeding 50
percent. In other words, DR is a better parameter for
characterizing the degree of disintegration than is Id2
because even a highly disintegrated material can have
a high Id2 value as long as the disintegrated particles
are slightly larger than 2 mm in size (mesh size of the
test drum).
Figure 3. Relationship between slake durability index and disinte-
gration ratio after the second-cycle test.
values for the relationship between slake durability in-
dex and DR data for all five cycles of the slake durability
test. It is clear from the table that the relationship be-
tween the two parameters is stronger for the first- and
second-cycle data and becomes weaker with an increas-
ing number of cycles. Therefore, the second-cycle data,
as recommended by ASTM (ASTM, 2013), are consid-
ered to be most appropriate for developing a durability
classification.
DR -BASED DURABILITY CLASSIFICATION
Based on the relationship between Id2 and DR (de-
termined after the second-cycle test), presented in Fig-
ure 3, we propose the durability classification shown in
Figure 4. Note that the R2 for the relationship in Fig-
ure 4 is improved to 0.92, compared to 0.88 in Figure
3, as a result of omission of the two outliers. The two
outliers were omitted because they do not represent the
well-defined trend noted in the other 18 samples. It is
not clear why these two samples deviate from the trend
exhibited by the other samples. The proposed classifi-
cation has four classes: low durability—DR = 0 to 0.20;
medium durability—DR = 0.20 to 0.65; medium-high
durability—DR = 0.65 to 0.85; and high durability—
DR = 0.85 to 1.00. A t-test was used to verify that
the boundaries between different durability classes be-
longed to different populations (Gautam, 2012). Fur-
thermore, clay content, absorption, and adsorption
properties were considered for different classes to as-
certain that the boundaries represented not only the
durability characteristics of the proposed classes but
also the differences in other geologic characteristics, as
shown in Table 3. Table 5 relates the proposed durabil-
ity classes to clay content, absorption, and adsorption
values of the rocks tested as well as the samples be-
longing to each class. Clay content, absorption, and
adsorption exhibit stronger correlations with DR than
with Id2 , as indicated by multiple regression and princi-
pal component analyses (Shakoor and Gautam, 2015).

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135 131
 Gautam and Shakoor

Figure 4. Proposed durability classification for clay-bearing rocks based on disintegration ratio.

A comparison of the samples with the proposed dura-
bility classes shows that mudstones are the most vari-
able in durability. Mudstones exhibiting lower durabil-
ity are the ones that contain microfractures (Dick and
Shakoor, 1992). Table 5 also provides tentative ranges
of Id2 values corresponding to the proposed durability
classes. Table 6 compares the classification proposed in
this study with the classifications proposed by Gamble
(1971) and Dick et al. (1994).
The classification shown in Figure 4 encompasses
a range of DR values, representing a wide variety of
clay-bearing rocks. Laboratory values of DR are used
to classify durability of clay-bearing rocks because DR
can be determined easily from laboratory test results
and because the second-cycle slake durability index test
is the most commonly performed durability test for
clay-bearing rocks in engineering practice.
Although the DR -based classification proposed in
this study uses the relationship between DR and Id2 ,
we believe it is an improvement over previous classi-
fications because DR is a more meaningful parameter
than Id2 for differentiating between different classes of
durability (Erguler and Shakoor, 2009a, 2009b; Gau-
tam and Shakoor, 2015). For example, in Figure 5,
Id2 values for claystone 1 and claystone 3 samples
are nearly the same (80 percent and 76 percent, re-
spectively), but their degrees of disintegration, as indi-
cated by the range of particle sizes, are very different.

Table 5. Durability classification of clay-bearing rocks based on disintegration ratio in relation to clay content, absorption, and adsorption.

Durability Disintegration Second-Cycle Slake Clay Content Absorption Adsorption Corresponding

Class Ratio Durability Index (%) (<0.002 mm, %) (%) (%) Samples from This Study
Low 0–0.20 0–71 >40 >25 >5 CST-2, CST-5
MST-2
SHL-3
Medium 0.20–0.65 71–91 25–40 10–25 3–5 CST-1
MST- 3, MST-5
SLT-5
Medium-high 0.65–0.85 91–96 15–25 5–10 MST-1
SHL- 2, SHL-4
High 0.85–1.00 96–100 <15 <5 <3 MST-4
SLT-1 to SLT-4
SHL- 1, SHL-5

132 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
 Classifying Clay-Bearing Rocks

Table 6. Comparison of the proposed classification with the durability However, DR values for claystone 1 and claystone 3
classifications of Gamble and Dick et al. are 0.337 and 0.747, respectively, indicating that DR is
Proposed Gamble Dick et al. better able to differentiate between different degrees
DR -Based Classification Classification of disintegration (i.e., different levels of durability).
Classification (1971) (1994) According to Gamble’s (1971) classification, recom-
Low Low to medium Low to medium
mended by ISRM, both samples belong to the medium
Medium Medium to medium-high Medium to high durability class. According to the DR -based classifica-
Medium-high Medium high High tion proposed herein (Table 5), claystone 1 has medium
High High to very high High durability, and claystone 3 (an outlier) has medium-
high durability. DR also correlates better with other
DR = disintegration ratio.
engineering properties of clay-bearing rocks (Shakoor
and Gautam, 2015) than does Id2 (Dick and Shakoor,
1972; Russell, 1981; Bell et al., 1997; Czerewko and
Cripps, 2001; Sadisun et al., 2005; Santi, 2006; Hajdar-
wish et al., 2013; Corominas et al., 2015; and Heidari
et al., 2015). Additionally, DR is a better indicator of
the disintegration behavior of clay-bearing rocks under
natural climatic conditions that include heating and
cooling and freezing and thawing cycles in addition
to wetting and drying cycles (Gautam and Shakoor,
2013).

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study:

1. DR is a more meaningful parameter for durability

classification of clay-bearing rocks than is Id2 .
2. Based on DR , clay-bearing rocks can be classified
into four durability classes: low durability (DR =
0 to 0.20), medium durability (DR = 0.20 to 0.65),
medium-high durability (DR = 0.65 to 0.85), and
high durability (DR = 0.85 to 1.00).

Figure 5. Slake durability index values (Id2 ) for claystone 1 and
claystone 3 samples are nearly the same (80 percent and 76 per-
cent, respectively), whereas their disintegration ratio (DR ) values
are significantly different (0.337 and 0.747, respectively), indicating
that DR is better able to differentiate between different degrees of
durability.
REFERENCES
ADMASSU, Y.; SHAKOOR, A.; AND WELLS, N. A., 2012, Evaluating
selected factors affecting the depth of undercutting in rocks
subject to differential weathering: Engineering Geology, Vol.
124, No. 4, pp. 1–11.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM), 2013,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards 04.08: American Society for
Testing Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1824 p.
BELL, F. G.; ENTWISLE, D. C.; AND CULSHAW, M. G., 1997, A
geotechnical survey of some British Coal Measures mudstones,
with particular emphasis on durability: Engineering Geology,
Vol. 46, pp. 115–129.
BINAL, A., 2009, A new laboratory rock test based on freeze-thaw
using a steel chamber: Quarterly Journal Engineering Geology
Hydrogeology, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 179–198.
BLATT, P. J., 1982, Sedimentary Petrology: W. H. Freeman and Com-
pany, San Francisco, CA, 564 p.
BRYSON, L. S.; GOMEZ-GUTIERREZ, I. C.; AND HOPKINS, T. C., 2012,
Development of a new durability index for compacted shale:
Engineering Geology, Vol. 139–140, pp. 66–75.
CHAPMAN, D. R.; WOOD, L. E.; AND SISILIANO, W. J., 1976, A
comparative study of shale classification tests and systems:

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135 133
 Gautam and Shakoor
Bulletin Association Engineering Geologists, Vol. 13, No. 4,
pp. 247–266.
COROMINAS, J.; MARTINEZ-BOFILL, J.; AND SOLER, A., 2015, A tex-
tural classification of argillaceous rocks and their durability:
Landslides, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 669–687.
CROSTA, G., 1998, Slake durability vs ultrasound treatment for rock
durability determinations (Technical Note): International Jour-
nal Rock Mechanics Mining Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 815–
824.
CZEREWKO, M. A. and CRIPPS, J. C., 2001, Assessing the dura-
bility of mudrocks using modified jar slake index test: Quar-
terly Journal Engineering Geology Hydrogeology, Vol. 34,
pp. 153–163.
DEARMAN, W. R., 1995, Description and classification of weath-
ered rocks for engineering purposes: The background to the
BS5930:1981 proposals: Quarterly Journal Engineering Geol-
ogy, Vol. 28, pp. 267–276.
DICK, J. C. and SHAKOOR, A., 1992, Lithologic controls of mudrock
durability: Quarterly Journal Engineering Geology, Vol. 25, pp.
31–46.
DICK, J. C.; SHAKOOR, A.; AND WELLS, N., 1994, A geological ap-
proach toward developing a mudrock-durability classification
system: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 17–
27.
ERGULER, Z. A. and SHAKOOR, A., 2009a, Relative contribution
of various climatic processes in disintegration of clay-bearing
rocks: Engineering Geology, Vol. 108, pp. 36–42.
ERGULER, Z. A. and SHAKOOR, A., 2009b, Quantification of frag-
ment size distribution of clay-bearing rocks after slake dura-
bility testing: Environmental Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp. 81–89.
ERGULER, Z. A. and ULUSAY, R., 2009, Assessment of physical disin-
tegration characteristics of clay-bearing rocks: Disintegration
index test and a new durability classification chart: Engineering
Geology, Vol. 105, pp. 11–19.
EXADAKTYLOS, G. E., 2006, Freezing-thawing model for soils and
rocks: Journal Material Civil Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.
241–249.
FRANKLIN, J. A., 1981, A shale rating system and tentative applica-
tions to shale performance: Transportation Research Record
790: Transportation Research Board, pp. 2–12.
FRANKLIN, J. A. and CHANDRA, R., 1972, The slake durability test:
International Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Science, Vol. 9,
pp. 325–341.
GAMBLE, J. C., 1971, Durability-Plasticity Classification of Shales
and other Argillaceous Rocks: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illi-
nois, Urbana, 161 p.
GAUTAM, T. P., 2012, An Investigation of Disintegration Behavior of
Mudrocks Based on Laboratory and Field Tests: Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Kent State University, 268 p.
GAUTAM, T. P. and SHAKOOR, A., 2013, Slaking behavior of
clay-bearing rocks during a one-year exposure to nat-
ural climatic conditions: Engineering Geology, Vol. 166,
pp. 17–25.
GAUTAM, T. P. and SHAKOOR, A., 2016, Comparing the slaking
of clay-bearing rocks under laboratory conditions to slaking
under natural climatic conditions: Rock Mechanics Rock Engi-
neering, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 19–31.
GOKCEOGLU, C.; ULUSAY, R.; AND SONMEZ, H., 2000, Factors af-
fecting the durability of selected weak and clay-bearing rocks
from Turkey, with particular emphasis on the influence of the
number of drying and wetting cycles: Engineering Geology, Vol.
57, pp. 215–237.
GRAINGER, P., 1984, The classification of mudrocks for engineering
purposes: Quarterly Journal Engineering Geology, Vol. 17, pp.
381–387.
134 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
HAJDARWISH, A.; SHAKOOR, A.; AND WELLS, N. A., 2013, Investi-
gating statistical relationships among clay mineralogy, index
engineering properties, and shear strength parameters of mu-
drocks: Engineering Geology, Vol. 159, pp. 45–58.
HEIDARI, M.; RAFIEI, B.; AND MOHEBBI, Y., 2015, Assessing the
behavior of clay-bearing rocks using static and dynamic slaking
indices: Geotechnical Geological Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.
1017–1030.
HOPKINS, T. C. and DEEN, R. C., 1983, Identification of Shales:
Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report, Paper 975.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1979, Sug-
gested methods for determining water content, porosity, den-
sity, absorption, and related properties and swelling and slake-
durability index properties: International Society of Rock Me-
chanics, Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and
Field Tests: International Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Sci-
ence, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 141–156.
ISRM, 2007, The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock char-
acterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006: In ULUSAY,
R. and HUDSON, J. A. (Editors), Suggested Methods Prepared by
the Commission on Testing Methods: ISRM, Ankara, Turkey,
628 p.
KHANDELWAL, M., 2013, Correlating P-wave velocity with the
physico-mechanical properties of different rocks: Pure Applied
Geophysics, Vol. 170, No. 4, pp. 507–514.
KONCAGUL, E. C. and SANTI, P. M., 1999, Predicting the uncon-
fined compressive strength of the Breathitt shale using slake
durability, shore hardness and rock structural properties: In-
ternational Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Science, Vol. 36,
pp. 139–153.
MARQUES, E. A. G.; VARGAS, E. D. A., JR.; AND ANTUNES, F. S.,
2005, A study of the durability of some shales, mudrocks and
siltstones from Brazil: Geotechnical Geological Engineering,
Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 321–348.
MARTINEZ-BOFILL, J.; COROMINAS, J.; AND SOLER, A., 2004, Behav-
ior of the weak rock cut slopes and their characterization using
the results of the slake durability test: Engineering Geology
Infrastructure Planning Europe, Vol. 104, pp. 405–413.
MIŠČEVIĆ, P. and VLASTELICA, G., 2011, Durability characterization
of marls from the region of Dalmatia, Croatia: Geotechnical
Geological Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 771–781.
MOLINA, E.; CULTRONE, G.; SEBASTIÁN, E.; ALONSO, F. J.; CAR-
RIZO, L.; GISBERT, J.; AND BUJ, O., 2011, The pore system of
sedimentary rocks as a key factor in the durability of building
materials: Engineering Geology, Vol. 118, pp. 110–121.
MOON, V. G. and BEATTIE, A. G., 1995, Textural and microstruc-
tural influences on the durability of Waikato Coal Measures
mudrocks: Quarterly Journal Engineering Geology, Vol. 28, pp.
303–312.
MORADIAN, Z. A.; GHAZVINIAN, A. H.; AHMADI, M.; AND BEHNIA,
M., 2010, Predicting slake durability index of soft sandstone
using indirect tests: International Journal Rock Mechanics Min-
ing Science, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 666–671.
NICKMANN, M.; SPAUN, G.; AND THURO, K., 2006, Engineering
geological classification of weak rocks. In Proceedings of the
10th International IAEG Congress 2006, Nottingham: Paper
No. 492: IAEG, London, U.K.
OLIVIER, H. J., 1979, A new engineering-geological rock
durability classification: Engineering Geology, Vol. 14,
pp. 255–279.
POTTER, P. E.; MAYNARD, J. B.; AND PRYOR, W. A., 1980, Sedimen-
tology of Shale: Springer-Verlag, New York, 306 p.
RICHARDSON, D. N., 1985, Relative durability of shale—A sug-
gested rating system, building on/with sedimentary bedrock.
In WEST, T. R. (Editor), Proceedings of the 36th Annual High-
way Geology Symposium: pp. 105–137.
 Classifying Clay-Bearing Rocks
RINCON, O.; SHAKOOR, A.; AND OCAMPO, M., 2016, Investigating
the reliability of H/V spectral ratio and image entropy for
quantifying the degree of disintegration of weak rocks: Engi-
neering Geology, Vol. 207, pp. 115–128.
RUSSELL, D. J., 1981, Controls on shale durability: The response
of two Ordovician shales in the slake durability test: Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 1–13.
SADISUN, I. A.; SHIMADA, H.; ICHINOSE, M.; AND MATSUI,
K., 2005, Study on the physical disintegration character-
istics of Subang claystone subjected to a modified slak-
ing index test: Geotechnical Geological Engineering, Vol. 23,
pp. 199–218.
SANTI, P. M., 1998, Improving the jar slake, slake index, and
slake durability test for shales: Environmental Engineering Geo-
science, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 385–396.
SANTI, P. M., 2006, Field methods for characterizing weak rock for
engineering: Environmental Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 1–11.
SHAKOOR, A. and GAUTAM, T. P., 2015, Influence of geologic and in-
dex properties on disintegration behavior of clay-bearing rocks:
Environmental Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 197–
209.
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, May 2017, pp. 125–135
SHARMA, P. K. and SINGH, T. N., 2008, A correlation between P-
wave velocity, impact strength index, slake durability index and
uniaxial compressive strength: Bulletin Engineering Geology
Environment, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 17–22.
SINGH, T. N.; VERMA, A. K.; SINGH, V.; AND SAHU, A., 2005, Slake
durability study of shaly rock and its predictions: Environmen-
tal Geology, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 246–253.
TAYLOR, R. K. and SMITH, T. J., 1986, The engineering geology of
clay minerals: Swelling, shrinking and mudrock breakdown:
Clay Mineralogy, Vol. 21, pp. 235–260.
WOOD, L. E. and DEO, P., 1975, A suggested system for classifying
shale materials for embankments: Bulletin Association Engi-
neering Geologists, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 39–55.
YAGIZ, S.; SEZER, E. A.; AND GOKCEOGLU, C., 2012, Artificial neu-
ral networks and nonlinear regression techniques to assess the
influence of slake durability cycles on the prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate
rocks: International Journal Numerical Analytical Methods Ge-
omechanics, Vol. 36, pp. 1636–1650.
YOUN, H. and TONON, F., 2010, Effect of air-drying duration on
the engineering properties of four clay-bearing rocks in Texas:
Engineering Geology, Vol. 115, pp. 58–67.
135